House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands) [V]
Employing 17 million people and generating £2.3 trillion in turnover, small and medium-sized enterprises are vital to increasing UK trade. That is why we are continuing to seek SME chapters and SME-friendly provisions throughout all our free trade agreements. Outside the SME chapter, the wider benefits of the agreements—for example, reducing customs costs, supporting intellectual property rights, facilitating mutual recognition of professional qualifications and increasing regulatory transparency—will help to level the field between SMEs and large businesses.
Mr Speaker
Mr Hollinrake is not here, so we will go instead to the shadow Secretary of State.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Small and medium-sized farms across the country are rightly worried that this weekend’s agreement with Australia and the precedent it will set for future trade deals will not just undermine their business but destroy them. Last November, the Minister of State promised these farmers that the new trade and agriculture commission would mean that
“all the National Farmers Unions…will play an active role in assessing trade agreements going forward”—[Official Report, 17 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 190.]—
and that as a consequence the farming industry’s interests would be “advanced and protected” by the TAC. Does he stand by those statements today?
Greg Hands [V]
I thank the right hon. Lady for those questions and I absolutely stand by that. We are involving NFUs from all four nations; I have met NFU Scotland’s Martin Kennedy twice in recent weeks. We are confident that the new trade and agriculture commission will be up and running in good time for it to conduct its statutory review of the Australia free trade agreement.
Emily Thornberry
I thank the Minister for that answer but the British farming industry knows the truth: the trade and agriculture commission it was promised to defend the interests of British farmers is not the one advertised by the Government this week, and my question to the Minister of State is simply this: why? What are the Government so scared of? If they are confident that their deal with Australia will benefit British farmers, not undermine them, why do they not have the courage of their convictions and establish the trade and agriculture commission on the basis that farmers were promised last November and let the voice of British farming deliver its verdict on the deal?
Greg Hands
We—myself, the Secretary of State and the whole of the Department for International Trade—listen very carefully, of course, to the voices of British farmers. The Secretary of State opened expressions of interest to become members of the trade and agriculture commission just this week. It is very important to understand that the role of the commission never has been to advise on negotiations; its role will be as debated and approved during the passage of the Trade Act 2021 and the Agriculture Act 2020, and we are looking forward to seeing its scrutiny later this year.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Many happy returns to you today, Mr Speaker.
SMEs make up the backbone of the Scotch whisky industry and the Minister likes to talk about whisky, so let us talk about the reality for the industry resulting from the Government’s trade policy. Speyside Distillery, winner of best whisky at the world whisky awards, tells me that sales are dramatically down since Brexit and that this Government’s awful Brexit deal has led to the cost of its goods going up by a fifth—up 12% on glass and up 7% on cardboard—and increased shipping costs and delays. Extra paperwork alone is costing it 33p per case. It tells me that a deal with Australia will not even scratch the sides of its substantial losses from Brexit, so what additional support and compensation will the Government pay to distilleries such as Speyside for these losses?
Greg Hands
I am delighted to hear the Scottish National party raise the subject of whisky, because it did not do so in the urgent question two weeks ago on the Australia trade deal. I remind SNP Members that Scotch whisky currently faces tariffs going into Australia; it is one of Scotch whisky’s most important markets and is a growing market even during the pandemic. In terms of trade volumes with the European Union, we are continuing to see a recovery in the data. This is of course volatile data, but none the less there was a 46% increase in exports to the EU in February and a further 9% increase in March. Further data will be coming out in due course.
Drew Hendry
As ever, when presented with the realities the Minister just spins into Brexit fantasy. They just do not care about Scottish businesses. There is a good reason why the SNP has never supported Westminster’s trade policy, and that is because Scotland’s needs are always ignored. The UK Government said fishing was expendable during the EU negotiations in the ’70s, their Brexit obsession dragged us out of the world’s largest single market, and now they are betraying our farmers and crofters all while capitulating on standards in animal welfare. They do not listen to Scotland and they do not care about Scotland, but is the Minister aware that they are being found out in Scotland?
Greg Hands
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has been listening carefully enough to what I have been saying to him about the SNP and trade deals. It is not just Westminster trade deals that he and his colleagues have rejected; they have even rejected the trade deals negotiated previously by the European Union. He has pledged to rejoin the EU, in which case Scotland would become immediately subject to those trade deals. He also wishes to rejoin the common fisheries policy, which would be completely against the interest of fishers right across Scotland.
The SNP has never supported any trade deal. It has been against the Canada and South Africa deals, and it has not supported the Japan or Singapore deals. It is simply anti-business, anti-trade and against the interests of the Scotch whisky industry and of Scottish fishers.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
We are making significant progress with our free trade agreement negotiations. We have just launched a consultation on the new, improved trade agreement with Canada, we are in the final stages of our FTA with New Zealand, and we are in the midst of resolving the Airbus-Boeing dispute with the US.
Mr Hollobone
Does my right hon. Friend think it is right that the EU should have greater access to the UK market than our friends in New Zealand?
Elizabeth Truss
Next week we have the New Zealand Trade Minister, Damien O’Connor, coming to the UK, and we are working on a gold-standard agreement that will give us more access to Pacific markets at the same time as further deepening our economic relationship with a long-standing and trusted partner.
Mr Speaker
Let us go to the Chair of the International Development Committee.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]
Happy birthday from Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Mr Speaker.
The point of trade deals is economic growth, but as the Secretary of State well knows, the trade deals with the US, Canada and New Zealand will make up only about 4% of the Brexit damage. However, signing a Swiss-style sanitary and phytosanitary agreement could achieve greater economic growth, would not threaten farming as the Australian trade deal does, would sort out the Northern Ireland protocol sausage situation and would prevent the Prime Minister from getting spoken to like a naughty schoolboy by the President of the United States. Given those four advantages, has she considered lifting her pen and signing a Swiss-style SPS agreement to make things a whole lot better on a number of fronts?
Elizabeth Truss
My colleague Lord Frost is clear that we need to see pragmatism from the EU to resolve this issue. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to acknowledge that the parts of the world where we are striking deals, whether Asia-Pacific with the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership or countries such as India and those in the Gulf, are the fast-growing parts of the world. He is living in a static past; we are living in a dynamic future.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
Recognising the challenges that the sector faces, both I and my co-chair of the education sector advisory group, the Minister for Universities, continue to engage with colleagues across Government to explore options for further support.
Caroline Ansell [V]
The English language is arguably this country’s most successful export. Covid has of course devastated the sector, and with the international scene still challenging, the impact goes on and is deep and wide even as other sectors recover. Will my hon. Friend meet me, a delegation of MPs and officials from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to work together to overcome the challenges that the sector faces and safeguard the future of this vital export, which is so important to Eastbourne and to the UK?
Graham Stuart
I would of course be delighted to meet my hon. Friend, and I congratulate her on her continued leadership in Parliament on behalf of her constituents and the country as a whole.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
We have signed trade deals covering 67 countries and the European Union, we are making good progress with like-minded friends and allies such as New Zealand and Australia, and we will shortly launch negotiations to join the trans-Pacific partnership, worth £9 trillion of GDP.
Tonia Antoniazzi [V]
Penblwydd hapus, Mr Speaker. On 6 November, the Secretary of State told the National Farmers Union of Wales:
“We have no intention of ever striking a deal that doesn’t benefit farmers, but we have provided checks and balances in the form of the Trade and Agriculture Commission”.
May I ask her if the commission will have the power to tell Parliament whether her Australia deal benefits Welsh farmers, or is she breaking the promise that she made only seven months ago?
Elizabeth Truss
I assure the hon. Lady that the Trade and Agriculture Commission will be up and running to fully scrutinise the Australia trade deal. As set out in the Agriculture Act 2020, the TAC will look at whether FTAs
“are consistent with the maintenance of UK levels of statutory protection”
for
“animal or plant life or health…animal welfare, and…the environment.”
That is what Parliament supported in the Agriculture Act and the Trade Act 2021.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
On 6 October, the Secretary of State said:
“A lot of farmers would consider it unfair if practices that are banned in the UK because of animal welfare reasons are allowed elsewhere and those products are allowed to come in and undercut the standards that our farmers are asked to follow. I agree with that. I think that’s an important principle.”
That is what she said, so may I simply ask the Secretary of State whether she still stands by that principle in the context of her proposed deal with Australia?
Elizabeth Truss
I have always been clear that we will not allow our farmers, with their high animal welfare standards, to be undermined by unfair competition from elsewhere. The right hon. Lady will be well aware that Australian beef and lamb is already able to come into the United Kingdom under our current import rules.
Emily Thornberry
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but if I may, I will give her a specific example. The practice of mulesing is illegal in Britain but is in common use in Australia, not just in the wool industry, but in meat. Lambs at six weeks old are held down without pain relief and have the skin from their buttocks gouged out to prevent the scar tissue that grows back bearing wool. My simple question to her is this: under her proposed trade deal with Australia, will tariffs be reduced on meat produced on sheep farms that use the practice of mulesing?
Elizabeth Truss
We are still in negotiations about the final stage of the deal, but I can assure the right hon. Lady that British farmers, with their high animal welfare standards, will not be undermined. I am sure she is aware of World Trade Organisation rules that prevent discrimination on the basis of production methods, and what she seems to be advocating is leaving the World Trade Organisation. By the way, she might be interested to know that foie gras is already banned in Australia.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. The United Kingdom now has a fully operational trade remedies system that can take action if foreign subsidies harm British businesses. In addition, last month, my right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary chaired a meeting of G7 Trade Ministers that called for the start of negotiations to develop stronger international rules on market-distorting subsidies and trade-distorting actions by state-owned enterprises, such as the forced transfer of technology.
Dr Mullan
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. With nine out of 10 of the largest Chinese firms being state-owned enterprises, it is clear that the international rulebook is not keeping up with the latest players’ tactics. I do not want to see—I do not think anyone here wants to see—British businesses undercut. Will the Minister elaborate on what more we can do, working with like-minded allies in the WTO and the G7, to tackle these unfair practices?
Mr Jayawardena
My hon. Friend is right that global trading rules have not adapted to take account of China’s growth or its different economic model, so Britain cannot, and will not, allow her businesses to be damaged or undercut by those who do not play by the rules, such as through the non-transparent granting of different forms of industrial subsidies. We will work with like-minded partners at the G7, the G20, the WTO and elsewhere to address the harmful impacts of these unfair practices.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. The Trade Remedies Authority has made a deeply flawed recommendation to withdraw half of all the safeguards on steel. If the recommendation is implemented, it is likely to lead to a flood of steel imports, with potentially disastrous consequences for the steel industry, communities and livelihoods. The Government’s own regulations do not allow them to retain the safeguards unless the Trade Remedies Authority advises them to do so. The Secretary of State has already said that the regulations need to be reviewed, so will Ministers accept our offer to work together to find a way to retain these vital safeguards and, in so doing, live up to the commitment made by the Trade Secretary to do whatever it takes to protect our steel industry?
Mr Jayawardena
I am delighted to hear what the shadow Minister says, but what he is asking for, which is the imposition of measures against the independent recommendation of the TRA, is not within the Secretary of State’s powers today. In fact, his party argued that the Secretary of State should have fewer powers when the legislation was going through the House under the last Government. It wanted to curtail her powers further, and it was robust on that. We will not hesitate to defend British industry; that is our policy. The world has changed since 2018, when these powers were put in place, and the Trade Secretary is exploring what else might be needed in Britain’s toolkit to defend British industry.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands) [V]
There will be opportunities for businesses across Buckinghamshire as part of the 2,600 businesses in the south-east that were already exporting goods to Australia last year. They are set to benefit from action on tariffs in areas such as cars, food and drink, and machinery, and there will be benefits in services, including digital, data and innovation provisions that will future-proof the FTA for businesses in Buckinghamshire and across the United Kingdom.
Rob Butler
Many happy returns, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answer. Buckinghamshire has more microbusinesses than any other county in the country, so now that we are a free sovereign trading nation once again, what help can my right hon. Friend give to those very small businesses that want to export to Australia but might not yet have the expertise and experience to do so?
Greg Hands
I am well aware of the situation in Buckinghamshire; my father set up a microbusiness in Buckinghamshire 40-odd years ago. I can tell my hon. Friend that our refreshed export strategy will raise the exporting culture of the UK, taking advantage of our new independent trade policy by providing SMEs and micro-businesses across Buckinghamshire with new opportunities to build their exporting capability in both goods and services, to enhance support, to strengthen one-to-many digital services and to improve access to finance.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
The United Kingdom has long supported the promotion of her values globally. We are clear that more trade does not need to come at the expense of rights or responsibilities, and although our approach to agreements will vary between partners, our strong economic relationships allow us to have open discussions on a range of issues.
Beth Winter
Penblwydd hapus, Mr Speaker. Given the ongoing violations of international law by the Israeli Government, the attacks on the human rights of the Palestinian people and their suffering, and Israel’s recent bombardment of the Gaza strip in May, in which more than 240 Palestinians, over a quarter of them children, were killed, thousands more were injured and more than 90,000 people displaced, does the Minister agree that it is now essential that there is an investigation into whether UK-made arms or components have been used in the recent violence and destruction of homes, businesses and health facilities in Gaza? In the meantime, will the Government immediately cease the export of arms to Israel?
Mr Jayawardena
Every Israeli and Palestinian has the right to live in peace and security. We understand the deep frustration on all sides at the lack of progress in the middle east peace process. The ongoing violence just underlines that a lasting resolution that ends these problems is long overdue. In respect of our arms exports, we have a robust arms export control process in the United Kingdom that is governed by the consolidated criteria, and no exports occur where the consolidated criteria are not met.
Liz Twist
The UK’s deal with Cameroon will complete its ratification process today, with no vote by MPs and no apparent concern from Ministers about the abuse that is taking place in that country. Can I ask the Minister whether he thinks the US Government were wrong to end preferential trade with Cameroon because of the Biya regime’s abuses, and if not, why are we ratifying a deal to do the opposite?
Mr Jayawardena
The Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), spoke in an Adjournment debate yesterday on this topic, and the Opposition could, of course, have used an Opposition day debate on this area. We have a strong history of protecting rights around the world, promoting our values globally, and we will continue to do so. By having an economic partnership agreement in place and encouraging trade, we are continuing to support some of the most vulnerable people in Cameroon, providing valuable employment and helping to lift them out of poverty.
Ms Rimmer
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
“Mass torture”, “rape” and “forced sterilisation”—that is the testimony of dozens of survivors at the Uyghur tribunal in London, which is chaired by the former lead prosecutor at The Hague, Sir Geoffrey Nice, QC. Does the Minister really think the British Government should be turning a blind eye to the suffering of the human race for the sake of trade deals?
Mr Jayawardena
We have not. We have proven our leadership and commitment time and again. We have ramped up pressure on China in multilateral forums. We are taking targeted action on supply chains and our approach to China remains clear-eyed: we remain rooted in our values and in our interests. The truth is that we have announced a series of measures to help make sure that British businesses and the public sector are in no way complicit in the rights violations in Xinjiang, and that includes making sure there is a review of export controls as they apply to the situation there.
Geraint Davies [V]
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. The English-speaking population in Cameroon faces mass killings, atrocities and torture. As we have heard, the US has now invoked trade sanctions, but the UK has signed a trade deal without parliamentary approval. So can I ask: has the EU’s essential rights clause now been removed from all future trade deals, so that abuses, however abhorrent and widespread, will now be supported by the British economy through secret deals, thereby taking control back from Parliament and giving it to those with blood on their hands?
Mr Jayawardena
I am not entirely sure what the hon. Gentleman is referring to in respect of secret deals. This is an agreement that the EU had originally. We have continued an agreement here to provide certainty to businesses in both countries and to date the EU has not taken measures against Cameroon—I know how fond he is of the EU.
Alex Cunningham
In response to the Adjournment debate last night, the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, told the House in relation to Cameroon that
“Violence does appear to have decreased in recent months compared with the peak of the conflict”.—[Official Report, 9 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 1070.]
as if the fact that the Biya regime is killing and maiming fewer of its citizens was justification for our trade deal with them. Is it really the Government’s position that it is fine to do trade deals with murderous regimes if they are now killing fewer of their own people than they were?
Mr Jayawardena
The British people will have noticed that I have now answered five questions from Labour Members on future trade agreements and, instead of seeking to secure benefits for their constituents on those deals, they are clutching at straws to stop them. The Labour party is hopelessly out of touch. This Conservative Government are focused on delivering for the British people. Unlike Labour, we have a plan for jobs and growth, and trade is central to that. We have secured trade deals with 67 countries around the world, plus the EU, covering trade worth £730 billion last year—and we are just getting started.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
We are working to de-escalate trade tensions that negatively impact steel exporters, including our pursuit of a permanent resolution to the US section 232 tariffs, which so unfairly harm the UK steel industry. I am pleased to say that in terms of the EU we have agreed tariff-rate quota allocations for UK steel exports, without which the industry could have been hit by a 25% tariff and an estimated cost of £80 million in the first half of this year alone.
Jessica Morden
Another penblwydd hapus to you, Mr Speaker.
The greatest step that Ministers can take to protect our exports is to protect our steel industry as a whole. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) asked earlier, will Ministers commit to working with Labour on a cross-party basis, as was promised in the Westminster Hall debate yesterday, to fix deficiencies in our trade remedies legislation and reverse the recommendations from the Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate that UK Steel has called “a hammer blow” to our industry?
Graham Stuart
The TRA has conducted a full review of the steel safeguard measure so that it applies to the UK in a proportionate and WTO-compliant manner. It is an independent body, as the hon. Lady knows, that provides unbiased evidence-based assessments of the need for remedies. For clarity, the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] It would be great to get through one answer without chuntering from the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), but it seems to be impossible. The Secretary of State can only accept or reject the TRA recommendation as a whole; she cannot modify or partially accept it and she cannot extend the measure if the TRA does not recommend it. However, it is crucial that the Government have the correct tools available to allow them to tackle unfair trade, and the Secretary of State will be giving careful consideration to the trade remedies framework and the powers that it affords her.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker; I am sorry that I did not mention it earlier.
Elizabeth Truss
The UK has inaugurated the first ever G7 trade track to take forward the issue of free and fair trade. We need to make sure that the WTO is reformed to stop unfair trading practices and modernise the global trading system.
Anna McMorrin
Penblwydd hapus, Mr Speaker.
Ahead of the G7, the Prime Minister has said that climate is his top priority, yet the Department for International Trade is still funnelling billions—including £3.5 billion from UK Export Finance—into overseas fossil-fuel projects and dirty projects are still being considered, despite the promise to end them. The Prime Minister himself flies into Cornwall on a private jet to talk climate. How can this Government expect to be taken seriously as a climate leader on the biggest threat facing us when they clearly do not take the issue seriously themselves?
Elizabeth Truss
I refute what the hon. Lady just said. We have changed the rules that govern UK Export Finance to make sure that it is focused solely on financing clean-energy projects, and that is alongside other measures that support our zero-carbon objectives. We are also working hard at the World Trade Organisation and through the G7 to make trade greener and to make sure that zero carbon is part of how the global trading system works.
Stephen Morgan
Labour has backed an intellectual property waiver on vaccines to help with the pandemic in the poorest countries. The US agrees, as do the majority of world leaders, but the UK remains steadfastly against the plan. With the G7 giving us the opportunity for breakthrough this weekend, will the Secretary of State tell us why she will not support this life-saving initiative?
Elizabeth Truss
I am very proud that the UK Government funded research into the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, which is now producing 98% of the 49 million covid vaccines delivered right around the world. We have played a leading role in that. I am interested in practical measures that have real effect, such as voluntary licensing agreements. If there is any evidence that intellectual property waivers could help, I am all ears and interested to hear it, but we cannot have a regime that destroys intellectual property rights and ends up stopping future innovation.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
With all due respect to the Secretary of State, boosting the overall global supply of vaccines is key to get global trade going, secure British jobs and help our allies in the Commonwealth and the developing world. In these exceptional times, why did Britain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) said, refuse to support at the World Trade Organisation yesterday—presumably on the Secretary of State’s instruction—allies of ours such as America, India and South Africa, and many other countries, and to back a temporary waiver of patents on covid vaccines?
Elizabeth Truss
As I have said, the UK is always willing to listen to pragmatic suggestions about how we make the regime work better. For example, we have supported the abolition of export restrictions—many other countries have not—so that we can see goods flow around the world. The fact is that the real changes are being made by voluntary licensing, as we have enabled at the Serum Institute in India. We are part of the third-way work to roll out practical answers. There is no IP waiver proposal on the table that would actually deliver more vaccines to the poorest people in the world, which is what we want to achieve.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands) [V]
Following two days of intensive discussions during the visit of Dan Tehan, the Australian Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, on 22 and 23 April, both sides reached consensus on most elements of a comprehensive free trade agreement. The UK and Australia are now working to agree the outstanding elements, with the aim of reaching agreement in principle this month.
Sir Edward Leigh [V]
I am speaking from Lincolnshire, the bread basket of England. It is a prosperous county, but in the area of world free trade before the second world war, we could walk on derelict farms from Lincoln to Grimsby. Can the Minister assure me that this free trade deal with Australia, which I welcome, will ensure a bright future for our farmers, and that there will be no relaxation of our high-quality standards and no imports of mass-produced wheat that could undercut our farmers?
Greg Hands
My right hon. Friend is quite right to point to the brilliance of the Lincolnshire farmers and their industry in helping both to feed this country and to export. We have been absolutely clear that, when it comes to trade deals, there will be no compromise on our standards, food safety, animal welfare and the environment. I agree that there is an opportunity here for Lincolnshire to be exporting more. We have secured more access last week in the Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein deal. We are looking forward to joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has big opportunities for UK agriculture and future free trade agreements going forward.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands) [V]
This is a deal for the whole Union. Our scoping assessment found that Scotland will benefit in all modelled scenarios. Reducing tariff barriers for our world-class food and drink industry should help bolster exports of iconic Scottish goods to Australia, such as Scotch whisky, apparel and services, such as financial services. Once we accede to CPTPP, Scottish farmers will also gain access to the increasing middle class in Asia.
Richard Thomson
Australia’s red meat industry has the goal of doubling its sales by 2030, which requires access to UK markets. That expansion can only come, despite what the Government say, at the expense of domestic producers and standards. What absolute minimum SPS, bio-security and welfare standards will the Government insist on in any Australian trade deal to safeguard producers and consumers, and to ensure that our farmers are not simply the next industry to be thrown beneath the wheels of the Brexit bus?
Greg Hands
I have met with NFU Scotland a few times in recent weeks. To be honest, it would be nice to hear the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for once sticking up for agriculture in Scotland and the opportunities that come from trade, rather than being against every single trade agreement. Australia apparently exports a lot to Asia—75% of its beef exports, 70% of its lamb exports—and only 0.15% to the UK. There are strong reasons for that. The production costs, for beef in particular, are much higher in countries such as Japan and Korea than they are in either the UK or in Australia. Staged over time, tariff reductions and making sure that safeguards are in place, we are confident that we will have the ability to protect UK farmers from any unforeseen increases in Australian imports to this country.
Amy Callaghan [V]
I wish you a very happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
Currently, the UK does not have specific legislation to ban meat from animals raised by inhumane methods such as battery cages—methods that are utterly intolerable here but permitted and used extensively in Australia. The Department for International Trade has also never set out if or how it might inspect animal welfare and food standards in countries with which we may sign new post-Brexit trade deals. Does the Minister truly believe that the people of Scotland are prepared to see food on their supermarket shelves reared in appalling conditions, all for the additional 0.1% to 0.2% of GDP over 15 years as per his Department’s own assessment?
Greg Hands
I have never heard the SNP support any trade deal, ever. SNP Members even voted for a no-deal Brexit last December. The hon. Member mentioned standards. We have been absolutely clear that there will be no compromise on our standards. However, Australia, in its standards on animal welfare, is actually ranked five out of five by the World Organisation for Animal Health for its performance in veterinary services across 38 categories. The hon. Member talks about meeting our standards; our import standards remain high, and will be unchanged as a result of this or any other trade agreement. Australian produce—as, indeed, other produce—must continue to meet our high import standards.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
We recognise the importance of domestic battery development and manufacturing, which is why we have engaged with business to understand its needs and ensure that our free trade agreements deliver. That includes negotiating rules of origin that consider the transition to electric vehicles and enable British manufacturers such as Jaguar Land Rover and Nissan to access global markets.
Steve McCabe [V]
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
As the Minister acknowledges, the future of our car industry in the west midlands is dependent on battery production and the Government giving the go-ahead for a gigafactory, but battery production requires ready access to materials such as cobalt, lithium and manganese. Will he tell us which countries he is talking to about trade deals that would secure these supplies?
Mr Jayawardena
We are talking to friends around the world to make sure that our supply chains are more resilient than ever before. That is a clear lesson from our coronavirus situation, where we have seen that we should not be too reliant on any one country. We have prioritised securing investment in battery cell gigafactories, to which the hon. Member refers. I am delighted that he is supporting our agenda, which we believe is key to anchoring the mass manufacture of electric vehicles in Britain, safeguarding jobs and driving emissions to net zero by 2050.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands) [V]
The Government are clear that any deal with Australia must work for UK farmers and producers. We will use a range of tools to defend British farming. As well as improving access to the Australian market, an FTA will act as a gateway to CPTPP, creating unheralded new export opportunities for British farmers and producers.
Dehenna Davison
Last summer, the Secretary of State visited Grange Hill farm in Bishop Auckland, where leading farmers John and Jane are rightly proud of the fabulous beef that they produce. Will my right hon. Friend please tell the House how the gateway to the CPTPP—a deal with Australia—will open up new markets for British beef farmers?
Greg Hands
I know that the Secretary of State greatly enjoyed her visit last year to the farms in my hon. Friend’s constituency. CPTPP is a great opportunity. I referenced in an earlier question growing Asian demand for products such as meat and other British agrifood products. We see there being tremendous opportunities in that fast-growing market—13% of global GDP across four continents. This is a real opportunity to be able to sell British farming produce to those fast-growing Asian and American markets.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
China is an important trading partner for the UK, with bilateral trade worth £78.8 billion in 2020. In fact, China was our third largest overall trading partner and seventh largest export market last year, with UK exports to China amounting to £22.9 billion. The UK also remains a leading destination for Chinese outbound investment in Europe.
Joanna Cherry [V]
Coda Octopus, a company based in my constituency, has been encouraged by successive Tory Governments to expand its sales to China. Its world-leading Echoscope is used in underwater port construction and in renewable energy projects, and it does not have a military use. Yet despite a 23-year track record of exports, it is now losing millions of pounds in orders due to a change in attitude on export licences, and responses from the Minister’s Department are taking over 100 days. Will the Minister meet me so that I can sort this situation out for my constituents?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her reasonable question. It is a delight to have an SNP Member in the Chamber actually championing business and looking to open up markets. We have one of the most rigorous and thorough export licensing regimes in the world, and we are proud of it. Every application is looked at on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated criteria. However, I will ensure that a meeting is set up for her with the appropriate Minister to discuss this.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
Two weeks ago, we heard that Jimmy Lai, the owner of the largest pro-democracy newspaper in Hong Kong, had not only been sentenced for a second time but has now had his assets frozen. This step makes it incredibly hard to continue to fund his journalistic enterprises, which in turn has a chilling implication for a free press in Hong Kong. Colleagues across this House have called on the Government to implement Magnitsky sanctions, but there is concern that the UK’s sluggishness to implement sanctions is because the Government seek a future trade deal with China. Can the Minister clarify: is the prospect of a future deal causing this Government to treat China with leniency it does not deserve?
Graham Stuart
It is one of the abiding characteristics of the left in general that if they cannot find a scare story they invent one. This Government are clear: we are not seeking a free trade agreement with China. We have led the world in challenging China where we have found it necessary to do so. Working with international partners, we seek to maximise impact on any actions China takes that run counter to its international treaty obligations, including detentions without trial, detention of human rights defenders, and persecution of some religious and ethnic minorities. We work with allies on the most effective means to challenge it. On 30 June, at the 44th session of the UN Human Rights Council, the UK read out a formal statement on behalf of 28 countries highlighting concerns about the human rights situation in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. I hope that the hon. Lady and other Opposition Members will never again suggest that we would do anything to put trade ahead of our responsibilities on human rights.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
Last week the UK agreed in principle a new trade deal with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein worth £22 billion that brings opportunities for British exporters and services, from farmers to lawyers to musicians. It is the first trade deal ever to include provisions on mobile roaming, and it brings benefits to UK fish processing, supporting 18,000 jobs in Scotland, East Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire.
Layla Moran [V]
Last month, Members in all parts of the House were horrified by the appalling outbreak of violence between Israel and Gaza. Can the Secretary of State set out whether British arms exports were used in any way against innocent civilians in that conflict? If she is unable to do so, does she not agree that the inability to know where our arms are being used, and what for, is hugely concerning given the potential breaches of international law?
Elizabeth Truss
We welcomed the announcement of a ceasefire in Israel and Gaza last month. We are committed to a durable ceasefire. As the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) mentioned, we have one of the most robust export control regimes in the world and we take these issues very seriously.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to recognise the importance of the Gulf given that the six countries in the Gulf Co-operation Council are our third-largest non-EU export market, at over £30 billion last year. I am very pleased that we have a strong visa offer for our partners there, including the electronic visa waiver programme, and that the introduction of Britain’s new points-based immigration system creates a level playing field for the first time in many years. I will continue to work closely with fellow Ministers at the Home Office to make sure that the visa system contributes to Britain rightly being recognised as a world leader with which to trade and invest.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued support for businesses in his constituency, and I agree with him that B&B Attachments is an example of UK manufacturing at its best. My Department was delighted to help B&B grow its business overseas by providing specialised advice and dedicated funding. The Department is doing all it can to help other manufacturing suppliers from across the regions and nations of the UK to achieve success overseas, including with grants from our £38 million international-isation fund.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) [V]
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady for her excellent question, because trade show support is really important for putting British business on the front foot. We have worked across multiple industries to improve our digital and virtual offer, and I am delighted to say that in some areas that has led to higher levels of activity than we had before. I will make sure that the House is informed as soon as we have further to say about the plan, possibly following 21 June.
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Elizabeth Truss
The UK has one of the most robust arms export control regimes in the world. We rigorously examine every application on a case-by-case basis, and the criteria are clearly laid out in legislation to ensure complete compliance with international law.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) [V]
Elizabeth Truss
I welcome my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for a deal with Australia. There is also the fact that it will lead to entry to the CPTPP—a vast Pacific market of huge benefit to the manufacturing industry in the north-east of England and beyond. I thank him very much for his support.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]
Mr Jayawardena
The Labour party is the party of red tape; we are the ones who are getting rid of it. We have called for pragmatism in this area. We are a sovereign nation—we are British, and we are proud of it—and we are going to stand by every corner of this country as we deliver trade benefits and create jobs. In respect of the issues around meat, it is wrong that anyone should be threatening the British sausage. We will stand up for the British sausage, and no one will ever be able to destroy it.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Graham Stuart
I am pleased to say that my Department has recently created the new Export Academy, designed precisely to equip businesses with the capabilities and confidence to export successfully. My hon. Friend is such a champion of his local exporters, and it is so refreshing to have Government Members like him championing local business. I believe that he is holding an exporters fair shortly, and I congratulate him on that. He will be pleased to hear that 259 businesses from the north-west have joined the SME pilot Export Academy since it began, including 15 from the Burnley area. We have international trade advisers for the northern powerhouse, so additional resource has gone in there, and with his help, we will continue to champion northern businesses, and businesses from Burnley in particular, over the coming months and years.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
Mr Jayawardena
Once again, the Labour party is obsessed by membership of the European Union. It has not moved on from the referendum, when the British people provided a clear signal to us in this place that we should get on with delivering the benefits of Brexit. This deal is a world leader in digital trade, eliminating the need for paperwork, and many countries and trade blocs could learn from that.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I feel somewhat inadequate that I can only say this in English, but many happy returns, Mr Speaker.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as and when a trade deal with the United States is agreed, the Government will not compromise on the principle that underpins the online safety Bill—that digital platforms, including American ones, must comply with the duty of care to keep their users as safe as they reasonably can—and that that will hold true whether or not the Bill has completed its legislative passage and is enforced by that point?
Elizabeth Truss
The UK is committed to making our regime the safest place in the world to be online. In trade negotiations, we will protect our online safety regime, while also promoting our thriving digital industry. I am pleased that in free trade agreements with Japan and the European economic area, we have agreed free flow of data alongside protecting Britain’s high standards, and that is exactly what we would do in an agreement with the United States.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Scotch whisky is vital in North East Fife, not just because we enjoy a wee dram, particularly on birthdays—many happy returns, Mr Speaker—but because it forms a key part of the local economy. With four independent distilleries in my constituency, the success of these businesses matters both for those in directly linked jobs and for those working in tourism and hospitality. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Prime Minister will use his bilateral meeting with President Biden this week to agree and publish a clear road map for the permanent settlement of the Boeing-Airbus dispute, which would remove the risk of tariffs being reimposed on Scotch whisky and other sectors?
Elizabeth Truss
It was very positive news when the tariffs were lifted earlier this year. We are now working very closely with Katherine Tai, the US TR, with whom I have regular conversations, on a permanent settlement to this arrangement, and we are making good progress.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
You and I are of a similar vintage, Mr Speaker—
Jim Shannon
The difference is that you and I don’t count the years, Mr Speaker. Instead, we make the years count, and that is important.
It is really important that we have these trade deals and I support them, but I wish to express concern about the Australian trade deal. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union. The Ulster Farmers’ Union and my neighbours, who are members of it, have expressed concern about the quality of Australian beef and the fact that it might impact adversely on the Northern Ireland beef sector and industry. We export most of our beef. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the deal will not impact on the Northern Ireland beef sector?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I have met the Foyle Food Group, for example, who were the first beef exporters to export to the United States when we got the ban removed. I know that there are huge opportunities around the world for high-quality Northern Ireland beef. Part of what we are doing with the Australian trade deal is opening up wider access to the Asia-Pacific markets, which have higher prices than here in the UK and in Europe and will bring more opportunity. I am very happy to have further conversations with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Speaker
I now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Napier Barracks Asylum Accommodation
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the judicial review judgment on Napier barracks contingency asylum accommodation.
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
Happy birthday from me as well, Mr Speaker. I made my maiden speech on your birthday when you were in the Chair as Deputy Speaker six years ago.
I am answering this question on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who has sadly suffered a family bereavement and therefore cannot be here this morning.
Covid-19 has had a major and unprecedented impact on the asylum system. We make absolutely no apologies for doing everything in our power to provide shelter to those in need during these exceptional times.
Between March and October last year, nearly 12,000 extra people needed to be housed as a result of the pandemic, nearly 10,000 of whom ended up in hotels, at huge public expense. Every accommodation option had to be considered.
Those accommodated at Napier barracks are catered with three nutritious meals per day, with options for special dietary or religious requirements. There is a recreational building with a library. Prayer rooms are available and scheduled activities now include yoga, English conversation and art. There is a nurse on site and access to a GP. All asylum seekers housed at Napier have access to a 24/7 advice service, provided for the Home Office by Migrant Help.
Napier barracks has been happily used for many years by Army and police personnel. The army itself has continued to use barrack accommodation around the country during the pandemic, when needed. While we are disappointed by some of the judgment, the High Court found in the Home Office’s favour in a number of areas. It rejected the claim that conditions at Napier amounted to “inhuman or degrading treatment.” The judge declined to rule that dormitories or barrack accommodation could never provide “adequate accommodation” for asylum seekers, and the judge rejected the claim that the expectation that residents would be back on site by 10pm amounted to a curfew or unlawful imprisonment.
Furthermore, the judgment was based on conditions in the past, before several significant improvements. These include a stronger cleaning regime, reopening of communal areas with staggered access times, limiting the period of residency and using lateral flow tests three times a week. The overall capacity of the site has also been reduced. At all stages, the Home Office believed it was taking reasonable steps to respond to Public Health England suggestions on public health, where possible.
We have published the suitability criteria that we use for assessing who is suitable to be accommodated at Napier. If it becomes apparent that someone is resident but unsuitable, a transfer is then arranged.
Through our new plans for immigration and the upcoming sovereign borders Bill, this Government are taking action to increase the fairness and efficiency of our asylum system but also to fight illegal and unnecessary migration, such as that by small boats coming across the English Channel. I hope Members will support that Bill when it comes forward, as it is sorely needed to support reform of the system.
Yvette Cooper
In January, there was a major covid outbreak at the Home Office centre at Napier barracks. Some 200 people got covid, both residents and staff, impacting on the local community too. Last week’s damning court judgment said:
“The ‘bottom line’ is that the arrangements at the Barracks were contrary to the advice of PHE…The precautions which were taken were completely inadequate to prevent the spread of Covid-19 infection, and…the outbreak which occurred in mid-January 2021 was inevitable.”
The Home Office put people in dormitory blocks, with shared facilities for up to 28 people, at the height of a pandemic.
When the Home Affairs Committee asked the Home Secretary about this, she said that
“the use of the accommodation was all based on Public Health England advice, and…working in line with public health guidance…so we have been following guidance in every single way.”
The permanent secretary told the Committee
“we were following the guidance at every stage”.
But the court judgment and the evidence from PHE shows the opposite is true.
An internal Home Office email from 7 September records PHE advice as
“advice is that dormitories are not suitable”.
Public Health England told the Home Affairs Committee they
“don’t know how dormitories can be COVID compliant.”
They told the Home Office to follow youth hostel guidance—single rooms only and dormitories to be closed, except for household groups. They and Public Health Wales advised that if the Home Office were going ahead, they should at least limit the number of beds to six, keep people in bubbles with clear isolation facilities and have strong cleaning regimes. None of those things happened at Napier.
Instead, the independent inspectorate and local health officials found poor ventilation in dormitories, inadequate shared washing facilities, a deficient cleaning regime and no proper arrangements for self-isolation, with those testing positive and negative all kept in the same large dormitories. The Home Office was clearly not following public health advice in every way or at every stage. The Minister has an obligation to correct the record, so will he now admit that the Home Office did not follow public health advice and apologise for the inaccurate information given?
Will the Minister tell us what is happening now? Leading local health professionals have warned that the site still cannot be considered safe, and the Home Office’s own documents show local health professionals saying that another outbreak is inevitable. Charities have told me that there are still 12 to 14 people in a room and 28 people in shared blocks. Is that true, even after a damning inspectorate report and a damning court judgment, and even after 200 people caught covid on the site? The Home Office has a responsibility to keep people safe. Why has it been ignoring public health advice in the middle of a pandemic and putting public health at risk?
Chris Philp
First, the Select Committee Chair should take into account the context that pertained last September: 60,000 people needed to be accommodated in the middle of a pandemic—an increase of 12,000 people in just the space of a few months. With the best will in the world, it is operationally extremely difficult to accommodate 60,000 people in a pandemic—an extra 12,000 people at a matter of a few weeks or a few months’ notice.
The reality is that in the middle of a pandemic outbreaks in some places occur. We have had outbreaks in the hotels that have been used. In other parts of Government—in prisons and other places—there have been covid outbreaks. We have had covid going around Parliament as well. I have caught covid myself; in fact, 5 million people have tested positive for covid. The virus knows no boundaries, and it is very difficult to manage 60,000 people in those circumstances. The measures taken to combat covid on site included rigorous cleaning built into the contract, hand sanitisers, social distancing, personal cleaning equipment provided to service users, isolating and cohorting arrangements. They have now been enhanced further, with more cleaning, staggered access to communal areas and, three times a week, lateral flow testing. We have also reduced the numbers currently on the site.
Public Health England wrote to the Select Committee Chair on 1 June. I have the letter in front of me. In the second paragraph, it says:
“PHE has been in a positive ongoing dialogue and working collaboratively with Home Office (HO) colleagues on a range of COVID-19 related issues since spring 2020.”
