House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Today we are marking the 80th anniversary of the destruction of the House of Commons Chamber by the Luftwaffe during what was the biggest air raid on London of the second world war. This morning the Lord Speaker and I laid wreaths at the memorial in Westminster Hall in memory of the three members of staff who lost their lives that night. On the way into the Chamber today, my procession paused at the entrance arch to commemorate the raid. Colleagues will know that Winston Churchill ordered that the arch be retained in its bomb-damaged state as an enduring reminder of the ordeal Westminster suffered during the war. We remember those who gave their lives to defend this place and all it represents, and thank friends and allies from across the Commonwealth who helped rebuild what was lost. This renewed Chamber will always remain a symbol of the resilience of democracy in the face of adversity.
As colleagues will know, the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is elected each Session. Nominations are open now and will close at 5 pm on Tuesday 18 May. Nomination forms are available from the Vote Office, on the intranet, or by emailing the Public Bill Office at pbohoc@parliament.uk. Candidates need the support of no fewer than 10 Members from a party represented in government and no fewer than 10 Members from a party not represented in government or from no party. Only Members from a party not represented in government may be candidates. If a ballot is necessary I will announce the arrangements in due course.
New Writ
Ordered,
That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County constituency of Chesham and Amersham in the room of Dame Cheryl Elise Kendall Gillan, deceased.—(Mark Spencer.)
Violence in Israel and Palestine
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) (Urgent question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the violence in Israel and Palestine.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
The recent escalation in violence in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories is deeply concerning. It is the worst violence seen there for several years. As the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made clear, this cycle of violence must stop and every effort must be made to avoid the loss of life, especially that of children. The UK offers our deepest condolences to the families of those civilians killed. Civilian deaths, both in Israel and Gaza, are a tragedy.
We urge all sides to refrain from any kind of provocation so that calm is restored as quickly as possible. As we enter the final days of the holy month of Ramadan, restoration of peace and security is in everyone’s interest. The UK will continue to support that goal. The UK unequivocally condemns the firing of rockets at Jerusalem and other locations in Israel. We strongly condemn these acts of terrorism from Hamas and other terrorist groups, who must permanently end their incitement and rocket fire against Israel. There is no justification for any targeting of civilians. Israel has a legitimate right to self-defence and to defend its citizens from attack. In doing so, it is vital that all actions are proportionate, are in line with international humanitarian law, and make every effort to avoid civilian casualties. Violence against peaceful worshippers of any faith is unacceptable. The UK has been clear that the attacks on worshippers must stop. The status quo in Jerusalem is important at all times, but especially so during religious festivals such as Ramadan. Our priority now must be an immediate de-escalation on all sides and an end to civilian deaths.
As I made clear over the weekend, we are concerned about tensions in Jerusalem linked to threatened evictions of Palestinian families from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah. That threat is allayed for now, but we urge Israel to cease such actions, which in most cases are contrary to international humanitarian law. The UK continues to support international efforts to reduce the tension. The Foreign Secretary delivered a message of de-escalation in a call to the Israeli Foreign Minister yesterday and will speak to the Palestinian Prime Minister shortly. I have spoken to the Israeli ambassador and the Palestinian head of mission in the UK to urge them to de-escalate and to restore calm. The UK has also engaged at the UN Security Council, calling for all sides to take measures to reduce further violence and making clear our deep concern at the violence at the holy sites in Jerusalem. I am sure that the Security Council will continue to monitor the situation closely, and it is due to reconvene. UK embassies throughout the middle east are engaging with regional partners, and we remain in close contact with the US Administration and our European allies.
The situation on the ground over the last few days demonstrates the urgent need to make progress towards peace. The UK remains committed to a two-state solution as the best way to bring peace and stability to the region. I repeat: we urge all sides to show maximum restraint and refrain from taking actions that endanger civilians and make a sustainable peace more difficult.
Layla Moran
Ibrahim al-Masri, 11; Marwan al-Masri, six; Rahaf al-Masri, 10; and Yazan al-Masri, aged just two—those are some of the names of the children killed this week, and last night an Israeli child was added to their numbers. My heart breaks for them, and my heart bleeds for Palestine, for Jerusalem, the city of my family, for the worshippers attacked by extremists at the al-Aqsa mosque on the holiest night of Ramadan and for all innocent civilians, Israeli and Palestinian.
We cannot allow this to escalate any further. The Israeli Government pursuing evictions in Sheikh Jarrah that would be illegal under international humanitarian law, including the fourth Geneva convention, and the subsequent overly aggressive reaction of the Israeli authorities, which injured hundreds, has ignited a tinderbox. Hamas then retaliated, and those strikes must be condemned too, because violence only begets more violence. The UN special envoy last night warned that the situation is
“escalating towards a full-scale war.”
The Minister will know that he does not say such words lightly, and he refers to not just Israel-Palestine but the entire region.
My questions to the Minister are these. Will the UK back Security Council resolutions condemning these attacks, regardless of what the US does? Should that fail, will the Minister work with international partners such as the European Union to issue a statement on de-escalation in the strongest possible terms today? What steps is the UK taking to stop the attempted illegal evictions in Sheikh Jarrah? Will the Government commit to supporting a new round of peace negotiations and, indeed, new elections in Palestine?
Finally, if this is not the time to recognise the state of Palestine, then when is? The United Kingdom has a historic responsibility to the people of Palestine and a fundamental obligation to uphold international law. The two-state solution promised to the likes of my family is as elusive as ever. It is time for the Government to not just say but do.
James Cleverly
I recognise the passion with which the hon. Lady speaks and her personal connection to both Jerusalem and the region. I can assure her that the United Kingdom will work with international partners, both bilaterally and through multilateral institutions, to encourage an end to the violence and conflict, which does nobody any good.
We all mourn; we all feel the deepest sympathy and condolences for those who have lost children and loved ones, whether they be in Gaza or in Israel. It is in everybody’s interests to de-escalate, and we will work with our regional partners, as well as the leadership of the Palestinian Authority and Israel, towards de-escalation. The rocket attacks coming from Gaza cannot be justified, and we call for them to cease immediately as part of that de-escalation.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Over the past week, Hamas is alleged to have fired over 1,000 rockets at indiscriminate targets inside Israel. By the same token, Israeli aggression has also escalated. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must press in this place for both sides to return to direct peace talks and that the targeting of civilians, against international law, is abhorrent?
James Cleverly
We have spoken with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority to work with them to de-escalate and bring about peace. My hon. Friend mentions the avoidance of civilian casualties, and we press for that as a priority in all instances. We will continue to work with parties both in the region and in multilateral forums—with the United States and the European Union perhaps most closely—to push for peace so that we do not have to hear of any more fatalities in either Gaza or Israel.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) [V]
Like everyone else in this House, I have been appalled by what we have seen in Jerusalem, Gaza and Israel. The loss of life has been terrible, and my heart goes out to the families who have lost loved ones. The Labour party strongly condemns the indiscriminate firing of over 1,000 rockets by Hamas, and I also strongly condemn the Israeli actions that have killed Palestinian civilians. Israel and the Palestinians generally must do everything possible to de-escalate the situation, and I would urge the Government to do all they can to prevent further conflict. The violence must stop now. Once this terrible violence has ended, we must ensure that the root causes of the violence are recognised and addressed. The eviction of Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem must end. International law must be upheld, and all religious sites must be respected. At the same time, Britain and the international community must recognise the commitment to a two-state solution. Will the Government commit to doing this?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman highlights a number of areas where the UK’s policy is long-standing, particularly with regard to settlements and evictions, and I have discussed those issues a number of times from this Dispatch Box. The UK Government will continue to work towards peace—in the immediate instance to bring about the end to this particular violence, but in the longer term to secure meaningful, peaceful and prosperous two states. That remains the UK’s policy, and we will continue to work to bring that about.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Minister will know how deeply shocked many of my constituents in Gloucester and across the land are by the extraordinary images this week, during Ramadan, of the Israeli defence force effectively attacking the al-Aqsa mosque, the centre of Islamic worship in Jerusalem for hundreds of years. Although the rocket attacks by Hamas from Gaza are completely indefensible, it is clear that a major cause of the increased discontent is the number of illegal evictions from Sheikh Jarrah. Will my right hon. Friend confirm today that the Government will ask Israel to cease immediately any further illegal evictions from East Jerusalem and to respect the sanctity of mosques, for without both of these steps surely an already fragile situation can only deteriorate further?
James Cleverly
On the holy sites in Jerusalem, which is the home of some of the holiest sites for all three Abrahamic religions, our position is that the status quo must be maintained and those religious sites must be respected. Obviously, many people have been very distressed by the images we have seen from the region. We will continue to speak directly with our contacts in the Israeli Government about evictions and settlements. As I say, our position on that has been long-standing, and I have spoken about that issue from the Dispatch Box. We call upon Hamas to immediately cease its indiscriminate rocket attacks into Israel, and we call upon all actors in this to bring about peace so that we do not see any more fatalities and casualties.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on bringing this very urgent issue to the House. The SNP condemns all violence whoever perpetrates it and whoever it is perpetrated against. We send our deepest condolences to the innocents who have been caught up in this dreadful conflict. We are a friend of Palestine, we are a friend of Israel also, but above all else we stand four-square behind international law, and it is through that prism that we need to look at this latest flashover of a long-simmering injustice.
I have two points for the Minister. I agree with much of the tone and sentiment of his statement—it is worth stressing the House’s unity in this—but surely now is the time to recognise Palestine. That would give an impetus to the two-state solution. Secondly, settler goods by their very definition are illegal. The UK should not be trading in them, and if we will not ban them from our presence, can we not at least label them as such so that consumers can make a choice?
We do have influence within the state of Israel, which is a deeply complex place. The Israeli Government are not entirely in charge of events, and we do have influence. Warm words, however sincere, will not cut it. Now is the time for action.
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the tone of this debate and I agree with him on that. I understand his point on the timing of recognition and the long-standing conversations about goods coming from Israel. While those issues are well worthy of debate, our priority at the moment is to bring about peace. We are focused relentlessly on that. That will be the UK Government’s priority, working with international partners to bring about a resolution to the current conflict. I am sure we will have the opportunity to debate wider issues in this place and others in future.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Many in Dudley South are shocked at the scenes from the al-Aqsa mosque and a police response that does not appear to be proportionate. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a lasting two-state solution requires both sides to feel secure, and that means a stop to the stream of rocket attacks from Hamas, restraint from Israeli forces and the wider population, and a reconsideration of the evictions and settlements policy by the Israeli Government and courts?
James Cleverly
The policing of Jerusalem and the holy sites within Jerusalem is always a sensitive issue, particularly during religious festivals such as Ramadan, and we have called and will continue to call for restraint in the policing of those areas. As I have said, our position on settlements and evictions is of long standing, but ultimately I agree with my hon. Friend that a two-state solution offers the best chance for sustainable peace in the region, and we will continue to work towards that.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) [V]
My constituents have watched with growing anxiety, anger and, frankly, horror the spiralling events in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The threat of forcible evictions and demolitions, restrictions on Palestinians entering the city of Jerusalem, and violence against worshippers at the al-Aqsa mosque have all inflamed tensions, and we now see a terrifying escalation, with Hamas rocket attacks and Israeli airstrikes killing and injuring innocent Israeli and Palestinian civilians. Both are unacceptable and both must end, but does the Minister agree that, if proper accountability and the rule of law had been followed in the past, we might not be where we are today, and what steps will he take now to ensure that the Israeli Government adhere to international law, end the evictions, end the discriminatory planning laws and end the construction of illegal settlements?
James Cleverly
As I have said, the UK’s position on settlements and evictions is of long standing. We have communicated that both from the Dispatch Box and directly with our interlocutors in the Israeli Government, but ultimately our priority at the moment is to do everything we can, both bilaterally and through multilateral institutions, to bring about an end to this conflict so that the terrible and distressing images that the hon. Member and others in this Chamber have spoken about come to an end, and then we can work on a long-term, sustainable, peaceful solution for the region.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) [V]
If my right hon. Friend examines his statements today and compares them with those made by the Foreign Office 25 years ago in respect of illegal settlements at Har Homa, he will find a remarkable similarity. What has changed is the end of any hope for the Oslo peace process, built out of existence by illegal settlements, and the dominance of factions in both communities of those least committed to justice, security and reconciliation between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. When will the United Kingdom work to achieve real accountability for those breaching international and humanitarian law, including those indiscriminately mortaring the innocent, the disproportionate response by the occupiers to violence by the occupied, and decades of the violation of the fourth Geneva convention that has made a practical mockery of the British policy commitment to a two-state solution?
James Cleverly
As I have said, the UK’s position on settlements is of long standing, it is clear and has been communicated here and elsewhere. There is no justification for the violence that we are seeing coming out of Gaza and the targeting of civilians. As I have said, Israel absolutely has the right to defend itself. We call on it to act with caution and care in discharging that defence, but ultimately, we are seeking to bring about a speedy conclusion to the current violence that we are seeing, and then we will continue to work—I appreciate that my hon. Friend said that this has been a long-standing aim, and it has been a long-standing aim of this and other Governments—to bring about a peaceful two-state solution so that we have a sustainable, peaceful resolution in this region.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
On behalf of the many constituents of Newport East who have been in touch with me over the last couple of days expressing their horror at events and calling for an end to the violence, may I join others here in asking the Minister to use the considerable diplomacy of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to try to bring an end to this humanitarian crisis? The murder and maiming of children and civilians cannot be the solution to the ongoing tragedy of this conflict.
James Cleverly
I can assure the hon. Lady that we will use our considerable diplomatic might to work both with the Government in Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories through the Palestinian Authority, and with regional partners and through multilateral forums, to bring about a speedy resolution to this terrible conflict, which does no good for anyone.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
“Our commitment to Israeli security is unwavering”.—[Official Report, 16 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 172.]
Of the thousand rockets that have been fired towards Israel, many have fallen short and caused damage and death in Gaza. Will the Minister confirm that we are doing everything possible to support our close ally against what amount to nothing more than terrorist groups out to seek Israel’s destruction?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes a good point; the rocket attacks by Hamas from Gaza do harm, not only indirectly but directly, to the Palestinian people. We call on them to cease immediately. As I have said, Israel does have the right to defend itself. We urge it, in doing so, to act with caution and to do everything in its power to minimise civilian casualties.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
The covid-19 pandemic has hit Palestinian communities disproportionately hard, but despite Israel’s having the world’s highest covid-19 vaccination rate, it remains the case that fewer than 150,000 Palestinians have been vaccinated in the occupied west bank and Gaza. What are FCDO Ministers and their representatives there doing to rectify that injustice?
James Cleverly
As I have said, our main priority at the moment is the cessation of the violence that we have all seen. The hon. Lady will know that the UK has been one of the most generous donors to the COVAX vaccination programme, which has helped communities across the globe have a route out of this pandemic through the vaccination process. We are incredibly proud of the £548 million that we have contributed to that as well as our technical expertise, and that will be to the benefit of the Palestinian people and others around the world.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) [V]
Like all Members of Parliament, I condemn all acts of violence and the loss of innocent lives. The focus of my question is freedom of religion or belief for all. Does the Minister agree that the force used against the worshippers at the al-Aqsa mosque on the 27th of Ramadan, the night of Laylat al-Qadr, one of the most important nights in the Islamic calendar, was completely and utterly unacceptable? In the light of the United Kingdom’s commitment to human rights and freedom of religion or belief for all, I know that the Minister has raised these matters with the Israeli authorities, but can he assure the House that he will continue to do so, to ensure that all individuals can practise their faith freely and openly in the holy city of Jerusalem? With that, will he ensure that freedom of religion or belief and human rights are put on the G7 presidency agenda later this year?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to the work he has done on freedom of religion or belief. He is right that violence against worshippers of whatever faith is unacceptable. As I have said, it is important that policing is particularly sensitive around religious holy sites in Jerusalem, and particularly so during religious festivals like the holy month of Ramadan. We have made that position clear with the Israeli authorities, and we will continue to make that argument in our bilateral conversations with them.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
After years of persecution and oppression, indiscriminate attacks, a brutal siege of Gaza, the expansion of illegal settlements and the demolition of Palestinian homes, unfair trials, arbitrary detention and restrictions on the freedom of movement, and now the attack on worshippers at the al-Aqsa mosque, tensions in the region are the highest they have ever been. I join others in condemning the escalation of violence and the loss of life, yet the silence of the international community is deafening, even as the Palestinians scream out for help. I have to ask the Minister: how many times will we come back to this House to debate the persecution of the Palestinians, and when will the international community finally wake up?
James Cleverly
I do not recognise at all the scenario the hon. Gentleman paints. This is an issue that I have spoken about from the Dispatch Box. The Prime Minister has made a statement on this issue. The Foreign Secretary has made a statement on this issue. We are speaking with the United Nations Security Council. The United Nations regularly makes statements on this issue. This is a terrible situation, no doubt. We are working to bring it to a conclusion and we will continue to work to bring about a peaceful two-state solution, so the Israelis and the Palestinians can live and work side by side in peace. That should be, I am sure, the goal of everyone in this House and in the wider international community.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
It is clear from voices across the House and internationally that everyone is incredibly disappointed to see that violence has broken out in the region once again after the Palestinian Authority recently resumed co-operation with Israel. Does my right hon. Friend agree that continuing down the path of normalisation, rather than that of violence and escalation as we have seen recently, is the only way to secure long-term peace for the region? Will the UK Government continue to support that end?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The UK Government, at both ministerial and official level, encourage greater co-operation between the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government. I spoke to representatives of both yesterday. I am sure I will have further such conversations in the future. We will always support closer working between the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Israel as part of their route towards a sustainable two-state solution.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]
If the Foreign Secretary will take action on ethnic cleansing in Xinjiang, why not in Sheikh Jarrah? If the UK Government will impose sanctions for the occupation of Crimea, why do they allow trade with illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories? The Minister rightly condemns the killing of children in Gaza and Israel. Does he recognise that these war crimes spring from an unlawful occupation, and will he now give his full support to the investigation of the International Criminal Court?
James Cleverly
I do not think it is at all helpful to try to imply there is a commonality between the examples he gave and the situation we see in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The hon. Gentleman will know that where we have criticism of the Israeli Government, we have a strong enough relationship that we are able to air those criticisms, whether from the Dispatch Box here or in our bilateral conversations. We will continue to work towards a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution. That remains the UK Government’s goal and that will be our focus once we have helped to bring this current conflict to a conclusion.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
In the last few days, I have been contacted by hundreds of constituents who are concerned by the proposed evictions in Sheikh Jarrah, the activities outside the al-Aqsa mosque and the events that we have seen in the last 36 hours. Will the Minister reassure them, me and the whole House that the Government will use the full power of their diplomatic network to de-escalate the immediate issue and then bring both sides back to peace talks, because that is the only way that we can prevent events like this happening again?
James Cleverly
The al-Aqsa mosque is one of the most holy sites in Islam, and Jerusalem has the privilege of being the home of a number of the holiest sites in the Abrahamic religions. Therefore, the policing of Jerusalem needs at all times to be sensitive, as I say, particularly during the holy month of Ramadan. I assure my hon. Friend and others that the UK Government will work tirelessly to bring about a conclusion to this, so that we no longer have to see the distressing images that we have seen in Jerusalem and other parts of Israel, and that we no longer have to hear about fatalities.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Like other, I condemn the violence, wherever it comes from, and feel very strongly that those responsible for that violence should be held to account. The Minister spoke about bringing an end to hostilities. There have been four wars in Gaza since 2000 and no one has been held to account from any side, so bringing an end to the current hostilities is not enough. The underlying problem of nobody being held to account, the demolition orders in Sheikh Jarrah—these are only the tip of the iceberg. The status quo is not really the status quo. According to the UN, a third of Palestinian homes are probably under threat of demolition orders in the Jerusalem area. These issues need addressing before we can move to a two-state solution. Does the Minister agree that those engaged in violence from any side should know that there will be a day of reckoning and consequences for their actions? What will the British Government do, in line with the international community, to ensure that this happens?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady is right that we should focus on bringing about a speedy resolution to the conflict. As I said, the rocket attacks from Gaza are unacceptable, unjustified and completely illegitimate. Israel does have a right to defend itself and we have made it clear that, in doing so, it must abide by international humanitarian law and make every effort to minimise civilian casualties. Ultimately, the two-state solution is, in our assessment, the best way of bringing about lasting peace for the people of the region, and that will continue to be a priority area for UK foreign policy in the region.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
It is deeply upsetting that we are again witnessing such violence and division, especially when the Abraham accords signed between Israel and gulf partners last year showed that peace is achievable. What discussions have my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Secretary had with Israeli and Gulf counterparts on how the current tensions can be de-escalated?
James Cleverly
As I say, the Foreign Secretary has spoken with his Israeli counterpart and will shortly be speaking with the Palestinian Prime Minister, among other calls that Ministers and senior officials have been making and will continue to make. We will use our significant diplomatic strength to be a passionate and powerful voice for de-escalation and peace, and I am sure that many others in the international community will join us in doing so.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]
The human misery on display in East Jerusalem, Gaza and Israeli cities is on show for the entire international community to bear witness to as the violence escalates. I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in condemning the violence on both sides. Sometimes the most difficult conversations are required with our allies, so what is the British Government’s position on forced evictions and displacement of Palestinian families in East Jerusalem, and has the position been relayed to the Israeli Government? Does the Minister believe that Mr Netanyahu’s Government are sincerely committed to a viable, two-state solution, given the plan previously cooked up with President Biden’s predecessor?
James Cleverly
The UK Government’s position on settlements and evictions is long-standing and has been communicated a number of times at the Dispatch Box, both today and on previous occasions. We do, of course, outline directly to the Israeli Government our position on such matters, and also do so from the Dispatch Box. We will work with the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and their regional friends and neighbours, to work towards a sustainable two-state solution, which remains a priority UK foreign policy.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) [V]
Many of my constituents have contacted me about the recent reports from Jerusalem, and I share their concerns about the ongoing violence and unrest. I therefore welcome the Government’s strong call for calm and de-escalation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this violence is completely unacceptable and that all sides must now come together to de-escalate tensions and achieve a peaceful resolution?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Ultimately, peace has to be something that is delivered by both sides, and we call upon everybody to step back from the situation and not allow it to escalate further, and indeed to de-escalate so that we can see an end to this conflict. We will work tirelessly to achieve that, both bilaterally and through multilateral forums.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Government’s response to this and every other episode in Palestine is completely inadequate. The Palestinians have lived under brutal oppression and apartheid from Israel with the tacit consent of the west for too long, and we have heard the “plague on both your houses” song too many times. Of course we must condemn all violence on both sides, so in that spirit can the Minister tell me whether he thinks it appropriate that the UK grants arms licences that see UK weapons being used in these indiscriminate Israeli attacks on civilians, including children?
James Cleverly
The Government take their arms export responsibilities very seriously, and we aim to operate one of the most robust arms export licences in the world. We consider all our export applications against a strict risk assessment framework and keep all licences under careful and continual review as standard.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
While there is never any excuse for firing rockets on civilians, would not the Israelis sleep more soundly at night if access to all the holy sites was maintained as agreed in 1967, if free Palestinian elections were allowed in East Jerusalem, and if Palestinians were not being evicted from their homes in Jerusalem?
James Cleverly
As I have said, the UK’s position on evictions is well known. It is incredibly important that worshippers have access to those very holy sites in Jerusalem. We have been supportive of Palestinian Authority elections and we pushed for them to go ahead, including in East Jerusalem.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
What we are seeing in the news is absolutely horrific. Many constituents have contacted me in the last few days about the violence against worshippers during Ramadan, as well as about the evictions in Sheikh Jarrah. Airstrikes on both sides must absolutely end, and I condemn this violence. As the occupying power, the Israeli Government have legal obligations that they are not meeting. What are the UK Government doing to ensure that Israel adheres to international law?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady is right to say that violence against peaceful worshippers of any faith is unacceptable, and as I have said, we condemn the rocket attacks from Gaza. We will continue to be a voice for calm and peace in the region and to work with international partners. At times, that includes having difficult conversations with some of our friends in the region, but we are unafraid of doing so when necessary.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The violence and the loss of life is tragic, and it needs to stop, but is it not the case that, right under the noses of the international community, Hamas has been allowed to build a terrorist city state in Gaza? It has diverted humanitarian resources into stockpiling missiles behind civilian buildings. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is wrong to draw some kind of phoney equivalence between the actions and the aggression of terrorists and the sovereign right of a legitimate democratic Government to defend their citizens? I would not expect the Minister at the Dispatch Box, or anybody else in our Government, to do anything other than what the Israeli Government are doing to defend their citizens.
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The military wing of Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation, and we have a policy of no contact with Hamas in its entirety. We completely condemn the rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel, and they are the actions of a terrorist organisation. As I said, Israel has the right to defend itself, but we have said—I have said this at the Dispatch Box and directly to representatives of the Israeli Government—that, in doing so, it must abide by international humanitarian law and must do everything it can to minimise civilian casualties.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [V]
The extent of the expansion of illegal settlements in East Jerusalem, the forced eviction of Palestinian families from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah, the brutality against worshippers at the third most holy site in Islam and during Ramadan—this is not a clash between two equal sides. Until we discuss the root issue, we will miss the entire context and fail to recognise that one side is an occupier and the other side is occupied.
Will the Minister demand that the Israelis end all the discriminatory and illegal practices that have actually provoked these current tensions? What specifically will he do to ensure accountability for violations of international law, which have been going on for the past 50 years?
James Cleverly
As I say, the UK’s position on the settlements and evictions is clear. I have spoken about it from this Dispatch Box today and in the past, and we have also had that conversation directly with the Israeli Government. However, there is no legitimacy and no justification for indiscriminate rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Members of the Muslim community in Aylesbury are extremely distressed by recent events in East Jerusalem, describing this as a moment of deep anguish and sorrow. They want an immediate end to the eviction of Palestinians from their homes, as well as immediate and concrete progress towards a two-state solution. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is, in fact, the only way to deliver Palestinian self-determination, to permanently end the Arab-Israeli conflict and to preserve Israel’s Jewish and democratic identity and, therefore, that his Department remains committed to achieving a solution based on 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps?
James Cleverly
I think that Members in every part of this House, and our constituents, will have been deeply distressed by the images we have seen from some of the most holy sites not only in Islam but in Christianity and Judaism. It is in everybody’s interest to de-escalate, to bring this current period of violence to a conclusion and, as my hon. Friend says, to work towards the long-standing UK Government position of a peaceful, two-state solution based on the lines, with agreed land swaps, through a political process.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con) [V]
Given how hard and fast this conflict has escalated, and as we approach Eid, what will the Government do specifically to encourage Israel to guarantee freedom of worship for Muslims at the al-Aqsa mosque?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about the importance, during this holy month of Ramadan, of worshippers having access to one of the most holy sites in Islam, which is something we have communicated to the Israeli Government. We will continue to work towards de-escalation, particularly at this most sensitive and religious time, and it is a conversation we have had recently, and we will continue to have, both at ministerial level and at senior official level.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
In 2018, I stood in Mefalsim, in the Southern District of Israel, just on the edge of the Gaza strip, and held in my hands the remains of a Hamas-engineered rocket that had been fired into a playground of schoolchildren with one intention only: to murder mothers and children who were doing what we have the freedom in this nation to do, which is raise our kids in peace.
No right-thinking person could not be heartbroken by the horror in the holy land they see on our television screens. However, is it not the case that Hamas will not negotiate with Israel because it wants to murder Israelis and to obliterate the state of Israel off the map of the world? That is Hamas’s stated objective and position. The Palestinian people need to free themselves from being used as human shields by a terrorist and political organisation that wishes to continue to launch rocket attacks into Israel. I urge the Minister to do everything in his power to persuade the Palestinian people to free themselves from the grip of Hamas.
James Cleverly
The rocket attacks by Hamas, whose military wing has, as I say, been proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the UK Government, are completely counterproductive to the effort for peace and do harm to the Palestinian people. On behalf of moves towards peace, we urge Hamas to cease these actions, because they are completely counterproductive to peace and completely against the interests of the Palestinian people, in Gaza and elsewhere.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
I am deeply concerned by the escalating tension between Israel and Palestine, and we all here condemn the violence against civilians, on both sides, be that the murderous missile attacks or the misguided attempted eviction of Palestinian residents in Sheikh Jarrah.
Given that the missile technology employed in attacking Israeli heartlands could have come only from Iran, does my right hon. Friend agree that now is not the time to do a deal with Iran that rewards it for instigating further instability in the region, as well as violating the JCPOA—joint comprehensive plan of action—nuclear commitments and its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty? Is this not another reminder, were one needed, that we must not appease this dangerous regime?
James Cleverly
I am not able to speak on the point my hon. Friend has made about the potential relationship between Iran and Hamas at this point. As I have said, we are working to de-escalate the situation and bring about peace. More broadly, we are seeking to bring greater stability to the region and to dissuade Iran from its destabilising actions within the region. That will continue to be a priority piece of work for Her Majesty’s Government.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
The events in Jerusalem have triggered emotive responses here in the UK, and we need only look at the protests last night to see that. My constituents and others have seen in the past that, when conflict erupts in the middle east, the UK Jewish community is targeted by those wishing to import this complex situation on to our streets and university campuses, and online. What does my right hon. Friend say to those who seek divisions between communities here in the UK? Will he join me in thanking the Community Security Trust for all the work it is doing to keep the Jewish community safe?
James Cleverly
Antisemitic acts and violence against the Jewish community, wherever they may be, are unacceptable. I pay tribute to the CST and others who seek to keep communities safe. In the UK we enjoy, for the most part, very good community relations. We should be proud of that and seek to reinforce it. It is important for us to demonstrate that we are good friends with Israel and with the Palestinian people, and that we are seeking a peaceful two-state solution that can see people of all faiths enjoying the peace and security they deserve.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Covid-19 Update
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on our response to covid.
The patience and hard work of the British people have combined with the success of the vaccination programme to reduce deaths and hospitalisations to their lowest levels since last July and, from Monday, England will ease lockdown restrictions in line with step 3 of our road map. This will amount to the single biggest step of our journey back towards normality. But after everything we have endured, we must be vigilant, because the threat of this virus remains real and new variants—including the one first identified in India, which is of increasing concern here in the UK—pose a potentially lethal danger. Caution has to be our watchword.
Our country, like every country, has found itself in the teeth of the gravest pandemic for a century, which has imposed heartbreaking sorrow on families around the world, with more than 127,000 lives lost in the United Kingdom alone. Our grief would have been still greater without the daily heroism of the men and women of our national health service, the protection of our vaccines—already in the arms of more than two thirds of adults across the UK—and the dedication of everyone who has followed the rules and sacrificed so much that we cherish.
Amid such tragedy, the state has an obligation to examine its actions as rigorously and as candidly as possible and to learn every lesson for the future, which is why I have always said that, when the time is right, there should be a full and independent inquiry. I can confirm today that the Government will establish an independent public inquiry on a statutory basis, with full powers under the Inquiries Act 2005, including the ability to compel the production of all relevant materials and take oral evidence in public under oath.
In establishing the inquiry, we will work closely with the devolved Administrations, as we have done throughout our pandemic response. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has this morning spoken to the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, and the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland, to begin those conversations.
Every part of our United Kingdom has suffered the ravages of this virus, and every part of the state has pulled together to do battle against it. If we are to recover as one Team UK, as we must, then we should also learn lessons together in the same spirit. We will consult the devolved Administrations before finalising the scope and detailed arrangements, so that this inquiry can consider all key aspects of the UK response.
This process will place the state’s actions under the microscope, and we should be mindful of the scale of that undertaking and the resources required to do it properly. The exercise of identifying and disclosing all relevant information, the months of preparation and retrospective analysis, and the time that people will have to spend testifying in public—in some cases for days—will place a significant burden on our NHS, on the whole of Government, on our scientific advisers, and on many others. We must not inadvertently divert or distract the very people on whom we all depend in the heat of our struggle against this disease. The end of the lockdown is not the end of the pandemic. The World Health Organisation has said that the pandemic has now reached its global peak and will last throughout this year. Our own scientific advisers judge that, although more positive data is coming in and the outlook is improving, there could still be another resurgence in hospitalisations and deaths.
We also face the persistent threat of new variants, and should those prove highly transmissible and elude the protection of our vaccines they would have the potential to cause even greater suffering than we endured in January. In any case, there is a high likelihood of a surge this winter when the weather assists the transmission of all respiratory diseases and the pressure on our NHS is most acute.
I expect that the right moment for the inquiry to begin is at the end of this period, in spring 2022. I know that some in this Chamber and many bereaved families will be anxious for this inquiry to begin sooner, so let me reassure the House that we are fully committed to learning lessons at every stage of this crisis. We have already subjected our response to independent scrutiny, including 17 reports by the independent National Audit Office and 50 parliamentary inquiries, and we will continue to do so—we will continue to learn lessons, as we have done throughout the pandemic. None the less, no public inquiry could take place fast enough to assist in the very difficult judgments that will remain necessary throughout the rest of this year and the remainder of the pandemic. We must not weigh down the efforts of those engaged in protecting us every day and thereby risk endangering further lives.
Instead this inquiry must be able to look at the events of the past year in the cold light of day and identify the key issues that will make a difference for the future. It will be free to scrutinise every document, to hear from all the key players, and to analyse and learn from the breadth of our response. That is the right way, I think, to get the answers that the people of this country deserve, and to ensure that our United Kingdom is better prepared for any future pandemic.
Entirely separately from the inquiry, there is a solemn duty on our whole United Kingdom to come together and cherish the memories of those who have been lost. Like many across the Chamber, I was deeply moved when I visited the covid memorial wall opposite Parliament, and I wholeheartedly support the plan for a memorial in St Paul’s cathedral, which will provide a fitting place of reflection in the heart of our capital.
I also know that communities across the whole country will want to find ways of commemorating what we have all been through, so the Government will support their efforts by establishing a UK commission on covid commemoration. This national endeavour, above party politics, will remember the loved ones we have lost, honour the heroism of those who have saved lives and the courage of frontline workers who have kept our country going, celebrate the genius of those who created the vaccines, and commemorate the small acts of kindness and the daily sacrifice of millions who stayed at home, buying time for our scientists to come to our rescue. We will set out the commission membership and terms of reference in due course.
In telling the whole story of this era in our history, we will work, again, across our United Kingdom, together with the devolved Administrations, to preserve the spirit that has sustained us in the gravest crisis since the second world war, resolving to go forwards together and to build back better. I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
May I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement? I clearly welcome the independent inquiry into the pandemic and the establishing of a UK commission on covid commemoration. Both are necessary; both will play an important part in learning the lessons and commemorating those we have lost.
Let me speak first for the families grieving the loss of a loved one. I, too, attended the covid memorial wall that the Prime Minister spoke of, opposite Parliament. It is moving. Everybody who has been there knows it is moving—thousands of hearts on the wall, stretching from one bridge to the next, and rightly facing this place. But I have also taken time to meet the grieving and bereaved families on a number of occasions, and to talk to them and with them about their experience. Those meetings have been among the most difficult I have ever had in my life, and the same goes for the staff who came with me and the other members of my team who were in those meetings, because what those families described was not just the loved one they have lost—the dad, the mum, the sister, the brother—and something about those individuals, nor was it just the fact that they had passed away. The hardest bit was the details. They told me about not being able to say goodbye in the way they wanted, whether that was in a hospital or elsewhere, and not being able to have a funeral in the way they wanted.
It was very hard to hear some of those stories, and lots of those families have searing questions about what happened—the decisions; what went wrong; why what happened happened to their families. So it is good that the Government are consulting the devolved authorities, of course it is, but the Government must also consult the families, because this inquiry will only work if it has the support and confidence of the families. I urge the Prime Minister and the Government to consult the families at the earliest possible moment.
The Government should also consult those on the frontline, who have done so much, whether in the NHS or social care or on other frontlines that we have seen, because they, too, deserve answers to the very many questions that they have, and they have done so much in this pandemic.
The next question is timing. The principle is that the inquiry should be as soon as possible. I understand that a statutory inquiry will take time to set up—of course it will—but why can it not be later this year? Why can it not start earlier? I want to press the Prime Minister on one particular point. The Prime Minister says the inquiry will start in spring 2022. Is that the inquiry opening and beginning to take of evidence in spring 2022, or is that starting work in setting up the inquiry? They are two very different things, and if it is the latter, the inquiry will not then be for many months afterwards, so if it is to formally open and start taking evidence in spring 2022, I would be really grateful if the Prime Minister made that clear.
Then there is the question of the terms of reference. Obviously, that will take time. There will have to be consultation with the devolved Administrations and, again, with the families and those on the frontline, but crucially with this Parliament. This House needs to be involved in the question of what the terms of reference should be. There will be different views across the House and they need to be heard, because this has to have the confidence of all in this Chamber.
All relevant questions must be asked and answered. That must of course include the decisions made in the last 14 or 15 months—all the decisions made—but there are wider questions of preparedness and resilience, particularly of our public services, that need to be asked. There are reasons why the pandemic hit those in overcrowded houses and insecure work the hardest. They need to be addressed as well, and no inquiry that does not address those questions will give the answers that many deserve.
Finally, there is the question of who chairs the inquiry. Again this is too early, but the wider the engagement on that question the wider the likely support for the inquiry. We need an independent inquiry that has the full support of everybody, so that its conclusions bear real authority. That will be achieved with the widest embracing of the terms of reference and the chair of the inquiry.
Let me be clear: I welcome this inquiry and we will play whatever part we can to ensure that it works well and gets the answers to the questions. Again, we support the commemoration commission and will work on a cross-party basis to ensure that that is fully the sort of commemoration that the families, and others who have lost through this pandemic, feel is appropriate. That should, of course, be on a cross-party basis. It is above politics, and rightly so.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his support for both the measures announced today: the commemoration commission and the inquiry. He asked some entirely justifiable questions about engagement with the bereaved and those who have been on the frontline about the areas in which the inquiry will want to focus—all the background to the growth of the pandemic. I have no doubt that when it is set up the inquiry will certainly look at all of those, and we will make sure to have the widest possible consultation and engagement.
The House should understand that I feel personally very strongly that this country has been through a trauma like no other. It is vital for the sake of the bereaved, and for the sake of the whole country, that we should understand exactly what happened and learn the lessons. Obviously we have been learning lessons throughout, but we need to have a very clear understanding of what took place over the past 14 months.
We owe it to the country to have as much transparency as we can, and to produce answers within a reasonable timescale. I am sure the House will want to see that as well. Clearly that will be a matter for the chair of the inquiry and the terms of reference, when they are set up, but it is my strong view that the country wants to see a proper, full and above all independent inquiry into the pandemic of last year.
I must repeat to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I think the timing that we have set out is the right timing. I think that it would be wrong to consecrate huge amounts of official time and public health workers’ time to an inquiry when they may very well still be in the middle of the pandemic, but clearly, to clarify the point that he raises, the steps taken to set out the terms of reference and establish the chair of the inquiry will happen before the spring of next year. We will be getting it under way and taking some key decisions, but I think that the House will agree that it would not be right to devote the time of people who are looking after us and saving lives to an inquiry before we can be much more certain than we are now that the pandemic is behind us. I hope that that carries the approval of the House.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
Primary care networks have done an incredible job of rolling out the vaccine, but GPs and practice nurses need to return to their surgeries and their patients. As my right hon. Friend said, we have to anticipate a difficult autumn and winter. What reassurance can he give that there will be capacity in the system for second jabs, potentially booster jabs in the autumn and the annual roll-out of the flu jab?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend raises a very important point, particularly about the flu jab. As she will know, there was not much of a flu pandemic over the last winter period. We are worried about people’s levels of resistance to flu, but we have the capacity, and we will also have the capacity for the booster jabs.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of his statement. I was interested to hear him commit to an inquiry. He will be aware that the First Minister has already committed to that; of course, the devolved Administrations have tailored their decisions to their needs.
I think all of us can feel a sense of optimism: the feeling that, after such a difficult year, things are edging towards some normality. The simplest of things—hugging a loved one—have never felt so important, after a year of restrictions in which we have never seen people suffer so much. The vaccines have generated the hope that people are feeling, and that hope is within touching distance—but just as the hope is fragile, so is the economic recovery.
The Prime Minister spoke of lessons, answers and timing, but this morning’s Office for National Statistics figures demonstrate the depth of the plummet that has been experienced by the economy and, equally, the scale of the recovery needed. That is why the glaring omission of an employment Bill from yesterday’s Queen’s Speech was so shocking—a clear signal of a UK Government with no recovery plan.
Let me ask the Prime Minister three questions on concrete measures that would kickstart the economy and help those still in need. First, will his Government reverse their rigid plan to suddenly end the furlough scheme in September, which will result in a damaging cliff edge for millions of workers? Secondly, there is another damaging cliff edge due in September, with the planned Tory cut to the lifeline of the £20 universal credit uplift. Is he really still planning to rip that lifeline away from the most vulnerable when they most need it? Finally, as people re-enter the workplace, will the Prime Minister commit to supporting legislation, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), that would finally ban the disgraceful practice of firing and rehiring workers?
The Prime Minister
The entire programme of this Government is dedicated to ensuring that we go from jabs, jabs, jabs to jobs, jobs, jobs, as I said yesterday in the Chamber. The hon. Member talks about kickstarting an employment recovery. As she knows, for young people we have the £2 billion kickstart programme to get 18 to 24-year-olds into work, and we have the restart programme for those who are long-term unemployed.
Our campaign and our mission is to use the resources of the state, as we have done throughout the pandemic, to get people into work. Because of the unusual, extraordinary circumstances that we faced, we had to use the resources of the state to keep people out of work. We are now going through a massive programme of investment in infrastructure across the whole United Kingdom to get people into work, and I hope that she will support that.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The whole House will welcome the tone and content of what the Prime Minister has said today, and in particular his proper commitment to the transparency of the inquiry, learning everything we can from the past. There are 3,500 people across my constituency who are involved in the hospitality sector, and many businesses have invested their own money in making covid adaptations to ensure the safety of their customers when they return. Given the very sensible road map that he has outlined, will he emphasise the increasing role of personal judgment and common sense, rather than Government fiat, as greater normality returns, and with it our hugely valued and much cherished civil liberties?
The Prime Minister
As my right hon. Friend knows, the hospitality sector in Sutton Coldfield, which I know from my own experience to be wonderful, will, like the rest of the hospitality sector across the country, be able to open up in full on Monday, including indoors. As we go forward, we hope, and I cannot see any evidence to contradict this, that we will be able to open up fully from 21 June—although people will still clearly need to exercise caution and common sense in the way they go about their lives, because the virus, I am afraid, is still going to be present in our lives for a long time to come.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The public inquiry is very welcome and desperately needed so that the public can understand why the UK has suffered one of the highest death tolls in the world. It is critically important that this inquiry is properly independent and has the confidence of the public, including the bereaved families of the over 127,000 people who so tragically lost their lives. Consulting those families once the inquiry has started is too late. Will the Prime Minister today commit to urgently meeting representatives of Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice to consult them on both the chair and the terms of reference for the inquiry?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly reassure the hon. Lady that the inquiry will be fully independent and that the bereaved and other groups will be consulted on the way it is set up. I meet representatives of the bereaved and indeed bereaved families regularly, and will continue to do so.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I welcome the announcement on the public inquiry and the timings. The Prime Minister will know that the Science and Technology Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee are doing their own inquiry that is hoping to report in July, so the Government will have an early chance to learn immediate lessons.
However, it would be crazy to ask Ministers and officials to spend time with lawyers going through emails, texts and WhatsApps when we want their entire focus to be on the pandemic. As we seek to support the NHS going forward, the pledges on an additional 50,000 nurses are very welcome, but does the Prime Minister know that we also have shortages in nearly every single specialty for doctors? Is now not the moment to overhaul our long-term workforce planning for the NHS so that we can give the public confidence that we really are training enough doctors for the future?
The Prime Minister
Yes, absolutely. The distinguished former Health Secretary will, I am sure, know that there are now 50,000 more people working in the NHS this year than there were at the same time last year, including about 11,000 more nurses, already, and 6,700 more doctors, but we are going to get even more.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, particularly for those who have lost family members; I am very conscious of my wife losing her mum, and we all grieve for her especially.
The involvement of the Northern Ireland Assembly in the inquiry to look back at this is very important, and I welcome it. Will the Prime Minister outline what discussion has taken place between the devolved regions to ensure parity of travel restrictions so that every area of the UK can be accessed safely? Will he confirm that help will be made available to make travel affordable and encourage people to go to Northern Ireland over the summer so that people can make the most of the great British summer staycation throughout every area of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent question. We of course regularly consult all the devolved Administrations about making sure that travel can continue to flow freely through our United Kingdom. He makes a superb point about the attractions of Northern Ireland as a holiday destination and I hope people take him up on it.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) [V]
May I thank the Prime Minister for coming to visit the good residents of Stourbridge last week? Cars stopped, horns were honked and people came out in their droves to say thank you for the success of the vaccine roll-out.
Last week, voters made it clear right here in Stourbridge that they want the focus to be on their priorities, not political games, as demonstrated by the fact that I now have Conservative councils in the traditional Labour bastions of Quarry Bank, Lye and Cradley, with more voters coming out than ever before to say this. Does the Prime Minister share my hope that Labour Members will now act constructively with this Government so that they can deliver on those people’s priorities as we build back better?
The Prime Minister
I much enjoyed my trip to Stourbridge, and my hon. Friend is entirely right in what she says. To return to the point I made to the hon. Lady from the Scottish nationalist party—the Scottish National party—the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), we have the right agenda for the country: this is the right time to build back better with the colossal programme that we have and the investments we are making, but we must also learn the lessons from the pandemic and that is why we are setting up the inquiry in the way that we are.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly his commitment to an inquiry at the appropriate time. On that, terminology really does count, so can the Prime Minister confirm that it will be not just independent and judge-led, but a statutory public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, with powers to compel witnesses under oath? Most importantly, will bereaved families have a role in setting the terms of the inquiry and be given the full opportunity to give evidence at it?
The Prime Minister
I would not like to accuse the hon. Gentleman, whom I admire greatly, of having missed my opening statement, but of course it will be a full public independent inquiry under the terms of the 2005 Act, and of course it is right that the bereaved, along with many other groups, should be consulted about the terms of reference.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and especially that the inquiry will be independent. Without wishing to prejudge the inquiry, I am anxious about institutions such as Public Health England and how they responded early on to key workers. I hope the inquiry will also congratulate the fantastic doctors, nurses and volunteers who helped roll out over 1.5 million vaccines in Sussex; I am incredibly grateful to all the staff in Uckfield, Crowborough and Hailsham.
The Prime Minister can do two things immediately for the care homes in my constituency. First, those who want to reside in a care home currently have to spend 14 days isolated in their room. Will the Prime Minister look again at that isolation period because it impacts so greatly on the physical and mental health of residents? Secondly, the care homes have taken such a big hit, so can we consider putting in place a short financial package to support them so they can support our loved ones throughout this period?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is totally right to raise the work of care homes, and we have put in repeated investments; I think another £1 billion went into supporting care homes throughout the pandemic. She is also right to raise the very painful questions of visiting and the ability of care home residents to leave their care home safely, and in that we have to balance the risks to them as well. We tried to increase the number of visitors they can have, and we hope very soon that greater freedoms will be possible.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Can the Prime Minister reassure the House that the terms of reference of this inquiry will include those suffering from long covid and the diagnosis, treatment and support for those who will no doubt be suffering for the foreseeable future?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point, and I am sure the chairman of the inquiry will want to consider that as we set up the inquiry in due course. I certainly do not exclude that the inquiry might want to look at long covid.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
The Prime Minister has talked powerfully about the importance of economic recovery, and it is incumbent on those of us who supported the lockdown to get behind that however we can; if we get it wrong, we will pay the costs of the pandemic twice over.
Tomorrow a report will be published describing the opportunities of geothermal investment for our economy, potentially creating over 1,000 new jobs with £100 million of investment by 2025. New jobs, new technologies: that is the key to getting our economic recovery on track. Will the Prime Minister give the report his personal attention and agree to meet me and other MPs who are getting behind this important new industry?
The Prime Minister
I am very excited by and interested in my hon. Friend’s geothermal plans: they sound good to me, and we are certainly investing in that kind of technology. With £22 billion going into pure R&D, we are putting in record sums for this country, and I am sure that geothermal could be part of the mix of our green industrial revolution.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Does the Prime Minister agree that the inquiry will have to look at the original decision-making process, which failed to control borders and delayed the lockdown while talking about herd immunity, look at the appointment process for Dido Harding to head up the track and trace system and also look at the billions of pounds’ worth of PPE contracts awarded to Tory chums and friends? Will he confirm that the inquiry will have the powers to call for all electronic communications between Government Ministers and their Tory chums who got contracts?
The Prime Minister
Without in any way accepting the premises of the hon. Member’s questions, I can certainly confirm that it will be a full public inquiry under the 2005 Act, and there will be full powers to compel evidence.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on his statement and on his announcement that step 3 of our road map to recovery will go ahead as scheduled on 17 May. Like many across Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, I have enjoyed a pint at the Millrace in Milton and another at the Bulls Head in Burslem, as pubs were able to open outdoors under step 2 of our road map. However, not every publican has been able to open their doors yet, and both they and excellent local brewers such as Titanic Brewery in Burslem have faced a very hard time throughout this pandemic. Will my right hon. Friend create a new draught beer duty rate to provide targeted support for breweries and pubs throughout the UK, which is only possible since leaving the European Union, recognising the important role that pubs play in our local communities?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out another of the advantages of leaving the European Union. Although we have consulted publicans and brewers on the potential for a differential duty rate on draught beer, we are awaiting the responses from the Treasury, and the Treasury will reply in due course.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
An 11-year-old girl called Mary caught covid in December 2020. Her family used to describe her as bouncing off the walls and full of energy. She loved sport and was excited about starting secondary school in September. Now she is fatigued and lethargic, she walks with a stick and she can only attend school part time. The doctors are baffled because she had no underlying health condition and she seems unable to recover. Please can the Prime Minister help me find for the family the expert advice and support that Mary needs, and provide urgent resources for children suffering with long covid in Hull and East Riding?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising the case of Mary, and I am very sorry to hear about her suffering. If the hon. Member would be kind enough to write to me about her I will see what I can do to make sure that we get the right answers from the Government and see what we can do to get her the medical help she needs.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today. I know from speaking to Carshalton and Wallington residents that they are particularly concerned, as we emerge from the pandemic, about backlogs in elective surgery, cancer treatments and looking after the mental health of those who have struggled in lockdown. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that these will be front and centre of our plans for the NHS as we emerge from the pandemic?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is quite right to raise that issue, and I can tell him that we have already invested considerably in mental health, with mental health support and the mental health youth ambassador, but we will continue to do more. As I think I said in the press conference on Monday, this is Mental Health Awareness Week, and people who have been struggling during the pandemic really should not hesitate to seek help.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]
When does the Prime Minister expect pregnant women and others advised to seek an alternative to the AstraZeneca jab to be able to book one without being passed from pillar to post?
The Prime Minister
To the best of my knowledge, everybody is getting the jabs when they are asked to come forward. If the hon. Member has particular cases where people are worried about the time when they are going to get a jab—whether it is AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna or another one—I would be very grateful if he would send me the details, and we will see what we can do to sort it out.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) [V]
With a high prevalence of the Indian variants and among the highest infection rates in the UK at 150-plus per 100,000, will the Prime Minister join me in pushing for most of Bolton to be vaccinated ASAP?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the rates of infection of the B.1.617.2 variant, as we should probably call it. At the moment the cases look as though they are about 860 or so, but there may be more. It may be more transmissible—it may be considerably more transmissible. We are looking at all the potential solutions for the surges we are seeing in Bolton and elsewhere, including the one that he describes, though that is not top of the list at the moment.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Prime Minister said in his statement that the public inquiry, which I certainly welcome,
“will place the state’s actions under the microscope.”
The Prime Minister is, of course, First Lord of the Treasury, and he has said many times before that this Government have put their arms around people financially. Can he tell us why, therefore, people on legacy benefits did not get the £20 uplift that people on universal credit got?
The Prime Minister
This country has done everything it can to support people throughout the pandemic, with the increasing of universal credit, with a furlough scheme, and with loans, credits and grants, which I think most people around the world would consider among the most generous, if not the single most generous regime that any country put in place. I think that was the right thing to do, and we will continue to support people for as long as the pandemic endures.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
Reference has already been made to the unfortunate impact that the lockdown had on treatment for other medical conditions. Has the Prime Minister seen the Stroke Association’s report, “Stroke recoveries at risk”? That demonstrates starkly how, unhappily, every aspect of stroke aftercare and rehabilitation has been impacted by the lockdown. As we emerge and build back, will he undertake not only that we will make it a top priority to ensure that stroke and related therapies are restored to pre-pandemic levels as a matter of urgency, but that we will invest to ensure that we are able consistently to meet clinical guidelines for the amount of therapy given, which we have been struggling to do up until now in any event?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the backlog that we now face in the NHS, and the stroke care and stroke services that need to be addressed. The weight of work is enormous, but we will make sure that we fund it and we get it done. It is vital that people who have conditions and need treatment—stroke patients and others—come forward now to get the treatment they need.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) [V]
The Government’s own figures suggest that since March we have built up a stockpile of about 12 million vaccines. During that period, we in London were told that supplies were down and that the vaccination rate would not be as fast as it had been. Can the Prime Minister explain that? What can he do to ensure that we get those vaccines into people’s arms and that the stockpile does not continue to grow?
The Prime Minister
That is a misunderstanding, I believe. We have been vaccinating and continue to vaccinate at a steady rate and as fast as we possibly can. We are secure in our supply, but obviously we do not want to get to the stage where we run out. We are confident that we will be able to offer everybody in this country—every adult in this country—a vaccination before the end of July.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I congratulate and thank my right hon. Friend for the success of the vaccination programme and the road map, which has provided certainty and stability, especially to those planning for the easing of restrictions. My constituents often ask me what the new normal will be like beyond 21 June. Of course, much depends on the outcome of the reviews—those into social distancing and others—which will have a far-ranging impact on what our society will be like for months to come. While we eagerly await their conclusions, can my right hon. Friend assure me that we will have a chance to debate the recommendations before they are implemented?
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
If this inquiry is to achieve everything that we would want of it, then it must be the pre-eminent vehicle by which the voice of those who have lost loved ones in this pandemic will be heard. I am pretty certain that Ministers, officials, health professionals, business interests and others will all have good-quality legal representation in that, many paid out of the public purse. Can the Prime Minister give me some commitment today that bereaved families will also get the necessary support to ensure that they have the same quality of representation, so that their voices will be properly heard?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I believe that is vital, because the inquiry must learn from the direct experiences of the bereaved who have suffered so much. They will provide invaluable evidence for the inquiry. It is also, plainly, a matter of justice and fairness. I fully accept the point that the right hon. Gentleman raises.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I would like to start by thanking everyone across Radcliffe, Prestwich and Whitefield for their work on the vaccine roll-out, which is allowing us to go through the road map and reopen the economy. There are those who are still asking a few questions, in particular those who are about to get married. That should be the best day of their lives, but they are still worried about what the guidance will say, when they can get married from next week. Will my right hon. Friend commit to publishing it, so that we know what social distancing guidance will look like moving forward and they can fully enjoy that best day of their lives?
The Prime Minister
From Monday, the rule of 30 applies to marriages. We will, before the end of this month, set out all the details about the marriage world post-21 June.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
I am sure the Prime Minister will want to warmly welcome the newly elected metro Mayors Nik Johnson, Dan Norris and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin). As the Prime Minister well knows, serving as a Mayor is an immense privilege, but as covid has proved it is not without its frustrations. May I urge the Prime Minister to use this moment to reset the relationship with the English Mayors, and work more collaboratively and closely with us as we emerge from the pandemic?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I certainly can. I believe the Mayors and the mayoral authorities should also have their say. In my experience there are two types of Mayor. I think the mayoral project is a great one, but it tends to produce either Mayors who champion their area, get on and take responsibility for their area, or people who whinge and blame central Government for things. I much prefer type A to type B.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
While across the country people have retreated to the safety of their own homes, our retail workers have had to roll up their sleeves and get on with it, ensuring we had what we needed and that our shopping spaces were safe. Disgustingly and shockingly, the number of assaults on our retail workers is through the roof. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking our retail workers for their exceptional service to our communities, and ensure we are doing everything we can to protect them and tackle those who would do them harm?
The Prime Minister
I totally share my hon. Friend’s disgust at attacks on retail workers and anybody doing their job. It is very important that we work with the retail sector to drive down this type of crime, show zero tolerance for it, and, in the case of serious violence and assault, have appropriate penalties.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
My father-in-law died at the beginning of the pandemic. Our children were not able to go to their grandfather’s funeral. Our grief remains raw. Let me welcome the commitment to the families and a memorial.
May I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the scope of the inquiry? We know, do we not, that the fracturing of social care, running the NHS at 90% capacity, and the lessons from the 2014 flu pandemic strategy and from Exercise Cygnus all forewarned of much of what has happened? Those of us who have worked in emergency planning were shocked by the initial responses. Can the Prime Minister assure us that the scope of the inquiry will go beyond the 14 months that I think he alluded to in one of his previous statements?
The Prime Minister
I am so sorry to hear about the hon. Member’s own loss. I assure her that, of course, I cannot imagine that there will be any chair of the inquiry or any terms of reference that we could devise that would not include looking back at the state of preparedness before covid struck this country.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Cleethorpes, like other resorts, is heavily reliant on the coach industry to bring tourists into the resort. Although the support for the industry has been very welcome, there have been one or two anomalies. Some coach operators in my constituency and elsewhere have been designated as tourism operators rather than coach operators, which meant that they did not qualify for some of the financial support. Will my right hon. Friend look again at this issue and perhaps arrange for me and representatives from the industry in my constituency to meet the Transport Secretary so that we can see whether any additional help is available?
The Prime Minister
As ever, my hon. Friend makes what sounds like an excellent point about coach operators and tourism operators. I will make sure that he sees the relevant Transport Minister as soon as possible.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Nurseries are a vital part of community infrastructure, helping our youngest to get a better chance of a good start to life and making it easier for parents to go to work. Given that over 300 shut their doors for good in February and March, will the Prime Minister publish a covid recovery plan for nurseries and early years providers to help to get them back on their feet?
The Prime Minister
We will be publishing a very comprehensive plan for educational recovery shortly.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
I welcome today’s announcements of both an inquiry and the memorial, but may I also welcome the extraordinary progress that has been made that has allowed us further to lift restrictions? However, there are many individuals, charities, organisations and businesses that are still not confident to commit to further public events. Will my right hon. Friend therefore consider a covid indemnity scheme that will cover the costs of any last-minute cancellations that may occur due to ongoing restrictions to allow the planning of events to continue to avoid a second year of cancellations?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this point; I understand exactly why he says it. The best thing I can tell him is that we want to proceed with the caution and certainty with which we have done so far. All the evidence I have seen at the moment suggests that we will be able to continue with our reopenings, and that the businesses that have done so much to get ready should be able to plan on that basis.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I welcome much of the Prime Minister’s statement, although I concur with my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition; the sooner we can get the terms of reference and invite evidence from those who are able to give it, the better. The Prime Minister said that the end of the lockdown is not the end of the pandemic, and he is absolutely right. Some sectors of the economy will suffer from a longer time lag: travel and tourism; aviation; and, therefore, aerospace manufacturing. May I urge the Government to give support to these sectors in the longer term, because they will be affected long after the rest of us are trying to get back to normal?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member is making an important point, but my strong view is that the best thing possible for all those sectors, including aviation, is to try, cautiously, to make sure that we get through the road map and allow their businesses to grow again. That is the single best long-term and medium-term solution.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and the inquiry. As our fantastic vaccination programme continues to be rolled out and our vaccination continues to be effective against all mutant strains, and as other countries catch up, will the Prime Minister look at widening the green list of countries to which travel is permitted? Will he ensure that the airports have the border control and digitisation resources to deal with more passengers? Can he also warmly encourage President Biden, when he sees him next month in Cornwall, that other Americans would like to come over to this great country and, indeed, we would like to go over to theirs?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the United States of America. We are on that issue with our American friends, but people have to recognise that we are still at risk of importing new variants into this country. We have seen the arrival of B1.617.2 and we must be cautious. On that basis, the green list—as my hon. Friend knows, some counties are already on that list, and they are very attractive-looking destinations, as far as I can see—will be subject to review every three weeks.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Last summer, covid was almost fully suppressed in Scotland, and on current trends it looks like we are heading, cautiously, in that direction again. However, as international travel reopens, many in my constituency are very concerned about new strains entering the country. Although our First Minister has welcomed the UK Government’s current cautious approach to travel, she will not sign up to any plans that might put Scotland’s progress at risk, so will the Prime Minister confirm today what will happen in the event that the devolved nations’ strategic ambitions are at odds with the UK Government’s? In that scenario, how is compromise reached, rather than it simply being England’s way or the highway?
The Prime Minister
Actually, I think that, in spite of the differences that are sometimes accentuated or emphasised for whatever reason, the levels of co-operation have been amazing. What is happening in Scotland today is very close to what is happening in the rest of the UK; that is the level of co-operation that we are showing together.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Right at the end of his statement, the Prime Minister echoed the words of his predecessor, Sir Winston Churchill, who said,
“let us go forward together”.—[Official Report, 13 May 1940; Vol. 360, c. 1502.]
Of course, precisely 80 years ago, on 12 May 1941, my right hon. Friend’s predecessor was standing in this devastated Chamber when he committed us to freedoms in the future. In that spirit, may I ask a practical question about the future? We had compulsory ID cards in the war, and they worked so successfully. Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that, if we had them now, the whole test and trace system would have worked superbly? They could be made to work in future—for instance, it could be made clear on a person’s smartphone that they had been vaccinated or whether they had been in touch with infections. It is all very interesting for the future. My right hon. Friend cannot give a definitive answer now, but will he at least have an open mind on how we can deal with future pandemics?
The Prime Minister
I am a long-standing admirer of the libertarian school of thought that I have generally associated with my right hon. Friend. He makes an interesting point about data and the importance of being able to access it fast to help people. Perhaps the idea of ID cards is slightly different, if I may respectfully suggest that to my right hon. Friend, and I think we are still some way off that solution.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) [V]
As has been acknowledged already, it is Mental Health Awareness Week, and it is right that we note the huge impact of the covid pandemic on the mental health of our young people in particular and on their education. Will the Prime Minister reconsider whether imposing a summer of cramming is really the wisest thing to force on students and teachers? Instead, will he look at outdoor education centres—many of which are based in Cumbria, of course—which have been hit worse than pretty much any other part of the entire economy? Will he agree not only to save outdoor education centres but to deploy outdoor education by commissioning professionals from the sector to run an ambitious programme in schools and in outdoor settings, to re-engage young people with a love of learning and help to tackle the mental health crisis?
The Prime Minister
I do not think that “a summer of cramming” is exactly how I would describe our programme for educational recovery. It is generous and broad based and is intended to help students, pupils and kids across the whole spectrum of abilities to make up the detriment to their learning. May I say how warmly I welcome Cumbria’s outdoor education approach? The al fresco learning that the hon. Gentleman supports sounds magnificent to me and should be replicated throughout the entire country. I look forward to hearing more about it.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I can tell the Prime Minister that other venues are available and that the Forest of Dean would be fantastically keen to offer itself as a place for outdoor education for children across the United Kingdom.
I welcome what the Prime Minister said about being able to say more at the end of this month about relaxing all restrictions by 21 June, and he will know that I will welcome that, but may I take him to what he said in his statement about the winter? It is inevitable, I think, that, as with other respiratory viruses, we will see an increase in covid, and that there will be some increase in hospitalisations and deaths, although, because of our incredible vaccination roll-out and the effectiveness of our vaccines, that will be at a much lower level and will not overwhelm the national health service. So can he confirm that work is under way in Government to make sure that, even with that small increase— because of the success of our vaccinations—we will learn to live with the consequences of covid, as we do with flu, and that we will not need to shut down the country again in the winter?
The Prime Minister
There is plainly a difference, as my right hon. Friend understands very well, between a disease such as flu, which, every year, sadly causes a number—perhaps thousands—of hospitalisations and deaths, and a disease that has the potential to spread exponentially and to overwhelm the NHS. We need to be absolutely certain that we are right in thinking that we have broken the connection between covid transmission and hospitalisation, or serious illness and death, and that is still the question that we need to establish in the weeks and months ahead. I am optimistic about it, but that is the key issue.
I just want to make one point that I should have said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) about weddings. It is very important that, for the purposes of the banns, we will be making an announcement within 28 days of 21 June.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
The Israeli Government made the decision not to vaccinate more than 4.5 million Palestinian citizens in Gaza and the west bank, leaving this responsibility to the occupied territories’ under-resourced healthcare system. Only several thousand Palestinians have been vaccinated, in contrast to the 4.2 million Israelis. In the light of the shocking and appalling scenes in Jerusalem, where Israeli forces attacked worshippers, the holy al-Aqsa mosque and the healthcare units, will the Prime Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to provide assistance to the Palestinians at this difficult time, and will he condemn the actions of the Israeli forces and accept that the only way forward is a two-state solution to ensure peace, health equality and protection of human rights?
Mr Speaker
That is not in the statement that the Prime Minister made, but I am sure that he would like to answer the question.
The Prime Minister
Yes, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the situation in Israel. I am deeply concerned by the scenes we are seeing, as is everyone in this House. We all want to see urgent de-escalation by both sides. Let me tell him that the position of this Government is firmly behind his in that we continue to believe that a two-state solution is the best way forward.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement about a public inquiry. When covid first rolled into Barrow and Furness, we had a disproportionate impact from it due to a toxic mix of underlying health conditions. With that in mind, can he confirm that the inquiry will take a look at not just the actions that the Government did or did not take, but what we need to do to make sure that we can build back healthier after this pandemic?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point—it is a very important point. I hope that this is what they call a big teachable moment for the entire country about our obesity, our fitness levels and disparities across public provision not just between affluent areas, but within regions of the country. Levelling up needs to take place, and that is the ambition of this Government.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement of an inquiry. It is important because of the number of people who died and also because of the millions of people who will live with the consequences of the policies adopted by Ministers on the advice of their chief medical officers. Many people lost their lives because hospitals and surgeries were closed, people’s businesses were wrecked because of stop-go lockdowns, and children’s education has been disrupted, affecting their life chances. At the same time, there were many credible experts who questioned the modelling on which those policies were based, the impact that this had on the poor, and the appropriateness and the consistency of the actions. Can the Prime Minister assure us that the inquiry will include examining and listening to the views of those experts and the issues that they raised?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman’s excellent points serve only to underline the extreme difficulty of the decisions that Governments in this country and around the world were forced to make and the terrible balances we had to strike. I am sure that the considerations he raises will be looked at by the inquiry.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the huge success of the vaccine roll-out. The economy in central London is hurting, partly because of the lack of commuters and partly because of the lack of international visitors. Can he confirm that the plan is to lift the work-at-home guidance as of 21 June, provided that we stay on track?
The Prime Minister
That is certainly our intention, provided that we stay on track, but I want to be sure that people wait until we are able to say that with more clarity a bit later on, because we must be guided by what is happening with the pandemic. My hon. Friend is so right about the dynamism of London. Indeed, London and our other great cities depend on people having the confidence to go to work. I think it will come back, and I think it could come back remarkably quickly, but it does depend on keeping the virus down.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
On 22 February, the Prime Minister told the House that the PPE contracts
“are there on the record for everybody to see”.—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 638.]
He also said that
“all the details are on the record”.—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 634.]
What the Prime Minister told Parliament was not true. A large number of contracts were neither there for everybody to see nor on the record, including a £23 million contract to Bunzl, which was not published until 8 March. The ministerial code states:
“It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.”
So will the Prime Minister finally apologise to the House and the country for this misleading statement, and ensure that the Government’s procurement practices during the pandemic are in the scope of the covid inquiry?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady means “inadvertently misleading”.
The Prime Minister
I am sure she does, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
As life continues to return towards normality and attention turns to how we can learn lessons from the pandemic, there remains an urgent need to tackle this country’s problem with obesity. Following the Queen’s Speech, what reassurances can my right hon. Friend give me that the Government will continue to pursue that agenda with vigour?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend, who is a doctor, every possible assurance. This is a struggle that many of us face. I am afraid that we are one of the fattest countries in Europe, if not the fattest, and that has medical consequences. It is extremely costly, both medically and financially.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
In November, in response to my question on funding for charities throughout covid-19, the Prime Minister said in this Chamber:
“We will be doing much more over the winter to support the voluntary sector”.—[Official Report, 2 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 41.]
He has delivered nothing—absolutely nothing—over the winter. Now, £10 billion in debt and with tens of thousands of jobs gone, charities are scaling back and closing, and our communities are suffering, so will he tell the House why he made that empty promise and what he will not just say but do to support our charities now, at this critical time?
The Prime Minister
We have had huge support for businesses of all kinds—premises, cuts in business rates, cuts in VAT and furloughing. The single best thing that we can do for charities is getting non-essential retail opened again, as we did, and allowing our economy to come back. The British people give huge amounts to charity. We are one of the most generous countries in the world. I have no doubt that that instinct has been there throughout this pandemic and will continue.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) [V]
The NHS in Kirklees has now given over 50% of people who have been vaccinated their second dose. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking our local NHS, GPs, community pharmacies and the wonderful volunteers at my local Honley vaccination centre, who have all played a magnificent part in this superb effort, which now means that we can proceed to the next step of the road map on Monday?
The Prime Minister
I thank everybody who has been involved in the vaccine roll-out, and particularly those at the Honley vaccination centre.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee published a report last September that recommended that
“the Government should announce the inquiry into the response to the coronavirus immediately to allow time to set up the secretariat and other administrative functions which should mean it could start taking evidence early next year.”
That was eight months ago, so I support the comments made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the statutory public inquiry should be set up as soon as possible, before spring 2022. I also seek assurances from the Prime Minister that a key element of the terms of reference will be to investigate why there was a disproportionate impact on our black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, and that any chair of the inquiry will have an expert reference panel that is diverse and has community leaders involved.
The Prime Minister
I agree totally about the need to establish those facts: the impact on black and minority ethnic groups, what was driving it, and what could have been done to mitigate it. I am sure that the inquiry will be suitably set up to address that, among many other issues.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the tremendous success of the vaccine programme in Harrow; indeed, he visited The Hive vaccination centre very early on during the vaccination programme. What message does he have now for younger people who will be approaching the position where they will be called for their vaccination, so that we can ensure that all adults are vaccinated by the end of July?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend because he is totally right. That is one of the key messages that all of us in this House should be transmitting to adults, who are getting younger and younger now in the groups that we are reaching: “Come forward when you are asked. Get your vaccine. You won’t feel a thing. It is absolutely vital. It is not just good for you; it is good for the whole country, so get it done.”
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
Earlier, the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), raised the question of the recruitment and retention of medical staff. Throughout the entire health and social care sectors we could be about to see a big increase in the numbers of staff leaving, either because they delayed their retirement in order to stay on and help until the worst of the crisis was over or, in some cases, because they are simply burnt out with the stress that they have been working under for so long. What specific plans do the Government have to increase the recruitment and retention of staff across the entire spectrum of the health and social care professions?
The Prime Minister
We actually have 60,000 nurses in training. I am reading every day about the enthusiasm with which people now want to go into that wonderful profession. We have, I think, 11,000 more nurses this year than last year, and we are investing massively in social care to ensure that our older people are looked after properly. One of the reasons we will be bringing forward plans for reform of social care is that I want to see proper join-up between health and social care. At the moment, we do not have that as a country, and we need it.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
The Times reported at the weekend that there are 120,000 people who are immunocompromised—for instance, those having treatment for cancer. For them, the effectiveness of the vaccine is still unknown. What safety reassurances can my right hon. Friend give to those worried and anxious—the clinically extremely vulnerable—as we continue to unlock?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is totally right to raise the immunocompromised and their continuing anxiety. The risks continue to diminish, as he knows—I think, today, one in 1,340 are estimated to have the virus. The number is going down at the moment quite steeply. As I said earlier to the House, it is much lower than at any time since last summer, or even before. But plainly those who are anxious, who are immuno-compromised, should continue, as I have said, to exercise caution and common sense in the way they go about their lives for some time to come.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Covid has left tens of thousands of people in this country with problems that are remarkably similar to a brain injury. They are going to need long-term neurorehabilitation. When we add them to the 1.4 million people who, before covid came along, had suffered from a brain injury—from carbon monoxide poisoning, concussion in sport, stroke, a traumatic brain injury or foetal alcohol syndrome—that is a phenomenal financial and medical need. I urge the Prime Minister—there still is not anybody in this country who takes sole charge of this area of brain injury. It is a hidden pandemic, because someone cannot often see that the person across the other side of the room is affected. Maybe the Prime Minister should meet a group of us to talk about it, because it affects every single Department of Government and I really want him to take it on, so that all these people get the support that they need.
The Prime Minister
I am really grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I know that he was going to raise him with me yesterday and I hope that he forgives for me not allowing him to intervene, entirely inadvertently. He has raised an extremely important point. I believe that not only brain injury—he is right to raise the 1.4 million people—but brain cancer is an area that is too often neglected in our system and may fall through the cracks. I certainly undertake to get him the meeting that he needs, whether it is with me or the relevant Minister. I cannot currently promise that, but he will get the meeting he needs.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Almost every human crisis produces advances in human innovation, and the covid crisis has been no exception. We have seen in the UK what collaboration between academia and the private sector has done in terms of vaccine production. The mRNA vaccines may turn out to be as important as antibiotics in dealing with global disease outbreaks. As soon as we are able to identify the genome of a virus, we will be able to move to rapid vaccine production—something we were unable to do before. What can we in the UK do with our leadership of the G7 and our membership of the G20 and other international organisations to determine global protocols to enable us to be able to move forward in any future pandemic in a less chaotic way than we did on this occasion and to be able to develop global capacity for vaccine productions? Surely if anything is a long-term and valuable legacy of global Britain, it will be this.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend, who is also a doctor, is completely right: necessity is the mother of invention. We have been driven by the pandemic to great, great feats of scientific genius, producing, as he rightly says, the mRNA vaccines at incredible speed—the AstraZeneca vaccine—and the pandemic has meant that the abilities of this country alone to cope have hugely increased. We are now capable of producing a vaccine through the fill and finish plants. We have the new Vaccines Manufacturing and Innovation Centre. We have invested in bioreactors across the country. We are much, much more resilient than we were, but we are also leading across the world in making sure that countries co-ordinate and work together on spotting zoonotic diseases earlier, with the research hubs, and making sure that we co-ordinate data and share data much earlier. We are also making sure that there are not the barriers that have, sadly, sprung up between countries to the sharing of supplies and vaccines, so that we have secure supply chains around the world. So what the UK is doing is not only spending £548 million on COVAX, investing in vaccines around the world—I think that the UK has so far given 40 million vaccine doses to 117 countries—but working on a global response to pandemics. That will be one of the things we will do together at the G7, and it is supported by all the partner countries. So that is what we will be doing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I am suspending the House for three minutes, in order to make necessary arrangements for the next business.
Point of Order
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier this week, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards published the names of nine Members currently under investigation for breaches of the code of conduct. Their names were published along with the allegations made against them. She was able to do that following a motion passed by the House on 21 April amending Standing Order No. 150. This was brought before the House as part of a package of changes, which passed after a very brief debate, without a vote.
This is a very serious matter. A finding of a breach of the code of conduct can destroy reputations, end careers and, in effect, end the working lives of the individuals concerned. Perhaps most importantly, it can have a devastating effect on their families. Yet under the commissioner’s amended power she is able to publish the allegations without the individuals being able to defend themselves or respond publicly. Those who claim that Members can defend themselves are wrong—I have had access to legal advice on the matter.
Paragraph 17 of the report by the Committee on Standards requires any Member’s proposed statement in response to be subject to approval by the commissioner; in effect, this is the prosecutor being given the right of veto over the defence. This situation allows information to be issued under the power of privilege of this House, which can then be used by others to attack the reputation of hon. Members without them having the right—the ability—to freely defend themselves. That defies natural justice.
If any one of my constituents were to face such a procedure, I would be raising hell on their behalf. I imagine other Members would do the same for their constituents. It cannot be right that we do not allow to Members of Parliament the same rights that we would fight for for our constituents here in the mother of Parliaments, particularly today, on the 80th anniversary of its destruction by an authoritarian powers. This situation also allows the political weaponisation of a process that is supposed to be fair and just. It is, in my view, in complete defiance of natural justice and accordingly contrary to access to justice under the European convention on human rights.
I would be grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you let the House know whether Speaker’s counsel has asked for an opinion on compliance with the convention before the vote was put to the Commons, and if not—and it is perfectly proper if not—please can such an opinion be requested, to guide the Committee and the House to ensure that Members’ rights are not trampled? I have been party on a number of occasions to the defeat of the British Government in the European Court of Human Rights. I would hate to see the same happen to this Parliament.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. He is right to state that on 21 April the House endorsed the recommendations of the Committee on Standards, which included a recommendation that the commissioner should have authority to publish a list of non-independent complaints and grievance scheme investigations, returning the situation to that before 19 July 2018.
The right hon. Gentleman is also correct that the process endorsed by the House contains a provision in some circumstances for a rebuttal to be issued, but that the wording of any such rebuttal requires the approval of the commissioner. The Committee’s deliberations on the report and the advice taken are a matter for the Committee, not for me or the Speaker. As the House has endorsed the process we are discussing, it is also not for me to comment on the right hon. Gentleman’s criticisms of it. However, he has put his views on the record and he might wish to pursue the issues he has raised with the Committee itself.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to be helpful to the House on this point, and I have already had a private conversation with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) about this. The Committee on Standards will obviously consider the matter that he has already raised. I am absolutely clear in my mind, and I am sure the Committee is, both that the commissioner was granted the power to do this by the House—indeed, was required by the House to do this, in returning to the situation that existed before July 2018—and, even more importantly, that the Committee will always consider every single instance that comes before us on an entirely impartial basis, so as to secure justice and fairness for every single Member of this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Chair of the Committee for that clarification and suggest that we now move on.
Bills Presented
Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill
Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Order No. 80A)
Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Matt Hancock, Secretary Oliver Dowden, Secretary Ben Wallace, Secretary Grant Shapps and Amanda Solloway, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the establishment of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency.
Bill read the First and Second time without Question put (Standing Order No. 80A and Order, 23 March); to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 1) with explanatory notes (Bill 1-EN).
Armed Forces Bill
Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Order No. 80A)
Secretary Ben Wallace, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Priti Patel, Secretary Brandon Lewis, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary Simon Hart and the Attorney General, presented a Bill to continue the Armed Forces Act 2006; to amend that Act and other enactments relating to the armed forces; to make provision about service in the reserve forces; to make provision about pardons for certain abolished service offences; to make provision about war pensions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First and Second time without Question put, and stood committed (Standing Order No. 80A and Order, 8 February); to be printed (Bill 2) with explanatory notes (Bill 2-EN).