Moreover, public health guidance published on gov.uk on 15 December 2020, which she will be aware of, said that ideally accommodation providers would
“identify single-rooms with en suite bathroom facilities”.
That is difficult to do for 60,000 people. However, it then said that
“if single occupancy accommodation is not available”—
thus acknowledging that that will not be possible in all cases—
“accommodation where cohorting is possible should be provided”.
We have maintained a close dialogue with Public Health England. Where possible we have followed its guidelines, and a number of improvements have been made in recent months.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Whatever people’s view on the asylum situation in this country, people in Folkestone are united in their opposition to the use of Napier barracks in this way. It has been destructive to the community, not least because the barracks have been the focal point of protests—both people protesting about migrant crossings and people protesting about the use of the barracks. It has been a drain on other public services as well. Does the Home Office intend to renew its lease on Napier barracks, which expires in September?
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the tireless work that he has done on behalf of his constituents, liaising with the Home Office, Kent County Council, Folkestone and Hythe District Council and others, and representing his constituents extremely effectively. Unfortunately, very often the local population is not terribly keen on accommodation centres of this kind, for the reasons that he outlined.
We are obviously working hard to mitigate those impacts. Kent police, for example, have received extra funding, and we are working closely with the local health service. The current arrangements on the site are due to run until September. No decision has been made beyond that, but I assure my hon. Friend that he will be closely engaged with at all stages as any further decision is taken.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I, too, wish you a very happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on securing this urgent question. The recent High Court judgment was a further shameful indictment of the Government’s approach to asylum accommodation. My right hon. Friend highlighted the failure of the Home Office to listen to the public health advice about Napier barracks that led to the covid outbreak affecting 197 asylum seekers and staff and posing a danger to the wider community.
On 30 November, as a result of a fire safety inspection at Napier, the Crown premises fire safety inspectorate concluded that
“identified individuals or groups of people would be at risk in case of fire.”
In January, a fire broke out in Napier. The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration noted that the CPFSI’s concerns had not been addressed prior to the fire. Can the Minister tell me why the Home Office ignored the advice of Public Health England and the CPFSI? Can he give me a categorical assurance that the Home Office will now follow all future advice from PHE and CPFSI, and publish the advice it was given by PHE?
The Kent and Medway clinical commissioning group’s infection prevention report outlined that the site did not facilitate effective social distancing. Quite simply, how on earth did this happen in the middle of a global pandemic?
Chris Philp
I have said already that having to accommodate 60,000 people in the middle of a pandemic, and an increase of 12,000 in a few months, poses very substantial challenges. Where we were able to, we followed suggestions that were made. The hon. Gentleman asked about publishing PHE advice. I said in my first answer that it was published on gov.uk on 15 December last year. He said that a fire broke out. A fire did not break out; there was an act of deliberate arson by the people who were accommodated there, which was disgraceful, outrageous, unjustifiable and unconscionable. It did not break out; it was arson.
In relation to the points about public health, I have already listed, in answer to the Select Committee Chairman, the measures that have recently been taken to improve conditions at the Napier site.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The residents of Blackpool South were absolutely appalled by the recent High Court judgment. Many of them have questioned why accommodation that was previously fit for our brave troops is somehow inadequate for those who are supposedly fleeing persecution around the globe. Indeed, some have asked why so many people want to remain in the UK at all if the accommodation is so bad. Does the Minister agree that the High Court judgment only highlights the need for urgent reform of our asylum system as a whole, and does he agree that we now need to look at processing asylum seekers outside the UK as part of this plan?
Chris Philp
The judgment, as I said earlier, did not find that the conditions were inhuman or degrading, and it did not find that using dormitory or barrack accommodation was inherently unsuitable, so I agree with the spirit of my hon. Friend’s question.
We certainly need to reform the system. The people who are coming across the English channel on small boats are making a journey that is not only dangerous and illegal, but unnecessary. France is a safe country, Germany is a safe country, Belgium is a safe country and Italy is a safe country. The right thing to do—the safe thing to do, and the legal thing to do—is to claim asylum in the first available place. In relation to his last question, yes, all options are being considered.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The utterly damning judgment said expressly that if the MOD had treated soldiers in this way, that, too, would have been unlawful. But let us just run with the idea that this was six soldiers instead of six asylum seekers, and they were put in conditions where a covid outbreak was inevitable, where the fire inspectorate highlighted serious or significant risk of harm, where self-harm and attempts at suicide were occurring because of the prison camp conditions, and where failed screening processes meant that that group of soldiers included those who were particularly vulnerable to covid or mental ill health. Imagine MPs were then told that use of the accommodation was all based on Public Health England advice, without us ever getting to see that advice, and then a court case established that the opposite was true. [Interruption.] Yes—only thanks to the court case.
Knowingly placing soldiers or anyone else into a covid trap and a fire trap would lead to outrage, resignations and sackings. Why are the consequences not exactly the same when it is six torture and trafficking survivors from Eritrea or Sudan? Will the Minister apologise for telling the House that conditions at Napier were good enough for the armed services? If he thinks that, it is insulting to the armed services. Will he accept that the conditions are not good enough for the Government to use the barracks for any cohort of people, and what does he think the Home Secretary can learn from the precedent of Amber Rudd’s resignation for inadvertently misleading the Home Affairs Committee?
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman talks about the publication of the public health guidance. It was published online. He said it was only published because of the court case. It was published on 15 December—long before the court case was registered.
The hon. Member said the people there were sick. There are screening criteria to make sure that people who should not go there do not go there. If they become vulnerable during the time of occupation, they get moved out. I should also add that the people accommodated there are all young single men, almost entirely aged between 18 and 40. On the number who got covid—along with 5 million, or more than 5 million, other people in this country—not a single person was hospitalised that I am aware of. That is why we are taking further steps to make sure the site is covid-secure. I have listed some of them already: lateral flow testing three times a week now, numbers being reduced and enhanced cleaning. Those are sensible steps in response to the pandemic and in response to the court judgment.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) [V]
A very happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker.
The Home Office has worked incredibly hard in very difficult circumstances to improve conditions, and covid security particularly, for the men temporarily housed at Napier barracks since the evidence informing the High Court ruling was submitted. However, I represent a large Army community that will be wondering why conditions considered fine for servicemen and women are considered not good enough for asylum seekers, including those who have made the illegal and perilous journey across the channel. How am I to advise my constituents?
Chris Philp
I think my right hon. Friend is raising an extremely good question. It is precisely because of that question that we will be introducing a Bill in the near future, announced in the Queen’s Speech, to reform our system to make sure that the asylum system is fair, as of course it should be, to those in genuine need, but that we deal with these claims quickly, effectively and fairly, and also prevent unnecessary illegal migration, which puts enormous pressure on the system of the kind we are discussing.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The British Red Cross, which I think we would all acknowledge as the expert in the area of provision of accommodation of this sort, made a recommendation in its recent report that the Home Office
“should introduce a formal, independent inspection regime for asylum…accommodation with publicly available reports,”
in order to better
“monitor the quality and effectiveness of support provided and improve transparency and accountability”
for decisions. Surely, in the Home Office’s own interests, that would be preferable to a status quo where it is left to mark its own homework or to be called out by the courts.
Chris Philp
We do not mark our own homework; we are very widely inspected. In fact, there was an inspection by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration just a few months ago into Napier.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Many happy returns, Mr Speaker.
One of the most shocking aspects of Napier barracks was the detention of vulnerable people who had already survived serious human rights abuses, including torture and trafficking. Given that people’s immigration cases can be resolved more humanely, efficiently and cost-effectively by supporting them in the community, why is the Home Office opening a new detention centre for vulnerable women in County Durham?
Chris Philp
I am afraid to say that the hon. Lady is getting a little muddled up there. The Napier site is not for detention; it is an accommodation centre, and people are free to come and go, as the court case found. The centre up in Hassockfield in Durham is a detention centre prior to removal for people whose appeal rights are exhausted and who have no legal right to be in the country. They are two completely different things.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Would the Minister agree with me that the problem is not Napier barracks, but people crossing the channel illegally from France? Is not the simple solution that, when these people arrive in England, we put them on a Royal Navy boat and take them back to France, because France is a safe country and that is where asylum should be claimed? If we did that, it would stop the problem.
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that these channel crossings, which are now running at extremely and unacceptably high levels, are completely unnecessary because France is a safe country and people do not need to make the crossing. It is dangerous and it is also illegal, so I completely agree with those sentiments. In relation to the decisive action needed to stop these crossings completely, I can assure my hon. Friend that every single option is under very active consideration.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Home Secretary told the House in January that Napier barracks was
“in line with Public Health England guidelines.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2021; Vol. 688, c. 177.]
She reiterated that earlier this week when she told the House that her Department worked fully with PHE, but it is not true, as the High Court ruled last week, with the honourable Justice Linden writing that
“the arrangements at the Barracks were contrary to the advice of PHE”.
The ministerial code states that Ministers must give
“accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.”
So I ask the Minister, given this blatant discrepancy between the facts and what the Home Secretary said, why is she not here today to correct the record, or will she learn from her predecessor, who resigned as Home Secretary for inadvertently misleading MPs?
Chris Philp
I have already read the quote from the letter from Public Health England to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee dated 1 June in terms of the work we have been doing with them, and it says in the second paragraph:
“PHE has been in a positive ongoing dialogue and working collaboratively with Home Office…on a range of COVID-19 related issues since spring 2020.”
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I wish you a long life and happiness of your birthday, Mr Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) rightly said that the problem here is the illegal crossings from France. May I take this opportunity to thank the Minister and his colleagues for doing everything they can to reform the asylum system so that it helps those who actually are vulnerable and need it most? Can he confirm that under the new proposals we will be opening more safe routes to the UK while clamping down on the people smugglers who prey on the most vulnerable?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend, as always, puts it exactly right. We intend to stand by those in genuine need with schemes like the resettlement scheme, which has taken vulnerable people directly from places of danger and resettled them, and has done so more than any other country in Europe, but when it comes to illegal migration we intend to clamp down hard.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker.
Yesterday, I was made aware of a serious matter that could revolutionise our equality laws. Professors gave evidence at the Women and Equalities Committee and said that buildings—not people—could be something akin to aggressive or threatening. So I think the illegal immigrants at Napier may perhaps have acted in self-defence when trashing and torching the barracks. We should all be aware of their vulnerabilities and sensibilities, so will the Minister agree to send a delegation from the Committee to assess this building aggression, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), whose sensibilities make him ideally suited to the job?
Chris Philp
I am not quite sure where to start. I certainly do not agree with the comments made about building aggression; they seem absurd. My hon. Friend makes a good point, and there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for incidents such as the terrible act of arson we saw back in January.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
A very happy birthday to you today, Mr Speaker.
The Minister’s description of Napier barracks sounds like a propaganda film—yoga, three meals a day, regular cleaning. However, in reality refugees and those seeking asylum are living in squalid accommodation, bitten alive by bedbugs and with inadequate health support. The Government’s accommodation policies are entrenched in controversy, so can the Minister explain how the £1 billion contracts are monitored, and does he agree with the High Court ruling that the use at Napier barracks was unlawful and shameful?
Chris Philp
I have explained that many aspects of the judgment found in favour of the Home Office, and I have also explained that improvements have been made subsequently. The contracts are monitored on an ongoing basis, but I repeat again that the challenges of managing 60,000 people in asylum accommodation in the middle of a pandemic are very considerable.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I see this issue about public health in a pandemic as a little bit of a distraction technique, frankly. Pandemic or no pandemic, I am pretty sure that most Labour Members would rather have these people, who are largely illegal immigrants, in elaborate hotel accommodation for as long as possible—potentially indefinitely. Does the Minister agree that if we are going to do what the elected Government were asked to do, which is take back control of our borders, it might be necessary in time to be open to looking at human rights law, because it seems that these judges, who are so often out of step with public opinion, are a blockage to us doing what we need to do?
Chris Philp
I think the public do expect us to reform the system and to control our borders, which is why we are bringing forward a new Bill very shortly to do exactly that. On the question of human rights, which my hon. Friend rightly raises, there is a review going on currently into the operation of the Human Rights Act 1998 that will be reporting, I think, later this year.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) has reminded the House that quite recently a Home Secretary resigned for inadvertently misleading the Home Affairs Committee. Other hon. Members have asked the Minister whether the current Home Secretary misled the Home Affairs Committee in oral evidence on 24 February this year. In response to those questions, the Minister keeps referring to a Public Health England letter from June this year that talks about full co-operation from the Home Office since spring of this year.
Of course, when the Home Secretary gave evidence on 24 February, she was talking about what had happened before then, not what happened this spring. Evidence presented to the High Court suggests that what she said—that the Department had previously followed public health guidance regarding Napier barracks in “every single way”—was simply not factually correct. The High Court has said that the fact that that public health evidence was ignored meant that the covid outbreak was “inevitable”, so why is the Home Secretary not tendering her resignation, as Amber Rudd had the grace and decency to do?
Chris Philp
The hon. and learned Lady refers to the letter of 1 June and says that it post-dates the Home Affairs Committee appearance on 24 February, which it does. However, the paragraph that I quoted says that the positive ongoing dialogue and collaborative working had been ongoing “since spring 2020”.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Many happy returns of the day, Mr Speaker.
The High Court judgment was absolutely damning. The judge said:
“I do not accept that the accommodation there ensured a standard of living which was adequate for the health of the Claimants.”
The Government are housing people 14 to a room. As we have heard, more than 200 people contracted covid. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that people are protected from covid? How many people have been vaccinated at the barracks, and what are the future plans for housing asylum seekers in accommodation that is fit for human habitation?
Chris Philp
Just to be clear, the court judgment found that there was no article 3 infringement. It did not find that the conditions amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment. Moreover, the judgment did not find, in relation to the requirement to be back at 10 o’clock, that a curfew had been imposed; nor did it find that the barracks or dormitory accommodation were inherently inadequate in the context of asylum accommodation. It is important that the House understands those important aspects of the judgment.
I have already outlined the measures that have been taken: an increased cleaning service, social distancing and lateral flow testing three times a week. All those measures are designed to ensure that users are safe. The hon. Member asked about vaccinations. The Government’s approach to vaccinations in general is that, outside of things like the NHS, vaccinations are done in the order that people are entitled to them based on age and clinical conditions, so the same rules that apply to the hon. Member, to me and to Mr Speaker will apply to people at Napier as well.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I wish you many happy returns, Mr Speaker.
After the second world war, my grandfather, Paul, who fought alongside British forces, was settled in the UK in a refugee camp. A few years later, my mother was born in the same refugee camp. That refugee camp was at an old Army base. Yes, conditions were not great, but they were thankful that they were born in that, because, had my grandfather returned to the Soviet Union, he would have returned to a gulag or perhaps even worse. Why were those conditions good enough for a hero who fought against the Nazis and for my own mother, but not good enough for this current wave of migrants?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful point. The experience of his mother and his family illustrates the service that this country does in providing asylum to those who genuinely need it. It puts today’s debate rather in context.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
The High Court judgment showed that Napier was unsafe in terms of fire safety, covid security and mental wellbeing, whether for armed forces personnel or asylum seekers, but it is representative of a generalised callousness with regard to support for refugees which leaves many in Newcastle living in inadequate accommodation with inadequate support to keep themselves and their accommodation clean and covid secure. How is the Minister going to change that? Will he say whether Nationwide Accommodation Services, which ran Napier day to day, has other contracts with the Home Office?
Chris Philp
If the hon. Lady would like to raise that case in writing, I would be happy to look into it to find out the details and circumstances. We are accommodating 60,000 people across the country. The cost of running the asylum system now amounts to £1 billion a year, which is a staggering sum and makes the case for reform, for all the reasons that Conservative Members have been laying out.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Happy birthday from the people of Ashfield, Mr Speaker.
After five years of living in the back of a lorry fighting for King and country during the second world war, my grandad Charlie returned to these shores, to live in poor housing, with no heating and no hot water, and he made do with an outside toilet and no access to free yoga lessons. He then went on to work for 40 years down the pit and not once did he ever complain about his life. So does the Minister agree that if illegal immigrants entering this country do not like the housing, which has much better facilities than in my grandad’s day, one solution would be to return to France, taking their leftie lawyers and the Opposition with them?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend, as always, makes a powerful point. There is serious question to answer about why people who are in safe countries, such as France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Italy and all these other European countries, are attempting these dangerous, illegal and unnecessary journeys. What I say to them is that they are in countries that have a fully functioning asylum system and they should claim asylum there.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) [V]
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
The people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke cannot figure out what is wrong with an Army barracks that has provided free accommodation, food, sanitation and yoga to people who have entered this country illegally. Leftie lawyers have stuck their oar in and ensured that hard-earned UK taxpayers’ money is going to have to be splashed on expensive accommodation, such as hotels or buying properties, as seen in Stoke-on-Trent, adding further strain to local public services. Does the Minister agree that people entering illegally from safe places such as France should be returned immediately and that we should now look to Denmark and process asylum seekers outside the UK as part of our plan for immigration?
Chris Philp
I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend’s point, which he makes powerfully. We have already changed our inadmissibility rules to enable the sort of thing that he is describing, and we are in discussions to help make those operational. He rightly says that people should not be entering the UK illegally and dangerously having come from a safe place where they could reasonably have claimed asylum, and that most certainly includes France.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]
The Home Office’s treatment of asylum seekers is appalling. Will the Minister address the latest scandal: the failure to provide new prepayment Aspen cards, which has left many individuals and families without any money at all for several weeks? In my constituency, many asylum seekers are reliant on a local charity, West London Welcome, for food and necessities, because the Minister’s Department cannot or will not do its job.
Chris Philp
There have been some delays with the new Aspen cards, which are in the process of being rapidly resolved. However, I categorically reject the allegation that the Home Office, the Government and the UK are not doing their reasonable bit to support asylum seekers. As I have said, the cost of providing asylum support to these 60,000 people now amounts to £1 billion a year, so any suggestion that there is a lack of generosity or there is a meanness of spirit is categorically and completely untrue.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House to enable to necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Hillsborough: Collapse of Trials
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make a statement on the collapse of trials relating to the Hillsborough disaster and subsequent developments.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in paying tribute to the immense courage, determination and patience of the families of the 96 people who died in the Hillsborough disaster, and of those injured who, 32 years on, continue to grieve about the events of that truly terrible day.
The collapse of the case concerning two former police officers and a solicitor who are charged with perverting the course of justice for allegedly having altered statements to be provided to the 1990 Taylor inquiry was the final opportunity for the families seeking justice for what happened at Hillsborough. As the House will have seen, the trial judge in that case ruled that the offence of perverting the course of justice could not have been committed because the inquiry was carrying out an administrative function for the Home Secretary and was not a process of public justice. As such, the prosecution was not able to establish a key element of the offence of perverting the course of justice and the case was unable to proceed any further. Of course, as Lord Chancellor, it is my duty to respect that decision.
Since the Taylor inquiry, the Inquiries Act 2005 was introduced, which allows inquiries to take evidence on oath and to compel witnesses to give evidence and to produce documentary evidence. Section 35 of that Act also makes it an offence to commit acts that intend to have the effect of distorting, altering or preventing evidence from being given to the statutory inquiry. It is also an offence intentionally to suppress or to conceal a relevant document or to destroy such a document.
Members will be rightly concerned as to what, if any, effect this may have on current public inquiries, such as the Grenfell inquiry, the undercover policing inquiry and the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse.
Each of those are statutory inquiries and each has been set up under the aegis of the 2005 Act, which means that, should someone seek to distort, destroy, conceal or suppress evidence in any of those inquiries, that Act provides that those actions will constitute a specific criminal offence. Indeed, the common law offence of perverting the course of justice may also be an appropriate offence to charge if the elements of that offence are made out.
We recognise the need for those in public office to act responsibly and to discharge their duties with both honesty and integrity. As we continue to consider the judgment in the latest Hillsborough trial and its implications, we will of course always consider opportunities to review the law and how it operates. I want the families to know that there will be no exception in this case. We are carefully considering the points made by the former Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, in his 2017 report on the experiences of the Hillsborough families, including in relation to the proposed duty of candour. Our focus now, after the trial’s conclusion, will be on publishing the Government’s overarching response to that report, after having further consulted all the families.
Irrespective of the outcome of this case, the Government continue to be committed to engaging with the survivors and the bereaved families. It is critical that the lessons of the Hillsborough tragedy—the Hillsborough disaster—are not only learned but consistently applied so that something similar can never be allowed to happen again. The Government are absolutely determined to do just that.
Mr Speaker
This is a very important urgent question and I wanted to make sure that it was debated, quite rightly, today. The Lord Chancellor took longer than I expected, so if Members feel they need to take longer, will they please bear in mind that I want to make sure that everybody gets a fair chance to have their say about this very important matter?
Maria Eagle
I thank Lord Chancellor for his careful and thoughtful words.
It is 32 years since the 96 people were unlawfully killed having gone to watch a football match, primarily through the gross negligence of the South Yorkshire police who should have been protecting them. Five years since the inquest verdicts, after six men were charged with 14 offences, only two charges were even put to the jury. Twelve charges were thrown out or withdrawn and just one conviction was secured, for a health and safety breach, resulting in a £6,500 fine. Yet since 2016, the families and survivors have been silenced to prevent any prejudice to the criminal proceedings, necessitating the cancellation of all public memorial services, including the 30th anniversary, and preventing them from correcting the record when the Hillsborough slurs about fans causing the disaster have been repeated—and they have been repeated in court and outside court.
Does the Lord Chancellor agree that it is a catastrophic failure of our criminal justice system that nobody has been held accountable for these killings and that it has taken 32 years for things to fail so badly? Does he think that the Crown Prosecution Service has any questions to answer about the charges laid, the vigour with which they were fought, and the CPS’s failure to challenge the reintroduction of the Hillsborough slurs when the families themselves could not because they were silenced? Does he accept that the utter failure, over 32 years, of our criminal justice system to do justice for these people requires changes of the law to make sure that families who are bereaved in public disasters never again have to endure this extended ordeal, after so many years trying to get truth and justice?
The Lord Chancellor seemed to say that he wants to learn lessons, and I welcome that, so will he consider enacting measures in the Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill, which is designed to stop things going wrong in the first place—that is the key to stopping things going wrong in respect of public disasters—and in the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill? Will he work with those of us in this House who have been campaigning on this issue to get it right for the future?
Since the collapse of the trials, two defence barristers have repeated the Hillsborough slurs in public. This matters so much to the families—the cover-up has been denied—so does the Lord Chancellor agree that it now has to stop? Will he make it clear that it must stop and that the apology that the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, gave in this House matters now as much as it did then and sets the record straight? Does he agree that the idea that it is lawful for a public authority to withhold information from an inquiry established to identify why 96 people died at a football event and to learn lessons, and for a solicitor to advise such a step, cannot be right and must be changed?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I pay tribute to her for the consistent work that she continues to do in this area. She has asked a number of questions, and she will perhaps forgive me if I cannot answer them with absolute specificity, but I will do my very best. I will start by reiterating the apology that David Cameron made. That is the Government’s position—no ifs, no buts.
With regard to the prosecution, clearly, it was right for the case to be brought and, as I have said, as Lord Chancellor, I have to respect the process. However, that has had quite a consequence for the families.
The important work that now needs to be done by colleagues in the Home Office—I have taken the trouble to speak to Home Office officials this morning—is to focus on Bishop James Jones’s 2017 report and work with the families to ensure that those recommendations are carried out. The focus has to be unrelenting, and I want this to take months, not years. Obviously, the families need to be at the heart of it—“nothing about them without them” clearly has to be the watchword—and I am confident, in the light of the work done by David Cameron, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and now by the Home Office, that that approach will very much be taken.
In regard to the work that the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood and others, including Lord Wills, have been doing on the independent public advocate, I want to assure the hon. Lady that we are absolutely committed to ensuring that bereaved people are supported and given a proper voice throughout the process. A Government consultation was conducted in 2018, and the responses to it were rather varied. I propose to do some more work on that process more swiftly, and to bottom-out what the options might be in ensuring that any service is independent, has the confidence of those who use it and makes a difference, particularly in major public inquiries where many lives have been lost. I know that that has been the focus. I will work with the hon. Lady to ensure that the consultation will look at what the threshold might look like and at the overall impact. I do not think we need to create some huge public body; I know that that is not the hon. Lady’s intention. I now want to give this careful and close attention, and I am sure she will work with me on that.
It is good to note that a lot of work has already been done with regard to legal aid eligibility. We have, in effect, ended any means test on legal aid for legal help and, indeed, representation by the use of the exceptional cases funding category of legal aid. That was an important and welcome initiative. We must also bear in mind the work done by Mr Nick Hurd, a former Member of this House, as the Prime Minister’s adviser and envoy on the Grenfell inquiry. I want to make sure that the correlation of that type of role is fully understood in the concept of a potential independent public advocate. I am sure that the hon. Lady and I will have further exchanges, and I am sure she will forgive me if I have not answered every specific question that she has asked. I am profoundly grateful to her for her urgent question today.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has acknowledged that the collapse of this trial has been the final blow to the Hillsborough families in their desperate search for justice over so many years. He has referenced the independent public advocate. In 2017, I pledged:
“To ensure that the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families…is not repeated, we will introduce an independent public advocate who will act for bereaved families after a public disaster and support them at public inquests.”
We are now four years on, so can I urge him to act swiftly in this matter? We have established our former colleague here in this House, Nick Hurd, as a ministerial representative working with the Grenfell families after that tragedy, but I would say to the Lord Chancellor that I see that role as quite different from the role of an independent public advocate. The independence of the public advocate is incredibly important. The Lord Chancellor wants to get it right, but please get it right quickly.
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to her for the approach that she took not only as Prime Minister but as Home Secretary throughout those years, particularly after the first report by Bishop James Jones in 2012. I well remember being a Back Bencher in this House and raising the issue of potential criminal charges, and now here we are, nearly 10 years later. I take the point about time, but I know that she will appreciate that I want to get this absolutely right. I want to make sure that anything that we do chimes with the aspirations and needs of those who might use such independent advocates. Our work will be fruitless if it does not achieve those aims.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who has been at these issues in this House for 24 years on behalf of her constituents and others.
The Secretary of State will know that inquests have since found that 96 victims were unlawfully killed by the negligence of others. The authorities who were supposed to protect the 96 that day instead failed them. More than five years ago, the South Yorkshire police commander in charge on the day of the Hillsborough disaster admitted not only that he had inadequate experience to oversee the safety of the 54,000 people, not only that he accepted responsibility for the deaths, but that he lied, telling the then secretary of the Football Association that Liverpool fans should be blamed for getting entry through a large exit gate when, in fact, he ordered the gate to be opened himself. These lies—these pernicious, ugly mistruths—have caused incredible pain to the families of the 96, who were already in despair and obviously experiencing grief.
The collapse of the most recent case at the end of last month is yet another kick in the gut for the families of all those who lost loved ones at Hillsborough. It is nothing less than a national scandal that not one person responsible has been punished or held to account in the criminal justice system for these deadly failures. The lack of justice in this case is undermining the very concept of a public inquiry. After a tragedy like this, the system only works where there is good faith. There is clearly bad faith in respect of the Hillsborough tragedy, and we must legislate so that this can never happen again.
The travesty of Hillsborough is not a one-off. We can see parallels in the experience that the Grenfell families are going through at this time. Do the Government now accept that they need to change the law? Another tragedy, another 32 years of injustice—we clearly need to do something. This does not have to be a partisan issue. The former Prime Minister, as we have heard, yesterday expressed the need for legislative change after the most recent trial collapsed because, although it was accepted that police evidence had been altered, it did not constitute perversion of the course of justice as it was evidenced to a public inquiry. Authorities must be held to account and victims must be given the support that they need. The proposals to ensure that this takes place—the Public Advocate Bill and the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill—are ready to go. We cannot have more cover-ups, more lies and more pain for bereaved families. Truth and justice matter. Will the Secretary of State today commit to working cross-party to change the law not only to secure justice for the families of the 96, but to ensure that this does not and cannot ever happen again?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and, of course, I reiterate the commitment that I made to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) to work across the House. Those are not just words; that is backed up by the consistent work that this Government have done both in the incarnation of the previous Prime Minister and, indeed, when David Cameron was in office.
The right hon. Gentleman refers to changes in the law. I have already alluded to my intention with regard to the additional work to be done on how an independent public advocate service might work. I am also mindful of work that the Law Commission has done on potential changes to the offences of misconduct in public office, which are clearly tied in with these matters. On the matter of perverting the course of justice, I have made it clear that inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 could indeed be covered by that common law offence, which is a significant difference from the Taylor inquiry, which was, if you like, an administrative inquiry ordered by the Home Office, which formed the basis of learned trial judges’ decisions. I am confident that the current inquiries under the 2005 Act—indeed the future covid inquiry—would be covered, subject to the evidential tests being met by the common law offence of perverting the course of justice as well as the section 35 offences that I referred to in my initial statement.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
Nothing can take away from the grief and heartache that the Hillsborough families have suffered. The system, for various reasons, has prolonged that suffering, and this has been rightly brought to our attention by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle). She is a fellow member of the Justice Committee, and all Committee members would want to extend their deepest condolences to the families at what must be a very trying time.
Will the Lord Chancellor recognise that we have to be cautious in moving to legislative change in relation to the specific facts of this case? This is a case in which a legal decision—a point of law—was argued by very experienced counsel on both sides in front of a very experienced High Court judge. Conclusions may have to be made, as he has set out, as to what should come from that, but legislative change may not be appropriate where we are dealing with a very fact-specific set of circumstances and the particular legal status of the Taylor inquiry.
Will the Lord Chancellor also recognise that he has received from the Justice Committee a report that highlights the way in which, in a number of important areas, the coronial inquest system fails, regrettably, to protect and support bereaved families both in large cases of great public attention such as this and in smaller ones too? The report makes a specific recommendation that legal representation should, as a matter of course, be available to families in cases where there has been a disaster that has significant public consequences or where state agencies such as a police authority are themselves legally represented, so that the families can get their concerns aired and their desire to challenge and scrutinise the evidence heard by their own representatives at the inquest stage earlier in the proceedings?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the Chair of the Justice Committee. I think I should correct the record; it was, of course, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) who asked the urgent question. I know that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) is similarly supportive, and I am sure that she is more than grateful to be referred to, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, who is in the Chamber.
My hon. Friend is right to talk about the excellent report that his Committee has done. We will respond to it by the end of July, and my officials are working on that response. His question draws out some important points that we should all remember when it comes to inquests. Inquests are processes that are designed to uncover the facts. They are not trials; they cannot be trials. This brings us back to the essential point for the families. The families have put their faith in the criminal trial process as a way of responsibility—people being held to account. However comprehensive the inquest process was—and the inquest chaired by Sir John Goldring was, indeed, a very comprehensive and thorough piece of work that all of us can reflect upon and understand—it was never going to be a trial.
The point I seek to make is that we must ensure that, when we talk about equality of arms, which is a very important point that underpins the hon. Lady’s campaign, we do not turn to some sort of adversarial blame game. That would be wrong. It would be a disservice, frankly, to bereaved families, and it would be a misunderstanding of the coroner’s function. Article 2 widens the provisions of the inquest to allow for wider consideration to be given, but it is important that all of us focus upon the function of an inquest and the fact that any changes to be made should not detract from its essential quality.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) [V]
The Hillsborough disaster was a fatal human tragedy at a football match at Hillsborough stadium in Sheffield on 15 April 1989. I pay tribute to those who lost their lives and the families who have spent decades in pursuit of justice.
In 2016, the inquiry findings concluded that 96 victims were unlawfully killed due to gross negligence. Police errors in planning, defects at the stadium and delays in the emergency response all contributed to the disaster. The behaviour of fans was not to blame. The 32-year battle for justice by the families shows that the English legal system is in dire need of reform. It has failed to provide any real accountability for these unlawful deaths and a cover-up that extended from the police lying and omitting crucial details to the media narrative shifting, blaming fans for their deaths, and a long, hard fight for the truth. The collapse of the latest trial means that no one will be held criminally responsible. Margaret Aspinall, who lost her 18-year-old son in the disaster and is the former chair of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, has called this outcome a
“cover-up of the cover-up of the cover-up”,
saying that families have been
“put through a 32-year legal nightmare looking for the truth and accountability.”
Given the collapse of the trial, how does the Minister plan to promote confidence in accountability for public servants and in the idea that fair justice is ensured in the English legal system? The ruling that the Government inquiries are not a course of public justice and that in effect public servants cannot be held legally to account for evidence provided to them is incorrect and risks creating a dangerous precedent for those who wish to withhold or amend evidence for future inquiries. What action will the Minister take to ensure that the system of inquiries is not compromised by this ruling?
This is the end of the legal line for the Hillsborough campaigners. The reviews, inquiries, inquests and criminal trials have allowed the record to be set straight and established that fans were not to blame for the disaster. However, no convictions have been made and many still feel that justice has not been served. What assurances can the Government give to the victims and their families that the lessons of Hillsborough have been learned and that justice and accountability remain unequivocally guaranteed in the English legal system?
No one should go to a football match and not return home afterwards. It is right that the matter is considered carefully and sensitively, but after 32 years the campaign for justice for the 96 rightly deserved justice.
Robert Buckland
In the hon. Lady’s sensitive and appropriate invocation of the memories of the 96, it is right to pause to remember that 50 years ago the Ibrox disaster happened in Glasgow, a major disaster costing many, many lives.
Robert Buckland
Indeed, Mr Speaker; you are quite right to add that to the record.
What brings those two tragedies together, although they are separated by time, is the fundamental approach that was taken to safety then. It seems that public order trumped safety, and the attitude of the then authorities was about the containment of potential unruly behaviour rather than the fundamental issues of safety. That lazy thinking, which seems astounding now in 2021, underpins many of the ways in which disasters such as this happened—or near disasters, which on many occasions were averted only by mere good luck or circumstance. That is an important point to reflect on. We cannot go back to those days. The care and safety of fans at matches have to be paramount and at the centre of any considerations by police and other agencies responsible for safety on these important occasions.
I have in my previous answers dealt with many of the proper points that the hon. Lady raises. I will reflect in this way: with regard to the inquest process, I think she will appreciate the important need for me to balance the imperative of ensuring that those who have been voiceless have a voice while at the same time making sure that we do not do anything inadvertent to close down opportunities for frankness. Although the Inquiries Act has done a very important job in making clear what is covered not just by statute but by the common law offence of perverting the course of justice, just because an inquiry might not be held under its aegis does not mean that there should be some retreat from principles of honesty, openness and integrity. That should not be the case. It should not just be about the letter of the law being there; it should be about the spirit of behaviour by everybody. That is what I want to see, and I know that it is what hon. and right hon. Members want to see too.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
It is hard to disagree with the reported comments of Deanna Matthews that it is “ludicrous” for the search for justice to have ended in this way, particularly when the community in Liverpool have had to fight so hard for so long to uncover the truth. What does my right hon. and learned Friend consider is the key lesson for the Department he leads to prevent things like this from ever happening again?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend encapsulates very well the task that is before me and the Government. The task is to make sure, first, that we have finally moved away from the public order mindset that I referred to, but secondly, that in response to any tragedy or disaster that might happen, there is a spirit of openness and a willingness and an understanding that the needs of bereaved families must be at the heart of processes. In everything that we do with regard to future investigations, inquiries and criminal investigations, people must not hide behind process and use that as a shield, because that has been the impression and the perception, which is why the families feel today that deep damage has been done to the process.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Bishop James Jones set out in his report that one of the problems with the initial inquest was that there was no public funding for the families to get the representation and advice they needed. The Government have said that providing legal aid for inquests is too expensive. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s earlier response about that: an inquest is not like criminal proceedings or court proceedings. But clearly some legal advice is important for families in these cases. Whatever he wants to call it, will he listen to those families and prevent further injustices in future by providing legal aid for inquests?
Robert Buckland
I do not know whether the hon. Lady heard my observations about what has already been done with regard to legal aid and legal eligibility. The effective removal of the upper means test threshold with regard to exceptional case funding for legal help and legal representation in circumstances just such as this is a very important development. I take the point that she makes. That is why I have already undertaken not just to present the response to the 2018 consultation but to develop it further so that any potential change that can be made will be done with the fullest, most careful and earliest consideration.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, as this is the first time I am speaking on this topic, I hope you will allow me to pay tribute to the four victims from Warrington who lost their lives at Hillsborough—in particular, to David Benson from Penketh in my constituency, who was just 22 when he died. Having read some of the comments from Brian, David’s father, it is clear to me that he feels that the system has failed him at every single level. With that in mind, will the Lord Chancellor clarify what steps he is taking following the collapse of the most recent trial in relation to the offence of perverting the course of justice and common law offences that touch on those who hold public office?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend puts in very heartfelt, genuine terms the real sense of loss and frustration, to say the least, that his constituents and their families feel. I have already outlined the steps that I want to take with regard to looking at the public advocate role. In line with that, I and my officials are considering very carefully the work of Law Commission on the offences of misconduct in public office published right at the end of last year. I aim to issue a response as soon as possible with regard to any next steps. There is a joint protocol that we have agreed between my Department—the Government—and the Law Commission. I want to make sure that any potential changes are done in the round so that we are not inadvertently missing out any particular issues that clearly need to be addressed.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) [V]
May I pay my own tribute to the families and survivors? It took 27 years to get to the truth that 96 people were unlawfully killed at Hillsborough, yet 32 years on, justice remains out of reach. The decades-long fight of the bereaved families and survivors is all the evidence we need that the legal system is broken, and the collapse of the recent trial risks setting a precedent that tips the scales of justice even further away from victims. Can I ask the Lord Chancellor to say how he will engage with the families and survivors about their experiences? Will he quickly set out a timetable for reviewing and changing the law, to learn lessons from the horrific experiences that the families and survivors have had of the British legal and judicial system?
Robert Buckland
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I can assure him that when it comes to ramifications, we must remember that this was a decision of first instance that turned on its particular facts. I have clearly set out the position with regard to the existing Inquiries Act 2005 and the section 35 offences applying to that and, indeed, the common law offence of perverting the course of justice.
In terms of the other important points the hon. Gentleman makes, colleagues at the Home Office will now be working closely with the families with regard to the 2017 Bishop James Jones report. They can get on with that work now that the trial has come to a conclusion. As I said earlier, “nothing about them without them” has to be at the heart of the work that is done with the families, so that what emerges will be a positive set of changes informed by the excellent work of Bishop James Jones.
Secondly, I have already outlined what my intentions are with potential legislative change, and I absolutely get the hon. Gentleman’s point about the need, after all this time, for work to be done as speedily as possible.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
The Hillsborough tragedy is one of those events where anyone who was alive at the time will remember where they were when these terrible events were unfolding. All our sympathy must be with the families of the victims and those recovering. Will my right hon and learned Friend set out what plans he has to review the existing position so that legal support is provided to the families of victims not only of the Hillsborough tragedy, but of other tragedies that may sadly happen? There will need to be legal support for families undergoing this. We need to learn the lessons and ensure that the failure to provide proper legal support for these families during the entire process is not repeated.
Robert Buckland
I think it goes further than that; it starts right at the beginning of the process, and I think the families would say that they were shut out from day one. The rot sets in much earlier than the investigative, inquisitorial and adversarial process. That is something that none of us can accept or wants to see happen. What we are left with is the aftermath. The work that Government have been doing and will continue to do in the spirit of cross-party co-operation is designed to try to create a higher degree of accountability and involvement, but I emphasise something that I have not yet properly emphasised, which is that the justice system cannot do this alone. It is only as good as the product of the evidence, information and intelligence it receives, and that requires all arms of the state to act in a way that is responsible, open, accountable and honest.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) [V]
Those of us who were at Hillsborough that April in 1989 will never forget the scenes that we witnessed that day, made all the worse by the deliberate attempt by South Yorkshire police to blame Liverpool fans. It made the trauma of the families 10 times worse. It is worth putting on the record again that what has been found is that the police lost control, the stadium was unfit for a match of that importance and that size of crowd, and other agencies such as the ambulance service failed on the day.