Environment Bill
Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Order No. 80A)
Secretary George Eustice, supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Michael Gove, Alok Sharma, Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Secretary Robert Jenrick, Secretary Grant Shapps, Secretary Brandon Lewis, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary Simon Hart and Rebecca Pow, presented a Bill to make provision about targets, plans and policies for improving the natural environment; for statements and reports about environmental protection; for the Office for Environmental Protection; about waste and resource efficiency; about air quality; for the recall of products that fail to meet environmental standards; about water; about nature and biodiversity; for conservation covenants; about the regulation of chemicals; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First and Second time without Question put (Standing Order No. 80A and Order, 26 January); to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 3) with explanatory notes (Bill 3-EN).
Finance Bill
Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Order No. 80B)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Prime Minister, Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Secretary Thérèse Coffey, Secretary Robert Jenrick, Secretary Oliver Dowden, Steve Barclay, Jesse Norman, John Glen and Kemi Badenoch, presented a Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the national debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance.
Bill read the First and Second time without Question put (Standing Order No. 80B and Order, 13 April); to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 4) with explanatory notes (Bill 4-EN).
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Order No. 80A)
Secretary Robert Buckland, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Priti Patel, Secretary Grant Shapps, Secretary Oliver Dowden, the Attorney General, Victoria Atkins and Chris Philp, presented a Bill to make provision about the police and other emergency workers; to make provision about collaboration between authorities to prevent and reduce serious violence; to make provision about offensive weapons homicide reviews; to make provision for new offences and for the modification of existing offences; to make provision about the powers of the police and other authorities for the purposes of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting crime or investigating other matters; to make provision about the maintenance of public order; to make provision about the removal, storage and disposal of vehicles; to make provision in connection with driving offences; to make provision about cautions; to make provision about bail and remand; to make provision about sentencing, detention, release, management and rehabilitation of offenders; to make provision about secure 16 to 19 Academies; to make provision for and in connection with procedures before courts and tribunals; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First and Second time without Question put, and stood committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 80A and Order, 16 March); to be printed (Bill 5) with explanatory notes (Bill 5-EN).
Telecommunications (Security) Bill
Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Order No. 80A)
Matt Warman, supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Dominic Raab, Secretary Priti Patel, Michael Gove and Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, presented a Bill to make provision about the security of public electronic communications networks and public electronic communications services.
Bill read the First and Second time without Question put (Standing Order No. 80A and Order, 30 November); to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 6) with explanatory notes (Bill 6-EN).
Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Brandon Lewis, supported by the Prime Minister, Michael Gove, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary Simon Hart and Robin Walker, presented a Bill to make provision about Ministerial appointments, extraordinary Assembly elections, the Ministerial Code of Conduct and petitions of concern in Northern Ireland.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 7) with explanatory notes (Bill 7-EN).
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Michael Gove, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Robert Buckland, Steve Barclay, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Mark Spencer, the Attorney General and Chloe Smith, presented a Bill to make provision about the dissolution and calling of Parliament, including provision for the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 8) with explanatory notes (Bill 8-EN).
Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Glen, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Thérèse Coffey, Guy Opperman, Steve Barclay, Jesse Norman and Kemi Badenoch, presented a Bill to provide for the payment out of money provided by Parliament of expenditure incurred by the Treasury for, or in connection with, the payment of compensation to customers of London Capital & Finance plc; provide for the making of loans to the Board of the Pension Protection Fund for the purposes of its fraud compensation functions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 9) with explanatory notes (Bill 9-EN).
National Insurance Contributions Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Ben Wallace, Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Secretary Elizabeth Truss, Steve Barclay, Jesse Norman, John Glen and Kemi Badenoch, presented a Bill to make provision in relation to national insurance contributions.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 10) with explanatory notes (Bill 10-EN).
Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Robert Jenrick, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Michael Gove, Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Jesse Norman, Paul Scully and Luke Hall, presented a Bill to make provision about matters attributable to coronavirus that may not be taken account of in making certain determinations for the purposes of non-domestic rating; and to make provision in connection with the disqualification of directors of companies that are dissolved without becoming insolvent.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 11) with explanatory notes (Bill 11-EN).
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Gavin Williamson, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Dominic Raab, Secretary Priti Patel, Michael Gove, Secretary Robert Buckland, Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Secretary Oliver Dowden and Michelle Donelan, presented a Bill to make provision in relation to freedom of speech and academic freedom in higher education institutions and in students’ unions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 12) with explanatory notes (Bill 12-EN).
Debate on the Address
Better Jobs and a Fair Deal at Work
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
I am pleased to speak today in support of the Queen’s Speech and the measures it contains to make the United Kingdom stronger, healthier and more prosperous than before. Let me first warmly congratulate and welcome the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) to her new position on the shadow Front Bench. Her predecessor and I often had robust debates, but always in the right spirit, and I am sure that that will continue with the hon. Member.
While there is much to debate, the fundamentals of our economic recovery should be a point of consensus in this House: one of the quickest, largest and most comprehensive economic responses to the pandemic anywhere in the world; continued agility throughout the crisis, making sure that, where we can, support gets to those who need it; and now, with our economy reopening, I can say with full confidence that our plan for jobs is working.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
How on earth can it be fair for somebody employed on a long-term contract to be fired and then immediately rehired?
Rishi Sunak
The Government and I strongly believe that firing and rehiring should not be used as a negotiating tactic by companies; that is absolutely right. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has asked ACAS to look into this matter. It is currently doing so, and we await its findings.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give way?
Rishi Sunak
I will make some progress.
Before I turn to the details of the Queen’s Speech, let me first update the House on the improving economic context. A year ago today, I stood at this Dispatch Box and told the House and the country that I and this Conservative Government believe in the nobility of work, and that we would stand behind Britain’s workers throughout the crisis and beyond. Judge our commitment to those values by our record. When the furlough scheme ends in September, we will have helped to pay people’s wages for a year and a half, supporting, at its peak, the jobs of almost 9 million people. We have protected the incomes of more than 2.7 million self-employed people; backed businesses to keep people in work with tens of billions of pounds of loans, grants and tax cuts; and supported the most vulnerable through the crisis with a strengthened safety net, increased funding for local authorities and public services, and help for the charity sector.
Gareth Thomas
I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not mention young people. Recent figures reveal that the kickstart scheme is helping only 5% of unemployed young people who were made redundant during the financial crisis. Given that there are over 600,000 young people out of work at the moment, why did the Queen’s Speech not contain more measures to help tackle youth unemployment? Did he just forget?
Rishi Sunak
With the greatest respect, I am only one minute into my speech, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not mentioning everything in the first 30 seconds. I completely agree with him. As I have said repeatedly from this Dispatch Box, not only are jobs my highest economic priority, but I have, from the very beginning, highlighted the particular impact that this crisis has had on young people because many of them work in the sectors that are most affected, particularly in the hospitality industry, which is why the Government have taken steps to support that industry. As I will come on to say later, the kickstart scheme is a key part of our way to help those young people find work. It is one of many things we are doing, whether it is traineeships, apprenticeships or the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee, and we will continue to focus on that.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give way?
Rishi Sunak
I will make a tiny bit more progress.
Taken together, over the last year and this, our plan for jobs is providing over £407 billion of support for British people and businesses—a historic package of economic support unmatched in peacetime—and the evidence shows our plan is working. GDP statistics published only this morning show that the economic impact of the lockdown at the start of the year was less severe than had been expected and that there are clear signs that we are now on our way to recovery. The Bank of England said last week that it now expects the economy to return to its pre-crisis level by the end of this year—earlier than it previously thought.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has just given us the excellent news that the economy should have rebounded by the end of this year. He and I have discussed on a number of occasions the importance of international development. In view of that, can he confirm to the House today that he will restore the 0.7% target at the end of the year when the economy has so recovered?
Rishi Sunak
I appreciate all the constructive conversations my right hon. Friend has had with me on this topic, which I know he feels passionately about. As he will know, while our economy will have recovered its pre-crisis levels, the damage to our public finances is much longer-lasting. That is what led the Government to make the difficult but I hope understandable decision to temporarily divert from the 0.7% commitment, with a full intention to return to it when the fiscal situation allows, but in the meantime to remain one of the leading donors to the causes that both he and I are passionate about.
Several hon. Members rose—
Rishi Sunak
I will make a tiny bit of progress.
In the labour market, it is worth reminding the House that at the start of this crisis, unemployment was expected to reach 12% or more. It is now expected to peak at about half of that level. That means almost 2 million fewer people losing their jobs than previously feared. Our unemployment rate today is one of the lowest in the G7—lower than those of Italy, France, Canada and the United States. Our plan has protected incomes, too.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The Chancellor mentions countries in the G7. It is, without question, good news that our economy is back into positive growth territory, but why does he think that the British recession was so much worse than in all the countries he has mentioned and at the bottom of the G7 during the coronavirus?
Rishi Sunak
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this point; I have addressed it previously, but am happy to do so again. As the Office for National Statistics and others have said, is difficult to make accurate cross-country comparisons—
Rishi Sunak
It is difficult to make such comparisons on GDP figures specifically, for the simple reason that the way in which we calculate GDP in this country uses different deflators for the public sector. That has been explained by the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Office for National Statistics, and it actually means that we are disadvantaged relative to peers. If we look at it on nominal GDP, which corrects for that difference in calculation, as the ONS has said, our performance actually looks very comparable to all our major competitors. I could point the hon. Member to the box in the Office for Budget Responsibility report—an independent organisation that would verify what I have just said.
It is worth bearing in mind what I have always said—that GDP is of course important, but it is abstract. What matters to people are their jobs and livelihoods, so the fact that unemployment is as low as it is compared to the projections at the beginning of this crisis is something that everyone in this House will welcome.
Our plan has protected incomes too. The latest statistics show that real household disposable incomes in the last quarter of last year were only 0.2% below the same period the year before. Of course, many families are facing profound difficulties, but it is an extraordinary relief that in the face of one of the largest falls in output in 300 years, we could broadly maintain household incomes. In turn, that has meant that some people have saved more, with household savings last year £140 billion higher than the year before, and surveys now showing that consumer confidence is returning to its pre-crisis levels.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke to the Chancellor beforehand about this. During the lockdown, covid loans were made available to companies. Companies in my constituency have indicated to me that the repayment scheme is not over a flexible period of time and they have to pay back large amounts of money in one go. To ensure that those companies can survive beyond the lockdown and into next year, may I ask the Chancellor whether it is possible to make some flexibility in the repayment of those loans for those companies?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. It is one that, I hope, we have already addressed. He is right about the importance of companies having the cash flow to bounce back strongly, which is why late last year we introduced something called “pay as you grow” to help the 1.3 million small and medium-sized companies that have taken bounce back loans. It means that automatically, at their choice, they will be able to turn those loans from five-year repayment loans to 10-year repayment loans, which almost halves the monthly repayments. Furthermore, it gives them the option to go for interest-only repayment periods of six months or for payment holidays, none of which will impact their credit rating as long as they do it in advance. That should be automatically communicated to businesses by their bank. I hope that is helpful to the small and medium-sized companies in his constituency.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
All the pressure on my right hon. Friend has been from one direction, so let me try to right the balance. When this is over, in terms of a smaller state, deregulation and lower taxes, are there any Thatcherites left in the Government?
Rishi Sunak
Well, my right hon. Friend and I strongly agree on the role of the private sector in driving our recovery. What is important, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, is businesses having the confidence to invest, which is why the Government have provided support for businesses not just to get through the crisis, but, through tax cuts such as the super deduction, to help them invest and drive our recovery forward. Both my right hon. Friend and I know that the prosperity that we all want can only be created by those private sector companies. I hope that gives him the reassurance that he is looking for. I should make some progress.
Talking of those businesses, I do believe that they are also now beginning to feel more confident. Although many firms have been hit hard by the pandemic, the latest data shows that the number of businesses becoming insolvent actually fell by nearly a quarter last year compared to the year before, and in aggregate firms have been able to build up an extra £100 billion of corporate deposits since the start of the pandemic. Since we announced our super deduction tax cut, businesses now have a virtually unprecedented incentive to invest and create jobs. Bank of England surveys show that businesses expect to invest around 7% more than they would have done over the next two years, and Deloitte’s recent survey of business leaders shows that their intention to invest is stronger than it has been at any point since 2015.
It is, of course, going to take this country and the whole world a long time to recover fully from the shock that saw the largest fall in output in 300 years, but although our recovery will be long and difficult, it is beyond doubt now that our plan is working. We will, however, never be complacent. Eight hundred thousand people have lost their jobs through this crisis, and no Chancellor could guarantee that there will not be more jobs lost. People losing their jobs is the thing that weighs most heavily on me. Work is the best route out of poverty. It brings people financial independence. It improves long-term outcomes for families and children. Work is not just another economic variable—it provides us all with purpose and fulfilment. That is why every job lost is a tragedy. That is why jobs are our highest economic priority. That is why we have a plan for jobs, and that plan is working.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman may have noticed that we recently elected a new Mayor of the West of England region who has pledged to commit to jobs, green jobs and bringing people together across the west of England. Will the right hon. Gentleman commit to working with the new West of England Mayor to deliver that promise, because no one from the Government has currently been in touch to ensure that that promise is delivered on?
Rishi Sunak
The Government believe in devolution and have worked successfully with Mayors across the country. I have a very productive relationship with Mayors. I commend all Mayors who have recently been re-elected, particularly Andy Street in the west midlands and Ben Houchen in the Tees Valley. I believe that all leaders want to drive jobs and growth in their areas. I look forward to working with anybody who shares that goal, and I look forward to working with that new Mayor.
When it comes to supporting work, what also matters is that we reaffirm our commitment to ending low pay by increasing the national living wage to £8.91, an annual pay rise for someone working full time of almost £350. We are providing targeted support to young people, who, as has rightly been identified, have been hardest hit in the pandemic. The £2 billion kickstart scheme will create hundreds of thousands of jobs for 16 to 24-year-olds who would otherwise be at risk of long-term unemployment.
Mr Perkins
The kickstart scheme is not reaching nearly as many people as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. Labour has proposed an apprenticeship wage subsidy funded by the underspend in the apprenticeship levy, which would ensure that companies that took on young people would be putting a lot more into them than under the kickstart scheme. Rather than continually pushing the kickstart scheme, which is much more expensive than the apprenticeship wage subsidy, why will he not adopt the apprenticeship wage subsidy that Labour has proposed?
Rishi Sunak
The kickstart scheme has now created almost 200,000 job placements for young people in record time, given that the scheme was only announced in July last year and operational in autumn. Its ramp-up compares very favourably with the future jobs fund, which preceded it, and with which the hon. Member will be familiar. Now that the economy is reopening, many more young people can start those placements over the coming months. I commend all people both at the Department for Work and Pensions and at the thousands of companies involved for their participation in a scheme that will transform the opportunities of young people up and down the country.
With regard to apprenticeships, we already have an incentive for employers to take on apprentices. In the crisis, the Government introduced a £3,000 hiring subsidy for small and medium-sized businesses to take on a new apprentice—a significant 35% subsidy, I think, of an apprentice at the apprenticeship median wage. It also pays for 95% of all training costs for apprentices employed by SMEs, as well as improving the quality of those apprenticeships. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that apprenticeships are important, but we took action in July last year.
To help people of all ages to get back into work, we have doubled the number of work coaches in jobcentres and provided over £3.5 billion to help people to search for work or retrain, and we are launching the restart programme, with £2.9 billion to provide intensive support to over 1 million people who are long-term unemployed. This Queen’s Speech goes even further to turbocharge our economic recovery and get people into decent, well-paid jobs. The plan set out in the Queen’s Speech creates more jobs, and jobs where people live. The levelling up White Paper will set out bold new interventions to improve livelihoods and opportunities. We are strengthening the Union with record investment in new infrastructure, such as road, railways and broadband. We are turning Britain into a science superpower, with our plan for growth making this country the best place in the world for inventors, innovators and engineers.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
First, may I wish the Chancellor a very happy birthday? The scale of his ambition on levelling up is absolutely right, but the scale of the challenge is also huge. The economic gap between London and the south-east and the north-east, in relative terms, is as great as it was between East Germany and West Germany prior to reunification, and it took 30 years to narrow that gap. Does he agree that it will take more than one Parliament and more than the significant investment he has already committed to truly to level up this country?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for his warm words, and I agree with him. This is the task that this Government will meet head-on, and it is right that it needs to be an ambitious goal that we set ourselves to meet. Like him, I share an eagerness to get on with it and keep going—and he will know, like me, that we are already doing it. Indeed, we are making the most of our new-found Brexit freedoms to launch freeports, for example, creating jobs and growth in innovative new industries in places such as Teesside, which both he and I know very well.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Will the Chancellor give way?
Rishi Sunak
I must now make some progress, because I am running out of time.
The Queen’s Speech gives people the skills they need to get good jobs and progress in their careers. Right now, 11 million adults in this country, nearly a third of our entire workforce, do not have a level 3 qualification. The Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee will change that, giving every adult flexible access to fully-funded, high-quality education throughout their lives, and this will have a transformational impact on people’s lives and livelihoods.
This Government believe that we should value equally every path to a good career, not just a degree, so the Queen’s Speech provides landmark reforms to post-16 education and training. As I have mentioned, we have doubled to £3,000 the incentive payments for employers to hire new apprentices, and we are reshaping the system around the needs of employers so that people can get training in the skills we know the economy will need now and into the future.
This Queen’s Speech delivers two critical pieces of Treasury-sponsored legislation. The National Insurance Contributions Bill will introduce new reliefs to encourage employers to employ veterans, to incentivise regeneration and job creation in freeports, and to provide relief on NHS Test and Trace payments. The public service pensions and judicial offices Bill will make sure that dedicated public servants are fairly rewarded for their service, while making sure that the system is affordable and sustainable into the future.
Rishi Sunak
I am just going to wrap up.
In conclusion, it is apt that today the Opposition broke with a minor tradition, choosing to debate economic matters first, not last, and specifically to cite jobs as a focus—not the wider economy, as is the norm. I have been saying for over a year, since the very outset of this crisis, that protecting jobs and livelihoods was this Government’s No. 1 economic priority. It has shaped my decisions and actions and I have said it over and over again, to leave the British people in no doubt that this Government are on their side.
Last week’s results showed that, from Hartlepool to Harlow, the people heard us, so I cannot welcome enough today’s debate to share with the Labour party our plans to continue protecting the jobs of the British people and to defend a record that has seen millions of livelihoods protected and hundreds of thousands of businesses supported, and has created the conditions for one of the strongest economic recoveries anywhere in the world. We have a plan, and that plan is working.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I remind hon. Members that there is a five-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I am proud to open today’s debate on behalf of the Opposition. I am conscious that one of the basic tenets of qualification for Government is to be trusted by the public with their money. If we do not meet that test, then none of our ambitions and none of the changes we seek can come to pass, so let me make one thing clear at the start: it is a test that I intend to meet.
The recovery from the pandemic represents a crucial moment for Britain. This really is not the time for just wallpapering over the cracks; instead, we must match the scale of the moment that faces our people and also our planet. We need a Government who back Britain, and that means an ambitious and bold plan for good jobs. We must end the insecurity and lack of opportunity that there is in our economy for far too many, and seize this moment to create a brighter future for people in all parts of our United Kingdom.
This last year has been like no other. Families have given up so much; so many have lost loved ones. Coronavirus has shone a spotlight on what matters to all of us—our families and friends, our communities, our health and our security. After a decade of Conservative government, our public services were underfunded and underprepared for the pandemic that came—a shortfall of intensive care beds; unfilled vacancies in our NHS; a fragmented and underfunded social care system; and personal protective equipment stockpiles run down, despite all the warnings. This Government have allowed the public square to become degraded, and we all now know the cost of that.
Meanwhile, the failure to increase statutory sick pay in the middle of a deadly pandemic put far too many low-paid families in the impossible position of having to decide whether to go to work and put food on their table or to self-isolate and protect public health. The Government could and should have done so much more for those people.
The truth is that for too many people wages have stalled over the past decade; household debt is rising and too many people live pay cheque to pay cheque. And many of those people do the crucial everyday jobs that keep our economy running and our public services going. They have been overlooked and undervalued. The Government have done nothing for them and nor does this Queen’s Speech.
Instead, £2 billion of public contracts have been awarded to companies with close links to the Conservative party. We are led to believe that this is all one massive coincidence that they got those contracts. How did it happen? Who knows? The Government are taking the public for fools. What taxpayers deserve is for their money to be used to best effect, not for it to be squandered on contracts that do not deliver or used to line the pockets of friends and donors of the Conservative party.
The Government say they want value for money, but they have failed to claw back the millions of pounds wasted on contracts that did not deliver for the NHS and did not deliver for taxpayers either.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady talked about people with connections to the Conservative party trying to get their favoured contractors to the front of the queue. Does she remember emailing me in the Cabinet Office to ask for one of her constituency companies to get to the head of the queue for exactly the same purpose?
Rachel Reeves
The job of a constituency MP, as the hon. Gentleman—a good constituency MP himself—knows, is to look out for our constituents. But I was not pocketing the money: I was not giving contracts to donors of my party, and I was not giving my local pub landlord a contract. Maybe our local pub landlords are really good at delivering contracts for the NHS, even though they have no track record of that—or maybe this one was a mate of a Conservative party Cabinet Minister.
Kevin Hollinrake
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady seems to be accusing Members of this House of personally pocketing money. Will you ask her to explain exactly what evidence she has in that regard?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
That is not really a point of order; it is part of the debate, and I do not want the debate to descend into points of order. I am sure that if the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer feels she needs to say anything further in response to the hon. Gentleman, she will do so.
Rachel Reeves
Two billion pounds-worth of contracts to friends and donors of the Conservative party—I will leave it at that, and let the record speak for itself.
Let us be clear about this Conservative Government’s record. They talk in this Queen’s Speech about a skills guarantee, but it was a Conservative Government who cut the education maintenance allowance; my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, was a beneficiary of that and has spoken powerfully about the difference it made to her. And this Government have overseen a fall in the number of apprentices, leaving millions of people without the skills they need to thrive. They speak in this Queen’s Speech about investing in all parts of our country, but it was this Conservative Government who scrapped the regional development agencies—the very bodies designed to ensure that every part of our country could prosper.
The Government talk in this Queen’s Speech about levelling up, but it is this Conservative Government who have cut 60p from every £1 of funding to local councils, forcing them to close Sure Start and children’s centres, and to cut back on social care, libraries and leisure centres, degrading the very fabric of our local communities. The Government want the public to think that they have been in power for only a year. They have not; they have been in power for 11 years, and they need to take responsibility for their own record.
Throughout this crisis, the Chancellor has pitched our health against our economy, treating it as if it were a zero-sum game, with health on the losing side. To do so was short-sighted, misguided and dangerous, and he must take responsibility for that. In a pandemic of this kind, public health and the economy are two sides of the same coin. The Government’s failure to act speedily, pushing ahead with “eat out to help out” without sorting out test and trace, and the refusal to back an October circuit break or to level with the public about the risks of mixing at Christmas, have caused huge loss and huge suffering, as well as the largest economic decline in the G7.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Government seem to be railing against the incompetence of their own government, and policies that they have been voting for in the last 10 years. I would add to her list that the lifetime skills guarantee that they are now trumpeting is merely the reintroduction on a smaller scale of what existed under a Labour Government. This Government voted for these things for 10 years, and now say that they are the answer to the problems that they have created.
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend puts it very well.
There is a gaping hole in the furlough scheme, meaning that several million people have inexplicably been excluded for support. The self-employed—painters and decorators, plumbers, freelance musicians and fitness instructors—all work hard and pay their taxes, but for many there has been no safety net and no support. Why has the Chancellor ignored their cries for help? Is it because they did not have his telephone number? Is it because they cannot WhatsApp him—signed off with “Love Dc”?
The revelations yesterday about the bombardment of pressure on Greensill’s behalf by David Cameron are astounding: 45 text messages—nine to the Chancellor and 12 to the permanent secretary. When the former Prime Minister did not get his way, he threatened to phone the Chancellor, “Gove” and “everyone” else. What an appalling way to bully Government officials, and what did they get? [Hon. Members: “Nothing!”] That is not true. They got access to the NHS patient records through the Earnd scheme, and access to other Government lending schemes. Government Members know that.
The Chancellor said that he would push his team, so let me ask him how they were pushed. What were they asked to do? This is not just a political row; this is about how our country is run, and for whom, and it is about real jobs and livelihoods that are now at stake. Instead of trying to help out dodgy finance companies with wheezes for making money off the back of the NHS and small businesses, the Labour party is fiercely proud of British-made goods and services, and the people who make them. We champion our industries—from manufacturing to retail, our farmers, restaurants and pubs and our great cultural sector, to businesses starting up now and during the pandemic. We want and need them to succeed.
British industry is vital to our economic recovery, and the Government should be working hand in hand with it, not scrapping their own industrial strategy.
Rachel Reeves
If the hon. Gentleman wants to explain why the Government have scrapped their own industrial strategy, he can be my guest.
Aaron Bell
The hon. Lady is rightly praising British businesses. Will she therefore condemn the comments of her neighbour, the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who in March said that business was “the enemy” and that he would refuse to meet with them?
Rachel Reeves
I can say that business is our friend and that we will back British businesses and British workers.
The label “Made in Britain” is a sign of quality, a stamp that marks British manufacturing as among the very best in the world, yet the Government do not make the most of our assets. Over the past decade, they have failed to support our manufacturing base: so many jobs did not return after the financial crisis; and short-term sticking plasters have left sectors such as steel and shipbuilding as an afterthought. We still have not heard a word about the Government’s vision of how we will become global leaders in manufacturing and industry outside the EU or how we will help our cultural industries. We are talking about our musicians and performers, our farmers and fishermen, who are suffering because of the huge gaps in this Government’s deal with our European neighbours. In the last quarter, exports to the EU were down 18.1%, and exports to countries outside the EU were up by only 0.4%. This Government are lacking in ambition and they are in denial about what businesses need to thrive in this new environment. For example, our automotive sector is the jewel in the crown of British manufacturing, yet the UK has only one planned electric vehicle battery gigafactory. It is not yet under way, yet many are springing up all over Europe and around the world. We cannot afford to be in the slow lane, which is why Labour is calling on the Government to part-finance, in collaboration with the private sector, three additional gigafactories by the end of this Parliament, putting Britain back in the fast lane of car manufacturing. The truth is that if the batteries are not made here, the danger is that the cars will not be either. There is an irony here: in the year we are hosting the COP26 climate conference, the Conservative Government were pursuing new coal mines in Cumbria and have failed, through sheer incompetence, to deliver their own green homes grants that they promised. For the green future that we need to tackle the climate emergency we can choose to be world leaders or we can allow our communities, businesses and workers to be left behind. Tackling the climate crisis and creating the high-paid, high-skilled jobs in every corner of our country would have been front and centre of a Labour Queen’s Speech.
Let us consider another national challenge. More tax gets paid by shops on the local high street than when we buy online. Some big businesses have made billions extra this year, while other businesses are on their knees. The Government must level the playing field between physical high street shops in our town centres and the online retail giants. Yet none of this is in the Queen’s Speech. The UK has lost nearly 10,000 shops, 6,000 pubs, more than 7,000 bank and building society branches, and more than 1,000 libraries in the past 11 years. All of that happened under the watch of a Conservative Government, who stood by. These things matter to people, and I can tell the House that they matter to Labour. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) has made that clear time and again, and I will do so too. Action was needed these past 11 years and yet there was none. It is needed even more now, yet there is none in this Queen’s Speech.
Alongside thriving businesses, we also need an economy that delivers for working people. That is what the Labour party is all about. This pandemic has shown so clearly who our country’s key workers are. After all, we were not clapping and banging pots and pans for management consultants; we were cheering the delivery drivers, posties, supermarket workers and our public service heroes, especially those in our NHS and social care. They have kept our country moving and our families safe, and they should be rewarded with a pay rise and not a pay cut. Any meaningful recovery means a new deal for key workers, with investment in their skills, fair pay for a fair day’s work, security and a voice in the workplace. The British people were promised new legislation to protect and enhance workers’ rights now that we are outside the EU, making Britain the best place in the world to work. The British people were told by this Government that there would be fairness in the workplace, better support for working people, and measures to protect those in low-paid work and in the gig economy. The Government said that they would protect
“the majority of businesses who…do the right thing….from being undercut by the small minority who seek to avoid their responsibilities”
to society. That was the absolute minimum that we were promised, yet the Government have not even delivered on that. Why is that? It is because improving workers’ rights has never been, and will never be, the priority of a Conservative Government. And who knows that more than any? Workers at British Gas. They have played a vital role in the last year, but have been fired and rehired on worse conditions. Apparently the Conservatives say that it is wrong. The Chancellor has said that today. We agree. But if it is wrong, why do they not do something about it?
Creating good jobs in all parts of our country, for all people; tackling the climate emergency; making sure that all our town centres are thriving and prosperous; supporting British industry and rights for workers—those would have been Labour’s economic priorities in the Queen’s Speech. They are clearly not the priorities of this Conservative Government. The challenges and the opportunities facing our country are great, yet what the Government are putting forward is so small. After just 24 hours, we can already see how thin this Queen’s Speech is. The foundations were not strong enough going into the pandemic, and people deserve something better than what they had before. The Conservatives have taken for granted those who have kept our economy and our essential services moving this last year, and they continue to undervalue all that our key workers do.
I believe that all our high streets, towns, villages and cities can thrive again if people have more money in their pockets and if we keep more wealth in our local communities. We need jobs that people can raise a family on, and rights that give people dignity, respect and support at work when they need it. Those who work hard should reap the rewards, not just those with access to Ministers or those who believe they can avoid paying their fair share of tax. I believe that we will only truly help our country to meet its full potential when people’s opportunities are not defined by what their start in life was, where they live, or what their accent or job is. We must be ambitious for all of our country, with real and lasting change. These should be the tests of any Government right now, and they are the tests that we will hold this Government to. But from what we have heard this week, and from what we have heard from the Chancellor today, these are tests that this Government look set to fail.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
It would be remiss of me not to start by congratulating the new shadow Chancellor on her role. She will be cognisant of the fact that she has replaced an Aberdeen quine, so she has very big boots to fill indeed.
It is important when we look at the wider discussion of the Queen’s Speech to reflect on what it actually means. Of course, it is the Government’s legislative programme—a programme that they believe they have a mandate to put forward, and a mandate that the Conservatives got in the 2019 general election, when they won 365 seats in this place on 43% of the vote. Of course, in the 2019 general election they won just 25% of the vote in Scotland and hold just six Scottish seats in this House, yet over the last year we have seen the UK Government use that mandate to drag us out of the European Union against our express wishes. They introduced the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to ride roughshod over devolution, alongside the levelling-up fund and the shared prosperity fund—all a blatant attack on devolution. It is not just us nationalists saying that; it is the Labour party in Wales as well, because it is cognisant of the fact that the Welsh Assembly is also under attack.
What do we see planned for the year to come? We see a Conservative Government with a mandate in Scotland of 25% from 2019 seeking to introduce new legislation in relation to immigration—even more draconian than it already is—that will only make things worse, despite the express wishes of the people of Scotland to have a tailored immigration system fitting Scotland’s needs. Of course, we will also see legislation aimed solely at suppressing the right of people to vote by making them take photo ID to the ballot box. The Government are seeking to fix a problem that nobody knew existed, and they are doing it for their own nefarious means.
Of course, in Scotland we had an election last week. The Chancellor failed to reflect on that in his remarks; I do wonder why. On the constituency ballot—first past the post, which Members of this House are extremely familiar with—the SNP won an unprecedented 47.7% of the vote, and 62 constituency seats. In comparison, the Scottish Conservatives won 21% of the vote and just five constituency seats—six if we include Dumbarton, but I would not wish to do that—yet we are told we have no mandate to implement our policies.
Of course, in Scotland we do not just have a first-past-the-post system; we have a proportional Parliament. That has allowed the Labour party to gain some seats; I do not think the Liberal Democrats gained anything on the list this time; and of course the Conservatives gained some more seats on the list. That list vote was remarkable, because a majority of voters in Scotland voted for parties that had an express wish for the people of Scotland to have their say—to have a second independence referendum to decide our own future. A majority of voters on that list vote voted for such parties.
What we have ended up with is a Parliament in Scotland where 72 of the 129 seats are taken up by people who support Scotland’s right to choose. And has that right to choose ever been more important than it is at this moment in time? Has it ever been more important, as we seek to overcome a decade or more of Tory austerity, as we seek to overcome being dragged out of the European Union against our will, and as we seek to build back from the pandemic? But of course we have no mandate, because a Conservative party that has not won an election in Scotland since 1955 tells us that we will not get to decide our own future.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, which is typically passionate. The trouble is that it is a speech that he could have given in any debate. May I urge him to bring his mind back to the criticism of the Conservatives for their appalling Queen’s Speech, rather than giving us the usual stuff, which we hear most days—day in, day out?
Stephen Flynn
I think that is the first reaction to the Scottish Parliament elections that I have heard from the Member—a Labour Member, I believe.
Stephen Flynn
He is a Labour Member. That is astonishing, because I have yet to hear what the Labour party’s views are in respect of the Scottish Parliament. The people of Scotland voted in favour of having that right to choose. I think he should reflect on the fact that the Labour party won just two constituency seats in Scotland. It is perhaps because of its arrogance when it comes to these serious issues of Scotland’s votes that that is such a thing.
I will turn to the Queen’s Speech now; if the hon. Member had bided his time, I would have got there. The reality is that the people of Scotland face the starkest of choices—a choice between deciding their own future, or the legislative agenda of a party that we did not vote for. What does that mean in real terms? It means that, as it stands, the people of Scotland will not have the power to borrow—we have been denied that throughout the pandemic by the Chancellor—that we will have to have nuclear weapons on the Clyde, despite our express wishes not to have them there, and that we will not be able to have climate change put front and centre. If we look at the Queen’s Speech, we see that there is just a cursory mention of net zero. That is simply not on. It is simply not right.
I appreciate that Government Members will likely point to the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan. I imagine that they will even point to the delayed energy White Paper. They might even point to the North sea transition deal, but the legislative footing needs to be more ambitious and the money required for change needs to be there. That has never been more important in the north-east of Scotland. Last year, we saw the price of oil and gas plummet—it collapsed—and the Chancellor did not lift a finger to help. What was the consequence of that failure to act? It was that a third of all job losses in Scotland came from the city and the wider region that I am fortunate enough to represent.
We now have the opportunity to go down the path of net zero, to invest in our future, to put carbon capture and storage into fruition and to make sure that the hydrogen economy is built—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) says, “We are doing it.” How much money are you giving to the north-east of Scotland to make that happen? I asked the Secretary of State that very question and he was unable to answer. The point I am making is that, while we remain within the United Kingdom, that investment must be targeted at the north-east of Scotland.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I ask the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that every time he says “we” in reference to Scotland, he is not respecting the fact that, in the election last week, approximately half of the population did not vote for independence and did not vote for the SNP. It is unfair to stand in this House and not reflect on that.
Stephen Flynn
We can, of course, take that wider question to the Scottish public in a second independence referendum. I am sure that the hon Lady, whose party was roundly destroyed in the elections last year, will back up that support for independence.
I was talking about climate change and its importance in the context of the north-east of Scotland. That investment is important when it comes to securing jobs. The Scottish Government have one hand tied behind their back when it comes to energy, because it is this UK Treasury that has coined in in excess of £350 billion of oil and gas revenues over the decade, and it is this UK Treasury that has a responsibility now to act and to ensure that the north-east of Scotland is protected.
It is not just a case of making sure that there are job opportunities for those whose jobs have gone or whose jobs are now at risk because of the transition that will be made; it is also about protecting those who are currently in employment. If someone is in employment and they look at the Queen’s Speech, they will be asking, “Where is it— where is the Employment Bill that was promised? Where is the protection of workers’ rights?” More than that, they will be asking, “Where is the action that this Government are intending to take when it comes to fire and rehire?” We heard warm words once again from the Chancellor, but my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) has had a Bill before the House for many months now seeking to outlaw the practice of fire and rehire. Where has the Government’s support for that Bill been? They could end that practice and they could end it now, but, of course, they have chosen not to do so. They are not interested in protecting people’s employment rights.
There is one group who deserve to have their rights protected more than any other moving forward and who deserve to have jobs and opportunities and that is our young people. Although there has not been much agreement on a lot of what I have said so far today—that is an understatement—I think that we can all agree that young people have been perhaps the hardest hit by the pandemic. We should not forget, of course, that it is not just the pandemic that is before them. Many people are still feeling the difficulties of the global financial crash of 2008. They are the same people who have had their ability to live, work and study in the European Union taken away from them. These are the people who deserve our support. In Scotland, we are seeking to support them from the earliest of ages.
We are going to ensure that young people have the freedom to go to university without paying any money. In stark contrast to the Conservatives, we are going to make sure that our young people are fed with free school meals. We are going to make sure that the digital divide is ended for our young people, as they are going to have the opportunity to have a free laptop or iPad, all in contrast to the UK Government, and of course we are introducing a jobs guarantee to ensure that every 16 to 24-year-old in Scotland has the opportunity to go to university or college—
Kevin Hollinrake
Of course, jobs depend on economic growth under the stewardship of the SNP. Over the past eight years, average UK GDP growth has been 2% a year, and in Scotland it has been 1.2%. What is the hon. Gentleman going to do about driving the Scottish economy to grow more quickly?
Stephen Flynn
I appreciate we are not allowed to use prompts in the Chamber, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 4 of the SNP’s manifesto, which I am sure he has read. It outlines exactly the next steps as we build back.
Our young people deserve our support, and they have our support in Scotland. More than anything, our young people deserve not just investment but a right to define their own future. We know that in Scotland our young people back independence in their droves. They deserve the right to choose their own future. The people of Scotland deserve the right to choose their own future, and they will have that choice.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Two goals—economic recovery from covid and levelling up opportunity in every part of our country—are at the heart of this bold and ambitious Queen’s Speech. There are proposals to give millions of people the skills they need to make a success of their lives, proposals to upgrade our infrastructure, particularly 5G and faster broadband, proposals to create green jobs in the industries of the future and proposals to lead the world in life science and new medicines. All these will help to deliver progress on those two crucial goals.
I warmly welcome the return of the Environment Bill, with its ambitious framework to set rigorous new targets on matters such as protecting nature and improving air quality, and I am pleased to see action to bring an end to the live export of animals for slaughter or fattening, which is something I have campaigned against for nearly two decades. My time as Environment Secretary gave me some insight into the legal complexities of the issues around live exports, so I will be scrutinising the Bill carefully to ensure it does everything possible to bring an end to that cruel trade.
I sound a note of caution on one aspect of the Gracious Speech: planning reform. In December last year, more than 2,000 local councillors signed an open letter against key proposals in the “Planning for the future” White Paper. The White Paper would see England divided into growth, renewal and protected zones. Local democratic input into planning decisions would be removed altogether in areas designated for growth. That means there would be many thousands of developments over which local people would have no say at all. There would be no planning application to which to object, so the big campaigns led by residents, with which we are all so familiar, would become a matter of history.
The White Paper’s proposed substitute for the planning process in such growth zones is greater community input into the local plan, but that is just not an adequate replacement. It will require people to anticipate, potentially years in advance, proposals that might conceivably affect them in the future. Moreover, a drastic reduction is envisaged in the time allowed to complete a local plan, inevitably meaning less input from the public, not more.
Even in areas where planning applications would still be necessary, the White Paper proposes that, under the guise of simplifying and speeding up the process of creating a local plan, general development management policies should be set nationally. Deployed at local level, those policies currently perform a vital role in preventing overdevelopment. Removing this tool from planning committees and subjecting the whole of England to a one-size-fits-all model, imposed centrally, could give the green light to many high-density building proposals previously blocked by locally elected councillors.
In the weeks ahead, as Ministers—including, no doubt, the Chancellor—take final decisions on the planning Bill, I urge them to drop those aspects of the White Paper that reduce democratic involvement in the planning system. It is not too late to come up with planning reforms that help us to deliver the homes we need but do so with the consent and support of local communities, not by imposition against their will. I urge Ministers to do that, and I look forward to working with them on this important goal.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Speakers Nos. 6 and 7 have withdrawn, so I call David Davis.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
When I saw that I was number 7a on the call list, I thought perhaps I was the first reserve for my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown); I did not realise that I had promotion rights too, so thank you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
One of the effects of the shock of the pandemic, along with other geopolitical changes, is that after 50 years of global trade liberalisation, the world is facing a long period of aggressive mercantilism, and we have to deal with that. The Government are to be congratulated on their ambitious agenda, including record increases in research spending, which has not been mentioned today, the employment drive, the freeport programme, the campaign for ambitious free trade agreements and the bold infrastructure plans. On the non-economic front, I also welcome the excellent proposals to guarantee free speech on campuses. However, I have serious concerns about several aspects of the Queen’s Speech.
Mr Mitchell
Do those concerns include the issue of the 0.7%, on which my right hon. Friend and I have not always agreed in the past?
Mr Davis
My right hon. Friend is quite right: I opposed the increase to 0.7% because I thought that it was too fast and that it would encourage inefficiency, but, once you are at 0.7%, reducing it will lead to the loss of lives, so I absolutely agree with him on that.
The most important of the domestic issues that concerns me is the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. The Bill reverses the reforms that we put in place in 2017 after the scandal of the treatment of Paul Gambaccini, who was on police bail for well over a year before not being charged. Even now, after that reform, far too many suspects are still bailed for years on end. I currently have a case in front of me where an individual has spent five and a half years on bail without an end in sight. This is crippling to an individual’s life—it is like a loose house arrest—and the National Crime Agency shows zero understanding of the cruel damage that is being done to a person’s life by its ridiculously slow investigation. The Bill, as it stands, will make those problems worse by relaxing the current restrictions on police bail. I give notice to the Government that I will aim to amend the Bill.
The Bill also contains a proposal for the mass collection of data under the auspices of preventing and reducing serious violence. Here we have the Government countenancing pre-crime, and to deal with pre-crime, they have to have someone’s medical data, health data and education data—there is no restriction on it. It imposes a duty on an array of authorities, including health providers, to share data with the police. We know from history, including from when people have their phone confiscated, that once the police have this data, getting them to delete it and give it back is the devil’s own job. Indeed, it is near impossible; anybody who has tried it knows that. We are talking here about massively enhancing the powers of the state or an agent of the state to collect as much data on as many individuals as they see fit. I want to see that restricted.
I am concerned about the threat to the right of protest, which this country has enshrined in our national fabric for over 800 years—the right to peaceful demonstration. The Home Secretary promised me from the Dispatch Box that we will be incredibly careful to protect that fundamental right. However, I am afraid that the wording of the Bill, as it stands, simply does not do that. It needs reform and I will endeavour to ensure that it is put right.
Finally, my name, along with that of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), is on the amendment to the Queen’s Speech that calls on the Government to obey the law in areas where the courts have ruled that they are acting illegally. There are a number of cases where the Government have not done what they have been told to by the courts three or four years ago. Many of these cases affect the rights of children. Rule of law is not a theoretical constitutional concept. It affects lives and living standards of bereaved adults and deprived children.
We should, as a Conservative party and a Conservative Government, stand up for the rule of law, even when it is inconvenient and when the Treasury finds it unpleasant because it has to pay out a few hundred million pounds. This Conservative Government should limit the power of the state rather than enlarge it, celebrate freedom rather than curtail it, and operate under the law rather than under ministerial fiat. I hope that this Parliament and all the parties will hold the Government to that. Otherwise, we will risk betraying the ideals of the country that we live in.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I had not planned to speak today, but last Thursday the good people of the west midlands decided that they needed me fighting their corner from the cockpit of the west midlands, rather than from the office of the Mayor, so this afternoon I plan to crack on with a word for the Mayor and a word for Ministers.
To the Mayor, Andy Street, I offer my warmest congratulations. In a year of tragedy, he, too, was hit by personal tragedy, but despite that he continued to work and campaign with grace under pressure. Grace under pressure is what Ernest Hemingway called courage, so I congratulate the Mayor both on his conquest and his courage. He has now earned the right to lead and, I hope, also heard the duty to listen. Forty-six per cent. of my region voted Labour. Labour controls the three great cities of the west midlands, along with the borough of Sandwell.
We also now have challenges, which are multiplying. Healthy life expectancy was falling in our region before covid hit. We have the worst youth unemployment in the country. We have the worst unemployment in the country. Exports were falling £2 billion a year before covid struck. That is why we need the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues in Cabinet to work with the Mayor and Labour leaders in the region to now back some of the most popular ideas that we proposed, which were to lead green Britain and to bring back industry. Once upon a time, our region was the workshop of the world. In this century, we have the potential and the ambition to become the green workshop of a greener planet. There is a win-win to be had with the Government’s 10-point plan, but there are five action points that we need the Minister to drive through in the weeks and months ahead.
First, as the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), said in a brilliant speech, we have to get the gigafactory built at Coventry airport. There are 16 gigafactories already up and running or being built in Europe. In jeopardy are 110,000 jobs in the automotive industry. The window is closing fast and, Chancellor, we need to act quickly.
Secondly, we have to devolve the budget for retrofitting. The green homes grant is what is known in Treasury parlance as “a shambles”. We have to devolve at least £4 billion to the west midlands so that we can make sure that everybody not only has a roof over their head, but has a home that is warm and a home that is green. In so doing, we could create hundreds of thousands of jobs for people without work.
Thirdly, we need a new deal on skills. Apprenticeship numbers have collapsed by 40%. We will have to retrain a generation or two of workers, but at the moment we have the ridiculous situation of the Department for Education handing unspent apprenticeship budget back to the Treasury. We have budgets such as the national skills fund and the national prosperity fund all being dictated from Whitehall. Just hand the whole thing over to the west midlands and trust the people of the west midlands to implement these plans properly.
Fourthly, we need to devolve energy powers, because there are currently firms in the Black Country that have power cuts in the middle of the day because our energy system is so outdated. Fifthly, we need a new deal on transport, because there is a £1.1 billion black hole in our transport spending proposals. Those are the five necessary steps for which the Chancellor should be taking personal responsibility if he is serious about levelling up not simply the country but regions like the West Midlands.
Finally, I wish to make an unashamed special plea for the people of east Birmingham, the part of the country I serve, where five generations of my family have lived and worked. It is the place with the worst unemployment in Britain. I want to work with the Mayor, Labour leaders and the Chancellor to drive through the proper gateway around the new hospital for Arden Cross, because we know that health policy is economic policy. We need the new east Birmingham tramline—all 13 km of it—finally to be built. We need to retrain workers for an ambitious programme of retrofitting. High Speed 2 needs to be instructed to hand back the land at the second biggest industrial site, at the heart of three constituencies with high unemployment, so that we can crack on with building jobs. Crucially, we need the Chancellor’s support for a new towns fund based around the Bordesley action plan.
East Birmingham is a place the size of Nottingham—it could be the fifth or sixth biggest city in the country. Not all fairy tales begin with the words “Once upon a time”; some fairy tales begin with the words “When I am elected”. What we now need from the Government, the Mayor and Ministers is action, not words.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). We do not agree on everything and I have spent the past two years working hard for his opponent, Andy Street, who was elected last Thursday, but I thank him for what he said and for what was a decent and fair campaign in the West Midlands that dignified democracy and did all the main candidates considerable credit.
First, I am a fan of the mayoral system and think that Andy Street will be best placed to secure the right economic judgments and the jobs, training and levelling up. As has been said already in this debate, levelling up is not just geographical but generational. This is first young generation since the world war one that does not believe it will be better off than its parents’ generation. That is an important issue. The devolution of power—which is, of course, part of the answer to the constitutional questions about Scotland, Ireland and the United Kingdom—is very important and it works well in the West Midlands. I strongly encourage the Chancellor to give Andy Street every possible support in the work that he is doing.
In particular, in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield we would like levelling-up funds. I hope very much that we will be in the second tranche, because public spending is critical to securing successful development, sometimes in places that are ostensibly quite well off but need that spending if they are to succeed. Areas such as mine have to go through Birmingham City Council and there are inevitably political difficulties and differences of emphasis. I urge the Treasury to consider that.
Secondly, on the 0.7% aid target, I very much hope that the Chancellor will have heard yesterday the words of the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May); the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley); and others in the House. The Gracious Speech quite rightly calls for girls’ education, which is probably the most effective way of changing the world, but on girls’ education—the Prime Minister’s particular priority—we have seen a 25% cut, with funding set to fall from £789 million in 2019 to a projected £400 million this year. That is a very substantial cut. Funding for UNICEF, which looks after children and was assessed in the British Government’s multilateral aid review to be the best UN agency, has been cut back by 60%. These are very serious issues.
Liam Byrne
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words. Does he agree that at the G7 and later this year at COP26, Her Majesty’s Government would stand a far better chance of encouraging sign-up to the new International Development Association programme if, ahead of those important events, they were prepared to commit to the 0.7% target?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well my strong support for the 0.7%. The point that I am making is that the damage being done to Britain’s reputation, quite apart from the damage to the poorest people in the world, is very severe indeed. I worry that the Treasury does not fully appreciate these factors.
The Chancellor generously gave way to me earlier and I asked him whether he would consider reinstating the 0.7% once the economy reaches pre-covid levels. He said that the damage that was done might be too great for that. I hope very much that he will think about those words. He also mentioned that we have given £400 billion of taxpayers’ support—quite rightly and highly effectively, thanks to his successful stewardship—to our efforts to combat covid. On the cut that he has made to 0.5%, we are talking of 1% of that £400 billion, but the damage that this is doing to Britain’s reputation, quite apart from the damage it is doing to the poorest people in the world, is very savage indeed.
I therefore urge the Chancellor to announce as soon as he can that we will stand by our promise that we made just a year ago in the general election and by the promise that the British Government made on the floor of the General Assembly at the UN, and that we will no longer seek to balance the books on the backs of the poorest people in the world.
The third point that I wanted to make was mentioned in the Gracious Speech, and it is about social care. I am obviously disappointed that the Government have not yet set out quite how they wish to proceed on this matter, but it seems to me that this is a major and important reform that needs to be agreed by all parties. Like pensions legislation, it has a long tail. However, much of the work has already been done by Sir Andrew Dilnot. I hope that the Government will look carefully at those plans and decide whether they are able perhaps to tweak them, but to implement them.
In my constituency, we have big plans for the Royal Sutton Coldfield Cottage Hospital, but those plans require us to understand what the national social care priorities will be. I hope that this legislation will come forward, possibly with the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) and his experienced Select Committee, who might have a role in assisting the Government in refining those plans and aspirations.
The final point that I want to make is about assisted dying. I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on choice at the end of life, and I know that there are very strong feelings in the House on this issue. I greatly respect those who completely disagree with me on the matter, not least since I have completely changed my own mind since I first entered the House many years ago.
Those of us who are supporting Dignity in Dying want a very tight and narrow change made to the law. We believe that this could be the great liberal reform of this Parliament; 84% of our constituents want to see this sort of reform introduced. Significant advances are being made in southern Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Germany and Australia, so I ask that we as parliamentarians consider allowing our constituents who are terminally sick and within six months of dying to be able to exercise their own choices, and not be forced to endure a level of pain and indignity that they do not wish to suffer.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). I strongly share the view that the decision to move away from 0.7% of our national income being spent on development is the wrong one. Not only is it damaging for Britain’s reputation abroad and for numerous programmes such as the girls’ education programme that he highlighted, but ultimately, in the context of covid, it is self-defeating. We will not be able to be to feel secure in a world free from the risk of covid unless we help to build up other countries’ ability to fight covid. Aid is part of that solution.
Britain’s financial services industry is world leading. It generates huge wealth for our country, creates thousands of jobs and delivers considerable soft power in its wake. Hidden in plain sight in the City and beyond are financial mutuals: friendly societies, building societies, credit unions. They are like the steel girders in the Shard; they are not glamorous but their role is critical. Their savings products, life assurance, pensions, mortgages and other products are rarely beaten for value, and as a result they make a huge difference to the quality of life of so many of our constituents. They play another critical role: they keep traditional financial businesses such as banks—shareholder and investor owned—from the temptation to take ever more value from customers’ savings. The City and the financial services industry, as this House knows only too well, have seen enough stories of excessive fees, ridiculous levels of executive remuneration and excessive profit taking. Without mutuals—without that corporate diversity—the industry would be even more open to the consequences of excessive market power.
Sadly, little has changed since the Competition and Markets Authority investigated the banks back in 2016. For all the talk of challenger banks, the big banks that swallowed up all the building societies that demutualised before the financial crash still dominate. Given the obvious lack of appetite for taking on the banks, that market power will not abate any time soon, but Ministers could have used the Queen’s Speech at least to prevent the situation from getting worse. First, they could take the needs of financial mutuals even more seriously by modernising the rules by which they are governed, helping the smaller mutuals to raise capital more easily. Australia is a great case study, as the Economic Secretary is aware. Why on earth has the long-promised deregulation of credit unions not happened?
Secondly, Ministers should investigate the takeover of Liverpool Victoria. The former managing director of the Post Office, Alan Cook, now the chairman of Liverpool Victoria, is selling this 178-year-old friendly society, which was originally founded to help working people in Liverpool to avoid the Victorian scandal of a pauper’s funeral. Presumably Mr Cook expects to make millions from the deal. It is the first major demutualisation of a financial mutual since before the financial crash. Mr Cook cleverly proposed the conversion of LV= to a company limited by guarantee and got the Financial Conduct Authority to agree, all the while telling his owners—his customers—that he was not going to demutualise Liverpool Victoria. Remarkably, that is exactly what he is now proposing to do.
To be fair, the FCA did make it clear to the all-party parliamentary group on mutuals that there would be some boxes it needed to tick as the sale of LV= proceeded. Serious questions are now being asked about the FCA. It was asleep at the wheel when London Capital and Finance was collapsing, again asleep at the wheel when Greensill tottered into insolvency, and now seems determined to take sleeping tablets as a thriving, well-capitalised British success story is being handed over lock, stock and barrel to one of America’s most controversial private equity giants. I urge Ministers to take the opportunity to investigate.
I share the concerns, too, about the proposed complete overhaul of the English planning system. It will drastically reduce the role of councils and communities, such as those in my constituency, in our ability to stop inappropriate development. It will make it harder for councils to make sure that the right sorts of homes are built to the right standard and in the right sorts of places. I urge the Government to think again.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I strongly welcome the focus in the Gracious Speech on jobs, skills, progression and careers. Since 2012, at the peak of unemployment, we had something of a jobs miracle before the start of the pandemic as a result of the creativity of British business, the favourable investment conditions, our flexible labour markets and our effective labour market policies. Now our focus, quite rightly, is on keeping people in jobs, as far as possible, and helping those out of work to return as soon as possible. To call the most recent projections from the Monetary Policy Committee encouraging would be something of an understatement: they are really quite dramatic if they can be realised. All the support that has had to be put in place to make that possible has obviously been very expensive, but it looks as though the record will come to show that that investment will have paid off fiscally as well as in reducing the human cost on individuals, families and firms.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), I hope that we will soon be able to return to our 0.7 % commitment, not only for the reasons he rightly set out, but also in terms of our shared prosperity as a world because of the effect that co-ordinated ODA can have on areas such as improving health outcomes, reducing conflict and general economic development.
Despite the good projections we have seen, we are not out of this yet. We are rightly especially focused on youth unemployment because of its potential scarring effect, and I very much welcome programmes such as kickstart. However, as we look beyond the very short term, we should reflect that the one problem we never cracked in the jobs miracle, despite the great growth, was productivity. The productivity problem did not just exist in the 2010s, or under Tony Blair, or under Margaret Thatcher; we have had a yawning productivity gap against the United States, Germany and France since before I was born. Academics used to talk about a low skills, low wage equilibrium, although we do not hear so much about that now: firms design jobs around the skills that they think are available, and then there is little incentive for individuals to upskill because there are not the jobs available for them to upskill into. We need to break that cycle, and I am confident, with the momentum from this programme, that that can be done.
There have been important reforms such as universal credit, with progression at its heart and removing things like the 16-hour rule, as well as the national living wage, the apprenticeship levy and the growth of high value-added industries, and the plan for growth can help in that, but we need to ensure that growth and opportunity are evenly spread. We have significant challenges to address. Some 11 million adults in England have missed out on A-levels or their equivalent, and a much lower proportion of people reach what is called in the technical jargon levels 4 and 5, which are the higher-level technical qualifications—people not going on to do a degree, but doing those qualifications that can be worth so much.
There is so much change going on in the world, with, for instance, robotics, artificial intelligence, machine learning and voice computing. Any one of these things on their own could constitute an industrial revolution, but right now they are all happening together, and on top of that we have the opportunities and changes that come from leaving the European Union, what we have to do around the net-zero ambition and then of course the new challenges that we face as a result of this pandemic.
I am therefore pleased that skills and investment in human capital are at the heart of this approach. Quality standards and intensiveness of courses were already being addressed through steps like apprenticeship reform, the creation of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education and the institution of T-levels, and I am pleased that that is going to be taken further with a statutory role for employers in the design of qualifications and in the skills accelerators. I also very much welcome the bold plan to significantly reform student finance, which up until now has been very much centred on traditional three-year, away-from-home undergraduate degrees, by making it much more flexible and enabling people to do things in manageable chunks so as to work with their careers and to do more learning from where they live.
We clearly need to go further and build on all of this, and although we are of course focused on young people we must not forget older people: whenever there is a slowdown, there is always the danger that people leave the labour market earlier than they would otherwise have done. We can do more on returnships and helping people get back into the labour market. Sometimes a short, intensive type of training is all that is required, and I would finally just reflect from my time as an Employment Minister and also when we were doing the national retraining scheme that what we heard most in terms of the things that hold people back was not some specific skill but confidence, and helping people through that journey has to be at the heart of what we do.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).
A short time ago I had to remind myself that this debate is about the Queen’s Speech and about better jobs and a fair deal at work for people throughout the United Kingdom, as I did wonder at one point whether I had stumbled into yet another SNP Opposition day debate on independence. They did, however, have one thing in common with today’s debate on the Queen’s Speech, because each of those debates was a missed opportunity—a missed opportunity to scrutinise the Government, question their policies and make proposals as to how they could better reform the world of work and create a fairer deal.
In this Queen’s Speech the Government have missed an opportunity to bring forward an employment Bill. We speak at a time, as has already been mentioned, when the economy has shrunk by 8.7% since before the pandemic and unemployment is standing at 4.9%. That is why I believe and the Liberal Democrats believe that this was an opportunity. We have had many vague promises and hints about employment measures, but an employment Bill would have been welcome, perhaps with something for unpaid carers and something to make flexible working the default position in British society.
I believe it has become clear, with the proposals we have heard this week, that the Government have no long-term strategy for jobs. We are still in a position where the Government are giving us a knee-jerk reaction and patchwork responses to the economic crisis we will be facing later this year. Earlier this year, the Conservatives tried to water down workers’ rights with the post-Brexit review of employment law, but thankfully that effort was stopped in its tracks. Now it looks as if the Government have passed on an opportunity to legislate for the post-pandemic world of work.
The pandemic has created huge shifts in how people work, whether they are office workers working remotely or gig economy workers experiencing a spike in their workload. We need to ensure that, in the post-pandemic world, people can keep on working flexibly where that is right for them, while receiving the support they need from their employers wherever they live and work in the United Kingdom. We also need new protection for vulnerable workers in the gig economy, such as the right to paid breaks and leave, plus a 20% higher minimum wage for zero-hours contracts.
Our recovery must start with small businesses. Small businesses employ more than 16 million people across this country, and it is acknowledged that they are the backbone of our economy. Much of our recovery could come from green jobs if we are to make real progress in tackling the climate crisis, such as long-term programmes to refit homes, cutting bills and emissions, as well as investing in public transport and supporting our farms to plant trees and restore peatland. All that would create jobs, and I believe the recognition of that is also missing from measures set out in the speech.
There are two specific things I would like to appeal to the Government to think about on work. One is giving asylum seekers in this country the right to work. Not only would it give them dignity, but it would contribute to the economy. They would be making a contribution in the workplace and paying tax and national insurance, and they would become valued members of our community. I would also at this time, when we are thinking about recovery from this pandemic, appeal to the Government to think about all those working in the national health service on visas, and offer them indefinite leave to remain as a thank you for what they have done for this country in this crisis.
One last step would be a revenue compensation scheme that would reimburse struggling small businesses for the money they have lost due to the pandemic by covering up to 80% of their fixed costs—rent, insurance, loan payments, bills and so on. Let us send a message to this country that we care. The Government could send the message too that they care about small businesses and that they are thinking about the people who have made such a contribution in this crisis. In September, when furlough is due to come to an end, they could think about tapering it and allowing it to continue until we are truly out of this pandemic, not miss the opportunity to support people building a new future.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), and unlike her, I find much to welcome in this Gracious Speech.
It will not surprise the House at all if I pick out the draft Online Safety Bill—a Bill that has had a long journey so far, some of which I have walked myself, and has further to go. Of course, I warmly welcome its publication, and although it is true that the fact that it is a draft Bill means that much of its impact will be delayed, I do appreciate the Government’s determination to get it right, especially if, as I believe to be the case, they are open to refining and improving the Bill as it makes its way through pre-legislative scrutiny. The detail of course needs to be scrutinised, but we can already say what this Bill is not. It is not a full-frontal assault on freedom of speech, as some would claim. It is a way to address the fact that restrictions on bad behaviour and protections for the vulnerable that exist in other environments do not exist at all online, and that is more and more unacceptable, the more of our lives we spend online. Also, the truth is that freedom of speech is not, and has never been, unlimited offline. We cannot say anything we want in print, in broadcast media or on the street. The criminal law confines us, and so do other standards, of decency or protection of children for example. The same should be true online.
We must of course ensure that we define carefully a duty of care on online platforms to keep their users as safe as they reasonably can, but these are highly capable companies, and systems or business models that permit or even promote harm can and must be changed. Although we should recognise and commend the progress that platforms are already making, we know, and they know, that self-regulation is no longer sufficient. We need an independent regulator with the capacity and the tools to do the job. That is what the Online Safety Bill can achieve, and we have an opportunity to lead the world in doing it.
Of course, in other areas of policy we already lead the world. I was pleased to hear in the Gracious Speech an ongoing commitment to overseas aid, but I noted, too, the absence of any proposed legislation to change the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015. I hope that means that any reduction in the percentage of our national wealth spent on aid is an aberration and a temporary failure to meet the current target in the exceptional circumstances envisaged by, and set out in, the 2015 Act, rather than a policy change. Urgent clarification of that, and of the circumstances in which we will return to 0.7%, would help those of us who could not support a deliberate, strategic and long-term reduction in aid and help to reassure the rest of the world that we will remain a global leader on this subject.
Finally, I come to social care. The problem is evident, but there is a reason why we have not for decades had a functioning social care policy solution. It is because any such solution will be very complicated, and elements of it are likely to be very unpopular. However, this is a collective failure of policy across the political spectrum, and resolving it must be a shared responsibility, because the implementation of any serious social care reform will outlast any single Government. It is also likely to require more of the taxpayer and more of individuals to save for their own care when they can afford to do so.
Mr Perkins
I agree entirely with what the right hon. and learned Member is saying about the complexity of the care issue and the need to work together on it. However, the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and told us that he had a plan that he would bring before us if he was elected. If we are to start a debate, surely the starting point ought to be that plan. Why do we not all see the plan, if indeed it exists, and then we can discuss the bits we all agree on?
Jeremy Wright
I am tempted to agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. He is right that all of us, including the Government, have to be braver than we have been and more willing to recognise the urgency of the situation. He is right that this reform cannot wait.
The truth is that our emergence from the covid-19 crisis demonstrates both the need for social care reform and also the political opportunity for it. Let us take the lesson from the election results we have just had. I think we can conclude from those that the different parties in office across the UK have all been rewarded by the electorate for addressing the crisis before them, even when doing so required difficult and unpopular measures. The challenge facing social care is also a crisis, just one unfolding at a slower speed. It is time, surely, to ask the electorate the support the right response to that crisis, too. Finally, I remind my colleagues on the Front Bench that they have considerable political authority to do this. This is a Government who have, as the hon. Gentleman has reminded us, promised to fix social care and who have a substantial parliamentary majority, there to be used, surely, to keep our promises. So let us get on with it.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
The welcome retreat of covid masks the enormous damage it leaves in its wake and the colossal underlying problems it displaced from the public consciousness. Amid an almost unprecedented economic contraction, more and better jobs is perhaps the most urgent of those issues, but it is far from the only one. The giants of deprivation, division and environmental crisis have not slept while we fought the pandemic. They have grown ever greater to the point where they threaten to do unprecedented damage and perhaps even disintegrate our country. What this Queen’s Speech has again made clear is that this Government lack the ambition and the vision to meet this great challenge as they should. This Administration are about show more than substance, about politics more than purpose. They give the impression of action, while offering half measures so compromised and politicised that they are all too likely to fail.
That is especially evident in South Yorkshire, which already has large areas of deprivation. The long neglect of my region is a great injustice, but it is also a waste of colossal potential and an act of national self-harm that harms us all. In response, we have developed a road map for genuine transformation: not just recovery from covid, but a fundamentally stronger, greener and fairer region. It is the ambition we need for the whole country. We have leveraged devolved funding to create a £500 million renewal fund. We will be investing massively in everything from active travel and buses to our businesses and our young people. But transformation, at least with the urgency we deserve, needs the Government to do their part, too. They say that they are, but scratch the surface and things look different.
The Government’s flagship levelling-up fund is worth significantly less than the local growth fund it replaced. It puts the Chancellor’s Richmondshire constituency in a higher category of need than places such as Barnsley and Sheffield. A third of the English areas it will support are not among the top third of the most deprived regions. The vast majority of them are Conservative areas: penny pinching, pork barrel politics dressed up as transformation. It is a confidence trick.
It is not just about the money, however. We cannot level up without a clear goal and a coherent plan to get there. The Government are yet to even define levelling up beyond vague aspiration. Their investments are scattershot, not strategic. It is welcome that they have appointed a levelling up adviser and are planning a White Paper, but the fact it took them 18 months to do that speaks volumes. We need a fundamental rethink of levelling up.
Critically, that needs to happen alongside a fundamental strengthening of devolution. Even senior Conservatives such as George Osborne agree that we cannot recovery from covid or tackle deeper challenges from Whitehall, but the Government seem to have forgotten their promised devolution White Paper, along with their commission on wider constitutional change. Their fundamental lack of interest is evident in their imposition of piecemeal competitive funding pots, which open the door to politicisation, are poisonous to long-term strategic planning, and force local authorities to dance to Whitehall’s tune and not the needs of their own local community.
Devolution is needed as part of a much wider renewal of politics. The election in Scotland, while not the mandate the SNP is claiming, means the risk of the country disintegrating remains very real, but disillusionment cuts across the whole country. Rather than fight the problem at its roots with a genuine national conversation on reform, the Government are pushing voter ID and undemocratically forcing first-past-the-post voting on mayoral elections out of naked electoral self-interest. Responsibility for the country appears an afterthought compared to staying in power. Amid deprivation and division, our future really is on the line, and our Government are playing politics. I ask them to change course before it is too late.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I rise to welcome the measures announced yesterday in the Gracious Speech, and I do so in the wake of a hard-fought Scottish parliamentary election, whose result has led to a Parliament in Edinburgh with no overall majority. That is a clear message from the people of Scotland that they wish the political parties in that place and this to work together to rebuild from the devastation wrought to so many aspects of our lives as a result of this awful pandemic. I will briefly touch on the Scottish election, although I do not want to be told off, as one Scottish National party Member was earlier. Obviously, I congratulate the SNP on its re-election as the largest party in Holyrood, but it should also be recognised that the Scottish Conservative party achieved its highest number of votes in the age of devolution and matched its highest number of MSPs returned to Holyrood, with 31. They include my brilliant counterpart representing Aberdeenshire West, Alexander Burnett, who trebled the Conservative majority in his constituency, something we were delighted to see.
In poll after poll in the run-up to last week’s election, we saw the Scottish people place the economy, jobs, education and health at the top of their priorities for the Scottish and UK Governments to work on. I hope that that is what the SNP will do, because it is certainly what Conservative Members aim to do. As this is a one nation Government, governing for the entire nation, we are determined to deliver opportunities and build back better, wherever in our wonderful, diverse, dynamic and inventive United Kingdom people live.
The subject of today’s debate is jobs, which is apt because no single action by this Government, other than our incredible vaccine roll-out, has demonstrated the strength and flexibility—the broad shoulders—of our UK more than the job retention scheme, which has saved close to 1 million Scottish jobs since it was launched. That is an incredible achievement, and one of which we can be rightly proud. But now, as we look to recovery, it is time to be bold and to invest in new technologies and unleash the full potential of people and places across the UK, driving this country forward and enabling businesses to create the jobs of the future, for my constituency in the north-east of Scotland and across the whole UK. That is what this country is doing.
I listened intently to the speech by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) earlier, and it is a shame he is no longer in his place. Although I did not agree with most of it, there was one part I did agree with, which was that the north-east of Scotland has had a torrid half-decade or so, above and beyond covid. The oil price crash of 2014 to 2016 saw the price drop by 70%, and many jobs were lost. Supply chain companies were only just recovering when the pandemic hit. However, unlike him, I recognise and welcome what this and previous Conservative Governments have done for the industry and our region: £2.3 billion of direct investment; the Oil and Gas Technology Centre created; the global underwater hub created; the creation of the Oil and Gas Authority; and fiscal stability in the North sea, making it the most attractive basin in the world in which to invest.
Do we need more? Does the region need more? Do we need to invest more to see the transition succeed? Of course we do, which is why I welcome the groundbreaking, ambitious and world-leading oil and gas transition deal, unveiled just before prorogation in this Parliament. This is investment of £16 billion by 2030 in new technologies, supported by business models to enable carbon capture and storage and hydrogen at scale. All the while it is protecting the jobs of my constituents and supporting up to 40,000 direct and indirect supply chain jobs in decarbonising the continental shelf production and in the CCS and hydrogen sectors, and all while we reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the industry, to ensure that the North sea is a net zero basin by 2050—that is ambition.
This plan, along with the others announced yesterday to make the UK a global science superpower, to support young people in education and with the kickstart scheme as they enter the world of work and to transform our transport and digital infrastructure across these islands, is exactly what this country needs and it will deliver for the people of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine.
It is quite obvious that I am very proud to represent my constituency in this place and to represent the wider north-east of Scotland. I am proud to be both Scottish and British. I am proud to sit here as part of this one nation Conservative party that is determined to level up our entire country and provide opportunity to all, keep our country united and lead our world forward. Today, I am very proud to support our plan for this coming Session of Parliament, and I cannot wait to see it in action.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
It would have been an even bigger pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) if he had announced what actually happened in the Scottish elections last week, which in fact resulted in a majority for people absolutely supporting independence. However, I want to talk about this Queen’s Speech, which is more notable for what it does not include than for what is in it, especially in relation to employment issues and even more especially in relation to employment issues experienced by people with disabilities, who, according to this Government’s own figures, equate to 20% of the UK population.
This Government have failed to deliver the employment Bill that they promised in the last Queen’s Speech, and they are missing the opportunity to protect workers’ rights and close the disability employment gap. They must ensure that all employment schemes such as Kickstart and Restart are fully accessible to disabled candidates on an equal basis. A failure to do so further increases the disability employment gap.
Time and again, disability groups have called on the Government to make disclosure of disability pay gap information mandatory, so that a full assessment can be made of the pay inequalities in the workplace. The re-elected SNP Government are committed to expanding the specific duties that require a listed public authority to publish gender pay gap information to include disability and ethnicity pay reporting and to ensure that these are included with equal pay statements, but without action from the UK Government, we will never gain a full picture of the level of equalities that disabled workers face.
This Queen’s Speech does nothing to address statutory sick pay, which is wholly inadequate. It is one of the lowest in the OECD and a barrier to disabled workers remaining in employment. Disabled workers who experience ongoing illness often give up employment as they cannot live on SSP. If the UK Government are serious about closing the disability employment gap, they must provide sick pay that treats workers with dignity. The SNP continues to demand that the UK Government increase SSP in line with the real living wage, that they make it available to everyone by removing the requirement to be a qualified worker and the earning requirement, and that they extend it to 52 weeks instead of 28.
For many disabled workers, flexibility in their working hours enhances their ability to successfully continue in employment. It was said that the employment Bill in the 2019 Queen’s Speech would encourage
“flexible working, ensuring that both employers and employees get the maximum benefits from flexible working”
and that
“the Bill will make flexible working the default unless employers have good reason not to.”
Why is that not in this Queen’s Speech? The SNP would also like the UK Government to provide guidance to employers on reasonable adjustments and create statutory timescales for implementation. Too many disabled workers either struggle in work or leave because they are ignored when they request adjustments. A legal responsibility must be placed on employers to meet disabled workers’ needs.
The pandemic has exacerbated the barriers that disabled people face when looking for and staying in employment, which has had a disproportionate impact on disabled employees. That has led to an increase in the disability employment gap. What is in this new legislative agenda for disabled people in terms of economic recovery and employment support? There is nothing new to help those who have suffered disproportionately.
Given the commitment and ambitions of the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament, it is obvious that employment powers would be better utilised by them, as opposed to being in the hands of another Tory Government who have prioritised the wealthy over the workers. That is why the SNP continues to call for the devolution of employment law. Scotland’s ability to tackle unfair working practices and fully protect workers’ rights remains limited while employment law is reserved to Westminster.
It costs someone more to live if they are disabled—an average of £530 a month or more—and this Queen’s Speech does nothing to correct that. Nearly 1 million disabled people still receive income-related support allowance, rather than universal credit. There is no uplift for them during this pandemic. That means that, on average, £100 for a non-disabled person is equivalent to just £68 for a disabled person. Let us just think about that. There is still an opportunity for the UK Government to deliver for disabled workers, and for workers generally, by implementing Members’ asks on statutory sick pay and mandatory reporting and by extending the uplift in universal credit—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I have to interrupt the hon. Lady. I hope that she was about to come to a conclusion, but she has significantly exceeded her time, so I am afraid I have to stop her there. I do not think that she can hear. I do not know quite how the system is working today. I was trying to give her some leeway, but I have to stop her now. I call Tobias Ellwood.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You articulate why it is so important for us all to return to this Chamber in person, as I hope we will before too long.
I am thankful to be able to address the Queen’s Speech, which is significant not just in mapping out the legislative programme, promoting UK strengths, building businesses and jobs and so forth, but in marking the transition from managing covid-19 to actually defeating it and returning to some form of normality. Simply put, the 2019 election manifesto was put on hold as the focus tilted towards economic intervention and of course the amazing vaccine roll-out, so that we are finally able to come to terms with this pandemic. Now, however, we can return to that agenda.
The incredible electoral success that we had on Thursday, marked not least by the totemic win in Hartlepool, confirmed something so important for us Conservatives: that we are adapting, and learning to advance and appeal way beyond our normal areas. We are not just connecting but cementing bonds in parts of the country where I never thought we would be able to do so. That is very much a positive, but it is now time to prove that levelling up is not just a slogan and that it is, in fact, a philosophy.
The legislation in the Queen’s Speech that we have heard in the last couple of days allows us to do just that, with a united approach, but building on regional and complementary strategies. There is limited time to discuss that in today’s debate. I will focus on one particular aspect, which I hope the Minister will perhaps comment on in his wind-up, to do with the Northern Ireland legislation. I tried to pursue a solution to the vexatious claims that have troubled veterans for decades and I was never able to find the legal instrument that would allow us to support veterans alone.
The Queen’s Speech mentioned that there will be consideration of advancing a truth and reconciliation process that looks to support those on both sides of the aisle. I absolutely believe that that is the way forward. We cannot just support one side of the argument. That is against international humanitarian law. It would also never pass the Northern Ireland Assembly. These are very difficult questions, but if we are to build on the good work of the Good Friday agreement and finally conclude this, I hope that the Government will make it a priority.
More widely, covid-19 has cast a dark shadow over all our lives. Our nation has been tested before, but certainly we have come through it even stronger and more united. However, the post-covid world that we now wake up to is very different from the pre-pandemic world that we remember. Our adversaries and competitors have taken full advantage of this global distraction to further their own agendas. As I have reminded the House many times, global threats are increasing. The world is getting more dangerous than during the cold war. Why? Because of the diversity and complexity of those threats, and the rise of states pursuing a very different interpretation of international world order.
There is a 1930s feel to where we are today, with weak global institutions, rising powers, global economic challenges, and of course a lack of western co-ordination. I put it directly to the Prime Minister: “You now have the opportunity, as we emerge from covid-19 not only to rebuild Britain but to help a latterly risk-averse and distracted west to regroup and re-establish what we stand for, what we believe in and what we are willing to defend.” I pose the question: “Do you think the world will be safer or more dangerous over the next five years?” Privately, we all know the answer to that.
How we handle the changing international dynamics over the next five years will likely have repercussions for the rest of the century. So I say to the Prime Minister that with the empowered mandate that Government now have, they must use this opportunity, as the cloud of covid starts to pass, not only to rebuild and strengthen Britain but, as we host the G7 group of nations, to commit to playing a more concerted leadership role on the international stage. I give warning that if we do not invest more in our hard and soft power, we will lose our influence as a force for good on the international stage.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) [V]
The Government failed Britain’s workforce yesterday, with no mention of an employment Bill in the Queen’s Speech. I have read the briefing notes, including the section on living standards and the plan for jobs, but without an explicit employment Bill there is a major gap in the Queen’s Speech.
Clearly, we need a recovery plan from the covid-19 pandemic, and there must be change. It is uppermost in workers’ minds that furlough ends at the end of September, but once again we see the usual Conservative party response, wanting a return to business as usual. For many workers, that means low pay, insecure employment, zero-hours contracts or limited-hours contracts, and a gig economy with few employment rights and no right of redress against rogue or unscrupulous employers. Labour wants better jobs and a fair deal at work, but that cannot be achieved within the current balance of power, which is skewed so heavily against working people.
The Government have turned their back on workers’ rights in the package of Bills announced yesterday, but I hope that in the private Members’ Bill ballot, which is opening shortly, we have the opportunity to bring forward a Bill to ban the appalling and increasingly common practice of industrial blackmail that is fire and rehire. I declare an interest and thank my own trade union, Unite, and, indeed, all the other trade unions, for highlighting this appalling practice and doing all in their power to campaign to defend the wages, terms and conditions of working people. The Prime Minister will have received a letter from Unite the union signed by over 140 hon. and right hon. Members of this House, by peers and by 20 trade union leaders calling on him to outlaw the shameful practice of fire and rehire. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the letter has been met with stony silence.
To make matters worse, the Government are still refusing to release the publicly funded ACAS report on this practice. If I may, I want to take issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s opening remarks. I am sure that he would not deliberately mislead the House, but he said quite clearly that Ministers were awaiting the report from ACAS. In fact, Ministers received the report on 17 February, so they are already in possession of it. I wonder what inconvenient truths lie in that report that are causing them not to publish it.
This issue needs immediate action. Ministers have allowed a situation to develop where one in 10 workers will be threatened with fire and rehire, with disputes ongoing at a number of companies and organisations, including Go North West, Jacobs Douwe Egberts, Goodlord and Heathrow airport. Indeed, yesterday, the National Union of Journalists condemned an attempted case of fire and rehire at the Oxford Mail and The Oxford Times. The UK lags behind countries, including Ireland, Spain and France, that have already banned it. If a Government committed to protecting bad employers does not make people angry, people should know that many of the companies engaged in this practice have received large sums of public money. Some have seen profits increase substantially, yet this Government place no conditions on the support that they have received.
Many ordinary working people are suffering, so yesterday I was proud to join Unite members, representatives and officers, and Labour MPs to make it plain that we stand with working people. I am immensely proud to do so as a Labour and trade union MP.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). I totally agree with him that levelling up has to be very much about better jobs and a fairer deal at work.
The scale of the challenge of levelling up is huge. As I said in my intervention on the Chancellor, the economic disparity in productivity and economic output per capita between the north-east and London and the south-east is, in relative terms, as large as it was between East Germany and West Germany prior to reunification. It took 30 years and $2 trillion in investment and incentives for businesses to narrow that gap, and it is still not fully narrowed.
The other lesson from Germany is that this cannot be done just by public sector spending; the private sector has to invest too. According to Andy Haldane, the chief economist at the Bank of England, there is an economic gap: overall economic activity per capita is £45,000 in London and the south-east, and £18,000 in the north-east. That leads, of course, to a gap in prosperity, which is what levelling up has to be about. Average wages are £41,000 in London and the south-east, and £28,000 in the north-east.
This is a huge challenge. It is great that the Government have a real ambition and the right scale of ambition. The good news is that this is not a zero-sum game. If we get the whole economy firing on all cylinders, the very fact that household consumption accounts for 58% of overall spending in our economy means that it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy: when all areas become more prosperous, there will be more spending—more economic activity. That has to be good for everyone.
The Government have made a historic start, not just in the amount of money they are spending—they have pledged to spend £600 billion on infrastructure over the five years of this Parliament, a 50-year high; the highest public sector net investment in the past five decades—but in where they will spend it. In the past, the Green Book has allocated expenditure principally where the well-paid jobs are. Creating 100 new jobs in London and the south-east, at £41,000 each, will mean a much better return in terms of value for money than creating 100 jobs in the north-east, so obviously, the Green Book has always prioritised investment in London and the south-east.
The Government have quite rightly changed that; strategic objectives are now part of the equation of where money is spent. I very much welcome that. It is critical to this discussion. The Government have also promised to change where we invest in infrastructure for housing through the housing infrastructure fund, on pretty much the same basis. That is a really good start in terms of public sector investment in infrastructure—roads, railways and other things.
The Government are also moving jobs around the country, with the UK infrastructure bank coming to Leeds and Treasury North to Darlington, and the Cabinet Office going to Glasgow. That just shows what we can do with public sector moneys in terms of levelling up. Of course, there is also the huge green investment that the Government are going to make with taxpayers’ money.
The key thing, though—we must learn the lesson from Germany—is that this cannot be about one Parliament. It cannot be subject to electoral cycles; it has to be a much longer strategic investment. This has to happen over 30 years—and, as I said, it cannot just be about public sector investment.
Mark Littlewood, the director general of the Institute of Economic Affairs, wrote a very interesting article about this in The Times. He asked, if this is all about infrastructure—if prosperity is about connectivity, in terms of roads and railways—why is Doncaster not more prosperous? The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), will no doubt reflect on that. Why is Doncaster not more prosperous? It is very well connected. We need the private sector to invest alongside; that is the key thing. We can do that through devolution and get our excellent metro mayors, from either side of the political divide, to attract more private sector investment in their areas. It would help tremendously to have greater tax incentives in some of these areas to attract foreign direct investment. We do not have a regional policy for foreign direct investment. That would help tremendously. Enhancements of things such as the enterprise investment schemes for those regions, which would encourage private investors to invest in their region, could have a transformational effect on the public sector investing in those areas. Finally, regional mutual banks could have a transformative effect on local investment by connecting investors with SMEs in the regions that need investment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
After the next speaker, the time limit will reduce to four minutes, but with five minutes, I call Caroline Lucas.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This was the first Queen’s Speech of this decade, but also the last one ahead of the UK-hosted COP26 climate summit in Glasgow. So it was a vital moment to set out a bold, ambitious plan for a greener, fairer future, in which we can all thrive; to redesign the economy so that its express purpose is delivering the wellbeing of people and the planet; and to create millions of good-quality green jobs in every corner of the country. Instead of that, we got a reheated Environment Bill that currently is not fit for purpose, a planning Bill that robs people of the right to shape the places where they live, and a voter ID Bill that ignores the real problems with our democracy, in favour of trying to solve a problem that frankly does not exist.
The Government’s legislative programme is a recklessly wasted opportunity. It is not as if we did not know what needed to be done. More than 100 cross-party Members of this House have come together to support a new Bill—the climate and ecological emergency Bill—to address the climate and nature crises together, and more than 40 have so far backed my amendment calling on the Government to introduce it. The Bill would ensure that the UK does its fair share to limit global heating to 1.5° by taking responsibility for our entire greenhouse gas footprint, with imported emissions and those from international aviation and shipping included, and by focusing on cutting emissions at source. At the same time, it will protect nature and restore abundant biodiverse habitats, and establish a citizens’ assembly to advise Ministers and Parliament on a strategy to achieve those goals. Such legislation would create the foundations for a future in which humankind and the planet can survive and, crucially, thrive as well.
Let me briefly highlight four more Bills that need to form part of any green recovery worthy of the name. The Secretary of State’s refusal to rule out issuing new North sea oil and gas licences is the very opposite of climate leadership. We need a fossil fuel non-proliferation Bill to break our deadly addiction and give backing to a global treaty that would end all exploration and production of fossil fuels, phase out existing stockpiles and work with local communities to deliver a just transition. I pay tribute to the work of Platform, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Scotland for their pioneering work on this.
Transitioning away from a fossil-fuel powered economy to one that is green and fair is also the primary purpose of a green new deal. It would create more than 1 million well-paid, good-quality green jobs, where everyone has a role in laying the foundation for a fairer, sustainable future. There have been countless research reports making the case that investing in the green economy is the fastest and most cost-effective way to recover post covid. Recent data from Green New Deal UK has revealed the potential for this jobs-rich green recovery in every constituency. To save Ministers’ time, there is already a green new deal prepared, which the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) and I presented in the last parliamentary Session, and we would be delighted if the Government were to take it over.
Crucially, a green new deal would give businesses the long-term certainty that they need to thrive. It is time to harness the pioneering role played by many companies and create an environment that promotes and rewards doing good business. A better business Bill would amend the Companies Act 2006 to require firms to operate in a way that benefits all stakeholders, including workers, communities and the environment, as well as shareholders. More than 500 businesses have already come together to demand these changes to UK law to enable companies to thrive in partnership with people and nature, not at their expense. But we need to do more than that, shifting not just the focus of business but the focus of our entire economy, because we will not build back better by doubling down on the same outdated economic system that is fuelling the fires of the climate crisis and making society more unequal and less resilient. The Treasury’s own Dasgupta review of the economics of biodiversity is a clarion call for urgent change in how we think, act and measure economic success. A wellbeing economy Bill would shore up the foundations on which we build a better future. It would require the Government to adopt new economic goals that put people and planet first, and that would include the Treasury, so that the economy serves society, not the other way around. To better reflect that new purpose, the Bill would make the health and wellbeing of people and nature the main measures of economics, not GDP growth.
There is a gaping environment and climate-shaped hole at the heart of the Government’s legislative programme. The five Bills that I have outlined are critical to filling those holes and setting us on the right course as we go forward.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure, as always, to speak today and represent the residents of the Clacton constituency.
There is much to welcome in the Queen’s Speech: a fairer immigration system; new protections and support for victims of crime, and increased sentences for serious and violent offenders; the strengthening of the armed forces covenant; the modernisation of renting and planning; and the end of anomalies with leaseholds, which can be so exorbitant. This is a programme that reflects a Government who are listening to and delivering on people’s priorities.
I am particularly pleased with new measures to help people into better jobs, especially the revolutionary lifetime skills guarantee, which will be extremely valuable for the Clacton constituency. Our area, as I have said in this place many times, relies heavily on tourism for jobs. Prior to the pandemic, it represented about 17% of all employment in our area. The results of my recent covid recovery survey showed that this heavy reliance on tourism continues.
Yes, the Government are helping businesses back to normality with restart grants, the business rates holiday, a VAT cut and the “Welcome back” fund, and of course the next stage is the wonderful unlocking next Monday, which will also do so much to help hospitality. Sadly, however, there will still be casualties. There will still be businesses that do not reopen, despite our best efforts. That is true not just for tourism but for all industries, which is why the lifetime skills guarantee scheme is so vital. It will help people to retrain after the pandemic, while equalling out opportunities for training and employment in the future, and setting people up on the route to better, well-paid jobs. It will do this across a wide range of job-relevant courses, including training in industries that will be of central importance as we build back better. We are helping people to get the skills that employers are looking for, thereby giving them the best chance of finding better jobs.
Those who vote against the motion or legislation to enact the scheme will do nothing but rob those hard-working, aspirational people of valuable opportunities to reskill—opportunities that until now have been out of their reach. I will not do that. I will support the motion and the skills and post-16 education Bill, when it arrives in this place, to ensure a levelling up of opportunities. Of course, I will also do all I can in this place to help those businesses as they reopen.
There is still much that the Government can do in this area, including by introducing a differentiation in beer duty to help hospitality, helping our arts, cultural and sporting institutions back on their feet, maintaining that help until they are welcoming back full houses once more, and promoting the wonderful destinations we have here in the United Kingdom, which includes the wonderful sunshine coast of Clacton. Our best beaches are here, and I am proud to represent them. The way to help businesses in Clacton is to get people visiting our seaside destinations regularly. Create demand and, I believe, we create jobs.
On jobs, I also welcome the Bill to create the freeports, which include a site at Harwich and Felixstowe. That is another thing that will help the Clacton constituency, with jobs that will be filled by an increasingly upskilled workforce. Further, I recognise the importance of the Bills to improve the NHS and the Bill to improve the highest standards of animal welfare—two issues that I know my constituents care deeply about, as do I. I look forward to supporting that legislation in due course.
Finally, I thank the Government once again for prioritising the environment in this Queen’s Speech. We will set binding targets, but we will build back greener, creating highly skilled jobs as part of the green industrial revolution. I have no doubt that the Clacton constituency will be a part of creating and filling those new employment opportunities.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is very interesting to follow the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling), who appears to have made it all the way from Clacton to Portcullis House but not quite managed to get over the final 200 yards, which is quite an interesting metaphor for the Government’s Queen’s Speech. It promises so much, as the Government have over the last 11 years, yet, as is so often the case, there is less to it than originally meets the eye.
This is an entirely incoherent Government, and, most importantly, it is a Government who do not do what they say and who do not mean what they say. We had the stunning statistic from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake)—I thought this was very interesting—that the gap between London and the south and the north of England is bigger than the gap between West Germany and East Germany before unification. What a stunning demonstration of the failure of the northern powerhouse, which we were all told to celebrate seven or eight years ago.
Kevin Hollinrake
The point is that we need to put political differences aside on this issue. Decades of underinvestment have brought us here. The hon. Gentleman is trying to make a cheap political point, but that is not at all what I was saying.
Mr Perkins
I am making a political point because we have had a Conservative Government for 11 years and I see videos on television showing people who have decided to vote Conservative because they are fed up about the health service or about ports closing, not realising that it is the policies of a Conservative Government, which Government Members have been voting for all these years, that have caused these problems.
When we look at what is in front of us, we see, for example, the lifetime skills guarantee. The lifetime skills guarantee existed under a Labour Government. In 2013, this Government got rid of it and now they want us to celebrate their bringing back, in a less ambitious form, exactly what existed previously under Labour. We have the apprenticeships levy. Since the introduction of the apprenticeships levy, apprenticeship numbers have fallen. We have a Prime Minister who, two years ago, stood on the steps of Downing Street and said, “On social care, trust me—I’ve got a plan.” The reality is that he is now coming back and saying, “Well, let’s have a chat about it because I’d like to work together on it.” The reality is that this Government have said one thing and done another.
The Government are talking about a revolution in skills. We have had 11 years of funding cuts. We have had cuts to adult education of over 50%. They are absolutely monumental, and now the Government have the audacity to stand there and suggest that they are the way that we solve the skills crisis. Hon. Members have spoken in this debate about the productivity gap between Britain and some of our European competitors. When we have had the cuts that we have seen to work-based learning and adult education—not just to funding, but to the numbers—and the impact that the introduction of the trebling of tuition fees has had on work-based learning and on people bettering themselves, is it any wonder that we have this productivity failure in front of us?
The Queen’s Speech talks about infrastructure. HS2 is an important infrastructure project, which was envisaged under the Labour Government. Never before has there been a Government spending as much money as they are on HS2 yet simultaneously looking so unenthusiastic and so incompetent in delivering it. I firmly believe in HS2 but I wish that we had a Government who believed in it as much as I do, and they are the ones actually spending the money.
The Government have abandoned smaller businesses. The Queen’s Speech talks about increasing the amount of trade that we do with the Gulf, Africa and the Indo-Pacific. I entirely agree with that, but the reality is that we have a large market on our doorsteps and the current arrangements that we have as a result of Brexit prevent small manufacturers from being able to trade with those companies. Companies in the UK say to me that if they do not have enough for an entire lorryload to export, it is impossible for them to do so. Recently, Sir David Frost, the architect of the UK-Northern Ireland protocol, said that the protocol is not “sustainable for long”. This is a Government who in every regard are telling us one thing, failing to deliver, and then coming back and suggesting that they are the solution to the very problems they have created.
Small businesses have been left in a very difficult situation. We have seen the number of apprenticeships that small businesses are able to get involved in completely reduced as a result of the complexity of the apprenticeships system. Many small businesses have really struggled through the pandemic because their directors were excluded from the self-employment support scheme.
The self-employment scheme was great for those who qualified, but the reality is that there were many people in many sectors who carried on working right through the pandemic and were also able to pocket a very generous pay-out from the Government, but there were also 3 million people who, for a variety of different reasons, were excluded. The Government spent huge amounts of money on a scheme that missed many people for different reasons, and which simultaneously gave a huge amount of money to some people who were gratefully able to receive it, but who, it could be argued, were not necessarily the right people.
We have a Government who do not mean what they say and who do not deliver what they say they will. This Queen’s Speech is an incoherent example of all their failings.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) [V]
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) on behalf of the people of Mid Norfolk, and to speak a little more optimistically and positively about this country and its future, and reject the narrative of doom and gloom from the Opposition Benches.
In particular, it is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at the end of a year in which he has inherited a crisis like no other, and, in the eyes of my constituents, passed the test with flying colours by announcing with speed last year a commitment to “do whatever it takes” and to take unprecedented measures to ensure that this country comes through the pandemic.
It is in no small part due to the Treasury’s commitment —to the 9 million people in employment the Treasury has helped and the 2.7 million in self-employment; with the tens of billions of pounds for small and medium-sized companies, and the £407 billion of relief moved at pace to support our economy—as well as the genius of our life sciences sector and the huge success of the Government’s vaccination programme that we are now in a position to lead the recovery post pandemic. It would be nice to hear Opposition Members at least pay some tribute to some of that extraordinary leadership this year. The polls last week show where the public have their trust, and the Opposition would do well at least to acknowledge that the Government are dealing very well with a historic crisis.
I particularly welcome the announcements on science in the Queen’s Speech, including the £22 billion commitment and the creation of our new Advanced Research and Invention Agency. I also welcome the skills guarantee, so that everyone around the country has a chance to take part in the new economy that we are creating, and the commitments to go further and faster on infrastructure.
I mentioned the figure that the covid crisis has cost us: £407 billion has been the total Government support, although the total cost will be much higher. I wanted to address the real question that we must all face: who pays for this debt? It is simply not fair for us to bequeath the debts of this crisis to the next generation, and that means it is incumbent on us to find the mechanisms to drive up prosperity, growth and opportunity. As we leave the European Union and take sovereignty over our regulatory and trade powers, it is important that we grip that opportunity and unleash the full genius of British science, innovation and engineering to create new sectors and new jobs.
Earlier this year I was delighted that the Prime Minister asked me and my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) to lead a taskforce on innovation, growth and regulatory reform. We reported this week and our recommendations go to the heart of the measures in this Queen’s Speech—a new framework for regulation in the UK to be able to lead the world in the regulation of new sectors, and to use regulation to lead in innovation across the life sciences, clinical trials, digital health, agri-tech, nutraceuticals, the decarbonisation of transport, mobility as a service, satellites, and scale-up finance in the City. If we make such reforms, we can create here in the UK a genuine innovation nation—a small country, yes, but one that punches above its weight in developing the clean-tech, agri-tech and med-tech solutions that the world desperately needs as it faces an agricultural and industrial revolution in the next 30 years like the one we led here more than 200 years ago.
All that will be good not just for Britain but for local communities, because new sectors of growth create clusters right throughout the country—from hydrogen in Aberdeen to plant breeding in Aberystwyth and immunotherapies at Queen’s University Belfast. The Queen’s Speech is a speech for opportunity, regeneration and recovery as one nation, strengthening the Union and creating opportunities for people whoever and wherever they are. On behalf of the people of Mid Norfolk, I strongly commend it to the House.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Ahead of the Queen’s Speech, Opposition Members called on the Government to prioritise jobs in the recovery from the pandemic. As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, after a year of sacrifice we needed a Queen’s Speech that rose to the scale of the challenge and was transformative for our economy, public services and society, but what we got lacked ambition and a plan to meet that challenge.
For example, we did not get an uptake on the long-awaited and much needed employment Bill. It is imperative that the Government take swift action to deal with the scourge of insecure work, including by putting an end to exploitative working practices such as fire and rehire. I know constituents who have been caught in such traps—most recently at British Gas—and met some of them during the recent election campaign. Their accounts of the way they have been treated, often after years of loyal service, are deeply unfair. It is a reminder of the urgent need to reform employment practices so that everyone is treated with dignity and respect at work.
The Queen’s Speech was notable for what it excluded as much as for what it included. For all the talk about levelling up, there was no meaningful indication of support for an industry that should be at the very heart of that agenda: steel. Steel communities are a key part of our industrial future. There cannot be an advanced economy or an economic recovery from the pandemic without a resilient steel sector. Our steel producers need action on industrial energy costs—we have been going on about that for ages—and we need to ensure that British steel manufacturers, such as those in Newport East, are at last at the front of the queue for Government contracts.
Platitudes about levelling up across the regions and nations of the UK are popular with Government Ministers, but these Ministers are less keen on talking up Wales, and there was scant mention of Wales in yesterday’s Queen’s Speech. We are still waiting on assurances from Tory Government Ministers on their “not a penny less” promise on the replacement of European structural funds and on long-overdue investments in our transport network. It is wrong that Wales accounts for 11% of the UK rail network but receives only 2% of rail investment enhancement from the Department for Transport.
I express my deep disappointment, and that of campaigners and charities throughout the country, that the Queen’s Speech failed to incorporate long-awaited reform of the benefits system for terminally ill people. We are now approaching the two-year anniversary of the Government’s review of access to welfare benefits for the terminally ill and we are still no closer to the scrapping of the cruel six-month and three-year rules that force people to spend their final months grappling with a complex and uncaring system.
We have continuously raised the issue with Ministers over the past year, alongside the Motor Neurone Disease Association, Marie Curie and other campaigners, to whom I pay tribute for keeping it high on the agenda, especially on social media. The responses have been vague and non-committal, with promises of updates “soon” followed by inaction. Ministers say that they are receptive to the campaign and acknowledge the need for reform, but I question why we are stuck in this limbo. Two years since the review was announced, thousands have died while waiting for a decision on their benefits claim, so will Ministers on the Front Bench today convey to the Department for Work and Pensions people’s anger and frustration and ask the Department to sort the situation out?
Finally, on policing, despite warm words from the Government, the truth is that they have still not addressed the impact of their swingeing cuts to policing over the past decade. Today, the police workforce nationally has 23,824 fewer personnel than in 2010. Operation Uplift is welcome, but it still does not take things back to 2010 levels or beyond. The Government must do better for our police services and for communities such as Newport East.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
There is so much to welcome in the Queen’s Speech, which will make our great country safer, stronger and fairer. I am particularly pleased to welcome the legislation to support the introduction of the UK’s first freeports. We have already seen the impact of this Budget announcement in the Tees Valley, where GE Renewable Energy has committed to creating 2,250 jobs, mostly within the confines of the freeport zone.
Speaking of the Tees Valley, it would be remiss of me not to congratulate my friend Ben Houchen on his astounding victory in the mayoral election last week. To win re-election with 73% of the vote represents a huge personal mandate but also a resounding endorsement by the people of the Tees Valley of this Government’s plan to deliver on their priorities. That stands in stark contrast to the remarks of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), which were so typical, I am afraid, of the doom and gloom that characterises the Opposition’s approach not just to the crisis and our handling of it but to the wider prospects and outlook of this country. That goes to the heart, I fear, of their electoral dilemmas.
Creating a more prosperous country where someone’s life chances are linked not to where they come from but to who they are capable of being lies at the heart of the mission of levelling up. A good job, a good school for their children and a good home of their own are what millions of people rightly yearn for. On the last point, the planning legislation in the Queen’s Speech is vital if we are to deliver the number of homes required where they are most needed.
In constituencies such as mine, an ordinary family can, with hard work, aspire to own a really nice home of their own. Sadly, however, we need to acknowledge that in too much of the south of our country, our housing system is more less, as a market, completely broken. People working hard, even two-earner couples, are priced out of any realistic prospect of owning the home that they want and are instead trapped in an overpriced and heavily subsidised rental market, which further diminishes their ability to save.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The issue of planning is particularly important for my constituency, which is growing at three times the national average already. Does my hon. Friend accept that one welcome aspect of reform would be that for the 1 million housing approvals already in place, the economic incentives are there and the pressure is there for those to be implemented?
Mr Clarke
I absolutely take my hon. Friend’s point. He is quite right that this is a complex problem and we need to address aggravating factors, including land banking by developers, which undoubtedly makes the situation harder to address.
We must confront the difficult reality that this is fundamentally a problem of supply. We should not privilege the interests of those who have homes over those who do not. In 1979, the green belt was 721,000 hectares. It has since more than doubled to over 1.6 million hectares, much of which is not genuinely green. Up to 11% of UK brownfield land, over 4,000 hectares, lies within the constraint of the green belt. The Government are proposing sensible steps to release some more land, a fraction of the total, to build the homes that are so badly needed while protecting areas that local residents cherish and choose to exclude.
Striking that balance deftly is vital. I am not advocating a planning free-for-all, and nor is anyone on the Government Benches, but I make a serious appeal to the House to recognise the urgency of the problem that we are storing up in the south-east corner of England, in particular, and to take action to address this. Fundamentally, land scarcity is the problem. Today the land that houses are built on accounts for 72% of its sale value. In 1995, it was 55%, while in the 1950s it was roughly 25%. The pattern is clear. From a centre-right perspective, we cannot be surprised if it becomes harder to make the case for popular capitalism in communities where too many people, particularly younger people, cannot see a realistic route to build that capital in their own lives.
We have to fix this, and I make a plea for us to do so. The most important thing we can do is to focus on sensible solutions to this planning impasse, because if we do not get it right, we will cut a generation of people out of home ownership, and there will be very serious consequences that we are already starting to see in the capital. We ought to look at how we distribute the burden of planning more sensibly. Rather than there being some additional homes in almost every community, perhaps we should be looking more at garden towns and even cities, because that might concentrate some of the pressures and some of the agglomeration advantages of creating those new communities.
However we choose to address this problem, we cannot ignore it, and the Government are right to be addressing it as part of a strong Queen’s Speech that will ultimately deliver on the promise of levelling up not just in communities such as mine, which are the typical centre of attention, but in the wider sense, recognising that if we do not get this right there will be exclusion and deprivation in parts of the country that are typically associated with being much more successful and affluent.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Northern Ireland benefits from being part of the United Kingdom. Its people benefit and its economy benefits—they are part of the fifth-largest economy in the world. By contrast, after 100 years of independence and almost 50 years of membership of the European Union, the Republic of Ireland remains the poorest region of the British Isles. It has no national health service, 11% of its employees are in the public sector, and the rest of its economy is essentially a tax haven model, which washes through huge amounts of money for US corporations.
By contrast, Northern Ireland has significantly higher employment levels and a 20% higher standard of living than the Republic of Ireland, and of course we have the benefits of being part of the welfare state. Yes, we have a large public sector, which has cushioned us considerably during the pandemic, and which could not be supported by the Republic of Ireland if there was any move whatsoever towards a united Ireland. Therefore, Northern Ireland’s economic and social future rests surely and squarely with the Union. So, for all the talk of Irish unity, the stubborn fact remains that the Republic of Ireland could not afford Irish unity because the Union offers the people of Northern Ireland so much more.
It is important to say that during this year of our centenary because of the amount of attacks on the very existence of our country. Earlier today we had a question in this House about the state of Israel and Hamas wishing to wipe it off the map. As a member of a small state, I get that—I understand that—because there is clearly an agenda to abuse Northern Ireland by saying it should not really exist. Well, I am proud it exists, and I am proud that this Queen’s Speech will help us continue to grow our economy as part of this Union. It is important to say that.
However, the first and second quarters of this year have created significant challenges for Northern Ireland. One of the issues was dealing with the pandemic, which was well beyond the Government’s control, but the second issue is, of course, the Northern Ireland protocol, which unfortunately has blighted business opportunity for the first two quarters of this year.
I welcome Lord Frost’s comments earlier this week that the protocol is not sustainable, but once again we need more than just words. We have had lots of words. The Prime Minister told businesses they could “bin” the protocol; well, they can’t. The Secretary of State told us it would be light touch; it isn’t. We are now being told it is not sustainable. Well, if that is the case, I and my country would like to see actions over the unsustainable protocol. It needs to be put away, to put businesses out of their misery in Northern Ireland. I urge the Government to invoke article 16 and make sure we can move on from the societal and economic hardship that has been caused single-handedly by that protocol. I hope we can do that and do it fast. The people and parties who want to keep the protocol for a political points-scoring exercise while businesses suffer only seek to prove that Northern Ireland is somehow different, without realising that it is that difference that prevents the normalisation of both politics and our economy.
I hope we can build on the promises in this Queen’s Speech, and I hope we can build on the bus building promises. The Government have an awful lot to do to meet the predicted 4,000 buses to be built during this Parliament, so they really need to get a move on.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
They say that success has 100 fathers, and as we have seen over the last week, in any election 100 reasons are put forward as to why one side won and another lost. But I think it is beyond question that one of the reasons why yesterday’s Queen’s Speech set out the legislative programme for a Conservative Government is that one of our pivotal arguments was about how we can level up the United Kingdom. That was one of the key arguments at the last election, and it is a key reason why last week Conservatives were successful in local authorities such as Dudley and Conservative Mayors such as Andy Street in the West Midlands were successful.
It is about the need to level up, to ensure that every part of the United Kingdom enjoys our success and prosperity and that no area gets left behind, including my constituency of Dudley South. In 1997, Dudley’s gross value added per head was around 78% of the national average. By 2010, that had fallen to just 64%. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) alluded to the disparity between East and West Germany as a comparator. I do not have a similar analogy, but clearly a 36% gap with the national average cannot be allowed to continue.
Action has been taken over the last 11 years to start to address that gap, to the extent that before the pandemic, in the five years leading up to 2019, salaries in Dudley had increased more quickly than anywhere else in the country. We have seen investment in areas such as Dudley South, including in the west midlands metro tram extension, which will link my constituency in Brierley Hill and Netherton through Dudley to Birmingham’s national rail network; in our enterprise zones, to create jobs; and in the future high streets fund, to get our town centres back on their feet. But there is still a wide gap, and many of the measures announced by Her Majesty yesterday will see concrete action to start to close that gap further and ensure that people have opportunities to succeed, regardless of where they live or who their parents are.
For example, the skills and post-16 education Bill is particularly important for my constituents in Dudley South. For years, if not decades, we have talked about closing the gap in the level of skills and qualifications in the Black Country compared with elsewhere in the country. The Bill will help to address that gap and ensure that my constituents have the skills that firms need for the jobs they have and, at least as importantly, the skills that will be needed for the jobs that we want to attract and create. I went to state schools in Dudley, but few of the people I was at school with in the 1980s and 1990s still live in the area, because so many have had to move away for work. We cannot allow that to happen infinitely.
The House will be aware that I chair the all-party parliamentary beer group. Hospitality is one of the largest employers in the country, particularly among under-25s, so the support given has been necessary. I hope the Treasury will look at differential duty rates and reforming the duty system to support draught beer, which will support thousands of beers—sorry, thousands of jobs—in every part of the country according to the economic model, and perhaps thousands of beers, too.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) when he is talking about his work on the all-party parliamentary beer group, of which I am a proud member, but less of that for now.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to ban conversion therapy. I hope that that legislation will sail through the House, as long as the Government get it right. I also give a cautious welcome to the draft Online Safety Bill, for which we have been calling for many years. I just hope that the Government avoid their usual failing of caving in to the demands of foreign big tech companies.
I am extremely worried about the Government’s proposals to introduce a requirement for photographic voter ID. Let us call it what it is: it is voter suppression. It is straight out of the Trump playbook. It is sinister and authoritarian, and it will be opposed in this House.
Ian Paisley
I understand some of the hostility about this, but it was a Labour Government who imposed photographic voter ID on Northern Ireland, and it has actually increased voter turnout and reduced fraud. Let us not scare-tactic people out of their democratic franchise.
Christian Matheson
It was introduced in Northern Ireland because there was a specific issue, which the hon. Gentleman obviously knows about, concerning another political party, where there was clear, identified fraud. In the 2019 election, 49 million votes were cast and there was one conviction for fraud. This is not a problem and it does not require a solution.
There is too much left out of this Queen’s Speech. There is nothing on cladding for fire safety victims and those who are trapped in housing that is now worthless. There is very little on leasehold. It is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), my constituency neighbour, in his place. His leading work on this issue, along with others including the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), has been outstanding, and I pay tribute to him. Instead, we get a planning free-for-all, which Government Members have referred to, that will cause chaos locally and, frankly, line the pockets of big Tory donors. There is nothing on energy-neutral building standards and changes to building regs to make housing built to tougher environmental standards. In fact, as we have heard, apart from rolling over the Environment Bill, there is very little on environmentalism and a green recovery.
There is nothing in the Queen’s Speech for local government, which has been at the forefront of the community pandemic response. The Government have chopped £9 billion off social care and local government has had to pick up that tab. I say to Ministers that they must not use local government to pay off the debts from the pandemic that will need to be paid off. In Cheshire West and Chester, we have lost £337 million in the past decade. Just recently, the Government cut 20% from the money to fix potholes, which is one of the Government’s big schemes.
We know the modus operandi of this Government when it comes to cuts. They cut the budget of the local council or the public authority—police or fire, for example—and then, when the local authority is unable to deliver the services, they criticise the local authority for having to reduce the quality of service. If that public authority has to increase council tax, the police precept or whatever it is as a result, they criticise it for putting up council tax to make good on the cuts the Tory Government have imposed. It is dishonest, and there is a dishonesty that runs through this Government.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box:
“We understand this crucial point: we find flair, imagination, enthusiasm and genius distributed evenly throughout this country, while opportunity is not. We mean to change that, because it is not just a moral and social disgrace, but an economic mistake and a criminal waste of talent.”—[Official Report, 11 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 18.]
He is absolutely right, but the Conservatives have been in power for 11 years and the Prime Minister has been a member of the Government for most of that time. Since I have been here, they change their leaders every couple of years like some kind of tinpot regime and try to pretend that all of a sudden they are a new Government. But just as a snake will change its skin, slither away and is still the same snake, it is still the same Conservatives in charge trying to deny everything they caused in the first place. It is dishonest. They cannot abrogate their own failings. They should stop blaming everyone else for their own failings.
Finally, let me turn to fire and rehire, which has been a scandal of this pandemic. If employers came to trade unions and said, “We’ve got a problem. The bottom has fallen out of our business. Let’s work together and solve this together,” then trade unions would have gone for that. Instead, we see this awful practice. One of my hon. Friends spoke earlier about British Gas. Loyal and skilled employees with 15 to 20 years of service are being fired and rehired on worse conditions. There is nothing in the Queen’s Speech on that. The Minister responsible himself called it “bully boy tactics”, and he is absolutely right, but now is the time in the pandemic when it is becoming so common that legislation must be brought forward to ban this dreadful practice. If I am fortunate enough to win the private Members’ Bill ballot, I will bring forward legislation. I hope the Government will back me.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
It was an engaging speech by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), and he made some important specific points that I am sure the Government will bear in mind. I wonder, however, whether he will accept this more fundamental point. In the 2019 election, when the country was looking for a person who could identify opportunities as the country went through substantial changes to its economic relationships by leaving the European Union, and a person who had the ambition and drive to fulfil those opportunities, it chose my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As we reflect on the elections last week, will he also accept that although there was a substantial amount of support for the successful vaccine roll-out, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor’s support for such a vast array of activity across Government was also rewarded by the public? Those fundamental points of trust in the Prime Minister and in his ambitions for this country are resonating with the public and are reflected in the Queen’s Speech, which I wholeheartedly support.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the only person to whom the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) should be directing his comments in respect of fire and rehire, as the events of the weekend showed, is the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer)?
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend, as is customary, makes a poignant point, which I am sure will be reflected on with glee by those on the Opposition Front Bench.
The longer context for this Queen’s Speech is that, since 2010, the thread all the way through has been a focus on the value of work. In the first period of 2010 to 2015, a lot of that was about benefit reform, so that people who had to go out to work did not look at their neighbours and think, “Well, they’ve got a better life living on benefits”. The second part was the Conservative Government implementing a living wage commitment—a commitment this Government continue with. The third, which we are seeing in this Queen’s Speech, is the identification that ultimately what we are looking for is a lifelong commitment from the Government to support people’s skills development.
What is so exciting about the skills and post-16 education Bill is that it is starting to focus on potential. It does not matter who someone is, where they are, how rich they are or how poor they are; what matters is what their potential is for this country. However, I would urge the Government to look at three ways of going a bit further. First, can we broaden even further the scope of what we understand as potential? As we have seen, potential can come in academic potential and it can come in skills potential, but it can also come in commercial potential and it can come in artistic and creative potential. Where are the mechanisms—creative mechanisms—for those talents and for unlocking that potential?
Secondly, can we also get a better balance of where the risks for taking part in these programmes comes? At the moment, all of the financial risk lies on the person choosing what they decide to do. As a paper by Peter Ainsworth on the education, enterprise and giving-back grant suggests, institutions should have more skin in the game. There should be a sharing of risks between the institutions that are trying to tap into and unlock that potential and the individual who is seeking such forward movement.
Thirdly, why is there not an opportunity now to have more competition both between types of providers for Government resources—between the academic track or the skills track, and potentially the commercial track or the artistic track—and within those types, between universities, based on an accountability of how well institutions are fulfilling potential?
There are a number of measures in the speech that are particularly relevant to the people of Bedfordshire. The commitments on air pollution will be particularly relevant to people in Sandy and other parts of the community along the A1 corridor. I welcome, cautiously, the Government’s obesity strategies, but I worry that some of the measures may inadvertently harm certain producers, including Jordans, which is a manufacturer of healthy cereals in my constituency.
I firmly welcome the Government’s commitments to drug and alcohol rehabilitation in criminal justice, which was such a crucial part of the successful election of Festus Akinbusoye as police and crime commissioner of Bedfordshire last week. On planning, I echo the concerns that other Members have mentioned.
I do think the Government need to make sure that the 1 million existing approvals are actioned—that there is a tax and build schedule—otherwise the Government will not just face a northern powerhouse group on the Back Benches, but have a southern alliance to tackle.
Finally, looking across the Atlantic, one wonders how powerful countries and empires end. There are two substantial ways they do so in peacetime: the first is that Governments spend too much, and then tax their populations beyond their tolerance to take it; and the second is that Governments debase their currency, and then inflation lets rip and destroys savings. Let us make sure that, as a fundamental part of this, we maintain and hold up the probity of public finance.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
There have been many criticisms of what is contained in the Queen’s Speech, but I will focus on one of the glaring omissions: the much promised employment Bill. This was an opportunity to shape the future of work and address the difficulties facing those whose employment is increasingly precarious, and other disadvantaged and vulnerable groups in the workplace. The pandemic has shown just how badly the UK protects its workers. The degree of inequality, including labour market inequality, that the pandemic has exposed is stark. The Government have an obligation to tackle that, but instead they have gone backwards, removing even the promise of an employment Bill from their legislative programme.
We in the Scottish National party favour a different approach: raising the floor of protection and welfare, focusing on equality, and providing transitional support for workers. That is what should be getting urgent attention from the Government, but when Ministers praise the UK’s flexible labour market, they are really praising an increasingly exploitative market where many have been stripped of basic rights. I have spent the past year talking about the future of work and how we must deliver positive change, so that post-pandemic work is fit for the future, but that appears far from the Government’s thoughts. Instead, they are intent on pursuing a furlough cliff edge, the withdrawal of the £20 universal credit uplift and their chaotic Brexit. They are choosing inaction on employment, and the inequality that hampers the future of so many will simply get worse because of that.
For instance, pregnant women and new parents still have no protection from widespread discrimination and unfair redundancy, which even this Government have accepted exists. Maternity Action says that pregnant women and new mothers are facing a wave of unfair redundancies this year. Why will the Government not protect them? Where is the action to protect workers from the fire and rehire tactics so powerfully highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands)? Why will the Government not act to stop that?
The Prime Minister promised an employment Bill containing measures on flexible working. The recent experience of workers, particularly those with disabilities or parenting or caring responsibilities, makes the need for that clear. Businesses and trade unions back the ability to work flexibly as the default. It must become a right from day one for all employees. Where is the Government action on that? Where is the action on zero-hours contracts? Where is the action on workers in retail and other services on the frontline during the pandemic who were excluded from effective health and safety representation and protection? The Government must act to create a level playing field on health and safety, regardless of employment status.
The failures of the UK’s employment protection legislation affect much of the social care sector, whose workers on the frontline in the pandemic served such a key role. The contrast between the Prime Minister’s vague promises on reforming social care and the actions of the Scottish Government are stark. The SNP Scottish Government will legislate to create a national care service on an equal footing with NHS Scotland, and have pledged a new fair national care wage for staff, with national pay bargaining. That is the bold, decisive action that people expect as we emerge from a pandemic.
The Scottish people know that this Tory Government are making empty promises on work, and are instead working to deliver a post-Brexit race to the bottom. Last week, people in Scotland returned a Parliament committed to fair work and equality. Increasingly, as we see very well from the SNP landslide result, they recognise that the only way to build that fairer society that protects and enhances workers’ rights and supports equality is for Scotland to have the full powers of an independent country.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Good jobs and decent working conditions have always been central to the Labour party’s core mission. Prosperity and patriotism are the mutually reinforcing foundations upon which our Labour movement is based, and although we in the Opposition recognise that good pay is utterly crucial we also know that work is about dignity, pride and contribution. It is about being part of something bigger.
In my Aberavon constituency, I see that desire to be part of something bigger every day—from the NHS workers who have saved so many lives to the manufacturers who have provided them with PPE, and the steelworkers who have continued to build the foundations of our modern economy. Yet over the last 11 years we have seen an exponential increase in insecurity across all sectors of our economy—from the two in five adult workers who do not yet know their shift hours for next week to the exploited gig economy workers denied holiday pay, the workers sacked by British Gas and then rehired on worse conditions, the high street workers with the threat of internet shopping looming over them, and the factory workers who could be the latest victims in the erosion of our manufacturing base that we have seen over the last 11 years.
British workers are the greatest asset that this country has, yet successive Conservative Governments have utterly failed to value their contribution. Many on the Conservative Benches celebrate flexibility and fluidity, yet flexibility without real choice means insecurity, and fluidity without proper investment in reskilling means mass unemployment. Tackling insecurity at work should therefore be a top priority for any Government, so where on earth is the long-promised employment Bill? Its omission from this Queen’s Speech is simply unforgivable.
It is important to recognise that during the pandemic 50% of the workforce did not work a single day from home. It is many of those workers, who are still going into work or who have been furloughed, who are the most likely to be at the sharp end of the job market, with their jobs often the most at risk from automation, the digital economy and the green revolution. It is these trends—and, crucially, how the Government respond to them—that will define Britain’s success in the years ahead. Of course, the trade union movement must be at the heart of this response. The modern job market will evolve, but the basic principle will always remain: the most productive and competitive companies are those that give their workforce a strong voice. Good industrial relations deliver good business results.
I therefore suggest that there should be three core principles at the heart of the Government’s response: first, dignity at work with new legislation protecting the rights of employees, not least to outlaw fire and rehire; secondly, partnering with business and trade unions for a new kind of growth to deliver the jobs of the future, recognising where Britain can be competitive but also that the less celebrated foundational industries such as steel are critical for our security; and thirdly, a properly resourced programme of training and retraining aimed at the jobs of the future. There is no point in trying to address the productivity crisis if we keep cutting the workforce out of the conversation; there is no point in investing in further education if the jobs are not there; and there is no point in decarbonising our industrial base if the local workforce is not trained up and if jobs and carbon emissions are simply offshored. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Chancellor, has so rightly said, our communities do not need sloganeering about levelling up; they need good jobs. She said:
“We need jobs you can raise a family on”.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call Richard Holden. Is the hon. Gentleman appearing virtually? No. I call Wendy Chamberlain.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
We heard in the Queen’s Speech that the Government plan to create jobs and support lifetime training, and on the surface these are good intentions. I am not here to argue against employment or education; few, if any, in the Chamber would do so. But what was striking was what was not mentioned in the Government’s legislative agenda, where there remains no support for those who needed it before the pandemic and during it and who are still in need of support now.
Before the pandemic, it was well established that disabled people faced significant barriers relating to the labour market, and we have seen throughout the pandemic that disabled people have been disproportionately impacted, notably through the Government’s continued refusal to create an uplift to legacy benefits in line with the universal credit uplift. We were told it was too complex to do this quickly at the outset of the pandemic. A year on, it is clear that this Government simply have no appetite to do it. Some have benefited financially during the pandemic, and the Government are relying on them to kick-start the economy.
Kirsten Oswald
I am interested in the hon. Lady’s comments about legacy benefits. This morning at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister told me that what needed to be done would be done and that the arms of the UK state would be put round all those in need. Does she agree that I am correct in saying that that is simply not what has happened?
Wendy Chamberlain
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I agree that the Government seem to have no appetite to do this. She will hear as I go on to talk about the transition to universal credit that I am in agreement with her.
The failure to do this uplift means that an estimated 1.9 million disabled people are missing out on much-needed support. The delays in the managed transition programme to universal credit have also meant that a number of people have inadvertently transitioned. I have raised the case of a constituent of mine in the House before: having volunteered during her nursing studies to work in the NHS, the unintended consequence was the loss of legacy benefits and ineligibility for universal credit. Research by the Leonard Cheshire Foundation has found that there has been an impact on 71% of disabled people’s employment since the start of the pandemic. Not only are disabled people more likely to suffer job loss, but employers are simply more reluctant to employ them, with 42% of those surveyed stating concerns about doing so.
I turn briefly to universal credit again. Claimants whose payments are assessed based on their monthly earnings lose out when their pay dates do not match the Government’s ideal of being paid on a strictly monthly basis. The Secretary of State is likely to respond by saying that after a legal challenge last year the regulations were changed to allow some degree of flexibility, but those changes did nothing to help those on other payment cycles, such as every two weeks or every four weeks, who continue to be incorrectly awarded varying levels of support. Again, I have a constituent who has experienced this difficulty and lost passported local authority benefits as a result and may do so again in future. This system must be amended so that it is suitable for the real world of work, which the Government say they want to support.
I ask where women are in the Government’s plans for jobs and better work. Evidence given to the Select Committee on Women and Equalities on the gendered impact of the pandemic showed that women were more likely to be working in sectors that were completely shut down during lockdown, more likely to be in insecure work and less likely to receive topped-up earnings if furloughed.
One of the first things the Government dropped as a result of the pandemic was gender pay gap reporting; we know that what is measured gets attention, and with this decision the Government highlighted what their priorities were and were not. The Queen’s Speech talks about the creation of green jobs. Women account for less than 25% of the STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—workforce. More needs to be done to encourage greater diversity in our high-value sectors, where the Government want to drive and are expecting growth.
We do not yet know the impact of long covid on employment and whether sufferers will need the same support as many disabled people do now. We do not yet know how the bereavements experienced by so many families will change the number of single parents needing support. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) in asking the Government to extend bereavement support to unmarried couples. We do know the devastating impact on the employment of young people and in sectors such as hospitality and tourism, which are so important to constituencies such as mine, but we do not know what the future of those sectors looks like. Finally, what we do know is that what has been promised by the Government in the Queen’s Speech is limited in its vision of both support and growth.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
There is no greater priority for me than the jobs and livelihoods of my constituents. The most anxiety-inducing aspect of the past year has been watching unemployment nearly triple in my constituency, notwithstanding the nearly 22,000 people whose wages were supported by furlough. That is why I wish to start by welcoming the measures in the Queen’s Speech that go to jobs and, in particular, to our ambitions in science and technology as it applies to defence, healthcare and telecommunications.
In addition, I welcome the huge research and development opportunities that will come from the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill and the opportunities they will create for people in West Berkshire. Let me start by saying that the vote of confidence the Government have expressed in those industries is already reflected in recruitment decisions. At the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, where they are tasked with developing the new warhead, 300 jobs are being created. At a new test and validation laboratory at Vodafone’s headquarters in Newbury a further 30 jobs are coming. At the Harwell science park, just up the road from us, where they have opened the vaccine manufacturing and innovation centre but also have plans for bioscience, artificial intelligence and genomics, there is a prospect of another 5,000 new jobs in the coming years.
The Labour party always describes itself as the party of working people, but that often feels as though it is rooted in the old, industrialised, unionised industries. What are the people who do these highly skilled, highly paid jobs if they are not also working people? What are a one nation Conservative Government for if it is not to make sure that the opportunities in those jobs are as accessible to old and young, to male and female, and to those resident in any part of the country?
We in Newbury measure our success in part by the success of the students at Newbury College, who provide our best local apprentices—be that in green energy, technology or engineering. But all those courses are brand new to the college, and there are many who live locally who would not have had the same opportunities. That is why I fully support the lifetime skills guarantee and the supporting loan entitlement, to give workers the chance to develop new skills, irrespective of age—or, I may add, gender. In this brave new world of science and tech, we know that women have been historically under-represented, often because of educational choices they made when they were at school. Therefore, it is crucial that further training opportunities are available to them, so that they have an equal opportunity to seize those chances.
If there was one thing missing from the focus on jobs, for me it was a new solution for childcare, the need for which has been revealed particularly in the course of the last year. I look forward to speaking to Treasury Ministers in the coming days about what I think that ought to look like.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will forgive me if I end by briefly swerving on to Home Office territory, because another notable mention in the Queen’s Speech was the safety of women and girls. This is a work in progress for the Government. The Government have done such important work in this area and deserve credit for their unflinching approach to things such as stalking; for creating new offences to tackle some of the most pernicious forms of domestic abuse; and for tackling new crimes of sexual violence to protect the Tinder generation, when for too long we were too embarrassed to talk about it.
However, serious issues remain—the safety of women in public, street harassment and, most recently, what happens to girls at school and the sexual exploitation that they have experienced. I look forward to supporting the Home Secretary’s work on that this year and to the strategy on violence against women and girls that will be published in the autumn.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I would like to start with last year’s Humble Address, which promised a right for workers to request a more predictable contract, presumably aimed at the many people on zero-hours and flexible contracts. However, it was never introduced—so here we are, another year on and another opportunity missed to deal with those parasitic, unfair contracts, which are more befitting to the 19th century than the 21st. Until we begin to challenge the very existence of zero-hours contracts, we will only ever be tinkering at the edges of an unfair and fundamentally unbalanced labour market. Levelling up will just be a fantasy until we put in place the building blocks that people need for a better life. That means permanent, secure, well-paid jobs. Too few new jobs at the moment offer none of those.
The Taylor review is nearly four years old, and the vast majority of its recommendations are still gathering dust on the shelf. The truth is that this Government have no intention of improving workers’ rights, but they should, because the security of a job should be valued as much as the creation of that job. Why is it that whenever a multinational is looking to cut its workforce, we always seem to be at the head of the queue? Why are we seen as a soft touch? Why are British workers seen as easier and cheaper to get rid of than just about everyone else in western Europe? We need to end the culture of weak employment rights, avaricious corporations and a Government who are indifferent to the importance of job security. Without job security, people have no security.
Nowhere is that indifference more apparent than in the Government’s failure to address the scandal of fire and rehire. Ministers repeatedly tell us that they do not agree with it, yet they do absolutely nothing to tackle it. ACAS sent them its findings on the options several months ago, but since then we have had radio silence. In a vain attempt to find out what was happening, I sent freedom of information requests to both ACAS and the Department. ACAS told me that it was not in the public interest to release the report and the Department said that, if the report were made public, “we believe the nature of such frank discussion and debates on key public policy issues would be inhibited and the Department would be prevented from taking decisions based on the fullest understanding of the issues. We take the view that, on balance, the public interest is better served by withholding this information.”
What utter nonsense! Thousands of people are having their livelihoods ripped away from them and it is apparently not in the public’s interest to even reveal what options the Government are considering to deal with it. Not in the public interest? I think what they meant to say is that it is not in the interests of the greedy employers who are boosting their profits by cutting people’s pay. Those of us on this side of the Chamber think it is in the public interest to support working people. The clue is in the name: the Labour party.
We do need more housing, but tinkering with the planning system will lead to more of the same. The problem is not developers being able to get planning permission; the problem is that there is a big cartel at the top. We get the wrong types of houses built in the wrong types of places, because that is where the money is made.
I thought we were going to take back control, but I see precious little of that. Instead, there is legislation to stop people and councillors having a say on the future of their areas. The Government are denying people a voice. That is a fundamental threat to democracy, but the biggest threat is of course the plan to stop millions of people from voting in the future. Why do that? There were 32 million votes cast at the last election and only six cases of voter fraud. This is all about moving the goalposts for party political advantage, and it is part of a wider pattern to suppress and reduce accountability. We also see proposals to restrict the right to protest, the continued use of emergency powers when they are not justified, and an increasingly distant relationship between the Government and the truth. We see the lining of mates’ pockets with public money while kids go hungry, and there is plenty of talk, too, about simplifying procurement. Just who is going to benefit from that?
The Government are deliberately embarking on a course of action that will damage our democracy. While I welcome the announcement of a public inquiry into the pandemic, it is clear that it will be delayed until after the next election; again, party political advantage is being sought. If there is one thing that sums up the Government more than anything else, it is their complete failure to take responsibility for absolutely anything.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
In this Queen’s Speech, I am encouraged to see the Government rise to the challenge of setting out the blueprint for the economy that we aim to build after the pandemic, restoring our freedom and prosperity while embracing innovation and the big challenges of the future. It is especially important, in my view, that our national recovery goes hand in hand with addressing the socioeconomic, health and educational disparities across our country, and puts levelling up at the heart of the Government’s agenda.
The pandemic has highlighted the value that people give to place. In the past, the connection between London and the northern regions has been seen as a gateway for people to leave the north, but the pandemic has changed that wrong thinking and demonstrated that it is not the case. The Government’s commitment to legislating in this Session to provide for the Crewe to Manchester section of HS2, together with Northern Powerhouse Rail, will ensure that the north is not only well connected but even more attractive to job creators.
In addition, the plans to improve local connections through the national bus strategy, together with the towns fund and the levelling-up fund, will address the inadequacies of local public transport that have been a barrier to our communities’ prosperity. As a member of the Cheadle towns fund board, I look forward to the building of a new train station in Cheadle town centre, which will reconnect my constituents with the rail network. I hope that the Chancellor will support my bid for Restoring Your Railway funding to further facilitate that key connection. These projects will boost our infrastructure and bring jobs to our region.
Many of my Cheadle constituents work in the Cheshire life sciences corridor, and I welcome the Government’s continued support of that sector. I hope that the new Advanced Research and Invention Agency will bring about another step forward for life sciences in the north-west and across the country.
I also welcome the upcoming skills and post-16 education Bill, which will underpin the lifetime skills guarantee. As someone who completed a degree when married with a family, I know how important it is that education does not end when someone is 18 or 21. As the world of work evolves, it is crucial that people have access to education and training that will help them to adapt and thrive in their careers and to access new opportunities as they emerge. That is how we will back the innovative industries that will form the backbone of our levelled-up northern economy and place this country at the forefront of global innovation.
The pandemic has changed the nature of work, and we have to be prepared for the effect that will have on our wider economy. Pre-pandemic, the imminent death of the high street had been widely predicted, but more people are working from home and have learned the value of their local high streets, and the levelling-up fund will provide an opportunity to rebuild and rethink them. Across our high streets, there are still shops such as Waterhouse’s in Cheadle Hulme, a family greengrocer celebrating 100 years on the high street this month. Those are the businesses that have been there for people throughout the past year, and now we should be there for them.
Whether on the high street or in high finance, we must value and support people in the workplace, because they are the key to the success of business. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing, I am constantly reminded of the importance of supportive workplaces that value those people who speak up when things are not right. I hope that the Government will listen to our calls for reform of the law and enhanced protections for whistleblowers.
This Queen’s Speech will provide better jobs, skills and infrastructure, and I look forward to working with the Government to ensure that people in my constituency and across the north see the positive benefits of levelling up. As we emerge from the pandemic, there is much to be done, but I am confident that this Government have laid the foundations for a strong recovery.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson).
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said in February that
“you shouldn’t have to leave your home town to get a good job”.
That really resonated with me. Equality of opportunity will always be a myth when jobs are unevenly distributed throughout the UK. That is despite the excellent work by the previous Labour Government in bringing Siemens to Hull and ensuring that we have that much-needed direct rail route to London.
That uneven distribution of jobs has been made worse by a decade of Conservative cuts to infrastructure and public services. The pandemic has only exposed the inequality that has always existed. But now is the moment for a clear, bold vision to ensure that our economy works for everyone. There is a revolutionary change happening right now in the way that we work. We must seize this opportunity to bring more jobs home to Hull and the east riding, and you can do this just by clicking a button. So the Queen’s Speech was very disappointing. I did wonder whether it was written for the world that was rather than the world that is right now.
Let us look at what other countries are doing around the world. The Irish Government have just announced a target to move 20% of Ireland’s 300,000 civil servants to remote working by the end of the year. Spain is looking into that as well. Ireland has seen the revolution in home working, which was brought about by the lockdown, and recognised that an opportunity exists to redistribute jobs across the country, bringing the same opportunities to everyone, regardless of where they live. That approach is the right one.
I am proud to say that Hull is already prepared for this home-working revolution. Not only do we have low-cost housing—people living in London will be astounded to know that they can buy a beautiful property in Hull for around £168,000— but, in 2019, we were declared the first full-fibre city in the UK. KCOM now provides 99% gigabyte speed coverage through its fibre optic broadband network and the fastest upload speeds in the country. However, we do not just offer affordable living and nice broadband; our Labour group on the city council had the vision to make Hull the City of Culture in 2017. Since then, it has continued to regenerate the fruit market area, and secured £30 million for our maritime history project and the £130 million Albion Square development. There is also exciting private investment in the old shopping centre, Princes Quay, which includes a clubbing space in the basement, which looks like brilliant fun.
These developments recognise that the retail landscape has changed and that it will not change back. We need the Government to back councils such as Hull which have the vision to reinvest in their retail opportunities and to re-imagine their city centres. I would like to take this moment to thank council leader Steve Brady for all that he has done for the city, as he prepares to step down later this year.
People can truly take the opportunity of this revolutionary change in working to live in Hull and work anywhere. All the Government need to do is to look at what is happening in Ireland and Spain. It costs very little—it could in fact save the Government money—and it brings jobs to Hull.
Of course, not all jobs are suitable for remote working and many require face-to-face communication. I have said many times in this place that Hull is the caravan-building capital of the UK and I am incredibly proud of that. What I would like to see, as the Government move forward, is legislation on fire and rehire and a look at increasing the minimum wage. All our key workers deserve a reward. All those people who have, let’s be honest, put their lives at risk going to work face-to-face deserve some benefit from it. So I hope that the Government will think again. They should write a Bill and a Queen’s Speech for the world that is right now and not miss this opportunity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The next two speakers are both participating virtually and they will continue with the time limit of four minutes. Starting with the hon. Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi), the time limit will be reduced to three minutes—yes, I can see him tearing up the final page of his speech.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
The Queen’s Speech yesterday placed at its heart recovery from the pandemic and restoring the public finances, much as the Budget did a few months previously. Protecting jobs and businesses and driving economic growth will deliver that, and the Queen’s Speech brought forward a wealth of Bills and means by which to achieve it.
It is worth remembering that, throughout the pandemic, this Government have gone further than virtually all other national Governments to protect livelihoods, with extensive financial support packages, including furloughing, grants and loans. A total of more than £300 billion is being spent. The economic forecasts point to optimism. The Bank of England predicts a faster than expected recovery, with growth predicted to be over two percentage points better than the forecast made at the start of just this year. Unemployment, which at one point was forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility to peak at 12%, is now expected to peak at nearer 5.5% by the autumn. One should bear in mind that the rate was 4% pre-pandemic.
However, the economy is materially smaller than it was and this will take time to rebuild. A raft of Bills will help to achieve that, but how? Through investing in green industries—we are already paving the way in North Norfolk with plans to push for hydrogen research at Bacton gas terminal, which needs to transition, and that is happening around the country. A wise business invests before the uptick in economic growth, ready to take advantage of a surge in demand. The Government are no different, investing now in connectivity through the high-speed rail Bill and pouring money into 5G and gigabit broadband connectivity. We have already seen the east put on the map with the new freeport that has been granted to deliver thousands of jobs and innovation to the area.
But perhaps the jewel in the crown is the right to have an opportunity to retrain in later life at any stage through the lifetime skills guarantee. The pandemic will, and has, affected people like never before and it will make people re-evaluate what is important to them in life. Now, having the chance to take more control and to improve access to the funding and opportunities—too many people in later life do not have the freedom to explore new avenues—is a centrepiece in supporting every citizen throughout the country.
I have said that my constituency will bounce back, and it will bounce back swiftly, but North Norfolk is perhaps luckier than most. We will be propelled by high levels of domestic tourism to a beautiful corner of the country. Not every part of the country has the same beaches, but the Government are doing all they can to create that level playing field and opportunity for all.
It is quite simple. History teaches us many things. In politics, a Government who mismanage the economy are one that the electorate will not forgive. It appears that even the most pessimistic of observers recognise that the mood is confident and, as such, the country is poised to get back on its feet. These Bills will give us the tools to do so.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Prime Minister has given the United Kingdom the highest covid death rate in the world and the deepest economic recession of the G7 and given billions to Tory donors for procurement contracts. On top of that, we have a Brexit deal that will cut our economy by 4% and 1.4 million jobs. Now, we have a Queen’s Speech that attacks our fundamental values: democracy, human rights and the rule of law. His Bills in this Queen’s Speech will mean that he decides when the general election is called. They will make it harder for poorer people to vote, harder to challenge Government decisions and harder to protest against them. Alongside this, we have seen the weakening of the BBC, the civil service, the universities —our fundamental institutions. Meanwhile, as we loosen the ties with Europe, our biggest and closest market and friend, that will weaken both our economy and our values.
Millions of voters from poorer and more diverse communities will now be required to have voter ID, and that will reduce voter turnout. That is, in essence, voter suppression. In addition, the abolition of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 means that the Prime Minister can call the election when he likes. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill opens the door for right-wing intolerance in our universities. The judicial review Bill and the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill allow the Prime Minister to suspend our parliamentary democracy without the Supreme Court being able to intervene, as it had to in 2019 to safeguard us, and reduce the ability of the courts to challenge the Government’s decisions, which is fundamental to our democracy.
Our devolved democracy, in Wales, Scotland and elsewhere, is also under attack from the centralisation of economic and political decision making, which risks creating a divided economy in the name of the Union, despite the fact that, in last week’s elections, we saw a mandate for more, not less devolution. To top it all, we have the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which would undermine or stop peaceful protest. Such protests have been the lifeblood of our democracy, promoting democratic change whether through the suffragettes, peace campaigners, trade unionists, EU supporters or climate change activists. We have now seen in the Clapham Common vigil and the Bristol protests against the Bill that the police have enough power and there is an issue of accountability.
These changes are the hallmarks of an emerging authoritarian state, so let us remember that our Queen Elizabeth gave her first Queen’s Speech when Winston Churchill was Prime Minister and the architect of the Council of Europe to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Yet now, 70 years later, she must present an agenda that puts these fundamental British values at risk. It is for all of us and people across these lands to defend those values, and I hope in the weeks ahead Members will do just that. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The time limit is now reduced to three minutes.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
“Your name isn’t English, why don’t you go back to where you came from?” That is a recent Facebook comment from an articulate but clearly limited left-wing activist, so I took some pleasure in replying in Italian “Che in realtà sono nato da un minatore di carbone del black country”—that I was in fact born to a Black Country coalminer.
More condescending left-wingers recently said this:
“You’d think Marco would understand why Brexit is bad. He’s lived in Italy and EVEN his Dad is Italian. Why is he such a strong Brexiteer? He must be stupid.”
Well, brownie points for working out that my dad is Italian. I did explain at length why Brexit is vital, but it became clear to me that there was a limit to their thinking, too—I mean Marco, Italian, therefore remainer, otherwise stupid is a bit of a “micro-aggression”, and is rather limited thinking isn’t it, Mr Deputy Speaker?
Here is my suggestion for the Labour party: set up an internal limited-thinking focus group to eradicate it from among their ranks, because how can they represent people who are clearly not limited? They may want to start in Amber Valley where the Labour leader blamed voters for their election results; it might prove more useful than rearranging the deckchairs on their Front Bench.
So, yes, my name is Marco, and, yes, my father is Italian, but here I am. How did I get here? Two words: opportunità e lavoro—opportunity and graft. My grandfather’s story is one of rags to riches and my parents are examples of blue-collar workers who for years lived hand to mouth. They bent over backwards to give me opportunities, and I put in the work.
Opportunity and work are two pillars of Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech. People out there do not want handouts; they want a hand getting back on their feet. More than anything, they want opportunities to do well. The lifetime skills guarantee is a massive investment in education and apprenticeships, readying people for the jobs coming their way. We may remember the Prime Minister—or “our Boris” as they say back home—visiting Dudley and going to the site of our new Institute of Technology, where he delivered his “jobs, jobs, jobs” vision. The pandemic has shown that fish can be necessary, but fishing rods are what people really need, and that institute will provide the rods.
The Queen’s Speech contained a vast array of steps that will take us out of the clutches of the pandemic, freeing us to be even stronger than when we entered it. The commitment to our NHS and continuing with our investment in the vaccination programme and in private sector life sciences are huge bonuses that this country will benefit from.
The roaring ’20s are upon us. Dio salvi la Regina—God save the Queen.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The Annunciator screens in the Chamber say there is a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches after No. 20; can we change that to three minutes now please?
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
This Queen’s Speech was most notable for what it lacked. It was the thinnest of gruel for a nation hungry for ambition and a plan to get back on track, but there was no plan for our economy, nothing of substance on jobs or opportunities for young people, and—perhaps most troubling of all—no plan for social care. Normally a Government wait until after the speech has concluded to start breaking their promises, but this Government’s refusal to confront the ticking time bomb of social care, despite the Prime Minister’s repeated assurances, shows that they are willing to break new ground on broken promises. There was no need for the Prime Minister to bring his ID to the Chamber yesterday; this speech had his fingerprints all over it.
In Bristol, 6,000 people are supported by adult social care, most of them at home. This accounts for around 40% of council expenditure, but that is the tip of the iceberg because most of us are trying to support our older relatives and give them the dignity they have earned through their lives. We are frustrated, we are tired, but we are resolute in supporting our old people and we need help.
A care home manager wrote to me yesterday. I do not have time to go through her whole heartbreaking letter, but at the end she said: “It is a travesty that such a skilled role, involving caring for people and ensuring that medical and all care needs are met, is often paid less than a supermarket worker.” I agree with every word. Let us be honest about the cost of social care. We need a cap on care costs. We need to increase tax or national insurance contributions as an insurance against future costs. We need to learn from the low transaction and bureaucracy costs in the NHS, make the same provision for social care and end the artificial divide.
We now have a Labour metro Mayor in the west of England, so I hope that we make progress on training and educating local people for the jobs that come from a green recovery. We have been left behind in recent years. The Tories have been good at scrapping green initiatives, but putting nothing in their place.
I would like to make two further points. First, I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on choice at the end of life. I would like to see this country have a compassionate law on assisted dying, rather than only people who have £12,000 being able to make the choice for themselves. The statistics that have now been commissioned by the Secretary of State on the number of dying people who end their own lives by suicide alone would be really helpful for that debate.
Secondly, I welcome the inquest findings into the events in Ballymurphy in 1971 and the vindication of those families who tried to clear their loved ones’ names. The Prime Minister must now apologise, after 50 years, and accept the failings of successive UK Governments under successive Prime Ministers that have caused such untold damage.
There is something deeply unsavoury about a Queen’s Speech that ignores issues such as social care—happy to allow millions of citizens to face the uncertainty of those end-of-life years—and younger adults, but that is instead far more concerned with denying millions of people their democratic rights. It tells us everything we need to know about this Government, and their priorities and values.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth). Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that your break was as good as mine, because I got a vaccine in my left arm and three new county councillors in Newcastle-under-Lyme.
I welcome the Queen’s Speech, and the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of Exchequer in opening the debate today, in which he pointed to the outstanding record of support that the Government have given to my constituents and to everybody’s constituents across the country—for jobs, the self-employed and businesses. What we have done in the last year, with both that and with the medical advances, is absolutely astonishing.
I will highlight a few Bills in the brief time that I have available, partly because I have already had a hand in some of them. The ARIA Bill, for which I served on the Committee, is coming back; I see that the Business Secretary is in his place. It is a truly exciting and innovative idea. I hope that it will harness some of the breakneck innovation that we have seen during the pandemic, and help us to build back better with new innovations at the cutting edge of technology. I look forward to speaking on the Bill when it returns on Report.
I also welcome the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill, because I served on the Joint Committee under the noble Lord McLoughlin. I think it will restore our constitutional arrangements around elections to the situation from which we should never have departed. I realise the reason that that situation was departed from when we had a coalition, but this Bill will put things back so that we cannot ever again have the mayhem that we saw during the 2017-19 Parliament—thank goodness I was not here.
I welcome the Electoral Integrity Bill, because people deserve to know that all votes will be counted properly and that nobody can impersonate people at the polling station.
I also welcome the return of the Environment Bill. I have not yet had a hand in that legislation, but I have to bring to the House’s attention again the matter of Walley’s Quarry in my constituency—an appalling landfill, where the odours are out of control and the operator is out of control. The Environment Agency has not been strong enough; it has been behind the curve. I brought forward a ten-minute rule Bill on the issue in the last Session and will be speaking with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about how we might include some of those ideas in the Environment Bill.
As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, we are building back better, we are levelling up and we are investing in towns like Newcastle-under-Lyme. I am looking forward to our towns fund bid announcement by the end of the month. We have also reached the next stage of the Institute of Technology process with Newcastle College. We are turning the red wall blue one brick at a time, and I welcome my new hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) to her place.
Far be it from me to give the Leader of the Opposition any advice, but perhaps the Opposition should listen to a former red wall MP of their own, a Mr Anthony Blair, who wrote this morning:
“People like common sense, proportion and reason. They dislike prejudice; but they dislike extremism in combating prejudice. They support the police and the armed forces…it doesn’t mean that they think those institutions are beyond reproach. Not at all. But they’re on their guard for those who they think use any wrongdoing to smear the institutions themselves. And they expect their leaders to voice their own opinion, not sub-contract opinion to pressure groups, no matter how worthy.”
If the Labour party wants to be taken seriously again in places like Newcastle-under-Lyme, it should listen to Mr Blair and start by backing the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which my constituents support. And Labour should not have MPs shouting “Kill the Bill”—it is disgraceful.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I am glad we are now at the stage of talking about building back and not just mitigation of the worst of the pandemic. I thank the NHS for the success of the vaccine roll-out and look forward to the eligibility criteria reaching my age group later this year.
Social mobility and security at work have both gone backwards over the past decade, and this has been accelerated by the pandemic. The opportunities for those who are lucky enough to have wealth, property, high-paying jobs or, indeed, the ear of Government Ministers have rarely been greater, but for people without those privileges—those stuck on benefits, surviving week to week in insecure employment, just getting by or, indeed, the millions of self-employed and others who were excluded from the Government’s pandemic support—prices outstrip wages year on year and things get tougher. An ambitious Government could do so much—from banning zero-hours contracts and fire and rehire tactics to properly supporting people in setting up their own businesses and realising their potential.
I wish to focus my comments on three key sectors, the first of which is social care. The Government are again stalling their years-delayed promise to fix social care. As well as the financial hardship and heartbreak that so many families suffer, social care staff remain shockingly underpaid. Before being elected to this place, I represented social care workers as a trade union officer. They are truly dedicated and caring, doing the jobs that we choose not to, yet the average care worker in England is paid £8.80 an hour, and a third of care workers are employed on zero-hours contracts. They deserve so much more than empty applause.
Secondly, we know about the repeated body blows that all parts of the hospitality have suffered over the past year, but there has been a particular impact on young people just starting their careers. Two weeks ago, I met representatives from Greene King who said that 50% of their 40,000 employees are under the age of 25. Hospitality is part of the answer in that the sector can employ and train new staff swiftly, but we should also recognise the gap that has been left in the past year, when so many young people and students never had a chance to earn as they studied. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, my constituency manufactures one fifth of the world’s gin. From speaking both to producers in the wine and spirits sectors and to smaller breweries locally, I know that the limited support that pubs have had has not flowed through to the on-trade suppliers that have faced the knock-on impact of closures.
Finally, I want to bring up nuclear. I am proud that Warrington North has the fourth highest number of nuclear jobs in the country. They are highly paid, highly skilled, solid, secure, unionised jobs—the gold standard for what we should aim to expand. The Government are not doing enough to commit to new nuclear or to the new high-tech opportunities it would bring. We deserve better, and real ambition to improve the lives and life chances of British people. I worry that the agenda announced yesterday will not be enough, or ambitious enough, to build back better.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
There is so much to welcome and so much ambition, yet I have so little time to welcome, on behalf of the constituents of Arundel and South Downs, what was in Her Majesty’s Speech yesterday. There were tougher sentences for dangerous drivers; fairer immigration; an ambitious environment Bill to clean our air, purify our rivers and boost biodiversity; and, for so many people, the lifetime skills guarantee, giving them a second chance at a first-class life.
As a member of the Science and Technology Committee, I look forward to a record £22 billion of funding coursing through our labs and catapult and research centres while the Advanced Research and Invention Agency brings disruptive and dynamic thinking to play in that world.
Every citizen and taxpayer should celebrate and quiver with excitement about our new plans to reform procurement; to cut red tape; to allow small businesses to participate on an equal footing; to allow us to buy British; and to streamline the 300 different regulations through which people who are trying to sell services to Government currently have to jump. Over the life of this Government, £1.5 trillion of spending will be procured—that is a great opportunity to improve the quality of services for our citizens and value for money for taxpayers.
Let me conclude on a subject that Her Majesty mentioned that I am very passionate about. We can all be proud that Britain is a world leader on climate action. While some Opposition Members talk about the climate emergency, we are getting on and solving it. We were the first to put a 2050 net zero target into law, and our target of a 68% reduction on our 1990 emissions is one of the most ambitious of any country on the planet.
We have the fastest growth in renewable energy of any G20 nation and some of the most ambitious targets. By contrast, a German child born today will be leaving school before her country stops burning coal, in the year 2038. It is not just energy; we are an automotive green leader in the world. The last combustion engine in the UK will be sold in 2030, while across the channel our French friends will be rolling out combustion-engine-driven vehicles for another 10 years, until 2040.
The reason we can make so much progress so quickly is that we Conservatives believe in the ferocious problem-solving power of free enterprise and free markets—that human ingenuity and innovation are the answer, not delaying ambulances with street protests or blockading a free press. With the right frameworks, business is the solution not the problem, and just as global capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty and transformed the length of human life, and just as we have seen with the vaccine development, so too will it be business that actually solves the climate crisis.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak on better jobs in the week that the task of improving skills in Cambridge—indeed, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough—has been taken up by the excellent Dr Nik Johnson, our newly elected metro Mayor, and in the week that Cambridge United secured promotion to league one. No need for skills improvement there—Paul Mullin’s 32 goals are the most ever scored in a league two season, and we are very proud of the team’s success—but in the east, as elsewhere, we have a skills challenge.
The Government have known for years about the skills gap. They have estimated that we will have a shortfall of some 4 million highly skilled workers across the country by 2024. Adult participation in learning is falling and continues to be unevenly distributed, with the poorest adults with the lowest qualifications still the least likely to have access to training. Under the Conservatives, the number of colleges has declined by a quarter, and we are down 350,000 further education students in the last five years. A simple question for the Government: will they listen to the Sixth Form Colleges Association, which speaks for excellent colleges in my constituency, and raise the rate to at least £4,760 per year, and will they protect threatened applied general qualifications, such as widely respected BTECs?
For Cambridge and the area around it, there is a particular problem, because future economic success can never be taken for granted. For our universities and world-leading life sciences and tech sectors, we need to attract and retain people—people who have choices because they can go elsewhere, here or abroad. If homes are too expensive, and transport too difficult, the environment becomes stressed and unattractive. Those are not only problems in themselves; they threaten the very engine at the heart of a future green UK economy.
We have not yet seen the details of the Government’s planning proposals, but if they in any way reflect last year’s White Paper then the row over housing numbers will be as nothing when people realise that for huge swathes of our country the Government are giving a green light to developers to build. “Newt counters” is how the Prime Minister described us. Every person who cares about our countryside, and there are millions upon millions of us, had our concern and our love of our precious land disrespected by him. “Build, build, build,” he says, in his ignorance of what it is that makes our country special.
Homes for all, yes, but without proper regulation and enforcement we know where it leads. Given the appalling experience of so many of my constituents trapped in homes that are unsellable because of the cladding scandal, and facing rocketing insurance costs and huge fees and charges, it beggars belief that the Government’s answer is less regulation—unbelievable until, as The Sunday Times has expressed, one notes the unhealthy and close relationship between the Government and their developer friends. No wonder they want to curb the right to protest and fix the voting system. That is why these proposals should be rejected.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and to what was initially my home county, I hope it is just one year that Ipswich will have a local derby against Cambridge and that very soon we will be at least a couple of divisions higher than Cambridge.
There is a huge amount to welcome in the Queen’s Speech, but I only have a short period of time to speak. It is right that we are robust in tackling illegal immigration. There is nothing compassionate about sending out a message that it is worth the risk, fuelling an evil trade in human lives and limiting the capacity of this country to help the most genuine refugees who are fleeing actual areas of conflict, not other safe European countries such as France. I welcome that, but we really do need to deliver, because—like many other Members, I imagine—my inbox is pretty full of emails from constituents who are quite angry about that.
I very much welcome the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which will introduce tougher sentences for some of the most serious offenders and has good stuff on protests. There is nothing that threatens peaceful protest, but it gives the police the powers they need to curb excessive protesting, which causes a huge nuisance and disrupts the lives of the law-abiding majority on far too many occasions.
There is a lot further to go on criminal justice. Many of my constituents feel that the system is not far away from being broken, and I cannot blame them, when we find out that the person responsible for killing Richard Day in Ipswich not long ago received only four years and will be let out automatically after only two years. This is an individual who punched my constituent in the neck, which led to his death, and was seen laughing over a dying man, going through his pockets and stealing his belongings. Understandably, my constituents are sickened by that, and I will take that up in the debates we have.
As for skills, we are in a great place to benefit from a freeport in Felixstowe, but I am determined that Ipswich people benefit from that freeport as much as possible. We have to have an ecosystem approach when it comes to skills and education. We need to create a framework for business, FE colleges and our university, and we need to start careers advice early, so that there is a clear sense early on that there are multiple pathways—there is an academic pathway but also a technical pathway—and that no one route is superior to any other. There needs to be that common sense of purpose.
The lifetime skills guarantee is a huge benefit and a huge plus. Ipswich will also benefit from a town deal. In Ipswich we have Spirit Yachts, which designs some of the world’s most in-demand, elegant yachts that are sold across the world, but in the past it has been people from outside the area coming to Ipswich to make them. The maritime skills funded by the town deal will make sure that it is local people who get those jobs and sell products from Ipswich—the greatest town in the country—around the world. I very much welcome this Queen’s Speech. I cannot say any more about it, but it is a good job.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
We all know the challenges that we face following covid, particularly those facing our young people due to the loss of economic opportunity and the loss of opportunities through our withdrawal from the EU, including the right to live, work and study freely across the continent. They, above all others, needed something particularly special in this Queen’s Speech, and this simply was not it.
Throughout the debate, we have heard tales of electoral success and triumph, and I am sure that by this stage in the afternoon, Government Members’ appetite for hearing tales of how the SNP secured twice as many MSPs in the Scottish elections as the Conservatives is quite sated. Nevertheless, the contrast between the sparse content of the programme before us and the ambitious prospectus on which the Scottish National party secured 48% of the votes and 49% of the seats could scarcely be starker.
In the time I have, I would like to focus as best I can on three areas: 5G, broadband and the delivery of infrastructure spending. The Government say that they aim to ensure that 95% of the UK’s geographic land mass has 4G coverage from at least one operator by 2025 and that the majority of the UK population has 5G coverage by 2027. In other words, that is an ambition to have 4G coverage by 2025 that is no better than the 3G coverage we have at present, which still misses out large areas of the land mass, and to take another six years to have 5G coverage that barely extends out of the main urban centres.
If that leaves my constituents in Gordon distinctly underwhelmed, imagine how they will feel hearing that the Government only plan to ensure 85% coverage of gigabit broadband by 2025. As ever, the challenge is not about claiming credit for what the commercial build was going to do anyway. It is about building from the outside in and ensuring that people have the economic capability—the financial wherewithal—to pay for the services they need and to have the access. There is absolutely no indication that that is what the Government intend to do.
On infrastructure spending, instead of trying to grab powers and agency away from our Government in Edinburgh, who have a proven track record for delivering major road and rail projects, the UK Government need to be working with the Scottish Government on these things.
Once this crisis is over, there will be a referendum to put Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands rather than in the hands of the Prime Minister. This Conservative Government might be determined through their actions and inactions to hold back Scotland’s recovery, but they cannot and will not stand in the way of our democracy.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I will focus on three key areas given the time available.