What is important now is that we take the lessons forward. This has been a terrible time again for the families. I hear what the Secretary of State says, but over the years as an MP on constituency cases I have had some good and bad experiences with the coronial service. I dealt with a case recently that also raises questions about whether sensitivity and openness to families is really there throughout the coronial service. I hope that we will look at that again.
Robert Buckland
I thank the hon. Gentleman who, as a Merseyside MP as well as a football fan, has lived this experience, along with all of us who have followed this tragedy over the years. I am, of course, more than happy to look at the case that he raises. In the past I have always been happy to see him on particular issues, and this occasion will be no exception.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I am sure that the whole House has immense sympathy with the families affected by the tragic events of Hillsborough, and their tireless pursuit of justice is to be praised. Has my right hon. and learned Friend made an assessment of the adequacy of the financial package of support available to bereaved families after such a tragic event?
Robert Buckland
I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. As I outlined in previous answers, it is important, certainly from my position with regard to the justice process, that we act as swiftly as possible to make legal aid eligibility easier. We have done that, but clearly, in the light of the responses to our consultation, more work needs to be done to achieve the level of justice-related support that families deserve.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
The recent collapse of the Hillsborough trial was a devastating development for many people living in my constituency and across Merseyside who have suffered so much in their decades’ long quest for justice. The pain that it has caused the families of the 96 Liverpool fans who lost their lives, along with the trauma still haunting so many of the survivors, needs to be urgently addressed by this House. Do the Government accept that the payment of compensation by the police to 601 people affected by the disaster is inconsistent with the court’s failure to find anybody responsible for the tragedy, and that that failure needs to be addressed by legislation to protect victims in the future?
Robert Buckland
The hon. Gentleman asks a proper question about compensation; indeed, it echoes that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton). I undertake to write to them both about that aspect. I do not want to say anything that would in any way be misconstrued or misunderstood. Frankly, this is a very sensitive matter that needs more careful consideration. I am alive to the fact that things are said and done purportedly on behalf of the families when in fact the families have not been involved. We have to act in a way that is consistent with our words, and that is what I am doing on this occasion.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
I pay tribute to the families and survivors at Hillsborough. Liverpool is a proud and resilient city, and I am a proud Scouser. Contrary to the Prime Minister’s description, we are not a city that wallows in victim status; we have a long history of fighting social injustice, and Hillsborough is the worst kind of injustice. On 15 April 1989, 96 Liverpool fans left to watch a football match and died as a result of corporate failures. Can the Lord Chancellor tell the House, and the families of the 96, what he intends to do for justice to be served?
Robert Buckland
I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the great city of Liverpool. I am a proud Welshman, but Liverpool is very close to my homeland and to my heart. It is a great city—a wonderful place, full of amazing people. I want to put that on the record. I am sure that she listened very carefully to the points that I made about my intentions, and the Government’s, with regard to achieving as high a degree of justice as possible. Sometimes the word “justice” is bandied about a bit too much and we are perhaps a little careless with the way we use it. Bearing in mind everything that has happened, and the huge setbacks and reversals that the families have experienced, I will try to achieve as high a degree of justice as possible in these terrible difficult and deeply sad circumstances.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]
Thirty-two years after the Hillsborough tragedy, the families of the 96 football fans unlawfully killed that day have not seen justice done. Three of my Warrington North constituents—19-year-old Ian “Ronnie” Whelan, 19-year-old Colin Ashcroft and 42-year-old Eric Hughes—were among the 96 innocent victims killed that day. May their memories forever be a blessing. Many more of my constituents have been traumatised by the events of that day.
The fact that there has been no individual responsible held to account by the justice system is a national scandal, as are the years of smears about fans that the families and survivors have endured, blaming them for the disaster. Will the Government therefore consider implementing the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill of the former Member for Leigh to set a requirement on public institutions, public servants and officials, and on those carrying out functions on their behalf, to act in the public interest and with candour and frankness, so that other families bereaved in public disasters cannot be treated as disgracefully as the Hillsborough families have been?
Robert Buckland
I think the hon. Lady is right to remind us again about the victims of the disaster from Warrington North and how in fact the diaspora—I suppose that is the best word to use—was a wide one, bearing in mind the wide fan base of Liverpool football club. That means that what happened was a national disaster, and was not confined to the great city of Liverpool, though the great city of Liverpool felt the brunt of it. This was something I think all of us felt was a national loss and a national disaster, and therefore we have a national responsibility to address it and to rectify wrongs that have been committed.
I listened very carefully to the hon. Lady’s point about the Bill that fell back prior to the general election of 2017. I am of course, as I have already indicated, looking carefully at aspects relating to that Bill, and indeed at wider work to make sure that we fully reflect the wrongs that were committed and the culture change that I think is such an important part of rectifying the ills of the past.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Ninety-six people were unlawfully killed at Hillsborough. Police statements were altered, yet nobody has been held to account. What are the Government going to do about it?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and she will forgive me if I do not go through all the important points I have made in response to other hon. Members. I will simply say this to her: she rightly raises the issue and she wants accountability—so do I, and so do the Government. That is why the work will continue in the months ahead, particularly the important work that the Home Office has conducted with the families directly, as a result of Bishop James Jones’s second report—the 2017 report.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
Can I thank the Lord Chancellor for his answers so far?
On 15 April 1989, I witnessed 96 women, men and children unlawfully killed at a football match in Hillsborough, Sheffield. On 26 May 2021 in Salford, we shamefully witnessed a trial collapse on a technicality. After 32 years, not a single person has been held accountable for the deaths, and justice has been denied to families and survivors.
“Our loved ones went to a football match and were killed, then they and the survivors were branded hooligans,”
said Margaret Aspinall:
“We’ve been put through a 32-year legal nightmare looking for the truth and accountability.”
Mary Corrigan, whose 17-year-old son Keith—he was a great friend of mine—died, said she was “so angry”:
“It’s the lies, the lies that they’ve come out with,”
she said:
“It’s unbelievable.”
We now have families of the dead, survivors and indeed a city—broken by the events of 32 years—believing our justice system is corrupt and damaged beyond repair.
Does the Lord Chancellor accept that there need to be legislative changes to avoid families affected by future disasters facing the same mistreatment and injustice as the Hillsborough families and survivors have suffered? Will the Lord Chancellor commit to working with families, survivors and Members across this House to implement the Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), which will help to ensure this injustice is never repeated?
Robert Buckland
I am profoundly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and I listened very carefully to what he said. He was a witness to what happened and, no doubt, he has to live with that. All of us in this House would understand and share with him that huge sense of loss to which I referred and that sense of an ongoing injustice. I hope he appreciates that, in the answers I have given, I have set out the steps the Government wish to take on the important work that is being done on many fronts: potential legislative change; the work of Bishop James Jones’s inquiry; and, importantly, the work that quietly but effectively goes on between the Home Office and families directly. I say again that we have to act in accordance with our words, and doing things for, to or about the families is meaningless unless we do it with them—it has to be with them that we will make things better.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) [V]
In asking my question today, I am thinking of all those who lost a loved one and all those who were affected in any way by the Hillsborough disaster, and all that they have been through.
I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for their incredible work on this, and I will support them every step of the way as they create a legal legacy for all those affected in the most terrible way by the Hillsborough disaster. Both of them accurately captured the effective silencing in recent years of those who know the truth of Hillsborough during the recent proceedings, which is why I want to ask about the Hillsborough archive, which is crucial to making sure that history correctly records the truth of Hillsborough. Will the Lord Chancellor and appropriate Ministers meet me to discuss the future for that archive?
Robert Buckland
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, who makes an important point about the archive. There is a general point to be made here which goes back to the initial question. The ongoing criminal procedure meant that a lot of material, for example, material on existing websites, had to be taken down. Obviously, I want that to change—I want it all to go back. Indeed, more work needs to be done to ensure that documents and material are in the public domain. So my answer is: yes, I absolutely will undertake to work with her, because I think it is important that everybody has access to the truth, so that the full story is known by generations yet to come.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It represents a complete failure of the state, does it not, that 96 people were unlawfully killed and then there was a cover-up, for which no one has been held to account because of what amounts to a technicality 32 years later on? So does the Lord Chancellor agree that, to the families of the bereaved, the idea about statements submitted by the police to an inquiry headed by a Lord Justice that was not in the “course of public justice” is a cruel absurdity, on top of all the other injustices that they have suffered? Does he consider that anything could have been done to close this loophole long before we got to this point?
Robert Buckland
I listened carefully to the careful question from the hon. Gentleman. He appreciates that with regard to criminal procedure the law applicable at the time is the law that is then used with regard to the evidence and whether individuals might be guilty or not guilty of allegations. I have made it very clear that the Inquiries Act 2005, which of course was passed many years after the Taylor inquiry, covers the major public inquiries that we are all very familiar with, the ongoing ones that we have and indeed the future covid inquiry. I have also made it clear that that common law offence of perverting the course of justice would cover those types of inquiries, but clearly as part of the work we are doing, we will look carefully to make sure that there are not any inadvertent loopholes, while remembering the important point that there will be certain procedures that must be conducted in a spirit of openness and honesty which will benefit from being less adversarial and more fact-finding, and that of course includes the essence of the inquest process itself. We must be very mindful of getting that balance right when we look at these things.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
The collapse of the trial last month was devastating for the families who lost loved ones at Hillsborough. In 2016, an inquest jury ruled that the 96 who tragically lost their lives were unlawfully killed, yet no successful criminal charges have been brought against any individual. The whole House will be in agreement that this is a massive failing of the criminal justice system.
I have heard the Lord Chancellor’s responses today, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) says, the Public Advocate Bill and the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill are ready to go. Will the Government now commit to introducing that legislation without delay, so that no families bereaved by public disasters have to go through what the families who lost loved ones at Hillsborough have had to endure?
Robert Buckland
Without repeating the points I made in earlier answers, I reiterate my commitment to carefully considering the 2018 consultation and the responses that have been given, which were quite varied and included varied views about the merits of the proposal. I will always look to achieve that essential element of independence and to ensure that a voice is provided to those who, prior to this, have been voiceless.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
Ninety-six people died at Hillsborough, including 18 people from the borough of Sefton. That included Kevin Williams, one of the youngest victims, whose mum, Anne, campaigned so hard to achieve the new inquest. Despite the coroner’s verdict, no one was held accountable of unlawful killing at that new inquest. Instead, the loved ones of the bereaved families continue to be smeared to this day. The Justice Secretary said that he was committed to changing the law, so I ask him: how quickly will he introduce the Hillsborough law? Will it deliver parity of legal funding for bereaved families? Will it include a duty of candour on public officials? In short, will it ensure that no one is ever denied justice in such a cruel way ever again?
Robert Buckland
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to all those from the borough of Sefton who lost their lives and to their families, to whom he quite rightly refers. Those campaigners, in particular in his constituency, worked so hard for the inquest. I remember the people he talks about very well, as I think do most of us who followed events closely; I remember them with gratitude and honour.
I will not reiterate the points I have made, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers that I gave a moment ago. I simply say this: I want to get it right and to ensure that things are done as quickly as possible, but I do not want to rush this and get it wrong in a way that, frankly, the families would, once again, be let down by.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for her assiduous work over many years on behalf of her constituents and many others on this important issue. It is important to remember that the families have suffered injustice at every stage, and have had to fight to overturn lies and decisions that have gone against them. They have had to relive the tragedy and listen to all the details of what their family members went through on that day.
To then come to the final stage, with a court case falling on the technicality that it is not unlawful to give false statements in an inquest—we cannot imagine the pain and anguish that that must cause. I ask the Lord Chancellor to expedite the changes in law that he has said he is willing to do, but will he also tell us whether he thinks the Crown Prosecution Service has anything to answer for here? Should it be looking at itself and the way it has conducted itself during this case?
Robert Buckland
The hon. Gentleman encapsulates the feelings very well indeed. I refer him to the answers I gave a moment ago.
With regard to the CPS, I have to say that I am not the accountable Minister. The Attorney General is responsible for the superintendence of the independent Crown Prosecution Service. As Lord Chancellor, my clear role is to acknowledge and respect process, and I think perhaps it would not be right for me to make comments about an individual case, not having been close to the facts. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are mechanisms by which further questions can be asked, primarily via the Attorney General’s Office.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]
As other hon. Members have done today, I pay tribute to the families and survivors of Hillsborough for their dignity and tenacity in the pursuit of truth and justice, and of course I pay tribute to my wider city of Liverpool. Hillsborough and the subsequent fight for justice show the great lengths to which state actors are willing to go to avoid accountability and truth—to act in their own self-interest, not that of the public, the survivors or the families.
The fact remains that 96 innocent men, women and children were unlawfully killed, and yet nobody has been held accountable and justice still awaits. Will the Secretary of State condemn Jonathan Goldberg’s recent comments about the behaviour of Liverpool fans that day? A member of the Queen’s Counsel should know better and, quite frankly, his empty apology just does not cut it.
Robert Buckland
I can absolutely understand the strong feelings that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) has articulated. She is right to remind us that every time comments are made in public, by people who should think very carefully, real hurt can be caused. The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) is right to mention the reliving of events. The intense sensitivity of these matters cannot be overestimated, so my sage advice to everybody in public life, and anybody who wishes to pass comment about the dreadful events of 1989, is this. Remember that there are human people behind this, who are still living with it. Show some respect.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) [V]
I pay tribute to the families, survivors and victims. The Lord Chancellor referred to loopholes. I understand that the expert witness Sir Robert Francis QC, who has led or been involved in inquiries into the Liverpool Alder Hey Children’s Hospital scandal and others, and who is a champion of openness and transparency, told the jury—with regret, I expect—that there was no legal duty of candour for police at a public inquiry. Can I be absolutely clear? Is the Lord Chancellor absolutely satisfied that the current legal provisions, which he referred to earlier, cover all administrative inquiries in relation to breach of candour? I thank him today for his candour.
Robert Buckland
The hon. Gentleman asks a very important question. Indeed, he touches on detail that my officials and I need to consider regarding not just the ruling, but the evidence that was given in the trial. As he knows, it would not be right for me to comment on the detail of that evidence. It is clear that that work needs to be carried out as part of a wider process of making sure that well-intentioned decisions to get on with important and expeditious work to uncover the truth do not end up, further down the line, in loopholes that can cause real misery to those who seek justice. He knows that my door is always open to him, and I am sure that we will carry on having an active dialogue on these important matters.
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Finance Act 2021.
I now suspend the House for two minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before I call the shadow Leader of the House to ask the business question, I would like to take the opportunity to put on record the House’s thanks to Tony Reay, who retired this week after 43 years of service in the House. Tony worked first in the craft and maintenance team as a carpenter. Since 2001, Tony has worked in the security team, where he was a security officer. He was a popular member of the team with colleagues, Members and visitors alike. As one of his colleagues said:
“I’ve seen staff and public entering with a frown only to experience the Reay way and then they would be leaving with a beaming smile or a howl of laughter. He will certainly be missed by his Security family and staff of the house.”
I am sure we would all like to wish Tony a very long and happy retirement. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Business of the House
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I join you in your good wishes to Tony.
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Mr Speaker, as you are just leaving the Chair, may I too wish you a happy birthday, before you depart? I do not think we will sing.
The business for the week commencing 14 June will include:
Monday 14 June—Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions Bill.
Tuesday 15 June—Opposition day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Wednesday 16 June—Second Reading of the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill.
Thursday 17 June—General debate on the Misuse of Drugs Act, followed by a general debate on the UK’s preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative and the G7. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 18 June—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 21 June will include:
Monday 21 June—Opposition day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Tuesday 22 June—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill.
Wednesday 23 June—Consideration in Committee of the Armed Forces Bill.
Thursday 24 June—General debate on the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, followed by business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 25 June—The House will not be sitting.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the business. Can he share with the House the reasons why the business for next week appears to have changed?
This is a great country, full of amazing, inspiring people, and this week is the Government’s opportunity to showcase our great country and its values at the G7 in Cornwall—leading, not just hosting. Yet instead of leadership, what do we have? The UK teetering on the brink of a trade war with our nearest allies, including some G7 guests, over sausages. This is about the meaning of the Northern Ireland protocol, an international agreement that the Prime Minister literally negotiated. I wonder if he actually read it, or maybe he got a classmate to do his homework.
The UK is the only developed economy and the only G7 participant to be cutting aid for life-saving global programmes. We have a Government who do not even dare to put that to a parliamentary vote.
There is no news of when Nazanin and others trapped in foreign jails for crimes that they did not commit will be reunited with their families.
We have a call to get the world vaccinated—but not until the end of next year. The virus is still mutating and none of us is safe until everyone is safe, so I urge the Prime Minister to put party politics aside and take Labour’s plan for global vaccination to the G7.
To demonstrate the extent of his commitment to tackling the climate emergency, the Prime Minister flies to Cornwall by private jet. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) stands ready to advise the Prime Minister on train times for his return. While he is on it, perhaps the Prime Minister could sort out his failed green homes scheme. He should be leading the G7 by example and inspiration, not just putting out the place cards for dinner, so will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to showcase what this country has to offer instead of his own lack of leadership?
I am disappointed that the Government have not taken responsibility for the loophole that means that a Member can be subject to a parliamentary recall petition by their constituents for an expenses charge but not for serious sexual harassment. A Member who has been sexually harassing staff will return to Parliament within weeks and shows no sign of resigning. Staff are worried and constituents have every right to be concerned, so will the Leader of the House confirm that the public can use the parliamentary petitions process to trigger a debate about the matter? Will he tell us why that Member is still, apparently, a member of the Conservative party? Will he bring forward the motions needed so that the people of Delyn can decide whether they want to ditch their MP?
On the domestic agenda, again there is failure. The Secretary of State for Education feels our children’s future is worth just 50 quid per pupil, compared with £2,500 in the Netherlands. Meanwhile, Labour has an actual catch-up plan that Parliament voted in favour of yesterday. If the Government will not do the right thing and adopt Labour’s plan, will the Secretary of State for Education explain to the House what it is about breakfast clubs, mental health support and small group tutoring that he objects to?
It is Carers Week, and carers and people who need care in Bristol West want me to ask the Prime Minister where his plan to fix social care is. It was announced 687 days ago; how many more years will they have to wait? The Government have repeatedly ignored crises in health and social care over the past decade, and they failed to act on the 2016 pandemic preparedness report. They continue to ignore disabled people, people with long-term illnesses and those needing mental health support during the pandemic. They have paid no attention to the exhaustion of heroic key workers who just keep on going and need hope that things will get better soon. The Government continue to use the pandemic as their personal cash machine; the least they could do is announce the public inquiry. The Leader of the House said last time that we should not have the inquiry while the virus is still raging. He cannot have it both ways: it is either raging or it is not. If it is, the Government need to learn now the lessons about what is going wrong. There is no excuse for delaying the inquiry.
Successive Tory Governments have run down public services, eroded working people’s ability to pay rent and feed their families, and left productivity stagnant. That is in stark contrast to the Labour Government, who left the country with the brilliant Sure Start scheme for early years; thousands more police, nurses and doctors; the shortest waiting times on record for key treatments; and low crime rates—plus an economy that was recovering well after the global financial crisis. This Government announce a few tutors here or some more nurses there, but it is a drop in the ocean compared with the destruction of the past 11 Tory years. It is not just the pandemic: children need tutors because Tories cut education; crime rates soar because Tories cut police numbers; and rape victims wait years for justice because Tories cut the justice system. And now they expect people to be grateful for the thin gruel they are offering. No wonder the people of North East Somerset are voting Labour.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady may have fallen into the nostalgic trap—I am sometimes accused of falling into one myself—of looking back at a golden age past but forgetting the reality of the misery of the last socialist Government. That socialist Government left us with an annual deficit of £150 billion a year, the worst financial crisis that we had seen in decade after decade and a situation in which, as one of her own Members said, there was simply no money left. Much though I think we should admire, like and revel in our past history, we have to remember the failures of socialism and that every socialist Government that this country has ever had, at the end of their complete term, have left unemployment higher than when they came into office.
As regards police, we now have over 8,000 more police, meeting our promise to recruit more than 20,000. We are ensuring that the police are on the streets so that we are kept safe. We have reformed education with the advent of more academy schools, which are raising standards. The hon. Lady blamed the need for tutoring on the Conservative party, whereas, actually, the need for extra tutoring and the fact that a package of £3 billion in total has been provided to help children is because of the pandemic. That seems to have passed from her mind. It is quite right that the pandemic should have an inquiry, as the Prime Minister has promised, and that will be set up by the end of this parliamentary Session, because it is right to look at it when the decisions have all been taken and we begin to see the proper consequences of it.
The hon. Lady talks about leading in the G7. That is precisely what the Prime Minister is doing; he is showing the clearest possible leadership. The vaccine roll-out in the rest of the world will be helped enormously, and particularly, by the Oxford-AstraZeneca drug. Why? Because of the agreement made with Oxford-AstraZeneca to provide it at cost price. That is the fundamental difference that means that it can be afforded, to allow it to spread across the world, helping millions upon millions of people—leadership by the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister will call upon the G7 leaders to make commitments to vaccinate the entire world against the coronavirus by the end of 2022. He is calling for emissions cuts and is hosting COP26 later in the year. It is an extraordinary degree of leadership that is being shown among the democratic nations that are showing the way, encouraging people to have freedom and democracy.
The hon. Lady seems to want to ban British sausages from Northern Ireland, but let us not fuss too much about sausages. Sausages are important and they may be a nice thing to have for breakfast, but the scandal is that the European Union takes it upon itself to think that life-saving cancer drugs may not go freely between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is not the act of a friendly organisation. This is an act of an organisation playing games, playing ducks and drakes with the peace process. There is a brilliant article by David Trimble in the newspaper today setting out the risk that the European Union is taking. We should be absolutely clear that the protocol was there to respect the integrity of the United Kingdom, as well as to help the single market. It cannot have one side but not the other.
Then the hon. Lady came to things that can perfectly well be catered for by Opposition days. There are dates that have been announced over the next two weeks. If she wants to debate membership of this House for individual Members, I call upon her to put down a motion; it is up to her to do it. If she wants to have a debate on overseas aid, I call upon her to do it, but no sensible Government would be continuing with overseas aid at its previous levels in the current financial circumstances. It is extremely sensible to cut our coat according to our cloth. That is what Her Majesty’s Government are doing, and that is quite right. It is the proper thing to do and it still means that, as a percentage of GDP, we are one of the most generous donors in the world, and we are giving more than was ever given by that socialist Government of happy memory that I started with. Do we not remember what the hon. Lady was saying at the end—how glorious it was by 2010? They gave away less money then, so they do not have that much to be proud of. We as Conservatives do.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Alongside the Arts Council, I had a really wonderful visit to meet On:song in Stroud. It is a fantastic music organisation that has used the culture recovery grant not only to survive through the pandemic, which caused it an awful lot of difficulties, but to use its skills and diversify to reach and help many more people across the country. That is hugely important Government support, yet other Stroud businesses in the supply chain side of events and culture are really struggling to be heard and understood for grants. I am thinking about Freemans Event Partners and CORE Lighting—fantastic organisations in my patch. The reality is that big events, sporting festivals, exhibitions and weddings cannot go ahead without them. Does my right hon. Friend agree about the importance of supply chain businesses, and will he consider granting a debate on the Floor of the House to explore how we can bring their key expertise into use?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support of the culture recovery fund, which has so far distributed over £1.2 billion of taxpayers’ money, supporting more than 5,000 individual organisations and sites. There will be a further £300 million in the culture recovery fund this year. She is right to say that the pandemic has had a severe effect on supply chain businesses, including those in my own constituency. I believe that they are eligible to apply for grants from local councils, and I suggest that businesses in her constituency do that. I cannot promise her a debate, though the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), might be about to raise a question, and I am sure that he would like to hear about that issue as an item for debate, because it affects many hon. and right hon. Members. I will obviously raise her concerns with the relevant Department.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I, too, send my best wishes to Mr Speaker on his birthday and to Tony Reay on his impending retirement. It is always sad to see someone moving on, but it is a great opportunity for them all the same.
In previous weeks, I have raised issues about openness and transparency, and, again, I find that it is a case of here we go again. This week, it is the Cabinet Office that has been found guilty of acting unlawfully in handing out lucrative contracts to an ex-colleague. This goes on and on. When can we have a debate in Government time to consider the Government’s processes of openness and transparency so that we can shine a light on a clear way forward now that my Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill is no more, having fallen at the end of the previous parliamentary Session?
This week, we have also had a great deal of debate around the cuts to foreign aid, so I simply ask the Leader of the House: when will this House have a chance to have a substantive vote on that subject?
We are very quickly approaching 21 June, at which point the hybrid virtual covid procedures come to an end. Obviously, we have always said that this House would look to be in step with the public, but as we are still at this stage unclear what that date will mean for the public, can the Leader of the House add anything to give a bit more clarity? Beyond that, even when things do change, what consideration can be given to the particularly unique medical circumstances in which some Members will find themselves which result in their not being able to attend Parliament? What can we do to support them to make sure that the communities they represent are not disenfranchised? It could happen to a number of Members at any time; only last week a Member of this place, who is also a Member of the Scottish Parliament, was tracked and traced and had to isolate at very short notice.
Finally, we have seen protected time for Opposition day debates in the Government’s approach to scheduling statements, but over the past few weeks I have noticed that Back-Bench business time has been quite severely constrained by the number of statements made. Can we consider what can be done to make sure that the most time possible is made available for those important debates?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I join the hon. Gentleman and Mr Speaker in paying tribute to Tony Reay? More than 40 years’ service in this House is truly terrific; it is a real model of public service. I know that everyone who has worked with him has found pleasure in doing so. It is always important that our security team is as friendly and welcoming as it is. We have a first-class team in the Palace, and to have one of its number retiring after such distinguished service is well worth commemorating.
Let me come to the point on Back-Bench business time. I am not unsympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman says. It is purely a balance: Members put in urgent questions, they want to hear statements, and we want to finish at a regular time. There are other ways of proceeding. We could, if Members wanted it, have irregular times of ending, but that has not been mood of the House in recent years. It is about trying to get the balance right. I think it is proper to prioritise Opposition days, because that is fixed time for the Opposition, and it is a long-standing convention that we protect that; we also try to do that when the hon. Gentleman’s party has an Opposition day debate.
That leads me to the hon. Gentleman’s point on foreign aid. We will have four days of business over the next fortnight that is not controlled by the Government, so if there is a mood in the House to debate things, a motion may be put down either through the Backbench Business Committee or for an Opposition day. It is important to remember that although Standing Order No. 14 gives the Government control of the Order Paper, it does not stop other matters being raised in a number of ways of which right hon. and hon. Members are aware. Although 21 June—the longest day—is fast approaching, we will know more next week, so we will have to wait and see what the overall Government policy is then.
The hon. Gentleman refers to openness and transparency. Is it the infamous kimono-wearing fox killer who likes bringing all these cases? I am interested in his case with his builder which we might find out about at one time or another; we keep our eyes open and breath bated for that result to come out. The Government won in two of the three cases—there was no bias—and the courts recognised the need to act quickly. That is my fundamental point: the reason we have the vaccination success is that the Government moved swiftly. We could not wait three to six months to issue contracts in the normal way, and that was a perfectly proper and reasonable approach.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I join other Members in wishing our Speaker a very happy birthday and Mr Reay, after 43 years of service, a long, happy and healthy retirement.
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on violent crime, including stabbings and disorderly behaviour? Embarrassingly, as we move towards city status in Southend, the formerly quiet areas of Chalkwell and Leigh-on-Sea have seen crimes involving knives and disorderly behaviour. That has been a result of gangs moving into the areas and drug dealing. Present measures are simply not working.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important and troubling issue. As constituency MPs, we all see the terrible effects of violent crime and we should never be complacent in tackling it. So far, between 2019 and 2022, the Government will have spent more than £105.5 million of taxpayers’ money to develop 18 violence reduction units and over £136.5 million to support an enhanced police response. We have also spent £200 million on early intervention and prevention support initiatives through the youth endowment fund to support children and young people at risk of exploitation and involvement in serious violence, and the Government are taking urgent action to tackle knife crime and keep people safe. We have, according to the latest figures, recruited 8,771 additional police officers as part of our commitment to hiring an extra 20,000 police officers. I understand that, when crime hits, such bald statistics do not necessarily provide immediate comfort, but I hope they give reassurance that this matter is being taken very seriously and is being tackled.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now go to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Ian Mearns.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and for announcing the Backbench business for 17 June. We have just had it confirmed this morning that the second debate on 24 June will be on UK defence spending. We also understand that there are to be two days of Estimates debates in the last week of June, and in order to facilitate that I am afraid to say that applications to the Backbench Business Committee must be made by no later than 6 pm this forthcoming Tuesday, 15 June.
Lastly, as chairman also of the all-party parliamentary group for football supporters, may I express my ongoing sympathy for and solidarity with the bereaved and traumatised families of the 96 Liverpool fans killed at Hillsborough 32 years ago? I hope that the Backbench Business Committee can facilitate a debate in this Chamber as soon as possible, having received an application from my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) just this week.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I echo what the hon. Gentleman said about the 96 deaths at Hillsborough, which were the subject of the urgent question that has just passed; it rightly continues to be remembered in this House. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for telling us that the debate on 24 June will be on defence spending, which, interestingly, was one of the subjects specifically given to the Backbench Business Committee when it was set up, and for his very clear notice on the Estimates days, which I hope the relevant parties will listen carefully to and take to heart.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]
I join the House in wishing Mr Speaker a happy birthday and passing on our thanks and best wishes to Mr Tony Reay.
Owing to a £10 million shortfall between the Government’s generous financial support and the cost of maintaining its existing global network, the British Council is in danger of having to close the largest number of overseas offices in its near 90-year history. Before the Government make a bad decision—they are due to announce their decision in the coming week—that runs counter to global Britain and will damage our soft power, will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate so that the House can discuss this important matter, further to my urgent question earlier this week? We want the Government not to fall at the final fence.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The British Council is undoubtedly a crucial part of the UK’s presence overseas and a key soft power asset. As the Minister for Asia said in response to the urgent question on Tuesday, the Government
“value the influence of the British Council. We agreed a 2021-22 spending review settlement totalling £189 million, which is a 26% increase in funding from 2020-21.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 832.]
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter again and will reiterate his concerns to the Minister, but in terms of a further debate, the Backbench Business Committee is undoubtedly the right place to apply for one.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) [V]
I am sure the whole House will join me in offering condolences to Dea-John Reid’s mother, Joan Morris, and the whole family, after he was tragically murdered on 31 May. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) and I are working with the family, the black churches and the authorities to ensure unity. Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to come to the Chamber to debate this issue and to provide funding to reduce knife crime? It is not sufficient for the Leader of the House to quote figures about measures that have not worked. I urge him to listen to the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who made the same point, and provide a real debate in the Chamber.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I join the hon. Gentleman in passing condolences to the family of Dea-John Reid. He is right: there is nothing I can say at the Dispatch Box about how policy is developing and the amount of money that has been spent that will bring great comfort to a bereaved family in these most saddening circumstances. It is always a long-term project to increase the safety of our streets and to reduce knife crime. In this context, it is important that there are more police, as the numbers going up will make our streets safer overall, but I absolutely understand from what he says that it is too late in this particular instance. We mourn with the family, and we must make every effort to ensure that fewer families are affected in future, because the loss of a child is the greatest blow a parent ever faces.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
On Oxbridge colleges, I was very pleased to see the Prime Minister intervene and object to the appalling news that Magdalen College, Oxford had taken down a portrait of the Queen, but of course, this is not an isolated incident. Today I hear that 150 academics at Oriel College, Oxford are refusing to teach because the Rhodes statue has not been taken down. This week we also heard the disturbing news that Churchill College, Cambridge is considering changing the name of the college, to make it seem more inclusive. I know that, historically, there have been lots of eccentric, left-wing academics at Oxford and Cambridge, but given the sheer frequency with which these events are cropping up, will my right hon. Friend provide time for us to discuss what we can do to prevent the woke-ification of Oxbridge colleges?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As for Magdalen College, it is not exactly 1687-88. It is a few pimply adolescents getting excited and taking down a picture of Her Majesty. It makes Magdalen look pretty wet, but it is not the end of the world. I would not get too excited about that, although it amuses me to speculate as to what would happen if one of Her Majesty’s subjects suggested taking down the stars and stripes in an American university. It might not be enormously well received. As the pimply adolescent in question is, I think, an American citizen, he might like to think about that. He might think that taking down the US flag in an American university was a bridge too far even for the most patriotic Briton.
As regards the academics’ refusing to teach, I am half tempted to say that one should be lucky not to be taught by such a useless bunch. If they are that feeble, what are you missing and what are they doing there? Why do they not have any pride in their country, in our marvellous history and in our success? Rhodes is not a black and white figure. Perhaps they are not learned enough to have bothered to look up the history of Rhodes, which has been written about quite extensively now, in any detail. As I say, he is a figure of importance, interest and enormous generosity to Oxford. Do they want to give the money back to the descendants of Cecil Rhodes, or are they intending to keep it to themselves? We must not allow this wokeness to happen. As for the idea of changing Churchill College, perhaps we should introduce a Bill to rename Cambridge Churchill and call it Churchill University. That would be one in the eye for the lefties.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I prefer the Fen Bog Poly—that might be a better name for it.
In fairness to the Leader of the House, he has always been very good in saying that Ministers should reply to Members’ correspondence. In fact, last July he said:
“Ministers are aware that it is a basic courtesy that replies come from Ministers, not from officials”.—[Official Report, 16 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 1684.]
In May, my latest letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was replied to by an M. Milgate—I do not know who that is—of the correspondence and inquiry unit at Her Majesty’s Treasury. I have some sympathy for them, because I know that there has been a huge increase in the amount of correspondence, but when, in a parliamentary question, I asked the Treasury to tell us how many letters from Members were answered by Ministers and how many were answered by officials, the answer I got from the Exchequer Secretary was:
“It is not possible to provide the breakdown the Member has requested.”
Not only are they not answering some of our letters—I do not know if they are picking on me in particular, but they are not answering mine, and I do not know if they are answering the Leader of the House’s letters written in a constituency capacity—but they cannot even tell Members of this House how many of the letters from Members of Parliament are being answered by officials and how many by Ministers. Is that acceptable, and why is the Leader of the House impotent in persuading his Ministers that they have to answer our letters?
Mr Rees-Mogg
They do have to answer Members’ letters; it is a basic courtesy. I have received letters from officials rather than Ministers, and I am afraid I send them back saying that is not good enough and that I expect a response from a Minister. I remind hon. Members and right hon. Members that letters ought to come from them. Some hon. Members get their members of staff to send letters and I am afraid that they then receive from my office—
Mr Rees-Mogg
No, I understand that the hon. Gentleman is not in this category. It is just a reminder to the House that the courtesy works both ways. Is it indiscreet of me to say that I receive the most charming hand-written letters from the Deputy Speaker asking me to follow up with individual Departments, which I have done? They seem to get responses quite quickly when we intervene in that way. It really should not happen like that. I make this offer to all right hon. and hon. Members: if they are having problems of this kind, they should please contact my office and I will follow it up. It is our fundamental right to receive redress of grievance for our constituents from individual named Ministers. When I was at school, if a piece of work was not good enough, it got a little tear at the top of the page and was given back to you. I suggest that that is what Members do to letters they get from officials.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Next week, we have the reporting back of the reviews into social distancing and other measures and the plans and guidance for life beyond 21 June. In answer to my question on 12 May, the Prime Minister kindly confirmed that we would get the opportunity to debate this hugely important guidance before it is implemented. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on when that might be?
Mr Rees-Mogg
No decisions have yet been made and the Government will set out the conclusions of the review ahead of step 4 shortly, at which point I am sure that the House will have the opportunity to consider the next steps. The Government have been assiduous in updating the House throughout the pandemic and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has been particularly good at coming to this Chamber in person. That will continue to be the case. Any decision on guidance following the reviews will be based on the latest data and we must allow appropriate time for them to be assessed. We have of course committed—and I reiterate this commitment—to, where possible, make time for votes on regulations of national significance, which may apply to England or UK-wide, if necessary, before they come into force. That commitment remains.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The UK is the leading English language teaching destination, bringing students from over 150 countries to Britain to study English, and there are several excellent schools in Bath. While the students are there, they become part of our local community and they will play an important part in the economic recovery of our city. The sector alone is worth £1.4 billion to the overall economy and plays a vital role in building our relationships with countries across the world. However, in 2020, ELT schools lost over 80% of their business, and it will be one of the last sectors to recover. May we therefore have a debate about the measures needed to support this industry before many of these valuable and viable schools close for good?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The overall support given to the economy, as the hon. Lady will know, is over £400 billion, and businesses in all areas have been able to access specific grants, or there have been discretionary grants from councils to help them. There is inevitably a limit to the support that can be provided, and it is not unending either, but the overall package has been as generous as was conceivably affordable and has therefore helped to maintain many businesses.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) [V]
May we have a statement on the roll-out of family hubs? There are now well over 150 family hubs across England and Northern Ireland offering a range of services such as reducing parental conflict, walk-in help for young people with mental health concerns, one-stop shops for families with children with special needs, post-separation support, and help to tackle money worries. Does the Leader of the House agree that, as we build back better after the pandemic, supporting families is vital?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I completely agree that, as we build back better, and indeed as we level up, support for families will be absolutely crucial. They are the building blocks of our society. Throughout a year of lockdowns and periodic home schooling, families have been under immense strain, and the Government are determined to champion the family hub model. The Government are establishing a national centre for family hubs that will provide expert advice, guidance and advocacy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education recently announced that the Anna Freud Centre has been awarded the contract to run the national centre. May I join my hon. Friend in commending the work of Dr Samantha Callan, who has worked tirelessly nationwide to promote family hubs over many years?
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
It is 100 years since Glasgow’s world-famous Barras market was founded by Maggie McIver. The market claimed that you could buy anything from a needle to an anchor, and it is the home of the Barrowland Ballroom. May we have a debate on the future of our markets and the contribution that they make to our culture and society—and, given the number of second-hand goods you can buy, to our net zero ambitions?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I commend the market for its 100th anniversary and its ability to provide everything that you could possibly need to buy, either a needle or an anchor. There is probably more popular demand for needles than anchors, but it is none the less useful to be able to get an anchor. I encourage the hon. Lady to seek an Adjournment debate so that she could specifically praise this admirable market. I think that would inform the House and would be beneficial to Members more widely.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Protecting the glorious English countryside from unsuitable, unplanned and unwelcome development in the wrong places is one of the key functions of our planning system, yet it would appear that, under the Planning Inspectorate’s interpretation of the Human Rights Act 1998, one group of people—Gypsies and Travellers—seem to be exempt from the rules and regulations that apply to everyone else, and they can effectively build whatever they want wherever they like. Can we have action from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to allow local planning authorities to effectively enforce against intentional, unauthorised development in the open countryside by Gypsies and Travellers without being overruled by a warped interpretation of the Human Rights Act?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Local planning authorities already have a wide range of enforcement powers, with strong penalties for non-compliance to tackle such situations. However, as set out in our recent planning White Paper, we intend to strengthen those powers and sanctions, including around intentional unauthorised development. Under planning law, national planning policies and local planning policies to guard against unsuitable development apply equally to all applicants who wish to develop. Planners may also take into account the specific needs of individual groups when making decisions on the development, and every case needs to be treated on its merit.
On the subject at hand, I hope that my hon. Friend is assured by the progress of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which will give the police additional powers to remove unauthorised Traveller encampments. We must be careful of spurious human rights claims; otherwise, we will have people in the City of London saying that it is their human right to build 100-storey tower blocks, and that would be ridiculous.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Polls show that a large proportion of the public believes that the Government’s allocation of covid contracts is corrupt. Yesterday, the High Court found that the Minister for the Cabinet Office broke the law in the allocation of one covid contract to a firm run by his former adviser. Given all that, does the Leader of the House not agree that, to restore confidence in this House—confidence that is being undermined day after day by the allocation of covid contracts by his Government—the Minister for the Cabinet Office should be sacked, and the House should take tough action against such contracts?