Despite the Government’s talk on creating good, secure jobs, it was disappointing not to hear in the Gracious Speech any indication of action to finally outlaw fire and rehire practices, especially since these tactics have been used by companies throughout the pandemic and the Prime Minister himself declared them “unacceptable”. This is by no means a new practice. However, it is shameful that as many as one in 10 workers have been subjected to these shameful tactics over the course of the pandemic, with companies meant to represent core British values instead using this crisis as an excuse. Mere talk on this issue is simply not good enough. We need action to give hope to the many thousands of workers who continue to be bullied and pressured by these disgraceful tactics by confirming that decisive action will finally be taken. I urge the Government to act.
On the Government’s plans for voter ID at general elections, let us remind ourselves that electoral fraud is a tiny problem. There were only 164 alleged cases of any kind at the 2019 general election, with only one conviction. Across all elections in 2019, the police found it necessary to issue a mere two cautions. The Electoral Commission itself has confirmed that the
“UK has low levels of proven electoral fraud”,
and even senior Conservative MPs have denounced the new voter ID policy as a complete waste of time and public money.
About one in five British citizens do not have a form of photo ID, and they are disproportionately from young, low-income and black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. There is no low-cost or free option of photo ID available to people in the UK, with a passport costing upwards of £80 and a driving licence upwards of £40. This is a cynical and ugly attempt to rig the system to disempower the poorest and most marginalised groups, and at an estimated cost of £20 million per election to enforce. The Government must be in no doubt that this policy is unwarranted and unnecessary.
The Queen’s Speech did nothing to address concerns over future funding for Wales. Despite the vague rhetoric and buzzwords around levelling up across the UK, we have no real clarity around the criteria for the levelling-up fund or the community renewal fund. For example, part of my constituency lies in the Caerphilly county borough and has a number of the poorest and most isolated communities in Wales, but under the community renewal scheme, Caerphilly county borough has been excluded as a priority area. Yet the Chancellor’s constituency, where houses have been sold for more than £2 million, is included and prioritised for funding ahead of more deprived areas. Does the Minister think that this is fair or will address obvious need?
It is deeply concerning that instead of a strategic, joined-up approach to investment and tackling the urgent issues affecting our communities with Welsh local authorities, which have been in partnership with the Welsh Government to deliver the investment Wales needs, we will now see a centralised, Whitehall-led approach with no real understanding of the needs of Welsh communities, no record of working with communities in Wales, no understanding of the priorities of those communities, and a complete bypassing of devolution—a real step backwards.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) [V]
Jobs, in a constituency such as Sedgefield, are the key to the equalisation of opportunity that the Prime Minister has promised. Jobs are the foundation from which we can deliver opportunity, opportunity stimulates aspiration, and giving people aspiration is the key to them supporting the whole build back better and levelling up agendas. We have to remember that jobs deliver not only a source of income for people, but are also the key to giving them the self-worth that enables them to feel they are contributing to society, as opposed to just taking from it.
That means that we need to consider jobs in as holistic a context as possible. We need to facilitate the creation of high-level, well-paid technical jobs as well as roles in support and voluntary organisations, with the opportunity to deliver these through the green agenda. The community infrastructure fund is a step in the right direction, but I would like further consideration to be given to support for local social infrastructure, as proposed by the all-party group for “left behind” neighbourhoods, which I co-chair, and the desire to see a community wealth fund delivered to support the provision of capital resource that enables voluntary organisations to deliver both volunteers and support staff, rather than just spending time sourcing grants to enable them to survive.
The development of the economic hub in Darlington, which neighbours my Sedgefield constituency, is a critical platform to deliver more high-value jobs in an area ready for this stimulus. This is levelling up, not giving up, by any agenda. The key rail infrastructure project I support, the reinstatement of Ferryhill station, is a perfect example of how we deliver opportunity. It will connect people in Ferryhill and the surrounding villages through this rail link to the freeport and all the other outstanding employment initiatives being delivered by the Tees Valley Mayor in Teesside.
On local industry, I look at companies such as Cleveland Bridge, Cromex, Filtronic, 3M and myriad small and medium-sized enterprises that need our focus on improved Government procurement processes, which will deliver greater resilience for our critical national supply needs and be a platform to encourage investment. A lot of the representations I get suggest that the best thing the Government can do to stimulate growth is utilise their purchasing power and place orders. An acceleration of Government procurement programmes can send key critical messages to sectors, encouraging private sector investment. The procurement Bill needs to deliver a programme that drives towards a more resilient and robust UK-based manufacturing platform, and ensures that public sector expenditure is strongly encouraged to support our UK business.
On stimulating jobs, there is no better place to start than with the entrepreneurs of this country, who have seen the stimulation of young employment through the kickstart scheme. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) have proposed an enterprise kickstart scheme, whereby instead of funding apprentices we fund entrepreneurs to allow them to kickstart a small business—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am sorry, Paul, but I have to interrupt you. I know you are speaking remotely and probably could not see the clock, but sadly your three minutes have expired.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) [V]
This is a thin Queen’s Speech that fails to grasp the nettle of the challenges we face and is an example of a Government short on ideas and low on energy. While President Biden is demonstrating bold policies in the US, lighting the way for a green-focused recovery with investment in new industries, technology and research and development, this Government are tinkering around the edges, with 11 years of austerity leaving the country unprepared and underfunded to deal with the pandemic. We need transformative action to ensure that our economy works for the whole country. I want to focus on two issues: green jobs and a sustainable social care sector.
We all know that we have less than a decade to make the bold changes demanded by the UN’s climate body to limit temperature rises, but this Queen’s Speech is bereft of any programmes or resource allocation to implement the green jobs plan we need to meet the target. In fact, the Government completely scrapped their only green jobs scheme, the green homes grant, after it was outsourced to a private American firm which botched the roll-out. Ministers will trumpet the newly announced national infrastructure bank, which we have been calling for for a long time now, but the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the new bank will provide less than half the funding we used to receive from the European Investment Bank and offer a fraction of the funding recommended by the National Infrastructure Commission to tackle the climate emergency.
With an ageing population, the social care sector is vital to our social and economic health. Successive Conservative Governments have starved local authority budgets by £8 billion in real terms since 2010. We now have a welfare state in the 2020s built on the life expectancy of the 1940s. With the unlocking of society, now must be the time to deal with the social care challenge, not the time to kick it into the long grass. When he entered office in 2019, the Prime Minister promised on the steps of Downing Street that the Government would fix social care. Instead, we have the wet proposal in the Queen’s Speech. This failure has a real impact every single day in constituencies such as mine, with undervalued and poorly paid social care workers, no security or protection for residents from questionable care home owners, and families worried sick about the quality of care of elderly and disabled family members.
It does not have to be like this. We need to tackle unemployment with a new jobs promise; we need a 10-year plan for investment and reform to provide security as we emerge from covid; and we need green investment to be brought forward to create 400,000 jobs. A better future is possible—somewhere we can feel proud to grow up in and safe to grow old in—but it will not happen with the Government’s lack of a comprehensive plan for green jobs and a sustainable care sector. After the pandemic we have been through, this is the least we can expect.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
There are so many aspects of the legislative agenda set out in the Gracious Speech that I would like to speak to, but underpinning all of them is the need for a strong economy and investment in the jobs and skills that are its foundation. In the past year, I have seen businesses close and people lose their jobs as a result of the pandemic, and our priority is rightly to get people back into work. We have supported people with furlough and a range of other schemes including universal credit, but furlough must come to an end, and in-work benefits such as universal credit rely on a buoyant job market where everyone has the opportunity to get a job.
Even before the pandemic, automation and technological advances showed that it was difficult to predict the future of work, so our workforce needs to be nimble. I welcome the Government’s commitment to prioritise education and access to skills and training. Enshrining the lifetime skills guarantee in law will ensure that education does not stop at school, so that everyone has the opportunity to achieve their potential, not only improving lives but creating a skilled and flexible workforce that attracts business and drives continued growth and prosperity.
I shall digress for a moment and turn to health, which, as Members know, is an area close to my heart. I remind the House of my previous employment as a doctor and of my wife’s current employment as a doctor. Our proposals rightly drive forward the reforms we need in the NHS and in mental health care, but I say again that there are few interventions better than getting someone into work to improve their physical and mental wellbeing. It is through jobs and a thriving economy that we create the funds to invest in our public services, to fund the ongoing improvements in St Peter’s Hospital, to rebuild the Weybridge health centre, to train up more nurses and doctors and to invest in the science and research that drive medical advances.
Turning to science and research, next week I will get my covid vaccine. Surely we need no better example of the critical and central role science plays in our society than the covid vaccination programme. Science and innovation drive progress, and it is through our commitment to supporting and investing in research and development that we provide jobs and opportunities for the future. This allows us to tackle the great challenges of our day such as climate change, where our commitment to innovation is driving efforts to develop new biofuels supporting jet zero. This is not only directly attracting investment in jobs in R&D itself but supporting sustainable aviation, which many jobs and businesses in Runnymede and Weybridge rely on.
In fact, my constituency of Runnymede and Weybridge is a great example of the opportunities available when we combine great people, great business and great infrastructure, but the vision set out by the Government improves even on this. Our investment in infrastructure, both digital and physical, will create better connectivity and the conditions for growth, and I look forward to the roll-out of ultrafast broadband, as well as to improvements to our road and rail networks. That will support our SMEs, providing local employment that will in turn increase footfall to local high streets, creating even more jobs and strengthening our vibrant and close-knit communities.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow my colleague on the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). I want to start by congratulating Humza Yousaf and Nicola Sturgeon on their emphatic victories in their re-election to Scotland’s Parliament last Thursday. They are both back with increased majorities, and I look forward to working with them to ensure that we deliver the best service we can to my Glasgow South West constituents. I also look forward to the Government’s other measures when the crisis is over, including granting a section 30 order so that Scotland can decide its own future.
As well as the great domestic issues that we are dealing with, there are a number of worrying international developments. I want to express my solidarity with the people of Gaza, as well as with the Kurds in Turkey, where a quite disgraceful situation is happening. There are also worrying trends in Colombia, and the Colombian Government must immediately end all violence targeted against protesters. I look forward to the Government telling us that the protection of human rights will be that at heart of their international response.
The last two Queen’s Speeches, in 2017 and 2019, committed to legislation in response to the Taylor review and the good work plan. The pandemic has exposed even further the issues and inequalities in the world of work. The lack of an employment Bill has, according to the TUC, rowed back on the Government’s promise to boost workers’ rights. It is three and a half years since the Government responded to a joint inquiry by the Department for Work and Pensions Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee by promising a response to the Taylor review. Workers urgently require legislation to ensure that they have the right to a written contract. They should also have the right to a fixed-hours contract, ending the practice of zero hours, and the right to know in good time and with adequate notice their hours of work for the days and weeks ahead.
What this pandemic has exposed is the high number of workers without access to statutory sick pay. Workers should never again have to choose between going to work and possibly passing on sickness to colleagues, and going without finance and being unable to pay their bills. An employment Bill is urgently required to address the status of “worker” or “employee”, and to define what self-employment is and who the self-employed are. As the Taylor review says, the meaning of the term “worker” is ambiguous and the legal definition is excessively vague. I join colleagues from across the political parties and trade unions such as GMB and Unite in seeking to end fire and rehire. Never again should workers have to face that exploitative practice. The Government need to put an employment Bill before the House, or allow others to do so and provide time for it, in order to ensure dignity and fairness at work. If they fail to do so, many of us will demand the time and will be putting our names in for ballots to ensure that we get this Bill through.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the Queen’s Speech. The Government have had a great deal to say about levelling up, but there was very little in the Queen’s Speech to help our thousands of small businesses all over the country with the real help they need to recover from the pandemic. Our small businesses are the lifeblood of our communities, and the need for strong local communities has been highlighted as never before.
Small businesses and our town centre businesses have already been struggling with high business rates, outdated property leasing arrangements and increasing competition from digital services. Although the Government did a great deal to alleviate some of the problems the pandemic presented, it was unavoidable that many businesses, especially in our retail, hospitality and cultural sectors, should have lost a great deal of income over the past 13 months. Consequently, many small businesses have taken on a great deal of debt. The overall debt burden for businesses in this country is estimated to be more than £100 billion. The Federation of Small Businesses has said that 40% of its members describe that debt as “unmanageable”. I am sure the Prime Minister has a great deal of sympathy for all those struggling with debt repayment, so it is extremely disappointing not to see more action from the Government to support these businesses with the debt burden they are struggling with. Additional support would save many jobs.
I welcome the Government’s announcement yesterday that they plan to continue to open up the economy according to the dates in the road map, and I very much look forward to the next step on Monday. It will deliver a huge boost to businesses up and down the country, and I very much hope we will see a dramatic increase in economic activity in the second half of the year to help struggling sectors recover some of their covid losses.
But beyond the post-covid bounceback, what are the Government’s long-term plans for economic growth? Only sustained growth can help businesses to pay down their debts and deliver secure, skilled, long-term employment. The only thing we have heard about so far is freeports, which are set to be delivered in hand-picked parts of the country and cannot deliver jobs and growth everywhere. They rely on special customs status and are appropriate for only limited forms of economic activity. Evidence shows that their effect is to divert economic activity from elsewhere, rather than generating new activity of their own.
The Government do not appear to have any further ideas. The Liberal Democrats want to see investment in green growth and real action on the fight against climate change, in the form of upgrading our homes, investing in renewable energy infrastructure and reducing carbon emissions from transport. There was nothing in the Queen’s Speech to indicate how the Government plan to progress towards their own goal of net zero by 2050—that is an alarming omission, given how urgent the need for action is. In particular, we need to see the Government’s plans for replacing the green homes grant, to encourage householders to invest in zero-carbon homes, which will encourage the construction sector to invest in the skills, apprenticeships and workforce to deliver this. That work needs to start now.
The most recent figures from the Official for National Statistics show that our trade with the EU has recovered since the low level of exports recorded in January, but exports to the EU in March 2021 were still 20% below the March 2019 levels. The Government need to abandon their flag waving, look seriously at the obstacles that the trade and co-operation agreement presents to trade, and make a start on addressing them if they want this country to recover economically.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Queen’s Speech and the measures within it. Its timing marks a real turning point in the pandemic. As we cautiously roll back the restrictions that have blighted our lives, I for one am overjoyed to be holding meetings again in person and to be meeting constituents once again face to face.
As we talk about jobs in this debate, there has been one job change in Brecon and Radnorshire that I very much welcome and celebrate. James Evans was last week elected to represent us in the Senedd, finally ending 22 years of stale Liberal Democrat control.
Knocking on doors throughout my constituency, people told James and me that the one thing they wanted was jobs. My constituency has no general hospital, no high-rise office buildings and no large corporations, but I firmly believe that we can be at the heart of the green jobs revolution. With £12 billion of investment funding unlocked by the 10-point plan that the Prime Minister unveiled last autumn, this is a real moment to give rural businesses every chance to create the jobs we so desperately need to keep our young people close to home.
On that, can I urge those on the Front Bench to prioritise hydrogen? This is an industry that the Government acknowledge could create up to 8,000 jobs by 2030, with the potential for many tens of thousands more over the coming years, and Brecon and Radnorshire’s very own Riversimple could be at the forefront. Based in Llandrindod Wells, Riversimple is an award-winning manufacturer of the UK’s leading hydrogen fuel cell car. It wants to recruit some 80 additional engineers for its research and development centre and to build the most sustainable manufacturing plant in the world. Eventually, it hopes to employ 220 people.
These are the types of opportunities that areas such as mine need. I very much welcome and encourage the Secretary of State to come to Llandrindod Wells to see what Riversimple does and see the difference that jobs such as those could create in an area like mine.
Rural areas do not want to stand still; they want every opportunity to embrace new technologies. This Queen’s Speech empowers businesses. It is important to remember that it is businesses that create jobs and wealth. It is the Government who give them the tools to do that, and that is exactly what this Queen’s Speech does.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]
Earlier this year, I engaged proactively with the Government on the plight of domiciliary care workers who are so often and routinely not paid for travel time between home visits. Ministers said that they recognised the scale of underpayment of the national minimum wage across sectors such as social care and childcare. They underlined their opposition to my Bill on the very basis that these issues would be tackled head-on by their own legislation, not mine, in the form of an employment Bill. So I must ask: where is the Bill?
The basis of my private Member’s Bill that never was was to secure beyond doubt that the lowest-paid would receive their full entitlement under the law. That was it—nothing more, nothing less. It was hardly a sweeping change. However, this small but significant change, which would have made a difference to hundreds of thousands of care workers across the country, was rejected on partisan lines.
This type of issue is one of the many that could have been addressed by the Government’s employment Bill—one that many Opposition Members expected to be on the parliamentary calendar during the coming autumn. So too could it have been an opportunity to address the many other inequalities that exist among the modern workforce. Young workers, for example, often find themselves at the mercy of low pay and precarious employment in sectors such as hospitality, the service sector and the wider gig economy.
As with many things, this is yet another example of the Government talking a big game, but when it comes to the crunch leaving our people wanting. Furlough will soon end, and HR departments will be pumping out redundancy notices. While the pandemic has ripped through our communities, with the economic shock waves to be felt for some time to come, too many bosses have used this moment in time—a moment of unrelenting human misery—as a smokescreen to mount an outright assault on their workers. So too could the Government have brought forward a commitment to end the practice of fire and rehire, the likes of which we saw most recently with British Gas, at the heart of any employment Bill.
Above all else, the Government talk their biggest game on levelling up, particularly for the regions of this country that have for far too long been left behind by the politics of austerity, deindustrialisation and the rampant privatisation of our public services. How can they look my constituents in the face, asking them to take their levelling-up agenda seriously, when too many in our great northern towns and cities remain at the sharp end of the labour market? Without a genuine and meaningful offer to workers, there will be no levelling up, only words and empty slogans, and it is my people—my constituents—who will pay the price.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
In yesterday’s programme for government, Bills that will make it harder for people to vote, scrap fixed-term Parliaments and reduce judicial oversight of the Government were announced. Yet the Government found no room in their programme for a clear and unequivocal pledge to make fire and rehire illegal, and this at a time when workers’ rights are under attack from some of the biggest businesses in the land. The results will be all too predictable. Continued inaction will inevitably lead to yet more companies telling their staff to accept wage cuts, with no negotiation or discussion, or face the sack.
Minister after Minister has condemned the practice. The Prime Minister himself said earlier this year that using threats to fire and rehire was unacceptable as a negotiating tactic. Questions from myself and many other Opposition Members have been met with the response that the Government are studying the ACAS report that was delivered to them—a report that has now been sitting on their desks for three months. We do not know what is in the report—the Government have not published it—but I have to ask: what is the point of commissioning ACAS to produce it if nothing is to be done with it?
Given the indignities that millions of employees have been expected to tolerate over recent months at the hands of unscrupulous and immoral employers, it is shocking that there is no employment Bill or any reference whatever to workers’ rights and dignity, nor any mention of levelling up for those subject to employment practices that are more reminiscent of the Poor Laws than those of a 21st-century society—and this despite the fact that back in November the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), said of the employment Bill that it was a matter of when, not if.
In recent weeks, as we have heard others mention, hundreds of British Gas workers have lost their jobs because they refused to be fired and rehired. Where is their levelling up? Sites are filled to bursting with British Gas vehicles—van graveyards, deliberately created by the company because no one is left to work in them—with the entirely predictable result that service visits and repairs are hugely behind schedule.
Last year it was British Airways telling staff to sign on the dotted line or join the dole queue, just weeks into lockdown. In Ireland and Spain, where BA’s parent company also operates, these tactics would be illegal. Workers in those countries were safe from fire and rehire, but in the UK, BA saw no legal obstacle to effectively telling staff, in some cases with decades of service, to take 40%, 50% or 60% wage cuts, or face the sack, all while BA was using money from those same taxpayers to stay afloat.
Ultimately, the state has a responsibility to ensure that the rights of workers are protected by the force of law against the deep pockets and power of huge corporations. By failing to act yet again, the Government are abandoning that responsibility and instead appear to be content with issuing stern lectures from the Dispatch Box about how naughty these companies are. Lectures do not level up for workers. Lectures do not pay mortgages, they do not pay the bills and they do not protect jobs.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Over the past year, workers across the country have risked their lives to keep us safe and our country moving, but workers’ rights and the long overdue employment Bill were not mentioned once in the Queen’s Speech. It shows that workers’ rights are nothing but an afterthought for this Conservative Government when they have to quickly put out a statement saying:
“We will introduce the Employment Bill when the time is right”.
However, the employment Bill could not be more urgent.
The pandemic has exposed appalling working conditions in the UK, which have left workers unprotected. Zero-hours contracts and the exploitative working practice of fire and rehire must be banned through legislation. The TUC has found that nearly one in 10 workers have been told to reapply for their jobs on worse terms and conditions or face the sack. We need proper rights for every worker from day one, an increase to statutory sick pay and the living wage to be raised to at least £10 an hour—something that would have increased pay for 8.6 million workers.
The Government’s commitment to investing in access to education and training throughout people’s lives rings hollow when the same Government are cutting the union learning fund, which supported more than 200,000 learners in workplaces across England in 2019-20. It is a complete fallacy for the Government to state, on the one hand, that they want to level up the country but, on the other hand, to fail to legislate to support the one in eight workers trapped in in-work poverty. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that it is
“deeply concerned that providing security for low-paid workers was not a priority”
in the Queen’s Speech, and this exposes the central point. The Conservative party is not acting to fix the system, as for the past 11 years it has enacted the policies that have exacerbated the inequalities and insecurities at the heart of our economic system.
There is no new deal for workers, as there was no pay increase for public sector workers in the Budget. Instead, as workers continue to suffer from exploitative practices, the Government have prioritised the introduction of completely unnecessary voter ID plans, which will lock millions of people—predominantly elderly, low-income, and black, Asian and ethnic minority voters—out of our democracy. In 2019, a year with a high-turnout general election, the UK saw just one conviction for impersonation out of over 59 million votes. It is a total waste of money that will cost the taxpayer £20 million every single election. Voting is a right, not a privilege.
However the Government choose to spin it, fundamentally, their programme plans on levelling down our democracy and the living standards of workers. “Levelling up” is nothing more than a marketing slogan, and it is certainly no call to action. My constituents in Luton South and communities across the UK deserve much better than empty platitudes. We deserve a transformative, interventionist strategy that prioritises improving living standards through well-paid, secure, unionised jobs and strong public services.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
As the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, we need jobs, jobs, jobs, and following the hardship that many people, especially the young, will have felt over this year, I know that we need them more than anything else.
We do not just need any jobs; we need quality jobs—jobs that will keep aspiration in Doncaster. After all, decades of Labour party dominance in my borough and across the north of England have left an entire population feeling left behind and deprived. “Left behind” and “deprived”—hardly words that entice new investment. Generations have therefore been left behind, not because of any lack of talent, but because of lack of opportunity and aspiration from local political leaders.
In Doncaster, we are expected to cheer when yet another a fast-food restaurant announces that it is opening, or when a new warehouse is built. It is no wonder that we in Doncaster have experienced a brain drain. That is why I want to state to all my wonderful constituents that I will do everything I can to make sure that, in the future, they will have more exciting job prospects, just like their fellow citizens in the south.
We live in a great country, yet the chances of someone like me, from the north, with my working-class background, have been limited at best. Put simply, a young person with my type of background has for too long found the odds stacked against them when trying to enter this place and other prestigious institutions. Luckily, with this re-energised one nation Conservative party that is committed to levelling up, we can reverse that trend.
If it is possible for me, why should it not be possible for anyone in Doncaster not only to work here but to get any job they dream of? That should not mean that they must attend a Russell Group university or get a job down south. Why can they not find success in the area where they were born? We want innovation, with research and development companies setting up in Doncaster, as well as new manufacturing companies, software design companies and gigafactories. With those in Doncaster, I see no reason for a continued brain drain from our town.
I therefore hope that, with my voice, and with the Government’s investment in research and development and commitment to establish ARIA, we can bring the new digital revolution to Doncaster. As this Government build back better, I will work hard in Don Valley and here to champion our borough.
If I may, I will speak directly to my constituents. We might be behind at present, but we will not be left behind any longer. I say to industry leaders: if you want a vibrant workforce, come to Doncaster; if you want a loyal workforce, come to Doncaster; and if you want an MP to champion your investment, come to Doncaster. Let us stop the brain drain and inspire the young. That way, everyone can feel valued, needed and part of a community that pays its way and contributes to all the services we have relied on so much these past 18 months.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
Yesterday, my constituents and millions of people across our country desperately needed to hear a Queen’s Speech that rose to the scale of the challenges our country is facing. In a year when the pandemic has been particularly brutal for the poorest and the most vulnerable, millions of families are no more than a pay packet away from disaster, with children out of school going hungry, and the elderly and disabled have suffered at the hands of a deeply inadequate social care system. Instead, the programme for government we were given showed just how far removed this Government’s priorities are from tackling the widening inequalities, poverty and insecurity that define the lives of so many of my constituents and millions more across the country.
The Government outlined detailed initiatives for a shameful new plan for immigration, voter suppression, legislation and constitutional reform to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, but they dedicated a mere nine words to their plans for social care. That speaks volumes about the warped priorities of the Government, as they seek to increase their powers and to limit accountability, at a time when they have presided over a catastrophic pandemic response resulting in more than 130,000 deaths.
This Government talk big about levelling up. I asked the Prime Minister how he could say those words with a straight face. He has missed an historic opportunity to level up workers’ rights and end disgraceful fire and rehire practices—legal loopholes that allow bosses to undercut workers’ rights and conditions with absolute impunity. Nearly one in 10 workers have been told to reapply for their job on worse terms and conditions since the first lockdown in March. One in four workers in the adult social care sector are on zero-hours contracts. Care workers in the independent sector earn barely half the average UK annual wage. That is a disgrace, not least after the sacrifices that they have made to keep our elderly, disabled and vulnerable cared for during this difficult year.
When I asked the Prime Minister last month whether he would commit to legislating against the draconian fire and rehire practices that are already outlawed in several countries, stunningly, he did not even know what I was talking about. Instead of bringing forward legislation to lift millions in work out of poverty, this Government have betrayed working families on low wages and precarious contracts.
The task before us is immense—to rebuild from the ashes of the pandemic a society that prioritises health, education and wellbeing. The lessons from the past year have shown just how undervalued our key workers are. In their name and in recognition of the sacrifices that they have made for all of us this year, we must continue to fight for a society run by them and for them.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
This is a Queen’s Speech that fails working people and seeks to further curtail people’s rights and freedoms. In 2019, the Government promised to bring forward an employment Bill, which, they said, would make the UK the best place in the world to work and include measures to strengthen workers’ rights and protections. Many of these measures were also promised back in 2018 on the back of the Taylor review.
Yesterday, the Government put out a statement saying that they have taken all steps to protect workers, so why has this Queen’s Speech failed to deliver an employment Bill that would repeal the current anti-trade union legislation and make it illegal once and for all for employers to fire and rehire their staff on much worse pay, terms and conditions? It has shown that the Government are not prepared to do anything about how weak employment rights have caused unsafe workplaces and economic insecurity, all of which have been an issue for many years but have been exacerbated by the impact of the pandemic.
This Government’s inaction—they have not done anything—on rogue employers using fire and rehire practices is, once again, a clear example of how they are not the party of working people. Fire and rehire is a disgraceful practice where employers, who have often made millions, or even billions, during the past 12 months or so, are now using the pandemic as a cover to reduce pay, strip back pensions and steal holiday entitlement from their hard-working staff.
We have had plenty of lip service from the Prime Minister and his Ministers on fire and rehire. On 13 January, the Prime Minister said:
“We regard fire and rehire as unacceptable, and we will continue to make that point and seek further means of redress.”—[Official Report, 13 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 294.]
On 23 March, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), said:
“We will not kick this into the long grass. We will tackle it. We will not allow bully boy tactics.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 790.]
Just today, the Chancellor said that fire and rehire should not be used as a negotiating tactic. He went on to say that the Government await the findings of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service report—but the Government have had the report since February.
I am afraid that this Queen’s Speech has shown that the only thing that workers can expect from this Government are empty words. Can the Government seriously talk about levelling up across the country when they are doing nothing about the fact that pay and terms and conditions are being levelled down across the sectors and the economy because of the Government’s failure to protect and enhance employment rights?
If the Government really cared about working people, they would have used this Queen’s Speech to protect workers, to strengthen their rights and to end fire and rehire once and for all.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Yesterday, the Government had an opportunity to show people living in left-behind communities, such as my Birkenhead constituency, that they are serious about building a fairer and more prosperous economy in the wake of this terrible pandemic. My constituents desperately needed decisive action to create jobs, rebuild our local economy and high street, and support our struggling public services. Instead, they got the shortest Queen’s Speech in five years and one that says nothing about the most important issues of our time, from protecting workers’ rights in the workplace to fixing our crumbling social care system and creating the green jobs of the future.
Not for the first time, the Government’s promises to build back better have been exposed as nothing more than empty rhetoric. We cannot hope to build back better while millions of people remain trapped in precarious work and so vulnerable to exploitation in the workplace. The foundation of an economic recovery has to be secure, well-paid employment, which today is all too scarce in the communities that I have the privilege of representing, but yesterday’s speech made no mention of the employment Bill that British workers were promised two long years ago, nor did it contain any measures aimed at stamping out despicable fire and rehire tactics, despite these measures being routinely condemned by senior Cabinet members from the Dispatch Box.
The promises to level up the country are utterly meaningless without immediate support for the 600,000 young people who have felt the fall-out of the pandemic most of all, yet the Queen’s Speech did absolutely nothing for the more than 50% of young people living in my constituency who are out of work. A year into the pandemic, it is clear that the job schemes introduced by the Government last year are just not working. The kickstart scheme has created jobs for a measly 3% of young jobseekers and, too often, these positions come without the quality training that is so essential to prosper in a fast-changing job market. That is why I urge the Minister today to adopt Labour’s pledge of a jobs promise, which would guarantee young people the right to training, education and employment opportunities after six months of unemployment.
As we build back better, we must build back greener, too. A green industrial revolution has the potential to breathe new life into towns such as Birkenhead. In my constituency, we can create thousands of new jobs through investing in the Mersey tidal project, the expansion of offshore wind in Liverpool bay and the development of a world-leading hydrogen industry. However, just months away from the UK hosting COP26, the Queen’s Speech had nothing to say in support of low carbon and green industries and on getting the green homes grant back on track. That was a total dereliction of responsibility.
There is no clearer illustration of how twisted the Government’s priorities are than their plans to drive through discriminatory voter ID laws that risk disenfranchising 2 million predominantly young and black, Asian and minority ethnic voters—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It’s a wrap. Sorry. I call Richard Holden.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
There is a huge amount to welcome in the Queen’s Speech this year. The core of it is our levelling-up agenda to unite the country, and that has particularly been the case in North West Durham. We have already seen people really getting on board with that in our recent local elections; we have gone from zero to six seats in the council elections and fourth to first in the share of the vote over the last four years. There is some other great stuff as well, including our commitment to the NHS; safer streets; getting immigration under control; modernising our criminal justice system, including reforming bail; reforming leasehold; online safety; a higher education Bill to ensure that there is free speech on our university campuses; and a real push on our violence against women and girls strategy, which I will hopefully be working cross-party on in my push to get virginity testing and hymenoplasty banned.
The core of the Gracious Speech for me is really three things on the levelling-up agenda. It is about skills and post-16 education; getting the subsidy control Bill in the UK, which means that we are making our own decisions about that; and the procurement Bill, which means that we can finally put British at the heart of everything that the Government do.
I would like to say a couple of small things to the Front-Bench team. It was great to hear my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley South (Mike Wood) and for Clacton (Giles Watling); we have spoken to the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury about beer duty and how we want to see a differential for draught to help our pubs build back. I also want to see the gambling review come into legislation, if not this year, then in the next Queen’s Speech, because I am very passionate about that, along with other members of the all-party group on gambling-related harm.
Finally, I just want to say that this is a Queen’s Speech that really helps deliver on our levelling-up agenda, a one nation agenda. I will be supporting it at Divisions in the future.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
We have had an excellent debate with noteworthy contributions on all sides. I particularly want to congratulate my hon. Friend the new shadow Chancellor, who made an excellent speech and will do a brilliant job in her new role. I also want to commend the excellent speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) and for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley). I also congratulate all other hon. Members who spoke in this debate.
The central question facing this Gracious Speech is whether it can rise to the moment in which we find ourselves because, while life is starting to return to a semblance of normality, and we are all thankful that that is happening, we cannot just go back to business as usual. Exposed in this pandemic we see millions of workers in deeply insecure jobs, the key workers in our country underpaid and undervalued, public services under deep strain, and an economy not working for too many people in our country and characterised by deep inequalities of wealth, income, power and place. And on top of that we face the challenge of economic recovery from covid and the climate emergency.
I welcome the fact that after 10 years in power some of the issues I have mentioned are at least being recognised by the Conservative party finally; I am old enough to remember when it was controversial to do so. But acknowledging the problems is not the same as solving them, so the test of Government and this Gracious Speech is whether they can address them. Last October, the Prime Minister said they would. Indeed, he invoked the spirit of the post-war Labour Government:
“In the depths of the second world war…when just about everything had gone wrong, the Government sketched out a vision of the post-war new Jerusalem…And that is what we are doing”.
Let us be absolutely clear, therefore, about the scale of change that the Prime Minister is claiming he can deliver: a new economic and social settlement for our country. We agree this is necessary. The question is: will the Government deliver?
What would that mean as a start? It would mean five things: tackling insecurity at work with a new deal for workers; responding to the climate emergency with a genuine green industrial revolution; supporting our businesses to recover from the pandemic; rewriting the rules of our economy to shift wealth and power towards ordinary people and their communities; and rebuilding our public services. On those five issues, the British public deserved a Queen’s Speech that met the moment, but on each of those tests the Gracious Speech failed to deliver.
Let us start with the insecurity that millions of workers face. There is no greater symbol of this than the scourge of fire and rehire tactics—at British Airways, at British Gas and at many other employers—now spreading through our economy. We would never want this for ourselves or our families, so why should we ask the British people to put up with it? The Prime Minister says it is unacceptable, so where is the legislation to outlaw fire and rehire?
In the 2019 Queen’s Speech, we were promised an employment Bill. What about this Gracious Speech? No employment Bill. The Government have sufficient legislative time to seek to disenfranchise millions of voters with a voter ID system, but they do not have sufficient legislative time to tackle the insecurity that millions of workers face. It is shameful. Never mind a new economic and social settlement—a Government committed to basic rights at work would have brought forward this legislation. The obvious conclusion is this: the problem is not a lack of legislative time; it is that they have not changed their minds about how an economy succeeds. They still believe that insecurity masquerading as flexibility is the route to economic success: treat people worse, give them fewer rights and they will work harder. The rhetoric is changed, but the reality is more of the same.
Let us consider the climate emergency. There has been lots of talk about jobs and skills in this debate—lots of good rhetoric. What do we see in the United States? President Biden has a $1 trillion green stimulus over the next decade. We have called for a £30 billion stimulus over the next 18 months to create 400,000 green jobs. What do this Government offer? Investment that, even on their own dodgy analysis, is one 60th the level of Biden’s stimulus.
This has real consequences for our manufacturers. There was talk of the automotive sector, and that is the litmus test for any green recovery. Germany is investing billions and France the same, in a global race to build the new gigafactories of the future. We need to start financing three additional gigafactories in this Parliament, public and private together. Where are the resources from Government? Nowhere near the scale required. It is the same in aerospace and in steel. We have a new clean steel fund that is hopelessly inadequate and will not even come on stream until 2023.
This illustrates a wider truth about industrial policy. In the Gracious Speech, there are new measures on subsidies—what was called state aid—as part of our post-Brexit arrangements, and there are some sensible changes to the old EU regime, but let us understand the truth here. What was holding back Government from giving industry the support it needed was not the previous rules but their prevailing ideology. In 2019, under the old system, Denmark invested 1.5% of GDP in industrial support and Germany 1.4%. The UK invested 0.38%—among the lowest in Europe. The real fear is that this will not change.
What about our businesses? Businesses can breathe a sigh of relief as our society reopens, but many face a long road to recovery. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the real issue of the unmanageable debt facing businesses. We have been calling for months for that debt to be restructured. I do not think that the Chancellor has done enough. At the end of June, the moratorium on evictions from commercial properties will be lifted, and I really worry about the issue of rent. It is often the largest cost for a small business, and commercial tenants in the UK have paid just a fifth of the rent they owe in the last quarter. We needed a comprehensive plan for British business, including meaningful debt restructuring. The Gracious Speech failed to deliver.
Rebuilding in a fairer way for business is not just about cash. Too many of our rules favour anti-competitive monopolies. Nowhere is that clearer—and I think there is agreement on this on both sides of the House—than in relation to big tech. It is good that a Digital Markets Unit has been established in the Competition and Markets Authority, but it needs new legislation; where is it? We need a new competition Act that establishes a statutory code of conduct for tech giants and gives the CMA real powers to act on behalf of consumers and small businesses. My hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor spoke very well on the issue of online retailers versus the high street. Again, there have been years of promises but no action. It is another missed opportunity to build a new economic and social settlement.
As we rewrite the rules of our economy, we also need to change our vision of what a successful economic future looks like. Industrial policy is about manufacturing, but it is also about what my hon. Friend has called the everyday economy in which so many people work. Nowhere is that more true than in relation to care. We need to get away from the idea that care is somehow a burden and understand that it is a crucial part of our economic infrastructure. That is true of care for the young —one of the best economic investments we can make and in which we still lag way behind other countries—and care for older generations. We are now two years on from the Prime Minister saying that he had a plan to fix social care “once and for all” and 10 years on from the Dilnot report on social care. It is shameful that the Government are still not making any concrete proposals in the Queen’s Speech and are letting down our care workers.
We cannot ignore the wider context of the Gracious Speech in terms of public spending. The Chancellor has acted in the pandemic to help businesses and individuals, as it is right to do, and we have welcomed the furlough, but let us be clear about the truth of the plans for public spending in future years. In the so-called unprotected Departments—in other words, the majority of Government Departments—there are cuts programmed in from April 2022. There will be further cuts to local government on top of the 50% cut that some parts of the country have already seen, cuts to the justice system, cuts to transport and cuts to the majority of Departments after 10 years of austerity. There can be no greater sign that they have not learned the lessons. We cannot build a new economic social settlement with these kinds of cuts after 10 years of austerity.
This Gracious Speech fails to meet the challenge of this moment. The Government claim to have changed and to want to offer something different. The truth is that it is a very thin Queen’s Speech from a Government in power for more than a decade. There are no measures on insecurity at work; they are not stepping up on the climate challenge; there is inadequate support for British businesses and industries; there is no plan for social care; and there is continued austerity in many areas. The country demands a Government who meet the moment, but the Gracious Speech does not remotely measure up. It has failed in the task at hand.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I was struck by the speech from the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). He said at one point that the Government had not changed; in fact, the one thing that had not changed was the right hon. Gentleman. I listened to his speech and was taken back to when I was a Back Bencher in 2014 and he was the Leader of the Opposition—he could have said exactly the same thing. It is always the same thing: he does the country down and says that we always talk about austerity. How can he talk about austerity when he himself acknowledged that the Chancellor has spent £350 billion on unprecedented support—on furlough and for British business? The world that he describes is the world of his tenure as Leader of the Opposition—there may well be a vacancy; who knows whether he could come back?—but it is not a world that many millions of people in this country recognise.
We continue to protect the lowest-paid workers: we have raised the national minimum wage and again raised the national living wage—having been the first Government to institute it, we raised it only in April, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman forgot that. He has certainly forgotten the immense help and the grants that have supported businesses that would otherwise have closed. The bounce back loan scheme has approved more than £46 billion of loans for 1.5 million businesses. As we follow the Prime Minister’s road map out of lockdown restrictions, new recovery loans and restart grants will help businesses in urban areas.
The country that I see is completely different from the gloom and doom that the Leader of the Opposition—forgive me; the right hon. Gentleman is not the Leader of the Opposition any more, although he may be in future—paints. It is not recognised by millions of our fellow subjects. The Queen’s Speech builds back better and delivers on real people’s priorities. We are embracing a green, vibrant economy. It was extraordinary to hear the right hon. Gentleman again denigrate our achievements in the green industrial revolution. Only a month ago, John Kerry said to me—and he was good enough to say this publicly—that the efforts of this Government and this country had been extraordinary and we were world leaders in the fight against climate change. That is acknowledged. The right hon. Gentleman cited the United States: their target is a 50% reduction by 2030 from the 1990 level; our target for 2030 is a 68% reduction. It is far in excess of the United States’ target, yet the right hon. Gentleman once again points to other countries with the assumption that here in Britain we are terrible and everybody else is doing it better, whereas in fact the reverse is the case. It is Britain that people look to as leaders on climate change. Inwardly, the right hon. Gentleman probably acknowledges that.
Let me move beyond the histrionics of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. We have laid legislation for the UK’s sixth carbon budget which, I am delighted to say, proposes a target that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 78% by 2035 compared with 1990 levels. It is by far the most ambitious reduction plan in the G7 and the right hon. Gentleman knows that. He knows that the 10-point plan has been acknowledged throughout the world as a world-leading and world-beating proposal. [Interruption.] They scoff and laugh, as they scoff and laugh at their own voters. They scoff and laugh at the country endlessly, and I am afraid they have suffered from their scoffing and mocking attitude.
The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to mention the EU’s proscriptive state aid regime, which we have jettisoned, and welcomed the fact that we have a subsidy control Bill that will create a new domestic subsidy control system. He accepted that, which did require a measure of realisation that we are moving on from the EU. I am delighted that, among his colleagues, he at least accepts that Brexit is finished and that we can move with confidence beyond EU membership. I very much welcome that but, again, to hear his speech one would think that the United Kingdom was a place of irredeemable squalor and poverty, when in fact the opposite is the case. When people look at the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and the way in which we have conducted the vaccine roll-out, they see a country that has been extremely successful. Only today I was speaking to Ministers from Japan and Italy, who mentioned, without any prompting whatever, the extraordinary work that our scientists, nurses, health service and, in fact—dare I say—our hard-working Ministers and civil servants had put in to effect a successful roll-out. People are looking at Britain and they see a successful country that is regaining its place in the world.
This country is home to a powerful combination of elite research institutions, thriving life sciences companies, superb research charities and, of course, an excellent national health service. This winning combination has led the world’s fight against covid and saved many thousands of lives while creating a high number of high-quality jobs across the United Kingdom. These are things of which we should be proud and which our Government are hoping to—and will—build on. Yet the right hon. Gentleman is looking back to the past, simply repeating all the tired old phrases of five, six or seven years ago.
The ARIA Bill, which will become an Act in this Session and formed part of the Queen’s Speech, is a world first. It is a great innovation. The Department is delighted to have introduced this Bill to create an Advanced Research and Invention Agency, which will fund high-risk, high-reward research with the potential to produce new technologies, new industries and new jobs. ARIA represents the very best of British ingenuity and creativity, but the right hon. Gentleman and his friends wish to pretend that we are the very worst—that nothing we can do is any good and that nothing we can do can compete with France, Germany and all the other countries that he mentioned. In fact, in science and innovation the opposite is true. The Ministers from the countries I mentioned were actually saying the opposite of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.
I see a huge difference between Government Ministers and MPs and our people across the country, and the Opposition—a fundamentally different outlook about the future and possibilities of this country. Time and again as a Minister and even as a Back Bencher, I have heard nothing from the Opposition but a litany of complaint and, frankly, a dirge of abuse about the country. The Government have huge optimism and belief in the abilities of this country and of our people to overcome difficulties—
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am not going to take any interventions. All I hear from the Opposition is scoffing, mocking and abuse. The truth is that across innovation with the vaccine roll-out, across net zero with the 10-point plan and the opportunities for COP26, and across enterprise, we have a Government who are committed to bringing progress and driving success across the entirety of the United Kingdom.
It would be indecent of me not to mention the latest addition to our parliamentary forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer). Consider this, Mr Deputy Speaker: this was a constituency that had never returned a Conservative Member of Parliament. Indeed, a former Labour Member of Parliament who is not so popular on the Opposition Benches these days, Peter Hartle—I can’t even remember his name! Peter Mandelson, now Lord Mandelson, said quite clearly that this was a seat that would never vote Conservative, but of course it did. And why did it vote Conservative? I suggest that, listening to the dirge-like pessimism of many Members of the Labour party, the people of Hartlepool took a different approach. They believe in the future of the country and of their community. We as a Government are determined to repay their faith in their country and their hard work, and to ensure that we not only level up but build back better.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(David T.C. Davies.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Grassroots Football: Feltham and Heston
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I am very grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate. Covid-19 has had a serious and detrimental impact on football, from premier league teams all the way down through the pyramid structure of football. The giants of the game have received much media attention recently, and not all for good reason. I joined colleagues on both sides of the House in condemning proposals for a new European super league. It is one of the reasons why I sought this debate.
May I start by sharing our deepest condolences with the family of Jordan Banks, a nine-year-old boy who was killed in a tragic incident last night playing football in Blackpool? Our hearts go out to him and his whole family at this time. That could have been anybody, anywhere. It is a tragic incident, and our thoughts are with them.
Football is so much more than just a sport, and it begins at grassroots level. When we talk about grassroots football, we need to truly appreciate what that means. Grassroots football is about every park and every playing field across the UK. It is about giving every club and every individual of all ages and genders who has the desire to be involved in the game the opportunity to do so. Even in the face of financial pressures and the disappointment of not being able to play due to the covid pandemic, the response from football clubs at all levels has been remarkable. It shows the integral place that clubs have at the heart of our communities, bringing people together and supporting one another on and off the pitch.
The Football Association’s latest report on the social health and economic value of grassroots football found that more than 14 million people play grassroots football in England alone, which equates to a quarter of the population. It contributes more than £10 billion to society each year, while childhood football participation helps with the reduction of more than 60,000 cases of depression and anxiety, and more than 200,000 cases of childhood obesity.
The grassroots game, as we emerge from the pandemic, is uniquely positioned to have a positive impact on not only the nation’s mental and physical health, but our economy. The benefits extend further, with social interactions that will help people to develop confidence, communication and resilience. The comradery, friendship and values of teamwork are all crucial in helping to shape people’s identities, supporting emotional wellbeing and dealing with difficult times, and I will illustrate that through the particular stories of two local clubs.
I thank all involved in grassroots football clubs in Hounslow and across the country, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). Clubs in our constituencies are supported by the Brentford FC Community Sports Trust, which delivered more than 1,000 activity packs to children and families, supported more than 100 young carers who were shielding, ran virtual youth clubs and provided mentoring support. Starting in June, in partnership with Premier League Kicks, there will also be a new football development centre, which will be delivered at Springwest Academy in Feltham for students from local schools currently receiving free school meals and from low-income families. In partnership with Bedfont Sports FC, it also delivers a girls-only weekly training session.
In my constituency, clubs include Bedfont Sports FC, with Bedfont Eagles in the Isthmian League south central division, Hanworth Villa FC and CB Hounslow United FC in the Combined Counties premier division, and Bedfont and Feltham FC and FC Deportivo Galicia in the Combined Counties division one. Collectively they have been able to support thousands of children and young people playing each year. Everyone, from young people all the way up to people in their 60s, is able to join a club and play either on a Saturday or Sunday. At the vast array of clubs in these leagues, we have seen at first hand all ethnicities, ages and religions playing together. We also have the incredible Feltham Bees supporting football for children and young people with disabilities, run by the incredible Ray Coleman at Springwest Academy.
I want to recognise the amazing leadership that comes from within our communities to help grassroots football. I pay tribute to Dave Reader from Bedfont, who sadly passed away with covid in November last year—a legend to whom the community has not yet been able to pay proper tribute. He gave a lifetime of service in grassroots football, from the local Sixth Hounslow Cub Scouts football club in Cranford 35 years ago, to the work with Bedfont Eagles and, over the years, support for other clubs, including Whitton Wanderers and CB Hounslow United.
Last night I spoke to Dave’s son Terry about his father, who had even won a BBC Unsung Hero award. Over 35 years, he helped to build local grassroots football. Dave and Terry worked together, and Terry continues so much of that work today. They have led on the ground and working in partnership with the local authority and others. A lease and a chance are what Hounslow Council gave Dave and Bedfont many years ago.
Since then, through partnership and sheer hard work, love and commitment, they also managed to raise over £3 million in partnership with the Football Foundation and others. About 350 children play each year and about five adult teams see 80 to 100 playing also. The club has had a partnership with Kingston College for a programme for 16 to 19-year-olds, but with the football played at Bedfont. The club now even has dance classes and boxing classes. Over the years, Dave touched a lot of people and has left a huge legacy.
But the issues on the frontline have been devastating post covid. The impact on children has been a lot more than people have seen, with children suffering mental health issues, becoming reclusive, not wanting to be active, or putting on weight. Clubs have described to me the joy of children being able to reunite with their friends and said how brave they have been. The first ask from local clubs is about support to help in dealing with the rise in mental health issues. They say they are learning as they go to support each other and their young people, but they are not trained in mental health and would really appreciate guidance and support on what best to do.
I was told the story of one nine-year-old boy impacted by anxiety and the strain of the pandemic whose mental health deteriorated so much that he was hospitalised. Only recently he came back to the club. The huge impact of a short video from his young team-mates saying how much they needed him gave a massive boost, and they are working together to support his recovery. As Terry described it to me, he tells the coaches, “You are their second dad.”
The second ongoing issue for so many of our clubs is financial support and the financial consequences of the pandemic. Clubs have been able to benefit from grant support that has been hugely welcomed. Hounslow Council’s thriving communities fund has also been vital, and is helped with other bits of support, like that from the Mayor of London’s Laureus project, which have been vital to helping local clubs get through. However, they have raised with me the ongoing impact of having no income for a year. There is facilities upkeep and other costs, and the worry that now lockdown is ending, these challenges may be put aside as everyone thinks that things have returned to normal. For clubs to continue to grow and thrive, ongoing strategy and support is going to be needed.
The third issue is the stability of home grounds and places to play casually. One of my local clubs, started by Frank James and supported daily by Vijay Kumar and other coaches and supporters, has struggled to keep access to its home ground at Green Lane in Hounslow. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth has said that she is saddened about the situation having, as a councillor before becoming an MP, helped CB Sports with the lease and subsequent grant application to transform a little-used piece of grass into a fine set of facilities.
The club is supported very closely by Middlesex FA, which has been assisting in efforts to make sure that it has the pitch hire agreement needed to satisfy the conditions of the Combined Counties football league. The lease for the past few years, however, has been with Hounslow Sports Club, run by Mr Stephen Hosmer, which has been continuing to put obstacles in the way of an agreement even though it is a condition of its own lease with Hounslow Council. Hounslow Sports Club under Mr Hosmer has failed to maintain pitches. Shockingly, just two weeks ago, Hounslow Sports Club was prosecuted by Thames Water for offences to which it pleaded guilty relating to using an illegal water connection at the premises and a water fitting that caused or was likely to cause an erroneous measurement of water. It is surely unacceptable for the ability of children to play football and to be in supportive environments to be held back by such behaviour.
I have seen the work of CB Hounslow United. I have met the young footballers. I have spoken to the parents and I have seen the devastating impact the situation has had: the drop-off in players, because they do not know week to week where their next game or training will be; and parents trying to plan their complex lives juggling work and home. How are they going to get their children to and from practice and games? It is a really difficult and challenging situation.
Stability for play is vital to help to build the relationships that hold clubs together, and to build the family connections and wellbeing which so often support young people going through difficult times and give them the space and the support they need. What these stories also show is that local authorities are vital. There is no statutory requirement for local authorities to support grassroots football. Currently, they must provide essential services for their residents. However, sports and recreation facilities, and the delivery of community sport services, are not a requirement.
I may also raise here—I have discussed this previously with the Minister—the side issue of families using local parks for parkruns at the weekend. They have struggled to get parkruns going as lockdown ends. Jon in my constituency raised the issue of the Government’s position on when parkruns will be able to restart, so I would be grateful for the Minister’s response on that.
We must also ask the way to make sure how local authorities can be better supported to help grassroots football thrive. Hounslow Council developed a welcome local football facility plan in 2019 for pitches, changing room pavilions, clubhouses and other priority projects, but that is only deliverable alongside a national strategy and integrated place-based support. We also need a more localised approach to grassroots football that removes barriers to issues such as pitch access for training and fixtures, and engagement in the women’s game.
A localised approach to address the barriers they face should target increased funding into grassroots football and help to ensure that football remains affordable. Football clubs should never have to call off a game because their regular playing field is overbooked, or because they cannot afford the costs of the football pitch. Nor should they need to postpone fixtures due to the pitch not being of adequate quality. The popularity of the grassroots game is not yet matched by the facilities. Only one in three grass pitches is of adequate quality, and about 150,000 matches are called off every season due to poor pitch quality. This is what grassroots football needs to ensure that no one and no club gets left behind.
In March, I was pleased to attend the launch of the Football Association’s new grassroots football strategy. This is an excellent basis on which to address some of the challenges we face. I am pleased to see a commitment to ensure pathways into and through the male and female games, including disability provision, with bespoke participation opportunities as needed. Looking ahead to ensure the game thrives, they emphasise not only encouraging new participation at every age group and from historically underrepresented groups, but harnessing the power of digital to better connect participants to the game they love. It also means ensuring the game is played in a safe, welcoming and inclusive environment free from racism and discrimination.
On that point, earlier this month Ian Wright shared a video on social media where he discussed, with Alan Shearer, the racism he receives as a black ex-footballer and football commentator, showing how important it is to foster a more inclusive environment throughout football. I have heard from young people in my constituency about the racism they face which on occasion has forced them out of clubs. I know it is very much a problem that is still live, and there needs to be accountability and action to address it. There needs to be support for those who are victims of racism, so that they are not the ones who have to leave, but those who perpetrate racism. The Premier League’s social media blackout over the bank holiday weekend was a welcome show of solidarity to those suffering from racism, but we need tangible action, not just symbolism, if this issue is to be tackled effectively and I would be grateful for the Minister’s response on this issue, too.
In conclusion, I hope the Minister will join me in celebrating the contribution of grassroots football for millions across our country as the base from which national players are first given the opportunity to play. Volunteers such as Dave and Terry Reader, Ray Coleman, Frank James and Vijay Kumar in my constituency are second to none, but in the challenges that they all face, they need greater support to provide the service that our communities need and to support the volunteers who work with them to do so.
I would be grateful for the Minister’s response on the issues I have raised, particularly on extra support and guidance to train volunteers in helping to deal with mental health issues; on sustained funding and support post-lockdown, because things will not be returning to normal overnight; and on the delivery of an inclusive national grassroots football strategy, free from discrimination, that also supports local authorities in their key role in working with the FA and the Football Foundation in delivering the opportunities for the game on the ground.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
At the beginning of your speech, Seema Malhotra, you mentioned the tragic death of the nine-year-old lad from Lancashire, young Jordan Banks. On behalf of the Speaker and the British Parliament, I should like to send our condolences to his family, to all his team mates at Clifton Rangers junior football club and to all his friends. The hearts of the British Parliament, and our love, go to you all.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) on securing this Adjournment debate and on raising the important issue of grassroots sport, and football in particular, as well as the role that local authorities can play in supporting sport, the role of sport in local communities and a wide range of other issues. It is a pleasure to respond to her.
Following the sentiments expressed by the hon. Lady and by you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton), whom I spoke to earlier, I would also like to express on behalf of the Government and many others in this House our condolences to the family and friends of Jordan Banks, the nine-year-old boy who it would appear was tragically struck by lightning and killed while out playing football on Tuesday evening at Clifton Rangers junior FC. The club and the local community are clearly devastated by his loss, as evidenced by the outpouring on social media, and our thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends at this incredibly difficult time.
It is clear from the hon. Lady’s comments that she shares my view that sport and physical activity are hugely important for our physical and mental health, and I really appreciate the focus that she put on mental health. Indeed, that is why the Government have ensured that people can exercise throughout the national restrictions and why we have prioritised sport to open first when easing those restrictions. The road map out of lockdown in England laid out by the Prime Minister included a step approach to the return of outdoor and indoor sport. In March, school sport was allowed to resume, recreation or exercise outdoors with your household or one other person was permitted, and outdoor sports facilities were able to reopen. On 12 April, indoor leisure facilities including gyms and swimming pools were able to reopen for individual use, and on 17 May, almost all the rest of the sector will be able to reopen, including remaining indoor leisure facilities and adult indoor group sports and exercise classes, as well as some large events.
The hon. Lady mentioned parkruns. I have met recently members of the leadership of Parkrun, and they take their responsibility to run those events incredibly seriously, with volunteers and others throughout the country. There is nothing to prevent them from starting very soon, and I understand that their plans are to start again nationally from early June. I encourage local authorities that work with Parkrun to ensure that these events can open safely to take the applications seriously and sympathetically, because I think we would all like to see parkruns start again very soon. Looking forward, no earlier than 21 June, we hope that the remaining settings will open, including even more large events.
As the hon. Lady said, football is our national game, and it plays a really special part in many people’s lives up and down the country. It is clear from her comments that grassroots football clubs in her constituency have a really important role to play. It is the same in my constituency and in many others. Football is often the social glue that binds a community together, with young and old getting behind their team and supporting together come thick or thin. I saw many of those benefits at first hand when I was put through my paces—literally—during a visit to Rectory Park in west London to celebrate the reopening of grassroots sport last month. More recently I also visited Solihull and, at the end of the spectrum, Everton, and saw the great work done in those communities.
Football has important physical and mental health benefits, which are rightly being recognised as we emerge from the pandemic with a fresh determination to be a fitter and healthier nation. I completely agree with the emphasis that the hon. Lady put on the importance of sport and football in improving mental health. She also rightly focused on financial support. It is in recognition of the benefit of grassroots sport, including football, that the Government have provided a large amount of financial support. That includes pan-economy support to businesses through tax reliefs, cash grants and employee wage support, which community clubs up and down the country have also drawn on to help them through the pandemic.
Sport England has also provided £220 million directly to support community sports clubs and exercise centres through the pandemic through a range of funds, including its £35 million community emergency fund. As the hon. Lady knows, three football projects in the Feltham and Heston area have received funding from the community emergency fund: the Indian Gymkhana football club, Bedfont and Feltham football and social club, and Hanworth Villa FC. More support has recently been announced with the publication of Sport England’s “Uniting the Movement” strategy, which commits an extra £50 million to help grassroots sports clubs and organisations affected by the coronavirus pandemic.
It is important to recognise that, as well as standing behind local clubs during the current coronavirus crisis, support for grassroots football long precedes the pandemic. The Government have consistently invested significant sums through the Football Foundation over the past few years, as part of an established partnership with the Football Association and the Premier League that is focused on investing in community facilities, with the Government contributing £18 million each year. This three-way partnership sees a combined £70 million going to new facilities delivered by the Football Foundation charity every year. I am pleased to say that this investment is being felt directly in the hon. Lady’s constituency, with the Football Foundation awarding 10 facilities grants in the area totalling more than £750,000 since 2009.
We intend to build on that good work in the future, which is why in our 2019 election manifesto we pledged an additional £550 million investment in community sports facilities over the next 10 years. This will build a strong foundation for the bid for the 2030 men’s FIFA World cup. At the last Budget we announced the first tranche of that investment, with £25 million to be spent across the UK. I would like to recognise the Football Association in particular for the huge role it continually plays in encouraging and cultivating grassroots football across the country.
The hon. Member also mentioned the stability of clubs and challenges around leases. I cannot comment in detail about the particular circumstances mentioned, but I am alarmed to hear about some of the difficulties and I sympathise over the concerns she has expressed. I certainly hope that all stakeholders involved in the discussions can find a route towards a long-term future for the club. Unfortunately, I am also hearing about similar patterns across the country.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the important issue of racism in sport. She and I agree—in fact, the whole House agrees—that there is no room for discrimination and racism in sport. Recently I met with footballers, social media companies and many other stakeholders, as well as football authorities, to discuss racism and discrimination in sport. The Government are taking action, including through the draft Online Harms Bill announced this week.
We should also bear in mind that a lot of harassment is already illegal and it is not all online, although unfortunately, a large amount of it is. I encourage all those who suffer discrimination and abuse, online or offline, to make sure that they report it to the police and indeed to the social media companies, who do take their responsibilities seriously. Of course, with the new Bill we will be encouraging them to take those responsibilities even more seriously—there is the potential for fines if they do not remove inappropriate content. So further action is being taken, and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady and others in progressing that Bill.
It goes without saying that the past year has been like no other. I am determined that the sport sector, including grassroots football, emerges from the pandemic even stronger than ever. This Government made sure that grassroots sport was the first to return after lockdown, and they will continue to invest in the game to ensure facilities for all.
Seema Malhotra
I am grateful for the Minister’s responses on some of the issues raised. I wonder whether he would say a little more about mental health support and the experience of clubs at the moment, and whether more can be done to give advice, training and guidance on what they are clearly now doing on the frontline, which is supporting children in our community.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Lady for that comment. She raised an important point during her speech, and I would be happy to continue the dialogue with her on this. I have spoken to many clubs and, as I say, the work they already do in providing additional support, often in association with support facilities—local councils and others—is vital. Unfortunately, we have seen real challenges, particularly for children, and the suffering they have gone through with mental health challenges during coronavirus. It is important that we all do more. There is a role for Government, for local authorities and for sport, which has stepped up to the plate. The clubs have stepped up to the plate and are extremely innovative. I have been very impressed with some of the initiatives I have seen at clubs up and down the country. I would like to see more, and we would be happy to work with the sector to see more.
The hon. Lady raised many important points and we will not be able to address them all today, but I thank her for her commitment and for all the points she has raised. I look forward to continuing the dialogue with her and others.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Leader of the House
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) went back to his fundamental point, and I want to give him clarification on who may appeal to the IEP. There is one category of Member or former Member that is excluded, and that is a former Member who had the good fortune—if it is a good fortune—to go to another place. They would not be able to use the IEP. Anybody who brings a complaint against a Member is able to appeal to the IEP, and any Member or former Member except a peer is also able to take their case to the IEP.
[Official Report, 28 April 2021, Vol. 693, c. 467.]
Letter of correction from the Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg).
An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope).
The correct response should have been:
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) went back to his fundamental point, and I want to give him clarification on who may appeal to the IEP. There is one category of Member or former Member that is excluded, and that is a former Member who had the good fortune—if it is a good fortune—to go to another place. They would not be able to be sanctioned by the IEP. Anybody who brings a complaint against a Member is able to appeal to the IEP, and any Member or former Member is also able to take their case to the IEP.
Written Statements
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
Today, the Government will introduce the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill and, alongside this, will publish our response to the report of the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.
In delivering on the Government’s manifesto commitment to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act (the 2011 Act), we have welcomed the valuable contributions of Parliament, noting in particular the work of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Lords Constitution Committee and the debates in the last Parliament.
It is in this context that the Joint Committee was appointed to fulfil the statutory duty to conduct a review of the operation of the 2011 Act, and also to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny of the Government’s draft Bill and Dissolution principles paper. The Government are particularly grateful to the Committee for how it has balanced its statutory responsibility to conduct a review of the current legislation alongside its scrutiny of the draft Bill, and its consideration of whether the Government’s proposal will put in place constitutional arrangements that allow for the effective operation of our parliamentary democracy.
To put in place arrangements that deliver increased legal, constitutional and political certainty around the process for dissolving Parliament, the draft Bill makes express legal provision to revive the royal prerogative powers relating to the Dissolution of Parliament (and the calling of a new Parliament) that existed prior to the 2011 Act.
In returning to this tried and tested system (where the Prime Minister is able to request a Dissolution from the Sovereign), a core constitutional principle is that the Government of the day draw their authority by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House. The Government of the day are drawn largely from the membership of the House of Commons, and accordingly the House of Commons will continue to play a key role in our constitutional system.
Consensus and a common understanding of the principles that underpin the relationship between Parliament, Government, the Sovereign and the electorate is a fundamental part of our democracy. It is for this reason that, alongside the draft Bill, the Government published a draft statement of the constitutional principles that underpin the exercise of the prerogative powers to dissolve Parliament and call a new Parliament. In response to the Joint Committee report, the Government have also set out their view on the Joint Committee statement of “Principles and conventions on Confidence, dissolution, government formation”.
The Government welcome the opportunity to continue a constructive dialogue with members of the Joint Committee and, of course, all parliamentarians during the course of the debate on the Bill.
[HCWS8]
Preventing Electoral Fraud: Legislation
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
Electoral fraud is a crime that strikes at a core principle of our democracy—that everyone’s vote matters. In our current system, there is undeniable potential for electoral fraud and the perception of this undermines public confidence in our democracy.
In 2016, Sir (now Lord) Eric Pickles conducted an independent review of electoral fraud in the UK, highlighting cases such as Tower Hamlets—in which the 2014 Mayoral election was declared void because of corrupt and illegal practices—as evidence of vulnerabilities in our system which must be addressed.
Building on the recommendations of the Pickles report, the Queen’s Speech on 11 May 2021 set out that we will go further to protect the integrity of our democracy. Measures in the forthcoming Elections Bill will tighten the rules for absent voting and tackle voter fraud and intimidation.
Postal voting
For those who do not wish to or cannot cast their ballot in person, our system should continue to offer choice. Voting by post or proxy are essential tools for supporting voters to exercise their rights. However, we need to be vigilant in ensuring that they are not exploited.
We will bring forward in the Elections Bill a series of measures to give greater protection to all persons with an absent vote arrangement. We will set reasonable limits on the number of ballots a person can hand in on behalf of others and make sure that those people have a legitimate need to be involved.
Currently, once their application has been processed, a voter can hold a postal ballot indefinitely with no further checks or confirmations. We will require those registered for a postal vote to reaffirm their identities by reapplying for a postal vote every three years, adding an additional safeguard to reduce the risk of postal votes being appropriated and stolen from legitimate voters.
Proxy voting
Similar to the changes to postal voting, we will set a reasonable limit on the number of voters a proxy can act on behalf of. These measures will improve the integrity of the absent vote process by reducing the opportunity for individuals to exploit the process and steal votes.
Undue influence
Reflecting the recommendations of the Pickles report, I updated the House in March on the Government’s intention to legislate to clarify and improve the offence of undue influence of an elector. Although this is already an offence, the outdated legislation requires modernising, in order to ensure there is adequate protection for electors and that the offence is effective for enforcement agencies.
Voter identification
Asking voters to prove their identities will safeguard against the potential in our current system for someone to cast another person’s vote at the polling station. Showing identification is something people of all backgrounds do every day.
Northern Ireland has used voter identification in its elections since 1985, and expanded this in 2003 during the last Labour Government. In the first general election after photographic identification was introduced in Northern Ireland by the then Labour Government (2005), turnout in Northern Ireland was higher than in each of England, Scotland and Wales. Since then, the experience in Northern Ireland has shown that once voter identification is established as part of the voting system the vast majority of electors complete the voting process after arriving at the polling station. A wide range of countries, such as Canada and most European nations, require some form of identification to vote.
New research published yesterday on www.gov.uk clearly indicates that the vast majority of the electorate of Great Britain, 98% of electors, already own an eligible form of identification, which includes a broad range of documents and expired photographic identification. As part of our implementation plans we will also offer a free, local voter card if any elector needs one. The associated documents have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
Safeguarding the security and integrity of the ballot
Overall, the package of measures introduced in this Bill will reduce the risk of electoral fraud and reassure voters that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the security and integrity of the ballot, giving the public confidence that our elections are secure, modern, transparent, inclusive and fair.
[HCWS10]
Advanced Research and Invention Agency: Recruitment of CEO and Chair
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
Given the unusual autonomy placed on the CEO and chair roles for ARIA, it is vital we source the best possible candidates, and get them started as soon as possible. We have planned an extensive outreach strategy to ensure we maximise the size of the talent pool. We will expand and enhance the search for the right individuals, including by procuring the services of a respected international executive search agency from the Government’s commercial framework. This agency will not have any part to play in candidate selection or interview sifting—these activities will be the responsibilities of BEIS Secretary and the ARIA recruitment panel, respectively.
Parliamentary approval for additional resource of £200,000 for this new service will be sought in a main estimate for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £200,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS3]
East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO Offshore Wind Farm Development Consent Applications
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
This statement concerns applications for development consent made under the Planning Act 2008 by East Anglia ONE North Limited and East Anglia TWO Limited for the installation, operation and maintenance of the proposed East Anglia ONE North Offshore Wind Farm and the proposed East Anglia TWO Offshore Wind Farm respectively, their related offshore infrastructure off the coast of Suffolk and their related onshore electrical connections within this county.
Under section 98(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the examining authority must complete its examination of an application by the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the start day of the examination unless the Secretary of State sets a new deadline under section 98(4) of that Act. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it.
A request has been made by the Planning Inspectorate to extend the examination periods for the proposed developments. The reasons given for this request were that some interested parties, local authorities and statutory bodies have had their resources and capability reduced due to covid-19 restrictions, and that extensions would enable all interested parties sufficient time to engage properly and effectively in the examination processes.
Taking these reasons into account and after careful consideration, the Secretary of State has decided to reset the statutory timescale for the examinations. The examination periods for both applications are now extended by three months—from 6 April 2021—so that the examinations must be completed by no later than 6 July 2021.
However, mindful of the need to avoid unnecessary delays to the development consent processes, the Secretary of State requests the examining authorities make best efforts to complete the examination processes as soon as is reasonably practicable within the extended periods.
The decision to set the new deadlines for the examinations of these applications is without prejudice to the decisions on whether to grant or refuse development consents.
[HCWS4]
Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm Development Consent Application: Statutory Decision Deadline
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
This statement concerns an application for development consent made under the Planning Act 2008 by Norfolk Boreas Limited for the installation, operation and maintenance of the proposed Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm, its related offshore infrastructure off the coast of Norfolk and its related onshore electrical connections within that county.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) of the Act to set a new deadline. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a Statement to Parliament to announce it. The deadline for the decision on the Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm application was 12 April 2021.
The Secretary of State has decided to set a new deadline of no later than 10 December 2021 for deciding this application to allow an opportunity for further information in respect of cumulative impacts of the onshore substation and of offshore environmental effects to be provided and considered.
The decision to set the new deadline for this application is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.
[HCWS5]
Sale of Government-owned NWG Shares
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I can today inform the House of the disposal of £1.1 billion worth of Government-owned NatWest Group plc—NWG, formerly Royal Bank of Scotland, RBS—shares, representing 5% of the company, by way of an overnight sale via a competitive accelerated book build—ABB—to institutional investors. The Government’s remaining shareholding represents 54.8% of the company. Government stake in NWG pre-sale 59.8% Total shares sold 580 million Sale price per share 190.00p Share price at market close on 10/05/2021 197.05p Discount to close price 3.6% Total proceeds from the sale £1,102 million Government stake in NWG post-sale 54.8% Metric Impact Net sale proceeds £1.1 billion Retention value range Within the valuation range Uncertain Public sector net borrowing There may be future indirect impacts as a result of the sale. The sale proceeds reduce public sector debt. All else being equal, the sale will reduce future debt interest costs for Government. The reduction in Government’s shareholding means it will not receive future dividend income it may otherwise have been entitled to through these shares. Public sector net debt Reduced by £1.1 billion Public sector net financial liabilities Increased by £40.9 million Public sector net liabilities Increased by £40.9 million
Rationale
It is Government policy that where a Government asset no longer serves a public policy purpose, the Government may choose to sell that asset, subject to being able to achieve value for money. This frees up public resource which can be deployed to achieve other public policy objectives.
The Government are committed to returning NWG to full private ownership, given that the original policy objective for the intervention in NWG—to preserve financial and economic stability at a time of crisis—has long been achieved. The Government only conducts sales of NWG shares when it represents value for money to do so and market conditions allow. This sale represents a further step forward for Government in exiting the assets acquired as a result of the 2007 to 2008 financial crisis.
Format and Timing
The Government, supported by advice from UK Government Investments (UKGI), concluded that selling shares by way of a competitive ABB process to institutional investors represented value for money for the taxpayer. The sale involved wall-crossing, an established market procedure designed to improve the chances of reaching the widest possible range of investors, executing successfully and achieving the best price for the taxpayer. Wall-crossing is commonly used in transactions of this sort and involves contacting a number of institutional investors hours before the transaction launch on a confidential basis to give them more time to consider participating in the sale and to provide UKGI with feedback which can be used to optimise the offering. The institutions were selected on the basis of objective criteria and do not receive preferential treatment in the allocation. UKGI intends to keep disposal options under review and will continue to consider further transaction options that achieve value for money for the taxpayer.
ABBs are a well-established method of returning Government-owned shares to private ownership, while protecting value for the taxpayer. The first two sales of NWG shares were completed by way of ABBs—in August 2015 and June 2018, and this method was also used in the sell-down of the Government’s stake in Lloyds Banking Group.
This is the fourth sale of NWG shares undertaken by the Government, following previous disposals in August 2015, June 2018 and March 2021.
The sale concluded on 11 May 2021, with institutional investors purchasing a limited number of Government owned shares. A total of 580 million shares—5% of the bank—were sold at the price of 190p per share. This represented a 3.6% discount to the 10 May 2021 closing price of 197.05p. A small discount to market price is necessary and expected in a market facing the sale of such a large volume of shares overnight. UKGI’s view, having taken advice from their privatisation adviser, Goldman Sachs, and their capital markets adviser, Rothschild & Co, is that the final price achieved in the transaction represents fair value, based on the current and future prospects of NWG, and that the transaction achieved value for money for the taxpayer. Following this transaction, the Government’s shareholding will stand at 54.8%.
Details of the sale are summarised below:
Fiscal impacts
The net impacts of the sale on a selection of fiscal metrics are summarised as follows:
[HCWS11]
Online Safety Bill Update
(2 years, 11 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)
Today the Government are publishing the draft Online Safety Bill. This ground-breaking piece of legislation will deliver our manifesto commitment of making the UK the safest place in the world to be online, while also, crucially, protecting freedom of expression.
The Government’s overarching approach to digital regulation will promote competition and innovation, keep the UK safe and secure online, and promote a flourishing, democratic society, all while driving growth. The Government will also ensure that their approach to governing digital technologies is streamlined and coherent, within Government itself and across the regulatory landscape. Within this, our Online Safety Bill is a key Government priority, which takes a proportionate approach that promotes innovation.
The need for this legislation is clear: in recent weeks we have seen the sporting community hold a mass boycott of social media to demonstrate the cost of abhorrent online racist abuse, while at the same time we have heard legitimate concerns that social media platforms have arbitrarily removed content or blocked users online. It is crucial that we bring consistency, transparency and fairness into the online sphere.
In line with the full Government response published in December 2020, the draft Bill will place duties of care on companies and will give Ofcom the functions and powers to oversee the regulatory framework. The aims of this legislation are to ensure online platforms keep their promises by:
Protecting children.
Tackling criminal activity.
Upholding freedom of expression.
The strongest provisions in our legislation are for children. All companies in scope of this legislation will need to consider the risks that their sites may pose to the youngest and most vulnerable members of society. This Bill will require companies to take steps to protect children from inappropriate content and harmful activity online, from content such as pro-suicide material. Today I can also confirm that the final legislation, when introduced to Parliament, will contain provisions that will require companies to report child sexual exploitation and abuse (CSEA) content identified on their services. This will ensure companies provide law enforcement with the high-quality information they need to safeguard victims and investigate offenders.
Our legislation also makes clear that all in-scope companies must tackle criminal content and activity on their platforms, and remove and limit the spread of illegal and harmful content such as terrorist material and suicide content.
The largest social media platforms will need to set out what types of content are unacceptable, and will be held to account for the transparent, consistent and effective enforcement of these terms and conditions. We have heard from many parties, including the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, which has done excellent work in this area, how damaging online abuse can be. These provisions will help to address the abusive and unpleasant content online which does not reach the threshold of criminality.
Since the publication of the full Government response in December 2020, there has been significant concern about the exclusion of online fraud from the legislation. This Government understand the devastating effect that online fraud can have on its victims, so today we are announcing that the Online Safety Bill brings user-generated fraud into the scope of the regulatory framework.
This change will aim to reduce some specific types of damaging fraudulent activity. In tandem, the Home Office will be working with other Departments, law enforcement and the private sector to develop the Fraud Action Plan, including the potential for further legislation if necessary.
This legislation tackles a number of online harms, but it does so while also protecting core democratic rights—particularly freedom of expression.
While the internet has revolutionised our ability to connect with one another—enabling us to exchange views with people all over the world—the majority of online speech is now facilitated by a small number of private companies who wield significant influence over what appears online. We must make sure they cannot use that influence to suppress free debate, arbitrarily remove content or stifle media freedoms.
Therefore this legislation will not prevent adults from accessing or posting legal content. Rather, the major platforms will need to be clear what content is acceptable on their services and enforce their terms and conditions consistently and effectively. Companies will not be able to arbitrarily remove controversial viewpoints, and users will be able to seek redress if they feel content has been removed unfairly.
This legislation also includes new protections for journalistic content and content of democratic importance. We have been clear that news publishers’ own content on their own sites will not be in scope, and nor will user comments on this content. In addition, news publisher content that is shared on other services will not be in scope, and this draft bill also now includes robust protections to ensure wider journalistic content is not adversely affected. The largest platforms will also have a statutory duty to safeguard users’ access to journalistic content shared on their platforms.
When it comes to content of democratic importance, the legislation will also include protections to safeguard pluralism and ensure internet users can continue to engage in robust debate online.
We will require the largest platforms to put in place clear policies to protect content of democratic importance, and to enforce this consistently across all content moderation. This will include, for example, content promoting or opposing government policy or a political party ahead of a vote in Parliament, election or referendum, or campaigning on a live political issue.
The threat posed by harmful and illegal content and activity is a global one and the Government remain committed to building international consensus around shared approaches to improve internet safety. Under the UK’s presidency of the G7, the world’s leading democracies committed to a set of internet safety principles in line with the main themes in the UK Government’s Online Harms White Paper. This is significant as it is the first time that an approach to internet safety has been agreed in the G7. We will continue to collaborate with our international partners to develop common approaches to this shared challenge.
This Bill is the culmination of years of work and is truly novel. It is vital that we get it right both in order to create a framework that delivers for users and that maintains the UK’s reputation as a tech leader. This balance has been struck. During the pre-legislative scrutiny process, which I hope will start as soon as possible, my Department and the Home Office will continue work across both Houses to develop some areas of the legislation. This will include measures on user advocacy, and exempting educational institutions that are already regulated from scope. As we move forward, I would like to thank colleagues for their valuable contributions and continued engagement as we prepare this world-leading legislation.
[HCWS7]
Contingencies Fund Advance
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
This Government were elected on a manifesto that committed to setting up a new independent Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) and to have the
“most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth”.
DEFRA is seeking a further repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund (CFA) of £6,713,000 to proceed with setting up the OEP in advance of Royal Assent of the Environment Bill (the Bill). This new CFA is in addition to the advances of £215,000 and £536,000 notified to Parliament on 21 July and 23 October 2020 which covered essential set-up expenditure up to 31 March 2021.
Under “Managing Public Money” rules, providing a Bill has successfully passed Second Reading, then expenditure to make preparation for the delivery of a new service prior to Royal Assent requires an advance from the Contingencies Fund.
The requirement for this third CFA has arisen because the Environment Bill has been carried over and is still completing its parliamentary passage. The CFA is for the period from 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022 to provide sufficient contingency cover until the end of the financial year. This CFA covers essential set-up costs which include estates, recruitment and HR, and all interim OEP operational costs from 1 July 2021 until the end of this financial year, or until the OEP is legally established if earlier.
Regulations are required to commence the Bill provisions relating to the OEP, and we expect those regulations to be made shortly after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Ministers have agreed on the need to set up an interim OEP from 1 July 2021. The interim OEP will be set up, in non-statutory form, within DEFRA and will ease the introduction of the full OEP. The interim OEP will be led by the chair-designate, Dame Glenys Stacey, and the interim chief executive-designate.
The interim Office for Environmental Protection will be able to:
produce and publish an independent assessment of progress in relation to the implementation of the Government’s 25-year environment plan
develop the Office for Environmental Protection strategy including its enforcement policy
receive, but not investigate, complaints from members of the public about failures of public authorities to comply with environmental law
take decisions on operational matters such as staff recruitment, accommodation and facilities
determine approaches for how the Office for Environment Protection will form and operate, establishing its character, ways of working and voice.
The need to spend now in advance of Royal Assent will allow the interim OEP to commence on 1 July 2021, and smooth the transition so that the OEP can begin its statutory functions as soon as practical after Royal Assent.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £6,713,000 for this new service will be sought in the main estimate for Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £6,713,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS7]
Consultation on 12-month Rule in Regulation 12 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
This Government have made clear our commitment to giving our world-class police the resources, powers and tools they need. They show remarkable courage and dedication to duty every day, which deserves our utmost respect, recognition and support.
In doing their duty, police officers put themselves in harm’s way to protect us. Sadly, this can lead to injury, which in some cases has a lasting impact on an officer’s own health, and there are well-established provisions in place to support officers who are injured in the line of duty. Where a police officer suffers a serious injury on duty, which leads to total and permanent disablement, it is right that they are appropriately compensated.
The Government are today launching a consultation on the compatibility of the 12-month rule in regulation 12 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 with statutory obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and its suitability for inclusion in regulation 12. Regulation 12 governs the provision of disablement gratuities for police officers totally and permanently disabled by an injury suffered on duty.
The 12-month rule in regulation 12 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 limits the granting of the higher police injury gratuity to only those individuals for whom total and permanent disability manifests within 12 months of suffering an injury on duty. It has been argued that this rule may result in a difference in treatment between police officers who suffer physical conditions and those who suffer mental health conditions. The Government are committed to ensuring that the police injury benefit regulations are fully compliant with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
The consultation will be available from 12 May 2021 until 7 July 2021 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/regulation-12-of-the-police-injury-benefit-regulations-2006. A copy of the consultation will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS9]
The Government's Legislative Programme 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Following the state opening of Parliament, and for the convenience of the House, I am listing the bills which were announced:
Animals Abroad Bill
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill
Advance Research and Invention Agency Bill
Armed Forces Bill
Borders Bill
Building Safety Bill
Counter-State Threats Bill
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill
Dormant Assets Bill
Electoral Integrity Bill
Environment Bill
Health and Care Bill
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill
High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill
Judicial Review Bill
Kept Animals Bill
Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill Legacy Bill
National Insurance Contributions Bill
Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill
Planning Bill
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill
Professional Qualifications Bill
Procurement Bill
Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill
Subsidy Control Bill
Telecommunications (Security) Bill
The programme will also include Finance Bills to implement budget policy decisions. This list does not include draft bills or Law Commission bills.
Detailed information about each of these bills can be accessed from the Gov.uk website at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/985029/Queen_s_Speech_2021_-_Background_Briefing _Notes.
[HCWS6]
The Government's Legislative Programme (Northern Ireland) 2021-22
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
The legislative programme for the second Session was outlined by Her Majesty on 11 May. Twenty five of the 29 Bills announced in the Government’s legislative programme contain a wide range of measures that will apply to Northern Ireland either in full or in part.
This ambitious legislative programme, and the delivery that will flow from it, underlines the importance that the Government places on the Union, and Northern Ireland’s integral part within it. It also reinforces the Government’s commitment to levelling up right across the UK, delivering for people and businesses across Northern Ireland, as part of a strong United Kingdom, to ensure we can build back better and recover from the covid-19 pandemic by strengthening economic growth and opportunities right across the UK.
It also builds on the unprecedented action the Government have taken to support individuals, businesses and communities in Northern Ireland to get the Northern Ireland economy back up and running. This includes £4.2 billion funding through the Barnett formula to tackle the pandemic—over and on top of £3.5 billion investment we are already making in Northern Ireland through the new deal for Northern Ireland—ambitious city deals, PEACE PLUS and the New Decade, New Approach financial package. This financial boost, together with further funding streams and legislative action will continue to lay the foundations for delivering prosperity, safety, ongoing support for communities right across Northern Ireland, and working with the Executive to ensure the effective delivery of public services.
My Department will also lead on two of the Bills within the legislative programme which have a specific focus on matters at the heart of Northern Ireland. These are:
The Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill which will deliver aspects of the New Decade, New Approach deal agreed by the five main Northern Ireland political parties when the Executive was restored in January 2020;
A Bill to address the legacy of the Troubles in a way which focuses on reconciliation, delivers for victims, and ends the cycle of investigations.
The Bills that will extend in whole or in part to Northern Ireland are:
Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill
Armed Forces Bill
Animals Abroad Bill
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill
Borders Bill
Building Safety Bill
Counter-State Threats Bill
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill
Dormant Assets Bill
Electoral Integrity Bill
Environment Bill
Health and Care Bill
Judicial Review Bill
Legacy Bill
National Insurance Contributions Bill
Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill
Planning Bill
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Procurement Reform Bill
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill
Professional Qualifications Bill
Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill
Subsidy Control Bill
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill
Telecommunications (Security) Bill
In line with the Sewel Convention and associated practices, the Government will continue to work constructively with the Northern Ireland Executive to secure the legislative consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly where appropriate.
[HCWS15]
The Government’s Legislative Programme (Scotland) 2021-22
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
The legislative programme for the second Session was outlined by Her Majesty on 11 May. This statement provides a summary of the programme and its application to Scotland. It does not include draft Bills, Law Commission Bills or finance Bills.
This Government will continue to deliver for people and businesses across Scotland, as part of a strong United Kingdom. The UK Government have ensured citizens and businesses across the UK benefit from our £352 billion package of support since the start of the pandemic, which has supported one in three Scottish jobs, as well as providing access to tests and key medicines and ensuring every part of the UK continues to receive its fair share of one of the world’s largest and most diverse vaccine portfolios.
The legislative programme for this Session will support our collective covid-19 recovery, ensuring the whole of the UK can build back better by focusing on increasing job opportunities, productivity and long-term investment in people.
To help with this recovery, we are boosting funding for communities in all parts of the UK. Our community renewal fund will invest £220 million in local areas ahead of the launch of the UK shared prosperity fund in 2022. We have also set up the £4.8 million UK levelling-up fund which will invest in infrastructure which improves everyday life across the UK. We are committed to levelling up across the whole of the United Kingdom, to ensure that no community is left behind as we recover from the covid-19 pandemic.
We will build back greener, and we are committed to leading the way in tackling climate change and to see the low-carbon economy support up to 2 million green jobs by 2030 as part of the Prime Minister’s green industrial revolution. This legislative programme will combine our ambitious plans to level up across the country with making strides towards the UK’s net zero by 2050. We are working with local authorities, businesses, and citizens across the UK to inspire action ahead of hosting the COP26 summit in Glasgow in November. COP26 will be the moment we secure our path to global net zero emissions by 2050 and define the next decade of tackling climate change.
The Government are committed to protecting and promoting the strengths of the United Kingdom, building on hundreds of years of partnership between the regions of our country, the most successful political and economic union in history and the foundation upon which all our businesses and citizens are able to thrive and prosper.
The following Bills would apply to Scotland (either in full or in part).
Advance Research and Invention Agency Bill
Armed Forces Bill
Animals Abroad Bill
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill
Borders Bill
Building Safety Bill
Counter-State Threats Bill
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill
Dormant Assets Bill
Electoral Integrity Bill
Environment Bill
Health and Care Bill
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill
High Speed Rail (Crewe-Manchester) Bill
Judicial Review Bill
Kept Animals Bill
National Insurance Contributions Bill
Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill
Planning Bill
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Procurement Bill
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill
Professional Qualifications Bill
Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill
Subsidy Control Bill
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill
Telecommunications (Security) Bill
In line with the Sewel convention and associated practices, the Government will continue to work constructively with the Scottish Government to secure the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament where appropriate.
[HCWS13]
Traffic Light System: Safe Return to International Travel
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
We have made enormous progress this year in tackling the pandemic across Britain. That progress has been hard won and it is important that we do not risk undermining it now. Yet we are also a nation with ties across the globe.
In 2019, UK residents took over 93 million trips abroad, for business, leisure and to visit friends and family. International travel is vital. It connects families who have been kept apart, boosts businesses and underpins the UK economy. It is absolutely essential that any steps we take now, lay the groundwork for a sustainable return to travel. That is why on 7 May, I announced the first steps towards unlocking international travel.
I have confirmed that, from 17 May, the “Stay in the UK” regulation will cease and international travel will be allowed to restart, governed by a new traffic light system. The system will allow the public to understand covid requirements when travelling to England. Health measures at the border will vary depending on whether travelling from a green, amber or red country. You can see the full list of countries in each category on gov.uk.
The traffic light system
As the virus is still spreading in many parts of the world, people should not be travelling to amber or red countries.
Given the need for caution, the green list will initially be modest with only the following 12 countries and territories on the initial list when international travel resumes on 17 May:
Portugal (including the Azores and Madeira)
Israel (and Jerusalem)
Gibraltar
Iceland
Singapore
Australia
Brunei Darussalam
Falkland Islands
Faroe Islands
New Zealand
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Countries on the green list pose the lowest risk, therefore passengers who have only visited or transited through a green list country will not be required to quarantine on arrival in England. They will be required to fill in the passenger locator form, provide a valid notification of a negative test result prior to travel and take a sequencing test on day 2 after arrival.
The Maldives, Nepal and Turkey will be added to the red list from 4 am on 12 May, a sign of our ongoing vigilance in protecting against the virus and from the importation of variants. International visitors who have visited or transited through any red list country in the previous 10 days will be refused entry into England. Only British and Irish citizens, or those with residence rights in the UK, will be allowed to enter and they must stay in a Government approved quarantine facility for 10 days.
All other countries will remain on the amber list. Passengers who have visited or transited through an amber country will be required to fill in the passenger locator form, provide a valid notification of a negative test result prior to travel, quarantine at home for 10 days, and take a test on day 2 and day 8 after arrival. Passengers will also have the option to opt into test to release at day 5.
While the number of countries on the green list is initially low, I anticipate it will grow over time as the situation improves globally, meaning further opportunities for international travel will open up.
The risk posed by individual countries will be continuously monitored and the green, amber and red lists will be updated every three weeks. The Joint Biosecurity Centre (JBC) will produce risk assessments of countries and territories. Decisions will be taken by Ministers, who take into account the JBC risk assessments, alongside wider public health factors. Key factors in the JBC risk assessment of each country include:
Genomic surveillance capability
Covid-19 transmission risk
Variant of concern transmission risk
A summary of the JBC methodology has been published on gov.uk, alongside key data that supports Ministers’ decisions.
If the situation in a country changes dramatically, we will not hesitate to act swiftly and decisively to protect the health of the UK public and our progress on vaccination.
Demonstrating covid-19 vaccination status
From 17 May, people in England who have had the vaccine will be able to demonstrate their covid-19 vaccination status for outbound travel using the NHS app or letter. In due course, the app will allow people to show evidence of negative tests as they travel out of the country.
The Government are working with the devolved Administrations to ensure this facility is available to everyone across the UK.
Messages to passengers
Given the virus is still spreading in many parts of the world, the public are recommended against travel to amber and red countries, and instead should only travel to countries on the green list.
Reopening international travel while maintaining checks of health measures for every passenger at the border means queues are inevitable. We understand that queues are frustrating but undertaking proper checks is the right thing to do to reduce the chances of a new variant of the virus entering the country.
We have updated the guidance on gov.uk setting out the requirements of all passengers. We will continue to promote messages on how to prepare for travel via all our usual channels. You should check the gov.uk/travel-abroad page to help plan your journeys.
Future reviews
The traffic light system will be reviewed through a series of checkpoints in June, July and October, taking into account the latest domestic and international data.
The Government are committed to giving people the freedom to travel with confidence and supporting the wider travel industry.
[HCWS1]
M25 Junction 10 Roundabout Planning Application
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State (Grant Shapps), to make this written ministerial statement. This statement concerns the application made under the Planning Act 2008 for the proposed alteration and upgrading by Highways England of the existing M25 junction 10 roundabout.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make his decision within three months of receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) to extend the deadline and make a statement to the Houses of Parliament announcing the new deadline. The Secretary of State received the examining authority’s report on the M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange development consent order application on 12 October 2020 and the current deadline is 12 May 2021 having been extended from 12 January 2021 by way of my written ministerial statement of 12 January 2021.
The deadline for the decision is to be further extended to 12 November 2021 (an extension of six months) to allow further consideration of environmental matters.
The decision to set a new deadline is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant development consent.
[HCWS2]
The Government's Legislative Programme (Wales) 2021-22
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
The legislative programme for the second session was outlined by Her Majesty on 11 May. This statement provides a summary of the programme and its application to Wales. It does not include draft bills, Law Commission Bills or Finance Bills.
The United Kingdom has faced many unexpected and difficult challenges over the past year. The UK Government have supported communities in Wales with an extra £7.9 billion to tackle the pandemic; in addition to over £2.75 billion in direct support to businesses in Wales.
We are slowly emerging from the worst public health crisis in over a century and this Government’s focus will be on increasing job opportunities, productivity and long-term investment in the people of this great nation. This legislative programme will support our collective recovery from the covid-19 pandemic and support our efforts to build back better, strengthening the ties between all parts of the UK and unleashing its potential.
By focusing on the key areas of growth, infrastructure, skills and innovation, our legislative programme will directly contribute to levelling up the whole of the UK and delivering a global Britain.
The following Bills will apply to Wales (either in full or in part):
Animals Abroad Bill
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill
Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill
Armed Forces Bill
Borders Bill
Building Safety Bill
Counter-State Threats Bill
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill
Dormant Assets Bill
Electoral Integrity Bill
Environment Bill
Health and Care Bill
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill
High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill
Judicial Review Bill
Kept Animals Bill
Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill
Legacy Bill
National Insurance Contributions Bill
Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill
Planning Bill
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Procurement Bill
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill
Professional Qualifications Bill
Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill
Subsidy Control Bill
Telecommunications (Security) Bill
The Government take their responsibilities in Wales incredibly seriously and will continue to work constructively with the Welsh Government to secure the legislative consent of the Senedd Cymru where appropriate.
[HCWS14]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
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.
Cessation of Membership
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I have to notify the House that the noble Lords, Lord Selsdon and Lord Rogers of Riverside, yesterday ceased to be Members of the House under Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 by virtue of not attending any proceedings of the House during the parliamentary Session 2019-21. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lords for their much-valued service to the House.
Clerk Assistant
The Lord Speaker
That this House do approve the appointment by the Lord Speaker, pursuant to the Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824, of Chloe Kilcoyne Mawson to be Clerk Assistant of the House in place of Simon Peter Burton appointed Clerk of the Parliaments.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, following a selection process, I have appointed Chloe Kilcoyne Mawson to be Clerk Assistant in place of Simon Peter Burton, appointed Clerk of the Parliaments. I beg to move.
Tributes: Lord Fowler
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to lead the tributes to someone I still consider, despite where he is now sitting, my noble friend, Lord Fowler, on his retirement as Lord Speaker. My noble friend Lord Fowler was elected Lord Speaker in 2016, the same year that I was appointed Leader of the House, so he has presided over business during a period in our history which I think we can both agree has been momentous and, at times, turbulent. He did so effectively and calmly and with the resilience, patience and occasional touch of world-weariness that comes from great political and parliamentary experience.
My noble friend was first elected to the other place in 1970. He served as Transport Secretary, Social Services Secretary and Employment Secretary during his illustrious Commons career, but it was in his period as Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, a giant department which encompassed the NHS, welfare and pensions, that he achieved something that few Cabinet Ministers ever manage to do: he changed the mind of the then Prime Minister and significantly shifted public opinion. His response to the HIV/AIDS crisis was hugely brave and ambitious. It changed and saved lives and tackled bigotry, prejudice and fear head on. It is a cause he has passionately espoused ever since, so it seems only right that he will continue to work on this issue as a UNAIDS ambassador, particularly in those regions where HIV is still prevalent.
As Lord Speaker, my noble friend Lord Fowler has been a vocal and powerful champion of this House, the work we do and the expertise we have. Throughout his term, he was an extremely helpful source of counsel and advice to me at our enjoyable regular meetings. He has consistently argued in support of reducing the size of the House, and it was his initiative that led to the Burns report, which has shaped much of the recent debate on this issue. My noble friend continued the tradition of the Lord Speaker’s lectures, drawing on the expertise of people within and outside the House. One of the most successful of these was a fascinating discussion with Sir David Attenborough which was so popular it had to take place in the Royal Gallery. In his formal capacity, my noble friend welcomed King Felipe of Spain and King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands on their state visits to this country.
Over the past year, as chairman of the House of Lords Commission, my noble friend Lord Fowler has worked with the political leadership and administration of the House to oversee and implement our hybrid proceedings, ensuring that all noble Lords have been able to participate during the pandemic and enabling the House to fulfil its constitutional duty to scrutinise and revise legislation. Indeed, my noble friend made history by being the first, and possibly the last, Lord Speaker to oversee proceedings virtually from the Isle of Wight. He has been proactive in seeking to modernise the overall workings and management of the House, commissioning the Ellenbogen report on bullying and harassment, establishing the ICGP and the Steering Group for Change and commissioning the external management review, which will be a legacy taken forward by his successor.
However, my noble friend Lord Fowler has done so much more than this. He has brought his distinctive personality to the job. Sunday afternoons will not be the same without the musings and reflections contained in his letters to Members of this House. This House owes my noble friend Lord Fowler a debt of gratitude for his unstinting work and dedication to this House, to Parliament and to democracy, but this is not goodbye as we all know he will continue to contribute to our debates and to campaign tirelessly for the causes he supports. No doubt, as he has more free time on his hands, he will be called up for grandchildren-sitting duties. I hope for his sake it is not as often as he called our Ministers to the House for PNQs—he will know I could not resist such a comment.
Now it gives me great pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord McFall, to the Woolsack as our new Lord Speaker. Having been Senior Deputy Speaker, he well understands the workings and idiosyncrasies of this House, and I know he will be a great champion for it and of it. He has been elected by the whole House, and I know he can count on the support of all these Benches. I finish by saying thank you to my noble friend and wishing him all the best in his not-really retirement.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is my great pleasure on behalf of these Benches to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for the service he has given to this House as our third elected Lord Speaker and as the first man ever to hold that office, as he broke through the glass ceiling on being elected in 2016. To echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, I think we all regard him as our noble friend.
But what a five year-period this has been. Our website declares that the role of the Lord Speaker is to chair proceedings and be an ambassador for your Lordships’ House. Our proceedings have not only had to change temporarily in the past year, quickly and dramatically, but in the time that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has been the Speaker we have had a few constitutional moments, for which we have to go back decades or even centuries to find precedents. There were some for which there are none. We had an unlawful Prorogation, the first Saturday sitting since 1982 and the first Christmas sitting since the English Civil War. There is a Chinese saying, “May you live in interesting times”, but there is some uncertainty over whether that is a curse or a blessing.
Interesting times need wise heads, wise counsel and calmness, all qualities that can be attributed to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. As an ambassador for your Lordships’ House, he has done us proud. When promoting the need for change, particularly on the size of the House, he has been a positive advocate for the benefits of our work. He has also been scrupulously fair in accepting justified criticism and rejecting the unjustified. The noble Lord now wishes to return to his role as a campaigner. In announcing his retirement, he said:
“I am only 83, and unless I am careful, I will not have time to start my next career. The career I wish to start is that of an entirely independent Back-Bencher”—
as if he was not independent before—
“able to speak out on political issues that concern me, such as the size of the House, and to have the freedom to campaign, particularly in the area of HIV and AIDS.”—[Official Report, 25/2/21; col. 891.].
It is nearly 34 years since the noble Lord, as Secretary of State for Health, launched the “Don’t Die of Ignorance” campaign to raise awareness of HIV and AIDS, in the face of opposition from Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. But he insisted that the only answer when tackling this issue was to educate people about the risks and to alter behaviour. I am not sure that I agree with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House: I do not think that he changed Mrs Thatcher’s mind, but he proved that he was right on this. His work in this field has both saved and changed lives. It is to his enormous credit that he will now continue that campaigning, including the combating of stigma and prejudice.
On a personal note, I have valued the noble Lord’s counsel and friendship. I have greatly enjoyed working with him. I have enjoyed our many discussions and debates, and I suspect that we have both been a bit surprised, given our respective political backgrounds, at how often we agreed and how little we disagreed. He has the interests of this House, its Members, our work and our public-facing role at the forefront of his thinking at all times. I hope he will get to spend a little more time in his beloved Isle of Wight with Fiona—I look forward to perhaps visiting him there again—but we look forward to working with him in his new role as a Cross-Bench Peer and, as we know, a dedicated campaigner.
It also gives me great pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord McFall, who has been a friend of mine for many years since we first fought an election. He will remember a weekend in Lytham St Annes before the general election of 1987, or perhaps 1992, when we were campaigning for the Labour and Co-op parties. He has now embraced the independence of the Lord Speaker’s chair, and I am sure that he will follow in the fine tradition of other Lord Speakers in conducting our proceedings. We wish him well and he has our full support in doing so.
It is with great pleasure that we pay our tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, today. We shall miss him, but I know that he considers the noble Lord, Lord McFall, a worthy successor to him, as the House does.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the job of the Lord Speaker exemplifies the British constitution. It is not properly written down, it is constantly evolving and the influence it exerts depends very largely on the quality of the occupant at the time. It is already a very different job from the days of its first incumbent and, with the strengthening of the House of Lords Commission, is set to develop further under the tenure of the noble Lord, Lord McFall, whom I welcome to his job.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, was the ideal person to be Lord Speaker in changing times because, to do the job so effectively, you need two characteristics which he possesses in abundance. First, you need acute political antennae to understand what is possible within the context of the House of Lords. That is not as easy as it sounds, but the noble Lord’s great experience in the Commons and within the Thatcher Government provided him with an acute understanding of what was possible and what, however desirable, was not.
Secondly, you need an empathetic approach. The Lord Speaker has so few formal powers that the power of persuasion becomes paramount—and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, can be very persuasive. As far as I was concerned, I was invited to regular meetings in his palatial office and offered a cup of tea. We then had a broad discussion of the political scene, which typically and increasingly included some trenchant comments on his part about the present Government and their leader. He then looked down at his list of topics coming before the commission, on which he wanted my support. Lulled by the tea, the charm and the chat, I nearly always gave it.
On the big issues facing the Lords in recent years, whether on restoration and renewal, Ellenbogen and the ways we manage ourselves or how we respond to Covid, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, was always open to new ways of doing things and intolerant of resistance to change. He was unafraid to speak his mind to the media on issues facing the House, and was a strong public advocate for the positive part which your Lordships’ House plays within the British political system.
When the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, became Lord Speaker, I lived in Putney and almost literally opposite his flat—in my case, on the south side of the river. I discovered that the most civilised way of getting into Westminster was the riverboat ferry from Putney pier. Having to come in during the rush hour, like me, the noble Lord found himself either stuck in traffic or forced into the cattle-truck-like conditions of the District line. I was pleased to be able to introduce him to the merits of the Putney ferry.
I am equally pleased that he is not now sailing off into the sunset of a well-earned retirement but intends to resume his campaigning efforts on behalf of those worldwide who suffer with AIDS. There are not many politicians who, at this stage of their career, would choose to re-engage with such an unfashionable, though important, issue. It is a measure of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, as a politician and a person that he has chosen to do so.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, on behalf of the Cross- Benchers I welcome the Lord Speaker to his new responsibilities. As the fourth speaker following three Members of this House who have agreed wholeheartedly about everything they had to say, I do not think I can say very much, except that I agree. I particularly welcome the recognition of the stalwart loyal service that the former Lord Speaker has given to the House. I whole- heartedly agree, but I am going to repeat something—which I hate doing when everything has already been said.
But listen to this list: efficient, calm, resilient, patient, brave, ambitious, proactive, wise, empathetic, persuasive. That sounds to me like a combination of attributes that every single Cross-Bencher in this House enjoys. Therefore, as a job description for a new applicant for the Cross Benches, I think I am persuaded that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, should become a Cross-Bencher.
Actually, I did not need persuasion. The moment I heard the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, was about to retire from his high office, I wrote to him immediately, inviting him to join us. I was delighted that he agreed to do so and, as a result, we the Cross-Benchers will bask in reflected glory from the presence in our midst of a Member of the House who has brought such distinction to it and to the high office. If I may say so, provided that it is in a balanced, Cross-Bencher sort of way, he can have a platform from which to continue his contribution to the diminution of deadly disease and the alleviation of suffering worldwide. He is very welcome, and I thank him for his services.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
It is my privilege to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, from the Spiritual Benches. I start with a specific reflection from these Benches on our leading of Prayers at the start of each day. The noble Lord was consistently considerate and courteous, taking the time to personally thank the duty Bishop for their prayers on each occasion. It was a small, kind gesture that meant more than he may have realised.
We all know of the noble Lord’s long-term, ongoing dedication and perseverance in addressing HIV. His patient persistence is admirable and notable. As he continues with this commendable work, as a UN ambassador, we trust he will further help it move forward. As it happens, this morning, before we began business, I was on a call with Christian Aid, for Christian Aid Week, with people from Kenya who were reflecting not only on climate change but the ongoing impact of AIDS in their country. It is work that needs to continue.
I always valued the noble Lord’s faithful speaking up for the work of this House. He challenged us to fulfil our responsibilities well, he saw how we could perform more fruitfully as a smaller number, and he never held back from criticising those who held the power of appointment when they failed to help us reform ourselves. May we all learn from his example of speaking graciously and firmly, his dedication, perseverance and determination to seek justice and the well-being of all.
I take this opportunity also to warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord McFall, to his role as Lord Speaker. We have enjoyed—I say “we”, meaning me personally and other Members who sit on the Front Bench—many quiet chats before proceedings as he sat with us, ready to present business as Senior Deputy Speaker. They may not take place now. I say to the Lord Speaker that he is assured of our support in his role and of our ongoing prayers.
In conclusion, I return to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and very simply say thank you for serving us all as Lord Speaker so extremely well.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
I have been informed that there are two Members wishing to speak: the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I call the noble Lord, Lord Balfe.
Lord Balfe (Con)
Can I say a word or two as a Back-Bencher, as we have had a lot of Front-Bench speech? I would like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, who has been eminently approachable and has made a number of innovations, which I certainly appreciate—the first being the Private Notice Question. This is a tremendous advantage, because it means that people not on the Front Bench have an opportunity to call the Government to account. This has developed tremendously well under the speakership of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and I am sure I am not the only person to appreciate that.
The second point for which I am very grateful to him—and will be to the new Lord Speaker—is the battle for a better image. It is not our fault that some people have decided that the House of Lords is a nuisance, but let me say this: if they tried to abolish it, and had a legislature with no way of being pulled back, they would soon miss it. They would miss it very much because, as I explain to many people, the main job of the House of Lords is that is has a lot of Back-Bench Members with a huge amount of experience who, when the detail of legislation is debated on the Floor of the House, do not win votes but win arguments. They win arguments in such a way that the Minister then goes away and comes back with a better formulation of what they wish to do. In other words, the Back-Benchers do not set out to wreck the Government’s policy but to make it work. That has been helped enormously by the very positive way in which the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has acted.
My final two points are these. First, I appreciate the Sunday emails; I hope the Lord Speaker will continue this tradition, because it keeps us in touch and means that we know what is happening. Secondly, I also appreciate the fact that, throughout his service, whenever I approached the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, his office always responded courteously and pretty fast. I have never had the feeling that Back-Benchers are second in the queue. I thank him for his courtesy in always responding to me and, I am sure, to many other Back- Benchers.
All I will say to the Lord Speaker—I cannot work it out but I have known him now for somewhere in the region of 47 or 48 years—is that he has a lot to live up to. I am delighted to see him in his place and I have every confidence that he will live up to the reputation that has been so highly set by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, there are three Deputy Speakers in the Chamber at the moment—or four if we include the Lord Speaker, who of course has been promoted from Senior Deputy Speaker. We welcome him. It has been a pleasure to work with the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, as Lord Speaker. We had marvellous meetings on Thursdays, where we would talk through the business due to come up the following week and pick up some of the gossip we had heard around the Chamber. The leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, of our group of deputies has been a delight to us, and I hope that he enjoyed those meetings as well. Certainly, from that point of view, we wish him every good fortune, not in retirement, as everyone else has said, but in his new existence.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, referred to the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to improving the image of the House. I thank him for inviting me to be the first chair of a Lord Speaker’s communications group, which has attempted to redress some of the bad media coverage that the House has received. This is very much unfinished business and I was delighted to hand over the chair to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, who I am sure will do an even better job when that gets going.
I very much endorse what has been said about the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, gave Back-Benchers the opportunity to play a greater part through Private Notice Questions—and I can understand why the Lord Privy Seal might not be so enthusiastic about that. I should also say that the establishment of the Burns committee and the determination to keep it going is also a piece of unfinished business which I hope will go on and come to fruition.
I finish by saying that I first came across the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on 7 November 1979, when he was Secretary of State for Transport and found himself answering questions in the House of Commons about a Guardian report of that morning on the likelihood of 41 local rail services being axed—a product of what was quite clearly a conspiracy between the British Railways Board and Department of Transport officials. This was put to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler—he was not Lord Fowler then, obviously—as the Secretary of State, and he was able, on one day and in one statement, to put to an end all the speculation about cuts to the rail network on anything like that sort of scale. He said:
“Let me make it absolutely clear that the report in The Guardian is untrue. I read it with astonishment … I see no case for another round of massive cuts in the railways.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/11/1979; col. 380.]
Those of us who care about the railways—we are now supporting the Government’s initiative to reverse the Beeching closures—are deeply grateful for what Norman Fowler did on that day and the support that he has given to our railway system since. I thank him particularly for the support that he has given me.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I would like to say a few words of my own to close the tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. What a joy it is to see him here today in his new place on the Cross Benches.
He and I began as Lord Speaker and Senior Deputy Speaker, respectively, in 2016; little did we know what was to come. The past five years have seen the House go through political turmoil, Supreme Court cases and, of course, the Covid-19 pandemic. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, was present on the Woolsack for the first Saturday Sitting since the invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982, and he recalled the House for the first Christmas Sitting since the civil war. Throughout it all, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, steered the ship admirably. He and I worked well together—I know only too well that his job was not easy, but he bore the burdens, and sometimes frustrations, with patience, calmness and good grace. He was always courteous to me, and I speak personally when I say that the support and encouragement that he has given to me over the last five years have meant a great deal.
He has been a fierce champion of the House and of our Members. I have lost track of the number of letters and articles that he has penned and speeches that he has given in defence of our work and the valuable role that we play in shaping legislation, adding value and holding the Government to account.
Within four months of his Speakership, he established the Burns committee, and the efforts to reduce the size of the House ran like a golden thread through his time on the Woolsack. That the scheme commanded widespread support in the House and that No. 10 followed a policy of moderation in new appointments are both significant achievements. As the Burns committee report published last Sunday set out, we, the Members of the House, have delivered our side of the bargain; others have more to do. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, will continue to champion this cause from the Back Benches, where, ironically, he now has much more freedom to pursue it, with his characteristic resolve and determination.
His weekend emails over the last year came to punctuate the week and drew us together during a time when so many of us were apart. His lecture series showcased the best of the House and projected that to those beyond our walls. The lecture given by Sir David Attenborough in the Royal Gallery was a highlight, although he was not a Member of the House, and the spontaneous standing ovation showed the power and impact that his address had on those of us who were present.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, was not only a formidable champion for the House; he did a great deal to compound and grow the office of Lord Speaker. As noble Lords will know, the office is relatively new, and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, was only the third incumbent. His willingness to grant PNQs from both the Front Benches and the Back Benches allowed more urgent business to be brought to the Floor of the House. The small but important changes that he secured, which mean that the Lord Speaker now announces business from the Woolsack, have allowed those outside the House, and some of those inside it, to better understand our proceedings.
There has been no formal review of the role of Lord Speaker since the Constitutional Reform Act 2005—yet, as noble Lords will know, the first three Speakerships have already seen significant evolution and growth. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and I spoke about this only last week, and we are united in the view that the office should continue to mature and that this will most definitely be of benefit to the House. I am grateful to him for the support that he has offered in this regard in these early days of my Speakership.
Two hallmarks of an effective politician and parliamentarian are, first, that they listen and, secondly, that they persevere. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, possesses both qualities in abundance. As Secretary of State for Health and Social Security in the early days of the AIDS crisis, he listened to the advice that he was given and persevered in a course of action that he believed to be right. His resolve held firm—in the face of considerable opposition at the highest levels, I think it is fair to say. His resilience over the decades that have followed has strengthened rather than diminished; in my view, this speaks volumes.
Finally, I congratulate him on being appointed as an ambassador for UNAIDS; this is a cause that he cares deeply about and has championed for decades. UNAIDS is fortunate to have him as such an effective and determined advocate, and I know that all noble Lords will join me in wishing him every success for the future and thanking him most sincerely for his loyal and selfless service to this House.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, wishes to say a few words.
Lord Fowler (CB)
A very few words. I thank the Leaders, the Convenor of the Cross Benches—who is now my boss—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and, of course, the Lord Speaker, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Faulkner, for their very kind and generous remarks. Had I known that this was the collective view, I might not have stood down quite as early as I did—but, seriously, I am very grateful. I did not know that the Front Bench was so enthusiastic about Private Notice Questions, but I hope that will be noted by all Back-Benchers. Seriously, I am very grateful, and it has been a great pleasure working with them all.
I am also grateful for the good wishes in my new post as ambassador for UNAIDS. I know that it was just a coincidence, but I noted that my appointment came at a time when the Government cut aid to the organisation by 80%, but that is perhaps an issue for another time.
Most of all, my thanks and tributes go to the Members of this House for their help and encouragement over the last five years. I do not thank just Members; I also thank the excellent staff that we are fortunate enough to have in this House. I must mention my own private office, which has been quite exceptional. I mention in particular on this day the appointment of Chloe Mawson as Clerk Assistant, announced earlier today; 10 to 15 years ago, she was invaluable to me in setting up the first Select Committee on Communications, which I chaired. I was always very grateful for that assistance.
It has been a great privilege to have been Lord Speaker. Having served almost five years in this job and seen the Lords at work, I can say with some authority that my view is that there is a range of talents here that serve this nation very well.
Lastly, I say this to the Lord Speaker personally: thank you for your quite exceptional help over the last five years. No one could have been better supported than I was by you. Lord Speaker, we all now look forward to your period of office and wish you the very best of fortune in the future. Thank you very much.
Tower Blocks: Cladding
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to a fire at a tower block in Poplar, London which left two people hospitalised and others injured, what plans they have to remove flammable cladding and ensure buildings are fire safe.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
I would like to express my deepest sympathies to the residents affected by the fire at New Providence Wharf and pay tribute to the swift response by the London Fire Brigade. We are providing an unprecedented £5.1 billion to fund the remediation of unsafe cladding, with expert support for those who need it. New Providence Wharf itself has received £8 million.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as set out in the register.
I join the Minister in expressing my sympathy to the victims of the fire and expressing my thanks to the London Fire Brigade. The fire in the tower block in Poplar is another devastating reminder of the dangerous, stressful, worrying and wholly unacceptable situation that thousands of people find themselves in today. Leaseholders and tenants are the innocent victims in a scandal that the Prime Minister promised they would not be picking up the bill for. So why are the Prime Minister’s words and promises to the victims so far removed from the reality and actions of the Government? When does the Minister expect the Government to start delivering on the repeated pledges and promises that the Prime Minister has made?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I start by pointing out that on 95% of the buildings that were identified at the start of last year as having the same cladding as Grenfell Tower either the cladding has been removed or work has started to remove it. We have made great progress in the past year, with some 159 starts on site. The building safety fund is open and continues to approve a number of works that will ensure that other forms of unsafe cladding are removed.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
[Inaudible]—the management companies for their blocks are refusing to sign up to a grant from the building safety fund unless leaseholders also sign an agreement that commits them to pay for all other remediation works. As a consequence, essential and urgent fire safety work is not being done. Leaseholders cannot commit to pay when they have no means to do so. How do the Government intend to break this impasse in the interests of fire safety?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we have to be clear that the agreement is with the building owner and not with individual leaseholders. No leaseholder will be required to fund additional works as a condition of government funding for cladding remediation. Of course, where building owners voluntarily decide to carry out works at the same time, we need assurances from them that this can be covered.
Lord Moynihan (Con) [V]
My Lords, had there been any engagement with Ballymore at official or ministerial level regarding the remediation of the ACM cladding prior to the fire at New Providence Wharf, given the vital importance of interaction between government and the housing sector on the urgent measures which require funding and implementation?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, my department has been engaged with Ballymore for more than two years to progress the work to remediate unsafe cladding. We are also paying for expert construction advice for this particular site, which has been available since July 2020. Earlier this year and prior to the fire, I had two ministerially led meetings with the senior leadership of Ballymore and other members of London government to try to get the work started. Sadly, it only started this Monday.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a lessee of a top-floor flat in a four-storey block. In February, the Prime Minister said that
“no leaseholder should have to pay for the unaffordable costs of fixing safety defects that they did not cause and are no fault of their own”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/21; col. 945.]
The Government have undertaken to indemnify those who live in blocks over 18 metres tall, but this leaves leaseholders who live in smaller blocks out in the cold. The Government have offered loans to help them meet the cost, but they are no more at fault than those who lease flats in taller buildings and should not have to pay either. Many cannot afford to pay the interest, which merely saddles them with extra debt. What do the Government intend to do to help them?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I have mentioned the unprecedented level of funding that has been put forward towards the remediation of cladding, but the risks inherent in a medium-rise building are far lower than in high-rise buildings, some of which go well over 30 metres—the higher the building, the greater the risk. However, it is a significant commitment to ensure that leaseholders in these medium-rise buildings do not have to pay more than £50 per month to enable the remediation of unsafe cladding.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, the Government have said that it is not right for the taxpayer to bail out leaseholders, but taxpayers’ money through the building safety fund could be bailing out developers for building substandard developments. What plan do the Government have to investigate whether developments met fire safety regulations at the time of construction and, in those cases where regulations were not met, to apportion remedial liability to the developers, so that those responsible actually pay?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we made it a condition of accessing any form of government funding that building owners should go through all the routes of redress, in terms of looking at warranties and taking on areas where there has been poor construction practice, to ensure that remediation costs are not passed on to leaseholders.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
The Minister’s replies are entirely unsatisfactory. It is now nearly four years since 72 people died on the altar of private profit. Since then, there have been three further instances —in Barking, in Bolton and now this one in Poplar. It is not just a matter of cladding over 18 metres; it is much more than that. When will the Government fully fund all the measures necessary to make these buildings safe before more lives are lost?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I note the point that has been made, but it is interesting to note that, four years after Grenfell, two authorities are still discovering the existence potentially of additional buildings with aluminium composite material. Those audits are being conducted by Sheffield, which is looking at nine buildings, and Tower Hamlets, which is looking at a further six. The discovery of ACM-cladded high-rises four years after Grenfell is also a matter that is, frankly, beyond the Government’s control.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
The Minister says that it is beyond the Government’s control, but, of course, safety is a matter for building regulations set by government and inspected by building regulators. It is not the fault or responsibility of leaseholders. It is a great mistake to assume that because one fire was caused by cladding there are not other issues that need remediation. Why are the Government refusing support for those where the inspections now taking place show that the cavity blocks behind the insulation are the problem and not the insulation itself? So the same system is in place but with a different fault—yet it is a fault none the less and they are being refused support.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, it is very clear from our independent expert advice that the greatest risk in terms of fire safety is the cladding system that accelerates the spread of fire. It is clear that there are other defects, such as internal compartmentation, that are designed to stop the spread of fire, so our focus is to remove the riskiest element to ensure that we protect people’s lives.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, given that the original developer still owns and manages the building, what steps are being taken to ensure that the leaseholders are not being saddled with historic building safety remediation costs that are no fault of their own?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My noble friend is right: we want to protect leaseholders and we are funding £8 million. Our understanding is that the total remediation bill is some £12 million, and we have been pressing Ballymore to stump up the rest of the cash. When I initially met the company, it pledged £500,000, and it has increased that this weekend to £1.5 million. Frankly, it should not be passing on any costs to leaseholders.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Will the Government explain why the principle of responsibility that applies to cars, domestic appliances and so on, which may be dangerous and even kill people, whereby companies are required to recall and remediate whatever the equipment is, does not seem to apply to the construction industry?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I have to say that on taking over this ministerial brief I was shocked by the weakness of the redress available to people who put all their life savings into a building. That is something that we want to improve through the building safety Bill; we need to improve the ability to get redress for people who buy these properties then discover these defects.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
I am not sure that the Minister takes the urgency of the problem to heart. I have talked to people who are absolutely desperate, who have told me that in their blocks there are people who are virtually suicidal because they cannot afford to pay the cost of remediation and cannot afford to sell, because their property is unsaleable. We have a major crisis on our hands. Surely we need much more urgent action than the Minister is saying that the Government are taking.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I meet the cladding groups regularly, and I understand the need for urgency, which is why we are moving very quickly to ensure that we dispense the first £1 billion of the building safety fund and why we have pledged a further £3.5 billion. We understand the need to get moving.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I live very close to Grenfell, and I shall never forget that terrible night and the following day. It is worth our pausing for one moment to pay tribute to the many people there who were affected. In the spirit of that statement, does the Minister feel, or have the Government made an assessment of whether, there are buildings where safety procedures are being held up because of this problem with leaseholders?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, all I can say is that we are making great progress in dispensing our funding. We continue to recognise the urgency of removing the unsafe cladding, and we have made a commitment whereby costs will not be a factor in removing it from high-rises.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is the basic duty of government to protect its citizens from harm? That includes having building and other regulations and having the necessary means of enforcing them to deliver this; these are all within the Government’s control. This debate on blame will go on for years, but now it is surely time for the Government to commit to funding all the works to replace all substandard and non-compliant materials, and ensure that the owners, tenants and leaseholders are not asked to contribute.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we recognise the duty of government to do something about the regulatory system failure that we saw, but also the very poor practices that we have seen from construction companies, through the Grenfell inquiry. That is why we are bringing forward the building safety Bill to bring about a revolution in how we regulate high-risk buildings and establishing the building safety regulator in statute. We have made very clear our commitment, by putting forward an unprecedented sum to ensure that remediation of unsafe cladding can be carried out.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned the fact that the Prime Minister has not honoured his promise so far on this issue. Is there anybody in government or in the wider Conservative Party who can either make the Prime Minister honour his promises or stop him making any further false promises?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I simply do not accept that personal attack on the Prime Minister. This is a Prime Minister who has committed an unprecedented sum of money. Let us remember that, when I took office, only £600 million had been committed to the remediation of unsafe cladding. In the first Budget in his time as Prime Minister, £1 billion was committed—and now a further £3.5 billion. This is a Prime Minister committed to ensuring that the tragedy of Grenfell Tower never happens again.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. We now come to a number of First Readings.
Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 12th May 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 View all Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text
Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]
Wednesday 12th May 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Professional Qualifications Act 2022 View all Professional Qualifications Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text
Queen’s Speech
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows: “Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of your Lordships’ House, I thank Her Majesty for her gracious Speech and am grateful for the privilege of opening today’s debate on the Motion for a humble Address. Today I shall outline the Government’s plans to support the economy, business, education and health to build back better from the Covid-19 pandemic. However, it is important to stop and recognise those 127,629 people who have died with Covid, those who are bereaved and those who have long Covid, and the tireless work of our NHS, businesses, charities and key workers, who still had to work even during the lockdowns. It is due only to their efforts that we find ourselves in the position to build back better, for which I am sure your Lordships are also truly grateful.
Vaccines are the way out of the pandemic, and the rollout has been a huge national effort. As someone who had their vaccine in Westminster Abbey, I can testify that we are working with faith leaders and grass-roots organisations across our diverse communities, as well as charities, and have listened to their ideas to get vaccines to as many people as possible. Over 35.5 million people have now received their first dose of a vaccine, and over 18 million have received their second dose. All those 50 and over, clinically vulnerable, or who are health and social care workers have been offered a vaccine, so we can confidently say we are ensuring that the most vulnerable have protection from the virus.
We will bring forward a landmark health and care Bill this Session. This will promote collaboration, ensuring that every part of England is covered by an integrated care system, and it will reduce bureaucracy by simplifying the provider selection regime and ensure that NHS England remains accountable, while maintaining its clinical and day-to-day operational independence. We will also enhance patient safety, delivering a new independent body to investigate healthcare incidents, which I know is legislation that your Lordships have seen before.
Throughout the pandemic, the NHS has worked incredibly hard to keep services going, going truly above and beyond. Today marks International Nurses Day. This year more than ever we must thank nurses for their incredible work in fighting a global pandemic—and sadly, of course, some have paid the ultimate price.
We now face the challenge of NHS catch-up and recovery, with over 4.7 million people currently waiting for care. The Government will support the NHS, as throughout the pandemic, and will ensure it has what it needs. We have confirmed an additional £3 billion for the NHS for this financial year, on top of the long-term settlement, to support recovery, including around £1 billion to begin tackling the elective backlog and around £1.5 billion to help ease existing pressures in the NHS caused by Covid-19.
The pandemic has also taken its toll on people’s mental health. We have published our mental health recovery action plan, and will provide around £500 million for mental health services and investment in the NHS workforce, to ensure that we have the right support in place over the coming year. We are also working towards reform of the Mental Health Act to give people more say over their own care.
Experiences during this time could have an impact on the health, well-being and opportunity of our youngest children throughout their life, even though they may not have been conscious of living through a pandemic. As demonstrated by the Leadsom review, the care given during the first 1,001 critical days from conception to age two has a significant impact on a child’s future. Attending early years education lays the foundation for lifelong learning and positive outcomes, which is why we prioritised keeping early years settings open as much as possible, in line with health and safety requirements, during the pandemic. Throughout the pandemic, even when early years settings had to close, we continued to fund entitlements, which are currently around £3.6 billion a year.
The Government are committed to ensuring that no child is left behind because of learning lost over the past year. We will put in place a long-term recovery plan to allow us to build a better and fairer education system. We have already provided £1.7 billion in the past year to enable education settings to support children. The package includes significant funding aimed at addressing the needs of disadvantaged pupils. The recovery premium will be allocated to schools based on disadvantage funding eligibility and the expansion of our tutoring programmes will provide targeted support to children and young people hardest hit by disruption to their education.
The Government’s vision is for every school to benefit from being part of a strong family of schools, because multi-academy trusts are the best structure to enable schools and teachers to deliver consistently good outcomes. Seventy-five per cent of sponsored primary and secondary academies that have been inspected are good or outstanding, up from their previous grade of inadequate, compared to around one in 10 of their predecessor schools. We plan to release up to £24 million through the next phase of the trust capacity fund to help trusts grow, and we have recently launched a “try before you buy” trust partnerships model for schools to experience the benefits of being part of a strong trust. Following its autumn visits, Ofsted reported that many schools in trusts had found the support they received invaluable. What it found further cements our belief in the unique strength of the academy trust model. We are also clear on the need to improve schools where there is long-term underperformance by bringing them in to strong academy trusts—a key manifesto commitment. These include schools which have been judged “requires improvement” or worse by Ofsted in their last three consecutive full inspections. This will ensure that these schools also have access to the support of a multi-academy trust.
I turn now to HE and FE. Our universities have a long and proud history of being institutions where views may be freely expressed and debated. However, there are growing concerns that fear of repercussions is preventing open and robust intellectual debate. Over the course of this Parliament, with legislation introduced today, in the other place, we will strengthen freedom of speech and academic freedom in higher education in England. Duties on higher education providers and students’ unions will be strengthened, with clear consequences introduced for any breach. We will ensure that higher education providers in England are places where freedom of speech can thrive and that academic staff, students and visiting speakers feel safe to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions. In addition, UK students will be able to study and do work placements across the world through the Turing scheme, a new international educational exchange scheme. The scheme is backed by £110 million and provides funding for around 35,000 UK students in schools, colleges, and universities to go on placements and exchanges overseas, from September.
Skills are one of the Prime Minister’s key priorities and, in this Session, we will bring forward legislation to reform the post-16 education and skills sector. I am grateful for the exceptional effort of the further education sector, which adapted so quickly to remote education during the pandemic. The skills and post-16 education Bill will form the foundation for the reforms set out in the Skills for Jobs White Paper laid before the House earlier this year. I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful welcome for the White Paper. As part of the Bill, we will introduce a lifelong loan entitlement, giving people the opportunity to study flexibly at colleges and universities across their lifetime. We will improve the training available by making sure that providers are better run, qualifications better regulated, and providers’ performance effectively assessed. As this Government are focused on improving communities, rather than just providing a ladder out of them, we will put employers at the heart of the skills system to ensure that local provision meets local needs so that people can thrive where they live. Together, these reforms will ensure that people can get the skills they need to succeed.
Supporting our highly skilled, regulated professions to deliver vital services is key. Our regulators must have the autonomy to set the standard required to practise in the UK. The Professional Qualifications Bill, introduced into this House just now, will establish an effective regulatory system for professional qualifications. It will facilitate the recognition of professional qualifications that meet the needs of all parts of the United Kingdom and support our professionals to deliver their services in overseas markets.
The Government are also committed to our role as a global science superpower. To complement UKRI as the steward of our R&D system, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill will create a new agency focused specifically on funding high-risk, high-reward research. With £800 million invested in ARIA by 2024-25, it will diversify the R&D funding system. The agency’s leaders will be able to experiment with innovative funding mechanisms and push the boundaries of science at speed. To also ensure that we have the skilled workforce to deliver net zero and our 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, we launched the green jobs task force, in partnership with skills providers, unions and business. We are also providing over £1 billion for public sector buildings, including schools, to install heat decarbonisation and energy efficiency measures. This will upgrade school buildings and reduce carbon emissions.
The UK is taking advantage of its new-found freedoms as an independent trading nation. The subsidy control Bill will create a new domestic subsidy control system, to provide certainty and confidence to businesses investing in the UK. It will protect against subsidies that risk causing distortive or harmful economic impacts and ensure a consistent approach throughout the UK. It will ensure that the UK meets its international commitments on subsidy control and provide a legal framework that reflects our strategic interests and national circumstances. The Bill will enable public authorities and devolved Governments to design subsidies that deliver strong benefits for the UK taxpayer.
This Session we will also introduce legislation to support workers. The national insurance contributions Bill will introduce NI relief for employers in freeports, employers of veterans and the self-employed receiving self-isolation support payments. This Bill supports the delivery of the 2019 manifesto commitment to create 10 freeports across the UK to promote job creation, by providing a relief from NI contributions for eligible new employees for three years, up to earnings of £25,000 a year. The Government are also supporting veterans to secure stable and fulfilling employment as they transition to civilian life by encouraging employers to hire veterans. There will be NI relief of up to £5,500 per year for each hired veteran. We also want to ensure that self-isolation payments will not attract NI contributions. The Bill will also clamp down on the tax avoidance market, enabling action to be taken against promoters of tax avoidance schemes.
Public service pension reforms were introduced in 2015, and the Government agreed to allow those closest to retirement to stay in their legacy schemes. This was later judicially challenged, where it was found, inter alia, to be unfair to younger members. We will now be giving all eligible members a choice between legacy and reform scheme benefits for the period from the date the reforms were made to April 2022. We will continue to reward public servants with pensions that are among the very best available, in a way that ensures they are fair, affordable and sustainable. We will also bring forward reforms to help recruitment and retention in the judiciary, continuing to attract and retain high-calibre judges.
As we now exit the pandemic, I hope noble Lords will be assured that we will support the NHS, plan the education recovery carefully, upskill adults and drive innovation. My noble friend Lord Callanan and I look forward to hearing the valuable insights of many noble Lords today, especially the maiden speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, and the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, and—sadly—the valedictory speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for setting out the Government’s plans, and I should like to echo her good wishes to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on the occasion of his valedictory address to your Lordships’ House. I have often enjoyed his enlightened contributions, not least on the economy. He will be missed.
After all the hype over the weekend, what we heard yesterday was, to put it mildly, an anti-climax. Indeed, it is a legislative programme more notable for what is not included than what is. There is nothing on adult social care reform. The Prime Minister said in 2019 that he had a ready-made plan. So where is it? The Government absolutely must deliver plans for social care reform in this Parliament. There is also nothing on protecting the rights of 16 and 17 year-old children in care, a matter on which the Government are facing legal action.
Ministers speak of a so-called “levelling up” agenda. Implicit in that is a trashing of their own record, because the undulating landscape that is life in England today has been carved out largely by 11 years of Tory and coalition misrule. “Levelling up” is a suitably vague term but, if it is necessary, then who is to blame? It is Tory Governments, responsible for politically driven austerity policies—policies which hit the disadvantaged hardest, blamed the poor for their poverty and punished people for their disabilities. Now, apparently oblivious to the inherent hypocrisy, the Government want to level up. Really? I have to say that I doubt it. This programme involves the Tories cleaning up their own mess—I pray in aid the health and care Bill, on which my noble friend Lady Thornton will have much to say later. Noble Lords may have noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has ducked today’s debate and will speak in Monday’s. I wonder why that might be?
We welcome the skills and post-16 education Bill and its lifetime skills guarantee because investment in lifelong learning is needed more than ever, given the impact and aftermath of the Covid pandemic. I also welcome the fact that the Bill will begin its journey in your Lordships’ House. But, since 2010, further education and skills have borne the brunt of government funding cuts; access to learning has been restricted and maintenance support for younger learners abolished, resulting in fewer studying in further education and fewer workers able to retrain and upskill. The number of apprentices has also plummeted, with new starts down by over a third compared to five years ago.
Yet, nearly a million “priority” jobs will be excluded from the lifetime skills guarantee, exposing the Government’s empty rhetoric on creating opportunities, as the Loyal Address fails to deliver for young people hardest hit by the pandemic. The country is facing a skills shortage in jobs such as vets, architects and computer programmers, with the Government designating those jobs as a priority for work visas. I hope that the Minister will explain why these sectors are excluded from the lifetime skills guarantee offer to help adults gain a new level 3 qualification. Will the Government’s good intentions be backed by the resources necessary to make them effective? Developing the skills that the economy needs will work only if people can afford to live while studying through a mixture of loans, grants and social security support. Without that, the legislation simply will not be meaningful or far-reaching enough.
There is another education Bill, of course, but it is not one that addresses priorities in the education portfolio. There is a yawning gap where a Bill to rescue the early years sector should be. According to the Government’s own data, more than 2,000 early years providers have been lost since the start of this year alone; yet they offer no plans to address that. It is widely accepted that children’s first years are crucial in shaping so many aspects of their lives. But, to the Government, early years settings seem to be little more than a means of allowing parents to return to work, rather than essential building blocks in the development of a child’s learning and basic life skills. Of course enabling parents to return to the job market is important, but nurseries are first and foremost places of education, not simply childcare facilities.
The Loyal Address is shamefully silent on measures to tackle child poverty. No change, then, from a Government who had to be dragged kicking and screaming to provide free school meals during the holidays, while too many children were left without the resources to learn at home. At least the Conservatives have been consistent—they have treated children as an afterthought throughout this pandemic.
Health inequalities feed into education inequalities, and that includes universities. Uncertainty leads to anxiety, which leads to issues that impact on mental health. One aspect of that is the Secretary of State for Education’s dithering on school exams. He must avoid a repeat and should remove some of the stress now from this year’s year 10 cohort by announcing that they will have centre-assessed grades next year.
We will not be able to “build back better” if the generation who will be the foundation for the future are weakened by poverty and a mental health crisis. This generation have had their childhoods and life chances disrupted and damaged by the pandemic. So, it is a failure on the part of this Government to see so little on greater support for children in their plans. Perhaps that should be placed in the context of a Government led by a Prime Minister whose concern for children does not seem to stretch even to being certain how many he himself has. That underlines the necessity of the Minister for Children being returned to Cabinet status.
The learning gap between children on free school meals and their peers had not narrowed in the five years before the pandemic, and all the evidence suggests that the impact of lockdown is delaying young children’s language and social development. Yet Ministers have announced just a single-year catch-up plan, amounting to a paltry 43 pence a day per child over the next school year, with no specific support for well-being or social development. Despite warnings from experts that the pandemic is leading to an increase in mental health conditions, the Loyal Address went no further than to say that:
“Measures will be brought forward to … improve mental health”.
There was no mention of support for children’s mental health or well-being. In responding to this debate, can the Minister set out what advice he would give to children, students and adults suffering with mental health issues now and who need support now, not at some indeterminate point in the future?
Rather than addressing those urgent matters, the other education Bill announced today deals with a subject that grips the whole country: freedom of speech in universities. To prioritise such legislation is a blatant attempt to continue the culture war that the Government are determined to wage. Their focus on manufacturing an argument over free speech on campus is an attempt to distract from their failure to support students and universities through this pandemic. Students are seriously worried about getting the skills and experience that they need for the workplace. Despite Labour’s calls, Ministers did little to support the graduates of 2020 who entered a shattered jobs market; they simply must do more to secure the futures of the class of 2021.
A glaring omission from the Loyal Address is an employment Bill, first promised in 2019 to
“protect and enhance workers’ rights”.
That commitment has been repeated by Ministers on no fewer than 50 occasions, yet workers’ rights are mentioned only once in the background briefing to the Loyal Address. Worse, there has been a significant change in language from 2019, when the Government said they would “enhance workers’ rights”; now, there is merely a whimsical aim of “upholding workers’ rights”. What rights, I wonder? The Loyal Address of 2019 said that an employment Bill would provide
“better support for working families”
and
“enhance workers’ rights, supporting flexible working, extending unpaid carers’ entitlement to leave”.
Yet there are no such landmark reforms to zero- hour contracts or the gig economy. So much for levelling up; what we are seeing is a levelling down on employment rights. The Prime Minister recently described the iniquitous practice of hire and re-hire as unacceptable —but not, it seems, sufficiently unacceptable for his Government to do anything to prevent it. When he replies, will the Minister explain why the Government have now abandoned working families during a pandemic?
Covid has closed much of our economy, but the Conservatives, in effect, crashed it. Their ineptitude and capriciousness has left Britain with a record: the worst economic crisis of any major economy. Yet they plan a return to the same old policies that left us exposed to the virus, and organisations from the IMF to the OECD have warned the Government about the dangers of slamming the brakes on too soon; I hope that they will be heard. People are desperate for the security that a resilient economy brings: a good job, a reliable wage, a roof over their head and the confidence that comes with all those things. As we recover, Labour would take responsible action to secure jobs, support our high streets and strengthen our communities to deliver that stronger, fairer, regionally balanced economy that Britain so desperately needs.
Over the past decade the Government have wilfully underfunded local authorities, forcing them into a choice between charging people more or slashing services. Now they are allowing family incomes to be hit by rises in council tax which are not the fault of cash-strapped councils. Why have the Government learned nothing from the austerity years dating back to the coalition?
The legislative programme set out in the Loyal Address is not the bold and expansive agenda that might have been expected from a Government with such a majority. Even today’s Times—normally a cheerleader for them—describes it as lacking ambition. That is what has characterised this Government and, in the months ahead, we on these Benches we will use the opportunities presented by the Bills listed in the Loyal Address to set out how we believe they can be improved. There are opportunities that we will exploit in a legislative programme that could and should have been much better equipped to prepare the country for the serious challenges that lie ahead.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. From these Benches, we also thank the Queen for her gracious Speech yesterday, and I too offer my best wishes to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. We look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev.
The Government had an opportunity to bring together the key issues that sit at the heart of the way our country operates. But much of the programme ignores the key strategic priorities that the country needs to focus on to recover from the pandemic and adjust to life outside the European Union. There is no strategy here, just a series of one-off initiatives designed to grab headlines.
The Prime Minister constantly talks about levelling up and building back better and says that these are all about caring for those who feel excluded. But look as hard as we can at the Government’s proposals, we cannot find concrete proposals to reduce inequality. Where is the care? We see an unnecessary voter ID Bill and a puppy farming Bill, but we do not see a desperately needed social care Bill. Where is the care?
From these Liberal Democrat Benches, we believe we must rebuild a fairer, greener and more caring country in the aftermath of Covid. Yet the Government’s proposals for this next Parliament are still failing small businesses and the self-employed. Where is the care? They are still not rising properly to the climate emergency. Where is the care? They are still ignoring millions of unpaid people caring for loved ones at home. Where is the care?
The stark ONS data publication today shows that our economy shrunk a further 1.5% in January. Government is the guardian of public services, whether core services that everyone needs such as the NHS and education, or our vital safety net for those who cannot, for whatever reason, support themselves, which includes social care and benefits. For there to be an effective public sector, we need an economy that can support our needs. How will that be delivered when, earlier this year, the BEIS Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng abandoned the industrial strategy that he inherited from successive Governments? He replaced it with a compendium of repackaged press releases and lots of colour photos. Meanwhile, the financial services industry—such an important taxpayer—awaits some movement, any movement, on its post-Brexit access to the EU market.
There are further problems caused by the absence of a long-term economic plan. The Government were right to create the furlough scheme. But if unemployment rises sharply as lockdown is lifted, those already struggling with debt are likely to need help from many of the services in the public sector. Worse, the furlough scheme ignored the millions of self-employed. This country prides itself on the vision, imagination and determination of our self-employed. They have been ignored by this Government for over a year and now face a much harsher return to business. Where is the care?
Instead of publishing a much-needed and anticipated employment Bill, the Government are silent—silent on the consequences of the explosion of the use of zero-hours contracts and of companies such as Uber attempting to get around their responsibilities as employers. Where is the care? Instead, the Government focus on picking and choosing the places for economic growth. Their latest flagship proposals for freeports have not understood that a UK business exporting will now face tariffs to 23 countries, costing them extra money. Where is the care?
The Bill to reform apprenticeships and lifelong learning must address the failings of the current government apprenticeship scheme. Frankly, it is a total mess. The number of apprentices is less than when the Government started it. Where is the care? Can the Minister tell us how this new scheme will work? These Benches will judge it on its effectiveness, inclusiveness, flexibility and the speed at which it is delivered. It is vital that it is also designed to help small and micro businesses, which already struggle with their capacity to support training and skills in their business. Where is the evidence that this Government understand their needs?
Liberal Democrats believe that small businesses are essential to building their local communities’ recovery, whether on the high street or a local industrial estate. We need a new workforce strategy that looks at new modes of working, including the flexibility of working from home.
Equally important is the need for a real public procurement strategy and clarity of the rules. This last year has exposed cronyism at its worst. The details of the proposals in the Queen’s Speech’s on procurement at page 74 say that one of
“the main benefits of the Bill would be: … Embedding transparency throughout the commercial lifecycle from planning to procurement, contract award, and performance evaluation. Procurement data will be published in a standard, open format, so that it is more accessible to anyone.”
The irony of that statement is staggering. Was it this Government who were taken to court by openDemocracy because they were not publishing contracts on time or in appropriate detail? Were existing, approved suppliers of PPE elbowed aside for chums of Ministers or Tory donors with no experience of PPE, who then won multimillion-pound contracts? Not surprisingly, a good chunk of these did not meet the appropriate standards, putting our health and social care staff at risk. Where is the care?
When Mr Johnson became Prime Minister in July 2019, he said:
“My job is to protect you or your parents or grandparents from the fear of having to sell your home to pay for the costs of care and so I am announcing now—on the steps of Downing Street—that we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve … I will take personal responsibility for the change I want to see. Never mind the backstop—the buck stops here.”
There are 91 vital words that gave hope. For just under two years, we have been waiting for the urgent and detailed plans from this Government to reform social care. But there were only nine little words in the Speech yesterday:
“Proposals on social care reform will be brought forward”—
just one-10th of the words the PM uttered two years ago.
Millions of people—those who need care, many unpaid carers and the entire social care sector—are desperate for some change, not least to the financial structure. In coalition, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories agreed to implement the Dilnot review. In 2015, the Conservative Government ditched the plans, and, as a broken social care system waits, this Government fail them again. Not just “where is the care” but where is the social care?
The details of the Bill on integrated health services have some interesting omissions. There is no mention of a long-term, 10-year workforce planning strategy, for either health, social care or mental health. Nothing on pay and professionalism though the development of social care staff is mentioned. There is still no concrete timeline for mental health reform legislation, let alone the parity of esteem for mental health and physical health which the coalition Government committed to six years ago. There is no mention of how the NHS will manage long Covid, among both its health staff and its patients. There is nothing on health education, apart from in the context of the professional qualifications Bill and recruitment. Vitally, there is no evidence on how these NHS reforms will reduce inequalities. By contrast, the section on NHS reforms makes multiple references to improving efficiency, which was not a major theme in the White Paper. That had better not be code for cuts to the health budget. Where is the care?
I echo the words of the right honourable Edward Davey, who has welcomed the fact that the Prime Minister has confirmed that he will begin a Covid inquiry in this parliamentary Session. It is crucial that he sees this promise through; it must be a full and independent inquiry. This Government must be answerable for the mistakes so that lessons can be learned. The bereaved families of the 150,000 dead deserve justice, and Ministers must be held to account. I fear, though, that this Government favour opportunism over long-term strategic planning. Their actions over the past 15 months, particularly on contracts, make them look dodgy and like they are favouring their friends, at best. At worst, cronyism and questions about corruption are beginning to emerge.
This country needs a plan to help the country recover. This country is waiting. Where is the care?
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the events of the past 14 months have reminded us, if we needed reminding, how much we as a society benefit from our National Health Service. It is worth remembering, though, that even before the pandemic, the NHS faced serious challenges, and these have not disappeared. Some were temporarily obscured by the Covid crisis and some were thrown into even sharper relief by it, but the fundamental problems remain.
Perhaps the most urgent pre-pandemic issue was poor morale among large sections of the clinical staff, who were experiencing unsustainably heavy workloads with no immediate prospect of relief. They nevertheless responded magnificently to the crisis, with an all-out effort that took little or no account of the personal costs involved. Their performance was superb, and they earned our heartfelt gratitude, but we owe them much more than that. As the pandemic recedes, they are left not just exhausted from the struggle, not just contemplating a return to the already debilitating status quo ante, but facing the daunting additional challenge of the clinical backlog that has built up over the past 15 months. Something must be done to address this.
Part of the solution is to embed more efficient processes and better ways of working, such as the continued use of telephone consultations for certain cases; the faster and more efficient flow of clinical information, where the NHS continues to suffer from severe shortcomings; and addressing the total lack of digital connectivity between clinical and social services. These and similar issues require urgent attention. I therefore welcome, in principle, many of the proposals set out by the Government in their White Paper on integration and innovation in health and social care, and the subsequent legislation referred to in the gracious Speech, but I want to make three points about the overall approach.
First, the initiative will fail if it focuses too much on reorganisation. I accept that some changes may be necessary, but I speak from bitter experience when I say that constant shuffling of the deckchairs diverts effort and energy from those things that really matter—in this case, improving health outcomes and the work/life balance of NHS staff. It also seldom gets to the heart of things. No large endeavour such as the NHS can be managed effectively as a monolithic structure. It has to be divided up somehow, and the divisions will introduce boundary and interface issues which can hamper efficiency. Reorganisation does not solve such issues; it simply moves them elsewhere. What is needed is the development of a culture that ensures efficient management across such boundaries, and this requires not just legislation but many years of strong leadership and sustained effort.
Secondly, I return to a point that I have made in this Chamber before: healthcare is an inherently ungoverned system of ever-increasing demand and ever-increasing technological opportunities. The growth in pressure has already outstripped the new resources that have been promised in recent years. Left to itself, demand will always exceed supply, wherever we set the level of funding. We have to exercise control over the outputs as well as the inputs, but I see little sign of this in the Government’s current proposals.
Thirdly, the issue of morale cannot wait. NHS staff clearly need some immediate relief from the pressures under which they have laboured for so long, and which they continue to face. Pre-Covid, the Interim NHS People Plan made some proposals in this regard, but a number of them were neither specific nor quantifiable, so when will we see a comprehensive and detailed plan of action for the urgent relief of the pressures on NHS clinical staff, to include milestones and accountable persons? How will progress on these measures, and their impact on NHS morale, be assessed and reported?
We urgently need a way forward on the future provision of health and social care in the round. The foundation of the NHS was perhaps only made possible by the upheaval and dislocation of a world war. The global Covid crisis now gives us the necessary impetus to ensure that Beveridge’s legacy is made fit for the 21st century; we must seize the moment.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, we all know the challenges and opportunities that lie before us: the green and digital revolutions; competing in a post-Brexit world; paying for our ageing population; and, of course, repairing the economic damage caused by Covid. The last time a Conservative Government enjoyed a majority of this size, they too faced enormous challenges, and they seized that opportunity to remodel the economy. Everyone knew that Government’s direction of travel and even their opponents grudgingly respected the Government’s willingness to take tough decisions to achieve their aims. So, with that in mind, I ask whether this Government are using their political power and this golden opportunity to meet the challenges this nation faces. How does the gracious Speech rise to the moment and set us on a new course?
There are good things within the gracious Speech. Free ports could breathe life into depressed communities. I applaud measures to reform the planning system and to improve skills and lifelong learning. Previous Governments have expressed similar bold ambitions, so I hope this one will succeed where others have failed—they will certainly have my support. However, apart from those Bills, I ask: is this all the Government have to offer, given the scale of the challenges, the plentiful opportunities and the political wind in their sails?
For example, as we undergo the digital revolution, why are we not updating our analogue employment laws? What plans have we to revamp our complex analogue tax system? How, specifically, are we going to help people and businesses go green? What new powers are we going to give to city mayors to help them level up communities? And how will we pay for our ageing population? Sadly, we will not be debating Bills on these topics, although the Government have found time to legislate to stop puppy smuggling. I remain to be convinced that we are really confronting the major challenges we face.
I also detect something deeper. Far from a wish to unleash enterprise and support risk-takers, I sense a worrying drift towards big government. Of course, we needed to support businesses during Covid—that goes without saying—but my concern, and I very much hope to be proven wrong, is that the Government’s tendency is to think, once again, that the man in Whitehall knows best. By that I do not wish to imply that government has no role at all to play, but what I am saying is that I believe that the private sector, not Whitehall, will drive growth; that competition, not state intervention, will boost innovation; that low tax provides incentives for investment and hard work; and that a strong economy is founded on stable finances, not debt.
Look at the direction we are heading in. By 2025, we will have 3 million more higher rate taxpayers than in 2010. Corporation tax is heading towards its highest level since 1989. The tax burden is rising to its highest level since the 1960s. Our stock of debt is at its highest level since 1958. Borrowing is at its highest level since 1947, when records began. Although the nation is deep in the red, this Speech implies still more spending and my understanding is that, other than the NHS, schools and defence, all other areas face real-term cuts in 2022-23. Maybe, when my noble friend sums up, he can tell us how the plans in this Speech are going to be paid for and where the money will come from.
Governments are best when they are bold, and this Government have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reset the course of our nation, so we are able to meet the challenges and make the most of the opportunities that lie ahead. Sadly, at the end of the gracious Speech, I was left wondering: is that it?
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, it is a privilege to be the first to speak from these Benches on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech. I look forward to the valedictory speech of my colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, who has served the House so well during his years as a Lord spiritual. I also look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev.
I make my comments within a very specific framework: are the measures contained in the gracious Speech good for the children and young people of our land? At the outset of her tenure as Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza commented:
“I want to see childhood right at the top of the Government agenda. That means every speech from the Prime Minister and Chancellor mentioning children, and every Government department constantly pushing to improve the lives of children”—
so it was good to hear a range of references to children. Having the best start in life by prioritising early years is essential. There is no debate any longer that the months in the womb and the first 1,001 days of a child’s life are absolutely critical to lifetime development. Much deeper investment in all aspects of early years well-being—mental, physical, social and spiritual—is essential. It was good to note reflection on building back better through all aspects of education. It is essential that this begins with children’s spiritual, social and mental well-being rather than academic achievement. The latter will follow the former. It must be truly a long-term plan, not one limited to the lifetime of this Parliament.
We welcome the plans for flexible funding within the skills and post-16 education Bill. The flourishing of the further education sector is crucial to our future. We as a Church stand for human flourishing at all levels. Therefore, this is at the core of our core educational vision:
“Deeply Christian, Serving the Common Good”.
We as a Church recognise that we must become younger and more diverse. Engaging in further education needs to be at the core of what we do. This is as much a matter of social justice as it is about skills for jobs, social mobility or greater productivity. Therefore, we are seeking to form new partnerships and to reach out on areas of common concern such as well-being, mental health, bringing communities together and the place of spirituality in further education.
We offer key themes to inform these discussions: vocation, transformation and hope. We also challenge ourselves to reimagine chaplaincy for all those in further education. Currently, we are exploring how best to fulfil this vision in partnership with colleges that share our vision and commitment to serve the needs of people of all faiths and none. We are grateful for engagement with, and are committed to, an ongoing working partnership with the Secretary of State and the Government to explore these issues together for the common good.
In further developing integrated health and social care, the needs of children, especially around mental health, disability and special educational needs, must be central. Children need properly joined-up working between all sectors. The commitment to online safety for children must be turned into reality. I hope the Government will work closely with 5Rights and others to achieve this.
The ongoing international commitment to girls’ education is very welcome. It is such a pity that it comes against the backdrop of the savage cuts in other areas of international development, which will reduce those same girls’ access to clean water, better hygiene and healthcare. The international aid budget needs to be returned to 0.7% immediately. Sadly, this was not indicated in the gracious Speech; might the Minister comment on this lack?
The charitable voluntary sector is a vital part of children’s well-being. I hope that the charities Bill will address concerns that make life for smaller charities particularly difficult.
Children must be at the heart of how we build back from the pandemic. Since the Prime Minister has committed to appointing a Cabinet-level Minister to co-ordinate the start for life initiative, might it be better if this was for children of all ages, not simply nought to five year-olds?
I finally want to touch on the New Plan for Immigration Bill. The Home Office has said it is committed to a culture that is respectful, compassionate, collaborative and courageous. No one is more deserving of this approach than children forced to seek sanctuary through no fault of their own. The Government’s New Plan for Immigration references children and young people rarely, other than in the discussion on age assessment. I trust this omission will be rectified in the Bill, given that the Home Secretary spoke of prioritising the protection of vulnerable women and children in refugee camps. There are other things we welcome in those proposals, but no child deserves a hostile start in a new home where they will be trapped in a precarious life, vulnerable to exploitation and poverty—and there are real concerns that that will happen under the current proposals.
Children need to be at the heart of every aspect of building back better. There are signs of hope; there are also signs of deep concern, including no commitment to keep the uplift in universal credit or address the two-child limit. A bigger, bolder vision for children is still needed.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, a debate on the economy must begin with the news this morning that the economy is 8.7% smaller than it was pre pandemic. Do not be fooled by claims of spectacular growth rates in the next few months; it is how soon we get to pre-pandemic levels that really matters.
Our economy has been permanently scarred by the pandemic and Brexit, permanently reducing output below previously attainable levels and therefore reducing the resources available to fund recovery. Consider the task before us: the NHS has a backlog of 4.7 million cases; the £1.7 billion pledged by the Chancellor to restore our schools has been labelled “nowhere near enough” by the Education Recovery Commissioner; the Crown Courts have a backlog of 56,000 cases, with some trials not scheduled to begin until 2023; and, all the while, economic relations with our major trading partner are mired in jingoistic rancour and red tape.
The Prime Minister is right to say that recovery is the biggest challenge since the Second World War. To face that challenge, we need a practical vision, clear goals and a framework to guide economic policy. Sadly, taking the Budget and the measures announced in the gracious Speech together, there is only incoherence. The gracious Speech is littered with promises of spending commitments. The Budget speech told us that public spending is to be cut by £4 billion per year, with major cuts targeted at local authorities—hitting hardest those areas promised the beneficence of levelling up. The much-lauded lifetime skills guarantee comes with a sting in the tail—the guarantee is to provide not training but loans to pay for training. So new skills will come with new debt.
The commitment to fund research and development is welcome. It would have more impact if the science base were not at the same time losing even greater funding from European research programmes.
In 1945, Clement Attlee, in far worse circumstances than we find ourselves today, presented a vision for post-war recovery based on three pillars: education, health and culture. The economic framework was simple yet profound; it was economics for the common good. Economics for the common good seeks to manage the risks of daily life by providing appropriate collective provision where individuals’ lives would be blighted. The NHS is a magnificent collective scheme with 60 million members. Similar collective commitment is necessary to mitigate the risks in social care, as Sir Andrew Dilnot has proposed.
Economics for the common good recognises the need for collective provision of the foundations of production that individual companies cannot or will not provide—hence the need for investment in infra- structure, where infrastructure, properly understood, is not just railways and internet connections but protection for the environment, education and cultural industries and affordable childcare. All require collective investment to attain national productive efficiency.
The two elements of risk and infrastructure come together in the collective funding of innovative research. It was no accident that the vaccine to tackle Covid was developed at Oxford University, nor that the science behind the BioNTech vaccine was developed at the universities of Mainz and Tübingen. Cutting-edge research is inherently very risky, which is why it must be funded by the public sector. I therefore welcome the commitment in the gracious Speech to more funding for research and development but I am doubtful about the need for yet another advanced research agency. We have a lot of those already—they are called universities.
The economics of the common good could transform the muddled economics in the gracious Speech. In particular, it would place in context the ominous commitment to
“ensure that the public finances are returned to a sustainable path”.
No one would suggest that the public finances should be on an unsustainable path, but we all know that in the hands of this Government, “sustainable path” is code for “cuts in public expenditure”. The economics of the common good suggest that we should fund the recovery from the pandemic and the reconstruction of our economy as it reels from the blows of Brexit by the same method as we funded the war and the post-war recovery: by eschewing the nonsense of Treasury fiscal orthodoxy and instead pursuing a balanced management of the public debt that funds recovery, maintains demand and secures full employment.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, we have a school system in England which is geared towards a knowledge-based curriculum and academic success. The hallmarks of that success are passing enough GCSEs at suitable grades to move into the sixth form and then achieving the required number of A-levels to move on to university. At every successful step on this journey, the pupils are praised. But, of course, not every pupil is able to cope with an academic-based education. We know that 40% or so of our pupils would be much better suited to a vocational education, which would give them the skills and opportunities for success in the jobs market and provide the much-needed skills that our nation needs.