Mr Rees-Mogg
No, I do not agree with that awful nonsense, as I have set out very clearly before. There was a pandemic—the hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten this—and there was a need to crack on with things. He would have fiddled while Rome burned. It is nice to see him back, incidentally; it is good of him to come to the Chamber. He would have ignored the whole thing while some great bureaucratic process could wander through an endless discussion, and red tape would be tied into pretty little bows before things were done. We needed the vaccine. We needed Test and Trace. We needed to have a system that got messages out to people. The judgment yesterday found that there was no bias, and that it was reasonable to act swiftly. That is really important to understand, so no—I am with good sense and good government, not with the infamous fox killer.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con) [V]
I join others in wishing many happy returns to Mr Speaker. I hope that he is right now consuming a slice of lunchtime cake.
I live in hope that the Government stick to the 21 June road map. More delay would be a disaster for businesses and livelihoods across the country, but if the Government do decide to extend phase 3, my understanding is that no additional parliamentary approval would be required until the current regulations expire on 30 June. Should there be a delay, will my right hon. Friend make time for such a decision to be fully debated in this House, as of course any such restriction of our liberties should be?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The suggestion of cake has reminded me that there is a test match on, so I hope that the “Test Match Special” team may find a spare portion of cake to send to Mr Speaker to wish him well on his birthday. To come to my hon. Friend and neighbour’s very important point, the Health Secretary said on Monday:
“It is still too early to make decisions on step 4… So we will assess the data and announce the outcome a week today, on 14 June.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 670.]
Like my hon. Friend and, I think, all of us in this House, I hope that it will still be possible to open up on the 21st, but we have to be sensible about this.
We will of course continue to involve the House in scrutinising our decisions, with regular statements and debates, and the ability for Members to question the Government and their scientific advisers. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), we have committed that, for significant national measures with effect on the whole of England or UK-wide, we will, wherever possible, consult Parliament and hold votes before such regulations come into force. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) the comfort that he requires.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Since 2010, funding from central Government for my local force, Greater Manchester police, has been cut by £215 million, resulting in thousands fewer officers and support staff. In my constituency of Stockport, the impact of the cuts has been drastic. There has been an increase in antisocial behaviour, but we know that increased policing alone is not the answer to rising rates of crime and antisocial behaviour. In a 2016 survey by Unison, 83% of respondents reported increased crime rates and incidents of antisocial behaviour in areas where youth and other relevant services had been cut. Will the Leader of the House allocate Government time for a debate on policing, youth services and mental health provision in Greater Manchester? Does he agree with me that we need to invest in young people in all communities and not strip away vital public services?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I would say that there have been problems with Manchester policing that have absolutely nothing to do with the Government and are more local political matters, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of. Expenditure on policing is increasing, as I have said. Well over 8,000, and heading towards 9,000, extra police officers have already been added. This is a national effort to ensure that our streets are made safer. It is important that we continue to do that, and that we support the police in the very difficult job that they do and give them the support they need to carry out their onerous duties.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
In business questions last January, I raised the horrendous experience of my constituent Alison with her ex-partner and the Child Maintenance Service. Following that intervention, the CMS agreed that the rate of repayment was unacceptable and that they would continue recovery action against her ex-partner for significant arrears.
Earlier this year, a repayment plan was agreed without consulting Alison and recovery action will now not proceed, despite previous assurances. My office has contacted the CMS to request a conference call on the issue, but has had no response. Can the Leader of the House use his good offices to request inter-vention from the appropriate Department for Work and Pensions Minister?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will do that, and I will ask my office to get in touch with the CMS. The CMS ought to be responsive to Members. I have said before that I have found it one of the most difficult organisations to deal with, as a Member of Parliament for my constituents. I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful that he has raised this point. The CMS must respond to Members of Parliament; that is the duty of that type of agency.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I am very much in favour of the Government’s policy on reducing overseas aid this year. We will still be giving ten thousand million pounds in aid, which is a higher proportion than France, Italy or, of course, the United States of America. But the House has a right to decide on this issue. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that it is very strange that the Government have given the opportunity, via an Opposition day this week, an Opposition day on 14 June and an Opposition day on 21 June, when that vote could definitely occur?
The Backbench Business Committee has been kind enough to announce the subjects of its debates in advance. Why are the loyal Opposition not telling us today that we are going to have that debate on Monday? Is it because they are pretty sure they are going lose the vote and the House will support the Government?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I must defend Her Majesty’s Opposition, because we changed the date of their Opposition day debate, so it is reasonable for them not to have put the debate forward. My hon. Friend lays down an interesting challenge to them, because they know the policy is hugely supported in the country. Polling indicates that a majority of Labour supporters support the policy, let alone Conservative supporters, who support it overwhelming. So, let us see, as time’s winged chariot passes along, whether or not they are brave enough to put their money where their mouth so often is.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must now suspend the House for two minutes to make the arrangements for the next business.
Ofsted Review of Sexual Abuse in Schools and Colleges
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Ofsted review of sexual abuse in schools and colleges.
This is a very serious matter. Abuse in any form is abhorrent, especially when it is abuse of the vulnerable or children. The Everyone’s Invited testimonies have shown us the scale and nature of sexual abuse and harassment experienced by young people, often from their peers, and I would like to thank the founders and all those who have shared their experiences. Anyone who has visited their website will have been struck by the huge volume of accounts, many of which contain chilling stories of abuse and harassment.
Let me be clear: sexism and misogyny are not okay. Sexual harassment, let alone non-consensual touching, groping or sexual contact, is not okay—none of this is okay. Sending unrequested nudes is not okay, and neither is bullying your peers into sending a nude and then sharing it with your mates. Yet this has become commonplace for so many young people. We, as government, as parents, as educators and as a society, must work together to turn the cultural dial.
This Government acted quickly by asking Ofsted to carry out the review that has reported its findings today, and setting up a specific National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children helpline to support those who wanted to report sexual abuse or receive advice. More than 400 calls have been received so far, and about 70 have been referred to other agencies, including the police. The number is 0800 136 663 and it will remain open until October.
Today, I would like to thank Ofsted for working at pace to ensure we have fresh insight into the scale of the issues young people are facing. I thank all who contributed, especially victims’ representatives and the schools and colleges. I thank the 900 young people who gave their views, and the reference group, with its representatives from a wide range of organisations, including social care, the police, education leaders, and the Independent Schools Council. Their input has been invaluable.
Sometimes, sexual abuse happens within school or college, but sometimes it happens outside the school gates. In both cases, it is important to support our teachers to deal with the issues quickly and sensitively so that our children and young people get the right assistance. Much of the abuse identified impacts predominantly on girls and young women. We know from the annual “Girls Attitudes” survey that, increasingly, young girls feel pressured about their appearance, but the Ofsted review is the first time we have evidence of the scale of activity in education settings that at best can be referred to as sexism, and at worst is repeated, sustained abuse. This is why we are working across government, prioritising the child sexual abuse strategy and the violence against women and girls strategy, as well as the Online Safety Bill, to make sure they can be delivered in a co-ordinated and holistic way. Everyone needs to coalesce around this issue, put aside institutional boundaries and put the needs of children and young people first.
We fully accept the findings of the review, and we believe that schools and colleges, safeguarding partners, Government and the inspectorates can collectively make the difference. On the recommendations that Ofsted has identified for the Government, we will go further. Much of this work is already under way. We are already updating the “Keeping children safe in education” statutory guidance for this September, ensuring that schools have even clearer guidance on how to deal with reports of sexual abuse, and we will also update the “Working together to safeguard children” statutory guidance in line.
We have already introduced the new compulsory relationships, sex and health education curriculum. In both primary and secondary schools, the curriculum’s focus on healthy relationships helps children to know where to seek help and report abuse and address inappropriate behaviour such as harassment, exploitation, sexism and misogyny. It is the first time that the curriculum has been updated since 2000, and from next term we expect the RSHE curriculum to be implemented in full.
There is more that we are doing. We know that our teachers do not always feel comfortable in teaching about sex and relationships, but it is vital that we get this right. We therefore want to support and work with school leaders and other agencies to help teachers and school staff to deliver the RSHE curriculum as effectively as possible, and I am asking schools to dedicate time from an inset day for that purpose.
Children have said that it is important to teach the RSHE curriculum from a young age. Young people supporting their peers is a powerful way to bring about change, and we are considering how we can get older students to support the delivery of the RSHE curriculum. While the statutory curriculum does not currently apply to further education colleges, there is good practice in many of these colleges, and we are working with the sector to address this gap.
It is important that children and young people feel confident that they will be heard and that action will be taken. We want to work with young people and hear their voices, so that they can inform the curriculum and communications. I and other Ministers will be meeting young people to help achieve that.
Every day in our schools, designated safeguarding leads undertake amazing work to keep children safe. They deserve our admiration and support. Today we are announcing that we will work with up to a further 500 schools on our project to support and supervise designated safeguarding leads in up to 10 additional local authorities, and that we are already developing an online resource hub where designated safeguarding leads can access relevant advice. The Government will undertake further work to consider how we can give greater status and support to designated safeguarding leads, looking first at the model we have for special educational needs co-ordinators. We are also discussing with Ofsted whether any additional support is needed for children and young people with special educational needs.
This is a cultural issue and not just a matter of how to investigate individual cases. We do expect all schools and colleges to have robust policies in place to create a culture that treats all young people fairly and addresses concerns immediately, but schools and colleges cannot do that alone and should not think that they have to. We expect every local safeguarding partnership to reach out to all its schools and be clear on how they are engaged in local safeguarding arrangements. We would like to see that happen by the October half-term. We are developing a programme looking at best practice in how schools engage in local safeguarding arrangements.
It is also clear from the testimonies that our young people continue to face similar issues when they move to university. The Office for Students recently published a statement of expectations on harassment and sexual misconduct; all universities should take note of that and act on it. Today, the OfS has asked all universities to review and update their systems, policies and procedures in advance of the next academic year. The Government will continue to work with the OfS to ensure that all students feel confident to report incidents of sexual harassment and sexual violence.
There is another thing that is not okay: the ease of access to and increasing violence of online pornography. This increasingly accessible online content, which often portrays extremely violent sex, can give young people warped views of sex and deeply disturbing views on consent. The Government have already taken many actions to protect victims of sexual abuse and sexual violence, including by outlawing coercive control. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 has outlawed non-fatal strangulation and removed the rough sex defence to murder. We have criminalised upskirting and both the sending of and the threat of sending revenge pornography.
The Online Safety Bill will deliver a groundbreaking system of accountability and oversight of tech companies and make them accountable to an independent regulator. The strongest protections in the new regulatory framework will be for children, and companies will need to take steps to ensure that children cannot access services that pose the highest risk of harm, such as online pornography. In addition, the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport have asked the Children’s Commissioner to start looking immediately at how we can reduce children and young people’s access to pornography and other harmful content. That work will identify whether there are actions that can be taken more quickly to protect children before the Online Safety Bill comes into effect.
Finally, there is an important role for parents. As a mum, I know of the difficulty in discussing these issues with our children, but parents need to be aware of what their children are doing and how to support them when things go wrong. Parents, please do look at the support available from the UK Safer Internet Centre, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Internet Watch Foundation. Each has detailed resources to help upskill us all on what can sometimes feel like a daunting world. Right now, it is estimated that 1.4 million children access pornography every month in the UK. What they are seeing is changing how they perceive sex and relationships. So please, parents, turn on your broadband filters and make sure that you understand and switch on the safety features on your children’s phones and devices. Just as you would not put your children into physical danger, do not allow your child to go into digital danger.
The rising trend in sexual abuse must be stopped. We, the Government, stand by our schools, our families and all those who care about children, and we will do whatever is right to safeguard them. For that reason, I commend this statement to the House.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. I, too, pay tribute to the young girls and young women who came forward to share their experiences under extremely difficult circumstances. That took huge bravery, but I hope they will look at the action that is now unfolding and see that their bravery has been rewarded. I think it is safe to say that without their action, today’s unfolding of policy recommendations would not have happened; for that, they should take pride in their actions.
A young person’s experience at school shapes their future in so many ways. It plays a key role in their development socially and emotionally, and few experiences have such a scarring effect as sexual abuse or harassment, yet today’s review shows that far too many children, especially girls, are living in a world where it is normalised and they have no alternative but to accept it. From unsolicited touching and explicit images to false rumours about sexual history, sexual harassment in schools ruins lives and must be rooted out.
This is an issue on which I am sure the entire House agrees, and I welcome Ofsted’s report and the Minister’s comments. I put on record Labour’s gratitude to the chief inspector of schools, Amanda Spielman, not only for her thorough report, but for taking the time to brief me and colleagues across the House in advance of publication.
We all agree on the need for action, but I must ask the Minister why it has taken so long, and why it took a national scandal to force the Government to act. The Department for Education was warned about routine sexual harassment in our schools as far back as 2016. Since then, figures suggest that up to 1,000 girls may have been raped in school. In 2016, the Women and Equalities Committee found that 29% of 18-year-olds had experienced unwanted sexual touching at school. The Committee criticised the lack of central data collection on sexual harassment, and yet the Government refused to act. Routine record-keeping and analysis is one of today’s recommendations—something that was asked for five years ago.
In 2019, schools’ awareness of safeguarding policies was so poor that my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and for Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) were forced to write directly to head teachers to raise awareness. They met the head of Ofsted to explain their concerns. The strengthening of guidance and training for teachers features prominently in today’s report—another action that the Government have known for years was needed. The Labour party has produced a Green Paper on violence against women and girls. In it, we call for a national strategy, backed up by strengthened teacher training, inspection and policies, requirements for data collection and targeted action in the Online Safety Bill.
The shadow Education Secretary, who is my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), and the shadow Minister for domestic violence and safeguarding, who is my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, wrote to the Department for Education in March this year with an offer to work together on implementation. We have been calling for action and making constructive, implementable policy recommendations for years. We now need a clear plan to tackle sexual abuse and harassment in school, backed up by clear dates for delivery. We need tough action in the Online Safety Bill to tackle the forced and unwanted sharing of nude photos and other online harassment.
Finally, considering how many young people are living with the consequences of past sexual abuse and harassment, I think it would be appropriate for the Minister to offer a heartfelt apology to each and every one of them for the creation of a system that fails to keep them safe from harm, but instead has normalised it.
Vicky Ford
I thank the hon. Gentleman for thanking the young women who came forward with their testimonials. We agree on that, and we also agree that keeping children and young people safe is a complete priority. I must, however, refute the suggestion that the Government have not taken action on the matter over recent years, because we absolutely have. We first introduced the statutory safeguarding guidance back in 2015, and we update it every year. It contains a section specifically addressing peer-on-peer sexual violence and harassment. Last year, through the UK Safer Internet Centre, which the Government help to fund, we provided schools with guidance on actions to take when they are aware of the sharing of nude images.
We also introduced the new compulsory relationships and sex education and health education curriculum, largely as a result of the Women and Equalities Committee’s report. Of course, it took some time to make sure that the curriculum was right, because this is a highly sensitive issue. The curriculum was due to roll out compulsorily last September, but because of the pandemic it needed to be delayed until this September.[Official Report, 17 June 2021, Vol. 697, c. 5MC.] We have already provided schools with a huge amount of training and teaching on how to roll out the curriculum. Indeed, this time last year we ran many seminars, which schools attended, on rolling out the mental health and wellbeing aspects of that curriculum. We will now be working, as I said, very closely with schools to ensure that they have support as it becomes more compulsory next term.
There are many schools, including the excellent school in Solihull that we heard about on the radio this morning, that are already delivering this curriculum in a really constructive and excellent way. Then there is the violence against women and girls strategy, on which we have had one of the largest ever consultations. It was right of the Government to reopen that consultation after the tragic death and murder of Sarah Everard in order to enable girls and women to come forward with their own suggestions.
The Online Safety Bill will be a benchmark and a reset, putting children’s safety at the very forefront of it. Incidentally, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Home Secretary is completely correct in her concerns about end-to-end encryption and its potential impact on children’s safety.
Guidance has been set up. For example, we established the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. As the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) knows, we have been looking at this issue for many months now and we will be reporting back on it. There is, of course, more that we can do. While individual schools have a responsibility to keep reports of sexual harassment, Ofsted will now be questioning and quizzing schools on those reports, enabling it to look at the issue in detail. For example, if a school is not reporting any incidents and yet we know that those incidents are so prevalent, we need to know whether there is something in the culture of that school that means that children do not feel comfortable coming forward. These are the sorts of further actions that will be taken, but they build on actions that we have been taking over many years, because we know that the online world in particular is forever evolving and brings dangers for children.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now go to the Chair of the Education Committee, Sir Robert Halfon.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
I thank the Minister for all that she is doing. The report greatly focuses on safeguarding failings within schools, but the question must be raised as to why such failings were not previously identified by Ofsted or the Independent Schools Inspectorate in the first instance. Peer-on-peer abuse is one aspect of the wider systemic safeguarding failings and cannot be seen in isolation. Why is there not a consistent approach to safeguarding through the school inspections regime, and does a lack of consistency not perpetuate the problem further? Will she consider a review into the advice provided to schools by the local authority inspectors to ensure that there is a consistent and joined-up approach in safeguarding? Finally, can the Government identify how they will raise parental awareness of safeguarding issues, such as peer-on- peer abuse? Will parental safeguarding induction and engagement programmes be provided to parents and carers?
Vicky Ford
As ever, the Chair of the Education Committee makes some very helpful suggestions. May I reassure him that all schools must comply with the statutory safeguarding guidance, and we are already updating it, as we do each year. The report under discussion makes a number of suggestions about how to strengthen the inspection regime. For example, going forward, inspectors will hold discussions with students in single-sex groups, because, through this report, they have found that that has enabled children to be more confident in coming forward with their own experiences. That has helped to provide a better understanding of the schools or colleges’ approach to tackling sexual harassment and violence, including that which occurs online. Going forward, Ofsted will request that all college leaders supply those records and analyses of what is happening within their organisation, and Ofsted will work with the ISI to improve training for the inspectors, especially on this issue.
My right hon. Friend makes an important point about parental advice. Some schools are incredibly good at providing this. I met a headteacher of a school in Liverpool who works really closely with parents, informing them about the online safety risks. We should remember that it is often the parents who buy the phone and own the phone contract. I would like to see more schools working with parents to ensure that they help to make parents as well as children aware of this. I hope that schools will not only dedicate an inset day to discussing how to improve the RSHE curriculum but use part of that day to think about how they can better involve parents. As I said, there is a huge amount of advice out there for parents, much of it in organisations that the Government fund, including things such as Safer Internet Day. That advice is widely distributed, but we need to up that game to ensure that parents know the advice is there and that they access it.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]
I welcome this statement, but it is crystal clear from student and teacher feedback that there is simply not enough being done to educate either group on the vital subject of consent, so will the Government give a cast-iron guarantee that consent will be put at the heart of relationships, sex and health education, and that every member of school staff whom students could approach for advice and help can access the training on consent, so that students can get that advice and support, irrespective of whether they raise issues with staff inside or outside the classroom?
Vicky Ford
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the issue of consent. It is important, when we look at the testimonials on Everyone’s Invited, to understand that not all of them involved illegal or criminal acts, but some did, and when there is a criminal act, it should be reported and acted on. The victim should have the confidence that it will be safe to report it and that it will be acted on. On the issue of consent, it is very much part of the RSHE curriculum. The curriculum starts at primary school age, where we teach about issues such as healthy relationships and talk about what an unhealthy relationship is and how to report it. Issues such as consent are built in as the child gets older through the period, but it is built into the curriculum, as are issues to do with unacceptable behaviour, harassment, misogyny and sexism. This is all part of the curriculum. I agree with the hon. Lady that it should be taught, and it is being taught.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The figures in this Ofsted report are shocking, and behind each one is a young person—most often a young woman—whose childhood and experience of education are being blighted by the fear, misery and mental harm of sexual harassment and sexual violence. It is important that schools are supported to deliver culture change, but will the Minister accept that schools that fail to make meaningful progress to change their culture and keep young people safe from sexual harassment and sexual violence should no longer be considered to be providing an outstanding educational experience for their students? Will she act to ensure that when schools are inspected by Ofsted, the progress on delivering change in culture and practice to tackle sexual harassment is a formal part of the assessment framework and contributes materially to the Ofsted rating?
Vicky Ford
The hon. Member is absolutely right to say that where a school’s safeguarding regime is inadequate, the school is inadequate. That is a core part of the Ofsted inspection, which it will look at and report to us, so where there are concerns about safeguarding, action will be taken. Action is being taken in a number of cases, but I agree that we need to strengthen the Ofsted regime with respect to this element of safeguarding. That is what the proposals suggest, and they will be actioned to ensure that where a school is not acting in a way that safeguards children appropriately, action will quite correctly be taken. This is at the forefront of a school’s responsibility. They are responsible not only for education but for our children’s safety.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
One of the most concerning, but unfortunately not surprising, aspects of this review is that young people are not reporting the sexual abuse and harassment they experience from their peers because of how often it happens. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the job of everyone who works with young people, not just teachers and parents, to help them to feel supported and empowered enough to come forward with their experiences so that we can tackle them in the way that we ought to?
Vicky Ford
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; one of the chilling aspects is this lack of confidence that children and young people have to come forward and the feeling that, “If I say something, will anything happen?” We absolutely need to change the cultural dial so that young people feel that they can come forward, that they will be supported and that action will be taken. I would say to anyone listening right now who has been a victim that if they need help or support, or if they just want advice, they should call that NSPCC helpline, because we set it up specifically with experts; it is a specific helpline just with experts on this matter of sexual abuse. Also however, if they report it to a teacher, the teacher should know how to act and be able to do so swiftly and sensitively. The role of the designated safeguard lead is really important here, which is why we want to bolster and support them.
It is also about all partners, not just the schools, not just the parents, and that is why we are asking that in every local area the police, health bodies and local authorities, who are the national safeguarding partners, review deeply how they are working together with the schools in their local area. We are asking that they do this deep review and report back by October half-term.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]
Many of the issues raised in the Ofsted report are not new, and indeed there was much I recognised from my own experience in education of widespread and normalised sexual harassment and abuse in school and on campus. As a 30-year-old, smartphones and social media only became widespread towards the latter end of my school years, but their ubiquity now has turbocharged these existing problems and created new avenues for harm. Ofsted has found that the RSHE curriculum does not reflect the reality of young people’s lives, as it has not kept up with these developments nor with young people’s capacity to get around things like filters with ease, just as my generation did. So does the Minister accept that the curriculum is not fit for purpose? What steps will her Government take to ensure that all schools can deliver relevant LGBT-inclusive, high-quality RSHE, which empowers young people, challenges attitudes that become embedded around consent and makes clear the avenues young people have for redress if they have concerns?
Vicky Ford
The sex education curriculum that we have had in the past has not been fit for purpose in a digital age, and that is precisely why we have gone through this exercise over the past few years, with deep consultation and many experts working on it, to bring the new RSHE curriculum into place. This will be compulsory from September.[Official Report, 17 June 2021, Vol. 697, c. 6MC.] There are already many excellent examples of schools teaching it well, although we do hear, as we have through the Ofsted report, that teachers would like more support and advice on how to deliver it, and we have promised today that we will set that out. That is also why we are asking, or encouraging, all schools to take an inset day and dedicate time to this. They have the curriculum; there is a wide range of different tools to help them deliver it and it is absolutely key for our children that they get supported by this curriculum, because it will help teach them about what is safe and what is not safe.
We are in a digital revolution and we have been for many years, and for a lot of children, especially during the pandemic, being able to be with friends online is absolutely key, but it also does bring harms and what we have seen, sadly, through the pandemic is the acceleration of some of these harms, particularly in areas such as online pornography. That is another reason why it is absolutely right that we are acting now.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I want to give credit to Stroud High School girls, who took the initiative to gather evidence of harassment of their peers and to get me in to talk about it. It makes my blood boil now even to think about what they are enduring, sometimes on a daily basis, wearing their school uniforms in the street. We know that online abuse is fuelling poor real-life behaviour. These are hidden horrors. A lot of the abuse is anonymous and parents are, frankly, terrified. Many of the questions to the Minister today have been about the online world. The Minister cares an awful lot about this issue. Can she confirm that the Government’s flagship online harms legislation that is coming through is going to help protect young people, and will she tell us a little bit more about how it will prevent the sharing of unsolicited images?
Vicky Ford
May I also thank the girls from Stroud High School? It takes great bravery and courage to do that, yet it is actions like that by young girls and women across the country that are helping to make the world a better place for future children.
As I said earlier, I can confirm that the strongest protections in the online safety Bill are for children. It is particularly important that companies will be required to protect children from illegal and harmful content, including self-generated content when it is on their platforms. There is, however, still the challenge of peer-on-peer sharing. That is one of the reasons why I believe so strongly that the Home Secretary is right in her firm statements about the risk of end-to-end encryption that we already see, for example, on WhatsApp, but which is potentially coming into other areas. That is another issue that will be need to be considered.
It is really important that we have asked the Children’s Commissioner to do this deep piece of work. She is an extraordinarily experienced former school leader who brings great passion into this world. In fact, I met her only this week to discuss the issue. We must take every step. We know that legislating in the digital world can sometimes be challenging, but we are ahead of the world on this and are absolutely committed to the end objective: ensuring that our children are, as far as possible, as safe online as they are offline. Again, this is also an issue of helping to change the cultural dial.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
When I read the report at lunchtime today, I was absolutely shocked by the scale of the problem that was described by young people themselves. We have known that this problem existed, which is why the review took place, but the evidence that has come forward is startling.
I was in local government when ChildLine was set up in response to the fact that young people could not get their voices heard when they were suffering problems in care. I note that there is the now the hotline to the NSPCC, but that is due to end in October. Will the Minister consider not only whether that should continue beyond October, but whether there should also be a programme to advertise that number and encourage young people to use it going forward, in perpetuity?
This certainly is a problem where boys specifically are the offenders. Does the Minister think that there should be a specific part of the RSHE curriculum that deals with boys’ behaviour and attitudes to make them aware of the problems that their behaviour causes?
Vicky Ford
First, let me discuss the specific helpline that we have set up. We obviously fund many other helplines through the NSPCC, including the ChildLine number, at the moment. Since we set up the helpline, we have had 400 calls, so as long as it is being used, it is good. If we start to see it tailing away—I cannot comment post October.[Official Report, 17 June 2021, Vol. 697, c. 6MC.] But we do want to ensure that there is always a place that a child can go to for advice. At the moment, this helpline is the bespoke place for advice, but that is why we have committed to the NSPCC and ChildLine for so many years.
Let me turn to boys. Again, part of the whole new RSHE curriculum is teaching healthy relationships and healthy behaviour: what is acceptable and not acceptable; what is coercive behaviour; what is abusive behaviour; what is harassment; and respect for each other. I think it is important that while we are clear that abuse is abhorrent, we also need to recognise that not all boys and men are abusers, and no one is saying that. We need to make sure that we put in protections and that we are there to act and help a girl who has been abused, but not make the suggestion that all boys are inherently abusers. That is the level that teachers will be working to when they are teaching this, to ensure that they get the balance right.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
I commend my hon. Friend for the progress that has been made in providing effective education in schools to equip our young people with the skills and knowledge they need to deal with the risks of inappropriate sexual behaviour. Does she agree that despite the many reviews of safeguarding arrangements—the latest being the Wood review—we still lack a sufficiently robust duty on schools to co-operate with local safeguarding arrangements, which in the experience of lead members and directors of children’s services leads to inconsistent practice and makes emerging issues across the school sector harder to spot?
Vicky Ford
As ever, my hon. Friend raises an important question, which is about how schools and colleges co-operate with safeguarding partners. They are under a statutory duty to co-operate with those partners once they are named as a relevant agency to that partnership. Our guidance is clear that we expect all schools to be brought into local safeguarding arrangements, and that is one reason why we have asked all our local safeguarding partnerships across the country to review now how that system is working locally.
We want to make sure that our safeguarding partners are supporting our schools. It is really important that a school feels it has a relationship with, for example, the police so that if it has a sensitive issue it wants to discuss with them, that can be done with somebody who understands children and young people, understands the behaviour and understands the school. It is about having that sort of closeness of relationship to support each other. That is what I have been told by headteachers again and again, and that is what I would like to see—that sort of close relationship working through those partnerships to keep schools safe. I believe that schools want to do that, and we need to ensure that our safeguarding partnerships are working hand in hand with our schools.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
Sexism and sexual harassment harm girls and boys in their experience of school and help establish a toxic sexual culture, which then infects our streets, our workplaces, our universities and our Parliament. Four years ago, more than three quarters of secondary school students were unsure or not aware of the existence of any policies or practices in their school related to preventing sexism. What difference will students in primary and secondary school in Newcastle see as a result of today’s statement, and when?
Vicky Ford
The hon. Member is absolutely right that this can and does harm boys as well as girls. There are tales I have heard of boys also having suffered from having images of themselves widely shared with their peer groups. The abuse, bullying and harassment has led to devastating mental wellbeing consequences for the boys, and it is important that we recognise that as well.
There are four immediate actions that we are taking today. The first is to support designated safeguarding leads in schools, such as in Newcastle. They do excellent work, but many of them have asked for access to better advice, the sharing of best practice and continuous professional development, all of which we are working on through what I mentioned in my statement.
As I said, we will be increasing the funding for the bespoke NSPCC helpline, so that children in Newcastle and elsewhere, if they have suffered abuse, can pick up the phone and call that line. In fact, they can type in—many kids would rather send a text message to helplines than actually ring them. That advice is there.
Our teachers will get the extra support that we want to put in on how they can deliver the RSHE curriculum. As I have said, we are looking, for example, at better ways that we can help older children support younger children in this as well.
The fourth action we will be taking, which will be important in Newcastle as well as everywhere else, is making sure that our safeguarding partnerships—police, health and local authority children’s social care—absolutely ensure that the safeguarding arrangements that it is vital they wrap around children are working well in every single local area.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her statement. The review has revealed that different parts of the state are not always working together as well as they should be to ensure that cases of sexual abuse are properly dealt with. Can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that she will be working with the Home Office, local government and other bodies to ensure that cases are dealt with swiftly and consistently?
Vicky Ford
Absolutely. It is really important that we continue to work in this cross-Government way. Indeed, just as we have local safeguarding partnerships that bring together health, police and local authority children’s services, we have three Ministers who are responsible, representing each of those three areas. I am the safeguarding partner for children within children’s social services—that sits with me in the Department for Education—and there is the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), as the safeguarding partner for the police, and the Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), within the Department of Health and Social Care.
The strategies we are bringing together include, for example, the strategy on violence against women and girls, which I discuss regularly with the others. There is also the strategy on women’s health, on which the Department of Health and Social Care is working, and that is absolutely key. One thing we have been doing is to encourage more young women and girls to feed into that as well. We need to continue to work across Government. We bring in, or haul in sometimes, our other Ministers—no, they all come willingly—to help us on these issues, too. It is teamwork that needs to be led by Government, but also needs to be led by teachers, parents and everyone who is concerned about the safety of our children, and that is the way we will address it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for her statement.
Points of Order
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify how we better ensure that Ministers who sit in the other place face proper scrutiny from parliamentary Select Committees of this House? The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has had considerable difficulty securing any time with the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office. We were told on 16 February that it was his responsibility to oversee the negotiation of crucial bilateral agreements to ensure that people working in the creative and service sectors in the UK can travel to and work in countries within the EU. Following our subsequent request to see the Minister, we had two refusals point blank. It was only after the Prime Minister himself stated, under my questioning at a Liaison Committee hearing, that he expected the Minister to appear before the Committee, that finally, on 23 April, we secured a date for the Minister’s appearance, that being today.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you can imagine my dismay at the said Minister’s subsequent cancellation of his appearance this week. We all appreciate that there are many important issues for the Minister to address, particularly in the light of the trade dispute with the EU. However, with the Minister citing the G7 as a reason for cancellation, that can hardly be deemed an unexpected event. Could you express the House’s concern over Ministers from the other place not appearing in front of parliamentary Select Committees to receive due scrutiny, and would you reflect on the democratic deficit that this brings about?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. Select Committee scrutiny is an essential aspect of our work in this place, and for Committees to be able properly to undertake scrutiny they need access to key witnesses, including Ministers. The Government must therefore make every effort to ensure that the appropriate Ministers are able to give evidence to Committees in a timely way. When the Minister concerned is in the House of Lords, it is particularly important that Committees in this House are able to hold them to account.
I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman’s Committee has been experiencing these difficulties. He has now put his concerns on the record. They will have been heard by Ministers, and I hope that every effort is now made to ensure that the Committee is able to take evidence from the Minister, without delay.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In responding to the urgent question on 27 May about the UK’s proposed tariff offer to the Australian Government on agricultural experts, the Minister for Trade Policy claimed, in his opening statement, that
“Australia has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world.”—[Official Report, 27 May 2021; Vol. 696, c. 549.]
Later, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), he said that
“if she sat down with the RSPCA Australia, it might give her a robust view of how good Australian animal welfare standards are.”—[Official Report, 27 May 2021; Vol. 696, c. 557.]
Since then, the Australian RSPCA has described the Minister’s reply as being “misinformed”, with its chief executive, Dr Richard Mussell, saying:
“Unfortunately, animal welfare standards in Australia are basic at best…Standards are rarely audited and, unless implemented into law, which few are, they are only voluntary.”
I have informed the Minister of my intention to raise this point of order, and I am sure he would not wish to have inadvertently misled the House in this way. I wonder whether you can advise me as to how the Minister might be able to correct the record in the House at the earliest opportunity.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wished to raise this matter. I have to say that the content of Ministers’ answers to parliamentary questions is a matter not for me but for the Minister concerned. I am also a little concerned that points of order become a continuation of Question Time. However, the hon. Gentleman has put his views on the record, and I am sure the point has been heard by those on the Treasury Bench and will be relayed to the Minister.
I am now suspending the House for two minutes to make arrangements for the next business.
Aviation, Travel and Tourism Industries
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the aviation, travel and tourism industries.
The aviation, travel and tourism sectors are an essential part of the UK’s identity and economy. More than that, they are a driver in creating a global Britain and in levelling up our country. That is reflected in the history and the facts. Before covid-19, the UK had the largest aviation market in Europe and the third largest globally, contributing £22 billion to GDP and directly providing around 230,000 jobs.
Tourism is similarly hugely important to our economy, as people travel from home and abroad to share in our culture, our landscape, our history and traditions, and the warm welcome from all corners of our United Kingdom. In 2019, 4 million people were working in the tourism industry, with the sector directly contributing £75 billion each year to the nation’s economy. The Government understand the severe impact of covid-19 and the effect that the necessary restrictions that have been introduced to control it have had on the UK’s aviation, travel and tourism sectors.
The House is united in wanting to see international travel reopened as soon as it is safe to do so, enabling those living here to see the family and friends they have been separated from for so long; for business to be done; for holidays to be enjoyed; enabling far countries to be explored; and for our friends from all corners of the wide world to be welcomed once again to the United Kingdom’s shining shores.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke to the Minister beforehand. The holiday and travel sector, in particular, has great uncertainty. What help can be given to businesses such as Laser Travel in my constituency that offer a tailored, top-to-bottom service? Existing furlough, self-employed support for international travel businesses for a further six months, retained business rates relief and a further tailored recovery grants regime for travel agents, tour operators—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech at this point. Not everyone will get to speak in this debate who wants to do so, and interventions simply cannot be that long.
Robert Courts
I would be delighted to discuss this matter further with the hon. Gentleman. Later in my speech I will come to some of the factors that have been available to some of the wonderful travel and tourism businesses that we have all over the United Kingdom. That may give him the answer that he wants. If it does not, I am happy to discuss it further with him and I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston)—the tourism Minister—would be happy to do so as well.
As I was saying, everybody can be reassured that the Government recognise the critical national importance of international travel. It connects families that have been kept apart, boosts businesses, brings in investment and underpins the UK economy. It is essential to the way that we see ourselves as a country: open, international and cosmopolitan. That is why it is essential that any steps that we take now lay the groundwork for a sustainable, safe and robust return to international travel.
In February 2021, the Prime Minister asked the Secretary of State for Transport to convene a successor to the Global Travel Taskforce, building on the recommendations set out in November 2020. The taskforce published that report in April 2021. I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the travel and tourism industry for its enormous contribution and close co-operation with Government in the development of the report and for its continued support in the ongoing efforts to successfully implement the report’s recommendations. The report set out a framework for a safe, sustainable, robust return to international travel, seeking input from across the transport industry.
The Secretary of State confirmed on 7 May that non-essential international travel would resume on 17 May, lifting the “stay in the UK” regulation and allowing international travel to recommence under the new traffic light system. The system cautiously balances the reopening of international travel with managing the risk posed by imported variants. It categorises countries based on risk, allowing us to protect public health, and particularly the roll-out of our world-beating vaccination programme, from variants of covid-19.
The Joint Biosecurity Centre produces risk assessments of countries and territories. Decisions on which list a country is assigned to and any associated border measures are then taken by Ministers, who take into account that JBC risk assessment alongside wider public health factors. The Government have had to make difficult decisions in the early stages of the return to international travel; however, they are necessary to ensure that we do not risk throwing away our hard-won achievements, which have been possible only through the hard work of the British people, and people coming forward for their vaccinations when called. However difficult these times are, and I am under no illusion that they are challenging, we must not risk having to go backwards.
To address the immediate impact of travel restrictions we have introduced an unprecedented package of financial support across the economy, totalling approximately £350 billion. By September 2021, the air transport sector alone will have benefited from around £7 billion of Government support, including accessing more than £2 billion through the Bank of England’s covid corporate financing facility and around £1 billion to £1.5 billion of support through the furlough scheme. That is the same job retention scheme that some Labour Front Benchers have criticised and called “money wasting”. I could not disagree more, and I am sure that the people whose jobs it has saved would disagree as well.
The extension of the furlough scheme to the end of September this year allows us to continue supporting businesses and protecting as many jobs as possible. As part of our economy-wide support we have provided over £25 billion to the tourism, leisure and hospitality sectors in the form of grants, loans and tax breaks. We have extended business rates relief and introduced new restart grants of up to £18,000 for many in the sector. We have also extended the cut in VAT for tourism and hospitality activities to 5% until the end of September.
The levelling-up fund, the city and growth deals in Scotland and Wales, and the towns fund all show that the Government are investing in tourism infrastructure across our Union. This week, we announced town deals for a further 33 towns as part of the towns fund programme. Those places, which range from seaside towns such as Hastings and Hartlepool to the historic market towns of Bedford and Bishop Auckland, will share over £790 million to boost their local economies, create jobs and help them to build back better from the pandemic.
To date, we have announced town deals for 86 places across England worth over £2 billion in total. A new £56 million welcome back fund is helping councils to boost tourism, improve green spaces and provide more outdoor seating areas. Part of that funding will be specifically allocated to support coastal areas, with funding going to all coastal resorts across England to welcome back holidaymakers safely in the coming months.
On health certification and testing, the border requirements that international visitors will need to follow depend upon the risk rating of the locations that they have been in prior to arrival, as I referred to. As variants of concern still pose a significant risk, testing from a UK Government approved provider remains in place. We recognise that the cost of those tests is still too high. Although we have seen the price of post-arrival tests decrease from around £210 to around £170, we continue to explore options for lowering the cost of testing further, including cheaper tests being used when holidaymakers return home.