Over the years we have seen our further education sector underfunded and downgraded and FE teachers paid less than teachers in the school sector. We have sat back and marvelled at the success of other countries such as Germany, Switzerland and Finland, which have created an education system that is tailor-made for the individual needs of every pupil and which provides the necessary skills for the economy. I therefore welcome the Government bringing forward a Bill on lifetime skills. As the Secretary of State said in his lifetime skills guarantee and post-16 education Statement in October 2020:
“I have been determined to raise the status of further, technical and vocational education … this sector has been overlooked and underserved, playing second fiddle to higher education. All too often, it has not given the young people and adults of this country the skills that businesses are crying out for, or enabled them to pursue the careers they dreamed of.”—[Official Report, Commons, 1/10/20; col. 541.]
So, yes, we will work constructively on this Bill, and see a lifetime skills guarantee and flexible lifelong learning entitlement as crucial to its success.
The Covid pandemic has played havoc with our children’s education. We have seen an increase in undesirable behaviour in pupils, some minor but persistent and some more extreme. Anxiety has become a growing issue—about catching Covid-19 and infecting family members, missing school and not being ready for examinations. Poorer physical health has also been noticeable for some children. School staff’s well-being has been affected, with constant moving around classrooms and no staffroom support from each other. Primary schools have seen a negative curriculum impact on key stage 1 pupils’ social communication and listening, speech, phonic knowledge and gross motor skills. Regression in fine motor skills is a particular concern; some pupils are now not able to hold a pencil. Some subjects were not taught in the depth they usually are because of the focus on maths and English. The effectiveness of remote education is varied. Many children with special educational needs and/or disabilities were not attending school and were struggling with remote learning, and were at risk of abuse and/or neglect. Even more schools report even more children being home schooled. By the way, this is not me saying this. This is not me reporting from some charity or teachers’ union handout or briefing; this is from the Government’s own Ofsted.
The Government’s response has been mixed. Laptops have been made available but head teachers have told me there have not been enough laptops for every child who needed them and the scheme was slow to get off the ground. The catch-up programme has given an extra £80 per pupil. Is this catch-up money really sufficient for schools in deprived areas or with large numbers of children with special needs? The national tutoring programme provides one-to-one catch-up, with schools having to pay 25% of the cost—and, by the way, if the tutor is off sick, they still have to pay that cost. Many pupils have found it difficult to relate to virtual strangers. Schools have also had to cope with pupils’ well-being and mental health problems.
I hope that we are now getting back to normal in our schools but government should give schools the time and the resources. Let us take the pressures and burdens of SATS off the shoulders of our primary schools, at least for a few years. Again, let us use Ofsted as a supportive mentor, giving schools detailed help and advice on the road to recovery. When we need to return to full inspections, let us make them initially light touch. We are now seeing thousands of children being home schooled. We have to make sure that those home-schooled children are safeguarded and taught in a proper and appropriate way. At the very least, let us agree that if you choose to home teach your child, that has to be registered with the local authority and the local authority has to make a visit at least once a year. I also worry about pre-school and nursery but I do not have time to deal with that.
Children have not only lost their schooling; perhaps more importantly, they have lost part of their childhood.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, as the vaccine programme continues and the country reopens, the Government, quite rightly, are taking stock of the condition of the NHS and public health.
As is well known, lockdown and shielding have worsened numerous physical and mental health problems, particularly among vulnerable segments in the population. After the heroic efforts of NHS workers, there is now a need for a period of resetting and recovering in all healthcare settings—a chance to take stock, not only for the improvement of those who use the NHS but for those who work in it. We need the right investment and the right use of digital technology, and I was pleased to hear in the gracious Speech the Government’s commitment to support innovative technology in the field of healthcare. I trust that the Department of Health will take note of a recent report by the Covid-19 Committee, on which I sit, called Beyond Digital: Planning for a Hybrid World. There is much in that which I think could help the Government.
I will give osteoporosis as an example of how, with forward and joined-up thinking, people suffering from debilitating diseases such as osteoporosis can have their lives improved. Osteoporosis is dubbed the silent disease because of underdiagnosis, undertreatment and chronically low levels of public awareness, yet as many people die of fracture-related causes as those who die of lung cancer, diabetes and chronic lower respiratory diseases. We now have a chance to build back better and level up, not only for those using the NHS but for those who work within it.
As with many others suffering from health problems, those suffering from osteoporosis have found that a postcode lottery stands in the way of diagnosis and treatment. Missed opportunities for early intervention in both primary and secondary care lead to problems routinely being left to escalate. For example, in the case of osteoporosis, two-thirds of people with vertebral fractures—2.2 million people—are undiagnosed. One-fifth of women who have broken a bone break three more before receiving a diagnosis. The most powerful intervention for osteoporosis sufferers is a British-born success story: the fracture liaison service model. Figures show that the FLS saves the NHS £3.28 for every £1 invested. Its record in saving lives and reducing healthcare costs is why the model was exported at pace across the developed world. Yet here we find an example of a postcode lottery. People in Scotland and Northern Ireland enjoy 100% coverage, while only half of people in England have access to FLS. This postcode lottery means that two patients who live either side of the same city have markedly different risks of refracturing, with all the consequences for quality of life and the extra burden on the NHS.
We know that people living in deprived areas, families for whom English is a second language and people with learning difficulties are significantly more likely to suffer from health problems. For these people, levelling up across the country could not be more vital.
I am highlighting the disease osteoporosis because it is an area I have knowledge about, but the problems faced by osteoporosis sufferers are mirrored by those faced by many who suffer from other diseases. Everyone across the UK should have access to quality treatment. Clearly, this will not only improve people’s lives but save the taxpayer money. For instance, if everyone across the UK had access to fracture liaison services, it would prevent 5,686 fractures every year, saving the NHS £65.7 million in annual costs.
I would be interested to hear from my noble friend how the Government plan to encourage people to come forward in areas where late diagnosis worsens outcomes. I welcome the health and care Bill setting out ways for different parts of the healthcare system, including doctors, nurses, carers, local government officials and the voluntary sector, to work together to provide joined-up services. The Government have the opportunity to make sure investment is going to where it is most required and will make the most difference. For goodness’ sake, let us make sure best practice is shared around the country.
Older people have already borne a heavy burden throughout this pandemic. The Government must concentrate on ensuring that preventable problems in healthcare are dealt with early and at source, so that people’s lives can be decisively levelled up to ensure a high quality of life and ageing well.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I want to address three issues arising from the gracious Speech: dementia research, the lifetime skills guarantee and the manifesto commitment to help people to live five extra healthy, independent years of life by 2035.
The Queen’s Speech reiterated the Government’s commitment to increasing funding for research and development. Here, I declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Group for Dementia. Will this include honouring the Government’s 2019 manifesto commitment to double funding for research into dementia to £160 million each year? This funding is needed more than ever, with many dementia research programmes being halted or paused due to the pandemic. It is very worrying, particularly given the ONS’s announcement just last month that dementia is now the leading cause of death in England. We never realised that. We also know that one-quarter of Covid-19 deaths in this country involved people with some form of dementia, so research into this is incredibly important. Many people do not know that 40% of dementia cases are linked to preventable risk factors, and this figure could well increase as we learn more about the condition.
I commend the Government’s commitment to the lifetime skills guarantee. Lifelong learning enables people to have greater success in employment—and ensures that we have a skilled workforce that meets the needs of our economy—and can support brain health, thereby possibly preventing some forms of dementia. It will also be vital in the context of longer and changing working lives. Research by the International Longevity Centre UK suggests that people aged 50 and over earned 30% of total earnings—£237 billion—in 2018. This could rise to 40%—£311 billion—by 2040. That could significantly support the economic recovery, but only if people are equipped with the right skills across their working lives.
The Government have made £95 million available, meaning that 11 million adults now have access to a free qualification. At present, this qualification is at level 3, which is an A-level equivalent. I look forward to seeing this programme expanded so that we can provide reskilling opportunities to all adults at a time when there are significant changes to the labour market. I also welcome the lifelong loan scheme, which the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, mentioned in her speech, and look forward to the Government’s promised changes to employment legislation. That was not mentioned in yesterday’s Speech, but it should be a priority for the Government at this time.
Lastly, not mentioned in yesterday’s Speech was the Government’s manifesto commitment to support people to live five extra healthy and independent years of life by 2035. Do the Government still stand by that commitment? As already alluded to in my comments on dementia research, prevention and early action can play a crucial role in delivering the vision of a healthier nation, as set out in the Queen’s Speech yesterday. Here, I declare my interest as chief executive of the International Longevity Centre, whose 2020 paper found that time spent living with largely preventable health conditions is set to increase by 17% over the next 25 years unless the Government move upstream and invest in preventive health interventions.
Ten years on from the Dilnot report, the Queen’s Speech once again offered only general commitments to social care reform, without giving any detail. Part of the social care reform debate must consider the importance of prevention in healthcare, including dementia prevention, to reduce future pressure on the social care sector and to address the increased suffering of many thousands of people.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an enormous pleasure to be making my maiden speech today. I am conscious of the extraordinary circumstances the House has been working under since March last year. I pay tribute to Black Rod and her team, the Clerk of the Parliaments, doorkeepers, attendants and police officers, who have been so helpful and supportive, as well as patient with my repeated requests for directions.
May I also say how grateful I am to my supporters, my noble friends Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Blunkett, for their unfailing support and advice? Our paths have crossed many times over the years, and it is a privilege to have their wisdom and great expertise to guide me.
My background and experience before taking up my seat here has focused on local government and other public sector organisations. I feel huge pride in having, and it is an honour to have, the title of Baroness Blake of Leeds, my home city and the city where I was first elected as a councillor in 1996. I became leader of Leeds City Council six years ago, the first woman to lead the council. Of course, although I cannot claim personal credit, I am beyond thrilled that Leeds United chose my last year in office to gain promotion to where they belong: in the Premier League.
Leeds has achieved much success over recent years but has been held back from realising its true potential by the overcentralisation of government in England. Much of my time in the past few years has been spent working on devolution with my colleagues in the other four districts of west Yorkshire. We achieved our goal with the election of our first directly elected metro mayor at the elections last week, and achieved another first as Tracy Brabin, the successful candidate, is the only female metro mayor in the country.
There is now consensus about the growing scale of spatial inequality in the UK. We need a mature debate on how we are going to address the imbalance in the economy, followed by a clear plan of action owned across the political spectrum by all different sectors and, crucially, empowering local and regional devolved Administrations. We urgently need to address the low productivity of our towns and cities outside London and better understand the cause. Estimates suggest that if our core cities alone performed at the levels of similar cities internationally it would add over £100 billion to our economy.
I listened with interest to the Queen’s Speech and the proposed legislation designed to lead us into recovery from the impacts of Covid—the most challenging time that we have faced for generations. The response of so many people across our country has been phenomenal. The city council in Leeds, along with town halls across the country, rose to the challenge magnificently and our gratitude to our front-line workers and NHS staff knows no bounds. However, the whole sector has been left with the knowledge that so much more could have been achieved if the necessary powers and resources had been devolved down to a local level. We have a great opportunity if proposed legislation addresses this and the levelling-up agenda of the recovery allows places to take charge of the necessary programmes of work. Local areas need to be able to run their own jobs and skills programmes. They need to secure the investment to develop their transport infrastructure, long promised and long overdue, and essential to unlocking the economies of so many communities. They need the freedom to invest in the growth of new and creative industries to bring benefit to their areas.
Covid-19 has exposed vulnerability in the cruellest way. It is no accident that those communities suffering the highest levels of health inequalities, poverty and overcrowded housing have suffered worst during the pandemic. All these factors must be addressed if we are to achieve the economic recovery we need, bringing benefit to everyone, wherever they live and whatever their backgrounds. I look forward to the proposed legislation covering skills, education and early years—a vital component of the levelling-up agenda. I know that many Members of this House have a great deal of expertise in these areas, which will be invaluable. I look forward to contributing my experience to the debates at the appropriate time.
We have an enormous task ahead of us. I am keen to start working with all noble Lords to secure the best future we can, especially for those who have sacrificed so much over the past year.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow that excellent maiden speech from my noble friend Lady Blake. There is no doubt that the House will benefit from her rich experience of local government and I look forward to debating the merits of Leeds United with her in the years to come. Let me also start by reminding noble Lords of my interests as entered in the register, in particular my education interests and my work with Purpose on climate education.
The pandemic crisis has held up a mirror to our country. It has shown the extraordinary resilience, community spirit and capacity for innovation and compassion of the British people. It reinforced our love of our NHS, while showing the impoverished state of the care sector. It has also shown us crushing levels of food poverty and the new phenomenon of digital poverty.
The mirror of the pandemic can also be held up to this gracious Speech. Why is there no care Bill? Just putting the words “social care” in the title of the health department does not mean that the problems go away. They include the lack of PPE for care workers, infected patients discharged into care homes during the pandemic and families having to go to court so that their relatives could get out without requiring two weeks in solitary confinement. All this and the omission from the gracious Speech show a blatant disregard for this critical sector that now needs answers from this Government on how it is to be funded sustainably, thereby enabling a universal lifting of quality for patients and staff. I say to Ministers: time is running out. This is such a difficult problem and the political window for making difficult decisions is closing before the next election becomes too imminent.
Like others, I was also expecting to see an employment Bill, as promised. There is no sign of it or of doing something about workers’ rights that, in the age of zero-hours contracts and the gig economy, are so sorely needed. If they are serious about levelling up, Ministers need to rediscover that priority. If there is to be substance beyond the levelling-up rhetoric, we need a place-based approach to skills and proper funding for employment outcomes, not just qualification outcomes. Instead, we have a Bill offering debt for skills to the least qualified. We have a Bill that puts a cap on one’s ability to access that funding if one has already achieved a level 3 qualification. This flagship Bill in the legislative programme ignores the realities that more disadvantaged people are more nervous of taking on debt, and that technology will be deskilling plenty of people with A-levels, BTECs, higher-level apprenticeships and degrees. We need instead to properly delegate funding and strategy to a local level, as my noble friend just said—as did the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, in his fine speech. That funding and those strategies should be delegated to mayors or local economic partnerships to allow them to integrate skills and employment policy, and build talent pipelines for the sectors of the economy that those areas are choosing to target.
I welcome the setting in law of the target to reach carbon emissions of 78% per cent of 1990 levels by 2035. That means we are rapidly moving towards all jobs being green jobs and we need our skills and schools to reflect that. A child starting school this September will leave school in 2035. By that time, she or he will need the knowledge, skills and mindset of carbon zero so that when they enter that workforce in 2035 they are good to go in what will be a very different world, in which we are consuming food, travelling and working differently.
Just pretending that the same knowledge-based curriculum that we have had for the past 70 years—the same pedagogies and the same qualifications—is sufficient would fail our young people. A better and fairer school system is not achievable through just catch-up of learning loss. That can be done only through significant root-and-branch reform that develops cognitive intelligence equally with social, emotional, physical and technical skills—starting, of course, with the early years.
This gracious Speech reflects the Government’s priorities. They prefer to put disenfranchising electors over fixing the care sector. They put curtailing the right to protest over secure jobs for low-paid workers. They put attacking judicial review over a coherent approach to regeneration through education. I look forward to the debates in this Session.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, on her excellent maiden speech.
Like other noble Lords, I must start by registering my profound disappointment that, despite all the promises made, there is nothing of any substance in the gracious Speech on the long-awaited reform of social care. The pandemic has cast a devastating spotlight on this long-neglected, fragile and much underfunded sector. During that time, tens of thousands of care home residents lost their lives. The questions of who pays for social care, how much funding is needed and how it is delivered are not easy but they are urgent. This is the area, above all, where the Prime Minister should be applying his rocket boosters. We owe it to all those who have died and their families to find a workable and sustainable solution.
Turning now to the health and care Bill, the emphasis in the White Paper on greater collaboration and integration between the NHS, local government and other services is to be welcomed. However, to achieve their ambition of improving the health of the nation, the Government must also prioritise action on the wider determinants of health and address the key public policy challenges largely absent from the White Paper. I have already referred to fixing and reforming social care, one of the biggest policy failures in a generation.
Secondly, the NHS and social care workforces have been placed under enormous strain during the pandemic and continue to face chronic staff shortages. The proposals in the White Paper to improve workforce planning are simply inadequate. A fully funded workforce strategy that includes mental health is needed to address staff shortages and boost retention by improving working cultures.
Crucially, the Government must tackle the health inequalities that have been cruelly exposed and exacerbated by Covid-19. If they are serious about their commitment to levelling up, they must address the deep and widening gap in health outcomes between our richest and poorest communities.
There is a real risk of distraction from tackling the most important issue. The NHS has just faced the most difficult year in its history, and the scale of the challenges facing it after Covid is formidable; those challenges include addressing the growing backlog of unmet health- care needs, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, pointed out. Creating new organisations is easier on paper than in practice, and the experience of past reorganisations shows that merging and creating new agencies can cause major disruption.
The proposal to bring the NHS under closer ministerial control will warrant close scrutiny in your Lordships’ House. The Government should articulate clearly why these additional powers are needed and how they will be used, and outline the checks and balances that will be in place to ensure that they are used as intended. I will be watching this area closely.
The Government should also consider how the new legislation can be used to improve the lives of people with a mental illness. Despite a national commitment to parity of esteem, mental health services still struggle to meet demand—a situation that has only been exacerbated by the pandemic. To ensure that mental health is given an equal focus in the proposed new system, we need to see three things. First, there should be a legal requirement to have on the unitary integrated care board representation from an NHS trust with responsibility for mental health, alongside representation from other types of trusts. Secondly, the ICSs should be legally required to achieve parity of esteem for mental and physical health in their decision-making and to report publicly on this annually. Thirdly, the NHS’s commitment to mental health should be explicitly included in its triple aim.
I turn briefly to financial exclusion. Although I welcome the focus on skills and education as part of the levelling-up agenda, much more needs to be done to tackle financial exclusion if levelling up is to become a reality and no one is to be left behind. It is deeply disappointing that legislation on protecting access to cash did not feature in the gracious Speech. Despite an overall decline in the use of cash, an estimated 8 million people continue to use and rely on it to budget and make payments. The pandemic has also highlighted the vulnerability of groups that want or need to make cash payments, as they have been affected the most by reduced bank branch opening hours, branch closures and a lower acceptance of cash.
As chair of the former Financial Exclusion Select Committee, I was closely involved in the Liaison Committee’s follow-up report on financial exclusion, which was published last month. It highlighted the importance to financial inclusion of access to cash. Will the Minister provide an update on the Government’s plans to bring forward measures announced in the 2020 Budget to protect cash and set out a clear timetable for such legislation?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, on her excellent maiden speech.
The gracious Speech promised many good Bills that will contribute to the UK’s success. I congratulate the Government on an ambitious programme. Last week’s elections showed the strength of the Prime Minister’s mandate for building a better UK and levelling up. Our focus must now be on the practical steps to rebuild our country. In my allotted time, I will speak about the economy and what the Government need to do—and not do—to underpin economic growth.
The Government’s Covid-19 policy was to prioritise the healthcare response to the virus. Practically everything else suffered. The damage done by deliberately crashing the economy through lockdowns has left us with a significant loss of GDP, and debt and deficit levels that are in post-war record territory. I support what the Government have done to protect jobs and businesses, but it is vital that we start to move out of that cocoon as soon as possible. In particular, we must ensure that non-viable businesses are allowed to fail. Keeping them on life support with employment subsidies and soft loans will act as a drag on the economy in the medium and longer term if we do not let market forces do their job.
The Government’s infrastructure programmes will certainly support the economy as we rebuild, but the fiscal impacts are huge. History teaches us that Governments often do not spend money wisely. The out-of-control High Speed 2 budget is a case in point; I will not support the HS2 Bill that is planned for this Session. More importantly, taxpayer-funded infrastructure spending should not become a dominant part of economic management, because the danger of crowding out the private sector is very real. Only by letting our business sector have the space to grow will we be able to create the sustainable jobs and prosperity which, in turn, generate the tax revenues to support other priorities such as social care funding.
I hope that the Government will prioritise the things that create the best conditions for businesses to grow. I suggest three areas to focus on. First, the Government must use their Brexit freedoms to get serious about deregulation. We need to jettison committees, units and policies that fly under the oxymoronic flag of better regulation. We need a presumption of no regulation, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses. They should simply be allowed to get on with wealth creation, as long as they avoid a carefully defined list of harms.
Secondly, the Government must not forget that high tax rates drag economies down and discourage investment. Tax yields are not maximised by raising rates, as any number of examples of both raising and reducing taxation rates over the past 30 years testify. The Government need to look again at their plans for corporation tax and resist the temptation to raise income tax or capital gains tax rates.
Thirdly, a skilled and educated workforce is a foundation stone for business success and therefore jobs. I welcome the Government’s initiatives, including their lifetime skills guarantee. They must be ruthless about ensuring that school leavers are well equipped for the world of work and that universities are not allowed to churn out graduates with degrees that are not valued in the workplace in any way.
I will finish with a word of caution about the Government’s seemingly boundless enthusiasm for climate change action. Net-zero policies have huge costs and hit the poorest in our society hardest. Legislation to set binding targets will demand careful scrutiny, so that we do not pursue the empty glory of world-beating CO2 reduction at the expense of the economic well-being of our country.
Lord Lebedev (CB) (Maiden Speech) [V]
My Lords, for every one of us, it is a moving moment when we join this House. When we promise to be faithful and to bear true allegiance we know the pledge we make. We are making a vow to maintain this country’s freedoms and to keep our institutions strong. We are offering diligence and independence as we accept our duties as legislators. We are taking our place in the long line of those who have defended the values of our nation.
I am so grateful for the welcome that I have received from every Member. I did not take that warmth for granted. I am particularly grateful to my supporters, the noble Lords, Lord Bird and Lord Clarke, and to Black Rod and all the members of her staff for their help.
Everyone in this House brings something different. I hope that my charitable work, my international experience, my many campaigns and my varied business career will provide insights of use to my fellow noble Lords. I will also be able to teach the House how to make a small fortune: start with a very large fortune, and then buy a newspaper. Lord Thomson of Fleet is quoted as describing television as a licence to print money. Newspaper publishing also seems like printing money—and then giving it away outside Tube stations. Luckily, I passionately believe in the contribution that the press makes to public life. The cause of freedom is very dear to me, and one I want to champion in this House.
I will briefly contribute to the discussion on health. The pandemic poses two big questions. The first is how to prevent it happening again. Each noble Lord will have their own answer, but at the very top of my list is the need to end the illegal wildlife trade. This filthy practice, fuelled by greed and desperation, brings foreign species and germs into close proximity with humans. From the savannahs of Africa to the taiga of Siberia, I have seen the horrors myself. It is leading to the destruction of our natural world. China and south-east Asia must make sure that their markets—the vectors of zoonotic disease—are closed. Other countries must take action to end poaching and the trafficking of wildlife.
Then there is the other question: why has the UK experienced one of the worst death tolls in the world? It is partly the result of generations of poor health and nutrition. We have to take our own health in our hands, and the Government have to step up and support this. In this country, I have found one of the bleakest impacts of the virus to be the surge in hunger. This week, one in nine children sat in classrooms with an empty stomach, according to the latest data. Perhaps it takes an outsider to say this: we are a rich country, and children should not be going to school hungry.
I intend to play my part in building a healthier nation. The food redistribution charity the Felix Project, together with my newspaper, the Evening Standard, will open the largest social kitchen in central London this summer to offer tens of thousands of fresh, nutritious meals to vulnerable people across London. I have learned this over the past year: our health policy is part of the national security of this nation.
There are others in this House who, like me, were not born here. They will know what I mean when I say that this experience strengthens one’s ties and sharpens one’s understanding of what this country means. I was raised here for a large part of my life, went to state school and consider myself British, but I am also Russian, which means that I can never be casual about liberty, free speech or the rule of law. Freedom of expression needs its champions. In the post-war era it has rarely been as under assault as it is now. I intend to join hands with noble Lords who can see that and are determined to fight it. A democratic, liberal nation, strong, healthy and free: I pledge that everything I do in this House will be to defend and further these principles.
Lord Owen (Ind SD)
My Lords, it is my privilege to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, on his maiden speech. Like many, I am sure, I wish to hear more from him. Though a young man, he has an extraordinary range of experience of charitable and philanthropic action and as a proprietor of the Evening Standard—how many of us worry about evening newspapers all over the country surviving? The Independent has been a great newspaper for those who have broad views but no fixed political commitments. We wish to hear more.
This debate is taking place at a very opportune moment. I welcome one thing that I have been pressing for ever since the ill-fated reforms from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, came before us. It is essential to return to the situation where the Secretary of State holds the democratic responsibility for the running of the National Health Service. I hope that when this power is restored it will be a duty of the Secretary of State to promote in England
“a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement … in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and … in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of … illness”,
and for that purpose to provide or secure the effective provision of services. I want a legal responsibility of answerability in this House, which we have not had for seven years, but we have had the largest quango in the world. This must come; I have been arguing for it in an NHS reinstatement Bill for seven years.
When we look at the Covid situation and the wonderful way in which the NHS and those who support it responded in a crisis, we need to understand the NHS’s unpreparedness following 20 years of structural vandalism, with hospitals no longer serving geographical areas. The incoherence and fragmentation of an unrecognisable NHS came about through four legislative Acts: in 2002, 2006, 2008 and, above all, in the ill-fated Health and Social Care Act 2012.
We must look back, post Covid, for reasons that have already been advanced. I do not have the massive criticisms of what has happened that seem to pour out, day after day. There have been many great achievements, but let us be clear about the problems and the predicted problems. In December 2016, at an international conference as a result of the Cygnus simulation exercise of an influenza pandemic a couple of months earlier, the then Chief Medical Officer, Sally Davies, made it clear that we could not cope with the excess bodies and faced the threat of inadequate ventilation. This was a Chief Medical Officer of health revealing the situation, four years before it faced us. Why was nothing done? Did she make representations to the then Secretary of State, Jeremy Hunt? Did she take these issues up right through?
What about the prevention of ill health itself, which has been neglected for years in the health service and constantly forgotten? It is all too easy to spend on the headlines—we have had enough headlines out of Sir Simon Stevens—but why was more not done to prepare? Why was NHS bed occupancy at 100%? It did not happen just with Covid; it happened way before that. There were levels of 98%. We used to think it was wise to have 75% bed occupancy. There is this whole idea that the NHS can be run like a marketplace, where you maximise your profits at all stages and run things at 100%. The NHS is very different. I urge the House to get to grips with it in a way that we never did seven years ago with the legislation that went through.
I also ask the House to look at some of the other problems that we will face. Mental health has been neglected for years—look at the fall in psychiatric nurse numbers. Yet speech after speech, whether from Ministers or health administrators such as Sir Simon Stevens, talks up new ideas and initiatives, when staring us in the face are basic deficiencies in how our mental health service is run and what it needs. We will face this ever more than before now that Covid has hit us. Post-Covid illness will affect the young in particular.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Blake and the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, on their maiden speeches. They bring very different experiences and skills to this Chamber but, combined, they will enrich us by contributing to our debates. I thank them and wish them well.
I have some comments about education and the skills agenda, and a few questions about schools. I declare my registered interest as chair of the Birmingham Education Partnership. I very much welcome the catch-up programme that the Government have announced so far, but I am left feeling that we have not heard it all yet. The Government do not have a good record of acting in good time as far as schools are concerned during this pandemic. Can the Minister tell us when we will be hearing further information about the catch-up programme?
I have a second query on schools. The Minister referred to a speech which the Secretary of State made recently, on the expansion of multiacademy trusts. I will not comment on that, but the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, will remember that in 2016, the feeling that the Secretary of State would require everybody to be a member of a multiacademy trust caused great disturbance in the school system—and that is what I am hearing from those in schools to whom I talk. They are unsure whether the Secretary of State was saying that schools will have to be part of multiacademy trusts. I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong, but they need to know, because otherwise their attention will be focused on that and not on getting the children back to studying.
My main questions are on the skills part of the gracious Speech. I welcome the emphasis that the Government have put on skills, and the fact that further education is at the top of the list of Bills that are part of the Speech. It does not happen often, so let us try to make the best of this opportunity. In that respect, I have questions on three areas where we can make improvements. First, who can study? Who can access the money under the lifetime guarantee? Apparently, only those without a level 3 qualification. There are millions of people in this country with a level 3 qualification who need or want to retrain, and they are not in the group that will be able to qualify.
Secondly, what is study? The Government in London have decided which courses will be funded, not the locality. I bet that some towns, villages and cities have local industries which will be excluded from that list. I am not sure why we would do that: why we would say what cannot be studied as well as what can be studied. My additional question is: why study? I am in favour of employers being a key part of our skills agenda, but the government document says that the agenda will be built around the needs of employers. I am not sure that that is right. I am not sure that employers are any better than anybody else at guessing what the skills needs of the future will be, or in working out what industries will be the industrial backbone of our country.
Skills do other things, and there are other jobs that further education colleges have. They help build communities by giving people skills that will be used locally. They help build civic strength by building up skills and experiences, and they help motivate people who will not go on a work training course but will go back to do pottery, art, singing or playing an instrument and will then move to a work training course. None of those is in that list.
There might be places in our country where who can study, what is studied and why you study are absolutely met by the requirements that the Government have set out—but that is not true for all communities everywhere. I worry that some of our left-behind communities will not have their needs met because the Government have decided that it is they who will be answering these questions.
My concerns, which I will want to raise during the passage of the Bill, are: why is there no mention of mayors? Why are we not building on the devolution agenda? Why are we not empowering these left-behind cities, towns and communities to say, “What skills do you want, who do you want to get the money for retraining, what is your priority?” The skill of politics here is getting both those things in place; the needs of the nation to drive us forward and the needs of localities, local people and local communities who have not always fitted into a national agenda and national structure, which is why they have been left behind. During the passage of the Bill, we want to explore with the Government why we cannot do more with a devolution agenda, alongside the skills agenda set out in the gracious Speech.
Lord Ribeiro (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate on the humble Address to Her Majesty. I wish to cover issues around social care, alcohol abuse and the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch.
During my 10 years in your Lordships’ House, the issue of social care and how it should be provided and funded has been debated continuously. It started with the Dilnot commission’s report in July 2011, of which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, a co-chairman, was a formidable champion in this Chamber. Now, 10 years on, we are still waiting for concrete proposals, and the Queen’s Speech was relatively silent on this, merely noting:
“Proposals on social care reform will be brought forward.”
The pandemic has taught us that good public health systems are key to developing confidence in the public to follow government guidelines. The successful vaccination programme is testament to that approach. We should draw on the lessons learned from the vaccination programme, including the ability to cut through red tape and to create joined-up services, where all disciplines in hospitals rolled up their sleeves to take on new roles. The creation of new intensive care beds and high-dependency unit beds with ventilators, both in hospitals and on other sites, was a revelation in peacetime and a tribute to the leadership of the NHS during the pandemic.
One sentence jumped out at me from the Queen’s Speech:
“My Ministers will bring forward legislation to empower the NHS to innovate and embrace technology. Patients will receive more tailored and preventative care, closer to home.”
For that we need a truly integrated system of care, and the lessons of the pandemic must act as a catalyst. The Bill aims to remove bureaucratic and transactional processes that do not add value, thus freeing up the NHS to focus on what really matters to patients. The health and care Bill should provide the legislative basis for establishing integrated care systems as statutory bodies. Integrated care systems will include health and care partnerships, thus bringing multiple patients from the NHS, public health, social care and other stakeholders together, rather than having them work in silos.
I welcome the banning of junk-food adverts before the 9 pm watershed on television, and the total ban online, but I would like to see the Government take the same tough line on alcohol advertising. Remarkably, just 9% of people with alcohol dependency account for the 59% of in-patient alcohol-dependent admissions. These 54,349 patients account for some 365,000 admissions, and have more than 1.4 million bed days, at an estimated cost to the NHS of £858 million. According to Public Health England, alcohol treatment is cost effective. Every £1 invested in alcohol treatment yields an immediate £3 of social return, rising to £26 over 10 years.
There has been significant pressure on the workforce during the pandemic, and, while it was reassuring to read in the Times today that recruitment numbers in nursing and midwifery and for health visitors are expected to rise, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has warned that the future of addiction psychiatry may be put at risk through the shortage of trainees in that specialty—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Owen.
The Government must ensure that the Bill provides a mechanism for alcohol treatment and a workforce to sustain it in the long term. The purpose of the Bill is to prevent illness, tackle health inequalities and enhance patient safety: something that the charity that I chair, CORESS—Confidential Reporting System for Surgery—tries to do by reporting incidents of near misses in surgical practice. Through these reports, surgeons can learn from others and avoid repeating the same mistakes. I am delighted that the Health Service Safety Investigations Bill, to which I drew attention in the Queen’s Speech debate of October 2019, has finally been put on a statutory footing as the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, with the power to investigate patient safety risks and to support a learning culture—something that we can all benefit from.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, on their maiden speeches and I greatly look forward to working with them both. I am grateful to be speaking on the gracious Speech, and I will focus my time on the health and care Bill. In doing so, I declare my interest as chair of the Independent Healthcare Providers Network.
I shall make three short points. First, there is an urgent need to tackle the elective backlog that has built up during the pandemic. Secondly, the proposed new integrated care systems need to be open and inclusive, with good governance in place to avoid potential conflicts of interest. Finally, we must avoid any further delays in addressing the critical issues for social care.
Tackling the growing backlog of elective care is the public’s number one priority for the NHS according to recent polling. If not effectively addressed, this issue will dominate political and health debates in the years to come. Over recent years, NHS waiting lists have steadily been rising, and we now have a situation where more than one-third of patients, around 1.7 million people, are waiting longer than 18 weeks, with almost 400,000 people waiting more than one year. Behind these numbers are heart-breaking stories of people who have had to give up their jobs and livelihoods while they wait in extreme pain and of those who have completely lost their independence and quality of life. Given the level of current suffering and the build-up of long-term chronic health problems, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the success of this Bill must at least in part be judged on whether it can reduce this backlog. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how the proposed changes in NHS structures will support local areas better to prioritise patient access to the care they need now.
The response to the pandemic has undoubtedly shown how health is best served through a system of interconnected agencies from across different sectors, including local government, pharmacies, the voluntary sector, social enterprises and independent providers, and that effective healthcare is not something that can simply be addressed by the NHS alone. The move towards integrated care systems is therefore an opportunity to entrench the benefits of greater partnership working and collaboration. However, talking to colleagues across the independent, voluntary and social enterprise sector and particularly to the mental health and pharmacy sectors, there is much to do to ensure that ICSs are not too NHS-centric with too little consideration for the wider system with which the NHS seeks to integrate. This is key if we are to tackle health inequalities, with local voluntary, social enterprise and independent providers very often being much closer and more responsive to the local communities they serve than the statutory bodies. We must therefore see integrated care systems established on an inclusive and transparent basis, with good governance, clear accountability and safeguards against conflicts of interest.
While new ICSs should support the NHS and its partners to deliver joined-up care to local populations, there are real risks that the current proposals could lead to conflicts of interest around those who are commissioning and those who are providing healthcare services. For example, ICS partnership boards are likely to be led by NHS provider organisations, but blurring the lines between who is procuring and who is being paid to deliver public services poses a danger of a lack of due process and transparency. I would welcome thoughts from the Minister on how such conflicts of interest will be identified and managed in ICSs to ensure that their decisions are based entirely on the needs of local populations, not on specific providers.
Finally, while I welcome the mention of the much-heralded plan for settling social care once and for all, as noble Lords have already said, we have still to see further details of what this will entail. Given the importance of this issue to so many people, all that we have learned about the problems faced by the social care sector during the pandemic and the incredible efforts that have been made by providers to keep people safe, can the Minister assure me that there will be no further delays in bringing forward some concrete plans and that we will not have to wait until the next Queen’s Speech to hear about them?
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, the gracious Speech does not hit the height of the 1945 moment, which is what the country needed. Overdoing austerity was a mistake in the past, and it looks as if it will take hold again, however disguised. Here and there, a few lines capture the headlines, but we need detail to measure up to the billing, and there is much absent that is overdue to be done, not just because of the pandemic. The example I want to focus on is long-term care.
I was part of the Economic Affairs Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, when it produced its report on social care, which is still very relevant. More than half the spending on adult social care is spent on people under 65, but a lot of focus has rested on the unfairness for people, who are not only unlucky in needing social care but end up with catastrophic costs, who have to sell their homes and then find they have to pay more than what is charged for those funded en bloc by local authorities.
The fact is that we need care to run on the same principles as health, where risk is shared. This is a Treasury issue, not just about funding but to agree mechanisms that allow risk sharing. If the economic future of the country is to be enhanced by innovation and risk-taking, boasted of in the gracious Speech, this is one place where the Treasury could practice what is preached whether by restoring the Dilnot proposals or finding other ways.
Aside from funding, we should also start to think differently about care. Social care is one of the largest and growing business sectors that we have. The over-75s will increase by 60% over the next 20 years, and it is time to think about how to harness the economic benefits that could generate rather than just bemoaning the economic drain.
The notes to the gracious Speech state:
“We will turn Britain into a science superpower, building on the extraordinary work of our life sciences sector during the pandemic, which has led the world in everything from vaccine development to genomic sequencing. We will invest record sums in Research and Development and create an Advanced Research and Invention Agency to help ensure that the breakthroughs of the future happen in the UK.”
I think we have Vince Cable to thank for helping life sciences into that position.
If we can see economic advantages of frontier and improved technology in health, including in related industrial aspects, then surely the same should apply in the care sector. That market is not going away, and it does not need a pandemic to keep it relevant. It is time to be creative, innovative and scientific about it rather than condemn it to run on cheap labour as the health service’s poor cousin, doing the same work for less pay. Innovation and technology should be at the heart of enabling more people to stay at home and more people to work at home and so, too, can be better ways of building.
I do not want to get involved in cross-departmental squabbles, but BEIS should be as interested in the science and technology opportunities around the care sector as it is around life sciences or robotics, and I put that as a challenge to the Minister. Will we be in the vanguard of these developments, sharing in the profits, or will we end up buying it all in from Japan or elsewhere?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, somewhat unusually, before I start I would like us to record that Her Majesty commanded ever-greater respect, renewed admiration and deep affection in the hearts of all who witnessed Her Majesty’s presence here with us yesterday. Turning to today, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, on their speeches and welcome them to this House. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, who is about to give his valedictory speech, has brought greatly appreciated insights and will be missed across the House.
On the contents of the gracious Speech, I will focus on some aspects of health and social care, obesity and addictions, and professional regulation. The pandemic has certainly taught us a great deal. We ignored obesity for years, pretending that it was even discriminatory to attempt to tackle it and the poor nutritional status of many in our population. Covid revealed that just being overweight is a highly significant predictor of developing complications from Covid-19, including the need for intensive care support, and a predictor of death. By the end of February this year, 2.2 million of the 2.5 million Covid deaths reported worldwide were in countries where more than half the population is classified as overweight.
Obesity, mental health problems and domestic violence all feature in the gracious Speech, but the common underlying factor of alcohol harm has been ignored. So I ask: why is there no alcohol strategy? Last week, the Office for National Statistics reported a 20% increase in deaths caused directly by alcohol. Alcohol-fuelled domestic violence has also risen alarmingly during the pandemic. The Commission on Alcohol Harm, which I chair, recommended calorie labelling, minimum unit pricing and measures to decrease harms in off-sales. We must tackle root causes. Talk of personal responsibility from the industry ignores the addiction behind alcohol misuse.
Our health and social care workforces are exhausted. Supporting people through post-Covid recovery and rehabilitation will mean more professions and practitioners need to be brought into the scope of an updated regulatory framework, as proposed by the Health and Care Professions Council. Voluntary registers are not adequate. Regulation needs to focus on tasks and function. The public need the assurance that all practitioners are trained to agreed standards and can access the care that they need. The Medical Act 1983 was written for a different age; the General Medical Council wants legislative reform for complaints to be resolved more quickly, to support good practice and for the registration framework to fit today’s needs, bringing physician associates and anaesthesia associates into regulation.
Even before Covid, both the health and the social care workforces had staff shortages, chronic excessive workloads and high levels of stress, absenteeism and turnover. Covid revealed the importance of integration and collaboration for managing every aspect of the pandemic. That must not slip back into bureaucratic silos that demoralise and blame, rather than foster initiatives and support. For care in the community, especially for those in the terminal phase of illness, there must be better out-of-hours support, with seven-day services and access to specialist expertise. That is why I am entering my access to palliative care Bill into the ballot again. As we invest in research and innovation, we must also invest in the infrastructure so that the systems through which care is delivered will avoid overcrowding, reduce waste and drive public health improvements.
True levelling up of public health requires decreasing the drivers to addiction, gambling, alcohol, tobacco and violent pornography on the internet. It also means improving nutrition and understanding the social determinants of health. Our future prosperity depends on an agile, healthy population, with skills and adaptability in the face of future challenges. This requires legislation that understands problems in depth and drives policy for long-term stability and social responsibility, not short-term quick fixes on paper.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, it is more than seven years since I first spoke in this House. It is a long time since I was a maiden like the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, whom I congratulate on their arrival and their speeches. Today, my name has “Valedictory” next to it. Three weeks ago, I said an emotional godspeed to the people of the Portsmouth diocese at a cathedral service: scaled-down but intensely moving, for me and my wife Sally, at least, as we thanked so many.
That service also gave me the opportunity for a bishop’s equivalent of “Desert Island Discs”, choosing the music sung wonderfully well by the cathedral choir. This included my favourite hymn among very many, “There’s a Wideness in God’s Mercy”. It praises God’s gentleness, mercy and justice and how those qualities are rooted in His radical inclusion. It is something I touched on in my valedictory sermon: that the Church is its congregations, but it is far more its communities. We must always keep our doors open, especially to those who have no figurative or literal shelter—so I am interested, and not a little intrigued, by the Government’s talk of levelling up. The phrase suggests that those who already have will not have to give up anything and that those who need a hand up will be propelled upwards—but by what? Well, that is the question: how does the rhetoric become the reality? It is a dilemma that the Christian Church understands. We proclaim the kingdom, but find building it challenging.
Much of what a Government do does not depend on the contents of their legislative programme but that is the flesh on the bones of the grand narrative that they tell, and levelling up provides a very grand narrative indeed. That is against the backdrop of an economic situation that remains uncertain. Last week, bullish briefing suggested that the economy will grow back quicker than ever before. That may be true, to a point, but if we grow back 7.5% after a drop of towards 10% then we are, at least in the book of this former economist —and the much more to be trusted economist, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, earlier—very much still behind.
Who benefits from the growth will be critical. After the 2008 crash, it was those at the sharp end who suffered most, while those responsible for the crisis walked away with barely a scratch. The diocese I serve has many at the sharpest point of the sharp end, including the third of children on the Isle of Wight who live in poverty. That is 7,000 children whose lives and life chances are being blighted. I find myself asking what in the programme will benefit them or the people of Charles Dickens ward in Portsmouth, which is among the 1% of most deprived wards in the country. Their lives are already far from easy and they have been hard hit by the pandemic.
I then find myself regretting the continuing absence of anything meaningful on social care. We are a decade on from Dilnot and still there is no timescale for action. Surely, the urgency is even clearer than ever. To tease vulnerable and elderly people, saying that there is a plan—ready or perhaps not—or putting off action, is cruel.
I am astonished that, with a focus on levelling up, there is nothing intended to address the injustices of those employed in the gig economy or on zero-hours contracts. I cannot imagine how we can achieve levelling up without addressing the circumstances of the workplace. To claim that the pandemic demands delay is evasive if there is truly a commitment to levelling up. What the Speech proclaims is hopeful, but the signs that these measures will deliver are scanty.
I conclude my speech with something central to faith: thanksgiving. I give thanks to the staff of the House for their unfailing courtesy and service to us, this Parliament and our nation. I give thanks to my colleagues on these Benches. Our presence here may sometimes be contested, but we bring a distinct voice to this place, not least because of where we are rooted and whom we serve.
I give thanks to Members of this House past and present for all their kindness and encouragement, especially to the late and much-missed Lord Judd, who, when I spoke, often sent me from that Bench a scribbled supportive note—often on the most extraordinary scraps of paper. By virtue of my office I have been called Portsmouth; he was Portsmouth to the very marrow of his bones as he stood up for and spoke for those left behind.
I give thanks to the people of the diocese of Portsmouth—a diocese of great diversity but none the less a people of very distinct identity and culture. I may not be “Portsmouth till I die”, as they will soon sing again at Fratton Park, but I hope I have spoken for them, for their God and for the wideness of His mercy.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, what an honour it is to be given the opportunity to address a word on behalf of all noble Lords to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth—the ex-Bishop of Portsmouth, as he takes his leave from us today.
I would like to use the occasion to give voice to an instruction John Wesley gave to all Methodists in his day and to all sensible people thereafter. Speaking of the responsibility that goes with faith to address the plight of the poor and oppressed, he urged his followers:
“Go not to those who need you but to those who need you most.”
It seems to me that Bishop Christopher has done just that, both in the diocese where he has been revered for his pastoral skills and in the proceedings of this House, as we have just heard, where he has consistently striven to highlight the lot of the poorest people in our land.
In saying farewell in our customary way, therefore, I would like our “Hear, hear” to carry the tones of a commitment on our part to continue to fight the good fight that has mattered so much to the right reverend Prelate. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I end this adieu by flaunting convention and changing from the third person to the second as I say:
“Well done, thou good and faithful servant”,
exit now from the joy of the Lords. Go forth and build back better in your beloved Birmingham.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
It is the easiest thing in the world to segue from this tribute to the right reverend Prelate to the remarks I wish to share with the House today.
We heard from my noble friend Lord Eatwell—not now in his place—words to the effect that education and health belong to the infrastructure upon which we build any notion of a good society in our land. The other subject areas competing for our attention today—the economy and business—should note the fact that health and education undergird anything we may have to say in developing those themes.
Unfortunately, education, where I want to specialise now, is often seen as a draw on the Exchequer rather than an investment in the future. Just think of that: if we could manage to think of it as an investment in the future, how would we look at early years? What happened to Sure Start and children and family centres and their benefits to families and the NHS? We have heard of a commitment to the best start in life for children: we had that and demolished it in the last 15 years.
What about child poverty—brought to light in recent debates on free school meals? It is good to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, intends to have the largest kitchen to provide children with food during the summer. That will take some of the weight off the Government’s back, I suspect, and we congratulate him on it.
What about the effect of Covid on children in all schools, especially those taking exams, and the way the Covid pandemic has so disproportionately affected those living in less well-off areas or particular groups of people as opposed to others? It has been so unequal. We hear that emphasis on teacher training needs to improve. Teachers are at a premium. They must be well trained for the exigencies of the moment and, as children leave school, career advice becomes crucial. What about the welcome emphasis on further education and lifetime skills? It is only going to undo a shortage of investment in this area—a sad shortage over the last decade or two.
Now we hear that university students of all sorts can go back to face-to-face learning on 17 May. A young friend of mine has just gone back ahead of time—perhaps I should not reveal his identity—to find that all face-to-face teaching has finished for the academic year and that 17 May, when he is officially allowed to be back, is the date of his first examination for his finals. So, what on earth does 17 May mean to university students? It is just nonsense.
In all these ways and across this entire area, education lies at the heart of everything else—oh for an Act of Parliament here that would serve, as in Wales, to future-proof legislation, concentrating on the needs of a generation that is to come.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I cannot compete with the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, a former president of the Methodist Conference, in his tribute to the right reverend Prelate. I will just add this: when my forebears were respectively the Dean and Bishop of Winchester, a little up the road from Portsmouth, they wore gaiters and were very old. I am now looking at a right reverend Prelate who is retiring from here and yet he is younger than I am; I find this extremely confusing.
I also congratulate the two maiden speakers: the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, and the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev. Both gave truly excellent speeches, and the noble Lord gave what, to me, was a delightfully surprising speech. I had never heard him speak before and I was fascinated by what he had to say. I hope we will hear from both of them frequently in the future.
Time does not permit me to run through all that is in the gracious Speech, but there is much in it that your Lordships’ House can welcome. However, there is a good deal of legislation that we will need look at with care, not least the Government’s intentions with regard to judicial review.
Despite the intentions behind the Queen’s Speech, there is something missing from it. It is a matter that has been mentioned quite recently in this House: we need legislation to control and outlaw the predatory and immoral activities of quack counsellors or psychotherapists. There is, on the evidence laid before your Lordships several times already, a pressing need to criminalise controlling or coercive behaviour by persons providing psychotherapy or counselling services to vulnerable adults.
We protect children; we protect those with an intellectual incapacity or those suffering from mental illness; and we protect those suffering from the infirmities of old age. But we do not protect those over the age of 18 who, although ostensibly of an age to make up their own minds about how to live their lives and outside any definition of incapacity, are exploitable by charlatans offering them a service they are not qualified to provide and often for a large fee.
In the last Session, the noble Lords, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Lord Alderdice and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, who I see in her place, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu and Lady Finlay, all raised the issue—first, in a debate in early 2020, initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and then again in debates on the Domestic Abuse Bill earlier this year. My noble friend Lord Astor of Hever also played an invaluable role. The majority of contributors to those debates wanted either proper registration of these informal therapists or, in my case, a criminal offence similar to those enforced in Belgium, France and Luxembourg, to deter these charlatans.
Although there was support in principle from the Government, we were told by my noble friends on the Front Bench that progress on this entirely laudable and worthwhile project was hampered by two things. Either we were asking for change at not quite the right time or we had not quite found the right Bill to amend the law. In Committee on the Domestic Abuse Bill two months ago, I explained why the provision encompassing how we proposed to deal with quack counsellors would work, theoretically and practically, as an addition to the criminal law. Although not an exact replica, it was similar to laws in force in Belgium, France and Luxembourg, countries that adhered to the European Convention on Human Rights. Nothing that we are proposing would adversely affect citizens’ rights to free assembly, religious freedom, freedom of expression or private life. However, it would affect these rogues’ ability to predate on emotionally vulnerable young adults for malign purposes—to take their money and break up their families, and even to brainwash them. It would prohibit them pretending to be something that they are not—academically and practically qualified psychiatrists, psychologists and psychotherapists.
The Government, using the “wrong Bill” argument, made two points against the amendment in Committee. It was said that a new offence would alter the “dynamic” of a Bill specifically about domestic abuse and would upset the Bill’s “architecture”. It was also said that there were other remedies more suited to dealing with these issues, such as registration or accreditation by existing and respected professional bodies. No doubt requiring psychotherapists to be professionally qualified and accredited members of a professional body would enable well-motivated counsellors to gain standing and proper recognition, but to reinforce the value of membership of those professional bodies and accreditation by the law would make it a criminal offence for someone not qualified, registered and accredited to hold themselves up as being so. I refer, for example, to the Medical Act 1983 and the Solicitors Act 1974.
It was accepted in the last Session that we have been slow to appreciate the scale of coercive behaviour. The Government acknowledged that most noble Lords who supported our amendment to the Domestic Abuse Bill had pointed to evidence and, indeed, to specific cases that fraudulent psychotherapists and counsellors were taking advantage of their position to supplant friends and families in the minds and affections of their clients, using ill-gotten ways to turn them against friends and families. The law is deficient; there is a lacuna, but it can be filled, and we can possibly get hold of a provision in the professional qualifications Bill referred to earlier. I urge the Government to get on with it.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I also enjoyed the two excellent maiden speeches today, and I reassure my noble friend Lady Blake that, even as an ardent Chelsea fan, I too think Leeds should be in the Premier League.
By the end of this year the economy will still not be back to where it was at the beginning of last year, even according to optimistic forecasts such as that from the Bank of England. We will not know till next February how far short of its pre-pandemic level GDP fell in 2021 and how much lost ground we still have to make up. But breaking free from lockdown and bouncing back to pre-pandemic levels of economic activity sometime in 2022 present a far simpler challenge than delivering sustained growth between now and 2030.
Right now the economy is suffused with spare capacity and eager to get back to work. What is missing, as the Resolution Foundation think tank has pointed out, is a clear path to prosperity. The Queen’s Speech presented platitudes about freeports, planning reforms and new rules for public procurement, but could not conceal the fact that our starting point is weak, the legacy of decades of inadequate investment.
The evidence on productivity, skills, infrastructure and superfast internet links tells its own sad story. Following Labour’s investment 10 years ago, the number of new apprenticeships in England exceeded 520,000; last year it was only 320,000. In the World Economic Forum’s latest league tables Britain came 21st for the quality of its port infrastructure, 36th for road infra- structure, and 79th for its number of fibre internet subscriptions. This is not a firm foundation on which to develop a strong economy, one able to generate faster, fairer, greener growth. It smacks more of make do and mend, not a 21st-century economic powerhouse. Like once proud Premiership clubs that spent big on property but failed to invest in new players and suffered repeated relegation—names such as Bolton Wanderers and Wigan Athletic come to mind—the British economy has been steadily slipping down the league table. Yesterday, Canary Wharf; today, “Canary Dwarf”.
The lack of clarity about Britain’s economic prospects is reflected in claims made by Ministers. The Chancellor says that his March Budget gives the economy a big boost this year; what he has really done is to slow the rate of fiscal withdrawal in 2021 and speed it up in 2022. Only in Tory Treasury-speak does withdrawing fiscal support at a slower rate count as a bigger fiscal stimulus. The Chancellor still plans to withdraw 90% of the 2020 stimulus by the end of 2022, and he intends to begin pulling the plug on the furlough scheme and the business rates holiday for hospitality businesses only nine days after the end of the Government’s road map. That will be six weeks before he learns from the Office for National Statistics what happened to GDP in the second quarter of this year.
Whatever happened to the Prime Minister’s pledge to lead a “data-driven” Government? What became of the Chancellor’s claim to be “going long” by backing recovery well beyond the end of the road map? Perhaps events will prove the Bank of England’s latest forecasts right. The economy might make a relatively quick recovery over the next 18 months, but the Office for Budget Responsibility expects growth to drop below 2% per year after 2022. This would simply mark a return to the pathetically poor performance of the austerity years of George Osborne and Philip Hammond.
The Queen’s Speech lacks clarity and ambition. Ministers talk a good game about levelling up and increasing capital spending on public infrastructure for years to come, but when the Institute for Fiscal Studies points out that the March 2021 Budget made some £16 billion of cuts to current public spending relative to the Chancellor’s pre-Covid spending plans, Ministers hide behind a smokescreen of technical mumbo-jumbo about inflation. The Government’s efforts to turn the economy around and set it on a new growth path pale in comparison with the audacious stimulus measures taken by President Biden. His is an example well worth following—but, sadly, this Government’s miserly economic agenda fails miserably to do so.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I pay tribute to Her Majesty the Queen, who, in her 96th year, delivered her 67th gracious Speech in this place. In a year of great loss, once again her great courage, commitment and dedication to this kingdom have shone forth very brightly.
I add my congratulations to those noble Lords who made their maiden speeches and wish the right reverend Prelate the very best on his retirement.
The gracious Speech rightly began with reference to the national recovery from the terrible pandemic that we are still going through. It is right that we should recognise the immense success of the vaccine rollout and enormous amount of economic and financial support that has been poured in to sustain jobs in all parts of the United Kingdom. That has to be acknowledged and welcomed, and the Government deserve enormous credit for what they have done on both those fronts, with £352 billion of economic support for 1.7 million jobs.
To many people across the United Kingdom, this reinforces once again the value of the union—of being part of the fifth biggest economy in the world. I gently ask those in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and elsewhere, who advocate separation to reflect very strongly on where they might find themselves were they not part of this United Kingdom, which has done so much, I believe, to rescue so many people’s livelihoods at this very precarious time.
I very much welcome those parts of the Queen’s Speech that talked about levelling up, strengthening the economic ties across the union and ensuring that support for business reflects the United Kingdom’s strategic interests and drives economic growth. Those pledges and commitments from the Government in the gracious Speech apply throughout the United Kingdom —and rightly so.
However, I would be failing in my duty to the people of Northern Ireland today if I did not reflect that many of these objectives will be hindered in their application and enforcement if the Government do not rapidly deal with the problems that arise from the Northern Ireland protocol. There are two aspects of this: the trade and economic disruption to communities, businesses and people in Northern Ireland, and the damage that is done to the constitutional settlement and to devolution as a result of the application, across vast swathes of the economy of Northern Ireland, of laws on which no one in the Northern Ireland Assembly or in this or the other place will have any say or vote. In the 21st century, in a modern democracy, that is absolutely scandalous and cannot be allowed to endure.
Yesterday, and in recent days, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have listened to businesses and communities in Northern Ireland on the challenges of the operation of the protocol. They heard about the level and complexity of paperwork required, even on goods remaining in Northern Ireland, notably in the agri-food sector. They talked about disruption to supply chains from Great Britain and the consequent diversion of trade, and they talked about the risks associated with the expiry of the grace period and the introduction of even more processes as a result.
At the moment, Northern Ireland carries out two and a half times more checks on goods coming in from Great Britain than the Port of Rotterdam does for the entirety of imports across the world. We carry out 20% of all the checks in the European Union—more than all French ports combined. As the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said, this is unsustainable; it cannot operate in its current form for long, and rapid solutions need to be found. I heartily endorse that call by the noble Lord because, if we do not deal with these issues and the democratic deficit that is at the heart of the protocol, the Government and all the parties in Northern Ireland will not be able to build the economy.
We have a wonderful vision for the Northern Ireland economy over the next 10 years, which was set out yesterday—I declare an interest in that my wife is the Minister for the Economy in Northern Ireland, but she did it on behalf of the whole of the Executive and all the parties. However, we will not be able to fulfil that and restore democratic stability to Northern Ireland unless the issues that have arisen from the application of the protocol—for which no one in Northern Ireland voted—are dealt with very swiftly.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, and the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, on their maiden speeches. I will miss the wise words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth.
We must prevent injuries in the home. The Grenfell Tower tragedy should be a watershed moment that makes us reconsider the adequacy of existing standards for the safety of all homes—not just from fire but from any injury due to flaws in building design. We know that people have been spending more time at home because of Covid, and it is expected that increased home-working will be a long-term trend. This is the moment to focus on home safety, and, given that for every single fire-related hospital admission there are 235 from falls on stairs, it is essential that stair design is included in this.
In the homebuilding industry, it has been clear for some time that stair safety is a serious issue. In 2010, an evidence-based, robustly tested code of practice for safe stairs was introduced. These stairs can be easily incorporated into new-build housing and have a huge impact. On stairs that are designed to the British standard, falls decrease by over 60%, significantly reducing admissions to A&E—so why would we not take this simple action? There is a respected evidence base and an outcome that is preferable to the status quo, so I shall table an amendment to the building safety Bill to see if we can move this on.
I would like 2021 to be the year when the Government get serious about carers, who were sadly omitted from the gracious Speech—I refer both to those unpaid carers who care for family and friends and to those who are paid for their work. Without England’s millions of paid and unpaid carers, our health and social care systems would have collapsed in the last year under the impact of Covid. A light has been shone on the importance of their work. In the first Covid lockdown, you may remember that, on Thursday evenings, we applauded the efforts of carers, NHS workers and others.
In my own area, the south-west, there are 168,000 jobs in adult social care: 145,000 of them are in the local authorities, and the remainder are in the independent sector. It will not surprise noble Lords that these are not paid very well. England’s local authorities pay more than the independent sector by just under £2 an hour. Some 17% of these jobs are zero-hours contracts, and the turnover rate is just over 35%. By contrast, in Scotland, care workers get at least the living wage, of £9.50. Again, in Scotland, free personal care has been available to those over 65 since 2002, which can include help with personal hygiene, at mealtimes, with medicine and with general well-being. It is regulated by the Scottish Social Services Council. COSLA, which is the Scottish equivalent of the LGA, has agreed to pay care workers at least the real living wage of £9.50 an hour.
Most care workers are not unionised, and, in England, they are not even regulated. Their Welsh and Scottish colleagues have a regulating body: the Care Council for Wales and the Scottish Social Services Council. A review is long overdue for care workers in England, but support for unpaid carers must not be forgotten. I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate if this could be included in the health and social care Bill.
The Prime Minister promised to sort out the care system “once and for all”. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, has described the position that we are in as a “national scandal”, and a Select Committee that he chaired determined that to provide free social care to those who are eligible would save enormous pressures on the NHS and would effectively pay for itself. As such, I hope that, when we have sight of the forthcoming health and social care Bill, provision for all carers and free care for all those who are eligible will be there—but somehow I doubt it.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate. We have heard many fine speeches, but I think that it is right to congratulate those who have given their maiden speeches and the very fine valedictory speech that we heard. I wish the right reverend Prelate a very happy retirement from this place. I also draw the House’s attention to my interest on the register as a board member of the Careers & Enterprise Company.
As other noble Lords have mentioned, the gracious Speech has, of course, been given in the context of the last 14 months of the pandemic. In the time available today, I will touch on four issues arising from, and related to, yesterday’s Speech. First, one of the lessons from the past year is that our economic recovery should not just be about growth but about growing our nation’s overall well-being. I am privileged to serve on the Covid-19 Committee with the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, whom the House heard from earlier. Our first report, released last month, talked about the impact of the growth in our digital life on our well-being. As we think more and more in the course of this year about the recovery of the public finances—and, we hope, a multi-year spending review, which is much needed by the government departments within which the Bills announced yesterday will be delivered—I hope that the Treasury will finally embrace the move towards looking at the economy in terms of overall well-being, not just the hard numbers.
My second point is that we have heard much, quite rightly, about the Government’s desire to level up, which is often pitched in the context of infrastructure. We hear a lot about road and rail connectivity, and I do not doubt that those are important. I certainly know that the delivery of 5G infrastructure and gigabit broadband is extremely important in light of the experience of the past year. However, we do not hear anything in the context of infrastructure about childcare. Women’s employment has been hit hard by the pandemic; more women than men have been furloughed in many cases. Without accessible, affordable and easy-to-find childcare, many working parents will find it hard to get back into the labour market after the pandemic. Without them and their involvement in the labour market, it will be very hard to grow our economy in the way we all want.
The third point, as has already been highlighted by the Covid-19 Committee, is the rapid growth of digital technology and living our lives online. While, as a former Digital Secretary, I would of course champion the important contribution that all tech businesses can make to our economy, we also have to recognise that the proliferation of illegal, and legal but harmful, content is causing psychological harm which undermines the well-being of our nation, particularly of children. I therefore firmly welcome the Government’s commitment to bringing in the online safety Bill and welcome its publication in draft form today. I also welcome the fact that online scams will be tackled. However, the Bill has to be about more than just picking out the content that we do not like; it has to be about changing the culture within the platform companies that offer opportunities for user-generated content to be shared. When the Bill reaches this House, the Government will find that many noble Lords want enforcement action against individual senior managers of those companies to be on the table from the start, not just subject to a two-year review.
My final point is on the skills and further education Bill, which has already been mentioned. As a Member of Parliament, I valued my work with the excellent Loughborough College, even when the students gave me a hard time about my work as their local MP. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, who is not in her place now, highlighted the important part of the Bill about employers being involved in working with colleges to assess local needs. I perhaps differ from the noble Baroness’s response to that—I think it is a very good idea—but I hope that Ministers will be able to set out more clearly, either tonight or in the course of debating the Bill, how local needs are to be assessed and defined, because that is going to be very important. We clearly have a very changing labour market, as a result of the pandemic, new technology and, as other noble Lords have mentioned, things such as green jobs. We will also be able to see the impact on the labour market once the furlough scheme has finished. That will be a key feature of this forthcoming Session and beyond, because employment is one of the key drivers of our well-being, which is where I started my remarks, and I think it is what the Government’s focus on levelling up is all about.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Griffiths in his lovely remarks about the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and his wonderful work. We wish him all the very best for the future. I also welcome our two maiden speakers. I declare an interest as an employee of Imperial College, where I research aspects of human development. I also supervise PhD students who measure the impact that universities can have on encouraging the aspirations of school students. As the university president’s envoy for outreach, I visit and speak to school students all over the United Kingdom, wherever requested. This has, sadly, been mostly remotely this year.
The gracious Speech contains laudable hopes to improve education and we congratulate the Government on the emphasis on early years, but there are major gaps if we are to offer better opportunity. Each week, my own outreach includes visits to some of the most deprived parts of England, including the coastal towns, the south coast, the West Country, South Yorkshire and the edges of Derbyshire, the north-west and north-east. If you go to towns just 15 or 20 miles away from one of our greatest universities in the world, you see massive deprivation in East Anglia. There is no question that this hugely affects aspiration; there is no awareness at all of what children could achieve, and this applies to both further and higher education.
Many children in deprived Britain have no idea what their huge potential actually is. This is not because they have bad schools or teachers; on the contrary. Their background, environment and diet, their parents’ employment or lack of it, their housing—perhaps with a TV set but no books—and the squalor in which they often live lead to intellectual and social impoverishment which cannot be corrected by a few hours in schools, with teachers stretched beyond belief with administrative necessities, academic targets and assessments, and a national devotion to a prescribed curriculum. This may discourage attempts to enthuse children with a delight in learning. The best that some teachers can hope for is no disruption.
Achievement goes far beyond education but depends on the enrichment of society. If we want to change society and improve its health, behaviour and economy, we need to invest much more in primary education, when the brain is most plastic and ready to absorb all experience. If we do not inspire children to wonder and encourage joy at learning, we lose so many later. The Government have promised £4,000 per child in primary education and £5,000 per child in secondary. This is not merely inadequate for A-level courses; it is totally inadequate for the most important time of our lives—when we start formal education. It is all very well to commit to increase teachers’ starting salaries to £30,000 a year, but the rewards for undervalued teachers are insufficient to attract enough of even the most committed and able individuals. I know of many professionals who seriously consider dropping better paid jobs to teach, but retraining and inadequate financial rewards still prevent young families purchasing housing. We also need to attract far more male teachers into primary schools. Male role models are equally important as female ones.
The Government hope that the UK will become a science superpower and admit that too few women enter science. However, the great majority of those teaching science in primary schools have no science qualifications. Excellent teachers and role models though they are, most of them do not have a science degree and very few even have one A-level in science, so they are teaching in an unconfident way. This is particularly the case when it comes to one of the most important aspects of primary school, which is practical education, which attracts interest and has a lifelong effect on so many children.
In one primary school that I visited just before the pandemic, I did an experiment with 180 children, showing them how we could exhaust 20% of a gas from a glass bottle—the gas being oxygen—and create a partial vacuum. I will not go into the result of this experiment, but they loved it. When I asked those children what the commonest gas in the air around them was, most said “carbon dioxide”; some hesitantly said “hydrogen”—fortunately, that was not the case of course. Eventually a number said “oxygen” and, finally, one little boy put his hand up and rather tentatively said, “nitrogen?” Immediately, the science teacher shut him up and told him not to talk nonsense. Of course, the problem is, thereafter, what do you do in a school like that? I had a very gentle chat with that child before I left, but I could not say that the teacher was wrong.
We have gone through hard times and we must not leave the experience of education to a Gradgrind approach to facts. Education must engender a delight in learning, and it should not be a process but a journey to discover, to wonder and to delight.
Lord Bichard (CB) [V]
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, on their maiden speeches and bid farewell to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, whose contributions I have always enjoyed. He will understand that, as a Southampton man, I am not easily persuaded that anything good can come out of Portsmouth but, today, I will happily make an exception and I wish him well.
For seven years, I was privileged to be vice-chancellor of the University of the Arts London, the largest and still the best centre for art and design learning in Europe. It is not surprising, therefore, that I am speaking today about the need to protect funding for the arts at all stages of education, but not least in higher education. I do so because of the Government’s recently announced proposal not to prioritise subjects such as music, dance, drama, design and performing arts in HE funding allocations. This is misguided and ill judged and will do incalculable damage not just to the arts but to the future prospects of the UK at this critical juncture. That is not just because of the massive contribution our creative industries make to our GDP, but because our future economic success and our capacity to tackle unprecedented challenges like climate change and an ageing population will, above all, demand innovation: innovation from business to stay ahead of the competition, and innovation from the public sector to ensure that the efforts of science and industry are not wasted.
That kind of innovation requires people who are creative, who challenge accepted wisdom and think outside the box—the very kind of people that our art and design schools have produced in abundance down the years. Yes, our art schools produce great artists and great performers but, above all, they develop creative thinkers who are worth their weight in gold. They also produce a seemingly endless supply of great designers. People like Jonathan Ive, who transformed Apple, the late, great Terence Conran and the likes of Richard Seymour and Dick Powell, have all taken ideas and scientific discoveries and turned them into world-beating projects which, it is no exaggeration to say, have changed the way we live our lives. Time and again, we have seen how great science needs great design to realise its potential—and time and again, we seem to turn a blind eye to all the evidence.
At a more human level, for many people art and design education offers the only route to fulfilling their personal potential. For me, the greatest gift that education can offer is the opportunity for someone to realise their particular talent. Many of the brilliant students I worked with at the university had not found traditional academic subjects easy and had struggled in their studies at school. Alexander McQueen—one of our greatest ever fashion designers—would have told you that this was his experience before he went to Central Saint Martins. Why should we deny people such as Lee McQueen the chance to make their unique contribution and to enrich our lives so wonderfully by so doing?
There is more. A year or so ago, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, chaired an APPG that demonstrated the powerful contribution the arts is now making to our physical and mental health. Social prescription, in one form or another, is now accepted by the vast majority of medics as an effective way of treating many debilitating conditions. But we need a pool of trained providers to deliver treatments, and we need them now as we exit the pandemic.
I know that some of us feel that the term “world-beating” has been devalued, but there is no doubt that Britain is world-beating in the world of art and design. We did not achieve that by chance, but because of the excellence of our learning centres—envied around the world—and their ability to recruit students from all social classes and many different cultures to create a melting pot of talent. Why on earth would we want to endanger that? Why on earth, when we need to build and market a brand that is unique to the UK, would we turn away from something that has long defined us in the eyes of the world? I know that we will be told that these cuts will not have that impact, and we can spend hours debating the numbers, but the most depressing aspect of this affair is that it suggests that the Government still do not understand the critical contribution that the arts make to our national endeavour.
Lord Bichard (CB) [V]
Even worse, it suggests that the Government think we have to decide between the arts and science in the way we allocate our resources.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the maiden speeches of my noble friend Lady Blake and the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, and I join in saying farewell to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. He will be much missed.
Despite the Government’s pledge to support the National Health Service, I do not see how it will succeed. An announcement that there will be an announcement about social care will do nothing to help the NHS. There is no indication that NHS staff will be supported with improved pay and conditions, or that their exhaustion will be addressed and their morale improved.
I have spent the last couple of days rereading the debate from 2011-12 on the then Health and Social Care Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, promised streamlining, integration and an improved health service. Only the noble Earl could have steered that ghastly Bill through. I should be delighted to see the back of it—but now we hear the noble Baroness the Minister promise a “landmark” health and social care Bill. Guess what? It will reduce bureaucracy and improve the safety of patients. I will be reminding the Government of what they said during that 2012 debate.
A four-year commission of inquiry by the London School of Economics and the Lancet medical journal has identified that an extra £102 billion is needed to catch up with many high-income countries, and they have a detailed blueprint for paying for it. The report also says that the Prime Minister should drop his planned reorganisation of the NHS in England because it will be “disruptive” and bring no benefits. I agree with everything that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said in his powerful speech: drop this Bill and concentrate on staff morale and job security.
Turning to the general employment situation, the TUC has pointed out that the Prime Minister has repeatedly promised to protect and enhance workplace rights after our departure from the EU. The Government have rowed back on their promise to boost workers’ rights in not bringing forward their long-overdue employment Bill. Frances O’Grady, the TUC general secretary, has said:
“We need action now to deal with the scourge of insecure work … We can’t build back better from this crisis unless we improve pay and conditions”.
One in five employees experienced depression this year, and the ONS finds that the lowest earners have the worst mental health. Businesses should be prioritising the training of line managers in supporting employee well-being.
ACAS commissioned some independent research backed by the CIPD estimating the costs of conflict in the workplace. Sue Clews, the chief executive of ACAS, said that
“conflict was suppressed during the height of the pandemic … But as working life returns to some form of new normality in 2021, it is likely that insecurity, rapid change and continuing economic pressures will lead to a re-surfacing of conflict between individuals”.
This can be an opportunity, but it can also lead to increased resignations, sickness absence and presenteeism, which leads to lower productivity. An essential ingredient in good management is to be conflict-competent. This saves time and money. The ACAS analysis estimates the overall total annual cost of conflict to employers at £28.5 billion. It points to a clear link between the well-being of employees and organisational effectiveness.
Finally, the use of mini umbrella companies allows employers to avoid their national insurance contributions and costs the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds a year. We have seen unusual payroll patterns in the test and trace workforce, with workers shunted from one company to another every few months, given P45s and new job contracts despite no change to the work. At least 30 different payroll companies in test and trace fit the mini umbrella company definition. HMRC must get to grips with these scandalous loopholes and protect vulnerable workers. I look forward to the continuing debate.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak on the skills Bill and agree with everything which my noble friend Lord Storey said. First, perhaps I may add my congratulations to those offered to the maiden speakers and say how sorry I am that we will not be hearing again from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth—Bishops have to retire so young; it is outrageous, really.
I remind the House of my interest as a vice-president of City & Guilds, for which I worked for 20 years on what we were then allowed to call vocational qualifications. City & Guilds and BTEC qualifications were and are recognised and highly valued by employers, students and parents, so it was perverse of the Government to ignore all that had been achieved over more than 100 years and assume that the invention of their T-levels would be able to replace the years of value from the recognition of employer-led skills that these two organisations command.
We have generations of academic superiority to overcome if we are to allow work-based skills to have the respect and importance they deserve. With A-levels and universities seen as the gold standard, we have allowed the very skills that the nation needs to survive to become underrated. We must make every attempt to rectify this if the country is to recover from the blows inflicted by Brexit and Covid.
In the giddy days of coalition, when I was a Minister in the education department—among a variety of other departments; such is the exciting life of a Government Whip in the Lords—I was struck by the fact that Ministers and officials had pretty well all come via the university route; they had no direct experience of further education colleges or of vocational education, training and qualifications. If the Government are intent on diversity, may I suggest conscious recruitment from among non-university officials? Although a university product myself, I had taught from time to time in colleges in the happy times when they offered free programmes in languages, which I was teaching, as well as in carpentry, floristry, basket weaving, computing and—truly important—ESOL, or English for speakers of other languages, which were life-changing, particularly for those women from cultures where women were not encouraged to do anything outside the home, particularly not to study. There are still some free courses online, but most college courses have gone because government funding has been cut by 60%. We saw ethnic minority women blossom when they were able to communicate with their neighbours, their children’s schools or their shops. It has been woefully short-sighted that these programmes have been cut back so severely.
There is encouragement in the development of apprenticeships, where young people are being recruited into government departments without the all-important degree; it is also encouraging that the Skills Minister, Gillian Keegan, is the product of a comprehensive school who started her career as an apprentice.
We Liberal Democrats believe that it is essential that more is done to ensure that people at all stages of life are supported to access education and training opportunities. We have proposed skills wallets, which would give adult learners access to £10,000 to spend on education and training throughout their lifetime. We recognise that mature students are likely to be more averse to taking on debt, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, reminded us; a lifelong loan may not be attractive. To ensure that people can access the opportunities outlined in the skills Bill, the Government should look at introducing proposals along the lines of skills wallets.
The lifetime skills guarantee at level 3 is welcome but too narrow. In the Bill, we would like to see a much wider array of qualifications and flexible credentials made available at all levels. There needs to be more support for achievement at levels 1 and 2; these are often the stepping-stones which enable those who have not found school study easy to gain confidence and interest in learning. We saw at City & Guilds, when NVQs were introduced at level 1, that many adults with no prior qualifications were incentivised, proud and honoured to receive a national certificate. For very many, that changed their approach to learning, and they continue to learn because of that elementary encouragement.
We would fully support better pay and conditions for further education teachers. Their pay has fallen woefully below that of schoolteachers, so if the Government are serious about skills, they must do something about those who teach and tutor them.
Finally, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, that it is essential that careers information, advice and guidance are offered from primary school onwards. Small children must see the full range of futures possible for their interests and enthusiasms before they are brainwashed into thinking there are boys’ jobs and girls’ jobs. Women make exceptionally good engineers, fire officers, pilots and plumbers, just as boys can make exceptionally good nurses, child carers, primary school teachers and hairdressers. We shall support to the hilt any steps the Government take to enhance skills but will seek to steer them into wiser waters where we feel their methods and decisions are ill informed or counterproductive. On these Benches, we look forward to a world where work-based skills are given the respect and encouragement from teachers, parents, employers and fellow students which they richly deserve and which the country urgently needs.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome both maiden speakers today and I wish the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth a long, happy and busy retirement away from the House.
It looks like another year lost for the reform of social care, and I make no apology for concentrating on that issue. It is another year when people who are self-funding their care pay well over the odds for care —by which, I mean 40%—compared with those funded by local authorities in the same care home with the same services. This means that the family home is likely to be sold earlier than if there was a fairer system. It is surprising that more is not made of this, but I think it remains unchallenged due to the circumstances involved in securing care in the first place.
The situation completely undermines the 2019 Tory manifesto claim that
“one condition we do make is that nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it”.
Furthermore, there has been no action on that manifesto commitment to
“build a cross-party consensus to bring forward an answer that solves the problem”.
No work has been done; there has been no reaching out; no one wants to be accused of the death tax allegation which snuffed out earlier attempts. The Government claim that they are talking; the Opposition claim that they are not. We are not being told what is going on in any detail by either the Opposition or the Government. In short, we are not being told the truth.
The Lords Economic Affairs Committee report, Social Care Funding: Time to End a National Scandal, set it all out in mid-2019. The opening words of the debate on that report, on 28 January this year, from the chair, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said it all— I shall quote just four sentences:
“We published our report in July 2019, and yet, 18 months later, we still await the Government’s response … ‘With each delay the level of unmet need in the system increases, the pressure on unpaid carers grows stronger, the supply of care providers diminishes and the strain on the care workforce continues.’ Just 20 days after our report was published, the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and said ‘we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve.’ Now, more than ever, urgent government action is required”.—[Official Report, 28/1/21; cols. GC 235-36.]
In fact, the Prime Minister was more specific than his now famous quote indicates, because he actually said:
“My job is to protect you or your parents or grandparents from the fear of having to sell your home to pay for the costs of care.”
That was a very carefully crafted first speech as Prime Minister, not a one-off, off the cuff ramble. Was he telling the truth?
The Chancellor claims that lack of consensus over funding is a significant barrier to reform—an excuse that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, translates as,
“I don’t want to spend the money”.—[Official Report, 28/1/21; col. GC 237.]
As with healthcare, we need to share the risk, because no one can be sure or certain whether they will ever need social care. So it is a requirement to help those who can help themselves as well as those who cannot. And, of course, it needs a new stream of funding, such as national insurance payable on all incomes and for all ages—because, like many people, I had many years after the age of 65 still working on PAYE and not paying national insurance—or a small step up in taxes, say 1%, when you reach the age of 40. Without a specific financial cap on self-funding, it is impossible to remove the fear the Prime Minister spoke of.
Social care may have featured in the Queen’s Speech, but not in a positive way: the Peter Brookes cartoon in today’s Times says it all. The reality is that care homes are going to go bust. Some care homes will move to being available only for self-funders. Caring is therefore not a career option. There is no structure and it will always be on low pay. The failure to act is, indeed, in the words of the report of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, “a national scandal”.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this adjourned debate on the gracious Speech. In doing so, I declare my interests in technology as set out in the register. I congratulate our two maiden speakers and the valedictory speaker, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. I sat behind him when he came in and I sit behind him as he departs. What I have learned, not least from the right reverend Prelate, is that we all do well when we put on our armour of light.
Three words in the gracious Speech: “Build back better”. Three words, one alliteration, but it must be the alliteration that underpins our economic recovery. Right now, rightly, our economic strategy is our vaccine strategy; likewise, our vaccine strategy is our economic strategy. But “Build back better” must be the bedrock as we move forward. I shall touch on just three points to this end—digital ID, fintech and digital payments.
When it comes to digital ID, does my noble friend agree that we have to have a system of distributed digital ID—my credentials in my hand to manage, to deal with, to choose how to deploy? What is happening inside DCMS? What greater acceleration can be put on our digital ID strategy as a nation? Because it is not just about security, being safe in cyberspace, important though that is; there is a real economic opportunity to be had if, as a nation, we nail it when it comes to distributed digital ID.
Similarly, for fintech, does my noble friend agree that we have a unique opportunity in the United Kingdom, not just in London, great though the fintech sector is, but right across the nations and regions, with the 10 identified flourishing fintech clusters? Similarly, we need the UK to be the best place to start up, scale up, build and, yes, potentially sell a fintech business. Does he also agree that there is a key role for fintech when it comes to financial inclusion? Exclusion has dogged our nation for decades; fintech offers the opportunity to reconsider risk, lines of credit and all elements of financial services in a way that can deliver for individuals and businesses alike.
That takes me to payments. Much great work has been done on access to cash, not least Natalie Ceeney’s perfect review on the matter. I was also delighted that my noble friend the Minister Lord True helped with the passage of an amendment to the Financial Services Bill on cashback without requiring a purchase. Does the Minister agree that the next logical step is to look at digital payments and ensure that these are accessible and inclusive for all, and that more analysis, research and review is required in this area?
Distributed digital ID, fintech and digital payments are but three stars in the constellation of new technologies we have in our well-washed, Covid-recovering hands as we move forward. Does my noble friend agree that, if we get it right, it will be about human-led talent and technology, human-delivered inclusion and innovation, and that, yes, if we get it right, we will not just build back better, but we must, we absolutely must, build back better together?
Baroness Bakewell (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I add my congratulations to those of others to the two maiden speakers today and to the retiring right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, not only on his speech but on his contribution to the House.
At the beginning of this debate, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, paid tribute to the NHS, and I do, too—but I wish to challenge the assertion that the Government protect the NHS. In fact, without the public either knowing or consenting, they are putting it at immediate risk. How? They have allowed, indeed encouraged, the takeover by the American health insurance company Centene, through its subsidiary Operose, of 69 NHS surgeries, and the further invitation into healthcare provision around the country. The proposed health Bill, with its plans for integrated care, will facilitate this further, raising the prospect of American profit-making interests shaping the future of the NHS. This will involve the prospect of hospital closures if they are not profitable, fewer referrals of sick patients to specialists and, most particularly, the major risk of the selling of our NHS personal data for profit around the world. Will the Government pledge to protect our personal health data from American commercial exploitation?
We all know that the NHS is one of the most popular, cost-effective and efficient public health services. It is a national treasure, admired around the world. Operose is a loss-making subsidiary of Centene. It pays no UK tax and its declared policy to its shareholders is
“to exit contracts that have not historically fulfilled profitability targets.”
Centene is a giant of American health insurance—the 42nd company in the US listings—and it is currently being sued by the state of Ohio for fraudulently overcharging. It stands in vivid contrast to our NHS, a vast and effective public health service, serving all our citizens equally, offering the best in medical treatment and consistently free at the point of delivery. We treasure it. We want any reforms to retain its true and precious identity. Now, without due parliamentary scrutiny, American company Centene is a growing player in the NHS integrated care system. In January this year, Samantha Jones, its former chief executive, became special adviser on health integration to Boris Johnson.
Those in favour of Brexit talked often about taking back control. I am urging us to take back control of our NHS in its entirety. The health Bill coming before us consolidates the market paradigm developed during the pandemic, when contracts worth £10.5 billion were awarded without competition. In normal times, tendering is the check against corruption and cronyism within a market model. The outsourcing of a track and trace policy was the weakest of the Government’s pandemic initiatives. Will the Government pledge to retain tendering within NHS provision?
This Session of Parliament offers us the chance to scrutinise and debate major changes in the NHS. We must examine the Bill with particular care, making sure that America’s medical insurance provision, a system that tried to derail Obamacare, does not deprive our country of its major post-war achievement—the creation and maintaining of the NHS.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the two maiden speakers to your Lordships’ House and wish the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth an exciting new chapter in his work outside this House.
I live in a city where, if I get on a bus outside my house and go six stops, life expectancy decreases by 10 years. The people in those communities are not left behind; they have been neglected for generations. Trickle-down economics has not worked; allowing people to become filthy rich has not worked or met their needs. These issues are deep-seated and deep-rooted, so it is commendable that the Government want to improve health inequalities and concentrate on population health as outlined in the health and care Bill. But focusing on what is required to improve health and well-being would not lead people to conclude that another structural reform of the NHS is the solution in either the short or the long term. The most urgent need, if we are to save lives and improve health, would be to deal with the backlog of 4 million people waiting for care and treatment. Time spent trying to replumb a complex NHS bureaucracy is going to take effort and resources over the next two to five years. It is not only the wrong solution; it is the wrong solution at the wrong time.
For me, as a former NHS manager, this yet again raises the million-dollar question: how do you move resources out of acute and ambulatory care, which account for over 80% of NHS spending and are mostly a sunk cost, to a health service that is focused far more on poor health prevention and keeping people healthy? Will the Minister explain, in simple terms, how this structural reform of the NHS will move the whole system to a more preventive one and move resources to that end? If the Minister cannot answer that question and convince the House and the nation on this fundamental question, this is a reform of fantasy rather than one based on the reality of what is required to improve the nation’s health.
Of course, when we talk about healthcare, we are really talking about the staff, who provide outstanding care, who have gone above and beyond the call of duty over the last 14 months, sometimes at great personal sacrifice for them and their families. The Minister cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and say with sincerity that the Government value the NHS if they refuse to value the NHS staff’s contribution in getting the nation through one of its most difficult peacetime episodes. That is why a decent pay rise is required and not the odd token clap on the doorsteps of official residences.
The aim to deal with health inequalities is welcome, but the solution presented by government, of integrated care systems looking at population health, is totally impractical and will not deal with the real underlying causes that lead to the inequality. Some 80% of the root causes of poor health and lack of well-being have nothing to do with the healthcare system. They are based on cold, damp, inadequate housing; on generations of families not having the opportunities to meet their full potential; on the Government feeling that punishing people on benefits, and offering tax breaks to those on the highest incomes, is the way to balance the nation’s books; and on the only measure of success being growing GDP and not including measures of well-being and fairness as part of growth.
I see very little in the Queen’s Speech that will get under the skin of these issues and tackle them in the sustained way that is required. Slogans such as the vacuous “levelling up” are not going to solve the issues —the same as with the previous slogan of the “northern powerhouse”. Fundamental changes to government need to take place, including stopping ministries working in silos, believing they have the power, through structural change, to improve people’s health and well-being. This means a more federal way of governing the UK, including England, so innovation and creative local solutions are delivered to deal with long-standing local and regional issues, backed up with significant fiscal resources and flexibilities. It also includes how we measure the success of the nation. It cannot be all about GDP but needs to include measuring fairness and well-being for the areas and people of the UK.
The life chances and life expectancy at the end of that six-stop bus journey will be the real indication of success, not new slogans or reorganisations of the NHS.
Lord Monks (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I, too, add my congratulations to our two new colleagues on their effective maiden speeches, and I wish the right reverend Prelate the very best for the future.
Not long ago, when the Cameron-Osborne team led the Conservative Party, the party clearly believed in small government. Indeed, sometimes, they seem to have embraced austerity not just to pacify financial markets but as an opportunity to roll back the frontiers of the state and create extra spaces for entrepreneurs to prosper. All this was in line with the Thatcherite creed. Also in line with that creed were: the new anti-trade union law; public sector pay freezes; rising levels of inequality; deep cuts in local authority budgets; inaction on the growing gig economy; and an end to the important initiative of Sure Start. Equally importantly, NHS funding in real terms was cut and left the service rather weak to face the onslaught of Covid-19. Noble Lords will get the drift. A smaller state was very much the goal.
Now that is changing, if we can believe the Prime Minister’s promises, as many certainly did at last week’s polls. The Government are spending heavily and promise to spend a great deal more. The furlough scheme, in particular, has made a huge difference—imagine the unemployment situation without it. My noble friend Lord Hain was quite correct to warn of the dangers of its sudden withdrawal. The Prime Minister promised the voters of Hartlepool and elsewhere that there would be this powerful levelling-up agenda and new investment in the NHS. As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has spotted, the small state is in full retreat in Biden’s America, for sure, and now over here. If the Government deliver on their promises—which is quite a big “if,” given some of the promises that have already been broken—we will see a return to one-nation Toryism for the first time in many years.
There are big weaknesses in the Government’s approach, with a major question being: how is it all to be paid for? The damaging effects of Brexit on the economy are already very evident in Northern Ireland and in the fishing industry; less noticeably, perhaps, in other sectors that are dependent upon exports, but, undoubtedly, it is causing major dislocation. There is this big hole called social care, which many other speakers have referred to. There is no sign of a new employment Bill, without which levelling up could look more like levelling down and there could be a further spread of the gig economy, with all its abuses and insecurities for workers.
I acknowledge that the levelling-up agenda is extremely ambitious. I would like to be able to think that it will be delivered; I hope that it will be. Of course, we have seen big transfers in the past to hard-hit regions and nations. They certainly created jobs but too many of them were precarious and low paid, and they have been outstripped by deindustrialisation and structural and cultural changes.
Now, the pressure is on the Government to carry out their promises—especially their promise that the young can expect good-quality jobs in their hometowns without needing to move away to the big cities, with the little bit of extra glamour that they can impart. It is a bold and welcome promise; I hope that this House and others will hold the Government to it. I look forward to learning about how it will be delivered. Of course, there are scores, perhaps even hundreds, of towns and villages in the old industrial and seaside areas of this country. I hope that action will not be limited to where there happens to be a by-election.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will speak on education. I welcome the speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris and Lady Garden, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and my noble friend Lord Holmes.
In the Speech yesterday, there were just two sentences on education. I thought it might have merited a few more, because youth unemployment is now at 14.4% and is rising. It fell to my noble friend Lady Berridge to fill us in on the changes this afternoon. The most significant change is that the Government will bring in a Bill for them to take control of FE colleges and to ensure that, in each case, local companies are involved in the creation of the curriculum and the courses taught. I fully support that; it is an excellent idea. In fact, university technical colleges have been doing it for the past 12 years. The governing body of each university technical college is in the hands of a majority of local businessmen and the local university.
The other thing that the Government are clearly committed to is that technical education should start at 16. There, I profoundly disagree. In schools for 11 to 16 year-olds, youngsters should be given the chance to learn some technical, practical, hands-on subjects. However, the present Government have set their heart against this. Since 2010, they have introduced a curriculum of nine academic subjects, the EBacc and Progress 8. All schools have to follow it, so lots of them have dropped other subjects. The biggest drop—70%—has been in design and technology, which involves electricity, making projects, handling metal and using tools and machinery. All that has been dropped almost completely.
What beggars belief is that, in 2015, the Government dropped one of the computing exams at GCSE. As a result, the number of students studying computing at schools for those aged 11 to 16 has dropped by 40%. That is extraordinary in a digital age. Whatever happens to those students, they will have to cope with digital skills, knowledge of coding and AI. The Government have simply ignored that.
The Prime Minister has said that he wants to arrest the brain drain of youngsters in the north leaving their schools and going to universities in the south. Well, UTCs do not support the brain drain at all. Essentially, they are local schools. Each year, we measure the destination of each student when they leave at the age of 18. Last July, we found that 55% of our students went to university, usually a local university because it had been teaching them for four years and they knew about it. Another 20% or so became apprentices—usually local apprentices—and most of the rest got jobs locally. They were essentially not part of the brain drain. Without any shadow of doubt, we need more UTCs in the north.
In fact, I have been approached by five MPs in the north who want UTCs in their constituencies. With them, we are preparing applications for UTCs. We specialise in just two subjects and get the commitment of the universities. I have spoken to the vice-chancellors in each of the five places; they are strongly supportive. We will present these proposals to Ministers before the end of the summer. This will be a real test of whether the Government believe in levelling up, because there is no question but that you have to level up in education.
Finally, I want to say something about the Baker clause, which I introduced three years ago with the support of the Government. It allowed providers of alternative education, such as apprenticeship providers, FE colleges and UTCs, to go in and speak to youngsters aged between 13 and 14 and 16 and 18 to tell them what they were doing. It was a massive improvement in career advice. I urged the Government to make this a duty for schools, but they said, “No, we will depend on a Minister’s letter. When it goes out, the schools will automatically follow it.” Well, the letters have gone out and the schools have not followed. More than half the schools have not provided any such opportunity. The Government are now slowly limbering up to do something about it; I think they propose to impose some sort of financial penalty if they do not. I ask my noble friend Lady Berridge to make quite sure that she is capable of writing a letter this September to all schools, reminding them that they must write to the parents and must institute those opportunities for such bodies to go in. I hope that my noble friend Lord Callanan will draw that to her attention later tonight.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as the vice-chair of an FE college, which has some bearing on this debate. I join in both the general congratulation to our maiden speakers today and our thanks to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth for his thoughtful and constructive contributions in our House over a long period.
The efforts of key workers in schools, supermarkets, the health service, care settings and all other areas of our society have been nothing short of heroic over the past year or so. We are now beginning to emerge from the Covid pandemic thanks to the personal sacrifices of the British public and the NHS’s fantastic handling of the vaccine rollout. This Queen’s Speech was the Government’s opportunity to show that they value this hard work and sacrifice and that they can deliver much-needed reforms for the public.
The Government have repeatedly committed to levelling up our country, but it is difficult to see much evidence of that in the forthcoming legislative programme. I support levelling up and a fairer distribution of opportunity. For me, levelling up is about fairness in the workplace; opportunities for all in education; a fairer distribution of income; equal access to health, public services, better housing and cultural activity; and the proper care and protection of our elderly. Levelling up will fail to be anything more than a slogan unless the Government are willing to confront the hard truth about deep-rooted structural inequalities that sap the health, prosperity and life chances from our most deprived communities.
Since 2010, further education and skills have borne the brunt of the Government’s harmful economic choices, with funding cut, access to learning restricted and maintenance support for younger learners abolished. This has resulted in fewer young people studying in FE and fewer workers able to retrain and upskill. We therefore welcome the Government’s change of heart and new commitment to helping people to retrain in the skills Bill. However, they must come up with a plan to create good-quality jobs that allow people to earn good money if the training programme is to have the desired effect.
For too long, this Government have relied on boosting job creation with unregulated part-time and low-paying jobs. These jobs often involve zero-hours contracts and exploitative working practices, such as fire and rehire. The Government have repeatedly promised the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation, yet we have no plan to deal with the scourge of insecure work and unscrupulous practices. With one in eight workers trapped in poverty and many hard hit by the pandemic, many will be in disbelief that there was no mention of a long-awaited employment Bill to protect them. Downing Street insists that legislation to protect workers’ rights will be introduced
“when the time is right”,
citing the pandemic as the reason for a delay. This logic is perverse, given that the pandemic has brutally exposed the terrible working conditions and insecurity that many of our key workers in retail, care and delivery face—demonstrating why the time is right now and why legislation is urgently needed to protect them.
The dither and delay in addressing employment rights is all the more exasperating given that the Government have found space in their legislation to protect free speech on campuses, despite little evidence of a problem, at a time when staff and students are coping with the fallout from the Covid-19 pandemic. It is the same with the imposition of ID cards for elections. I conclude that the Government’s focus on manufacturing an argument over free speech on campus is an attempt to distract us all from their failure to support students and universities through this pandemic and beyond. Students are seriously worried about getting the skills and experience they need for the workplace. Despite Labour’s calls, Ministers did little to support the graduates of 2020, who entered a shattered jobs market. They must do more to secure the futures of the class of 2021.
Levelling up is a great theme—but it needs real policies, with meat behind it.
Lord Lingfield (Con)
My Lords, I welcome entirely the Government’s aspiration to enhance the available provision of technical and vocational skills training so that first-class courses can provide a prestigious alternative to degrees for many young people. I remind your Lordships of my registered interest as chairman of the Chartered Institution for Further Education, which is—in shorthand terms—a growing, Russell-type group of the best FE providers in the country.
The Queen’s Speech mentions the lifetime skills guarantee; this comes at exactly the right time, as companies build back business as the pandemic comes to an end. The Government are right to emphasise that the system has to be realigned with the needs of employers, and a new workforce industry exchange programme will very much help to alleviate a serious problem which even our best colleges have. Let me take as an example a highly qualified automobile engineer who worked, say, until 2015 for a large car manufacturer and decided instead to lecture in further education. He or she liked the new job and became an excellent teacher. However, there is a good chance that the skills they impart today are five years old and getting more out of date each year, to the detriment of the students and the industry concerned. Some industries have first-class practical links with colleges to alleviate this; I pay tribute to the excellent partnership between Toyota and Burton and South Derbyshire College.
The new exchange programme will, therefore, be extremely important, but it is essential that three things happen to make it effective. First, it is important that as many small and medium-sized businesses as possible are encouraged to take part, as well as the large companies, which are always rather better at supporting such initiatives. These smaller firms often have skills which are in short supply and increase students’ employability. Secondly, it is crucial that this is not just a two or three-year project but that it becomes embedded for good in this country’s work practices, creating a much closer and permanent relationship between further education and the employers it serves. Thirdly, it is vital that FE teaching staff who take pains to update themselves by regularly revisiting the skills of their industries should have their professional development and experience recognised by an appropriate high-level award. By virtue of its royal charter, the Chartered Institution for Further Education is developing with a group of employers its associateship, licentiateship and fellowship this year, which will fulfil exactly that function.
We are all aware that the future will require most adults to return to learning throughout their lives to enable them to respond to an ever-changing economy. However, the state of adult education in this country is very worrying. A survey from just before the first pandemic lockdown reveals that government spending on adult learning, excluding apprenticeships, had fallen by 47% in the previous decade. In 2019, the engagement rate had fallen to a record low, with those lower down the social scale less likely to have been involved in any adult job-related training at all. These are exactly the people to whom we need to give opportunities. Many have not been in a classroom since their teenage years and are therefore often very anxious about a step back into education. From the new funds promised, we need urgently to spread the development of community learning centres, especially those linked to colleges of further education, for these can be a friendly and welcoming path back into gaining vocational skills.
I welcome the Government’s new commitment to further education, for which we have been waiting a long time. It is absolutely essential that we get this right if we are to develop here in the United Kingdom the flexible and constantly reskilled workforce that we shall need to meet the challenges of the post-Brexit commercial world.
Lord Bradley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I first add my congratulations to the maiden speakers and wish the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth all the very best for his future outside the House.
In declaring my interests in the register, I am pleased to make a short contribution to this Queen’s Speech debate, with a particular focus on the legislation presented on health and especially mental health. First, the health and care Bill is underpinned by the NHS Long Term Plan, which sets out the ambition to achieve parity of esteem between physical and mental health. But despite this commitment, mental health services are struggling to meet demand, and this has been exposed and exacerbated by the pandemic. As the Royal College of Psychiatrists pointed out, there are record numbers of referrals to mental health services. The most recent figures for December 2020 show an 11% increase compared to the same time the previous year. Similarly, in parts of the north-west, calls to mental health crisis teams by children and young people have doubled during the pandemic, as BBC North West movingly reported this very week. Therefore, it is essential that the new integrated care system gives equal weight to mental health by making it a legal requirement that NHS mental health trusts sit on their boards, and that non-statutory bodies, allied health professionals—such as speech and language therapists—and the voluntary sector providing mental health and related services for people with complex needs should also have a statutory right to be on the boards of these bodies.
Further, the key policy paper, Integration and Innovation, makes it clear that the Bill will bring forward several measures to improve accountability in the system in a way that will empower organisations and give the public confidence that they are receiving the best care every time they interact with it. This is clearly welcome, but so far these measures seem extremely top down government-heavy, with an emphasis on the powers and responsibilities taken back to the Department of Health and Social Care and, specifically, to the Secretary of State. Crucially, it seems silent on how the views of the public will actually be represented on ICOs and ICSs. To ensure public confidence at a local level, their voice must be heard and have a direct role in influencing and determining the priorities in each local community, especially guaranteeing that mental health services and provision for people with learning disabilities and complex needs are given equal consideration. Again, I believe this should be explicit in the forthcoming legislation.
I turn briefly to the proposed mental health reform Bill, for which I hope the pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill will be quickly brought forward by the Government. I will make two small but important initial comments on the interface between mental health and the criminal justice system. First, it is proposed that a statutory time limit is introduced for the transfer from prison to mental health settings for those requiring mental health care. I made a similar recommendation in my report in 2009 and therefore strongly support it. However, it needs to be emphasised that such transfers can be extremely problematic due to lack of appropriate beds. This can particularly affect women and lead to transfer far from home. The Government must invest quickly in appropriate, secure and specialist provision to ensure that they deliver on this statutory time limit recommendation.
Secondly, the Government have committed that by 2023-24, investment in mental health services, health-based places of safety and ambulances should allow for the removal of police cells as a place of safety. Again, it is essential that the gaps in current provision in health-based places of safety are addressed, perhaps with a specific capital allocation to honour the 2023-24 target.
I conclude by making the point that to ensure that the NHS can continue to develop as an integrated system and meet the growing demand for healthcare, particularly in mental health, sustained investment will be required, predicted to be over £100 billion over the next decade. The first test of this will be the comprehensive spending review in the autumn. It will set the direction of travel and will allow an early assessment to be made of whether the levelling-up agenda is real or just rhetoric and whether the repeated claims of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that this is a Government who deliver have any real substance. I look forward to further debate on these matters.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, on their brilliant maiden speeches and look forward to hearing more. To the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth I say thank you; like others, I will miss him and wish him well.
I will speak in relation to three areas mentioned in Her Majesty’s gracious Speech but will focus mostly on the health White Paper, with a brief reference to proposed legislation on education and research. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 passed into legislation despite a lack of consensus for it in the wider health service. This time there is a broader consensus, particularly in relation to a more collaborative approach to healthcare that the Bill proposes which includes local authorities, to help drive changes to benefit patients in the form of integrated care services driven locally. However, several areas will require very careful scrutiny.
These are unprecedented times for the NHS as it continues to respond to the pandemic and the worsening effect it has had on health inequalities, rising demand for services, an exhausted workforce and a huge backlog of care across acute, community and mental health services. The pandemic has shown how capable the NHS is when left to get on with the task of making rapid changes, creating partnerships and delivering world-class care. It is to be hoped that the Government produce a strategy to deal with the huge backlog in waiting lists for treatment and diagnostics before implementing any of the changes proposed in the Bill.
The proposed health Bill needs to be clear with regard to regulation, the nature of accountability, and avoiding duplication and increased bureaucracy. The proposals in the White Paper paint a picture of a very crowded field: health and care partnerships, the proposed integrated care system boards, NHS England, provider collaboratives, the commissioning groups, primary care networks, place-based working, and health and well-being boards, to mention but a few. The nature of the regulation, governance and accountability of these different bodies will need a great deal of scrutiny.
The Bill proposes sweeping powers for Ministers to direct and change at will the delivery of healthcare in 10 or more key areas. Such sweeping ministerial powers need transparent accountability to Parliament and the wider public. The House of Lords report The Long-term Sustainability of the NHS and Adult Social Care identified two key challenges facing the NHS: a clear plan to address the workforce problem and a long-term settlement to deal with adult social care, neither of which is being addressed in the White Paper. The Bill is an opportunity that should not be missed to put in legislation a long-term, costed, transparent plan for the health workforce to deliver safe, effective and high-quality care, including future projections. When it comes to the funding and delivering of adult social care, the gracious Speech said that the Government will bring forward proposals. As the health Bill is not likely to reach our House until the autumn, I hope that we will at least see a consultation document on social care by then.
I turn briefly to two other areas of legislation proposed in the gracious Speech: lifelong learning and research, including the creation of ARIA—the advanced research and invention agency. I support the Government’s plans to support further education colleges, which have long been deprived of funding. The plans in the further education White Paper, Skills for Jobs, need to guard against competition between higher education universities and further education colleges. Funding changes institutional behaviour but can also promote collaboration. For FE colleges to succeed and develop collaborations, they will need appropriate funding streams. I look forward to the debates.
Lastly, and briefly, I turn to proposals for research in life sciences and the creation of ARIA. While the Government have found the means to fund the UK’s subscription to Horizon Europe in the short term, I hope the Minister will confirm that future funding to Horizon Europe will not come from the current R&D funding. On ARIA, apart from its modest funding there are also issues of governance, independence and whether grants will be covered by the Haldane principle. There is also the issue to be explored in relation to government funding to take innovations to commercialisation. I hope the Minister will comment. I look forward to the debates.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, first, I congratulate both maiden speakers and wish the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth every blessing in his retirement.
I will focus on some aspects of the Covid pandemic in particular and welcome the refreshing way in which the British electorate rejected the way in which the truth about medical aspects of the pandemic has been distorted by opposition parties, opposition scientists and opposition media.
It is accepted that the main reason for the high mortality from Covid in the UK and many other countries is population density, being a global travel hub, and having a high prevalence of obesity. Obesity impairs the immune system and makes people very susceptible to infections of all kinds, especially Covid-19. Opposition leaders in both Houses have vehemently shouted out the numbers of people dying of Covid-19, virtually accusing the Prime Minister of being responsible for thousands of Covid deaths in the UK. I refer to the House of Commons Hansard of 16 December last year at col. 264, as well as other references. They know very well that most Covid deaths are associated with population density, the obesity epidemic and being an international travel hub, so whatever possessed them to make such a terrible and deplorable mistake—or was it a mistake? The Labour shadow Minister in another place provided the answer to this question when she said, “We should use this Covid opportunity and not let a good crisis go to waste”. What a scandalous idea, to misuse the Covid crisis to further a political party.
It is of course the job of the Opposition to hold the Government to account, but it is certainly not the job of the Opposition to rubbish the Government every hour of every day with the help of the left-wing media. They had hoped that their propaganda would win over enough of the public. That is how Marxist regimes behave.
As far as the proposed Covid inquiry is concerned, will it concentrate on examining the effects on the pandemic of statements and actions by politicians, scientists and the media? That would be interesting. Will the Minister ask the usual channels to try to negotiate an end to scandalous accusations which bring Parliament into such disrepute? I hear from a sitting position that he is going to have a cup of tea.
As a doctor, I used to support aspects of the Labour Party, but I was driven away by the increasing tide of envy, hate, anti-Semitism and anti-democratic influence. It told the people that they were wrong to vote for Brexit, but the British people knew better. As a result of leaving the EU, we have achieved enormous vaccination success, unlike the rest of Europe, which has been left far behind. Our Prime Minister was so wise to appoint Kate Bingham, who deserves great credit for her outstanding success.
I was also delighted that the Prime Minister included in the Queen’s Speech his determination to continue with his campaign to reduce the obesity epidemic. Does the Minister agree that the Prime Minister should have the support of all politicians in his anti-obesity campaign to reduce the huge burden of obesity on the NHS and help to reduce the impact of future pandemics?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is delightful to be back in your Lordships’ House after our brief break and to hear so many excellent speeches today. It is also delightful that so few of them were as partisan and inaccurate as the one that I now follow. It is particularly delightful since that break contained elections at national, regional and local levels, in which voters showed great support for the Green Party, with our candidates finishing a clear third in most mayoral races, and second in Bristol, and with 90 council seat gains, as well as eight MSPs in Holyrood. Unfortunately, however, our representation here today does not reflect those results. Respecting the topic divisions for each day’s debate, we will be putting out in the media the speeches Green Peers might have made on the days that my noble friend and I are not getting the chance to represent all those voters.
It is great to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, who has joined our also underrepresented northern numbers today, and to echo her thoughts on the great damage done by the overconcentration of power and resources in Westminster. Changing that does not mean the Government deciding which voters will be rewarded with the occasional airdrop of pork barrels.
In my five minutes today, rather than skidding across the economy, business, health and education, asking whether Dilyn ate the oven-ready social care Bill, pointing out the fallacies of the freeport idea, welcoming the embrace of lifelong learning while echoing the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, about the Government deciding what people will study and adding my concerns about loading people with even more debt, I will focus on one missing Bill, under the heading of economy and business, and one grossly flawed Bill, under health.
Yesterday I joined the APPG for Future Generations hearing at which Nobel economics laureate Professor Angus Deaton demonstrated that, in the US, a four-year degree is as protective of death from Covid as vaccination. That is not because of knowledge but because of the jobs that the degree opens up. To put it another way, the poor quality, low-pay, insecurity and lack of respect that are attached to too many jobs in the UK, as in the US, are demonstrably deadly.
In the previous Queen’s Speech the country was promised an employment Bill. In 2019, the Government consulted on plans for workers to have a right to reasonable notice of their schedules and to compensation if shifts were cancelled without due notice. Plenty of Tory MPs have expressed support for the campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed, reflecting huge problems of gender discrimination in the workforce that urgently need legal redress. Rather than talking about creating good jobs, or just doing that, we need a law to ensure that every worker is in a good job, with a real living wage providing a secure income and certainty of working hours that allows planning for childcare, community commitments and life, ideally one that has a four-day working week as standard with no loss of pay. That requires legislation—the employment Bill missing in yesterday’s Speech. Many US jurisdictions have brought in fair work week laws. Just this week, Spain agreed to a law protecting delivery workers. On employment rights, as in so many other areas, we are not world-leading but are trailing the pack, even behind the United States.
I turn to one Bill that was in the Speech: the health and social care Bill. Its elevated pitch is that it is about integrating care. Who could argue with that? Well, beware buzz phrases. The direction of travel of the NHS—a direction already imposed without parliamentary scrutiny or decision—is Americanisation; the implementation of the world’s most expensive, least effective approach to health. NHS England’s chief executive told the Select Committee that the Bill will be
“a welcome recognition of where the health service will have moved to”.
I put a question to Members of your Lordships’ House particularly concerned with process: is that really how our national jewel, our NHS, is supposed to be run? Should not the law and democratic oversight come first?
What is meant by “integrated” is agonisingly clear. It is a cover for a level of funding that is less than is needed, and the centralisation of services under the cover of the need for increasing specialisation. Caroline Molloy, the editor of openDemocracy, expressed the feeling of many communities when she said:
“I get fed up with politicians telling me that I will have better care if they close my local hospital.”
I am sure the Government will not be saying it, but that is what this vision of the NHS means.
Noble Lords might notice that I have not talked about climate and nature, this not being the allocated day for it. But in the other place, and in the media, Green MP Caroline Lucas is showing more of what could and should have been in the Queen’s Speech: five Bills to allow our country and planet to thrive. As Greens, we work as a team, and I look forward to that team being much larger soon.
Lord Astor of Hever (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on navigating so bravely and doggedly through the hellish coronavirus storm that we have experienced. Control of the virus has been achieved through teamwork and co-operation at local and national level between the National Health Service, Public Health England, academia and private and not-for-profit sectors of the community.
Since the start of the third lockdown in January, a combination of increased testing capacity, social distancing measures and a highly organised, speedy rollout of vaccinations has resulted in a dramatic drop in infections. This is something of which we should all be proud. Roughly one in three people had the virus without symptoms, so could be spreading the disease without knowing it. Broadening testing meant that the number of people testing positive for coronavirus at the end of April was 25 times lower than it was four months ago. The Government put in place the largest network of diagnostic testing in British history.
Regular, rapid testing has paved the way for businesses to reopen and for society to return to a quasi-normal existence. However, I understand that many of those testing companies are really struggling. By trying to squeeze out the small profits from those companies that are making travel happen, the Government will find that a lot of private testing providers will choose to cease trading due to the multiple costs involved. It is a vicious circle because then there will not be enough providers to service the number of tests needed, thereby forcing prices up. Reducing costs means reducing service and giving customers a less than adequate service, thereby causing unnecessary anxiety as to whether they will get results in time. There are lots of horror stories of people still not having results by the time they get to the airport.
Pricing for testing is a big factor for both the Government and the public in terms of ability to travel. A lot of medical devices and consumables are VAT exempt. Will the Government consider making a VAT exemption on Covid testing to help bring the price down? It is vital that testing be done properly. Home testing can be manipulated very easily, and I am told that many people run the swab under a tap to guarantee travel. As a result, many countries are now not accepting tests that have been performed by an individual at home. Other people are fraudulently changing a certificate that has previously been used by changing dates and times within the graphic software, and have got away with it. The companies doing the testing are therefore playing a vital role. It is important that we continue to support everyone involved in the struggle to minimize the impact of Covid.
Viscount Chandos (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the register of interests and, particularly in the light of what I intend to say on further and higher education, to my positions as a trustee of LAMDA and independent chair of the trade association, the CSA, which is also an apprenticeship provider.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Blake of Leeds and the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, on their excellent maiden speeches. The noble Lord referred to the late Lord Thomson of Fleet, who established the Thomson Foundation, of which I am currently the chair. That prompts me to add to the tributes paid earlier. The first rule of accepting any position is to choose one’s predecessor carefully. I had the immense good fortune to have had the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, as my predecessor at the foundation. The extraordinary work that foundation does in training journalists and developing sustainable independent media in challenging parts of the world owes so much to him.
Like other noble Lords, I welcome the Government’s stated intention in the Loyal Address to boost further education, lifelong learning and apprenticeships. Both the Economic Affairs Committee and the Committee on Intergenerational Fairness and Provision have in recent years argued for substantially increased resources for further education. While judgment has to await the details of the Bill and a better understanding of how the Government will implement their plans, the positive reception to that part of the Loyal Address is understandable.
If only, as many other noble Lords have said, the Government had also shown any sign of action on adult social care, on which the Economic Affairs Committee also published a report in July 2019. After 22 months, there has still been no government response, even though the committee pressed the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he appeared before it a year ago. It seems as if not only did the Prime Minister not have an oven-ready plan, but the hot potato of this issue is being lobbed from one arm of government to another.
Reverting briefly to education, the welcome and promised commitment to FE must not be at the expense of the higher education sector. We all owe our gradually increasing freedom in large part to the excellence of our universities. Our economic recovery is also dependent on them, as well as on the significant improvement in the provision of lifelong learning. In turn, within the higher education sector, it is simplistic and wrong to think that STEM subjects alone prepare the next generation for the workplace of the future, however important it is to maintain and enhance our universities’ provision of degrees in STEM subjects. Sir Michael Moritz, arguably the most successful technology investor of his generation, graduated in history from Oxford University. When increasing resources for STEM subjects, the Government must not impoverish the liberal arts, which continue to prepare students for successful careers in every walk of life.
My noble friend Lord Eatwell and other noble Lords have surgically exposed the poverty and inconsistency of the Government’s overall economic policies. Political commentators have suggested that the Conservatives have occupied Labour’s ground in terms of public spending commitments. In the interests of the country at large, even if that were against my party’s electoral interest, I would be delighted if that proved to be the case. However, the measures adopted by the Government in response to the pandemic do not indicate a conversion to the values and policies of the Labour Party. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, at the same time as dissecting the Government’s paucity of imagination, still expressed unease at the level of spending needed to fund even the current policies. If there had been a truly deep change of heart on the part of the Government, how could they continue to resist maintaining the £20 increase in universal credit, at a time when our unemployment benefit is at 15% of average earnings, in contrast to the 80% of earnings that the furlough schemes provided?
Baroness Buscombe (Con) [V]
My Lords, I wish to focus on two aspects of our economy—the costs of green energy and our financial settlement with Scotland. I reference both those issues following many months of government departments announcing extraordinary public spending commitments that lack context and detail. Indeed, there is increasing alarm among taxpayers that many of those commitments have been made in addition to the phenomenal public spending on tackling the virus. According to the Economist, the UK has a balance of payments deficit of 4.2% of GDP or some £85 billion. The gracious Speech hails yet more big government and more spend, spend, spend.
With regard to green energy, while there is overwhelming support for reducing carbon emissions, there is growing public concern that the excessive costs of new green targets will further increase the UK’s balance of payments deficit. That concern could be partially met if we bring onshore and build our own green industries and the related supply infrastructure and skills for the longer term. Despite the UK having the most favourable conditions for wind-powered generation in Europe, as a result of our major investments to date, not one manufacturer of wind turbines and blades fully manufactures, rather than assembles, in the UK.
The vast majority of electric vehicles sold here are manufactured outside the UK, with the exception of the Nissan Leaf and the Mini Countryman SE. Even after £500 million of loan guarantees were provided to Jaguar Land Rover in 2019 to encourage the company to build electric vehicles in the Midlands, the company decided to postpone Midlands production and is still outsourcing production of the leading I-Pace to a Toronto-listed manufacturer in Austria.
That said, there are positive developments towards making electric vehicle batteries in the UK, and some promising electric commercial vehicle start-ups. So, rather than giving all our business orders for these green initiatives to foreign car companies that are mainly in Germany and France or wind turbine manufacturers based in Germany and Denmark, why not substantially increase public investment alongside private investment in the manufacturing, not just assembly, of all the wind turbines, batteries and electric vehicles we need for the UK market?
The gracious Speech references crucial initiatives to upskill our workforce. However, we must allow several years before we can reap the benefits for our manufacturing base. In the meantime, we lack a clear strategy for manufacturing in the UK that actually translates into increasing productivity, given that some 80% of our GDP is in services and we do not yet have a comprehensive financial services agreement with the EU. Unless we have this in place, we will cede further services jobs to the EU without ensuring enough value-added green jobs to offset this trend. Therefore, while some of our post-Brexit global trade agreements are, of course, welcome in the short term, what agreements are we putting in place now to improve our balance of payments? After all, if the Netherlands can have a balance of payments surplus, so should we.
Briefly, on Scotland, we will never buy the affection or respect of the SNP, yet each time there is a threat of a referendum for independence we give it more money and increased powers, which delivers greater political and economic advantage to Scotland. We did this following the last referendum—but why? This is no longer tenable, given that Scotland has been receiving around 130% per capita compared with England for years. Why, for example, do we continue to ignore the financial discrimination against English students studying in Scotland? Why do we not all move to Scotland for free social care? This gross imbalance has not gone unnoticed, given that it is now hard to find anyone beyond Westminster who supports the union with Scotland beyond our Armed Forces and shipbuilding presence. It is time to make it clear that if Scotland leaves the union it should be required to take on a share of the UK’s outstanding national debt, including state and public sector pensions on a per capita basis. The UK should also have security over Scottish Government assets in the event of a default—which is not unlikely given the scale of the deficits.
We can build back better if we focus on real economic growth through increased productivity, coupled with a fair apportionment of public expenditure across the UK.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I wish also to congratulate our two maiden speakers in this debate. We look forward to their future contributions to our deliberations. I also appreciated the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. He will know that he had a distinguished predecessor quite recently whom we all greatly admired here. We very much appreciated the right reverend Prelate’s contribution over recent years, and we hope that he enjoys his retirement.
Why do we need to look into a crystal ball when we have the record before us? The Government have a track record on economic provision in this country: a decade of austerity, after which Prime Minister Cameron and Chancellor Osborne failed to clear the public deficit to the extent that they had promised the nation over that period. It was the great target that they set for the economy, and they freely recognised that it ended in failure. The price was paid, of course. Austerity bit deeply into the very weak positions of many of our children in poverty, and we began to become the disgrace of Europe in our provision in this area.
This debate is meant to emphasise aspects of education, one of which suffered most from austerity. The further education sector suffered the deepest cut, at a time when all thinking people knew that we had to consider the issue of how to improve the skills of the nation. We must congratulate the Government, and I do, on making this dramatic change with regard to further education. Both sides of the House have emphasised this in the debate. Many very useful contributions from Conservative Peers emphasised that further education has a critical role to play—and it starts from a very weak base because of the past decade.
Another public service also displayed just what austerity had cost. A decade of a Conservative Government looking after the health service meant that our medical staff were ill equipped with protective equipment when they came to tackle the epidemic. Of course, we all recognise that the epidemic produced demands on the Government that were very difficult to respond to and that there were areas of achievement. There were also areas of conspicuous failure. There is no doubt that the health service was in a weaker position than it ought to have been in when the epidemic broke.
We also need to recognise that the Government’s other great priority was distinguished by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, came to our House as a Minister for a period of time. I was very grateful to have the opportunity to debate issues with him. He was there to ensure that the Government’s objective of improving Britain’s productivity was realised. But it was not, was it? It was a conspicuous failure. Britain has been near the bottom of the G7 group of countries for productivity over the last decade. So let the Government not think that we do not identify areas where there are real weaknesses and where they will have to not just indicate that they are prepared to invest but actually produce the right investment in the right places.
It is certainly the case that the Government have produced a shop window of possibilities. The Queen’s Speech is, of course, not an economic debate but an outline of the Government’s proposals—but large numbers of those proposals have an impact on the economy and nearly all of them will cost a few pence. We will all be very interested when the prices are put on this level of investment in the economic development that the Chancellor will produce in a few months’ time.
It is certainly the case that the Government are already shying away from some tough decisions. They do not offer any commitment to deal with tax havens, which Europe is prepared to move on and we are not; nor do they indicate that they are prepared to tax the very big American companies that pursue tax-free trading. It is a challenge that the Government have to face. Their first challenge will come very soon, and this House will be keeping a wary eye on them.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The next speaker is Viscount Bridgeman. Viscount Bridgeman? We will move on to Baroness Walmsley.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, the gracious Speech made a very brief mention of the Government’s intentions on health and care, but the recent White Paper was a little more helpful. Today I ask: why this and why now? There are three key reasons why I would rather have seen a draft Bill for consultation than the immediate introduction of the forthcoming health and care Bill.
First, to integrate health and care, desirable although that is, without previously carrying out the long-awaited reform of social care is partial and unwise. It is like refurbishing one wheel of a bicycle while the other wheel is bent and rusty. For years, we have had a social care crisis. Provision is fragmented between public, private and third-sector providers, which makes consistency of standards and access to information difficult. It has been chronically underfunded for years, which makes for a lack of confidence on the part of both those who invest in it and those who need its services. Meanwhile, self-funders overpay to cover the shortfall in fees from cash-strapped local councils. This is unfair.
Worst of all, because many settings have closed, there are fewer services available for those who need them. Those who may need services in future fear, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, put it—yes, really fear—what might happen to them, especially if they get dementia. About a million older or disabled people are already unable to get all the support they need. There have been many opportunities to work cross-party to correct this, sort out the funding and give a decent living wage to those who work in social care, but successive Governments have failed to grasp that nettle. In the gracious Speech, we were given nothing more than another promise to deliver what the Prime Minister told us two years ago was a ready plan.
Secondly, a Bill that plans to reform a health and care system that is struggling to recover from a pandemic, without considering what state it is in and what lessons can be learned, is precipitate. One of the biggest issues, as I see it, is the staff. They are stressed and exhausted, yet they face an uphill struggle to deal with the backlog of treatment needs. The number of people now waiting more than a year for treatment has risen from 1,600 before the pandemic to almost 390,000. I welcome the recent NHS announcement of upfront money for a few integrated care services that present a cogent plan to increase their elective treatments to 120% of pre-Covid levels. This will help a few ICSs, but it is not universal.
We started this pandemic with too few beds, too few doctors and too few nurses, and no more than a five-year staffing plan for the NHS. No wonder the staff struggled. Today, on International Nurses Day, I welcome the record number of students joining the nursing profession and those returning, but we now need an independent 10-year staffing plan for NHS and social care. Will the Minister please consider the necessity for that?
Thirdly, we have a crisis in mental health. Demand was not being met before the pandemic; there were long waiting lists, especially for young people. Because of the pandemic, the situation is now much worse. I hope that, when deciding on the policy to reform and fairly fund social care, the Government will consult the sector, users and across parties.
Implementation is another challenge, but here I think we have a good example. People have rightly praised the vaccine rollout. The Vaccine Taskforce and the thousands of NHS workers and volunteers who have delivered the vaccines so brilliantly invented by Oxford University and other scientists have done a wonderful job. I believe the vaccine rollout has been a success because of two things from which we can learn: mission focus and a “whatever it takes and whatever it costs” attitude from government. That focus and that investment are needed to sort out the three crises of social care, mental health and the waiting lists. It will be cost-effective in the end, because it will reduce the pressure on acute hospitals. We need this before we try to implement the reforms in the Bill, many of which I would probably happily support at the right time. I ask the Minister whether the Government will withdraw the Bill for consultation and bring it back when they have sorted out the crises in social care, mental health and NHS and social care staffing.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak about the skills and post-16 education Bill, and briefly on the building safety Bill. The skills Bill will legislate for a number of important and valuable initiatives outlined in January’s Skills for Jobs White Paper, such as putting employers at the heart of post-16 skills, including through local skills improvement plans, creating a lifetime skills guarantee and a lifelong loan entitlement, and providing greater support for further education. These are welcome extensions of existing policies on apprenticeships, T-levels, careers education and guidance and the Kickstart programme, which seems to get less attention than it should.
What really matters, as we have seen from the vaccination programme, is the actual delivery—whether all these initiatives succeed in delivering the right skills at the right time in the right places and to the right people, especially for young people seeking to enter the jobs market at this challenging time. An overarching skills strategy is needed to ensure they complement and reinforce each other, rather than creating a complex and confusing tangle of options through which those seeking new skills, upskilling or reskilling struggle to find a suitable route.
First, there need to be clear, flexible and well-defined pathways allowing learners to follow different routes according to their interests and abilities, with options to combine academic and technical elements and to include short, modular courses where appropriate. A well-resourced, well-qualified cadre of professional careers advisers will be essential to help individuals to identify and navigate the best pathways for them, and needs to be part of the strategy. Why could there not be a UCAS-like online service providing information about the whole range of technical and vocational training available and how to access it?
Secondly, the apprenticeships levy should be made more flexible. A significant proportion of levy funds is apparently going unspent. As part of an overall skills strategy, the scope of the levy could be broadened to cover a wider range of much-needed skills training activities —a skills levy, rather than just an apprenticeships levy.
Thirdly, much more needs to be done to promote the Skills for Jobs strategy, especially to three groups: parents, who are often the most important careers advisers; schools and teachers still not aware enough of the technical options available and, as we have heard, not complying enough with the Baker clause; and employers, large and small, who play such a crucial part and are among the greatest beneficiaries of a better skilled workforce.
SMEs need more specific help to play their part in skills training. They are particularly subject to the vagaries of cash flow and depend heavily on being paid for their work promptly and in full. Without that, their ability to invest, including in training, work experience and apprenticeships, is threatened—as, indeed, sometimes, is their very survival.
The practice of retentions in the construction sector, whereby larger contractors withhold a proportion of payments owed to their, usually smaller, subcontractors—ostensibly as insurance against possible defects in their work, but often it is an unreasonable sum or for an unreasonable period—is damaging to the performance and quality of the construction sector as a whole. Dame Judith Hackitt’s report following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, which the building safety Bill aims to implement, states:
“Payment terms within contracts (for example, retentions) can drive poor behaviours, by putting financial strain into the supply chain. For example non-payment of invoices and consequent cash flow issues can cause subcontractors to substitute materials purely on price rather than value for money or suitability for purpose.”
The Government have been promising for some years now to address the issue of retentions, on which there has been numerous consultations and reports but no action. In fact, I find myself sitting next to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who committed to provide one of those reports during the passage of the Enterprise Bill in 2015. It is high time for the Government to act, and I hope that the building safety Bill will prove to offer the legislative vehicle that is needed.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Blake on her excellent speech and the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, on an interesting one. I add my good wishes to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth as he leaves this House.
I echo others in regretting the absence of proposals on social care and workers’ rights from the gracious Speech, both urgent issues to which this Government need to turn their attention. I am pleased that the Government have turned their attention to education and talked of an ambitious and long-term package of measures to ensure that pupils have the chance to make up their learning over the course of the Parliament. Sustainable recovery may take some time. I endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lady Morris, who highlighted the absence of detail about this package.
To date the Government have, I believe, set aside only £250 per pupil, according to the Education Policy Institute. This compares rather poorly with proposed investment in the Netherlands of £2,500 or the United States of £1,600, for example. It must be borne in mind, too, that schools, already underfunded before the pandemic, have had to bear significant costs over this period, with the result that many may face financial difficulties and possible cuts to staffing. This is not a desirable situation, as children need more attention and smaller classes.
Your Lordships’ House has debated the issue of remote learning and the difficulties some families—including perhaps as many as 1.7 million children—have faced due to their lack of hardware and access to broadband. There is an acknowledgement that online learning of this kind may continue to have some place after the pandemic so this digital divide needs to be addressed, as do questions on the appropriateness of the curriculum and, in particular, the place of oracy within it.
A recent report carried out for the Oracy All-Party Parliamentary Group found:
“The absence of oracy education hampers children and young people’s long-term opportunities and capabilities”.
Teachers, employers and young people themselves recognise that oracy skills support young people’s transition into further and higher education and into employment—as they do, of course, during earlier stages in education. During the pandemic, many children have missed out on language development. Two-thirds of primary and nearly half of secondary teachers say that during the period of school closures, their negative effect was noticed on the spoken language development of students eligible for the pupil premium, compared with advantaged pupils. Against this background, and in line with levelling up, will the Government reconsider the change to the pupil premium census dates, which I understand will take £150 million out of school budgets for the most disadvantaged pupils?
Many pupils have missed out on language development but they have also missed out on learning collaboratively, and on opportunities to participate in physical, practical, cultural and creative activities. Catch-up should not just be about literacy, numeracy and the academic curriculum. The gap between the advantaged and the disadvantaged has widened and it must be narrowed by a focus on reducing, and ultimately eradicating in short order, child and family poverty.
I want to say a word about the summer break. First, we must ensure that no children go hungry but, secondly, if local authorities are properly resourced they can provide excellent programmes so that children, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, can enjoy an exciting and fulfilling time engaging in sporting, recreational, cultural and creative activities, and regaining some of their childhood, which, as an earlier speaker said, has perhaps been lost in lockdown. A contribution to this might well be engagement with the Reading Agency’s Summer Reading Challenge. This is not about phonics and testing; it is an opportunity for children and young people to enjoy reading for pleasure, so that children can begin to develop those skills which will take them into adulthood with reading as a pleasurable activity. I look forward to engaging in further debate on this issue.
Lord Choudrey (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble and noble and learned Lords before me for their contributions. I refer your Lordships to my entry in the register of interests.
Her Majesty’s gracious Address to your Lordships’ House set out the Government’s priorities for supporting local communities and building a fairer, stronger economy for the future. Although the Covid pandemic has had a profound impact on our economy, our robust vaccine programme continues to improve the economic outlook for 2021, with independent forecasters expecting the economy to grow by 5.7% during the current year.
I would like to showcase the success of our local pharmaceutical industry, a sector of the economy that has benefited from the Government’s investment in research and development, financial incentives and encouragement. In the initial days of the pandemic, in December 2019, the Government provided a grant of £20 million to the University of Oxford. This research grant helped spur innovation and research into the Covid virus, which in turn led to the development of the Covid vaccines. Such timely measures, coupled with long-term investment in manufacturing capacity by successive Conservative Governments, meant that by the time the vaccine was approved the manufacturing infrastructure was already in place and could be scaled up quickly, which resulted in three vaccines being made domestically, giving ready access to much-needed and timely supplies. This has led to the development of a world-renowned pharmaceutical industry—an industry that is today the envy of the world and an example of the brand “Global Britannia”.
The success of the pharmaceutical industry highlights the case of the Government, the private sector and academia working together in partnership to create an enabling environment. The Government’s desire to reinforce this by legislating for the establishment of the advanced research and invention agency is a welcome step; I fully endorse the record investment which the Conservative Government are putting into R&D.
Complementing the good work of our pharmaceutical industry are our community pharmacists. In the immediate aftermath of the pandemic, pharmacies played a key role in reducing the burden on our NHS by meeting the urgent care needs of local communities. As GPs closed their surgeries, pharmacists became the only primary healthcare professionals who patients could see in person. I endorse the call of the Company Chemists’ Association and urge the Government to use the legislation announced in the Queen’s Speech to fully integrate community pharmacies into the emerging health and social care landscape. By embedding our local community pharmacies within the NHS, we can extract multiple benefits for patients and practitioners. It is vital that as we come out of the pandemic, these capabilities are recognised and embedded within the NHS.
According to the British Medical Association, the shutdown of most non-Covid services in the first wave, combined with drastic changes in patient behaviour, means that the NHS is now facing a large backlog of non-Covid care, storing up greater problems for the future. The BMA estimates that, between April 2020 and February 2021, there were 3.25 million fewer elective procedures and 20 million fewer outpatient attendances.
According to the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, community pharmacists dispense over 1 billion prescription items every year and deliver 48 million healthcare advice consultations a year. To put that in context, this saves nearly 500,000 million GP appointments and 57,000 A&E visits every week. According to Royal Pharmaceutical Society research, the cost of treating a patient for a minor ailment, such as a cough or sore throat, is £29 in a community pharmacy, but nearly three times higher, at £82, if the same patient is seen by a GP, and nearly five times higher, at £147, in a hospital A&E department. The statistics speak for themselves; your Lordships would surely agree that community pharmacies offer good value for money and play a vital and integral role in delivering NHS services to the local community. I therefore recommend to the Government that they transfer more NHS services to community pharmacies where they have already demonstrated their capabilities, through flu jabs and Covid vaccination. This will free up NHS and GP capacity and help them to tackle the backlog of outstanding non-Covid care procedures and consultations.
As a trustee of multiple community charities, I whole- heartedly welcome the changes—
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord may want to take note of the advisory time limit of five minutes for Back-Bench contributions.
Lord Haskel (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too welcome the maiden speeches and say farewell to the right reverend Prelate.
In thanking Her Majesty for the gracious Speech, I have to say that it consists of an unco-ordinated mixture of ideas—some good and some bad, but with no clear, integrated plan to deal with the problems resulting from the pandemic. Nor does it say how change will be delivered; it just gives the impression of government by announcement. Indeed, there are conflicting proposals. For instance, there is a Bill to increase the housing stock while leaving in place financial incentives which we know have the effect of raising house prices, making the new homes less affordable, an effect that entrenches and enlarges the existing inequalities, stimulates a housing bubble and encourages speculation—exactly the wrong sort of growth.
What is required is a comprehensive strategy to address the challenges set by the pandemic and the causes of inequality such as low productivity, low investment and skill shortages. Yes, there is an industry strategy challenge fund but, as the Public Accounts Committee pointed out, it is too focused on inputs, ticking boxes and distributing funds rather than on outcomes. This can be rectified by reinstating the industrial strategy board to monitor and measure the progress of a strategy and measure what we have achieved year on year; to achieve our long-term objectives, that is what we will have to do. Without it, the Government are marking their own homework yet again.
The speech offers free ports with special low-tax zones, but experience has shown that all they do is shift jobs and investment around the country, rather than generating high-value new business. We should remember that exports from free ports to the EU and many other markets are restricted, and this kind of activity does little for skills training, raising productivity or increasing our R&D expenditure up to the government target. The share of national income paid out in wages, salaries and benefits has been in steady decline, while the returns on capital investment have been steadily increasing. An industrial strategy should even this out and, together with an employment Bill, that would make the outcome much more equitable.
An important part of our industrial strategy would seek to develop our own domestic industry but, where this is unfeasible, our strategy should prioritise co-operation with our allies. This means that we must seek equivalence and mutual recognition of standards, particularly in services, technology and manufacturing. This will make it easier for overseas and European firms to invest in UK industry and for UK industry to become integrated in their supply chains.
A special part of our strategy must be our concern for the young. Job insecurity is a common complaint among young people, a complaint caused by temporary contracts, agency work, zero-hour contracts and a lack of training. The training Bill is welcome, but will be less effective unless the apprenticeship levy is sorted out and an employment Bill accompanies it.
It is easy to make plans and mark them yourself, especially when the Institute for Fiscal Studies warns that current plans show an 8% cut in most departments, while NHS spending needs a big rise. Yes, some elements of this strategy appear in parts of the gracious Speech, but it needs to be drawn together. Will the Government create a strategy that we can all unite behind and will make progress instead of sliding back to where we were?
Lord Razzall (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is no surprise that there are a number of key omissions from the gracious Speech. We all have our favourites. First, where are the detailed proposals to level up? The Tories won the election in 2019 and did well last week because the electorate believed that they had a plan to turn this slogan into action. Why do we have to wait until later this year to discover what that plan is?
Secondly, as other Members have said, why have the Government’s proposals for social care been reduced to one sentence?
“Proposals on social care … will be brought forward”,
the speech says. We have been many times through the history of the majority Tory Government since 2015, ducking the implementation of the Dilnot recommendations from 2009. As other speakers reminded us, the Prime Minister said in 2019 that he had a detailed plan for social care. Where is it? Is it that he is frightened by the reaction to Theresa May’s proposals in the 2017 election campaign?
Thirdly, there is no reference to what steps will be taken to ameliorate the effect of Brexit. Where are the sunlit uplands promised in the referendum campaign? Both the Bank of England and the OBR expect negative long-term effects on the UK economy from the trade deal signed with the EU; the Bank estimates that, in the long term, UK trade will be 10.5% lower and GDP and productivity 3.25% lower than with frictionless trade. Of course, it is SMEs who are the worst hit.
I have given examples in the past of businesses seriously damaged by the effect of the trade deal, such as the SME selling second-hand combine harvesters, which has to pay inspectors to produce complex certificates for the machines, causing significant cost and delay. There is also the bike manufacturer struggling to cope with different VAT regimes across 27 countries; the Scotch whisky producers with labelling requirements that often require small companies to set up a distribution company in Europe, significantly reducing profit; and the Nottingham company—it makes synthetic hairpieces for cancer patients—whose essential just-in-time supply chain in Germany has now collapsed. These examples are not indicative of the teething troubles that the Government talk about. They are examples of real damage that Brexit has done to many SMEs without any apparent economic advantage.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, told us, the major omission from the gracious Speech is any reference to a credible fiscal framework to ensure the smooth reduction of the gigantic government debt, now in excess of £2 trillion, albeit with a significant proportion held by the Bank of England. A recent report from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, with participation from the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and Lord Darling, has five key recommendations. First, the date of fiscal events such as the Budget should be fixed well in advance, not decided on the whim of the Government, and should be subject to greater parliamentary scrutiny. Secondly, the OBR should publish reports ahead of these events, addressing key issues and numbers, not just giving them privately to the Treasury. Thirdly, the Chancellor should outline fundamental fiscal choices under different scenarios to be assessed by the OBR—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We will move on as the noble Lord has lost his connection. I call the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the gracious Speech and am proud to be a supporter of a Government in such good form. I have two suggestions for advantages that we might take from the disruption that we have all suffered through Covid.
First, we should keep and build on the online verification of the right to work. This has been a great success for the Home Office’s Covid response. It works well, there are no known systemic problems and it promises substantial advantages to the Home Office over time. It enables employers to professionalise online verification, locate it centrally, support their own skills development, and securely recognise unusual documents. Also, the potential to integrate with other information systems will further increase security performance. It has been a great success for the Home Office and for building back better. Employers can hire remote workers easily, which supports the move to working from home and makes lots more jobs available in unemployment black spots. The process is faster and more secure. There is no posting of passports around the UK, much less vulnerability to fraud, and costs are much lower. Employers reckon that there has been a 75% reduction in costs compared with the previous manual system.
What is the Home Office doing to build on this great success? It is terminating it, except with EU nationals who have the right to remain; they will now be much cheaper to employ than us Brits. This is a daft decision, to do so well and have nothing significant go wrong, to offer so much to the building back better agenda, and then to junk it because the department is frightened of its own shadow. Ministers in the Home Office and in the departments whose interests will be damaged need urgently to intervene. I have hope. The Home Office announced today that the turn-off will be postponed from next Monday until 21 June. There is now time for it to change its mind.
My second suggestion is that we should take advantage of the mess that the pandemic has made of exams and assessment, to build back better. The grading system we currently use has a broad inherent spectrum of error. The comparative outcomes application of that grading system to maths and English GCSE creates hurdles that must be leapt to qualify for further education and exciting employment. It demands in its structure that 40% of our children should be branded as failures.
We know how to do better. We can move away from grades to rank order, as used in Switzerland. We can adopt the comparative assessment strategy championed by Daisy Christodoulou, which is so well adapted to an online world. It has the great virtue of easily incorporating previous examinations and so lends itself to the maintenance of standards. Most of all, we can move to criterion-referenced assessments for whatever hurdles we feel the need for.
We already use this system on a large scale to verify that overseas candidates have sufficient command of English to benefit from their university courses and for such systems as the TEFL qualifications. In these applications, criterion referencing works very well. Iceland uses criterion-referenced termly reading-age tests to great acclaim from its teachers and unions. The trick to making criterion referencing work is to keep the assessment focused. If you try to use it on a broad front, it becomes impossibly complicated.
We need hurdles for maths and English because we want employers and educators to know that candidates have the basic level of skills they need. This is a criterion-referencing task. Let us establish what is needed to demonstrate the level of competence that we—that is, us and especially employers—want everyone to have to succeed in life. Let us make a short, simple specification of it and create criterion-referenced tests to examine it.
That would build into our system a drive for us to achieve a 95% success rate in equipping our young people for the world. That is absolutely what we should be aiming for. We should not, as we do now, have a system that requires us to accept that 40% of our children are failures. The pandemic has loosened the chains of precedent and caution. Let us not put them back on again until we first make sure that they fit.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I would like to speak to an issue that crosses two areas in today’s discussion: health and business. The pharmaceutical industry has for decades been problematic even for the most dedicated supporter of capitalism. It is heavily dependent on public spending as it is often assisted by government funding to develop vaccines and medicines and then, once these become available, it needs government spending to buy them. Across the developed world, big pharma has produced life-saving vaccines and medicines, but at times some companies have put profits before safety.
The reputation of big pharma companies is probably higher now than it has been for decades. Their ability to produce several successful vaccines during the Covid pandemic has been remarkable, but their attitude to sharing information and spreading the production across the globe has not developed at the same speed. The case for temporarily suspending intellectual property rights for coronavirus vaccines has growing support, including from Pope Francis and President Biden. While this issue was not mentioned in the gracious Speech, we must hope that the UK Government will pursue this policy.
However much rhetoric there is about making the vaccine available worldwide, the vast majority of stock continues to be hoarded in wealthy countries. They are retaining far more than they can possibly use. COVAX aimed to vaccinate all high-risk people and health workers everywhere, rich and poor equally, during 2021. But better-off nations have gone beyond vaccinating people at high risk and are now determined to vaccinate their entire populations, leaving COVAX struggling to reach only 20% of the most vulnerable during 2021.
The important lesson from this pandemic is that poorer countries cannot rely on the largesse of richer ones; for the future they need their own vaccine capacity. They need access to raw materials and technology, and the waiver of intellectual property rights. We know the well-rehearsed arguments against waiver. First, it is bad for innovation; companies must retain intellectual property rights because without monopolies there would be no incentives. We should remember that it is scientists who develop vaccines, not businesspeople. In the US, $112 billion of public money was spent on Covid vaccine development. In the UK, at least 97% of the funding for the development of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine came from taxpayers or charitable trusts: less than 2% came from private industry. The Prime Minister is in danger of believing one of his own myths if he thinks that the fast development of Covid vaccines was because of capitalism.
The second concern is about quality assurance. This was a common argument during the early days of AIDS treatments that was proved wrong. The technology and knowhow exist and can be further developed, particularly as Covid and its variations will not disappear any time soon, and other epidemics will follow.
Increased capacity across the globe would allow scientists and technicians to target the health issues that are of immediate importance in the developing world, rather than prioritising illnesses prevalent in more developed countries. Cuba is an example of how innovation can be driven by something other than profit. It is a global leader in the South-South transfer of technology, helping low-income countries develop their own domestic biotech capabilities, providing technical training, and facilitating access to low-cost, life-saving medicines. This model puts health before profits and is one where greed is not the driving factor. It should be the example that the developed world follows.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, we are fighting the first Covid world war and we hope that Britain is emerging victorious and ready to help liberate the rest of the world. What is so uplifting is that we are emerging bursting with ideas for our future innovation, invention and investment—and that is our future. The huge debt that we have accumulated must not crush our aspirations. We should all, with a deal of compulsion, contribute to a massive war loan: a government bond which will not be popular and which we will all hate and object to, redeemable at some time, as were other war loans, but paid by our generation, not left to the next and the next.
I declare an interest: for 50 years I, with many others, have sought and achieved sweeping changes to the delivery of healthcare to people, and I am determined to continue that progress. We have proven that, in the Covid war, we can act and achieve at an exhilarating speed. That momentum must not now be thwarted by debt, as we build a new economy for the post-Covid war era. We can infuse energy into our people and approve new products and better ways of delivering that will not just benefit Britain but reach worldwide.
It may seem a small thing, but I note that a report from a review that I chaired on the harm done to women and children has, in modern parlance, gone viral worldwide. Setting new standards for childbirth is ongoing; it is not trivial but part of a revolution sweeping the world. We must not scoff at doing these small things, leaving our world a better place for future generations: that is our mission, and no debt, unnecessary bureaucracy or lack of investment must stand in the way.
I know that many noble Lords have delivered reports to the Government. Civil servants take them in hand; their job is to be cautious and consult widely and wisely with every party that might have an interest—to give due consideration to all facets of the problem. With the vast changes and challenges of Brexit, overlaid with Covid, and a Government who promise to deliver now, for the sake of the country, we must from time to time throw caution to the wind and act decisively in order to win. This year marks the 220th anniversary of the Battle of Copenhagen, when Admiral Lord Nelson put his telescope to his blind eye. There really is a lesson for all of us there.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the two maiden speakers and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on his retirement. I bring the House’s attention to my interests in the register.
There have been loads of speeches today, and I congratulate all those noble Lords who made them. I always see myself as somebody who has come to this House without the experience of the majority of noble Lords here. As I sit here listening to the speeches today, I note that much has been said about the Government and the lack of impact within the Queen’s Speech.
In the last 12 months and more, the country has been in the worst pandemic it has seen since the Second World War. The gracious Speech of the Government was short of impact in addressing the Covid-19 disease, which has taken so many lives. I understand that, in the gracious Speech, the Government needed to address the overall health and care of the nation—but, on issues such as the pandemic, I would have expected there to be mention of an inquiry into the loss of so many lives and the disproportionate impact that it has had on certain ethnic groups.
The disproportionality in the deaths is caused by the structural racism that has existed in the NHS for decades. Moving forward, this will need to be addressed by a public inquiry, which would lay it bare to the nation for all to see. I know that yesterday the Prime Minister did mention in the House of Commons that there will be an inquiry. Not much was said about the date this would take place—no date was mentioned. The Government may not want to look back, but by doing so they will help to prepare for future generations.
On the issue of the take-up of the vaccine, there is a background reason for the vaccine hesitancy in the black, Asian and minority ethnic group. Its mistrust of vaccinations is historic, and the Government need to do more to reassure people from this group that the vaccine is safe and will save lives—and they must not, like before, blame this group for spreading the virus.
The percentages for take-up of the vaccine are 98% for white British, 71% for Indian, 87% for Bangladeshi, 71% for black African and 67% for black Caribbean. The take-up has increased. I believe the local community is best placed to support the Government in going forward with the vaccine rollout.
The work of NHS nurses and doctors, before and during the pandemic, is to be commended, as is their dedication and commitment to the profession. I finish by thanking the scientists for their sterling work in developing the vaccine, which has saved lives and given us a future, so that we can move forward.
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech. I will limit my comments to hospitality and, in so doing, ask your Lordships’ House to note my register of interests.
I welcome Her Majesty’s Government’s focus on support for business. I commend and thank them for what has already been put in place to support the hospitality industry, which is particularly poignant considering the challenging times during which these decisions were made. The Government’s quick thinking and implementation of schemes such as the 2020 lockdown grants, the subsequent tier grants for closure and the current reopening grants—not to mention the furlough and Eat Out to Help Out schemes—have all made this past year just about manageable for a significant part of the hospitality industry.
Together with business rates relief and the reduction of VAT to 5% as applied to goods and services in the hospitality, accommodation and attractions sector, the Chancellor has created a safety net that has been vital in supporting an industry which, pre Covid, was the third-largest private sector employer. Over 3 million jobs were directly supported through UKHospitality—some 9% of all UK employees.
However, in spite of this support, many establishments are in rent and loan debt, and are unable to contemplate the costs of reopening or bringing back staff post furlough. While I very much welcome the announcement that the reduction of VAT to 5% will continue until September this year, and thereafter will be at a transitional rate of 12.5% until March 2022, the hospitality industry would benefit hugely from the 5% rate being extended to April 2023, where significant savings could be made for the industry and consumers. This would be a lifeline to all sorts of businesses across the country, from pubs to restaurants and hotels to cinemas, providing breathing space for the sector to fully recover, saving businesses and jobs, and allowing the economy to bounce back faster.
A society which socialises together is a stronger and healthier society. The UK’s pubs, clubs, bars and restaurants put that into practice every day. Hospitality has always provided social cohesion, but it is also an industry which brings so many people of different backgrounds and abilities together as a workforce, which benefits the UK on many different levels. I hope my noble friend the Minister will consider this suggestion.
Lord Adebowale (CB)
My Lords, in commenting on the gracious Speech, I will limit my remarks to matters relating to health and social care and the proposed Bill that will come before this House in due course. I declare my interest as chair of the NHS Confederation, which represents the leaders in health and social care across the country—the people who will be running the integrated care systems, the primary care networks, the acute trusts, the mental health trusts and the community trusts. It was in talking to my members that these remarks were formulated.
There is general welcome for the direction of the proposed health and social care Bill. The principles that have been set out in the gracious Speech in reference to this Bill—the notion of population health and of reducing both the inequality and the inequity gap that currently exist in our health and social care provision—are most welcome. It cannot be right that the active life expectancy—the expectancy of when your body and functions will start to break down—of a woman in Barking and Dagenham is 55 but in Richmond upon Thames is over 70. We must address that; it is both immoral and a poor use of public money.
My colleagues in the confederation welcome this Bill generally. However, given the warm words, there are four things that I wish to draw the House’s attention to, in the hope that, when the Bill comes to the House, we can take a deep dive into these issues to improve it and ensure that the intentions in the Bill are brought to fruition. I will say a bit about each of the issues, which are: the powers of the Secretary of State; the time for scrutiny; inclusion, about which I might not say what noble Lords think I will; and social care.
The first issue is the powers of the Secretary of State, which appear to be increased in their presence in the Bill and which are comprehensive in their ability to intervene in a way that flies in the face of the very principles of local flexibility that are required to improve health outcomes and address the health inequalities that we all want to resolve. The fact of the matter is that statutory allowances and accountability to Ministers in the current framework allow for many of the issues that need to be resolved in the reconfiguration of health and social care to be dealt with locally, and we cannot understand how the powers of the Secretary of State will add any value. There is indeed a risk that such powers will undermine the very intentions of the Bill, and that the priorities and powers of the statutory integrated care systems will be undermined by central intervention, especially where these interventions are on service changes that those very ICSs should be making. We have one of the most centralised health systems in the world, and we would urge Ministers not to legislate to further centralise it. In short, let local leaders lead.
Let us be clear about the interventions from the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and NHS Improvement. These interventions should be only when strictly necessary, and we should have transparency around how they occur. It would be useful to understand, perhaps through examples, where and when the Department of Health and Social Care or the Secretary of State believe intervention might be necessary. Just to be clear, we currently have independent reconfiguration panels that, following local authority referral, provide clear mechanisms for resolving disputes around local service reconfigurations. Let us have some clarity around the Secretary of State’s interventions. A requirement to make a public direction in writing, with a public interest test, might be something that the House wishes to discuss.
There is also some confusion around appointments to the powerful bodies that will be in the new health and social care structures. The Secretary of State will, I am sure, want to avoid these key posts being in any way politicised, and to confirm that local NHS organisations already have clear processes for the appointment of senior leaders, supported by good governance and, of course, the Nolan principles. Within the new powers, the Secretary of State can change the breadth of the powers of the arm’s-length bodies. I accept that the Secretary of State may need to change these powers, but we need to do so with transparency and with clear explanation, not through secondary legislation. Surely they should be discussed in this place and the other place.
The second point is about time. While the Bill is generally welcome, it needs sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. Judging by the number of emails I have had from the public, this Bill is of great public interest and should be given proper scrutiny. The time given for ICSs to be ready—by April 2022—is incredibly tight. There is understandable concern about aligning boundaries with uppity local authorities, for instance. According to clinical commissioning group leaders, given the time allowed, we would need to start appointing critical executive positions in these new bodies in September 2021.
Thirdly, on inclusion, it is critical that we include the voluntary community and social enterprise sector in the new structures, as 38% of community services are delivered by the social enterprises and the voluntary sector.
Fourthly and finally, I echo the concern and disappointment expressed at the total lack of mention of social care restructuring. We will shackle the future of the NHS and the great hopes for this Bill that are held across the health and social care sector unless we reform and properly fund social care. We need to do so in order to pay tribute to the leadership and hard work of my colleagues across the NHS and social care system. Let us not shackle this Bill; let us free it to do what the public and my colleagues want it to do.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the two new Members who have made their maiden speeches today and offer my best wishes to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on his retirement.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the gracious Address. I would like to concentrate on healthcare, the economy and employment and to point out what I feel the Government should be addressing and have omitted to do. I believe that the focus must be on the needs of people who have been battered by the pandemic, which has exposed the weaknesses in our health and social care services and our economic structures.
It is important that the UK has a strategy for rebuilding the NHS, the social care sector, our economy and our high streets, through a revitalisation programme, and for an employment framework. All these require an integrated strategy focused on the needs of communities coming out of the Covid-19 pandemic. It is regrettable that the Government have not brought forward concrete proposals for health and social care in the gracious Address. As the TUC said yesterday:
“The cost of inaction is failing those who rely on the care system and those who work within it.”
One area where the Government have failed is dementia care. They need to look at that again because there are rising levels of need for dementia care and it became much more acute during the pandemic. That sector requires certain investment in terms of social care provision. Imaginative ideas about how we fund elderly care in general and dementia care specifically are required as the numbers continue to grow year on year. The gracious Address indicates that proposals for social care reform will be brought forward. Will the Minister indicate when that legislation will be forthcoming and what the Government’s thinking is regarding content? Will they ensure that our weakest people are properly protected in a timely way? What steps will be taken to ensure that there is an urgent and long-term boost in funding if we are to deliver a resilient and fully integrated health and social care system?
As other noble Lords have said, the gracious Address does not include any references to an employment Bill. To build back better from the combination of this pandemic and Brexit, we need to see improved pay and conditions of work. In this respect, will the Minister indicate why there is an absence of an employment Bill at this stage and whether this is being contemplated for inclusion at a later stage?
Finally, I will mention two aspects that relate to Northern Ireland. Will the Minister indicate, when he responds, what support will be provided to the aviation sector? It is quite a major sector around the city of Belfast both in terms of aircraft building and of aviation, which is a main tool of connectivity in our tourism industry.
The other aspect is something that has not been addressed today but relates more to justice. I am pleased that the Prime Minister issued an apology this afternoon to the victims of Ballymurphy and their families—that is, the 10 victims who were killed, nine of whom, as it was proved yesterday, were killed by British forces; namely, the Parachute Regiment. The 10th one was inconclusive but they were all entirely innocent; that finding was declared yesterday by Mrs Justice Keegan after a detailed forensic report.
In that respect, I urge the Government to look at the legacy and terms of the Stormont House agreement. First, there should not be any amnesties for people who committed heinous crimes, irrespective of their position. Secondly, any legacy legislation that is being proposed—we need to see the flavour of it—should be based on the Stormont House agreement, which was agreed by the majority of parties and both Governments back in 2015.
Lord Jones (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I offer my congratulations on the maiden speeches and say farewell to the right reverend Prelate.
Britain needs a clear-eyed, long-term, ruthlessly executed industrial strategy. Surely early 21st-century Britain still needs manufacturing industries. We are certainly post-imperial but not necessarily post-industrial—not yet. So, I say yes to AI, the smartphone, cyber, the computer, the drone and the leading edge. However, my hope is that the Government will promulgate with conviction an industrial strategy that, at its core, proposes to save, sustain, protect, enhance and invest in what remains of our manufacturing. To be fair, no Government can wish away the impact of global influences, but Britain’s future prosperity and her front-line defence require our much-depleted manufacturing to be protected from further shrinkage.
I instance the steel industry. Steel is a foundation industry. Today, it is in a very shaky condition. Surely it should not be on the brink of being eroded away. This national industry should not be the creature of sleight of hand, of chance, of boardroom ambition or of money. A great nation requires a sound steel industry. Shorn of steel, Britain would quickly be of less consequence in the eyes of its international partners and rivals. National defence requires steel. Steel is war. It happens. Today, our magnificent Navy has a nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed fleet of submarines. Without the foundation industry of steel, that mighty deterrent would look increasingly ineffective. In 1970, when I entered the other place, British manufacturing approximated 20% of GDP. Today, it barely makes 10%. The nation that lets its seed-corn industries fail will perish.
Today, Britain’s steel industry survives largely on the south Wales coast, on the north-east coast and in my homeland of Welsh Flintshire. When the smokestacks fell in the late 1970s and early 1980s, redundancies rained down on our busy, prosperous steel communities. For example, male unemployment in some of the Shotton steelworks communities reached 20% or more. Huge sacrifices were made by many thousands of good people. What remains there at Shotton is leading-edge and profitable. Let us remember that, in yesteryear, these steel communities helped us defeat both the Kaiser and the Führer. They deserve the best of outcomes and their industry should be prioritised. Our remaining manufacturing needs more research grants, better-prepared school leavers, more effective world-class skilling and ever more enhanced links with our universities.
To conclude, the citizens of Hartlepool have made a devastating electoral statement. Let us heed it.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, and my noble friend Lord Lebedev on their maiden speeches and wish the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth the very best in his retirement.
I am delighted that the gracious Speech focused so much attention on rebuilding and improving all parts of the United Kingdom in the wake of the pandemic. The latest GDP figures are very encouraging, and it is good to see the majority of commentators revising up their forecasts, but, as Bobby Kennedy famously noted, in isolation, GDP measures are somewhat crude. As he said,
“it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile”,
so it is also very encouraging to see the Government commit to addressing so many other areas which do make life worth while, particularly in education, health and the environment.