Passengers can now use the NHS app to demonstrate their covid-19 vaccination status or alternatively can request a letter that outlines proof of vaccination five days after they have received their second dose of a covid-19 vaccine. The ability to prove one’s vaccination status for outbound travel using the NHS app and an inclusive letter service means that several countries now accept vaccinated visitors from the UK with reduced or removed testing and health measures.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
My hon. Friend says that several countries accept evidence of UK vaccinations in order to facilitate travel. Why does the United Kingdom not recognise the validity of those vaccinations for international travel?
Robert Courts
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that matter. We are considering what role vaccination may be able to play in facilitating international travel. I will refer to that again in due course.
The measures set out in the traffic-light system are not set in stone. That is also an answer to my right hon. Friend’s question. We are working towards a future travel system that can coexist with an endemic covid-19, and indeed recognising, as he has pointed out, the strong strategic rationale of the success of the vaccine programme. We are working to consider the role of vaccinations in shaping a different set of health and testing measures for inbound travel into our country. We will set out our position on that in due course.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The Minister has talked about the way the traffic-light system might work. We were promised that there would be a green watch list that would give travellers more time, but that simply was not used in the case of Portugal. Could he expand on that a little further?
Robert Courts
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point and appreciate that it is one on which many hon. Members will want an answer. We have always been clear that we could use the green watch list where we were able to do so. We have equally always been clear that when the evidence requires us to take swift action, we will do that, because the public would expect us to take action to protect public health, which is what we did in that instance.
As recommended in the Global Travel Taskforce report, the Government’s approach will be assessed on 28 June, 31 July and 1 October. This is to ensure that the measures and the approach in place are still adequate, that they are relevant, and that they are efficient. Of course, the first of those review points comes up at the end of this month.
The GTT report included a commitment for the Government to produce a tourism recovery plan, as was reiterated in the 22 February road map. That tourism recovery plan will set out the transformation and growth of the sector over the next five years as part of our economic recovery. The plan will address both the short-term and medium-term issues affecting the sector, such as bringing back consumer demand and supporting businesses as they reopen. We also wanted to set the sector on a long-term path to support delivery of the Government’s wider objectives, such as levelling up, strengthening our Union, and enhancing growth and productivity. We want to future-proof the tourism sector. We are determined to see the development of a more sustainable, innovative and data-driven tourism industry.
As we return to travelling, building consumer confidence is key. On 17 May, we published a passenger covid-19 charter that sets out consumer rights and responsibilities while restrictions are still in place, alongside the Government’s expectations of the businesses in the sector. In the meantime, we will be regularly reviewing travel measures, taking into account the latest domestic and international data. The system we have designed will be adaptable to the evolving epidemiological picture, and the Government must of course be prepared to take action at any time to protect public health.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentioned that the Government plan two or three further checkpoints during the summer. Is he actually saying, as he talks about consumers and recovery, that if a destination is not placed on the green list or the amber list by 31 July, it cannot be reopened to travel before 31 October?
Robert Courts
If I have understood my right hon. Friend’s question correctly, the position is that we continue to assess all the measures that apply in terms of policy at the checkpoint reviews. Similarly, we look approximately every three weeks at which countries fall into which list. When I talked about consumer confidence in the charter, I was referring to the rights that consumers have and the responsibilities of those in the industry. I hope that I understood his question correctly; if not, I will come back to it later.
In the last couple of minutes, I would like to say a little bit about our priorities for the future of aviation. The UK has a proud history at the forefront of global aviation. It provides hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of pounds to the UK’s GDP and tax revenues—money that is invested back into our vital national services. We are working on a strategic framework that will focus on building back better and ensure a successful UK aviation sector for the future. That framework will set out a plan for a return to growth of the aviation sector, and it will include consideration of workforce and skills, Union connectivity, noise, innovation, regulation and consumer issues. The strategy will complement the Government’s net zero aviation strategy. It will consider the critical role that aviation plays in growing the UK’s global reach and we will publish it by the end of the year.
The measures I have outlined demonstrate how determined the Government are to support this vital industry as we start to rebuild the economy. I am a Minister in the Department for Transport. By definition, I want to see people travelling, and I want to see people flying. I want a thriving aviation industry. I want to welcome people back to our shores to enjoy the delights our country has to offer, and I want our people to be able to explore the wonders of the world. But we cannot and will not rush this, and we cannot and will not undermine our hard-won progress. If we move too quickly—recklessly, even—we could throw away our progress and take us all, including the travel, tourism and aviation industries, back to square one. The best way to support our aviation, travel and tourism industries is to resolutely follow the vaccine roll-out, return life to normality and allow these industries once again to soar.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It might be helpful for colleagues to know that I intend to run the debate until around 4 o’clock, because there is another debate after this, and therefore there has to be a very low time limit of three minutes, I am afraid, even at the beginning. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May); I normally try to give her more than three minutes, but we are really under pressure this afternoon. I should point out that Members who are further down the list simply will not have a chance to speak today. They will be able to work out by the arithmetic whether or not they will have a chance to speak, so they do not have to come and ask me. It is a pleasure to call the shadow Minister, Alex Sobel.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will try to be as brief as possible, to give Members the maximum time. My role as shadow tourism Minister means that I am lucky enough to visit many of the wonderful and various tourist attractions that Britain has to offer. Just a few weeks ago, I celebrated the reopening of museums and galleries by attending the launch of Grayson Perry’s “Art Club” exhibition at Manchester Art Gallery. More recently, I visited the beautifully kept gardens and buildings at Chiltern Open Air Museum and enjoyed the gardens at Batsford arboretum. School holidays for my children have been made more enjoyable for the whole family thanks in no small part to Legoland Windsor, the Wave in Bristol, Whipsnade zoo, the Wild Place Project and Roger Tuby and Stewart Robinson’s fairgrounds. I also visited Stratford-upon-Avon, one of our biggest tourist magnets, and was delighted to see it so busy, and I visited Scarborough to welcome back domestic coach tourism.
While all these attractions are still doing what they do best—educating, entertaining and enchanting their many visitors—they have one thing in common: they have all been let down in one way or another by the Government’s lacklustre and patchy support over the course of the covid-19 pandemic. Last September, I stood here and impressed the need to protect the hospitality industry. We know that hospitality is one of the major forces powering the UK tourism economy. Establishments providing food, drink and accommodation rely heavily on the tourism trade and must be protected for their sake and the sake of tourism—an industry worth £155 billion and responsible for more than 3 million jobs. That is why my party—the party that supports frontline businesses—is calling for a flexible repayment scheme to tackle the £6 billion debt burden facing the hospitality industry without harming the recovery of businesses that are still unable to turn a profit. It is the fair thing to do.
We also need to consider the other huge threat to hospitality recovering: the staff crisis. Venues have been hit by the triple whammy of changes to the immigration rules post Brexit, many workers deciding to return to their country of origin in Europe, and the pandemic and previously furloughed workers retraining and moving on. I have heard this time and again from Bristol to Scarborough. The Government must address the shortage of workers.
To protect the tourism industry itself, we were promised a plan, to which the Minister referred. In April, the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston)—who is present and can advise the Minister—assured me that the tourism recovery plan was on the way and would be announced by the end of spring. But the sector is starting the season late and there is still no plan. Neither our domestic nor our international travel and tourism industries know what support they can count on as the summer season starts. Instead, we wait. Will the Minister tell me whether we are having the longest spring on record? When can we expect the plan? I am sure his DCMS colleague will help him with that.
The coach industry waits for a package of support that aligns it with other areas of the leisure and hospitality sector. Tour guides, events staff and other excluded workers wait to see whether they are eligible for Government support in the plan. Fairground operators wait to see whether there will finally be a Government support package that does not exclude them because of their lack of static business or shop front. Travel agents wait for sector-specific funding, while the lack of inbound and outbound travel and the uncertainty over testing regimes and quarantine continue to hit bookings. Zoos and aquariums do not wait; they continue with the inadequate zoo animals fund—which many in the sector call the “zoo closure fund”—and ask what the tourism recovery package will do to help them, their staff and their animals.
I should mention that the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire, has chosen this period to undertake a review of destination management organisations. It is important that DCMS aligns the review of DMOs with the tourism recovery plan to best support the promotion of local and regional tourism. Any funding must be used to encourage co-operation and streamline processes, ensuring that DMOs are best placed to be at the centre of the English tourism ecosystem, while ending the need for them to compete for limited funding. I hope the Minister will give us clarity on both the tourism recovery plan and the review of DMOs when he responds to the debate.
Nowhere is uncertainty felt so keenly as by the outbound travel industry, with so many yearning for a holiday abroad. We have been told that we absolutely should not travel to amber-list countries, but essential travel is okay. Then we were told that perhaps holidays could be essential—then that, actually, it is dangerous to travel abroad this year and we should not do it, but to just be careful if we do. “Go to Portugal.” “Come back from Portugal.” “Why did you even go to Portugal?” Why were there so many mixed messages on outbound travel? It is key to the UK economy and, right now, clarity on holidays is critical to the UK’s collective psyche. The Government must step in to bring reassurance.
It is worth remembering that planes are not the only way to get abroad. The pandemic has hit Eurostar and other train operators hard, yet the Government have not supported them at all. We need a comprehensive strategy for our regional, national and international railways that goes beyond the current franchise-support programme to address the impact of covid-19 on operations such as Eurostar.
We all want to go back to normal. As a country, we have endured so much. We are tough. We do not need to be infantilised by the Government; we just want clear, truthful messaging. We know that uncertainty hurts our economy and that financial support promotes recovery and levels the playing field with the competitors in Europe—many of which have received the sort of support that we should provide to our tourism industry—that are taking advantage of the lack of support for our sector. Now is the time for the Government to step up and deliver a package that will give businesses certainty, the ability to plan for the future and a chance to rebuild.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This is a disappointing debate, because one year and one week ago this very issue was raised in this House. A different Minister was at the Dispatch Box at the time, but she promised me that the Government were working hard across the sector to
“get internationally agreed standard health measures”—[Official Report, 3 June 2020; Vol. 676, c. 850.]
in place. One year on, we are no further forward. Indeed, we have a devastated industry, jobs lost and global Britain shut for business.
More than not being any further forward, we have gone backwards. We now have more than 50% of the adult population vaccinated—it is a wonderful programme—yet we are more restricted on travel than we were last year. In 2020, I went to Switzerland in August and South Korea in September. There was no vaccine but travel was possible. This year, there is a vaccine but travel is not possible. I really do not understand the Government’s stance.
Of course, it is permissible for a person to travel to countries on the amber list, provided that it is practicable for them to quarantine when they come back, but Government Ministers tell people that they must not travel and cannot go on holiday to places on the amber list. The messaging is mixed and the system is chaotic. Portugal was put on the green list, people went to the football, then Portugal was put on the amber list, leaving holidaymakers scrabbling for flights and devastated families having to cancel their plans. That is not to mention the impact on the airlines, on travel agents here and on the travel and tourist industry in our longest-standing trading partner in Europe.
Business travel is practically impossible: global Britain has shut its doors to business and investors. In a normal pre-pandemic year, passengers travelling through Heathrow spent £16 billion throughout the country, including at places such as Legoland Windsor, which is partly in my constituency. That has been lost.
There are some facts on which the Government need to be upfront with the British people and about which Ministers need to think a bit more when they make decisions. First, we will not eradicate covid-19 from the UK. There will not be a time when we can say that there will never be another case of covid-19 in this country. Secondly, variants will keep on coming. There will be new variants every year. If the Government’s position is that we cannot open up travel until there are no new variants elsewhere in the world, we will never be able to travel abroad ever again. The third fact that the Government need to state much more clearly is that sadly people will die from covid here in the UK in the future, as 10,000 to 20,000 people do every year from flu.
We are falling behind the rest of Europe in our decisions to open up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) has indicated. The Government may say all they have, as the Minister has, about the importance of the aviation industry, but they need to decide whether they want an airline industry and aviation sector in the UK or not, because at the rate they are going, they will not have one, certainly not as a key sector in the economy, as it was before the pandemic. It is incomprehensible, I think, that one of the most heavily vaccinated countries in the world is the one that is most reluctant to give its citizens the freedoms those vaccinations should support.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I think it is clear to all of us just how important international travel is to the economy, and to the tourism and hospitality sector in particular. With European and world connectivity now more important than ever, it is the Scottish Government’s ambition to see airports and airlines restored to 2019 levels of connectivity as quickly as possible.
It is clear to all Members just how crucial tourism is to the Scottish economy. Luckily, the Scottish Government are perfectly aware of that. UK Hospitality is clear that, although the Scottish Government are providing funds through breathing space for business rates, the UK Government are just kicking the can down the road. Moreover, the fact that they have remained committed to imposing a September cliff edge on the sector by ending furlough and the 5% VAT rate is unforgivable.
Gavin Newlands
I would love to, but I am extremely pressed for time so I will crack on.
Given the time constraints I just mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) will make more comment on the tourism sector in his speech.
I think we all accept that the very nature of the pandemic has meant that reaction to events has had to be quick, changing in some cases day to day based on epidemiological evidence. Believe it or not from my tone sometimes, I am sympathetic to the pressures on Ministers and officials who have had to deal with the pandemic day to day and hour by hour, taking decisions with massive consequences for our economy and society. It has to be said though that the Government’s conduct in preventing the further importation of the delta variant was nothing short of a disgrace.
It is difficult to work out whether irresponsible delays in reintroducing travel restrictions to and from India while case numbers were surging were down to governmental desperation and self-interest while trying to set up a trade deal that would not be necessary if the kamikaze mission of Brexit had not been set in motion, or just sheer incompetence. Whatever the real reason, the result has been the importation of delta cases that could have been prevented had timeous action been taken or, indeed, had the UK Government just followed the advice provided on hotel quarantine, as the Scottish Government did. The UK Government even refused to help identify passengers in England travelling on to Scotland so that they could also be required to enter quarantine hotels. We can see the result of that approach right now in the rising delta caseload.
Although some restrictions on air travel are still necessary, aviation more than any other sector needs help and support from the state at this time of emergency. Unbelievably, we are still waiting for the type of sector-specific support promised by the Chancellor right at the start of the pandemic. Even with the limited fiscal and constitution levers at their disposal, the Scottish Government stepped up immediately and provided more targeted support to aviation businesses than the UK through extending 100% business rates relief for the whole of last year, and now for this financial year, too. In contrast, when the UK Government finally followed suit, they did so in a much more limited way when it came to eligibility and capping that support. They have also failed to match the additional year’s support, extending the limited scheme by only six months, a position that will surely have to change should their policies continue.
In a coup de grâce, the Government also saw fit to remove the extra statutory concession that had provided vital retail revenue for airports across the country and that was of particular importance outside London and the south-east. That decision has already resulted in dozens of retail outlets closing and hundreds of jobs going from airport retail in Scotland alone. The impact of that lost revenue will not only be felt in retail operations; the income was used to cross-subsidise a huge amount of airport operations, including attracting new routes and retaining old ones. In short, the decision is a hugely myopic one that I hope the Treasury will reverse.
We might think that that was plenty for the industry to be dealing with, but there is always one more thing with this Government, particularly if it involves Brexit. UK airlines have been put at a competitive disadvantage versus their EU counterparts when it comes to cargo and chartered routes. In terms of traffic rights, we—in the form of the Civil Aviation Authority—are very quick to grant rights to other European airlines, but the same reciprocity does not occur in many European countries. That clearly makes it much more difficult for UK-based airlines to secure contracts. Indeed, nothing makes that point more starkly than the fact that the Ministry of Defence has given a contract to transport UK armed forces personnel to a Polish airline, bailed out by a Polish Government, which we have quickly given rights to fly. All the while, UK aircraft remain grounded and the air crews and associated personnel remain furloughed at the taxpayer’s expense.
So much for taking back control. This is yet another Brexit dividend from people who brought us the sunny uplands—the same uplands our hill farmers are currently wrestling with. This is no way to secure an aviation sector, or the hundreds of thousands of jobs that directly and indirectly rely on it in the short or long term. Building capacity and sustainability in the long term has to be the priority for Government and the industry once the worst of the pandemic is over.
I have lost count of the number of times that regional connectivity has been raised with Ministers in this place. Our economies and wider communities are being held back and damaged by the UK’s over-centralising, decades-old policy of reliance on London and the south-east as gateways to the rest of Europe and the world. Regional connectivity is needed if we are to attract visitors and tourists over the coming months as restrictions are lifted. Although VisitScotland, the Scottish Government and the tourism and hospitality industries are all working hard to restart the sector, the fact is that visitors need to be able to get here in the first place.
We have now been waiting 17 months for the regional connectivity review. Local economies need that review to report, and to report now. There is no time to lose for communities that stand to be frozen out of recovery and see jobs and prosperity disappear for want of any strategy or plan from the Government. It must be remembered that for regional airports, Flybe’s collapse was a hammer-blow that preceded the pandemic. Even without covid-19, we would still be facing the same substantial challenges and, I rather suspect, the same lack of action from the Government.
I must make an uncharacteristically positive point. With the demise of Flybe, Loganair is now the UK’s largest regional airline. The airline is based in my constituency, and I was very proud to see the announcement this morning that it was the UK’s first regional airline to become carbon-neutral. I congratulate it on that initiative.
In conclusion, I go back to the gravity of the situation. The lack of action that I have spoken of has extended to sector-specific support, business rates relief and airport retail. Even at this stage, I still urge the Government belatedly to follow up on their promises with action. As the Minister himself has said, pre pandemic the country’s aviation sector was the third biggest. The Government’s inaction has ensured that it will not be, as we move out of the situation. It is time to listen to the industry and our aviation communities and map a future that ensures sustainability, economic growth and job security.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The aviation industry was one of the first to face the negative impact of the covid-19 pandemic 15 months ago. Sadly, because of the overly cautious restrictions and the confusion coming from the Government, it will be one of the slowest to recover.
I see this daily as the representative of an aviation community. It is timely for us to remember that we are not just talking about two weeks on the beach in the sun; this is about people’s livelihoods, their wellbeing and their jobs. It is also important for our UK economy. Outbound international travel accounts, in normal times, for a contribution of approximately £37 billion to the UK economy, and inbound international travel accounts for about £28 billion, at 2019 levels.
More than 1.5 million people were employed in the aviation and travel sectors. Sadly, many of those have lost their jobs and about half are on furlough. The furlough is coming to an end in September and will need to be extended if the aviation and travel sectors are not able to regenerate themselves by being able to operate at least to some meaningful degree in the coming summer months. This lost summer, which I fear it will be, will cost the UK economy some £19 billion. I am encouraged to hear news from Cornwall today that there will be a UK-US travel taskforce. The fact that we do not have transatlantic travel at the moment is costing our UK economy about £32 million a day, and that puts us at a competitive disadvantage compared with many other countries.
I pay tribute to the Government for the world successful vaccination programme. More than 70 million doses have been delivered, but we are squandering that advantage by being overly cautious and not being able to open up. This is about global Britain. This is about international trade. This is about people’s jobs. I urge the Government to allow aviation to safely reopen, which it can do with vaccination and testing. I also urge them to reduce the cost of testing and to remove the VAT on testing to allow greater freedom of movement. If they do not do that, the industry, rather than making money for the UK economy, will be asking for further bail-outs, which will cost every taxpayer much more.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) [V]
Today, I want to focus on a specialist sailing holiday company in my constituency, which has been running for several decades and has essentially been unable to run its business since March last year. It told me that, with the current travel restrictions, it is losing £1 million in revenue every three weeks. This tour operator has not been able to access much of the Government’s support, including business rates relief. It also missed out on some council grants because it is classed as offices, which were not officially told to close.
To add insult to injury, the company is now facing repayments for a loan under the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme from the end of this month, at a time when it is still almost completely unable to trade. These companies have not even been able to take full advantage of the furlough scheme given that cancelling holidays, which so many have been forced to do, takes more work than arranging them in the first place and therefore staff have been needed to deal with disappointed holidaymakers.
Then there is the absolute shambles that is this Government’s approach to international travel, which is compounding travel companies’ problems. When I asked the Transport Secretary to publish the evidence behind the decisions on the travel ban list, I was told:
“The advice, evidence and methodology which inform these decisions relates to on-going development of Government policy and therefore cannot be published at this time.”
If that is frustrating for me, can Members imagine how frustrated travel agencies are given that the future of their business and livelihoods is based on decisions for which there is no publicly available criteria and, in many cases, very little logic? This leaves businesses such as my local tour operator unable to plan in advance on the basis of coronavirus data and hugely damages consumer confidence.
What is most frustrating for me is the lack of leadership. Ministers need to admit that, basically, they are not allowing foreign holidays and to mitigate the impact of that on the travel industry with proper financial support. The current approach is the worst of both worlds, where the travel industry is being allowed to fail and we are not even properly securing our borders against coronavirus threats.
Time is running out for our travel industry and the brilliant local businesses and staff that make it up. I sincerely hope that the Minister is listening properly to the debate today.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I listened carefully to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts). He is a good man and a good minister. I know he does not share the Government’s universal view, but today we need him, and his colleagues in the Department and elsewhere across Government, really to step up the pressure on the places where the problems really are.
People in the Department of Health and in the public health world have done a fantastic job in many respects in the past 12 months—the vaccination programme is something of which we should all be proud—but they do not understand the business model of the travel sector, and the decisions they are taking are going to cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, put businesses out of business and leave the sector decimated. The Minister talked about the future of the aviation sector. Well, there is not going to be one if we do not get this resolved pretty quickly.
I was disturbed to hear the Health Secretary talk about getting international travel back up and running in the medium term. That is not good enough. We had an approach. We had a green list. The Joint Biosecurity Centre recommended putting Malta, for example, on the green list. Are we flying to Malta? No. That is inexplicable and indefensible, and it has got to stop. If a country is recommended as safe to fly to, we should be able to travel to it.
We also have an amber list. We are told that we can fly to countries on the amber list, but we have to quarantine when we get back, but we are also told that we should not go on holiday to them. Well, I am afraid that I simply disagree with that. My view is very clear: if people are willing to travel to a country on the amber list, for whatever reason, and if they are willing to follow the rules on self-isolation when they get back, they should be free to travel there. I simply disagree with Ministers who say, “We don’t want you to travel to an amber list country for a holiday.” We want the industry to recover. If people are willing to follow the rules around quarantining, they should be free to travel wherever they wish, and I think they should do so.
If we do not take steps as quickly as possible—the default really has to be that we open up places as soon as they are safe—we are going to see this industry decimated. We now need a much, much, much less risk-averse approach to international travel. We need a proper road map back into operation for the sector. What are the milestones? When can we open up amber countries to the green list? When can people start travelling freely without quarantining? What are the milestones that have to be reached to achieve that? We have done that domestically; let us now do it internationally and let us do it pretty quickly.
If we do not, the situation is very clear. We had a lively debate in this place on Monday about whether we could afford an extra aid budget. The argument the Government put forward is that the public finances are under huge pressure, and they are right. But they are going to be under even bigger pressure if we do not sort this sector out, because it will make no money until 2022 and we will have a straight choice: either we bail it out to the tune of billions of pounds more, or next year we will have no airlines, closed airports, and lots of little businesses like the one we just heard about in north London will have disappeared. That is not what I want, so my message to Ministers is: get this done; sort it out; get that road map in place; and start to take a less risk-averse approach.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Quite unusually, I find myself agreeing with many contributions from both sides of the House today. I want particularly to concentrate on the aviation sector. Clearly, the aviation, travel and tourism sector is unique in this crisis. While other sectors are enjoying a cautious but steady recovery and reopening, the short-term and long-term future of this sector remains extremely uncertain. In addition, it is one of the only sectors whose recovery is not determined solely by the policies of the UK Government, but is highly dependent on the often rapidly changing policies of Governments abroad. However, given the ongoing restrictions that the UK Government are applying to the aviation sector, the sector requires a specifically tailored recovery plan, which this Government sadly have not yet afforded it. Not only is this lack of support putting employers and employees under extreme pressure; it is also putting the UK market at a competitive disadvantage, where European counterparts have provided that much needed support and comfort.
It goes without saying that the workers—almost 230,000 of them in the aviation industry—are highly skilled. They go through a complex process of training to gain qualifications, of checking and of certification. The industry is potentially facing an exodus of workers who are going to leave for more stable sectors with a more predictable recovery prognosis. Quite frankly, the industry cannot afford such skill leakages at this time. A further extension of the furlough scheme would afford employees the flexibility to be furloughed at short notice without the potentially devastating impact on their income, and would serve to protect the skillset that the sector desperately needs to retain during the recovery.
I am honoured to serve as a member of the Select Committee on Transport and as such I have become well-acquainted with the particular challenges facing the sector, and in my capacity as chair of the Unite the union parliamentary group I have closely followed the industrial disputes within the sector, including the disgraceful fire and rehire practices at British Airways and Heathrow airport and, as always, I commend Unite on its work in fighting on behalf of its members in these sectors and once again call on the Government to outlaw fire and rehire to prevent more of these cases and end this unacceptable practice.
The uncertainty that has characterised the Government’s pandemic response endures with the recent traffic light system for foreign travel. Minister, in the time I have left I want to urge you to extend the coronavirus job retention scheme to the sector; extend the furlough scheme and give this sector and the workforce the support and reassurance it so desperately needs.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I know the hon. Gentleman did not mean to say “Minister” like that; I know he meant to say “I would ask the Minister” rather than “Minister, I would ask you”, but I did not want to interrupt him because of lack of time.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
I suspect that this is one of those occasions when the Minister would be surprised if any Member on either side of the House were to speak in support of the system that the Government have put in place and I am certainly not going to surprise him myself. I speak of course on behalf of the many thousands of my constituents who depend on aviation, particularly associated with Manchester airport, for their livelihoods, but I speak also for the many thousands more who need that vital connectivity for their businesses or other crucial aspects of their lives.
It is important to reflect on the huge importance of the aviation sector in this country; it has always been a huge British success story, making a £200 billion annual contribution to the economy and generating £4 billion a year in tax revenue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) referred to the debate about overseas aid; coincidentally, the same amount of money involved in that debate is how much we are simply giving up in tax revenue from the aviation sector by requiring it not to fly. Over 1 million jobs are supported by the sector.
Secondly, of course this is not just about holidays, as has been said by other Members: important though holidays are to many people, it is also about millions of British citizens and residents who are being denied the possibility of seeing their family and friends who live overseas, and it is about business more generally. There can be no global Britain without the aviation sector.
A constituent wrote to me yesterday describing the business-crushing approach the Government are taking to travel. He said:
“We literally have multi million pound potential being postponed because of the decisions of this Government.”
That is just one of many small and medium-sized enterprises losing out, unable to make the progress it wants to make.
Finally, I would just make the point that the Minister’s opening remarks seemed so encouraging, with the determination to get travel back and get aviation flying again, but it does not seem that way to the aviation sector. The aviation sector does not see the Government laying out a road map to a safe return to international travel; what it sees is the Government putting in place opaque and unpredictable obstacles that prevent that safe return to travel. We need clarity, we need certainty, we need a predictable approach, and quickly we need to see that approach set out in a way that allows the industry to plan for a return to safe travel over the summer.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) [V]
The pandemic has put unprecedented strain on the travel industry and stress on consumers, and the recent decision to remove Portugal from the green list immediately without first placing it on a watchlist has only exacerbated the problems for both. Confidence has been damaged and the lack of transparency by not allowing the data to be scrutinised has compounded the confusion and hindered the ability to plan ahead for businesses and consumers.
To focus on business support for airports like Manchester, the airport and ground operations support scheme is insufficient at £8 million per airport—that does not even cover the rates bill—and support by means of loans will only defer the problem as the start date for any meaningful return to international travel gets pushed ever further back, with no clarity on how and when it will restart. Vaccination was meant to be the key. More than 50% of people are now vaccinated, but we do not hear of covid passports any longer. There will be another travel taskforce between the USA and the UK—a little less talk and a little more action would be appreciated by airports, airlines, businesses and leisure travellers. The covid test scheme is, frankly, an expensive mess. The Government website on providers has no information on whether they are accredited, no guidance on what to do if things go wrong and no advice on the capacity of any provider. Is it acceptable for the Government to expect travellers to do their own research into such a new market, which is prone to scams and fraudulent behaviour? Effective consumer protections must be in place for travellers in the event of any problems with testing, and clear advice for potential travellers is also key.
It is really unhelpful that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office travel warnings do not always echo the amber and red warnings given by the Department for Transport. Indeed, the Secretary of State himself gave incorrect advice regarding refunds for travellers with bookings to an amber country. Travel insurance does not give all the answers; it is confusing and not well understood. How is the Minister working with the regulators and insurance industry to ensure that this is better understood and better regulated? The Government need to clearly state their priorities. If overcaution and virtual isolation is the aim, the industry needs financial support so that it is protected; if that is not the case, the Government need to let the industry trade more freely. Businesses and travellers deserve clarity and transparency.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
Let me say at the outset that I am chairman of the all-party groups on business travel and on Portugal, and I do not need to tell the Minister how the decision ignoring the data and the illogical decision about Portugal last week have caused widespread dismay. I have been speaking on hospitality and events in this House since March 2020, as many colleagues have. I am proud of the fact that in my constituency we have international travel businesses such as Swords Travel, which was named the UK and Ireland’s top travel agency this year, but like so many it highlights the problems it has had. Unless there is clarity on the future of international travel or more Government support, if the industry is not allowed to reopen more quickly, many of the fantastic services for which Swords Travel and others are recognised will simply not be there in the future.
Like everyone else, I recognise the enormity of the support provided by the furlough scheme, which has been incredibly helpful. However, unlike retail and hospitality, the travel sector has not had that same level of specific sector support. Therefore, if the Government are not going to reopen the industry, I urge them to think about what they may be able to do in terms of grants and support for the industry. I said a moment ago that I am the chairman of the all-party group on business travel, and this is an area that contributes more than £100 billion a year to the UK economy. Business travel management companies have seen a collapse of revenue, which has decreased by some 88% since pre-pandemic levels, and the decrease in business travel trips across 10 key routes alone has cost the Government some £3.3 billion in the past six months. Therefore, when the Government reconsider, I hope they will include priority business travel destinations alongside traditional holiday destinations for the next review of the green travel list. If they cannot be added to the list, that will compound the need for further support.
I listened carefully to the Minister and, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), I, too, know him to be a good man, but I have to say to him that if all social restrictions are lifted on 21 June, as planned, aviation and international travel will be the only sector without a meaningful restart date. Therefore, I seriously urge him to use 28 June as the opportunity to repurpose the risk-based system, which does enjoy support but clearly is not working. He should be recognising the vaccination status of travellers. We should be looking at the replacement of the expensive PCR—polymerase chain reaction—test requirement for green countries, which are inherently low risk, and we should be removing the “do not travel” messaging on amber countries. Many of those—the testing and the quarantine-on-return measures—match the risk posed, and I urge the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for Transport to use 28 June to reopen international travel for business, holiday and family reasons.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
This will come as no surprise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will take a slightly different tack from what has been said before. If our country is going to get itself back on its feet once covid thankfully has passed, we are going to have to play to our strengths.
What is one of the greatest strengths of the tourist industry? What is something that was invented in Scotland? What is important as part of global Britain? Golf. During the time when the Kaiser’s high seas fleet faced Admiral Jellicoe and Admiral Beatty’s grand fleet, a small golf course was built in a place called Pitcalzean, which is near Nigg, near Invergordon. It was greatly used in two wars by Royal Navy personnel. Sadly, in the late 1960s, it fell into disuse and was closed down. I have a constituent called Robert Mackenzie who has tremendous plans to re-establish this golf course entirely using private finance. It has the support of the local authority and goes to planning shortly.
I very much hope that we can see that project come to fruition, but I am making this speech because we recently had a similar project at a place called Coul, near Dornoch. It went all the way to the final stage of the race, if you like, and suddenly having got all that way, the Scottish Government decided to call in the application and turn it down. It is heavily rumoured locally that it happened due to Green party influence on the Scottish Government. This must not happen again.
Jobs do not grow on trees in my constituency—we all know that. Golf can be a terrific tourism product that we can offer people, and it is ultimately sustainable in the longest possible term. I very much hope that both those projects will go ahead. I just say in passing that the name Pitcalzean is one that will fox Hansard, I do believe, and I will be happy to furnish them with the correct spelling by email once I have stopped speaking.
Last year, I invited the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to come and see for himself the Scottish whisky industry in my constituency and other things he cared to see. The right hon. Gentleman came, and I believe the visit was a success. It may prove to be something unusual for an Opposition MP to do, but at the end of the day, I am about trying to get the best for my constituency, and I will speak to politicians of any party if it helps bring things to fruition.
I extend the same warm invitation to the Minister responding to this debate today or, indeed, any other member of Her Majesty’s Government who would like to come and see what we already have in terms of golf—and in whisky, food or whatever, too—but also what we seek to do for the future. As I said at the beginning, and I say it again, this is all part of the effort to get our great country back on its feet.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The UK’s vaccine roll-out has been remarkable. Unfortunately, other countries have not kept pace with us and fully opening up our borders to international travel would put our brilliant progress into jeopardy. Tightly controlled travel corridors are a necessary solution, but they clearly present significant challenges to the airline and travel industries. Although international travel is limited, regional airports provide an opportunity to increase connectivity and help us bounce back stronger as we emerge from the pandemic.
Our extremely high level of air passenger duty is a barrier to expanding domestic flights, as we charge one of the highest levels of APD in Europe. Somewhat astonishingly, as air passenger duty is a departure tax, it is currently applied to the inbound and outbound journeys of a domestic return flight. That double taxation has enormous impacts on small regional airports, such as Blackpool airport, and makes many potential routes financially unviable. It also acts as a disincentive to travelling from regional airports to major UK hub airports. An airline running just one domestic connection with an average of 100 return passengers would need to make about £1 million a year just to cover the duty.
Despite huge support from residents across Blackpool, the airport lacks commercial passenger flights. Scrapping aviation tax for domestic air travel would help level the playing field and give a real opportunity to get Blackpool flying once again. Some capital investment will also be necessary to accommodate commercial passenger flights, including a replacement terminal building, as the previous one was ripped out and sold off by the Labour-run council. Hence, I was disappointed that airport infrastructure was not within the scope of the recent levelling-up fund. Reopening Blackpool airport for commercial passenger flights would increase tourism, help to create more high-skilled, well-paid jobs and bring greater investment opportunities. We know that there is pent-up demand for holidays and that people want to spend quality time with their family and friends. Blackpool is the UK’s premier holiday tourist destination, and domestic tourism will bring a welcome boost to our local economy.
The Treasury support to keep businesses viable until the resort could reopen again has been phenomenal. Over £97 million has been given to Blackpool businesses, and it is great to see so many of them reopen once again over the last few months. However, on my recent visits to hotels and tourist attractions, they have made it clear that two points need to be put across to the Treasury to make sure that we can bounce back strongly. The first is the VAT reduction continuing beyond the current extension already outlined, and the second is the requirement for social distancing to be reduced from 2 metres on 21 June.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I just say gently to the Minister that the Government need to get real in this debate. Even the industry’s figures suggest that it will take at least until 2023 to 2025 for aviation demand to recover from pre-crisis levels. A report by the New Economics Foundation and the TUC suggests that as many as 17,000 jobs could be lost from the sector even if demand returns, thanks to automation and changes to working practices. That could have a devastating impact on my community. In fact, it already is and that has not been helped, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) said, by the behaviour of companies such as BA and Heathrow forcing through fire and rehire strategies to cut wages and terms of employment. I thank Unite the union for the work that it has done and the campaign that it has waged against that.
The reality is that we need a concrete and very effective aviation recovery strategy. That means a recognition by the Government that they simply cannot precipitately turn off the support that they have provided so far. We need a continuing job support and retention scheme specifically designed for this sector, just to give us the breathing space for the strategy for recovery to take place. Of course, any recovery or future strategy for aviation must be a green recovery, but this transition to an environmentally sustainable aviation sector will be successful only if it is a just transition. For my constituents, this means providing workers with the training and expertise needed to work in a lower emission and increasingly automated sector. However, it also means providing support and training to enable workers to shift into other emerging industries and sectors. Arrangements are also needed that put protections in place for lower-skilled and lower-paid workers, who will be the most vulnerable, as we have seen.
I also say to the Government that we need to think through the support that is needed to develop local economic strategies for hearty airport communities such as mine and those other Members have raised in the Chamber today. Any review of aviation policy must strike an equitable balance between the benefits that aviation brings and its adverse environmental, economic and health costs. That is why the “growth at all costs” mantra in Government must end. The review of aviation taxation is also necessary to fund the new strategy. As a final point, if levelling up is to be meaningful, Heathrow expansion competing against regional airports has to be cast into the dustbin of aviation history.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Here we are again: MPs from both sides are getting up and asking for a plan for recovery for tourism and aviation, and asking for clarity on the border, and yet we have a Minister unwilling to stump up the support desperately needed to save businesses and jobs under threat because of restrictions on travel. These restrictions, while necessary, may be in place for another six months, and if we believe what Ministers are saying, they mean that we should not even be booking holidays this year. I will try not to repeat the points that I have made in numerous debates on aviation that have taken place in the past year because it is a bit like groundhog day: the sector spends time ahead of these debates lobbying for support and clarity on the border, and Ministers get up and offer neither clarity nor support.
Luton airport is one of the foundations of the economy in my constituency. The council depends on its revenue, and local charities benefit so much from the money that it brings in. To protect as many jobs as possible that Luton airport supports—whether that is people who work in its bars or cafes, air traffic control, airport taxi transfers, airport parking or any of the other thousands of jobs that depend on people moving—we need a clear road map for recovery for international travel now. At what point in the vaccine roll-out will it be safe to travel? When will the Government get a grip of the border policy? Where is the cash to support jobs in the sector and its supply chain?
People are desperate to get abroad again, not just for holidays but to see loved ones; yet we have had travellers trying to navigate the traffic light system changing at the last minute, Ministers saying, “It’s safe to travel, but you shouldn’t,” and people going without water and food for their kids at quarantine hotels. It has been absolute chaos. I absolutely believe that we need as strong a border policy as possible to halt the spread of new variants, but the chaos has not done that, as we see with the delta variant from India. At the very least, there must be clearer guidance for people travelling to and from green and amber destinations, and the Government must improve their communication with the sector.
Those of us in airport towns have been asking the Government to deliver the cash to save jobs. Let us look elsewhere, where this has been done better. The French Government gave €7 billion in state-backed loans to Air France. The Dutch gave €3.4 billion in support to their biggest airline. Our sector has had a pittance for runway maintenance, although any recovery package cannot be unconditional. I have been following the Competition and Markets Authority investigation into Ryanair and British Airways, which have offered cash refunds in very few cases. I want people in Luton North who did the right thing and cancelled trips when it was illegal to travel to get their money back.
In calling for support to protect jobs, I am also calling on the Government to step in and do more to protect jobs from fire and rehire practices from the likes of BA. It is wrong, and businesses should not be using the pandemic as an excuse to water down people’s rights at work or pay. They trade on our country’s name but not in our country’s interest. I hope that the Minister can give the sector the answer that it needs, or else we will be back here in a couple of months asking the same questions, seeing more jobs lost and still getting no answers.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I do not doubt for one moment that the Minister, the Secretary of State for Transport and the Department for Transport are pushing across Government to try to get aviation and the travel industry back to where it needs to be, but I feel that the Government as a whole are being far too cautious. As a result, today I have written on behalf of the Transport Committee to the Prime Minister asking him to give more clarity and certainty, and to really set out the rule base of the traffic light system—what it really is, and is not, supposed to be.
I did that because on Monday I asked the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to give a concrete milestone based on the data for when we can get the industry back on its feet. His response was:
“A variant that undermined the vaccine fundamentally would put us in a much more difficult place as a country, and that is why we are being as cautious as we are.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 676.]
Effectively, some form of unknown, unforeseen risk means that we cannot do anything right now. To me, that is an absolute tragedy, because our vaccine roll-out has been a tremendous success. By 21 June we hope to have vaccinated all those over the age of 50 and the clinically extremely vulnerable twice, accounting for 99% of the mortality risk. The vaccine is effective against all known variants. Indeed, of 12,383 delta variant cases 126 ended in hospital admissions. Of those, 28 had one dose and three both doses, so we know that when the most vulnerable are double-dosed we are safe. I have put it to the Prime Minister that that has to be the milestone for when we can unlock this great industry.
For those who say, “Well, there’s still risk,” indeed there is, but there are also risks for those people who cannot go and see their boyfriends or girlfriends and have not done so for over a year. What about their rights? What about their wellbeing and mental health? There is also the risk for those who have not seen their newborn grandchildren and may worry that they never will if this carries on. What about those people? There are also the people who work and rely on this industry to get by. Once delivering for global Britain, and for people to get worldwide global travel experiences, they are now lucky to be delivering for Amazon. Over 5,000 people per month have lost their jobs in this industry since February 2020, and that needs to be looked at as much as this unknown risk that is being talked about.
I have written to the Home Secretary as well—I have done a letter-writing campaign; we are doing our best to push everyone who has influence—because it is also vital that we have the Border Force resources to ensure that people can go through the airports safely and, again, give more confidence to all.
I will not take any more time, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know you will not let me—but my goodness, this Government, and indeed all the other Front Benchers, need to wake up to this industry that is on its knees.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Tourism is the very lifeblood of Scotland. It is no coincidence that our unofficial national motto is “Ceud mìle fàilte”—“A hundred thousand welcomes”. Scotland loves visitors and visitors love Scotland, so the covid pandemic and lockdown have been as painful for the tourism and hospitality sector as for any in Scotland—a country so geared up for them and reliant on them.
I noticed that the Prime Minister flew to Cornwall yesterday to talk to the G7 about upping its game on climate change. While I am sure the aviation industry welcomed his visual endorsement, it is yet another tourism sector that has suffered from a lack of targeted support. The French Government provided Air France-KLM with €7 billion-worth of support to help jobs. The German Government have gone way beyond the commitment level of the UK Government by also pledging €7 billion to their largest airline, Lufthansa, thus not just ensuring the survival of Lufthansa but allowing it to compete more effectively post pandemic with companies that may well be weaker as a result of the pandemic—alas, companies such as the UK airlines.
I mentioned the Prime Minister’s private jet trip to Cornwall, for which he has endured some ridicule. On the environment, as with so much else, he is a veritable geyser of hot air rather than substance. While we all recognise the importance of jobs in the aviation industry, we all recognise too the vital need for a greener transport future. The UK Government missed a major environment opportunity when they ignored the 167,000 people who signed a Greenpeace petition calling on the Chancellor to attach environmental conditions for airlines. Not only was the Chancellor’s help for UK airlines much more modest than their European rivals, but the essential environmental caveats all of us want to see for a greener future were not attached to the assistance given, nor indeed was a requirement to strengthen workers’ rights—although with the Conservatives that probably surprises no one.
Finally, I say to the Minister, and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that however you travel, if you are looking for a wonderful spot to go on holiday this autumn, I would recommend my constituency of Ochil and South Perthshire. I would challenge any Member to find a more beautiful piece of the world than picturesque Perthshire, glorious Kinross, and the stunning Ochil hills. Rocks, castles, whisky and extraordinary food: we have it all and you are more than welcome.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Gentleman is certainly right about beautiful Perthshire.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I would challenge the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) with Staffordshire Moorlands, which is equally if not more beautiful than anything he has described.
I rise to speak on behalf of the many tourism businesses in my constituency—in particular, my largest tourism business, Alton Towers. I have three points to make. First, the Government should be taking credit for and benefiting from the success of the vaccination. We should be celebrating the fact that we have the most successful vaccination programme in the G7. Over the past few days, I have enjoyed watching baseball in the United States of an evening. I watched the Cubs at the Padres a couple of days ago, and the Boston Red Sox, my team, at the New York Yankees. What I saw was a wonderful full stadium. I saw people sitting together with no social distancing, not wearing face masks, and enjoying the sport. I thought, what a wonderful example of celebrating the vaccine programme. I urge the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), who is no longer here, to think what we can do to benefit in the same way that people in the United States are benefiting from the vaccine programme. I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) —how can we be in a worse position this year than we were last year, when we did not have any vaccines? I will make the point again that I made in my intervention, which is that confidence in all of the tourism and travel sector relies on certainty. That means using the green watch list rather than just going straight to amber for travellers in Portugal, many of whom are constituents of mine who were very upset about that.
My second point is about what is essential. I was very pleased to hear the Minister say that this was an essential industry, because for too long we have been told that we can only do essential things. I had begun to worry that the Government seemed to think that life was not about anything more than eating, sleeping and possibly having the occasional glass of wine, which we were still able to do. Actually, life is about far more than that. It is about going to sports stadiums and watching our favourite team—even in the Euros, which are about to start this weekend. It is about riding rollercoasters at Alton Towers and about seeing loved ones, and it is really important that we stop thinking just of the bare essential.
That brings me to my final point, which is that when locations are allowed to reopen properly, please can they be allowed to reopen properly, not with restrictions? At Alton Towers, we queue outdoors—I am sure many of my colleagues have queued at Alton Towers. I can promise that Staffordshire weather is not always that good, but we queue outdoors, and that is the safest place to be. We need to make sure that venues such as Alton Towers can have maximum capacity. They also need to see the VAT cut extended, because they have been on the knees for far too long, and they desperately need it.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
While most of my constituents may have liked the peace of lockdown without planes coming into Heathrow over our heads every minute, we know that our leading national airport should be moving towards full operation at some point, but the big question is when. Apparently, it will be between two and five years before aviation is back to its pre-covid levels. Meanwhile, what will the cost have been to many of my constituents during this time, and when will the Government respond appropriately?
Hounslow Council research has found that the aviation sector and the wider supply chain contribute to over 20,000 jobs locally and support many small and medium-sized businesses across our borough. Some 8,000 jobs in Hounslow have been lost in 2020, and the number of my constituents claiming universal credit has skyrocketed. People have told me the personal cost to them, such as those losing their jobs in roles such as airline catering, and those working for British Airways at Heathrow airport, as well as for Mitre and other companies, who face being fired and rehired.
The Government have provided no sector-specific support for the UK aviation industry, unlike in France, Germany and Austria, where Governments are protecting jobs while imposing strong environmental conditions to help reach net zero. Instead of a strategy and sector-specific support, the UK Government flip-flop over international travel.
In addition to the points made so well in this debate so far, I want to add one about the delay in enabling testing at our airports. Heathrow provided the space and services for testing departing and arriving passengers last summer, yet the Government drag their feet on utilising them. There has been the delay in adding India to the red list and the further delay in setting up an arrival terminal for red list country arrivals. Passengers and staff have been exposed to covid infection in overcrowded arrival halls for hours on end, thanks to Border Force being incapable of fully staffing the immigration desks, despite passenger levels being way below the norm. North-west London public health directors have been raising concerns about the infection risks to travellers and staff at quarantine hotels. On investigating this, they found that staff working for different Government Departments and agencies were not talking to each other, let alone the local authorities.
Going forward, the Government must listen to local leaders such as Hounslow Council leader Steve Curran, who is calling for an aviation communities fund to support communities that have been so badly affected with support for businesses and for workers on reskilling and skill leak, and on environmental opportunities using the high-level skills we have in the aviation sector. We must put the environment at the heart of our response. Aviation contributes 8% of our emissions total here in the UK, and the figure is rising.
Those travelling, those wanting to travel and those working in the sector have been let down constantly over the past year by the Government and, frankly, they deserve so much better. I hope that the Government listen to them.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) [V]
Tuesday 4 March 2020 was a day I will never forget. Shortly before midnight, the last Flybe flight landed back in the UK. Passengers disembarking from the plane bid farewell to tearful staff. Flybe’s new owners decided to walk away from the troubled airline, despite the Government support on offer. Overnight, 2,000 people lost their jobs, many of which were based at its Exeter airport headquarters in my constituency of East Devon.
Back then, the majority of routes from Exeter airport were operated by Flybe. Some 16 months later, all but one of the routes once operated by the airline from Exeter have operators ready to take to the sky. So much work has been done locally to support the sector, with councils working together with the industry and Members of this House to secure additional bespoke support from this Government.
However, all this hard graft is at severe risk. We have an incredibly successful vaccination programme, yet we have one of the most restrictive policies on international travel in the world. I will leave others in this debate to argue the sensible case to open up safe routes, but if we cannot travel internationally planes are grounded, airports are quieter and travel agents remain closed.
Confidence is at an all-time low in the aviation and travel industry, and among passengers. Without confidence among passengers, the furlough scheme may be propping up roles that simply will not exist within months. I ask the Government to seriously consider three main asks.
The first is to extend the furlough scheme for specific sectors, including aviation. Some 50% of aviation staff are still on furlough. We must avoid a cliff edge with mass redundancies in every corner of the country. The second is to extend the welcome business rates relief package for UK airports for a further six months. Thirdly, high street travel agents and language schools have drawn on lifeline support from Government grants. Topping up these schemes with extra cash and encouraging councils to target this funding would lend a lifeline.
If we do not reopen borders, more must be done to give airports, airlines and the travel industry a fighting chance of survival. Global Britain could become little Britain if we do not.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
My constituents are significantly impacted by the aviation industry, and I have been hoping to raise their case in this place for a long time. Thousands of my residents in Lewisham East live beneath two major flightpaths, with planes flying over-head to and from Heathrow and London City airport.
Travel restrictions during the pandemic brought a welcome respite for many of my constituents living underneath those flightpaths, but there is no doubt of the important role the aviation sector plays in our economy for travelling reasons and for jobs. However, in reviving the aviation industry, the Government must consider how we can make important improvements. This is all part of building back better.
The noise pollution and emissions from living beneath two busy flightpaths can have a devastating impact on my constituents’ health and wellbeing. Noise pollution would be a greater problem for them if London City airport and Heathrow were to expand and increase their traffic.
Prior to travel restrictions, one of my constituents wrote to me to explain that she suffered as a result of the low-frequency noise, describing it as extremely depressing, debilitating and painful. Another constituent has been left feeling depressed and suicidal due to the consistent disruption caused by night-time noise.
These cases are not isolated. In a meeting I held about the issue in summer 2019, residents packed out the room to tell me their distressing stories arising from the lack of consultation from air flight operators and the commonality of noise interruption and pollution, from the early hours of the morning until late at night. This is unacceptable. The Government must not and cannot ignore my constituents. They must address aviation noise before travel begins to increase. It is a serious concern.
Children in my constituency may well be suffering from undetected health issues arising from low-frequency aircraft noise. According to the World Health Organisation, noise is the second largest environmental cause of health problems, yet no regulations are in place to monitor it and to protect our residents.
We need assurances from the Government that areas such as mine with high population density will not revert to having busy flightpaths that constantly disturb people and reduce their and their families’ quality of life. Will the Minister carry out an assessment of flightpaths over densely populated areas and work with airports to alter their flightpaths accordingly? For the health of my constituents and the good of the planet, our aviation industry must be rebuilt responsibly.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) [V]
Let me start my contribution and end it on this point: there is no earthly reason why restrictions cannot be lifted on what has been dubbed freedom day, 21 June. Right now, we are in danger of winning the battle but losing the war, destroying our aviation industry and all connected to it in the process. I concur with every word of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said in her excellent speech. As she said, our extraordinary vaccine roll-out is working, with half the population inoculated twice, yet after 15 months of restrictions, the traffic light scheme, welcomed as a phased restart to international travel, has proved a false dawn, being used only to further curtail our freedoms.
This week holidaymakers faced chaos after Portugal went from amber to green with no warning. The cost to the travel industry in all its guises is truly terrifying. I have a lot of respect for the Minister, but his fine words ring hollow, I am afraid, and I fundamentally disagree with the Government’s confused stance. The aviation industry has seen its value plummet, with half its staff still on furlough and 1.5 million jobs at risk.
This situation is totally unacceptable. We are squandering the advantage created by our pioneering vaccination programme for fear of new variants, which are here to stay and which we must—must—learn to live with. “Global Britain” is our battle cry, but countries with weaker vaccination programmes than ours are opening up faster. Spain and, shortly, France no longer require fully vaccinated passengers to quarantine. We must urgently move them and other low-risk countries such as Greece, Italy, Portugal and the USA on to the green list.
The travel and tourism industry is planning a day of action on 23 June. We must support it, scrap the onerous burdens it faces, reduce the number of tests and allow fully vaccinated passengers to travel restriction-free. Let me finish as I began: freedom day on 21 June must be respected. It is time for state control to end and for common sense to return.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I will echo many of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), and I also find myself echoing, quite unfortunately, the contribution from the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) in raising concerns about the aviation industry near to my constituency at Edinburgh airport.
The frustration within the industry is significant. It is a simple fact that a plane cannot take off without an engine. The travel industry’s engine is travel agencies, and without travel agencies, we will not recover our travel industry. One such business in my constituency is called Travel Your World. Bruce Lamond, who runs that company, signed off one of his emails to me with, “To travel is to live,” which is from Hans Christian Andersen. That business has been without income since March 2020, and many Scottish travel agents are in a similar boat. He has been working full time. He has not been able to furlough his staff. He has had to pay full wages with no income and no means to make an income, and unlike other retailers, he remains open but unable to make any money.
The Department for Transport’s traffic light system is disorganised and unhelpful, and the limited notice, which was so evident this week with the Portugal decision, has damaged public confidence significantly. Even visiting green list countries can cost in excess of £170 per person on top of the trip, for testing and other considerations. Bruce tells me that the industry is down and is now being kicked while it is down. What other part of the industry is getting absolutely no support for doing the right thing? Bruce’s business is losing thousands of pounds a month and time is running out.
The Government’s support and funding grants have not been as available to travel agencies as they have to other businesses. The Scottish Passenger Agents’ Association tells me that it has members who have exhausted their savings, remortgaged their homes and emptied their pension funds. What should they do? Close the business they have invested all their life in? Default on debts in excess of £70,000? They need and deserve answers from the top. Pubs, bars, cafés and restaurants are all open. Retail is open. It is time to put the engine back into the travel industry. It is time to give proper support to travel agencies.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend and neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), at the Dispatch Box, and I am sure he will agree with me on one point. While Perthshire and Staffordshire vie for visitors, the Cotswolds are an even more special place to visit, with their architecture, landscapes and hospitality. Last year, sadly, saw a 76% decline in inbound tourism, and the impact of that on jobs and livelihoods is of great concern to many of the constituents I represent. UK airlines have already announced more than 30,000 job cuts. As others have said, as we make great strides with our own fantastic vaccination programme now being offered to all those over 25, we must accept that many countries do not have the same level of coverage with their own vaccine programmes. On the traffic light system, I would urge the Minister to give a little more notice when we move suddenly from green to amber. We saw the chaotic scenes last weekend as huge queues of unsocially distanced people waited for flights in Portugal.
The inbound tourism industry supports 490,000 jobs worth £2.8 billion, and the wider tourism industry supports 1.6 million people. Travel industry experts predict that tens of thousands of jobs are at risk, including Mountain Kingdoms Ltd, a travel agent based in Wotton-under-Edge. The real fear for such businesses, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) said, is that despite the generous schemes that the Government are offering now, if they are not allowed to operate when the furlough scheme comes to an end, they will be in deep trouble. This summer is vital for many tourist industries, to enable their sector to rebound. The week from 22 to 31 May was English Tourism Week in the Cotswolds, which was a great promotion. I visited a number of businesses, including the Tetbury Goods Shed, Wild Carrot and Quayles Cornerhouse Bistro. I fear for them if they are not allowed to open fully on 21 June.
The Health Secretary has given the figures: of the 12,000 cases of the delta variant, only three who had had two vaccinations were hospitalised. Throughout this pandemic there has been very little communication on the wider impact of lockdowns. The emails and letters I have had from constituents about jobs, businesses, paying the bills, their mental health and their children’s education have gone into the thousands. I have to say to the Minister that the policy is very risk averse. If we keep locking down every time we have a new variant, we will never unlock, so let us fully unlock on 21 June, and let us open up and attract more countries to green list travel on 28 June. Our citizens will then be really happy.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
No one wants to throw away our hard-won achievement of massively reducing the numbers of deaths and hospitalisations from covid by doing anything irresponsible. We have lost too many lives and caused too much pain and suffering to do that. It is, however, a legitimate expectation that our wonderful and deeply appreciated vaccine roll-out should be laying the foundations to get our freedom to travel back, and there is not enough clarity on how we will do that so that the sector can plan ahead.
Large parts of the travel, tourism and aviation sectors are prevented from trading their way out of the pandemic, with less of a safety net than other businesses that are now open. The fact that the safety net will start to be withdrawn from next month cannot be a fair or reasonable response. London Luton airport, where many of my constituents work, has had to lay off large numbers of people despite the furlough scheme, and the airport continues to lose millions of pounds every month. I know it has plans to be the most sustainable airport in the UK, and I am a strong supporter of zero-carbon aviation and the work of the Jet Zero Council. We need to make sure that international travel fully plays its part in getting to net zero.
One of my travel agents wrote to me to say that she has worked continuously since March 2020, but that work has involved cancelling, rebooking and cancelling holidays again and again, and refunding payments with hardly any income coming in at all. Now she has to pay back £200 every month from her bounce back loan. How is she supposed to do that with no income? A significant number of travel agents are limited company directors and are not eligible for the self-employed income support scheme either.
I think United Kingdom holidays are brilliant, and we have an amazing offer that I have been lucky enough to enjoy myself in the past, but people are not bad if they want to travel overseas. All those whose livelihoods enable people to travel overseas also deserve our support. It has been very disconcerting to have Ministers from outside the Department of Transport speculating on overseas travel. Across the whole Government, can we please just have the relevant Ministers from the Department for Transport providing official information without unhelpful speculation?
I think it is wrong that travel agents are in strand 1 of the restart grant scheme, given that they have, in many cases, virtually no income. Hospitality, leisure, personal care, gyms and sports businesses are in strand 2 and getting the higher £8,000 grant if their rateable value is under £50,000, even though they are open and able to trade. At the same time, travel agents, who have virtually no income coming at the moment, can only get the £2,667 grant. In addition, it cannot be right to reduce furlough payments from next month for any business in the aviation, travel or tourism sector that is still effectively unable to trade because of Government restrictions. That would not be fair or right either.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
I am going to focus on the issues facing our business travel industry. The crisis facing this sector of our economy cannot be overstated. The Business Travel Association, which is the main representative body of the UK business travel industry, has highlighted that in a normal year its member travel management companies account for 6.4 million journeys and 32 million transactions, which contribute £220 billion to UK GDP. Business travellers do not just include those who strike the deals and develop the interpersonal relationships that drive international trade; they also include humanitarian aid workers, engineers, scientists, education providers and researchers, all of whom have witnessed unprecedented barriers to their work as a result of the pandemic.
The impact on this industry cannot be overstated. Travel management companies have seen a collapse in revenue of up to 90% in the past 14 months. According to BTA estimates, around 60% of the employees in the sector were made redundant and 80% of the remaining employees continue to be furloughed. Travel management companies are vital in the distribution chain for business travel. Airlines simply do not have the infrastructure to handle the volume and requirements of large-scale business travel, so they rely on such companies to handle those issues for them.
Furthermore, in a normal year, business travel accounts for 15% to 20% of the customer base of most airlines, providing an essential lifeline to airlines as a whole and contributing to the availability of low-cost flights for leisure travellers. If the sector continues to suffer such severe strain, the entire travel industry may experience dramatic knock-on effects.
The BTA has urged the introduction of several measures that could grant a substantial degree of security to the industry and its employees. The BTA would like priority business travel destinations to be included alongside holiday destinations among the next round of countries added to the green travel list. If the Government cannot expand the green list in June, the job retention scheme for the aviation and travel industries should be extended to December 2021. The BTA is also requesting grant funding of the same broad scope as for hospitality and leisure to support the industry until overseas travel can once again resume without restrictions.
I hope that the Government will consider these asks and act to support and reassure our aviation, travel and tourism industries that the UK Government are on their side. The resulting fall-out from our failure to support these industries could imperil them and create shock waves of harm throughout the economy for many years to come.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and a happy birthday to Mr Speaker.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am grateful for this debate being called at a time when there is so much uncertainty in both the aviation and tourism sectors. I pay tribute to my union, Unite, for continuously standing up for this sector, particularly during this difficult time. I also want to draw attention to Manchester Airport, which is owned by the 10 local authorities in Greater Manchester. A good model of a publicly owned and operated service, this airport is one of the largest centres of employment in the north-west, with more than 22,000 people directly employed on site, supporting a further 45,000 jobs in the north-west of England. The airport secures Greater Manchester’s position as a hub of trade and investment.
In this House, we all know the devastating impact that this pandemic has had, from the loss of family members and friends to the closure of businesses and the loss of jobs, but it now feels like there is light at the end of the tunnel. As the economy starts to reopen and vaccines have been rolled out, there is a real feeling of hope that we will be able to beat this virus. Unfortunately, for those in the aviation and tourism sectors, the uncertainty that has so defined the past year and a half remains.
As we know, before the pandemic, the UK had the largest aviation network in Europe and the third biggest in the world, yet the sector has been neglected by Government covid policy. There has been the grave threat to jobs, an outrageous resorting to fire and rehire practices, and a complete lack of sector-specific support. The airport and ground operation support scheme launched by the Transport Secretary in January has not covered even a meaningful proportion of any airports’ costs or tax, which stands in stark contrast to the policies of our European neighbours. Look at Germany, which has implemented plans to provide additional monetary aid to its airports to preserve infrastructure and jobs. Look at France, where there has also been strong monetary support for the sector. Then we look at the UK, where Government support has been dwarfed by sectoral needs.
No sector operates in isolation. The knock-on impact of Government negligence can be felt across the economy. In my constituency of Stockport, the loss of dividend paid out to Stockport Council from Manchester Airport totalled £6.4 million in 2020-21. It is highly likely that there will be no pay-out this year to next, and the same is assumed for the subsequent year after that. Therefore, in the space of three years, there is a predicted shortfall of £19 million based on pre-covid airport usage that cannot be budgeted for and is not covered by Government grants. This is on top of years of funding cuts, in which the council has already lost 49.2% of its settlement funding between 2015-16 and 2020-21. There are also the additional costs that have been incurred because of the pandemic.
In March last year, when we first locked down, the Government knew the impact that the pandemic would have on the aviation, tourism and travel industries, so why did they not act then? Why did they wait until the last minute to provide a measly and inadequate support package?
Workers in the aviation sector have disproportionately high levels of job losses in comparison with other sectors. We know that the aviation sector is unique and that its recovery does not wholly rely on the Government’s decisions, but that unique uncertainty is all the more reason for a sector-specific job protection scheme.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I am delighted to have got in at the end of this debate to make a plea for the cruise sector. We have heard much about aviation today, but rather less about our ships, which is rather bad for a maritime nation such as ourselves.
It has to be said that the impact of this pandemic on the cruise sector has been seismic: there has been a massive loss of capacity in the industry; operators have gone to the wall; and ships have been scrapped. We really need to get that industry, which is a great success story for this country, going again. Let me put some figures on that. We are talking about a £10 billion a year industry that supports nearly 90,000 jobs, and 2 million passengers a year enjoy going on a cruise. I am certainly anxious that we can all get back to normal, and we cannot be waiting for that for very much longer.
The fact is that all UK cruise traffic ground to a halt in March. I am delighted that, not so long ago, the Minister announced that domestic cruising could recommence, but the truth of the matter is that this sector is not sustainable until it can commence international sailing.
We have heard much about the traffic light system as regards international travel, whereby each country is given a traffic light class, but the problem is that the Foreign Office is currently treating cruising as it would a country and it is not allowing international cruising. We should really be thinking about cruise ships not as a destination, which is how the Foreign Office advice is currently working, but as a method of travel. Ships are very flexible methods of travel. If a country which is on an itinerary goes on the red list, that ship can simply go somewhere else.
I really must encourage the Government: let’s give these people a break. The cruise industry has done everything that has been asked of it by the health authorities during the pandemic. It has introduced incredibly sophisticated covid-secure measures, with testing of both staff and passengers. Equally, it can organise self-isolation and quarantine on the ships themselves.
This industry is a great British success story. It is led by a gentleman. They have been suffering in silence, actually, and doing what the Government have asked of them. They are very complimentary of the support they have been given by the Minister, but my message now is to the Foreign Office, the Department of Health and the chief medical officer particularly: give this sector a break and let us get our ships back sailing on the seas, where they belong.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
As well as hospitality, leisure and tourism, the aviation sector has been one of the hardest hit industries—not just here, but across the entire globe. While we have clearly had to take tough measures on our international travel regime to stop the spread of the virus, it cannot be denied that businesses—both large and small—are being impacted as a consequence of these measures.
I thank colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Transport for the work that they have done to support the sector to date, but the ongoing uncertainty means that there is a need for this support to continue. As has often been the case when making decisions throughout the pandemic, a balance needs to be struck. I therefore call on the Minister to continue his engagement with the aviation industry. I have spoken to him many times, and am particularly grateful to him for his work with Manchester airport, to ensure that the decisions that are taken are in conjunction with airport operators and are a reflection of the work that supply chains do with those airport operators, which rely very heavily on the involvement of that sector.
We must remind ourselves that this industry contributes billions of pounds to our economy, supports thousands of jobs, strengthens the Union and develops skills nationally. In my constituency of Warrington South, Manchester airport alone provides 3,500 jobs to local residents, and Liverpool airport, which is equally close, provides around 300 further jobs. This really is an important sector to my local economy. The airport provides those jobs directly and, through its supply chains, many businesses rely on the airport as a means of income.
I recently heard from my constituent Gaynor Welsby-West, who owns her own travel agency. She hires a number of people locally and has indeed been able to take advantage of measures such as the self-employed income support grant, but her message to me was that she needs more certainty and clarity, which will help to rebuild confidence across the travel sector. Most of us in this place understand that things can change very quickly and that we must be led by the data, but this industry needs to have an element of forward planning.
Restarting the aviation sector is a vital part of the UK’s economic recovery. Aviation, the facilities that it supports and the travel industry are crucial to the economic growth of our region: to the north, to the northern powerhouse and to Warrington. I urge the Government to take full steps to ensure that we can help this sector to recover as much as possible.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It might be helpful for the House to know that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) will be the last speaker from the Back Benches, so anyone else who is waiting—which is not anybody in the Chamber—will, I am afraid, not be called. We now go by video link to Christine Jardine.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
There are so many arguments and so many angles from which one can debate this issue: the airlines; the airports; the cruise industry, as we have heard; the travel industry; tourist-related businesses; and individual constituents for whom this issue has taken on huge significance. For many, it is about not just the thought of a holiday in the sun—even though we seem to have plenty of it in this country this summer—but the possibility of seeing family and friends, from whom they have now been separated for so long.
My constituency of Edinburgh West is very much economically linked to the future of the airline and travel and tourist industries. Not only do inbound visitors contribute so much to the economy of my city and region, but they contribute more than £1 billion to Scotland every year. The industries are important for the growth of Edinburgh airport, which now supports 28,000 jobs in the economy, including jobs in my constituency for individuals, families and small businesses.
Much has already been made of our status in the international travel industry, the need for us to re-establish our position, and the need for a safe, sustainable return to international travel. Perhaps the biggest thing for all those involved is clarity and an end to the confusion and chaos we have seen recently in respect of the traffic light system and vaccine passports. It helps no one. That is not to minimise the difficulty of the situation and the decisions to be made: to fail to reopen could deal a fatal blow to sectors that are already struggling; to reopen without taking into account the risk to public health and future safety would be irresponsible.
For me, there are three key issues. First, safety for the public and protection from the danger of new variants through clear testing and means of knowing where people are going and how safe it will be; secondly, support for our vital airline travel and tourism industry through the extension of furlough and the job-support schemes; thirdly, sustainability, particularly in respect of air travel, is a must, to which end I recommend to the Government the Liberal Democrat proposal for a graduated scale of air passenger duty that increases costs for those who take frequent business flights but does not tax those who take annual holidays or visit family.
We must think about our future and our economy. As the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) pointed out, the pandemic is going to have long-term implications that must be taken into account. We need to take them on board and look at how we can open up while protecting jobs and vital industries and ensuring the safest travel possible. I urge the Government to look at how we can do that as quickly as possible, with the maximum support, and remain safe.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
In 1919, Sir John Alcock said:
“There is always satisfaction in being the first to do anything, whatever it may be”.
I am sure the Minister recognises that name, because it was Sir John, along with Lieutenant-Colonel Arthur Brown, who flew a Vickers Vimy—built at Brooklands in my constituency—in the first non-stop Atlantic crossing. Aviation is in my constituency’s blood. We are five miles south of Heathrow and Gatwick is right next to us, and I speak on behalf of the thousands of my constituents who work in the sector, whose jobs are dependent on aviation. Those jobs include flying and refuelling the planes, working as ground staff and working in the hotels where people stay when they come to visit us. There are jobs in logistics, and SMEs set up in my constituency because of the aviation and infrastructure there. People also come to the tourist attractions, such as Magna Carta and Thorpe Park, and they stay over.
It is not just about jobs; people need to travel to see family. As many Members from all parties have said, that has been the cruellest part of the restrictions on international travel. People need to see their relatives—we are global Britain, an international family—and we need to get the vital routes back as soon as possible.
We have had a phenomenal, hugely successful vaccination programme. Will the Minister explain what needs to happen next so that we can start to evolve and change the restrictions and the process on international travel? Rather than wait, can we use that 1919 spirit again to be the first to drive things forward? We have always been at the forefront of aviation; can we use that aviation spirit to go forward and bring in international vaccination passports, or whatever is needed to get aviation and our international borders open again?
Alex Sobel
There were so many excellent speeches from the Back Benches in this debate that someone would think, if they did not know, that they all came from the same party. I am sure the Minister will reflect on that. It does feel like the House speaks with one voice on this issue. I reiterate that, even if the Government publish the tourism recovery plan this week, it is still too late for the spring season and we are playing catch-up.
I completely agree with the right hon. Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady). That might be the first—and possibly last—time that I will ever say that, but they were clear that the mixed messaging has created an existential threat to outbound tourism.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) was absolutely right that we are still waiting for the sector-specific support that was promised right at the start of this crisis. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) is right that outbound tour operators, especially small specialists, have been disproportionately hit and need the tourism recovery plan now. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) was right about the need to retain workers and skills—something that the tourism recovery plan should do. I also wholly support his call, echoed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and others, for the Government to legislate to outlaw fire and rehire, an absolute scandal. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) was right that we need grants as well as loan finance, as loan finance just defers the pain, and that we need to beef up consumer protection.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) was right that business travel, especially for events and conferences, has been hugely hit and I look forward to seeing them included in the tourism recovery plan. The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) rightly recognised the importance of domestic tourism and I look forward to visiting Blackpool this summer—a great British holiday. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) is right that the sector has been let down by late and poor communication. She is absolutely right about consumer refunds, which many airlines have sadly been lacking in making. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) made excellent points and I support his call for more resources for the sector and related services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) was right that France and other countries have put climate conditions on support for the aviation industry. We need more support, but conditional support, for net zero, and our Government did not make those conditions. They talk loudly on net zero but are failing to deliver. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) is a doughty defender of her constituents’ health, especially on noise and air quality, and she is right that we need to look again at flight paths over cities, including hers and mine. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) called for support for shipping and cruising. She is right that the multi-nation aspect of cruises going from country to country means that the chaotic handling of the traffic light system makes it impossible for them to restart. The Minister needs to take her points on board.
I thank all who have contributed to this excellent debate and look forward to the Minister’s response.
3.57 pm
Robert Courts
This has been a very thought-provoking and wide-ranging debate, in which many excellent points have been made. The importance to the whole country of aviation and travel was perhaps most beautifully expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), but we have heard all sorts of other points, from the importance of the supply chain, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), through to the beauty of our constituencies, as stated by so many hon. Members that I dare not recount them all, although I do perhaps lean towards the points made by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), for fairly obvious reasons. We in this House are united, however, on the critical importance of tourism, travel and aviation, for all sorts of reasons: because of the jobs they support in our constituencies; because of the economic support they bring; because of culture; because of the businesses that operate; but above all because of people’s lives: because of the families, because of what this means to people on a real, everyday personal basis.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for his tireless advocacy for Gatwick airport and the sector and for his expertise. Similar points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley said that this is not just about two weeks in the sun, and I agree. Leisure is vital and travel broadens the mind of course—it increases understanding and culture—but it is also about jobs and people’s livelihoods and families. I agree with him that a safe reopening of aviation should very much be, and is, our aim.
A number of other points were made. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) for his points. I had to disagree with him when he said that the Government’s response has been “lacklustre and patchy” given that Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund said it has been extensive and “unprecedented” and
“one of the best examples of coordinated action globally”.
So, as he would expect, I do not agree with him about that. The tourism recovery plan is due soon, and we will be able to update him more on that when we get to that stage.
I am hugely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for her great expertise. She mentioned international standards and we continue to work with international partners such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the International Maritime Organisation and the World Health Organisation, as well as with bilateral partners. Of course, the announcement by the Secretary of State for Transport of the US-UK travel taskforce is hot off the press. My right hon. Friend asks why we are in the position that we are today as compared with where we were last year. Of course, there has been a change through the variants of concern and the huge success of the vaccine rollout, which we must protect. She says that we will not eradicate covid and she will remember that I referred to its being an endemic disease in my opening speech. As my right hon. Friend and others talk about the freedom that will be brought by vaccines, I can confirm that we are working to see what more we can do to open up international travel with the aid of vaccines.
I am conscious that I am very short of time, and that you are worried about the next debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise in advance to all right hon. and hon. Members. I have a detailed note of all the points they made and will write to them if there are any specific points that they wanted me to make. If I may trouble the House for 30 seconds more, I would like to say thank you to the Chairman of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who made a number of great points, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). They talked about the vaccines and how they are the way out and our hope for the future.
Let me close by referring the House to my understanding and that of the Government of how difficult things are for the sector at the moment. We have a plan in place to restart tourism and aviation recovery in the short and long term. We are seeing the relaxation of restrictions as we are building out from covid. I shall end by quoting my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands. She says that life is about more than just eating and sleeping; it is about experiences and people. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), quoting Hans Christian Andersen, said:
“To travel is to live”.
Of course, I entirely agree with that. The tourism recovery plan, due to be published shortly, in conjunction with the forthcoming aviation strategy, will set out and reinforce the Government’s commitment to both sectors and help us to reconnect and see the world with the help of our world-beating vaccination programme.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the aviation, travel and tourism industries.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We almost made it by 4 o’clock. I will now suspend the House very briefly for two minutes so that arrangements can be made for the next debate.
Safety of Journalists
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before I call the Minister for Media and Data, may I say that those contributing from the Back Benches should be looking at speaking for no longer than three minutes, as this is a relatively short but very important debate?
The Minister for Media and Data (Mr John Whittingdale)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the safety of journalists.
I very much welcome this opportunity to debate what is, as you have rightly said, Mr Deputy Speaker, an extremely important subject. It is the second such debate we have had in the space of two weeks, as we recently debated World Press Freedom Day. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) who has been an assiduous campaigner on this topic and who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on media freedom.
The safety of journalists is of critical importance, as journalists play a vital role in ensuring that democracy functions properly and in contributing towards a free society. The role that journalists play in exposing corruption, holding power to account and informing the electorate of the truth is absolutely central to a democratic, free society. Investigative journalism plays a critical role and we will all remember examples, such as the exposure of the thalidomide scandal, the corruption that riddled FIFA, the Panama papers and even MPs’ expenses.
Such journalism shone a powerful light into areas that needed to be exposed. That is particularly important at the moment. The need for the provision of trusted and reliable information is absolutely critical, and has been over the course of the last year, at a time when fake news has been so prevalent and it has been all the more important for people to be able to turn to trusted journalism for reliable reports of the truth.
For that reason we regarded it as vital to support the media during the pandemic. The media came under significant economic pressure and we were able to provide support to local newspapers and radio, and recognised the important role that journalists play by affording them key worker status.
While the role of journalists has never been more important, it is the sad truth that it is also increasingly dangerous. I pay tribute to the organisations that regularly highlight the harassment and intimidation of journalists that takes place in far too many countries.
Reporters sans frontières, which is responsible for the world press freedom index, has recorded that 50 journalists were killed in the course of their duties last year. The deadliest countries in the world are Mexico, Iraq, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan.
Justice for Journalists monitors the treatment of the press in the countries of the former Soviet Union. It lists 84 journalists currently held in detention or imprisoned. The most recent and most shocking example of a journalist being illegally detained is that of Raman Pratasevich, whose flight was forced to land in Belarus and who has since been held, with significant concern about his future wellbeing.
The Committee to Protect Journalists has identified 1,404 journalists who have died since they started keeping records in 1992. I pay tribute to the courage of those journalists around the world who are operating in extremely dangerous environments, particularly a number of British journalists who are on the frontline of conflict or reporting in authoritarian regimes. As we did two weeks ago, we remember Marie Colvin of The Sunday Times who was killed alongside her French colleague as a result of being deliberately targeted because of the job they were carrying out as journalists.
The UK has taken a lead in campaigning for the safety of journalists. We established the global conference on media freedom in July 2019 and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) who led that initiative. We continue to co-chair the Media Freedom Coalition, which now comprises 47 member countries.
We have used our presidency of the G7, which is coming to its conclusion over the course of this weekend, to continue to highlight the importance of the protection of journalists. Indeed, we have included that in the communiqué that was issued by the Foreign Ministers, which has a number of paragraphs setting out exactly why it is so important that journalists should be afforded protection.
We established the global media defence fund, to which the Government are contributing £3 million over five years, and I am going to be speaking tomorrow at the Council of Europe in support of the resolutions being passed there highlighting the protection of journalists.
However, we are also conscious that if we are to be able to campaign on this issue, we need to set an example, too. The UK currently ranks 33rd out of 180 in the press freedom index, which represents a small improvement but it is nothing like enough. For that reason, the Government established, a year ago, the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists, which I co-chair along with the Minister for safeguarding, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). That committee brings together representatives of the police, from the National Police Chiefs Council, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Police Scotland; the prosecuting authorities—the Crown Prosecution Service and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland; the Society of Editors; the National Union of Journalists, and some of those campaigning organisations such as Index on Censorship and Reporters Without Borders. As a result of the committee’s establishment, we published in March the national action plan for the safety of journalists, whose aim is to increase our understanding of the scale of the problem and enhance the criminal justice system response, so that in future there will be new training for police officers and a police officer in every force dedicated to investigating complaints relating to the safety of journalists. It will give greater resources and advice to journalists, agreed by their employers, and there will be a commitment from the online platform to do more. Finally, greater efforts will be made to improve the public recognition of the value of journalists. Last week, we published our call for evidence, to try to establish hard facts on the scale of the problem. It closes on 14 July and I hope very much that anyone who has experience will make a submission to it, but we have already received 200 responses which make it clear that online threats and harassment are indeed widespread and that this is a significant problem, which we need to do more to address. The committee will continue to meet to review the plan, but we are determined to ensure that the UK is as safe an environment as possible for journalists to carry out their job. We will also continue to campaign to raise the importance of this issue in every country around the world.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Freedom of the press is at the centre of a free society, so I would like to start by talking about West Papua, whose people have been fighting for self-determination from Indonesia for 50 years. In the past month, hundreds of Indonesian soldiers have been deployed to the region and thousands of people have been displaced. In the Papuan struggle for liberation, journalists have been one of Indonesia’s key targets, with restrictions in place on foreign journalists and obstacles to receiving permission to report in the country. Once again, the prominent West Papuan journalist Victor Mambor was targeted in an attack after his reporting of the shooting of two Indonesian teachers in April. Similarly concerning is the fact that the capital of Papua province and surrounding areas have been subject to a month-long internet blackout, complicating the media’s efforts to report on the escalating conflict. The curtailment of journalistic freedom in West Papua is not completely new. In 2018, the Indonesian military deported BBC journalists Rebecca Henschke, and her co-reporters Dwiki and Affan; the crew were deported from West Papua after they hurt soldiers’ feelings when covering the ongoing health crisis in the Asmat region, which involved malnutrition and a lack of measles vaccinations causing a measles outbreak that killed dozens, perhaps hundreds—a lack of reporting means we will never know. According to the Alliance of Independent Journalists in Indonesia, there were 76 cases of journalists having to obtain prior permission to report in Papua, with 56 of these requests being refused.