If there is a positive to take from the pandemic, it is that it has accelerated innovation in the world of work. I particularly welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to harness, in his words, the “extraordinary spirit” that has been on display, particularly with regard to our world-leading vaccine development and rollout programme. I confess that, before the pandemic, I may have been somewhat cynical about the Government’s abilities in this area, but having seen the rollout, I am persuaded that, when carefully managed and thought through, government can play a collaborative role with science and industry. I therefore welcome the fact that R&D spending is now at its highest level in four decades. It is perfectly possible to argue that this level of spending has been thoroughly stress-tested in the pandemic and, obviously, lessons have been learned, but I also welcome the fact that the economic benefits of this spending are clearly laid out: on average, every pound of government spending leverages an additional £2 of private investment and delivers £7 of net benefits. Those numbers need to be carefully monitored and not allowed to slip, but there are strong grounds for optimism that this government commitment will deliver.
I therefore also welcome the commitment to establish the advanced research and invention agency. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on this subject, but I think that international examples of similar organisations, including in the US, more than validate this initiative. It is also appropriate that the Government maintain an arm’s-length process, set a high tolerance of failure and, more generally, launch a review of business bureaucracy to advise on practical solutions to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy.
My final point relates to bureaucracy and its bedfellow, regulation. I note that the Government are committed to improving regulation—indeed, regulators will be getting new powers through this legislative programme, including Ofcom, particularly in relation to online activity. I was particularly pleased to read that the Prime Minister has established a Better Regulation Cabinet Committee, chaired by the Chancellor, to ensure that the Government drive through an ambitious programme of reform that enables and supports growth and innovation across the economy. As we have now left the EU, that is both welcome and necessary, and there are many obvious improvements that can and should be made to take into account this country’s particular areas of interest and skills.
We need to return to two issues that were given a lengthy airing in your Lordships’ House during the passage of the recent Financial Services Bill. First, improving regulation also requires ensuring that the regulators themselves are properly resourced, both with money and personnel, particularly in the area of financial markets. Since the passage of that Bill, there have been more failures. I do not mean business failures, which are inevitable and should be tolerated, as the advanced research and invention agency will do, but failures to perform basic regulatory functions appropriately. There have been far too many of these and I therefore hope that my noble friend will encourage and indeed exhort the Cabinet committee to instigate a thorough overhaul. These agencies are responsible for the foundations of global Britain’s future success.
To that end, I return to a theme explored by my noble friends Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Trenchard, among others: that our regulators must have regard to our global competitiveness. This is not an argument for less regulation, but for nimble, topical and agile regulation that maintains and, in some cases, re-establishes our place as a global exemplar. I hope the Cabinet committee will also commit to that.
Lord Parekh (Lab) [V]
My Lords, every event that has occurred in Britain during the past two years must be seen through the prism of the coronavirus, and the Queen’s Speech is no exception. The virus has highlighted certain deeper facts about our society, some of which were known but ignored while others were unknown or half-known.
One of those important facts pertains to ethnic disparities in health and other areas. The first 10 NHS doctors to die belonged to the ethnic minorities. Sixty-eight per cent of the NHS staff who have died came from within the ethnic minorities. I could go on producing statistics, but they are too well known to be rehearsed. Why is this so? The reasons, again, are fairly straight- forward and have been commented on. They include the fact that many from within the ethnic minorities are front-line workers; they work in high-risk places; they had no or inadequate PPE; they live in cramped houses; and they do not enjoy positions of power and influence, so their complaints go unheard or are unattended to. These are many of the factors which have led to the kind of disparity that I talked about. The Government took some time to recognise their importance, but when they did, they did not do enough, and the ethnic minorities continue to pay a disproportionately heavy price for the disaster that struck us.
It is therefore important that drastic steps be taken not only to level up people but to create a society in which there is a sense of solidarity and common belonging. It is important that the ethnic minorities should not feel that they are under the sufferance of the wider population, or that their problems are only their own and nobody is going to help them.
In that context, we are going to need a massive investment of resources, not only to deal with the ravages of the virus but for those things which have been left undone because of our obsession with it. The backlog of surgeries in our hospitals is enormous and will call for unimaginable sums of money. Therefore, taxes will have to rise. The rich will have to pay far more than they have done so far. But are tax rises enough? Are there other ways in which we can raise resources?
I want in passing to emphasise two points. First, the NHS, which obviously has to have money, should find ways of reducing its expenses. Secondly, it should find ways of increasing its income. Reducing its expenses is important. There are lots of ways in which it can be done, some of which have been talked about earlier, but one way would be to look at schemes such as the merit award, which consultants get. I have raised this issue in the House from time to time and do not quite understand why the award is given. If I as an academic am awarded the Nobel prize, I do not get a penny more from my vice-chancellor. Let us not give merit awards, with all the attendant disadvantages and resentment caused among those who consider themselves equally good but do not get them.
Likewise, on raising revenues, I do not understand why we have not developed a culture of philanthropy—I may be wrong, but I think I am not—in relation to hospitals and the NHS. When people die, they bequeath large sums of money to their schools and their universities, but I am told that the amounts given to hospitals or medical-related institutes are comparatively small. This is not the case in Germany, and I wonder why. Why do we not leave much money to hospitals? Why do we not even think it proper to express our gratitude in these and other ways? I am not saying that the NHS should start charging people. Of course, it depends on two principles: that the Government are responsible for the health of their citizens and that medical services should be provided free at the point of delivery. Those are unchallengeable principles, but consistent with that, a culture of monetary contributions to hospitals should be encouraged.
The last point I want to raise in this connection is the adult dependent relative visa rule, which states that doctors and others in this country are not allowed to bring their parents from overseas unless they meet certain very strict conditions. In the light of this, some of our doctors are leaving the country, or they tend to come here and then migrate elsewhere. The result is that we tend to suffer from the absence of their contribution. I therefore suggest that we take a second look at the proposals from BAPIO, especially the ones that Professor Keshav Singhal and Dr Ramesh Mehta have made, not accepting them in their current form, but with some modifications—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I draw his attention to the fact that he has been speaking for six minutes now and we have an advisory limit of five minutes. If he would not mind bringing his remarks to a close, it might be appreciated.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will try to get what I want to say into five minutes. What attracts me to the Speech are the things that are not there and one thing that is. The thing that is is the attention given to further education.
I was told when I first came to this House, well over 30 years ago, that we have a major problem with skilled staff at what I think was called executive or technician level—levels 4 and 5, in modern parlance. We have always had the problem that this group is not taken seriously because it does not fit into the regular strands of where we think people should go. We have always thought that there was up to decently skilled craftsmen and then there was A-levels. Our education system has pushed people in those directions.
There is no real argument here. The fact is that we spent so long saying that we must get more people into university—up to 50%—then we said we had slightly too many. We then rediscovered apprenticeships, which really do not have a good penetration rate at levels 4 and 5. We now have something that is addressing a real problem and it has taken us only several decades to get there.
To get this working properly we have a couple of things we have to address. The first is making sure that those people who should apply for these training programmes know that they are not a second-rate option. This can be achieved only by making sure that not only our careers service but parents and teachers know that decisions about levels 4 and 5, generally post A-level, are realistic and will actually get you fulfilling employment. They should be seen not as university-lite but as something different and worth while. This will take a structural change in the way that we educate our educators to pass on this information. We have to make sure that someone says that it is a valid way forward, that people get something out of it and that it is not a second option.
The Government have an idea about having a package—okay, it is not a loan. Just about everyone else who has spoken has said that it would be better if it was some form of grant or entitlement, or a package of money to spend on training, but it has to fit into a structure. The Government are talking about this, which is good.
Indeed, before I go on to this, I must declare that the Government have asked me to become an FE ambassador, I think due to my experience in special educational needs. I have something from this group, which has already had an initial meeting to feel out the ground. I mentioned special educational needs. It recognises that it has duties and commitments there, but there is one big problem: we are not even identifying most of those with moderate special educational needs in our system. There is no argument about this. The current set-up in schools—you have a budget that you can take out of the school once you identify a need—is working against this. To get an idea of what we are saying, 10% of the population are dyslexic. I am dyslexic. There are many other issues, such as dyspraxia, dyscalculia and autism. Those at the moderate end, who do not stand out and do not have the tiger parent ripping at the system, do not get identified because the system has very little incentive to make sure that they do.
To show how just how bad that is, there are lots of specialist legal firms to make sure that one gets the identification, but they struggle to get the education and healthcare plans that give one legal status to achieve it. When we put the legislation through the House, we assumed that many people would not need it in order to get assistance. Now they do. The Government lose between 85% and 95% of the appeals which local government spends more than £100 million fighting to achieve identification. There is a horrible hole here. I do not know how many of the population—perhaps 15% or 20%—are covered in this area but those groups will underachieve.
If further education is to get the best out of the system, one has to make sure that it works properly in order to get those people identified. If that does not happen, one runs into problems. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, is not here but we went through great pain, which I inflicted on the House, to make sure that, in order to get an apprenticeship, if one was dyslexic one received assistance in getting an English qualification. One had to write to get the qualification; and that could not be done by voice recognition technology because people did not know about it. I shall stop there.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, it is a great honour for me to respond to the gracious Speech.
The key to delivering back better for Britain will hinge on a buoyant economy. Like many across the UK, I waited with bated breath for the announcement on international travel last week, not least because the aviation, tourism and hospitality sectors have been decimated by the pandemic. Hundreds of thousands of small businesses in the supply chain are hanging on by their fingertips. In normal times, those industries provide more than £200 billion to the Exchequer—the budget of the NHS. Together, they secure more than 4 million jobs, many highly skilled and all well trained. In addition, our aerospace sector is critical in this equation, with more than 50,000 scientists and engineers. In truth, the entire supply chain, large and small, waited nervously for that update and it is obvious why.
Our airports in the UK are losing £83 million a week. British Airways, part of the International Airlines Group, has posted losses of £6.5 billion. EasyJet, Ryanair, Jet2 and many others are losing millions of pounds every day. That does not include tour operators, hotels and SMEs—in fact, the entire supply chain. We have a problem. The statement on international travel was extremely disappointing and, without wishing to let rip or undermine the challenges, which none of us does, I had hoped that the green list would have been more extensive. Notwithstanding Portugal, Israel and Gibraltar, which were already pretty booked up, it was a toss-up between Tristan de Cunha, the Falklands or South Georgia, as well as other far-flung territories, which had me rather stymied—not least because you would probably need a private jet or at least several days to get there.
Not everyone is focused on a holiday. Many have not seen their families abroad for over a year. Businesses need to start meeting face to face because Zoom is not the answer. Even its creator said that he was tired of Zoom meetings and could not wait to sit down and have face-to-face meetings. That brings me neatly back to abroad. The Greek islands, the Balearics and many other European destinations should be on the green list—or be on it soon, at least. Vaccinations are going well and it has to work both ways. We also need to welcome the tourists back to the United Kingdom as soon as possible.
The cost of the tests is also punitive. I cannot understand why, if each household can have two free lateral flow tests per week, they cannot be used for holiday purposes. Either the lateral flow test is fit for purpose or it is not. The travel industry has bent over backwards to accommodate safety measures. It has spent millions but needs more commitment from government. The DfT needs to look again at this matter with urgency, as do the other departments involved.
I conclude by saying that it is time that the majority of people got back to work, because working from home is not a solution. It is fine if you have a garden or you are on full pay, but for the majority it has been purgatory: solitary, depressing and much more. Work is not just a job. It is socialising, it is your well-being, it is going to the pub or for a meal or to the cinema as well as moving up the ladder. If you are not there, you will miss out, in my view. A work/life balance is hugely important but, if you are a haulier, a shopworker, a factory worker, a healthcare worker or in energy or transport, you have no choice: you have to go to work.
So realism now needs to take hold. Confidence is the key to getting back to normality, and it has to be led by all of us. Life is about managing risk. The vaccination programme has been absolutely phenomenal, but now we need to be bold. Our economic recovery is in our hands, and at present it needs all the help it can get.
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register and add my congratulations on the two maiden speeches and the valedictory speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, whom I also will miss.
This is the time to consider the likely developments in our economy. With luck and care, we should emerge from the pandemic. We are now in the first phase of our economic lives post-Brexit. We may be, I fear, in a renewed phase of seeking the break-up of the United Kingdom. The threats of uncontrolled climate change and opaque ethics are now fully upon us. There is probably an undercurrent of rising inflation. My point in saying this is not about gloom, despite the fact that we are at the bottom of the recovery league. I accept that it is possible that we may not face a long-term depressed outlook. The IMF’s world economic outlook suggests faster recovery in advanced economies, with stronger data than anticipated, greater health resilience, which we are enjoying in this country, and a growing impact from the scale of the US fiscal stimulus.
However, it, and I, fear that it is probably not all going in the right direction for our economy. Past impediments to growth following a crisis could have less impact this time. In particular, growth pre-crisis was weak, not unsustainably strong, and government measures have limited, to some extent, supply-side damage. I believe that there are still massive headwinds, but with appropriate legislation they may be mitigated a little. With care about Covid and its mutations, we may avoid permanently damaging GDP to a huge extent, but we will none the less have to navigate with crucial trade partners who are less successful in containing the pandemic.
What should we watch out for? For much more, I fear, than is in the gracious Speech, because we are in a bad place and a Biden-style stimulus package could have been meaningful. First, I strongly commend DIT and BEIS and the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, personally. I have seen the quality of the efforts to bring major green manufacturing to England. They are thorough and energetic and, with the right incentives, they could be successful—but businesses must play their part with equal energy.
Secondly, in the difficult box, the first day of business after the transition period saw $7.9 billion in daily trading—about half of London’s pre-Brexit average—move to EU stock exchanges, and that is a continuing problem. It is a major trauma in anybody’s book. Negotiations to recreate equivalence recognition is mission-critical if London is not to lose its crown permanently.
Thirdly, we would be foolish, perhaps mad, to ignore the fault-lines between the home nations. Our economic and defence infrastructures, not just the tally of parliamentary seats, should tell us that this is an existential threat. The Prime Minister is surely wrong to describe devolution as a disaster; both the home nations and the English regions want their hands, at least to some extent, on the steering wheel. It is our job to help design the best approach to doing that.
Fourthly, I welcome every effort to build back greener by exceeding targets. There is no time to lose on targets and climate repair, but there is yet to be a comprehensive UK plan. Along with my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton, the former Chief Scientific Adviser Sir David King, and Martin Bellamy of Salamanca Group, I have had the honour of creating the Clean Growth Leadership Network, which brings together scientists, businesspeople, policymakers and academics, not just to think outside their silos but to do the job together.
Finally, as important as shareholders’ interests are, the new environment—not least the risks to climate—demands that we focus legislation also on stakeholders. Trust and value must be delivered to a spectrum of stakeholders. What we bequeath cannot be defined simply in terms of shareholders. We are not, after all, aspirant members of the European super league. Economic realities touch the lives of everyone in every community. If we value the future, let us now look at it through this lens and reorientate. We will fail abjectly if we continue to conduct ourselves to the standards set by Greensill or some of the Covid PPE procurements. I hope that simplifying procurement in the public sector will not knock us off the ethics ladder altogether. We are famous in this country for the rule of law, not for an ability to massage it out of shape. Ethical businesses will not come here and invest if we demonstrate indifference to ethics. Unethical businesses will come, and they will harm us. Government integrity is not an optional extra.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this Queen’s Speech. Some noble Lords may lampoon levelling up; I do not. Some in the Westminster bubble may deride the Prime Minister for his vision, but the people of the West Midlands do not, as Andy Street’s fantastic victory demonstrates. One way in which, to his huge credit, the Prime Minister is personally leading the charge is in his national disability strategy that he has promised will be
“the most ambitious and transformative disability plan in a generation.”
The Prime Minister should be lauded, rather than ridiculed, for nailing his colours to the equality of opportunity mast. Many disabled people are pinning their hopes on it, and I am one of them. We have got one shot at this; we need to get it right.
That is why I was delighted to chair the CSJ Disability Commission and to recruit my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson, as well as other distinguished individuals from business, academia and the voluntary sector, to serve on it. We recently published our submission to the Prime Minister’s forthcoming strategy. Covering education, housing, transport, access to goods and services and, of course, employment, the submission is appropriately titled Now is the Time. For, more than a quarter of a century after your Lordships’ House passed the Disability Discrimination Act into law, and five years since its ad hoc Select Committee conducted its authoritative inquiry on the Equality Act 2010 and disabled people, the time for warm words—for non-disabled people to tell disabled people what is good for them—is over. I believe the PM gets this, and appreciates both the scale of the challenge and the urgency of meeting it with tangible, visible proof of how his levelling-up agenda will make a difference to people’s lives.
I appreciate that some may ask why now should be different. After all, we have been here before. As many noble Lords will know, this is not the first strategy for disabled people—but the difference, I believe, is in the business appetite for change. Nowhere was that more evident than in the amazing list of business leaders who signed the open letter to the Prime Minister in the Times last month, welcoming the launch of the commission’s submission to his strategy and urging him to show in his strategy that he has given careful consideration to its recommendations.
Time does not allow me to list the blue chip companies that signed the letter, as I did in the debate on the economic recovery on 20 April, at col. 298 of the Grand Committee, but I will touch on some of the commission’s employment recommendations. They include extending mandatory gender employment and pay gap reporting—which a Conservative Government introduced and which Ministers in this Government have said is working —to disability and other protected characteristics; creating more supported routes into employment through supported internships; leveraging government procurement, worth some £292 billion, to drive up the number of disabled people in employment; and reforming both Disability Confident and Access to Work to make them fit for purpose. The signatories were clear in their message to the PM. They said that
“Disabled people have waited long enough; now is the time for action”.
They are right.
In conclusion, equality of opportunity is a business imperative, so let us unleash the power of business to level up through enterprise, talent, and equality of opportunity. That is the way to make the Prime Minister’s promise a reality.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome new Members to the House and offer my best wishes to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth for his retirement.
Adam Smith said:
“No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which by far the greater part of the numbers are poor and miserable.”
Yet economic justice and redistribution are absent from Her Majesty’s gracious Speech. The wealthiest 100 people in the UK have as much money as the poorest 18 million people. This concentration of wealth and related power is damaging to every aspect of our society. Even before Covid, 14.5 million people, including 8.1 million people in working families, were living in poverty. Some 4.5 million children live in poverty. It is the highest number of people living in poverty since figures were first collated in 2002, and the numbers are expected to rise. It is a matter of national shame that people have to rely upon food banks and charity to survive. Do the Government even care about this?
In 1976, the workers’ share of GDP in the form of wages and salaries was at 65.1%. Zero-hour contracts, anti-trade union laws, a low minimum wage, wage freezes and job insecurity have reduced that share to 49.4%. This decline is unmatched by any other democratic country on this planet. Millions of people are denied access to good housing, food, healthcare, education and pensions, and are condemned to an early death as a result, yet the Government have no policies for improving workers’ share of GDP.
People on low incomes will inevitably rely upon state pensions in later life, yet despite the triple lock the average UK state pension is around 29% of average earnings. It is the worst in the OECD countries. Thousands of retirees die each year due to lack of heating. Nearly 3 million Brits are malnourished, and 1.3 million of these are retirees. If the Government care, they need to align the state pension with the minimum wage. Why should the state pension be less than the minimum wage?
Regressive taxation has deepened social injustices. The poorest 10% of households pay, on average, 42% of their income in direct and indirect taxes, compared to 34.3% by the richest 10%. VAT, council tax and national insurance are examples of regressive taxation and there is no reform in sight, yet the Government continue to shower more gifts upon the rich.
There is no qualitative difference between earned and unearned income, but capital gains are taxed at rates between 10% and 28%, compared to earned income which is taxed at marginal rates varying from 20% to 45%. Most of the beneficiaries live in London and the south-east of England, and the capital gains tax regime has exacerbated regional inequalities.
Tax relief of around £40 billion a year is provided on contributions to pension schemes. Most of it goes to individuals paying income tax at the rate of 40% and 45%. Just 10% of taxpayers receive 50% of the tax relief. Some 1.3 million individuals with earnings below the tax-free personal allowance receive zero help with their contributions to pension schemes. Why are the Government content with this?
The Government have increased tax-free allowances, though they will be frozen until 2026. The increase in personal allowances has not changed the burden of tax on the poorest, as I stated earlier. It does absolutely nothing for the 18.4 million individuals whose annual income is less than £12,500 a year. No doubt the Government will claim that they are providing £4.8 billion for their levelling-up fund for local infrastructure. However, this investment simply goes into the pockets of corporations, while workers remain poorly paid, insecure and disempowered. I would welcome a detailed reply from the Minister.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, in common with my noble friend Lady Fookes, I can look back at over half a century of Queen’s Speeches, and they have various things in common. They all remind me of that Punch cartoon of the curate’s egg: they are good in parts. They are rich in aspiration, prolific in generalisations and generally fairly poor on detail.
I had proposed to speak about the constitution, on which there is that wonderful sentence:
“My Government will strengthen and renew democracy and the constitution.”
Well, you cannot object to that, but detail is there not. I was going to talk about that tomorrow, but my noble friends will understand when I say that that my wife has her second jab on Friday morning and the LNER trains are all to pot, so I cannot go back to Lincoln later than tomorrow, and so I will have to try to entertain your Lordships tonight.
The whole of this Queen’s Speech is, of course, in the shadow of Covid. I direct my brief remarks to two aspects, one general and one specific. First, on the general, I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Foster has left the Chamber, because she was very eloquent on the subject of travel. I believe that we have to concentrate on this country and making it safe. With all these variants in various parts of the world, we must be excessively careful as to how we compile any green lists. We have to make sure that, in this particular case, it is the United Kingdom first. It may be sad if people are not able to have the holidays they normally would—but not half so sad as a fourth lockdown, which would be totally devastating to our economy. I beg the Government, and my noble friend in particular when he replies, to reassure us that there will be ultra- caution on the travel front.
My specific point is one I have raised in your Lordships’ House before, and it concerns some of the most vulnerable people in our country. I refer to those who live in our care homes. I have raised several times with my noble friend Lord Bethell, and indeed other Ministers, the question of those who work in care homes. I have cited one example of a great friend of ours, whose mother is 99 and in a care home. Of course, she has had her vaccinations. Our friend has to put on, very properly, protective clothing and all the rest of it when she goes to see her, and she was not able to hold her hand until very recently—and yet, at least 30% of the workers in that care home have declined vaccination. I believe that the Government have to be a little bit authoritarian here. After all, they have been authoritarian in many other ways—we have not been allowed to have people in our homes or to do many things we would ordinarily do. It is crucial that we make sure that this sector of the community is given the full protection it needs and deserves.
I agree with something else my noble friend Lady Foster said earlier, when she talked about getting back to normal. There is nothing I want more than getting back to normal in your Lordships’ House. It is absolutely appalling that so few of us can be in the Chamber. I understand that the Commons intends to be normal after 21 June—well, so should we. The place of a parliamentarian is in Parliament, not on Zoom. Although I warmly congratulate both the maiden speakers today and hope to see much more of them, I was delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, spoke in the Chamber and I was sad that the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, delivered his excellent speech on Zoom. We are colleagues; we are parliamentarians. We have to be together, working together. It is essential that we do, because otherwise the country suffers. Parliament is essential to the well-functioning democracy talked about in that vague sentence. I say to my noble friends in government: we have to get back to normal to hold you properly to account. If we do not, the country will be the poorer. If there are people working in Parliament who have not been given their jabs, they should be given them as a matter of total priority.
Lord King of Lothbury (CB) [V]
My Lords, after such a long debate, can there be much to say, especially—in deference to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—on Zoom?
The gracious Speech contains many items of proposed legislation, but their success will depend on one overriding factor—the economy. As we slowly emerge from the pandemic, I believe there is one key challenge: the need to change the structure of our economy and to shift spending and production from low to high-return activities.
Last week, some headline writers became rather excited over the latest Bank of England forecast that the growth rate of the UK economy this year would be the fastest in over 70 years. But even if that forecast were to materialise, the level of GDP at the end of this year would be no higher than at the end of 2019. The level of output is far more important than is suggested by excitable comments about record rates of decline in 2020 and then record rates of recovery this year, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, pointed out at the outset of this debate.
Although levels of GDP are more informative than growth rates, the real challenge ahead concerns the structure of the economy. We need to prepare for and support changes in the composition of total spending and output. For over a decade, an extraordinary degree of monetary stimulus has failed to generate sustained growth, not just in the United Kingdom but in the industrialised economies as a whole. Interest rates close to zero have permitted zombie companies to survive. As a result, excess capacity has built up in some sectors, while others have been held back. In the United Kingdom, the task now is to rebalance the economy away from private consumption and toward investment and exports. That will not be easy in a world still suffering from the economic consequences of the pandemic, and when sterling’s trade-weighted exchange rate is actually higher today than it was a decade ago. In addition, the proportion of our national income that we save and invest remains well below the average for other advanced economies.
All this was true before the arrival of Covid-19, but the pandemic has underlined the significance of changes in the structure of our economy in two ways. First, we can now see that resilience is just as important as efficiency. We learned that lesson in the banking crisis more than a decade ago, but we did not apply it to the rest of the economy. Resilience of healthcare systems, the risks posed by “just in time” delivery systems and the susceptibility of economies to border closures all suggest that economic activity will be organised differently in future.
Secondly, the pattern of demand for services, ranging from air travel to hospitality and digital services to entertainment, will change in ways that are simply impossible to quantify today. There will be a period of trial and error before we settle on a new pattern of spending and output. The furlough scheme was crucial to protect viable businesses and jobs in sectors vulnerable to the short-term consequences of lockdown. Retailers, restaurants and entertainment venues forced to close their doors needed fiscal support. But as restrictions are relaxed, so fiscal support should be withdrawn, and we will then discover which sectors will survive and thrive and which will not.
Aggregate monetary and fiscal stimulus cannot correct a structural misallocation of resources. If the gracious Speech is to achieve its objectives, a much broader range of policies will be needed in the years ahead. Some of the aspirations in the address—to promote research and development, and to support training to enhance lifetime skills—go in the right direction. However, we have some distance to travel, and it is to the structure of our economy, rather than the macroeconomic outlook, that we should pay most attention.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, I will call the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, in the hope that he has been reconnected. Lord Young. No? In that case, I will call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it was indeed an honour and a privilege to be in Her Majesty’s presence at a distinctive State Opening of Parliament, and I wish to convey my earnest respect for her dedication and service to our country.
I wish to make some general points today, to warmly congratulate my noble friend Lady Blake and the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, and to sincerely thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth for his service to our House.
As we end the blessed month of Ramadan, I accept glad tidings from wherever they come, hence I welcome many aspects of the gracious Speech. However, I note with regret and disappointment the lack of any meaningful indication of what is to happen to social care and employment rights. This will further expose many vulnerable adults, particularly those living with disabilities, to more pressures, pervasive poverty and gross inequalities, depriving them of access to dignified care and independence, directly contravening the Government’s own levelling-up and equality obligations, which, by their design, acknowledge that inequality is embedded within our communities.
The pandemic also held up another grotesque horror: increased violence, particularly against women, signifying pernicious gender divisions. It was indeed an honour to participate in debates on the Domestic Abuse Bill, but the Act’s full implementation will require not just law but full funding. A number of distinguished noble Lords have highlighted the imminent danger of the Government overlooking young people’s mental health and well-being, as well as the millions who are in low employment and suffering hopelessness. I echo their sentiments. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, will acknowledge and address the desperate situation of sexual harassment, rape and stalking within higher education establishments. Notably, those in charge have been slow to protect victims and survivors and to address these safeguarding matters, which are equally pervasive within secondary schools, as was reported this week by the BBC.
Violence against and harassment of women and girls are indicative of our societal and structural norms of acceptance that violence and discrimination are okay. A lack of gender equality remains persistent within our political parties, which continue to accept that the lack of diverse women’s leadership in public office and leading institutions is permissible. Government Ministers also persist in not recognising the detrimental impact of racism and Islamophobia within our institutions. What steps will the Government take to ensure that our institutions and public spaces are reflective of all parts of our society and communities? Does the Minister agree that gender balance and inclusive diversity are essential for a successful country and economy?
Time allows for only a brief reference to the desperate plight of the many families who are living in substandard homeless accommodation. Like other noble Lords, I am concerned that the proposed housebuilding could lead to further divisions among our communities unless there is due attention to developing safe and good-quality family homes.
It would be remiss of me not to salute the resilience of our communities, many of which have suffered the terrible heartache caused by over 128,000 deaths. Equally, I give my respect to all the community and charitable organisations whose selfless acts have meant that families had access to basic food where government could not provide it. None did more than Sir Tom Moore and our own East End equivalent, centenarian Dabirul Islam Choudhury OBE, who continues his efforts for the NHS and other charities.
Finally, Muslims across the world will tomorrow celebrate Eid ul Fitr, following a month of fasting; they have also continued to donate millions to charitable causes. My best wishes go to all Members and staff who will also be celebrating.
We live in an interdependent world. We witnessed the critical collaboration that was necessary during the pandemic and which restated how we need to work together for the betterment of humanity. We are promising to educate 40 million girls—like Malala—across the globe, on the basis of valuing their human rights. I ask our Government to be fair and just to the plight of Palestinians who have suffered enough from the brutal occupation and repression of the Israeli Government. None of us can feel safe and secure anywhere unless we are safe in all corners of our world.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
My Lords, in spite of every assurance that the NHS is “safe in our hands”, we find that, especially in England, we are seeing an erosion of it in so many ways. I am so grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said—I am so grateful that I am living in devolved Wales and Scotland, where health powers are in their hands, because we must be sure that they will keep the health service safe there. However, in England, there is privatisation by stealth.
Recently, at least 59 GP surgeries have been sold to giant American insurance companies. Half a million patients have been handed over to American financial interests. We have wealth put before health, and reports state that one company has made a profit of £35 million in the last five years, so I ask the Government to look very carefully at whether this should continue. Some leaders in the health community wrote to Matthew Hancock, asking for an investigation by the Care Quality Commission into the whole situation, which has transformed and can undermine so much if we allow it to continue.
I am old enough to remember the doctor’s bill coming to our house and those of the people in Llewelyn Street in Conwy—and how some could not afford to pay. On the other side, I remember my profoundly deaf mother receiving the first hearing aid—what a day that was. We all celebrated because she was able to hear the tick of the clock for the first time since her childhood. I want people to continue to be able to receive the benefits of an NHS that is safe in our hands and those of all who are in any needy position at all.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, has withdrawn, so the next speaker will be the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will address the issue of agricultural training. Some 12 weeks ago, I heard that Newton Rigg College, a prominent agricultural college in the north-west, was being systematically run down by a predator college—Askham Bryan College, in York—behind a wall of limited financial reporting. We were witnessing the appalling betrayal of a 125 year-old historic county land-based educational institution by a team of Yorkshire accountants to pay off Askham Bryan College’s escalating debts.
It turned out that Askham Bryan College, which was in financial difficulty and had an overstretched policy of acquisitions, had, behind closed doors, been methodically stripping Newton Rigg College of its student body, assets, equipment, reputation, apprenticeships, land bank, excellence, high-quality staff and national reputation. Those who have been responsible for this outrage should hang their heads in shame as they now proceed to sell off its assets through estate agents Savills in a grand fire sale.
It was only when documents were leaked that we finally learned of the duplicity involved in this whole disgraceful affair. I say to those who are interested in feasting on our tragedy by destroying Newton Rigg College’s assets: we do not want you. What was once a viable institution, paying its way, has been driven through neglect into financial difficulty and ruin by Askham Bryan College.
Askham Bryan College’s only interest has been the value of Newton Rigg College’s £12 million 1,000-acre land bank. To it, it is no more than a saleable asset that it acquired for nearly nothing in 2010 and that it is now proposing to use to pay off the substantial debts incurred on its operations in York. Its claim to have invested millions is totally misleading: it includes student income raised in York from students in Cumbria; money spent on a farm and other projects, in part grant-aided, which was used to boost its balance sheet; and over £3 million in rents, which it received from the new University of Cumbria.
These transactions have all taken place in the name of a charity, thereby enabling them to hide Newton Rigg accounts from public scrutiny. They claim to be open and transparent. This is not true. The financials governing Newton Rigg’s relationship with Askham Bryan’s operations are seemingly opaque and clouded in secrecy. There is no one in Cumbria who knows the full truth, although the whole story is now beginning to unravel. They paid almost nothing for the whole Newton Rigg property estate in 2010, which they now hotly deny with a play on words and dates. When questioned on this deal of the century transaction, they always respond in their press releases by referring to post-2011 transactions. Well, we are not fooled. We now want our assets back, so that we in Cumbria can rebuild what they have destroyed through a combination of commercial greed and incompetence.
Last month, after considerable struggle, we managed to secure a parliamentary Select Committee inquiry. The inquiry exposed their hollow case, as MPs rendered them speechless when they were confronted by hard questioning. What we now know is that Askham Bryan, after discounting for grant aid, seems able to account for only a few million of net expenditure on Newton Rigg. We are still working on the figures. Reports suggest that they want up to £12 million in their asset fire sale. I await with interest their similarly discounted expenditure figures. We are witnessing a huge profit on the back of incompetence, and Cumbria is paying the bill. My noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere, who will follow me in this debate, will advance an alternative approach later. Askham Bryan needs to listen to him; he has a convincing case to make.
Lord Sarfraz (Con)
My Lords, your Lordships’ House is full of one thing—semiconductors; computer chips. They are in our cell phones, in our laptops, in those screens, in the audio system. They are also in our vehicles outside, in our microwaves and washing machines at home and in every ventilator and every operating theatre across the country. We are a nation addicted to semiconductors, we cannot live without them, yet we are in the middle of a major global semiconductor crisis. There are simply not enough semiconductors being manufactured to meet global demand. This has very real implications.
Last month, BMW was forced to stop production in its Oxford Mini plant, and Jaguar Land Rover stopped production in two of its plants, in both cases because of a lack of semiconductors. Thousands of individuals work in these facilities. While we look ahead to a promising, packed legislative agenda outlined in Her Majesty’s gracious Speech, we must remember one thing—that all our ambitions in green technology, fintech, space ports, free ports and electric vehicles cannot be achieved without security of semiconductor supply. We design some of the best semiconductors here in the UK, but we do not make them. For the most part, semiconductors are made in east Asia. The two major UK chip designers are owned by Asian businesses. We are entirely dependent on a supply chain over which we have no control. This needs to change.
Today, a coalition of technology companies in the US has launched an alliance to promote domestic semiconductor manufacture. It has joined the President of the United States in asking Congress for $50 billion of funding to boost semiconductor manufacturing in the US. So, as we debate the Queen’s Speech, we must make sure we have the raw computing power we need to grow our economy. This is a matter of independence in technological sovereignty, just like energy security or food security, and should be recognised as such.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the two maiden speakers and offer my good wishes to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth.
I will focus on the proposals for mental health reform in the Queen’s Speech. No details were provided, but it seems clear that any proposals will be based on the White Paper that was published in January of this year. As a former chair of Broadmoor high-security hospital, a former chair of the West London NHS Trust, which incorporates high, medium and low-security facilities and also provides local services, and a former chair of what was then the mental health review tribunal, I agree with many others that there was much to be welcomed in the Government’s reform of the Mental Health Act 1983, set out in their White Paper.
The White Paper was followed by a consultation, which ended last month. No details have yet been published of the views of consultees on that White Paper, or of the Government’s response. Would the Minister please confirm whether, and if so when, the results of the consultation and the Government’s response will be published? It will not be possible to examine properly any proposed new legislation without knowledge of those matters.
It is noteworthy that some important matters in the White Paper were said to be more appropriately contained in a revised Mental Health Act code of practice rather than in legislation. It is important that the House has the opportunity to consider revisions to the code at the same time as considering proposed revisions to the Act. This would enable the House to be satisfied that the appropriate vehicle is used for any revisions to law and practice and that nothing slips between new legislation, on the one hand, and the revised code on the other hand. Can the Minister confirm when the revised code of practice will be made available and how it is proposed to co-ordinate revisions to the code and consideration of the new legislation?
This is important because, to take one example, the White Paper does not address at all issues relating specifically to high-security facilities. The chief executive of the West London NHS Trust and clinicians there say, for example, that the proposed increased frequency of automatic referral to tribunals—which is a government proposal—may have a deleterious and traumatic impact on the well-being of Part III secure patients. This point was also made a week ago by some patients in a meeting with Rethink, the mental health campaigning organisation. Another feature of ongoing significance for patients who have come through the criminal justice system is the perennial difficulty and delay in obtaining places in prison to which they can be returned on completion of in-patient treatment.
There are other matters relating to children and young people that are said to be better placed in the code of practice rather than in legislation, illustrating the importance of the code and why any revisions to it must be read alongside proposed legislation. Will the Minister give the assurance that that will be possible?
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has explained in his usual robust and graphic manner the plans to close Cumbria’s agricultural college—proposals that have resulted in widespread anger, right across the county. I continue to pursue that discussion on Newton Rigg, with its 1,000 acres of land, including a state-of-the-art dairy training farm and the National Centre for the Uplands—the only hill farm in the whole country owned by an agricultural college.
Askham Bryan College in York, which acquired Newton Rigg for just £1 about 11 years ago, has found itself now in dire financial straits and is on the verge of bankruptcy. It is hoping to avoid this by putting Cumbria’s Newton Rigg up for sale, expecting a windfall of £12 million. The young people are having their land-based college stolen from them.
But it does not have to end in tears: there are solutions. First, the Government must step in through the Education and Skills Funding Agency and sort out Askham Bryan’s debts. This may involve spending money—but far less than if they do nothing and let the closure of Newton Rigg and the asset sale proceed.
With Askham Bryan and its staff and students safeguarded, the assets of Newton Rigg, including the two farms, should be transferred to a Cumbrian educational trust to be held in perpetuity for the people of Cumbria and their future education. Trustees and governors would come from local authorities, relevant interested local businesses, the Cumbrian LEP and educational experts of Newton Rigg Ltd.
Short-term arrangements for further education training have already been made in conjunction with Myerscough College in Lancashire, but this might be enhanced in conjunction with Newton Rigg Ltd, which is working to become an independent FE college as soon as the system allows. It has carefully costed plans for modern apprenticeships, agricultural tech and a rural business village. This vision will take time to realise but will return Newton Rigg to its proper place, serving the people of Cumbria and the north with a modern, rural college providing a wide range of education—agriculture as well as environment, equestrian as well as gamekeeping—and a whole range of rural activities. But be in no doubt that the preservation of the facilities at Newton Rigg is vital to the success of this scheme. The solution is then clear and the cost relatively small—a tiny fraction of what it would cost in the future to set up a replacement college from scratch to fill the gaping hole in the wide-ranging rural education in the north.
We should not be encouraging one failed college to pay off its debts by ruining another college in a neighbouring county. That is indefensible, and one can understand—and I share, as does my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours—the anger of the people of Cumbria.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, and the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, on their maiden speeches and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on his valedictory speech. We shall miss his wise counsel. It is an honour to have this opportunity to welcome the gracious Speech delivered yesterday by Her Majesty.
I am delighted the people have given such a ringing endorsement of the Government’s policies, as shown by the results of elections held last Thursday. The Government’s build back better strategy has hit a chord with voters up and down the country. They are also happy that the Government have got Brexit done and made such a great success of the national vaccination programme. I particularly welcome the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee. Advances in healthcare and medical treatment enable people to enjoy longer working lives, and this means changing careers and training afresh for the next stage in a working life.
The skills and post-16 education Bill should enhance skills and training through reformed technical education and apprenticeships, particularly in sectors where employment will increase, such as construction, digital, clean energy and manufacturing. However, to ensure this increase is realised, the Government must capitalise on our recovered freedom to regulate better as well as build back better. Nowhere is this more true than in the life sciences sector, where the MHRA can now adopt a less bureaucratic and more proportionate regime than that applied by the EMA. This is necessary to ensure the UK can continue to lead the world in pioneering new treatments—a “science superpower”, in the Prime Minister’s words.
It is also essential that we do not throw away the advantage gained by the most successful vaccine programme by unnecessarily extending Covid restrictions on opening up the economy, and I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s more upbeat and optimistic approach to an early end to the debilitating restrictions that we have endured for so long. This is by far the most important precondition for economic recovery. As my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out in the debate on the economy on 20 April,
“the recovery will come as soon as we end the lockdown.”—[Official Report, 20/4/21; col. GC 268.]
I agree with him. The Bank of England is now forecasting that GDP is expected to grow by 7.25% this year, the biggest spurt since 1941. The bank’s chief economist has expressed concern that household and company spending are now surprising significantly and persistently on the upside.
I strongly welcome the Government’s policy to introduce eight freeports, and ask my noble friend the Minister what discussions he has had with the devolved authorities to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom will benefit from this initiative.
The Government face an enormous challenge in disentangling Britain from the EU state aid regime. It is of course true that we have been much more reluctant to deploy state aid in support of declining industries than have most of our erstwhile EU partners, and it is good that the subsidy control Bill will enable us to design a state aid regime tailored to the UK’s needs.
To achieve the Government’s avowed intention to level up opportunities and make the country more prosperous than before, it will be important to reverse the unwelcome freezing of the income tax personal allowance and higher rate threshold and the increases in corporation tax rates as soon as the recovery permits because, as has been shown time and again, reducing taxes attracts new investment and produces a net benefit to the Exchequer. In this regard, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who yesterday advocated significant tax rises just at a time when businesses need to be encouraged to grow and create new jobs to ensure greater prosperity for all.
It was good to hear Her Majesty’s confirmation that the public finances will be returned to a sustainable path once the economic recovery is secure. Can my noble friend confirm that he agrees that the sustainability of the public finances will be best assured by reverting to an attractive tax regime which will maximise new investment, the creation of new jobs and prosperity across the whole country? I strongly agree with what my noble friend Lord Bridges said on this subject.
The measures to strengthen the economic ties across the union by investing in national infrastructure are welcome, but the gracious Speech was silent on the UK infrastructure bank, which the Chancellor said in March would be put on a statutory footing as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows. I have no time to comment on other measures, but I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s winding-up speech.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Queen’s Speech promised yet another major structural change in the NHS. Well, it is no surprise that the Government want to do away with the wretched Health and Social Care Act 2012, which cost billions and wasted years, but I question their timing. Right now, the NHS, local authorities and the voluntary sector are still battling Covid-19. In implementing these proposals, the risk is that health and care services will be distracted from dealing with the crisis at hand and the tremendous backlog of patients who need urgent treatment.
Nothing in the legislation will address the chronic staff shortages, deep health inequalities and urgent need for long-term reform of social care. The proposals represent a marked shift away from the focus on enforced competition that underpinned the coalition Government’s 2012 changes. That is welcome. At the heart of the changes is the proposal to establish integrated care systems—ICSs—as statutory bodies made up of two parts: an ICS NHS body and an ICS health and care partnership. The ICS NHS body will be responsible for NHS strategic planning and financial allocation decisions. What is not clear, as NHS Providers has reported, is how the accountabilities of all parts of the local health system will align without duplication, overlap or additional bureaucracy.
It is even less clear when it comes to the ICS health and care partnership, which will be responsible for developing a plan to address the system’s health, public health and social care needs. It appears to have no authority, with the ICS NHS body and local authorities required merely to “have regard to” what this new body says. Why has local government not been brought more into the core of decision-making and accountability? Why are the largely ineffective health and well-being boards to continue to operate separately?
NHS Providers has also spoken of its concern that the Government’s planned powers of direction for the Secretary of State are too far-reaching. Many of the proposals give Ministers far greater powers over NHS England and other arm’s-length bodies, including the power to intervene earlier in local decisions about the opening and closure of NHS services.
I certainly worry that the forthcoming Bill gives too many powers to Ministers through secondary legislation. The White Paper argues that these are needed to enable the Secretary of State to respond more flexibly to rapidly changing circumstances, such as those seen during the pandemic. Yes, but those powers are not needed outside the pandemic, and it is not clear why reducing parliamentary involvement in this way is merited. If Ministers insist on seeking direct control of NHS England, that means they can no longer hide behind the decisions of a quango and will have to report and account to Parliament on many more detailed issues than now. I hope they realise that.
The proposals predominantly aim to reform the NHS. However, the NHS does not work in isolation—public health, social care and the NHS are closely connected. There is clearly a risk that, in setting out fixed plans for the NHS, the options for public health and social care reform become limited.
What about the needs of non-acute services? It is noticeable that the White Paper has not made it mandatory to have representatives of mental health and community trusts represented on each ICS board. Why not? What about community pharmacy, optometry and dental services?
It is also clear that the restructuring has little to say about the real challenges facing the NHS and social care. On social care, we are told virtually nothing. After decades of reviews and failed reforms, the level of unmet need rises, the pressure on unpaid carers grows, the supply of care providers diminishes and the strain on the undervalued care workforce ever increases. Social care remains severely underfunded, with the most deprived areas being worst hit. More than a million adults who need social care are not receiving it—the system is riddled with unfairness. There is no confidence that the Government will come up with anything near a coherent and funded plan. Until they do so, the promised NHS Bill can be only a pale shadow of what is required.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. The gracious Speech outlined a number of policies, but what hit me particularly was that it underlined a great vision—for jobs, full employment, lifelong training, the younger generation moving from Generation Rent to Generation Buy, and prosperity.
On the economy, let us not forget that we are in a very fortunate position. Last year our economy was devastated by Covid. We faced the most serious loss of output for 300 years, and the real prospect of mass unemployment. The Government acted promptly and quickly; we can now expect growth this year of over 7%—just in the Budget, it was forecast at only 4%. This is an extraordinary achievement. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England deserve great credit and our thanks for their courage and judgment.
I am the 85th speaker in this debate and I wish to be brief. I strongly agree with the levelling-up agenda in the Speech. It provides a lifetime skills guarantee and massive investment in further education and improving communities, not just providing ladders to escape but reviving those communities. There are certain things which only the Government can deal with and which the private sector cannot: one is climate change; another is the pandemic. Much as with national insurance, which we introduced at the beginning of the 20th century to cover unemployment benefit and then the creation of the NHS, people welcome greater public resources being moved into training and rebuilding communities, almost as a form of social insurance. We may well be at a turning point in our society, much as we experienced under Prime Ministers Attlee and Thatcher.
However. getting the public sector right is only half the story. The other half is getting the private sector right. As the infrastructure is rolled out, we must ensure that we have a private sector of investment and businesses ready to take risks. For that, we must ensure that we have a market economy that is in good health, in which markets are transparent but not overregulated and certainly not subject to high taxes. Low taxes, as has been mentioned by a number of speakers, are key to an enterprise economy. The great challenge facing the Chancellor is how to restrict the growth of public spending without increasing taxes at the same time, which will undermine it.
My second point concerns the importance of the detail of policy implementation and not simply policy in terms of ideas, framework, and design. This was mentioned in the context of further education by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and by my noble friend Lord Cormack, who is not in his place at present—
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach (Con)
He is behind me. Thank you—the invisible man.
If I learned one lesson being in No. 10 for five and a half years as head of the policy unit, it was the difference between the design of a policy, the ideas in a policy and the implementation of a policy. I saw it in the privatisation of gas, electricity and so on, and in education reform. In the gracious Speech we have a terrific statement of intent. To make it happen, we need implementation.
Are there any risks which could undermine everything in the gracious Speech? There is one: inflation. The Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility are quite relaxed about it, but I am not so sanguine. Globally, we are seeing a tremendous boost to the economy. We are seeing bottlenecks and shortages, as was mentioned. The monetary aggregates are increasing too much, and the fiscal and monetary boost is enormous. Inflation is not mentioned at all in the Queen’s Speech, but a pick-up in inflation such as that which we saw in the 1970s is the one thing that could undermine the great economic proposals in it. It is therefore time to tackle that subject, and not to delay.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak in person in this debate. This is my first opportunity formally to thank all the staff who have worked tirelessly to get us online and to welcome some of us back. I declare my interests, as set out in the register, as chair of ukactive, vice-president of the LGA, a member of the Centre for Social Justice’s disability commission and chair of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award. My interests cover many of the areas to be debated over the next few days.
I am delighted that Her Majesty’s Government recognise that, while they are delivering a national recovery programme, our nation being healthier is seen to be of vital importance. This is an issue close to my heart. There is an incredible opportunity to encourage and support people to be active in a different way, but the real test is the support that will be offered to gyms, pools and the leisure sector, both public and private, and to the millions who depend upon them.
I would like to pick up on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and his disability commission. Disabled people face many inequalities that have only been increased through Covid. The pandemic has shown that there are many opportunities for everyone to work differently, but I urge Her Majesty’s Government to look closely at the recommendations that the commission made specifically in relation to work, which will fundamentally help improve the lives of disabled people in a number of areas. Equality of opportunity is a business imperative and disability policy should not solely be in the hands of the Department for Work and Pensions.
I was delighted to see mention of improving connectivity by rail and I will be seeking an assurance from Her Majesty’s Government that they will make a serious commitment to step-free access. That will help not only disabled people into work but the economy—we should not forget that the purple pound is worth some £12 billion a year. Such help would also transform the ability of many people to travel independently. I do not want to have to wait until 2070 for accessible rail to happen—that is the latest estimate, which has been moved back from 1 January 2020. Another 50 years is surely too long.
I return to the safety and security of citizens. I hope to see legislation introduced that will cover positions of trust, making it illegal for a coach to be in a sexual relationship with a 16 to 18 year-old. Given that such relationships are illegal for teachers, many assume that it is the same for coaches. We have to protect coaches. This is not about criminalising a 21 year-old in a relationship with an 18 year-old, but about stopping the predatory and potentially repeated behaviour of those in a position of power. I also seek the introduction of mandatory reporting to not allow others to turn away and pretend that they have not seen something or to hide behind the excuse of, “Well, they’re a good coach”. There must be, across every sport, appropriate reporting mechanisms to allow this change to happen. Our children’s safety is imperative.
There is much work to be done on elections, and I know that there is a lot of strong feeling in this area. I hope that as much as possible will be done to make voter registration easier, to enable everyone to have their say.
I am delighted that education and the amount of time that young people have missed due to Covid are part of this debate. Again, we have another opportunity to think about extracurricular activities—perhaps a way in which to bring in physical activity—as well as about non-formal education. I am already discussing further education and increased opportunities for young people with the Department for Education, and I look forward to continuing that discussion.
Finally, I welcome this Queen’s Speech debate and look forward to working with the whole of Her Majesty’s Government in this Parliament across a number of different areas.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, at the end of a long and fascinating debate, I wish to speak about children—those under the age of 18. I echo the words of one of the first speakers, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who spoke about child well-being. Many other speakers have mentioned child development in a very moving way, and it is reassuring to know that that concern in very much alive in your Lordships’ House.
The Local Government Association report in relation to Covid, A Child-centred Recovery, speaks of working together to achieve change and development, following a crisis that has had a disproportionate impact on children’s lives. If this is not addressed in an inclusive way, many children will be damaged and will not achieve their full potential, thereby making levelling up almost impossible. A holistic approach to the problem would involve local authorities and services, the voluntary sector, communities, families, children and government departments talking and acting together. We have seen how a lack of consultation and working together is more costly and less effective. Systems must work together. Head teachers, while welcoming extra money for schools, have pointed out that more should be spent on the underlying causes of problems such as child poverty. Levelling up has to start way before children become adults.
With Covid-19, we have had a situation of monumental complexity and distress. Children have faced family bereavement, isolation, increased poverty, loss of public services such as in health and education, increased domestic violence and increased child abuse. Some services were inadequate before Covid struck due to lack of funding, giving rise to inadequate structures and severely overworked professionals. Child and adolescent mental health services are an example, and now we will need them more than ever, as Covid has given rise to enormous increases in the number of children needing mental health support.
Schools have gone through crises of indecision and have had to adapt teaching methods, including online learning. Parents have had to pick up the pieces, and many have found this difficult. Children have not been able to socialise, and speech and language development has suffered, with the potential for poor reading skills. Babies have had less interaction with other adults, including grandparents. Access to sport, the arts and culture has suffered. Catching up on education must consist of not just academic inputs but a broad range of educational experience, both for its own sake and to open up opportunities for young people, to enable them to gain social skills, confidence, empowerment and resilience.
What can the Government learn from the specific example of children during Covid? Well, children are the future and, if they do not function well, the future is bleak. And we need to create a society that functions well. I suggest emphasising the following. We need to ensure a minimum level of income for families, as well as sustainable resources for services dealing with children and adequate salaries for professionals dealing with children, especially vulnerable children. We need to consult professionals and communities, including children, about the best ways forward. We need to carry out longitudinal surveys that show how children are affected by Covid and how they develop over the next few years of their lives, and then act on that learning. We need to ensure that children have a voice, as they bring fresh perspectives, and we need to ensure that all legislation has a child impact assessment attached. We need to identify good practice; there are many wonderful efforts involving children, but who knows about them? We need a Cabinet Minister responsible for children who would co-ordinate all action for children in a visionary development plan and identify good practice. That is now accepted by parents, children, the voluntary and statutory sectors, and many politicians. I hope that the Government will listen to those pleas.
We must look at what comes next, building on deficiencies revealed by Covid and looking for new ways to work and treat people, paying particular attention to the future of our children.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, this has been an absolutely fascinating debate. I can say with confidence to the Government that they can expect the Bills that they bring to this House to be extensively amended and, of course, improved.
I begin with the two maiden speakers that we had today and our sadly retiring speaker, because each raised a point that I would particularly like to pursue. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, talked about productivity outside London. She absolutely hit on this issue—productivity, which we find so difficult to shift and change, has to respond to local needs and local opportunities. I hope very much that, as we look at the various skills and other agendas that the Government pursue, they absolutely recognise and home in on that, because I have great fear of a much more centralised approach that will do nothing, just as it has done nothing over the past decade.
I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, and I probably look at life rather differently, but he talked about hungry children. I hope that I am not putting words into his mouth, but I think that he seemed distressed that it required a generous charity to make sure that some children actually get a decent meal on any day. If he was implying that it is right that, in a country like ours, every family should be able to feed their children properly, I hope that he will take that message back to the Government, as it has such implications for universal credit, job structures, educational opportunities and public service funding. I hope that he takes that message strongly back to the Prime Minister.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, whom we will miss so much, said something that I think no one else has picked up in the House today and which was central to our discussions. If we are to achieve levelling up, we have to come to terms with and deal with the abuses and uncertainties in the gig economy. For that reason, I am particularly sad that the employment Bill, which we expected to find in this Queen’s Speech, did not make it, because that would have been the opportunity.
Indeed, it would have been an opportunity to deal with the even broader issue of self-employment. This House will know that I have been so frustrated that 3 million self-employed contractors have not been supported in any way throughout the Covid process. We are going through extraordinary change. Around this House, people have acknowledged the digital change that will come with the fourth industrial revolution and the change that will sweep through as we try to cope with getting to net zero and confronting climate change. All of that will drive a significant increase in self-employment. It has been creeping up on us year after year. The pursuit of a proper framework that follows on from the Matthew Taylor report has often been promised in this House and in the other place. The employment Bill would have been such an opportunity to deal with these issues and create that framework for the future.
Let me turn to the two issues that have occupied much of the time in this House. I will deal with them only briefly because they were covered so well by others. On social care and the NHS, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, put her finger on the key issue; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, echoed and filled out some of what she said. We cannot sort out the NHS until we deal with social care because the problems in and inadequacies of social care spill constantly into the NHS. Therefore, creating the reform of social care as something to follow NHS reform is entirely the wrong way round.
I want to pick up on another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—not just by her, in fact, but by a number of other speakers. We are facing a crisis. Right at the beginning of our debate, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, pointed to the extraordinary clinical backlog that the NHS is trying to deal with. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, put a number on it: 395,000 patients. Noble Lord after noble Lord talked about that clinical problem. A state of crisis is not the moment to start carrying out organisational reform. I very much hope that the Government will think through that timing and order again.
Of course, there are a lot of other issues, whether it is the shift of power to the centre or the workforce strategy that we do not have. I am desperate that, after all these years of discussion, we still do not give parity to mental health issues. Then there are all those unpaid carers who have been utterly neglected; in fact, most of them did not even benefit from Covid protections because they were on legacy benefits.
The other big issue is that of lifetime skills. I come from a party that has wanted a lifetime skills strategy for years, and we have only part of one coming through here. I share the concerns that the lifelong learning scheme is based on a loan mechanism. It seems that the group of people at whom it is targeted is the least likely to want to take on additional debt. We need a scheme that entices people to use it and to increase their skills. I agree with others, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that excluding people who already have a level 3 qualification undermines the scale of change that we need in our skills base. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Knight, who talked about the problems of loans.
In my remaining time, I want to focus on the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, and to expand beyond them, because the underlying problem that we are dealing with is structural and economic. We have the fourth industrial revolution coming down the track, climate change, the issues of the self-employed and the problems of productivity, but we also have the impact of Brexit and are watching a slow bleed in many of those businesses and industrial sectors, particularly financial services but far from that alone, that have been the backbone of our economy for years—and, frankly, I do not think that free ports provide anything like the answer; they are just a way of shifting business from one area to another. We have to be honest and say that most of the new trade agreements that we have seen have been inadequate to make up the export opportunities that we desperately need.
I am concerned about the problem that sometimes dare not speak its name and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, finally did. We are at risk from inflation driving up interest rates. We have an overwhelming level of public debt. I join others in saying that I hope we can gradually roll that off over time—such luxury—but in my lifetime there have been so many economic shocks. I remember Gordon Brown thinking that he had ended boom and bust and that all kinds of flexibility were therefore available to him. How we think this through is fundamental. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord King, that turning to money supply as the way to manage or stimulate growth is now well demonstrated as completely inadequate; we have to use fiscal forces if we are to be able to achieve it. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, addressed this issue to some extent, as did the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble friend Lord Razzall. I probably would not agree with the solutions that they came to. We may have to turn to taxes as one mechanism to help us bring the debt under control. I do not believe that a low-debt environment is a constant stimulus to economic growth. We went through a period of very low corporate taxes and it did us no good at all, frankly; we saw investment fall rather than rise.
In the environment that we are in now, where we have the shocks of Brexit and of Covid, the fundamental challenges of climate change, the fourth industrial revolution and an underlying problem in productivity, we need a long-term economic plan. My fundamental criticism of everything within the gracious Speech is that there is no long-term plan. There are bits; there are pieces; there are ideas. There is not even a replacement for the cancelled industrial strategy, which, ironically, delivered us the vaccination programme and the capacity in life sciences that we have lauded so much. That is my main and deepest concern about the programme which the Government have put forward.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
It is our first day discussing the gracious Speech and we have had almost 90 speakers, so the first thing I need to say is “good luck” to the Minister responding to the outstanding contributions and pertinent questions that have been put to him.
I welcome the two maiden speakers. As I expected, my noble friend Lady Blake drew on her huge experience. We are confident that my noble friend will be a huge asset to our Benches and to the House. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, speaking from the Cross Benches, will gain much from joining the distinguished ranks of outstanding expertise and independence of party alignment that he will find there. I am sure that we will also miss the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, whose forthright and—if I might say—sometimes progressive views have been greatly appreciated in your Lordships’ House. I wish him all the very best in his retirement.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Watson and other noble Lords—my noble friends Lord Winston, Lord Bassam, Lord Monks, Lady Morris, Lady Blower and Lady Massey—for their high-quality and comprehensive questioning of the Government’s education and training proposals, apprenticeship schemes and the lack of an employment Bill in the Queen’s Speech.
I realise that lumping together the economy, business, health and education in this debate is the Government’s idea of playing to their theme of levelling up, mentioned by many noble Lords. The problem is that the levelling-up agenda seems to be faltering and to be inconsistent; it is jargon without substance. Will it really tackle the inequalities of our country—the inequalities of race, poverty, distribution of wealth, and gender—and the sorts of problems that my noble friend Lady Lawrence outlined? Is it the case that Downing Street briefings suggest that financial constraints mean that it will be impossible to deliver?
Indeed, there is no doubt that this crisis has pulled back the curtain on the Conservatives’ insecure economy. It did not create opportunities for people across the country and left us badly exposed to the virus. We have had one of the worst death tolls in Europe and, while Covid has closed much of our economy, as my noble friend said, the Conservative Government have crashed it. This has been recognised by the OBR, which believes that a short-term initial recovery will quickly revert to the sluggish GDP growth of recent years, with an unemployment level that might reach 6.5%.
I was confident when I saw that my noble friends Lord Davies, Lord Eatwell, Lord Haskel, Lord Triesman and Lord Hain were all speaking today that they would be putting the important questions to the Minister. They certainly have, by saying that the only way to get the public finances back on to a firm footing is to secure the economy and get Britain on the road to recovery. I think my noble friend Lord Eatwell summarised in five minutes what the Government need to do.
Does the Minister agree that transforming social care must be treated as an economic priority, because the sector is as much a part of the economic infrastructure as roads and railways? The Labour Party recognises this, as does the US President, Joe Biden, who has included an investment in home care as part of his post-pandemic infrastructure plan. Will the Government do the same?
The Government’s sticking-plaster approach to supporting businesses has left firms hanging by a thread. Will the Government stand by their commitment to do “whatever it takes” to help businesses and workers through this next phase and recovery? Part of doing so involves the contents of the public procurement reform Bill: reforms to public procurement to help SMEs get better access to government procurement, which is absolutely right. Can the Minister guarantee that social enterprises, mutuals and co-operatives will not be excluded from this legislation and that due regard to social value regimes will be there?
I will pick up on a point made by my noble friend Lord Haskel about free ports. It appears that the Government have made a catastrophic blunder by signing trade agreements with 23 countries which include clauses that prohibit manufacturers in free-port zones from securing these perceived benefits. Is this indeed the case? What are the Government going to do about it?
I turn to health and social care—on International Nurses Day. I have, at least once a week while your Lordships’ House has been sitting in the last year, praised and thanked our NHS for getting us through the last 14 to 16 months of the pandemic. To our scientists, the volunteers, the auxiliary staff, the porters and those who have delivered the vaccine, we have all registered our thanks. This has been the public sector delivering what we needed it to deliver, in sharp contrast to the appalling waste of public money in the early days of track and trace. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to a public inquiry into Covid.
The test of whether this Queen’s Speech genuinely delivers for the people of Britain is whether it brings forward a proper rescue plan for the NHS and delivers a social care solution, as the Prime Minister promised on the steps of 10 Downing Street almost two years ago. What is the timetable?
I was very dispirited reading the blurb the Government published alongside the gracious Speech, which says:
“The Bill will include provisions to allow us to get much better data and evidence about the care that is delivered locally.”
What nonsense! What evidence? What more evidence do we need that social care needs to be reformed? It sounds like kicking it into the long grass again.
Can the Minister confirm that we will see a draft mental health Bill very soon and it will go into pre-legislative scrutiny? Perhaps he could tell us what the timetable for that will be.
There are so many neglected areas in our health system—for example, dentistry. Millions of people have struggled to access NHS dentistry as the pandemic hit. Will the proposed reforms ensure that both primary and secondary care dentistry will be protected?
Public health, where we need a focus on tackling health inequalities, has been alluded to, but, with the creation of a new body in the middle of the pandemic and the previous 10 years of funding starvation and neglect of what were very effective public health services, can the Minister confirm how much the Government intend to invest to support public health services in the UK? How will they be integrated into the new proposals for health and social care?
Ten years ago, many of us attempted to persuade the Government that the then Health and Social Care Bill—the Lansley Bill—was a bad idea. I was very pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Owen, was in his place today, because he joined us in trying to persuade the Government to change their mind on that Bill. Well, we told you so. The promised NHS Bill has at its core the reversal of key aspects of the Lansley Act. The cost, both monetary and in terms of wasted opportunity, runs to many billions. The NHS must not repeat this waste—so why a Bill now? The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and my noble friend Lady Donaghy said it. Why is the NHS Bill being presented when recovery from the pandemic must have priority? It is far more important that the NHS recovers from Covid, that there is a solution to social care, that we invest in mental health, that we repair the destructive break-up of public health and that we have a sensible long-term workforce plan—to name just five priorities that must be ahead of reorganising the NHS. However, we can agree that competition for care services does not work and has not worked in the interests of patients, staff and often even the providers of care—so good riddance to that.
As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, there are some serious challenges in the White Paper proposals, with a complexity and multiplicity of bodies involved in planning and commissioning. Almost nothing is said about the vital role of patients, carers, families, voluntary organisations and communities in shaping how services are provided. This is a major weakness.
We can all agree that integrated care is better than disintegrated care, but structures alone do not produce integrated care. A culture change, robust accountability and strong governance—these will be what we examine when the Bill reaches your Lordships’ House. We will be strong in our scrutiny of how the new provider selection regime is set out in statute and guidance. It must eliminate pointless competition while not making crony contracts and outsourcing easier.
The new regime must bring total transparency, with no commercial confidentiality nonsense. The cost of doing business with the NHS should be to be a decent employer and a taxpaying and honest organisation. My noble friend Lady Bakewell flagged up in her speech the dangers we face here.
I look forward to the Minister’s response, but I ask that his noble friend the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, might address some of the questions he might not be able to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure, privilege and—as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, pointed out—somewhat of a challenge to respond to today’s excellent debate on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech, opened so eloquently by my noble friend Lady Berridge. She spoke in her opening remarks of many of the priorities that this Government will focus on over the next Session and gave us a snapshot of the breadth of work that the Government will deliver on. Consequently, we have heard from numerous speakers today—almost 90 of them, in fact—engaging with different topics and making very valuable contributions to this debate.
I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, for his maiden speech, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for her excellent maiden speech. They both join this House with valuable experience, and I look forward to engaging and debating with them both. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, spoke of Leeds United. I am a Newcastle United fan, and it gives me no pleasure whatever to admit that Leeds have scored seven goals against Newcastle this season, and the less said about our respective positions in the league, the better—although I am comforted that we will both be returning to continued competition in the Premier League next year, and I am sure that we will give them more of a challenge next season.
I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on his valedictory speech and associate myself with all the remarks that have been made by many noble Lords about his considerable contribution to the business of the House during his time in office. I know that he has been particularly focused on welfare reform and poverty and has given considerable service to the people of his diocese for over 10 years. I understand that he is now into his third week of retirement, which was particularly well timed with the end of lockdown and which will give him an opportunity to enjoy a well-deserved break and retirement. I am sure we wish him all the best for the future.
With so many topics to cover, it might indeed be easy to miss the forest for the trees. As we talk of building back better, climate change, green recovery, skills training, education, recovery and opportunity, it is important to remind ourselves of the dramatic context in which we are operating. There are of course huge challenges all around—there can be no doubt about that. However, I hope that there will be equally little doubt about how committed the Government are to tackling them. Our ambitions for the next Session are therefore not solely about recovering from the pandemic; they are about recovering in the right way, so that what comes after is greener, fairer, more resilient and more productive than what has happened before.
As our economy reopens, our schools get back to normal and our freedoms expand again, the Government have a legislative agenda to make the most of each of those challenges, whether that be embedding green options into our recovery, investing in skills and education, supporting the life sciences sector or continuing to support workers and businesses across the whole of the UK as they look for life to return to some kind of normality. In all of this our vision is both optimistic and realistic: built on the strengths of our four nations and a belief in our diverse people. When we talk about levelling up, that is indeed what we mean: uniting everyone behind a shared vision of a brilliant, pioneering United Kingdom, believing in the people of this great country and giving them the means to build their success in their own particular way so that, when we look back at this crucial moment in history, we will be able to say that this country led the way.
When it comes to leading the way, this country has been a true pioneer in the fight against Covid-19. I agree completely—for a change—with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, when she talked about the work of the NHS, our researchers and pharmaceutical companies. Their work has really been outstanding this past year and I am sure I speak on behalf of the whole House across all Benches in offering my heartfelt thanks to those heroes.
Surely the most welcome news of the last 12 months has been that more than two-thirds of the UK adult population have now received a first dose of a vaccine—myself included. That is entirely to the credit of the groups that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and I have mentioned. They have shown what can be achieved when our health sector is given a clear goal, a lot of support and the freedom to think for itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Owen, asked about our preparation. For many years the UK has held and kept up to date preparedness plans for pandemic influenza and other infectious diseases, which provided a solid foundation from which we elaborated our response to the Covid-19 pandemic. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, also just mentioned and as noble Lords will be aware, the Prime Minister today announced a full independent inquiry to begin in spring 2022. That is the right place to examine the response and learn the lessons that we will need to learn for the future. We now need to turn to the continued recovery of the bedrock of health services which the NHS is world renowned for.
A number of noble Lords spoke directly about the waiting list for patients. We are committed to recovering from drops in services caused by the pandemic, but it will of course take time. This year we are investing over £1 billion to help the NHS recover further and faster from the latest wave and to begin to address backlogs in elective care.
Many noble Lords made valuable contributions to the debate on health and social care—I probably lost track of all of them, but they included the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Tyler, Lady Bowles, Lady Walmsley, Lady Blower, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, my noble friend Lord Ribeiro, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, and many others. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked—as did, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton —about the contribution of the health and care Bill and how it will help local areas prioritise patient access. The Bill puts forward proposals for integrated care partnerships, bringing together NHS and local authorities to design and prioritise services for patients and the public, ensuring that they get the care and support they need.
In response to the second question from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, integrated care boards will have to set out how they will manage conflicts of interest. Moreover, in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, in his question about how NHS reform will keep people healthy, integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships will give the NHS the means to identify priorities, including around prevention.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked why there is no alcohol strategy. This is because the Government are already committed to publishing a new, UK-wide, cross-government addiction strategy. This provides opportunities to do more work on alcohol, particularly for those drinking at high-risk levels. We are considering the emerging evidence on the increased alcohol harms and alcohol-related health inequalities which have been seen during the pandemic and what further action is needed as we develop the scope of the addictions strategy.
My noble friend Lady Chisholm rightly spoke of the challenge of the recovery of diagnostic services; this is a priority for the NHS. Additional capital and revenue funding has been made available to deliver additional diagnostic capacity through new community diagnostic hubs and pathology and imaging networks.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, spoke about the welfare and morale of NHS workers; they were right to raise this important issue. As we emerge from the pandemic, it is vital that staff have time to recover and to receive the ongoing support that they need. For some people, time off will be enough; others will need more specialist support and interventions. The NHS has established a people recovery task force to develop a framework and a set of interventions to support this. Local organisations can implement this framework flexibly, depending on their own particular situation.
I pay tribute to all noble Lords who raised the issue of mental health, which is so important. The past year has been tough for many people. The public have shown great resilience during these challenging times, but we know that the pandemic has had an impact on the mental health and well-being of many people in this country. The Government have published our mental health recovery action plan, backed by a one-off, targeted investment of £500 million, to ensure that we have the right support in place over the coming year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, spoke of funding for dementia research. We are strongly committed to supporting this vital work. The Government are currently working on ways to significantly boost further research on dementia, to meet commitments made in the Conservative Party manifesto.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, spoke about tendering in the NHS. The Cabinet Office is reviewing the full range of legislative proposals set out in the White Paper and is in discussion with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that we work together to shape procurement across government. The Government are clear that health and care data should be used and/or shared only where it is used lawfully, treated with respect, held securely and where the right safeguards are in place. Noble Lords should expect nothing less. The UK’s high standards of data protection will be maintained; trade agreements will not undermine—and have not undermined—the safeguards that we have in place for health and care data.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked whether the Government would consider making Covid-19 testing VAT exempt. VAT is a broad-based tax on consumption, and the standard rate of 20% normally applies to most goods and services, such as testing kits. However, medical testing administered by registered health professionals is exempt from VAT. The Government continue to offer free Covid-19 testing to those with relevant symptoms and everyone in England, including those without symptoms, is able to take a free rapid coronavirus test twice a week.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler, Lady Bowles and Lady Jolly, spoke about social care. The Prime Minister has been clear that long-term social care reform is a top priority as we emerge from the pandemic. We will be working with local and national partners, including those with direct experience of the sector, to consider how we deliver the sustainable improvements that we all wish to see.
There can be no doubt that, without the efforts of our health sector, this country would be in a far worse state than it is in today. The same can be said for many of our businesses, which have shown extraordinary resilience over this past year. From businesses forced to close to those finding new ways for employees to work from home, employers have had to adapt as never before.
At the same time, many workers faced the prospect of losing their incomes as high streets ground to a halt and offices closed their doors. This has been a challenging time for millions of our fellow citizens and for businesses across the country. I am proud to say that the Government have been there to help them, every step of the way. The Prime Minister has already announced that step 3 of the road map will go ahead as planned next Monday, bringing a further degree of normal life that will be welcomed by all—although, of course, he also stressed the need for us all to remain vigilant. Alongside this, the Government’s package of support has evolved with the path of the virus and will continue to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, spoke about the choices of how long to continue this support. As an example, the Government’s policy to extend the CJRS until the end of September goes beyond what many businesses have called for. The CBI asked for an extension until the end of June and the British Chambers of Commerce asked for an extension until the end of July.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths, Lord Lebedev and Lord Sikka, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, talked about the important subject of child poverty. The Government are committed to helping vulnerable families and have acted swiftly to provide support during the pandemic through their package of welfare measures. Her Majesty’s Treasury’s analysis published alongside the recent Budget shows that government interventions have supported the poorest working households most as a proportion of income. The Government have also recently extended the subsequent winter package to provide further support for children and families beyond winter until 20 June this year.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Monks, Lord Haskel, Lord Bassam and Lord Watson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Blower, Lady Ritchie and Lady Kramer, asked about the employment Bill. Given the profound effects that the pandemic is having on the economy and the labour market, we do not think it is right to introduce an employment Bill while the pandemic is still ongoing. In the interim, the Government have taken unprecedented but necessary steps to support working families and businesses and to protect jobs. We will continue to do so.
On the gig economy, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth asked about, the Supreme Court judgment upheld employment law status as it stands. Other operators in the gig economy will undoubtedly be looking at the Uber Supreme Court judgment, and should also ensure that they are fulfilling their legal responsibilities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about flexible working. The Government have committed to consult on making flexible working the default unless employers have good reason not to. This consultation will be launched in due course.
While building back better, we also have to build back greener. My noble friend Lord Bridges spoke about the need for government to help businesses to go green. I completely agree. Andrew Griffith MP has been appointed by the Prime Minister to be the UK’s net zero business champion ahead of COP 26. Indeed, I have spoken alongside him at a number of events on this very subject. He is energetically encouraging UK businesses to sign up to climate action via the Race to Zero science-based targets initiative, championing the actions that businesses are already taking, and helping them to exploit the many opportunities of the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Finally, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, that I completely agree that inclusive diversity is crucial to a successful economy, and Eid Mubarak to all those who are celebrating this week.
On top of the challenges that come from working at home normally—lack of access to colleagues, working from the kitchen table and so on—many parents have faced an additional hurdle: taking on responsibility for home-schooling. Some people prefer to educate their children this way, but for the vast majority it is not a choice that they have made. Education is the foundation on which our society and economy are built. It is vital that we ensure that it is inspiring and as consistent as it possibly can be, which means supporting schools, colleges and universities, giving young people the opportunities and the access to the ideas that they deserve.
Recovery is a vital. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, speaking with the benefit of all her experience, asked when further information would be forthcoming about the schools catch-up programme. The Government are working with the Education Recovery Commissioner, Sir Kevan Collins, to develop an ambitious long-term plan that builds back a better and fairer education system. We will make an announcement on the long-term recovery plan in due course.
The noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Winston, spoke about support for schools. This Government are delivering the biggest funding boost for schools in a decade, which will give every school more money for every child. We increased core schools funding by £2.6 billion in 2021 and we will increase it by a further £4.8 billion and a further £7.1 billion by 2021-22 and 2022-23 respectively, compared with the 2019-20 baseline. This includes additional funding for children with special educational needs and disabilities.
I always welcome comments on disability, including from my noble friend Lord Shinkwin. The Government have an ambitious agenda on disability We are investing in a range of provisions to help people with disabilities get or stay in work, and we will publish a national strategy for disabled people shortly, which I hope will reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.
The noble Lords, Lord Clark and Lord Campbell-Savours, raised the issue of Newton Rigg. We are aware of the many challenges faced by Askham Bryan College and its Newton Rigg campus and have been working to identify a sustainable solution for its future. But it is important to bear in mind that further education colleges are independent of government, and the decision to close the campus was taken by the governing body of Askham Bryan College—but we have taken careful note of the comments from both noble Lords.
Also important were the points on freedom of expression raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill will ensure that universities in England are places where freedom of speech can thrive for all staff, students and visiting speakers, contributing to a culture of open and robust intellectual debate.
The noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Eatwell, spoke about R&D funding and European schemes, including Horizon Europe. The Government will make available an additional £250 million in 2021-22, and £400 million of the funding announced at the spending review 2020 will support the Government’s priorities and help to pay for association to the Horizon programme. As a result, UK scientists will have access to more public funding than ever before.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, also asked about ARIA. With ARIA, the freedom to make its own decisions will be central to its success, and that means scientists, not the Government, setting its research priorities. I hope the noble Lord will agree that the Bill balances that necessary independence with good governance, and as that is a Bill I will be taking through, I look forward to debating this matter further with him.
Of course, one of the principles underlining this Queen’s Speech is lifelong learning. As I am sure many noble Lords with children and grandchildren have learned in the past year, you are never too old to learn something new, whether that means getting to grips with video calling—remembering to unmute yourself, which is my problem—and seeing a familiar face from afar, getting to grips with algebra to help with homework, or learning how to exercise better, paint, play an instrument or even to just relax. We never stop being capable of adapting and improving, and the Government recognise that.
As we strive to take our economy in a greener, more productive direction, we have a duty to ensure that no one gets left behind. While our growth will be built on many of our existing strengths and skills, where new skills are required, we are committed to providing the training and education that people will need to attain them. On this topic, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, asked about sectors not covered by the lifetime skills guarantee. The Government are of course keeping the list of qualifications and the sector subject areas in scope under review to ensure that they adapt to the changing needs of the economy. Qualifications not included in this offer will, of course, still be eligible for advanced learner loans.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Baker, with his immense experience of education policy, asked about careers provision. We will introduce a range of measures to incentivise schools and colleges to prioritise careers guidance and to hold them to account for the quality of their careers programmes, including a strong statutory framework, tougher enforcement and an Ofsted review of provision.
While I acknowledge that this is a debate that could—and, I am sure, will—carry on into the months and years to come, I am afraid that it is time for me to draw my comments to a close for today, before I get the Whip’s warning. In doing so, I again thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this enlightened and important discussion. I trust that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, will cross-examine my spelling and grammar with the same vigour that she has deployed in today’s debate.
The gracious Speech sets out a clear, confident vision for the United Kingdom’s path ahead: high tech, open for business, conscientious and inclusive. As we leave this most difficult of years behind, we are seeing the opportunities in the challenges and, I hope, in our people. We will build back quicker, greener and better than before, and I sincerely believe that in this parliamentary Session, we can set this country and this place on a path to a brighter future.
Dormant Assets Bill [HL]
Wednesday 12th May 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Dormant Assets Act 2022 View all Dormant Assets Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text