The unacceptable targeting of media officers in Gaza by Israeli airstrikes earlier this month was another reminder of the importance of upholding press freedom. The freedom to inform is a crucial indicator of democracy and efforts to curtail it often come with human cost. Anna Politkovskaya was a reporter for the independent Novaya Gazeta in Russia and a critic of President Putin. Like many others, I was shocked and horrified when she was shot to death in the lobby of a Moscow apartment in 2006. In the trial relating to her death, the judge was clear that she was killed for her work
“exposing human rights violations, embezzlement and abuse of power”.
The sad reality is that I would no longer be surprised at such a death; it is estimated that 21 journalists have been killed since Putin came to power, and in the great majority of cases no one has been convicted and sentenced for the murders. That is not to say, of course, that the murder of journalists is a uniquely Russian issue. Many other countries have higher death rates, but nearly 15 years after Politkovskaya’s death the space for independent journalism in Russia has become smaller and smaller, while state-backed media have grown stronger and stronger. Many independent publishers have been forced to cease their publications, while Russian state-backed channels such as RT seem immune from accountability. The lack of accountability may or may not be a result of the clear message from the Russian authorities. Action taken against RT in the UK resulted in measures being taken against the BBC in Russia, while the Russian media are free to criticise the BBC as they see fit.
Russia is not the only state on a mission to reduce or remove BBC influence. Last month, I chaired a joint British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union and BBC event on the media in China, and heard how the BBC’s reporting of coronavirus and the persecution of the Uyghurs meant that the Chinese authorities cracked down, removing the BBC World News TV channel outright and banning the BBC World Service in Hong Kong.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman and I share concerns about the escalating persecution of ethnic and religious minorities across the world. Does he agree that journalists have a role to play in raising awareness of issues in China, Russia or wherever it may be, because that is how the rest of the word knows what is going on?
Alex Sobel
The freedom of journalistic expression is paramount, including in terms of freedom of religion. The hon. Member makes vital points.
The BBC’s China correspondent has had to move to Taiwan because of safety fears. China’s lack of press freedom is well documented. It sits at 177 out of 180 in the 2021 world press freedom index. Only Turkmenistan, North Korea and Eritrea fall below it. In 2020, a year in which a historically high total of 387 journalists and media workers were detained worldwide, China was the worst offender. In its record-breaking year, at least 274 journalists were locked up for their work. The UK Government must move further and faster in developing an international strategy to defend journalists, media freedom and internet access from authoritarian tendencies across the globe. I hope that that is being discussed at the G7 today.
Of course, the UK is not without fault. The UK ranked just 33rd out of the 180 countries in the 2021 world press freedom index. In February, Andy Aitchison was arrested at his home after photographing a fake blood protest outside the Napier barracks, where asylum seekers were being housed, and still are, even though there has been a High Court ruling against the Government. The police held Mr Aitchison for seven hours and seized his phone and memory card. Mr Aitchison was just doing his job, exercising his right to report freely on the conditions in which asylum seekers are held. He was wrongly arrested and his journalistic material was taken. Still no apology has been forthcoming.
The Government must do better. How can we talk about press freedom without talking about the clearing house: the Orwellian unit that obstructs the release of sensitive information requested by the public under the Freedom of Information Act 2000? In a written judgment, made public on Tuesday, Judge Hughes concluded:
“The profound lack of transparency about the operation…might appear…to extend to Ministers.”
I look forward to the Minister clearing that up for us. As well as blocking FOI requests, the unit is alleged to have profiled journalists. Such a profound lack of transparency at the very heart of Government paints a very concerning picture.
Strategic lawsuits against public participation are taken out with impunity both in the UK and elsewhere. SLAPPs are legal actions, the goal of which is not necessarily to win in court but, rather, to silence the target. Powerful interests wanting to shut down stories can do so by taking legal action that they know will cost the defendant huge sums of money in legal fees and potentially take years to resolve. SLAPPs can be taken out by individual businesses, state actors or any other individual or group with enough money to do so. They may target academic freedom, political expression or, more commonly than ever, the freedom of the press.
SLAPPs can kill an uncomfortable story. They can also have the bigger impact of silencing other critical voices, creating the same culture of fear and silence as through illegal means. The Conservatives talk a good game on freedom of expression, but let us not forget that they have been known to exclude newspapers that they do not agree with from official briefings. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurances on those points.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The former Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has four minutes.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
This is an incredibly important debate. I am grateful to the Minister for leading it for the Government. He is quite right to say that we had a similar debate in Westminster Hall just before the recess, but it is an important enough subject to demand scrutiny again.
I was interested to note from press reports this morning that in Cornwall today the Prime Minister and the President of the United States will have their first meeting together and on the agenda is a reaffirmation of the principles behind the Atlantic charter, signed 80 years ago by Winston Churchill and President Franklin Roosevelt. That charter was based on what was known as the four freedoms: freedom from want, freedom of worship, freedom of speech and freedom from fear. This debate is about freedom from fear in part, because there are journalists around the world who face direct persecution or who have been murdered because of the investigations they have pursued, which have threatened the positions of powerful people in those countries. We are seeing authoritarian Governments around the world with greater boldness deliberately persecuting and targeting people who are critical of their regimes.
Yes, this debate is in part about freedom from fear, but it is also about freedom of speech, because the persecution of journalists is taking place. That intimidation, the deliberate closing down of an opposition voice, and the example that is designed to send to other people are about suppressing speech and silencing criticism, and we must be increasingly concerned about the boldness with which many authoritarian Governments around the world act.
As the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) rightly pointed out in his remarks, strategic lawsuits against journalists are something that is happening in this country today, including to journalists such as Catherine Belton, who has faced multiple lawsuits from Russian oligarchs because of a book she has written. Those lawsuits may ultimately fail, but they are principally designed to tie down a journalist in potentially expensive litigation for years and to dissuade others from seeking to criticise or investigate powerful people for the same reason: because they know their work will not be completed and they will be frustrated and exhausted in the courts for many years.
We see that again with increasing boldness in authoritarian countries around the world, and particularly in the Philippines, where the campaigning journalist Maria Ressa, chief executive of the Rappler news organisation, has faced repeated lawsuits from the Government of that country, led by the president. That includes cases where the law has retrospectively been changed and the Government seek to enforce it against the journalist for doing something that was not an offence at the time and, many would argue, is not an offence anyway. We are seeing that happen increasingly, too.
The suppression of speech in the digital age can also be conducted highly effectively through social media and online, with people creating hate mobs to crowd out the legitimate voice of people speaking with passion and concern about particular issues. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the work that the Government have done in this regard on protecting journalists. I will be very interested to see where the Government come out with regard to the action plan for the safety of journalists in the context of the online safety Bill. It is incredibly important that journalists are allowed to do their work.
The active denigration by some politicians of the mainstream media is also an attack on democracy and democratic principles. To run down our institutions, including our great media institutions, is also an attack on speech and an attack on our institutions as a democracy. As we all know, there is far more to being a democracy than having elections. The ability to challenge, debate and question those in authority is vital, and it is vitally important for citizens when making informed decisions in elections.
I welcome this debate today, and I welcome the combined efforts we will take to ensure the freedom of journalism, the safety of journalism and the freedom of speech in our open democracy.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I understand that time is very tight, and as a courtesy to those Members wishing to participate, I will be as brief as possible. A free and independent press is vital to democracy, and it should go without saying that journalists—indeed, all media—must be able to work free from intimidation or persecution.
Democracy relies on people who have the bravery, the tenacity and the ability to hold the powerful to account, yet according to the 2021 world press freedom survey, 75% of the 180 countries examined are considered problematic, bad or very bad environments for a free press. In that survey, the United Kingdom ranks 33rd. While not the exemplar we probably hoped for, it is better than most. Rather than a blanket condemnation of those we know who would take no notice, I want to appeal to the Government to use what influence they have on their closest friends and allies: Saudi Arabia, Hungary, Bahrain, India, Pakistan and Israel.
Recently, we saw the Israeli air force deliberately targeting and destroying media facilities in Gaza, including two tower blocks that were home to numerous Palestinian and international news agencies, and causing the death of a Palestinian journalist Yousef Abu Hussein when they bombed his home. These attacks have been condemned unreservedly by the International Federation of Journalists, the world’s largest organisation for media professionals. It called on the UN Security Council to intervene to stop what it calls the “systematic targeting” of journalists by Israel. I hope that the Minister will also condemn those attacks and insist that Israel abides by its international obligations to protect media professionals and ends the practice of targeting buildings that house news outlets.
The world press freedom index ranks Saudi Arabia at 170 of 180 countries, and the savage murder of Jamal Khashoggi by the regime in 2017 showed just how frightened it is of a free press. Reporters Without Borders says that Saudi Arabia is the third most censored country on earth, where, with no independent media, journalists are kept in their place through draconian laws, which include harming the image and the reputation of the King and the state. There are about 30 journalists currently in prison in Saudi Arabia, among them the perceived dissidents Ahmed al-Suwian and Fahd al-Sunaidi, who were sentenced to three and a half years each just last year.
This is also a problem much closer to home. Just two weeks ago, the Prime Minister met the Hungarian leader, the right-wing populist Viktor Orbán. I would like to think I am not naive enough to believe that the Prime Minister would have tackled Mr Orbán on his illiberal and authoritarian crackdown on and censorship of Hungary’s free press. In recent years, almost 500 media outlets have been centralised into one giant pro-Government grouping, resulting in Hungary tumbling to 92 on the 2021 index.
Another of the UK’s greatest allies is Bahrain, currently just two places above Saudi Arabia at 168. Bahrain has now made it illegal for journalists to openly criticise Government policies or their decisions. There are several Bahraini journalists currently in jail, including leading human rights activist Nabeel Rahjab, who is serving five years for tweeting about Government corruption, and Mahmoud al-Jaziri, who in recent years has been sentenced to 15 years in jail. In November, 18 individuals, including a 16-year-old girl and a 14-year-old boy, as well as a respected TV producer, were arrested for simply commenting on the death of Bahrain’s longest-serving Prime Minister on social media.
These are the actions of our closest friends and allies—allies that include India and Pakistan. They are at 142 and 145 on the index, which makes them among the most dangerous and repressive countries in which a journalist can work freely. In India, journalists are reported to have been attacked by the police, ambushed by political activists and targeted by criminal gangs or corrupt local officials. Again, the election of a right-wing populist in the shape of Prime Minister Modi has increased the pressure on Indian media to toe the Government line, and those who resist face calls for their murder in what are clearly co-ordinated hate campaigns on social media. In Kashmir, the Indian Government can and do, without explanation, shut down dissenting media outlets, as they did with the Kashmir Times, while journalists continue to be harassed by police and paramilitaries, among them Aasif Sultan, who was arrested in 2018 and remains in detention today.
It is a very similar story in Pakistan, with reports of the military increasing its influence in civic society, including on free and independent journalism. There are deeply worrying reports of journalists being kidnapped and threatened as to their future actions. Indeed, four journalists were murdered in 2020 in connection with their work, especially when investigating local political corruption and drug trafficking.
There is so much more I would like to say, but I realise that time is short and others wish to speak. In conclusion, I think it is absolutely right that we condemn China, North Korea, Eritrea and others for what they do, but I urge the Government to look at the action and behaviour of their friends and their allies, and to use what influence they have on them to get them to change their ways.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The wind-ups will begin at 4.50 pm. We are now on a three-minute limit.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) [V]
As a foreign correspondent, I have reported from wars in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq. I hope you will indulge me, Mr Deputy Speaker, in reading the names of those British-based journalists who have died in the course of their work since I was the ITN correspondent in Sarajevo. The list is not exhaustive, and of course there are several still missing. It reads: Paul Jenks; Ibrahim Goskel; John Schofield; Vincent Francis; Martin O’Hagan; Roddy Scott; my colleague from ITN, Terry Lloyd; James Miller; Richard Wild; Simon Cumbers; Kate Peyton; Paul Douglas; James Brolan; Martin Adler; Rupert Hamer; Tim Hetherington; Marie Colvin, who I was with during the war in Iraq in 2003; Mick Deane; and most recently, as far as we know, Lyra McKee.
That long list of names is evidence of the fact that proper journalism is eye witness journalism—you have to bear witness yourself; there is no substitute for being there on the ground. This kind of journalism cannot be pursued over the internet, at a distance or even using local sources. This is what gives us a true picture of the world that we cannot get from fake news, internet memes, propaganda and sophisticated Government propaganda, often over Twitter.
But there is a terrible cost to this type of journalism, and we owe a debt to those who have lost their lives in pursuit of the truth. All too often today, news is confused with entertainment—what I call “news entertainment”—and many of those who currently call themselves journalists should be ashamed of themselves. We need to reclaim this heritage and support real news by real journalists.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I want to start by condemning the recent Israeli air force attacks that destroyed the building housing al-Jazeera and over a dozen media outlets during the assault on Gaza. They say that truth is the first casualty of war. It is clear that this was done to try to stop the world seeing the truth about that horrific assault on Gaza and the humanitarian crisis that it created.
I want to focus today on the role that brave journalists play in exposing war crimes. Regrettably, our country has been involved in too many unjust wars in recent years—wars of conquest, wars for control and wars for oil. Crimes were committed in those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, including, in Iraq, the killing of journalists. Much of what we know about those crimes was exposed by the fearless work of a journalist—a journalist who exposed unlawful killing; a journalist who exposed US renditions; a journalist who exposed the horrors of Guantanamo Bay; a journalist invited to work in this country by The Guardian newspaper; a journalist, who, as we meet today in Parliament for this debate, is sitting in a British high-security prison, solely because of his journalism; a journalist who faces extradition to the United States for his award-winning journalism, carried out here in Britain; a journalist who faces a 175-year sentence for exposing war crimes, which would mean he would spend the rest of his life behind bars in a super-maximum security prison; a journalist whose potential extradition is opposed by Amnesty International, the National Union of Journalists and Reporters Without Borders. That journalist is Julian Assange.
I appeal to President Joe Biden, who is in this country for the G7 summit, to drop the charges so that the extradition is called off. Present Biden was, of course, vice-president when President Obama took the decision not to prosecute Julian Assange because of the huge damage it would have done to press freedom. Prosecuting Julian Assange would, in the words of Amnesty International, still have
“a chilling effect on the right to freedom of expression”.
That is why I raise this case today. That is why I urge President Biden to do the right thing.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
As colleagues have said, a free press is integral to democracy and fundamental to ensuring that a society is underpinned by transparency and accountability. At the heart of that is ensuring that journalists are free and safe to do their jobs unhampered and without fear of intimidation or attack.
At home in Northern Ireland, unfortunately, attacks on journalists are not new and have not been confined to the past. This is a society that has always had a sick seam of coercion and intimidation and, unfortunately, that did not disappear with the Good Friday agreement. The last year has seen an alarming rise in the number of violent threats against journalists. Intimidation and threats are exacerbated by a poor legal climate, including overdue libel reform, the vexatious use of injunctions and, indeed, the landmark case against investigative journalists Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey over their treatment of the Loughinisland massacre.
An NUJ report from 2020 highlighted some of the attacks that journalists have experienced physically, verbally and online. It is not hyperbole to say that this is among the most dangerous places in the western world to be a journalist, and that has consequences for public debate. These threats come primarily from paramilitaries and the paramilitary-adjacent, who, in 2021, continue to exert undue influence and coercive control, intimidating communities and silencing those journalists who seek to expose them.
In the last year, alongside relentless on and offline intimidation of several journalists, a Sunday World reporter was issued with a credible threat against her newborn baby. A Belfast Telegraph photojournalist was beaten up and called a “Fenian” at loyalist riots this Easter. A member of the “Panorama” team was forced to flee his home after reporting on a notorious crime gang. And, of course, April 2019 saw the murder of journalist Lyra McKee by dissident republicans—the bloody and devastating consequence of bringing guns and disorder on to the streets.
We cannot talk about the safety of journalists and the freedom of the press without addressing the issue of paramilitarism and organised crime in Northern Ireland. It is still a reality of everyday life for many communities and journalists. It is welcome that the Government have stated their commitment to press freedom and that the Foreign Secretary will continue, he says, to hold to account
“those who repress, block & intimidate journalists”.
The question is: will this include Northern Ireland? Will the Government commit to ensuring that journalists are able to do their job in safety? Will they ask why, decades after the Good Friday agreement had ceasefired and paramilitaries had ceased to exist their emblems are allowed to fly on lamp posts across the city I live in? Why are they courted and empowered by public bodies, including this Government, who met loyalist paramilitary representatives to discuss post-Brexit arrangements? A cross-party and cross-civil society group has made it clear that no group can be allowed to undermine the freedom of the press and public interest reporting.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Politicians and journalists do not always make easy bedfellows, but as MPs we fundamentally respect the right of journalists to report without fear or favour, to comment without the prospect of harassment by the forces of the state. In too many countries, this is still not the case, sometimes with the most horrendous or even fatal consequences, so as a former journalist turned politician I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate.
I began my career in the autumn of 1989—a momentous time, as communism was collapsing and the Berlin wall fell. Many years later, I went to eastern Europe and the middle east to train TV news teams. They had spent most of their working lives terrified of upsetting tyrants. One man told me how colleagues would sometimes just disappear from the newsroom from one day to the next, with no explanation given. This particular journalist was even scared of the consequences of putting a comma in the wrong place in his copy.
Sadly, more recent events in parts of both eastern Europe and the middle east suggest that those days have not entirely disappeared. We have heard of 50 journalists being killed around the world last year and of around 274 imprisoned now, of which about 47 are in China, where there is brutal suppression of the truth about the regime’s repression in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. The BBC World Service has a long and depressing list of examples of the persecution of its journalists. Staff at the BBC Persian service are being consistently harassed and intimidated by Iran. This includes death threats to journalists based here in the UK, along with frightening and aggressive targeting of elderly parents, siblings and extended family members in Iran itself.
The regimes putting journalists at risk do it for one reason: they are scared of the truth. We must stand up to them, because along with the physical harm there is the psychological impact—a justifiable and understandable nervousness that can result in self-censorship. Nor can we be complacent here in the UK—reporters here, especially in broadcasting, face malicious abuse online every day. As ITN says, this creates a chilling effect on journalism. The BBC’s Marianna Spring, whose very job is to tackle disinformation, receives frequent threats. Only four years ago, the BBC’s political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, had to be accompanied by bodyguards at the Labour party conference.
None of that is acceptable. Journalists are not fair game, and we must not turn a blind eye. With a Prime Minister who was formerly a journalist himself, it is apposite that the British Parliament today focuses on the safety of journalists, and that we reaffirm our determination to support a free press in every country of the world—including, of course, our own.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I speak as the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group. I pay tribute to the work of the NUJ here in the UK, led by its general secretary Michelle Stanistreet and president Sian Jones, and to the work of the International Federation of Journalists to protect journalists across the world.
According to the figures we have received, there are at least 235 journalists in prisons across the world today, and 42 journalists have been killed for doing their job in the last year. It is strong and fearless journalism that makes press freedom worth defending, and we must protect it here and abroad against violence and suppression. I agree with others that the whole House should be condemning the bombing of media companies and the harassment and arrests of journalists operating in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including the ongoing harassment of the al-Jazeera correspondent in Jerusalem, Givara Budeiri. We must also condemn the jailing of the 12 journalists in recent months in Belarus. We even hear that journalists have been threatened and arrested while covering the Black Lives Matter protests in the US.
We should not be complacent about press freedom on our own shores, either. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) that it is a continuing stain on the reputation of this country that Julian Assange remains in Belmarsh prison. There are no justifiable grounds for keeping in prison a journalist who had the courage to expose the war crimes and abuse of human rights committed by the world’s leading military powers.
We also have a Government who just yesterday were forced by the courts to release documents detailing how the clearing house unit in the Cabinet Office has blocked freedom of information requests from journalists. I pay tribute to openDemocracy, which pursued this case. I quote the findings of the judge, who said that there was a
“profound lack of transparency about the operation”
of this unit that “might appear” even “to extend to Ministers”.
It also does not build confidence in the Government when a Treasury and Equalities Minister publicly attacks a young black journalist and makes false statements about her on social media, seemingly for simply daring to ask the Minister a question. That the Government have been found to be attempting to bully journalists should not come as a surprise when they are led by a Prime Minister who once offered his help to have a journalist beaten up.
In honour of World Press Freedom Day, I offer my thanks to journalists here and around the world who face obstruction, threats and intimidation simply for doing their jobs. We all pay our tribute to them.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
In a way, today’s debate is slightly poignant for me, because I knew Rory Peck very well as a friend. He was a fantastic journalist, and he was also a bit of a rogue. Shortly before he died in 1993, he bet me a bottle of wine that he would have a little boy for his first child, and I bet him that he would have a little girl. He wrote down the name of the bottle of wine that was the bet, and when I lost it, I had to go and buy a bottle of Haut-Brion, which is one of the finest wines in the world and the most expensive bet I have ever lost. I have never, ever bet a bottle of wine since. That is to digress, but it is poignant for me.
I have several times in this House been a champion of the BBC. I really believe we have to get our own house in order, and I deplore some of the political attacks that we have seen on the BBC. I believe these political attacks undermine our own moral standing when it comes to criticising the arrests, as previous speakers have mentioned, of journalists in Belarus and pro-democracy demonstrators in Hong Kong, and the whole awful Ryanair event. My view is that we ain’t got any room for grandstanding until we make ourselves absolutely beyond reproach. In doing so, we will have the moral high ground, and I think it is worth striving for.
Let us just remind ourselves that only last year our special envoy on media freedom quit due to what she saw as the Government’s intentional breaking of international law through the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, saying that their actions threaten to
“embolden autocratic regimes that violate international law with devastating consequences all over the world.”
That shows us where we should not go. We have to do an awful lot more about reaffirming our existing commitments to media freedom, as other speakers have said.
In addition to protecting our journalists in their ability to speak truth, we have to protect those who help them to facilitate the truth being told. That is why I make no apologies for today reiterating my call to offer asylum to the interpreters in Afghanistan, for instance, who have helped British journalists with translation and have been absolutely invaluable to getting the media coverage out. We have a debt of honour to those interpreters.
If we rebuild and enhance our reputation, we will be striking a mighty blow for the truth being the truth in an age when there is so much that is not true.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
Dictators hate journalism. Journalism at its finest speaks truth to power. That is why tyrants the world over hate both what they say but also what they represent. Alexander Lukashenko, the Belarusian dictator, was so desperate to silence the brave young journalist Roman Protasevich that he was prepared to hijack his plane and force it to land in Minsk, the capital of his dark regime. Lukashenko wanted him silenced. But we will not rest until he is freed, and we stand with the brave people of Belarus and their journalists against the evil dictator who uses kidnap, rape and murder to try to silence them. It is dangerous to be a journalist.
Israel, a country that sees itself as a western democracy, took the opportunity afforded by its recent onslaught against Gaza to use fighter jets to bomb the building housing Associated Press and al-Jazeera. It was a direct attack on press freedom and an attempt to silence those reporting the bombardment of a captive Palestinian population by a military superpower. No journalists were killed that day. But Israel has form, and we remember that in a previous Israeli onslaught in 2003, James Miller, a multi-Emmy award winning Welsh cameraman, was murdered by Israeli troops who continued to fire on him even after the reporter he was with shouted, “We are British journalists.”
There have been so many killings of journalists that it seems almost invidious to single any individuals out. But we all remember Marie Colvin, the celebrated Sunday Times correspondent killed when Assad’s troops, almost certainly targeting her, shelled the building in Homs where she was sheltering as she covered the regime’s atrocities. Closer to home, it took the shooting of Lyra McKee in Derry by IRA thugs to get Northern Ireland’s recalcitrant political leaders to issue a joint statement condemning her murder as an attack on the political process and democracy. Although Frank Gardner survived an al-Qaeda attack, we are forever reminded of the price he paid when we see him reporting on our screens from a wheelchair. Brave and fearless every one of them, armed only with a pen, microphone or camera, killed by cowards bombing and shooting from afar.
Today here in this House we honour a fine craft and resolve, I hope, as parliamentarians, to affirm, whatever our politics, the right of journalists, whether at home or abroad, to scrutinise and examine, to probe and uncover without fear or favour. It is an ever more dangerous craft, but never has it been more needed.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I will be as quick as I possibly can.
One of the most outstanding achievements of the 2014 referendum movement was the creation of new media. One of the strongest voices in that new media was former British ambassador and former Dundee University rector Craig Murray. Craig—a man who is over 60 and in poor health—has recently been sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment for the contempt of jigsaw identification, which is imprecise, ill-defined and unable to be demonstrated or tested rigorously because it would identify people who are meant to remain anonymous.
Various opinion polls have been conducted, including two by Panelbase. None has identified Craig Murray as a source of jigsaw identification. In fact, the top hit on that Panelbase poll was a journalist, Dani Garavelli—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Sorry, we have to go to the wind-ups.
Alex Sobel
I think this is one of those subjects where, in principle, every Member of the House can agree, but it is in the detail—whether domestically or internationally —that we need to scrutinise Government action. Members right across the House have raised issues on which the Government must and should do more.
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), for his support on SLAPPs and for raising issues around journalistic freedom in the Philippines, one of the world’s most brutal regimes. He spoke about the need to protect journalists in the upcoming online safety Bill. I am sure that we will work closely with him on that.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) commented on a wide range of countries—some of which I failed to mention, so I thank him for that—including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Hungary, where Orbán has used Government media for racist attacks, but restricted the free press; indeed, in some cases, he has expelled the free press from the country. The hon. Member also spoke about Israel, which I mentioned, as did many Members, in the context of the attacks in Gaza. It was no accident that many countries that he mentioned have right-wing populist Governments. Something that those Governments have in common is the restriction of freedom of the press, so that they can carry out their agenda.
I associate myself with the speech of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway), who has had a distinguished journalistic career. I pay tribute to those British journalists who have been killed for reporting the truth to the world.
I thank my not quite constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who pointed out that destroying the AP building in Gaza was about restricting reporting on that conflict. They have a strong record and history in seeking the fair judicial treatment of journalists facing prosecution related to reporting, and I am sure they will continue to do so.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington also rightly praised the NUJ, which fiercely defends the rights of its members—our journalists—whether they are here in the UK or around the world. He also mentioned the work of openDemocracy, which does a brilliant job of safeguarding our freedoms here in the UK and holding the Government to account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) made an exemplary speech, and was absolutely right to remind us that journalists in Northern Ireland continue to receive threats and restrictions on their reporting. The Government must do far more to protect journalists in Northern Ireland. The murder of Lyra McKee must result in justice, and the lessons need to be learned so that no more journalists are killed in Northern Ireland. It is vital that we, on our own shores, protect our own journalists.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) was right to highlight the fact that Amal Clooney quit as UK envoy on press freedom, as our own Government failed to stick to international law.
The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) was totally correct to highlight the horrendous kidnapping of the journalist Roman Protasevich, whose only crime was telling the truth about the brutal regime of his country, Belarus.
I hope that the Minister will give us assurances that he can and will do more to ensure press freedom both here—I did not hear very much in his opening speech to make me feel confident that he will do more here—and globally. He has made many assurances, not just today but last week and in the past, about protecting British journalists and international journalists right around the world, so that they are free to report.
Mr Whittingdale
I thank every Member who has contributed to what has been an excellent debate, even if it has been brief. Inevitably and depressingly, it has been something of a tour of the globe, which is a reflection of the number of countries where to be a journalist is still a dangerous occupation.
I cannot go through every single country that was mentioned, but I was interested to hear the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), refer to the work he has done with the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I thought I would mention that since you, Mr Deputy Speaker, were a distinguished chair of the British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union and I had the privilege of taking over from you. I know that the hon. Gentleman is also active in the BGIPU. Alongside the Government’s efforts, the IPU has done a lot to highlight the importance of freedom of the press. We will continue to work internationally through organisations such as the G7 and the Council of Europe. I should also mention the work of my colleague in the Foreign Office, Lord Ahmad, who is the Minister responsible in this policy area and who is extremely active.
I want to talk specifically about what is happening in this country and to highlight one or two contributions to the debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) and for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) spoke with considerable experience, having both worked as broadcast reporters, and recounted some of their knowledge of this issue. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham, who reminded us of the sadly long list of British journalists—a number of whom were referred to—who have lost their lives in the course of their duties. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) talked about Rory Peck, and it is worth paying tribute to the work done by the Rory Peck Trust, which was established in his name, to support freelance journalists who suffer in the ways mentioned.
There are of course still challenges to meet in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) highlighted the use of what are now called strategic lawsuits against public participation. He will know that the Government have made changes to the law on defamation that we believe make such lawsuits more difficult, but he also cited current examples, so it is certainly something that we need to monitor. It has been highlighted as a way in which people can try to suppress legitimate journalism. My hon. Friend also mentioned the online safety legislation that we will use to put in place extra protection for the work of journalists, in recognition of the importance of the freedom of the press.
The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) made an excellent speech. She highlighted the particular risks of being a journalist in Northern Ireland. A representative of the Police Service of Northern Ireland serves on the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists, and I have had meetings with the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) to discuss these matters, but we are conscious that great abuse of journalists who operate in Northern Ireland still takes place. Of course, as the hon. Member for Leeds North West said, the most recent tragic death of a journalist in the course of carrying out her work was that of Lyra McKee from Belfast.
We have taken a really strong lead in this policy area with the establishment of the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists. We have published a national action plan, and we have the commitment of all those who serve on that committee to take more action, but of course we recognise that more needs to be done.
As I say, I am grateful to all those who have contributed to this afternoon’s debate and brought with them her own experience of having previously worked in journalism. I finish by paying tribute to all journalists, and in particular to those who have risked their lives and continue to do so on a daily basis in pursuit of exposing truth.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the safety of journalists.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
From all of us at the House of Commons I wish all the team working for the launch of GB News on Sunday the very best of British as they start an important role reporting the news that impacts on all our lives. That team contains many journalists whom we all know and greatly respect, so good luck to them all.
Land Banking
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before the debate starts, can I ask for the Dispatch Box on the Government side to be sanitised while Christian is speaking? I know the Minister is used to not touching it until it is fully sanitised.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to bring this important debate before the House this evening, which is important not only for me and Bury South, but for many across the country. Thank you, too, for marking this, my first Adjournment debate since being elected.
We have spoken frequently both in this place and in Westminster Hall about protecting our green belt and about the need to build houses. Over the past few years, plans to build new homes on our precious areas of green spaces have become one of the biggest issues in my constituency, in Greater Manchester, and, indeed, across the country.
Throughout my time in this House, I have pledged to preserve Bury’s green belt, over at Elton reservoir and in Simister, and ultimately to protect our environment from unnecessary development. I reaffirm that commitment right here, right now, because it is a commitment to seeing the borough at the forefront of brownfield development.
I thank the Minister for having many discussions and for coping with my concerns and complaints about the impact of green-belt development. We really need to tackle some of these issues, especially the land banking issue, which I will be coming on to.
Bringing forward brownfield regeneration will deliver more affordable and, ultimately, safer and better homes for all, which is something that, as a country, we desperately need. Our country desperately needs new homes to be built, and built in great numbers, but we cannot achieve that by encroaching on our green belt to find extra space when there are plenty of empty plots already waiting to be built on.
In 2019, almost 400,000 homes were given planning permission in England, but only 240,000 were actually built. Over a 10-year period, from 2009, 2.5 million homes were given planning permission, but only 1.5 million homes were actually built. That translates to a backlog of roughly 1 million unbuilt homes.
Planning in this country is already providing more land than needed to meet the Government target of 300,000 homes a year and we should not be looking to encroach any further on our green belt. In fact, we had a manifesto commitment to not only protect, but enhance the green belt, and that is something that we, on the Conservative Benches, can make sure we hold the Minister to.
Why is there this huge disparity between the number of planning permissions granted in the UK versus the number of homes actually being built? It is not the planning system. The planning system is not the constraint on house building; it is the property industry and land banking itself. Land banking is a pitfall in our complex planning system where developers buy and store a pipeline of land and obtain planning permission for that land, with no immediate intention to build the homes that have been approved.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first Adjournment debate. I have no doubt that it will be the first of many. Does he not agree that, while we are sympathetic to those genuine developers who are outpriced in building on their site due to the rising price of steel, wood, plastic and other materials at this time, there are also those—and they are the ones that he is referring to—who deliberately hold land with planning permission to enhance the cost? Steps need to be taken to address those whose business is simply land banking, which can lead to price gouging. The Government, and the Minister in particular, must consider imposing penalties against these people, and one of those penalties should be taxing them heavily.
Christian Wakeford
I thank the hon. Member—indeed, he is my hon. Friend in this instance—for that helpful intervention. I will certainly get on to that point later in my argument. I have a particular concern when developer A holds field X, gets planning permission and then does not build, but they also happen to hold fields Y and Z, and it is just to create a greater need to get planning permission on those. The only real benefit is to the developer and their balance sheet. As my hon. Friend said, it is very much these developers who take advantage of the planning system; it allows them to profit without the homes being built—homes that we desperately need—in the locations that we need them.
As I was saying, land banking is a pitfall in a very complex planning system where developers buy and store a pipeline of land and obtain planning permission for that land, with no immediate intention to build the homes that have been approved. Being granted planning permission can increase the value of the land by more than 100 times in some instances, but instead of building homes, the developer sells the land off for profit. This practice is purely an investment for big property developers, and it inflates land prices, making it even more difficult for people to buy the homes they desperately need. It prevents young people and families from getting on the property ladder, and it also prevents the elderly from being able to downsize and move into bungalows, because we are not building the homes that we need.
In Britain, the timescales involved in land banking are particularly long, with people seeming to land bank in some instances for between five and 10 years of their building supply, compared with other countries such as Germany, Japan, the USA and even France, which have much shorter timescales. Indeed, in some of those countries, the phenomenon barely exists, so why is the UK different? Unfortunately, it is because of our planning system.
Land banking is also posing a serious threat to our green belt as the Greater Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham, has sought to look for extra space to build several thousand new homes by encroaching on green-belt areas such as Elton reservoir and Simister village in my constituency. I made a pledge during the election campaign to oppose those green-belt developers and find a meaningful solution so that we do not need to build on that land, and I make that commitment again to the electorate and the good people of Bury South.
I carried out a survey of my constituents recently. It found that roughly 56% of residents in Bury South felt that the green belt should never be built on, and that 95% took the view that Elton reservoir needed to be taken out of Mayor Andy Burnham’s house building plan, so if there is anything the Minister can do to assist in helping with that, it would be greatly appreciated. To add to the pushback against green-belt development, my local green-belt protection group in Bury South, Bury Folk Keep It Green, is roughly 10,000 members strong across a borough of 180,000 people, so it is a very large group. I hugely respect and admire the work it has been doing not only to bring the consensus on protecting our green belt to the fore, but to ensure that everyone in the constituency is aware of what is at risk and what could be destroyed.
The results speak for themselves. Let us listen to the people, and let us not destroy these precious areas of green space that we have pledged to protect. The planning White Paper talks about democratising a planning system that unfortunately fails far too many people. These are areas that have helped so many people mentally and physically during the pandemic, when we were all being told to go out and take advantage of our green fields and open green spaces. Indeed, I myself have taken my daughter for walks around Elton reservoir. We need to ensure that those areas are there for many years to come, so that many families can carry on enjoying them.
We need to look at changing the rules around the English planning system, ensure that legislation reflects ways to tackle the housing crisis and stop egregious cases of land banking, ensuring that land is built on and not stored. The 2017 Local Government Association report suggested introducing a council tax charge 12 months after planning permission had been granted, which would act as a disincentive for large property developers to land bank. It could also incentivise those developers to start building in the first place, further negating the need to build on our green spaces. If developers were forced to pay all that money every month, they would start building pretty quickly.
The Government should also work to bring thousands of empty homes and other types of property back into use, to ease the housing shortage and maximise the use of existing stock. The latest report suggested that there were roughly 665,000 vacant dwellings in the UK, and we need to make use of them. We are saying that we need to build 2 million homes, and those empty homes and those that are land banked represent a huge proportion of what we need to build.
I welcome the Government’s dedication and success in addressing the housing crisis and the protection of the environment. However, I urge them to reconsider the system we are currently operating in. We need a planning system that can bring about a better quality of life for all and a more sustainable future. We need a system that can bring down the price of land, capture land values for the public benefit and make housing truly affordable so that every family can ultimately benefit from the right to buy, get on the property ladder and take advantage of what we all should have as a fundamental right. I shall close by thanking the Minister for his kind words in our many conversations. I hope he will agree not only that we need to change, which is why we are bringing forward these changes now, but that we need to ensure that democracy and ultimately the people have a final say in this.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) on securing this, his first Adjournment debate? I am particularly grateful that he has chosen a topic that is so important to his constituents and to all our constituents.
Let me begin by saying that the Government are committed to providing the homes that this country needs. The debate provides an excellent opportunity, as expressed by my hon. Friend, to discuss the Government’s position on build-out rates, which, we recognise, are an issue that many communities feel strongly about.
My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about the challenges his constituents face. It is important to recognise at the outset that Sir Oliver Letwin’s independent review of build out, which builds on that of Dame Kate Barker and many others before them, highlighted that the repeated arguments of house builders sitting on land is overstated. Sir Oliver’s work found no evidence that speculative land banking is part of the business model for major house developers or that it is a driver of build-out rates. Of course, not everybody agrees with the conclusions reached by Sir Oliver and his report. The Local Government Association, as referenced by my hon. Friend, has recently stated that in some cases there are legitimate reasons why development stalls. It could be, for example, that the land owner cannot get the price for the site they want, that the development approved is not viable or that there are supply chain or other economic hindrances to starting. However—
Christopher Pincher
I had begun a sentence, but as it is the hon. Gentleman I shall end it and give way to him.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister. In the past year, we have seen a massive increase in the price of houses. In my constituency, house prices have risen 20% and that has been the case across the whole United Kingdom. It probably is not right to say now that developers could not get their price out of a site—they clearly could.
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. House prices have increased and that is a very good reason why we need to build more homes of different types and tenures across the country to ensure that people can get the home of their dreams either to buy or to rent. I was going to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), both doughty campaigners on behalf of their constituents, that we recognise that build out is important to ensure that communities see the homes they want and need built promptly.
The Government want homes to be built and expect house builders to deliver more homes more quickly and to a high quality standard. Indeed, we are exploring further options to support a prompt and faster build out as part of our proposed planning reforms. We are now analysing the responses to the consultation on our White Paper, “Planning for the future.” We had some 40,000 responses. That work will include pursuing further options to support faster build out of our proposed planning reforms. More details will follow.
I was interested to listen to my hon. Friend and hear ideas raised such as charging council tax on unbuilt permissions. It is an idea that has been mentioned previously, too. That will require some careful thinking because council tax is levied on properties and paid by the residents. Who would pay council tax on a permission? Would it be the developer, the land owner or the promoter? Those are questions we need to address if that option were to be further pursued.
Christian Wakeford
The council tax proposal is just one idea. Obviously, council tax as a policy is open to interpretation in this place. However, there are other ideas and notions, such as land value tax as soon as an application has been granted and the land value increases. That would certainly be an incentive to get people building again. What are the Minister’s thoughts on the potential of a land value tax?
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend is right that there are many options. I used that example because it has been positive, but it is also complex and needs to be thought through. Let me assure him that we are thinking through a number of options we can employ to ensure that more homes are built more quickly, to that high-quality standard that we expect, and that build-out occurs, as we all want to see.
We will also be looking at enforcement rules for landowners who wilfully abuse the planning system. We will talk more about that when we introduce the legislation. We know that our country does not have enough homes. It is a decades-long problem of demand consistently outstripping supply and it has undoubtedly fuelled rising house prices. Indeed, the median price in England is nearly eight times higher than the median gross annual earnings outside London. In London, it is nearly 12 times higher. How are people expected to get on the property ladder and buy their own home—even rent their own home—with such challenges? It is clear that things have to change.
Building the homes the country needs is at the heart of the Government’s commitment to levelling up across our United Kingdom. Our vision for the future of planning and home building in England has to be bold and ambitious. That is at the heart of our White Paper. It proposes changes to the focus and processes of planning, to secure better outcomes for local communities, in terms of land for homes, for beauty and for environmental quality.
Simplifying the content of local plans will be a big part of this. It will make it easier to identify areas suitable for development, such as brownfield land, and to protect the all-important green-belt land sites, which are the sorts of sites that my hon. Friend referred to. A good example of brownfield land development can be found at the East Lancashire Paper Mill site in his own constituency.
These changes will transform a system that has long been criticised as being too slow to provide housing for families, key workers and young people, and too weak in getting developers to pay their fair share towards supporting essential infrastructure such as local schools, roads, GP surgeries and clinics. It is our ambition to deliver 300,000 homes per year by the mid-2020s and one million homes over this Parliament.
Increasing the number of up-to-date local plans across England is central to achieving that goal. Local plans not only unlock land for development and ensure that the right number of new homes are being built in the right places, but they also provide local communities with an opportunity to have their say on how their local areas will transform over the coming years.
Christian Wakeford
I thank the Minister for being very generous and giving way a second time. The Labour council in Bury does not have a local plan. We have been working on the Greater Manchester spatial framework but that has been pushed back time and time again, as the people say, “No.” What message can the Minister give to the Labour councillors about bringing forward a local plan, and doing so quickly?
Christopher Pincher
My message to all local authorities that do not have up-to-date local plans is: “Move as quickly as you can. If you do not, you do your constituents a disservice, because you leave them open to speculative development based on the presumption of sustainable development. It means you cannot protect your land, or support the communities that live on or around it, because you do not have a plan in place.”
Home building statistics show that in 2019 to 2020 there were nearly 244,000 net additional homes, including 220,000 new build homes. That is the highest annual increase for 30 years. The 2020 housing delivery test measurement, which we published in January, shows that around two thirds of local authorities have risen to the challenge and are supporting the delivery of the homes they need. The other third need to follow suit.
My hon. Friend referred to empty homes. I am pleased that the number of long-term empty homes has fallen by more than 30,000 since 2010. We have given councils powers and strong incentives to tackle long-term empty homes, including the power to increase council tax on them by up to 300% and to take over the management of them. Councils also receive the same new homes bonus for bringing an empty home back into use as for building a new one. It is probably worth mentioning that not all empty homes are habitable without some significant expenditure, or are in places where people need and want to live, but he raises an important point. I hope that I have demonstrated the Government’s commitment to getting appropriate empty homes back into use.
My hon. Friend also mentioned infrastructure. If we are to build new homes, we must have good infrastructure to support them. We recognise the crucial role that infrastructure plays in supporting new communities and improving neighbourhoods. Our manifesto committed to amending planning rules to ensure that the right infrastructure is in the right place before people take the step of moving into their homes. That is why we announced the national home building fund in the 2020 spending review.
The fund brings together existing housing, land and infrastructure funding streams into a single, flexible, more powerful pot, ensuring that roads, GP surgeries and schools are ready for people moving into new neighbourhoods, and driving an increase in supply in the areas of greatest need over the long term. At the next spending review, we will set out our proposals for the future of the national home building fund, to deliver on the Government’s commitment to invest £10 billion to unlock homes through the provision of infrastructure. That is on top of the £7.1 billion that we have already allocated, which we believe will unlock 860,000 new homes.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Government’s commitment to building back better after the pandemic and the importance of protecting the environment. Through the national planning policy framework, we have made it clear that planning policies and decisions should minimise the effects on biodiversity from development, protect our most sensitive habitats and provide net gains. That means that opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be sought, especially where they can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity.
We intend to go further: 2021 will be a landmark year for environmental policy because in November we will host the UN climate change conference in Glasgow. Our Environment Bill will be a pivotal part of delivering the Government’s manifesto commitment to create the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on Earth. We will make provision for a mandatory 10% of biodiversity net gain improvements for a range of developments, including house building. That will ensure that future developments result in measurable enhancements to nature, strengthening the biodiversity of our environment overall. We will also give new powers to local authorities to tackle air pollution in their areas.
My hon. Friend made important reference to the green belt, and our priority as a Government is to continue to protect the status of our green-belt land. We stand by our manifesto commitment:
“In order to safeguard our green spaces, we will continue to prioritise brownfield development, particularly for the regeneration of our cities and towns.”
We are clear that green-belt land should be considered for release only if an authority can fully evidence that it has examined all other reasonable options for meeting its development needs.
In addition, the national planning policy framework makes it clear that there should be no approval of inappropriate development in the green belt, including most forms of new building, except in very exceptional circumstances, as determined by the local authority. That means that the authority should use as much brownfield land as possible, optimise development densities and co-ordinate with neighbouring authorities to accommodate development.
We are committed to working with local authorities to turn old, disused brownfield land back into use for vibrant, exciting new places, levelling up for communities across the country. We have announced a package of measures that sets a new and far-reaching cross-government strategy to build more homes, protect and enhance the environment and create growth opportunities across the country. It includes: our home building fund, providing £2 billion of funds to support often SMEs in the delivery of larger, mostly brownfield sites through loans for infrastructure and site preparation; and £2.9 billion to support small and medium-sized enterprises, custom builders and construction innovators to build housing, including on brownfield land.
Christopher Pincher
I will not give way to my hon. Friend, because I have not got very long left and I appreciate he has only just arrived in the Chamber. If he will forgive me, I will continue.
Additionally, we have made available £400 million in brownfield housing funding, which has been allocated to seven mayoral combined authorities, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South, enabling around 26,000 new homes across the region—brownfield site homes. He asked me what we can do to encourage Mayor Burnham to build the right homes in the right places in the right way. I point him to the investment we are making in the combined authority in Manchester to ensure we are unlocking the opportunity to build homes on brownfield sites and not greenfield or green-belt sites, which people understandably want to see preserved.
My hon. Friend has spoken passionately and eloquently in support of his constituents in this, his very first Adjournment debate. I congratulate him again on securing it and being such a champion for his constituents. I hope it is clear to him and to others that the Government are committed to delivering a planning system that is fit for purpose and that works for everyone.
The Gracious Speech announced that the Government will bring forward a planning Bill in the current Session of Parliament. We are working hard with our stakeholders, and with colleagues across the House and in the other place, to make sure that we get the Bill right. We want to hear people’s views. We want to ensure that we refine our proposals in such a way that we introduce legislation that works for everyone in our country and provides the right homes that the country needs. It will be a Bill that gets more infrastructure built, that will modernise the planning system and that will bring the entire system—more democratic, more engaging—into the 21st century. It will propose simpler and faster processes, giving communities and developers much more certainty over what development goes where, what it looks like and what the infrastructure should be, and ensuring that developers have to contribute their fair share to funding affordable homes.
Our reforms will empower local people to set standards for beauty and design in their area through design codes that put beauty at the heart of our system. We want to grow the supply, boost affordability and unlock opportunity, and to do so for every community in every region in our United Kingdom. I am very pleased to be able to say those words and to commend my hon. Friend for his debate.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the technical and broadcasting teams for ensuring that all Members of Parliament have been able to participate in our democracy, whether they are in this iconic Chamber or not.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) and Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chair: Mrs Sheryll Murray
Abrahams, Debbie (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
† Caulfield, Maria (Lewes) (Con)
Duguid, David (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Eagle, Dame Angela (Wallasey) (Lab)
Foy, Mary Kelly (City of Durham) (Lab)
Gideon, Jo (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Harris, Rebecca (Castle Point) (Con)
Mak, Alan (Havant) (Con)
† Malhotra, Seema (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Mann, Scott (North Cornwall) (Con)
Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
† Rimmer, Ms Marie (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Rutley, David (Macclesfield) (Con)
† Scully, Paul (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy)
Thomson, Richard (Gordon) (SNP)
Timms, Stephen (East Ham) (Lab)
† Tomlinson, Michael (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
Jonathan Finlay, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee
Thursday 10 June 2021
[Mrs Sheryll Murray in the Chair]
Draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) and Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
The Chair
I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. Hansard colleagues will be most grateful if Members send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) and Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray.
Hon. Members will appreciate the importance of supporting international trade while protecting our product safety and legal metrology system, which is among the strongest in the world. The regulations implement important aspects of international trade agreements within the Government’s trade continuity programme, ensuring continuity for UK business. They include certain mutual recognition agreements that the UK has signed with the USA, Australia and New Zealand, along with a free trade agreement with Korea, containing conformity assessment provisions that are relevant to the regulations. The UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement and the UK-Canada trade continuity agreement also include protocols on mutual recognition of conformity assessments. I will now refer to the mutual recognition elements of all those agreements as MRAs, as proceedings would otherwise get quite tedious.
MRAs promote trade in goods between the UK and partner countries by reducing technical barriers to trade. The UK’s product safety legislation and that of many of our partners often require products to be assessed against minimum essential requirements, sometimes by a conformity assessment body external to the business. MRAs can reduce barriers by allowing a conformity assessment to be undertaken by a body that is based in the UK prior to export to the relevant country. Likewise, they enable procedures carried out by recognised overseas CABs to be recognised against our domestic regulations.
The products that are in scope of these agreements vary between the MRAs. Many cover rules on radio equipment, while the agreements with Australia and New Zealand also address products such as machinery and simple pressure vessels. If a small UK business that manufactures wi-fi equipment is considering exporting to one or more of our MRA partners, they might therefore find that they can get all their advice and approvals from a single UK-based CAB. If that means that they reduce their costs, they can pass the saving on to their customers. The manufacturer can access international markets more easily when assessment is facilitated in this way, thereby increasing their potential for exporting and increasing consumer choice. Such benefits, which the UK has experienced for years, are maintained through the continuity MRAs.
In addition to measures to implement the MRAs, the regulations address one aspect of the UK’s trade agreement with Japan by giving greater flexibility to importers of the traditional Japanese spirit called single-distilled shochu. The regulations amend specified quantity requirements in Great Britain so that bottles of single-distilled shochu can be sold in 900 ml bottles, one of the traditional bottle sizes.
I shall whip through the issues in a bit more detail, first by addressing provisions on goods coming into the UK that are in scope of an MRA. Under the MRAs, the UK committed to recognise the results of conformity assessment procedures carried out by recognised overseas CABs against our domestic regulations. Today’s regulations make it clear that assessments carried out by a recognised body based in one of our partner countries should be treated as equivalent to those carried out by a UK-approved body when relevant products are placed on the market in Great Britain. The benefits are significant: trade with our MRA partners in radio equipment alone amounted to nearly £2 billion in 2019, although not all those products will have required conformity assessment by a third party.
The regulations provide for the Secretary of State to create a register of CABs that the UK recognises under the MRAs, which are defined as MRA bodies. That is communicated via the UK market CAB database, which is publicly available and used by the UK’s market surveillance bodies to verify the status of CABs that have approved products sold in the UK. Having all those CABs that are competent to assess for the domestic market in one place creates a one-stop shop for not only our UK enforcement authorities but businesses, helping them to find and verify the credentials of CABs quickly. The regulations also provide for Canadian accreditation bodies that are recognised by the UK under the UK-Canada trade continuity agreement to be listed on the Government’s website. They do not change the substance of requirements for third-party assessment, nor do they amend any requirements related to a product’s specifications.
I turn to goods in scope of the UK’s MRAs that are assessed by UK CABs. The regulations provide for the Secretary of State to designate CABs as competent to assess whether goods comply with certain regulatory requirements of our trading partners under the MRAs, as set out in schedule 2. To give a quick example, if a UK-based CAB wishes to be recognised by the American authorities as competent to test and assess for the USA’s radio equipment requirements, the body can apply to UKAS, the United Kingdom’s accreditation service, to be accredited as competent to test against those overseas requirements. The Secretary of State may then designate the body under the UK’s MRA with the USA to assess radio equipment for export to the USA. Once a CAB is designated, a UK manufacturer that uses the body’s services to assess its products for the domestic market can use that same body to do its assessment for the USA. The manufacturer does not need to identify a different CAB operating in the USA and commission it for assessment services, so the manufacturer can continue to place products on the USA market efficiently and without extra costs, potentially passing savings on to consumers.
The regulations also provide that the Secretary of State, or a person authorised to act on their behalf, may disclose information to the other party to an MRA when required by an MRA. For example, we may pass on information related to goods originating in the USA that have been suspended by UK enforcement authorities under commitments to co-operate in the MRA with the USA. Disclosure will be made in accordance with data protection legislation.
The regulations make provision for a product known as single-distilled shochu, a spirit that is single distilled, produced by pot still and bottled in Japan, to be placed on the market in Great Britain in the additional bottle size of 900 ml. Before the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement, single-distilled shochu bottled in Japan had been permitted in Great Britain in quantities of 720 ml or 1,800 ml, in addition to the usual specified quantities for pre-packed spirits. Allowing the sale of this traditional bottle size was an important request by the Japanese Government in negotiations for the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement. Given that the product is already on sale across the UK, albeit in other bottle sizes, the change should not have a significant impact on consumers in Great Britain.
Let me turn to the territorial scope of the regulations. Some provisions make amendments only for Great Britain, while others extend to the whole UK. Regulations 4 and 5, which deal with the recognition of conformity assessment by relevant overseas CABs, extend to Great Britain only. Northern Ireland will continue to recognise the results of conformity assessment procedures done under mutual recognition agreements between the European Union and the relevant third country, in accordance with the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol to the withdrawal agreement.
Regulation 6, which deals with the Secretary of State’s power to designate UK-based bodies under the agreements, will extend to the whole UK. CABs across the UK can therefore be designated under the MRAs. Regulation 7, which relates to information sharing, will also extend to the whole UK to enable the Secretary of State to share relevant information required under the MRAs.
Part 3—regulations 8 and 9—which amends the permitted bottle sizes for single-distilled shochu, extends to Great Britain only. In accordance with the Northern Ireland protocol, single-distilled shochu will continue to be permitted on the Northern Ireland market in 720 ml and 1,800 ml bottle sizes, in addition to the usual specified quantities for pre-packed spirits.
The regulations will provide certainty on the UK’s approach to recognising and designating CABs for certain products under the MRAs, and also make necessary amendments to allow for the 900 ml bottle size of single-distilled shochu to be placed on the market in Great Britain. We have introduced the regulations to give effect to provisions that keep barriers to trade low while preserving our robust safety rules. We do so as a Government who are committed to ensuring that consumers are protected from unsafe products as we look to deliver a product safety regime that is simple, flexible and fit for the opportunities ahead of us. I urge the Committee to approve the regulations.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Murray.
I am grateful to the Minister for his opening remarks on why we are using this measure to continue to support international trade while keeping in place measures to ensure product safety. I am particularly grateful for his remarks about some of the disclosure processes that have to be followed if there are concerns about products that may be entering the market.
Conformity assessment ensures that what is being supplied or placed on the market in Great Britain complies with regulations and meets the expectations specified or claimed. Conformity assessment includes activities such as testing, inspection and certification. As the Minister has laid out, those organisations that make these checks are called conformity assessment bodies, to which I shall refer from now on as CABs.
Mutual recognition agreements lay down conditions under which one party will accept conformity assessment results from testing, certification or inspection performed by the other party’s CABs or designated public authorities to show compliance with the first party’s requirements and vice versa. MRAs enable exporters to obtain conformity assessment certification from CABs in their home market, which is recognised then in the export market.
National rules on weights and measures can also form technical barriers to trade, as the Minister will know, and that is why the World Trade Organisation technical barriers to trade agreement aims to ensure that technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures are non-discriminatory and do not create unnecessary obstacles to trade. At the same time, it recognises WTO members’ rights to implement measures to achieve legitimate policy objectives such as the protection of human health and safety or of the environment. The agreement strongly encourages members to base their measures on the international standards as a means to facilitate trade. Through transparency provisions, it also aims to enable a predictable trading environment. Parties to a trade agreement can agree to eliminate such barriers beyond what is applicable under the WTO rules.
The draft regulations cover UK MRAs with the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand, and the incorporated MRA chapters of UK agreements with Canada, the Republic of Korea, and Japan. As discussed, these agreements have similar or sometimes identical terms to those of the EU MRAs with these countries immediately before exit day. The regulations therefore give effect to the MRAs between the UK and certain third countries which have been agreed to provide continuity for businesses and consumers following the UK’s exit from the EU and the end of the transition period. May I ask the Minister why the regulations are coming now now? Obviously, the powers under the Trade Act 2021 have just commenced, but there is a question whether the instrument should have been passed before the respective MRAs were ratified. Perhaps the Minister will come back on that point.
The regulations ensure that specific products assessed by bodies in the countries recognised under the MRAs can be placed on the market, largely in Great Britain—they might also apply to Northern Ireland—and enable the Secretary of State to designate and monitor UK CABs to assess products against the other parties’ requirements.
The Minister mentioned that the instrument also implements annex 2-D to the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement by allowing single distilled shochu to be placed on the market in Great Britain in the new quantity of 900 ml, in addition to the existing quantities that are currently permitted.
The MRAs are signed with countries with which the European Union already has existing mutual recognition agreements and requires the UK to accept conformity assessment procedures performed and conformity assessment results issued by those bodies designated by the other country that is a signatory to the MRA.
I recognise that this is an important statutory instrument to provide both businesses and consumers with vital continuity and certainty—something even more important now as we look ahead to 21 June and our hopes for the beginning of the end of restrictions. In order to support businesses and provide that all-important continuity, Labour will be supporting this motion to implement rolled-over MRAs. However, there are several areas on which I would be grateful for some further clarity.
First, in relation to UK policy on conformity assessment and accreditation of the situation under EU law as it is still applied in Northern Ireland—as the Minister made reference to under certain regulations—a regulation sets out the requirements for the accreditation of market surveillance as it applies in EU law through the Northern Ireland protocol, and that continues to be the basis for accreditation policy. If in future there are any changes to UK policy, will that require an assessment of the implications of any trade barriers between Great Britain and Northern Ireland? How is that being considered?
Secondly, regulation 5 in respect of registers of MRA bodies states that the Secretary of State may
“compile and maintain a register of…MRA bodies…their MRA body identification numbers…the activities for which they have been designated; and…any restriction on those activities”.
Can the Minister confirm where he has outlined or whether he will outline the activities for which the MRA bodies have been designated, and what restrictions there will be on those activities?
Thirdly, under regulation 6, the Secretary of State will also be able to designate a conformity assessment body to assess products against other countries’ requirements. What criteria will the Minister use to consider whether that body is capable of fulfilling those functions and to ensure that it meets the requirements of a designated body? Following that, how will the Secretary of State monitor each body and guarantee that they continue to have the necessary designated capability?
We know that in the EU and Australia MRAs, it is the responsibility of other signatory countries to monitor their own designated bodies, with general discussion set at joint committee level and action that may include joint participation in audits. If that is the case for the MRAs being discussed today, do the Government have any plans to conduct any audit? If they do not, does the Minister envisage any risks associated with simply letting other parties regulate those conformity assessment bodies? Could he clarify if any issues will arise in relation to the standard or speed of operations of conformity assessment bodies, and if there is an impact for British businesses seeking to export goods or services? If there are any issues, how will those issues will be handled?
On divergence, the UK MRAs replicate the previous EU MRAs in substance, with the only substantive divergence from the EU in the permission to allow the additional bottle size of single-distilled shochu. That poses a broader question of whether the UK could take a different approach to conformity assessment in the future.
From 1 January 2021, the UK introduced its own product safety mark, which broadly mirrors the EU’s CE mark. According to law firm Bird & Bird, the UKCA—UK conformity assessment—regime follows essentially the same principles as the previous CE marking regime, but with the safety and compliance standards, authorised representative/responsible person and notified body requirements all now being valid for the UK only. Despite being a UK ask, the EU-UK deal did not include an agreement on mutual recognition of conformity assessment, a crucial factor for the sale of a heavily regulated product. That means that most goods produced in the UK but requiring certification for sale in the EU will, I understand, have to go through a second conformity assessment for the EU to be eligible for export. That will result in extra costs to trade with our main trading partner.
A lack of an MRA is unusual for comparable deals as Japan, Canada and Switzerland all have MRAs with the EU, while even countries such as Australia and the US, which do not have a trade deal with the EU, have MRAs. Does the Minister not think it is ironic that, in not having an MRA, the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement seem to be worse than those of the infamous Australia-style deal? Outside the EU, we know that there are new regulatory barriers to trade. The EU Commission’s “Blue Guide” on product standards has a comprehensive overview of the system of mutual recognition and the functions of conformity assessment and accredited bodies. There is a system of notification in the EU by which national authorities notify the Commission and each other that a conformity assessment body has been designated to carry out conformity assessment according to harmonised EU rules. Will the UK continue to share information on CABs with the EU, or will that go through the public database of CABs to which the Minister referred, which the UK will put together?
In the absence of an MRA, local regulatory bodies cannot certify goods for sale in other countries. However, MRAs can help reduce some of the burden by avoiding duplicate product safety testing, for example. Consequently, to help businesses thrive, to do what we can to make trade easier and relieve additional barriers, Labour will support the draft statutory instrument today. I will be grateful to the Minister for his response on the points I have made. If he cannot answer in Committee, perhaps he will write to me afterwards.
Paul Scully
I thank the Committee for its consideration of the draft statutory instrument and the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston for her valuable contribution to the debate.
I set out how the draft SI will maintain our latest product safety framework while preserving measures to reduce barriers to trade with some of our key trading partners. I will quickly whip through some of the questions the hon. Lady asked, such as about the timing of the SI. The Trade Act allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to implement non-tariff provisions of international agreements. That power was required to implement the MRAs that the UK has agreed with its trading partners. We have laid this SI at the earliest possible opportunity following Royal Assent to the Act.
On why we do not have an MRA with the EU, clearly it was proposed but not agreed in the negotiations. The UK proposed to the EU a comprehensive mutual recognition agreement covering all the relevant sectors, which would have allowed conformity assessment bodies in either market to assess goods for the other market. However, the countries in the scope of the draft SI have a combined population of more than 570 million with which UK businesses may continue to trade across the world.
On divergence from the EU and Northern Ireland diverging from GB, in many ways the EU signals are still changing. The UK-Japan CEPA is the first agreement that the UK has secured to go beyond the existing EU deal, with enhancement in areas such as digital data, financial services, food and drink, and the creative industries. Clearly, the single distilled shochu will still be available in the entire UK market, including Northern Ireland, but an additional bottle size will be available in the UK.
The hon. Lady talked about what will happen in future mutual recognition agreements. The approach that we are developing for future such agreements is under discussion, but will involve appropriate consultations with all interested parties. Northern Ireland and all the devolved Administrations will be important in that regard. I hope that I have covered a good deal of the questions. If I have not, I will certainly pick up on any the hon. Lady does not feel satisfied with.
The draft SI gives effect to the provisions of the MRAs and the Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement, which are important for the reasons that I outlined. By supporting the SI, we will ensure that our manufacturers and consumers benefit from maintaining agreements to minimise duplication of conformity assessment requirements between us and our trading partners. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee rose.
Draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) and Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. Hansard colleagues will be most grateful if Members send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) and Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray.
Hon. Members will appreciate the importance of supporting international trade while protecting our product safety and legal metrology system, which is among the strongest in the world. The regulations implement important aspects of international trade agreements within the Government’s trade continuity programme, ensuring continuity for UK business. They include certain mutual recognition agreements that the UK has signed with the USA, Australia and New Zealand, along with a free trade agreement with Korea, containing conformity assessment provisions that are relevant to the regulations. The UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement and the UK-Canada trade continuity agreement also include protocols on mutual recognition of conformity assessments. I will now refer to the mutual recognition elements of all those agreements as MRAs, as proceedings would otherwise get quite tedious.
MRAs promote trade in goods between the UK and partner countries by reducing technical barriers to trade. The UK’s product safety legislation and that of many of our partners often require products to be assessed against minimum essential requirements, sometimes by a conformity assessment body external to the business. MRAs can reduce barriers by allowing a conformity assessment to be undertaken by a body that is based in the UK prior to export to the relevant country. Likewise, they enable procedures carried out by recognised overseas CABs to be recognised against our domestic regulations.
The products that are in scope of these agreements vary between the MRAs. Many cover rules on radio equipment, while the agreements with Australia and New Zealand also address products such as machinery and simple pressure vessels. If a small UK business that manufactures wi-fi equipment is considering exporting to one or more of our MRA partners, they might therefore find that they can get all their advice and approvals from a single UK-based CAB. If that means that they reduce their costs, they can pass the saving on to their customers. The manufacturer can access international markets more easily when assessment is facilitated in this way, thereby increasing their potential for exporting and increasing consumer choice. Such benefits, which the UK has experienced for years, are maintained through the continuity MRAs.
In addition to measures to implement the MRAs, the regulations address one aspect of the UK’s trade agreement with Japan by giving greater flexibility to importers of the traditional Japanese spirit called single-distilled shochu. The regulations amend specified quantity requirements in Great Britain so that bottles of single-distilled shochu can be sold in 900 ml bottles, one of the traditional bottle sizes.
I shall whip through the issues in a bit more detail, first by addressing provisions on goods coming into the UK that are in scope of an MRA. Under the MRAs, the UK committed to recognise the results of conformity assessment procedures carried out by recognised overseas CABs against our domestic regulations. Today’s regulations make it clear that assessments carried out by a recognised body based in one of our partner countries should be treated as equivalent to those carried out by a UK-approved body when relevant products are placed on the market in Great Britain. The benefits are significant: trade with our MRA partners in radio equipment alone amounted to nearly £2 billion in 2019, although not all those products will have required conformity assessment by a third party.
The regulations provide for the Secretary of State to create a register of CABs that the UK recognises under the MRAs, which are defined as MRA bodies. That is communicated via the UK market CAB database, which is publicly available and used by the UK’s market surveillance bodies to verify the status of CABs that have approved products sold in the UK. Having all those CABs that are competent to assess for the domestic market in one place creates a one-stop shop for not only our UK enforcement authorities but businesses, helping them to find and verify the credentials of CABs quickly. The regulations also provide for Canadian accreditation bodies that are recognised by the UK under the UK-Canada trade continuity agreement to be listed on the Government’s website. They do not change the substance of requirements for third-party assessment, nor do they amend any requirements related to a product’s specifications.
I turn to goods in scope of the UK’s MRAs that are assessed by UK CABs. The regulations provide for the Secretary of State to designate CABs as competent to assess whether goods comply with certain regulatory requirements of our trading partners under the MRAs, as set out in schedule 2. To give a quick example, if a UK-based CAB wishes to be recognised by the American authorities as competent to test and assess for the USA’s radio equipment requirements, the body can apply to UKAS, the United Kingdom’s accreditation service, to be accredited as competent to test against those overseas requirements. The Secretary of State may then designate the body under the UK’s MRA with the USA to assess radio equipment for export to the USA. Once a CAB is designated, a UK manufacturer that uses the body’s services to assess its products for the domestic market can use that same body to do its assessment for the USA. The manufacturer does not need to identify a different CAB operating in the USA and commission it for assessment services, so the manufacturer can continue to place products on the USA market efficiently and without extra costs, potentially passing savings on to consumers.
The regulations also provide that the Secretary of State, or a person authorised to act on their behalf, may disclose information to the other party to an MRA when required by an MRA. For example, we may pass on information related to goods originating in the USA that have been suspended by UK enforcement authorities under commitments to co-operate in the MRA with the USA. Disclosure will be made in accordance with data protection legislation.
The regulations make provision for a product known as single-distilled shochu, a spirit that is single distilled, produced by pot still and bottled in Japan, to be placed on the market in Great Britain in the additional bottle size of 900 ml. Before the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement, single-distilled shochu bottled in Japan had been permitted in Great Britain in quantities of 720 ml or 1,800 ml, in addition to the usual specified quantities for pre-packed spirits. Allowing the sale of this traditional bottle size was an important request by the Japanese Government in negotiations for the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement. Given that the product is already on sale across the UK, albeit in other bottle sizes, the change should not have a significant impact on consumers in Great Britain.
Let me turn to the territorial scope of the regulations. Some provisions make amendments only for Great Britain, while others extend to the whole UK. Regulations 4 and 5, which deal with the recognition of conformity assessment by relevant overseas CABs, extend to Great Britain only. Northern Ireland will continue to recognise the results of conformity assessment procedures done under mutual recognition agreements between the European Union and the relevant third country, in accordance with the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol to the withdrawal agreement.
Regulation 6, which deals with the Secretary of State’s power to designate UK-based bodies under the agreements, will extend to the whole UK. CABs across the UK can therefore be designated under the MRAs. Regulation 7, which relates to information sharing, will also extend to the whole UK to enable the Secretary of State to share relevant information required under the MRAs.
Part 3—regulations 8 and 9—which amends the permitted bottle sizes for single-distilled shochu, extends to Great Britain only. In accordance with the Northern Ireland protocol, single-distilled shochu will continue to be permitted on the Northern Ireland market in 720 ml and 1,800 ml bottle sizes, in addition to the usual specified quantities for pre-packed spirits.
The regulations will provide certainty on the UK’s approach to recognising and designating CABs for certain products under the MRAs, and also make necessary amendments to allow for the 900 ml bottle size of single-distilled shochu to be placed on the market in Great Britain. We have introduced the regulations to give effect to provisions that keep barriers to trade low while preserving our robust safety rules. We do so as a Government who are committed to ensuring that consumers are protected from unsafe products as we look to deliver a product safety regime that is simple, flexible and fit for the opportunities ahead of us. I urge the Committee to approve the regulations.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Murray.
I am grateful to the Minister for his opening remarks on why we are using this measure to continue to support international trade while keeping in place measures to ensure product safety. I am particularly grateful for his remarks about some of the disclosure processes that have to be followed if there are concerns about products that may be entering the market.
Conformity assessment ensures that what is being supplied or placed on the market in Great Britain complies with regulations and meets the expectations specified or claimed. Conformity assessment includes activities such as testing, inspection and certification. As the Minister has laid out, those organisations that make these checks are called conformity assessment bodies, to which I shall refer from now on as CABs.
Mutual recognition agreements lay down conditions under which one party will accept conformity assessment results from testing, certification or inspection performed by the other party’s CABs or designated public authorities to show compliance with the first party’s requirements and vice versa. MRAs enable exporters to obtain conformity assessment certification from CABs in their home market, which is recognised then in the export market.
National rules on weights and measures can also form technical barriers to trade, as the Minister will know, and that is why the World Trade Organisation technical barriers to trade agreement aims to ensure that technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures are non-discriminatory and do not create unnecessary obstacles to trade. At the same time, it recognises WTO members’ rights to implement measures to achieve legitimate policy objectives such as the protection of human health and safety or of the environment. The agreement strongly encourages members to base their measures on the international standards as a means to facilitate trade. Through transparency provisions, it also aims to enable a predictable trading environment. Parties to a trade agreement can agree to eliminate such barriers beyond what is applicable under the WTO rules.
The draft regulations cover UK MRAs with the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand, and the incorporated MRA chapters of UK agreements with Canada, the Republic of Korea, and Japan. As discussed, these agreements have similar or sometimes identical terms to those of the EU MRAs with these countries immediately before exit day. The regulations therefore give effect to the MRAs between the UK and certain third countries which have been agreed to provide continuity for businesses and consumers following the UK’s exit from the EU and the end of the transition period. May I ask the Minister why the regulations are coming now now? Obviously, the powers under the Trade Act 2021 have just commenced, but there is a question whether the instrument should have been passed before the respective MRAs were ratified. Perhaps the Minister will come back on that point.
The regulations ensure that specific products assessed by bodies in the countries recognised under the MRAs can be placed on the market, largely in Great Britain—they might also apply to Northern Ireland—and enable the Secretary of State to designate and monitor UK CABs to assess products against the other parties’ requirements.
The Minister mentioned that the instrument also implements annex 2-D to the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement by allowing single distilled shochu to be placed on the market in Great Britain in the new quantity of 900 ml, in addition to the existing quantities that are currently permitted.
The MRAs are signed with countries with which the European Union already has existing mutual recognition agreements and requires the UK to accept conformity assessment procedures performed and conformity assessment results issued by those bodies designated by the other country that is a signatory to the MRA.
I recognise that this is an important statutory instrument to provide both businesses and consumers with vital continuity and certainty—something even more important now as we look ahead to 21 June and our hopes for the beginning of the end of restrictions. In order to support businesses and provide that all-important continuity, Labour will be supporting this motion to implement rolled-over MRAs. However, there are several areas on which I would be grateful for some further clarity.
First, in relation to UK policy on conformity assessment and accreditation of the situation under EU law as it is still applied in Northern Ireland—as the Minister made reference to under certain regulations—a regulation sets out the requirements for the accreditation of market surveillance as it applies in EU law through the Northern Ireland protocol, and that continues to be the basis for accreditation policy. If in future there are any changes to UK policy, will that require an assessment of the implications of any trade barriers between Great Britain and Northern Ireland? How is that being considered?
Secondly, regulation 5 in respect of registers of MRA bodies states that the Secretary of State may
“compile and maintain a register of…MRA bodies…their MRA body identification numbers…the activities for which they have been designated; and…any restriction on those activities”.
Can the Minister confirm where he has outlined or whether he will outline the activities for which the MRA bodies have been designated, and what restrictions there will be on those activities?
Thirdly, under regulation 6, the Secretary of State will also be able to designate a conformity assessment body to assess products against other countries’ requirements. What criteria will the Minister use to consider whether that body is capable of fulfilling those functions and to ensure that it meets the requirements of a designated body? Following that, how will the Secretary of State monitor each body and guarantee that they continue to have the necessary designated capability?
We know that in the EU and Australia MRAs, it is the responsibility of other signatory countries to monitor their own designated bodies, with general discussion set at joint committee level and action that may include joint participation in audits. If that is the case for the MRAs being discussed today, do the Government have any plans to conduct any audit? If they do not, does the Minister envisage any risks associated with simply letting other parties regulate those conformity assessment bodies? Could he clarify if any issues will arise in relation to the standard or speed of operations of conformity assessment bodies, and if there is an impact for British businesses seeking to export goods or services? If there are any issues, how will those issues will be handled?
On divergence, the UK MRAs replicate the previous EU MRAs in substance, with the only substantive divergence from the EU in the permission to allow the additional bottle size of single-distilled shochu. That poses a broader question of whether the UK could take a different approach to conformity assessment in the future.
From 1 January 2021, the UK introduced its own product safety mark, which broadly mirrors the EU’s CE mark. According to law firm Bird & Bird, the UKCA—UK conformity assessment—regime follows essentially the same principles as the previous CE marking regime, but with the safety and compliance standards, authorised representative/responsible person and notified body requirements all now being valid for the UK only. Despite being a UK ask, the EU-UK deal did not include an agreement on mutual recognition of conformity assessment, a crucial factor for the sale of a heavily regulated product. That means that most goods produced in the UK but requiring certification for sale in the EU will, I understand, have to go through a second conformity assessment for the EU to be eligible for export. That will result in extra costs to trade with our main trading partner.
A lack of an MRA is unusual for comparable deals as Japan, Canada and Switzerland all have MRAs with the EU, while even countries such as Australia and the US, which do not have a trade deal with the EU, have MRAs. Does the Minister not think it is ironic that, in not having an MRA, the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement seem to be worse than those of the infamous Australia-style deal? Outside the EU, we know that there are new regulatory barriers to trade. The EU Commission’s “Blue Guide” on product standards has a comprehensive overview of the system of mutual recognition and the functions of conformity assessment and accredited bodies. There is a system of notification in the EU by which national authorities notify the Commission and each other that a conformity assessment body has been designated to carry out conformity assessment according to harmonised EU rules. Will the UK continue to share information on CABs with the EU, or will that go through the public database of CABs to which the Minister referred, which the UK will put together?
In the absence of an MRA, local regulatory bodies cannot certify goods for sale in other countries. However, MRAs can help reduce some of the burden by avoiding duplicate product safety testing, for example. Consequently, to help businesses thrive, to do what we can to make trade easier and relieve additional barriers, Labour will support the draft statutory instrument today. I will be grateful to the Minister for his response on the points I have made. If he cannot answer in Committee, perhaps he will write to me afterwards.
Paul Scully
I thank the Committee for its consideration of the draft statutory instrument and the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston for her valuable contribution to the debate.
I set out how the draft SI will maintain our latest product safety framework while preserving measures to reduce barriers to trade with some of our key trading partners. I will quickly whip through some of the questions the hon. Lady asked, such as about the timing of the SI. The Trade Act allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to implement non-tariff provisions of international agreements. That power was required to implement the MRAs that the UK has agreed with its trading partners. We have laid this SI at the earliest possible opportunity following Royal Assent to the Act.
On why we do not have an MRA with the EU, clearly it was proposed but not agreed in the negotiations. The UK proposed to the EU a comprehensive mutual recognition agreement covering all the relevant sectors, which would have allowed conformity assessment bodies in either market to assess goods for the other market. However, the countries in the scope of the draft SI have a combined population of more than 570 million with which UK businesses may continue to trade across the world.
On divergence from the EU and Northern Ireland diverging from GB, in many ways the EU signals are still changing. The UK-Japan CEPA is the first agreement that the UK has secured to go beyond the existing EU deal, with enhancement in areas such as digital data, financial services, food and drink, and the creative industries. Clearly, the single distilled shochu will still be available in the entire UK market, including Northern Ireland, but an additional bottle size will be available in the UK.[Official Report, 16 June 2021, Vol. 697, c. 1MC.]
The hon. Lady talked about what will happen in future mutual recognition agreements. The approach that we are developing for future such agreements is under discussion, but will involve appropriate consultations with all interested parties. Northern Ireland and all the devolved Administrations will be important in that regard. I hope that I have covered a good deal of the questions. If I have not, I will certainly pick up on any the hon. Lady does not feel satisfied with.
The draft SI gives effect to the provisions of the MRAs and the Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement, which are important for the reasons that I outlined. By supporting the SI, we will ensure that our manufacturers and consumers benefit from maintaining agreements to minimise duplication of conformity assessment requirements between us and our trading partners. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Thursday 10th June 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 June 2021 - (10 Jun 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of the Committee, except the water provided. I remind Members to observe physical distancing. Members should sit only in the places that are clearly marked, and it is important that they find their seats and leave the room promptly to avoid delays for other Members and staff. Members should wear face coverings in Committee unless they are speaking or medically exempt. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
We now resume line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the Room. I remind Members wishing to press a grouped amendment or new clause to a Division that they should indicate their intention when speaking to their amendment.
Clause 76
Diversionary and community cautions
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 76, page 70, line 38, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
12, in clause 76, page 71, line 2, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
13, in clause 76, page 71, line 7, leave out “Diversionary” and insert “Conditional”.
14, in clause 76, page 71, line 10, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
15, in clause 76, page 71, line 16, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
18, in clause 77, page 71, line 24, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
19, in clause 77, page 71, line 31, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
20, in clause 77, page 72, line 3, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
21, in clause 77, page 72, line 6, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
22, in clause 77, page 72, line 8, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
23, in clause 78, page 72, line 11, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
24, in clause 78, page 72, line 15, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
25, in clause 78, page 72, line 20, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
26, in clause 78, page 72, line 34, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
27, in clause 79, page 72, line 38, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
28, in clause 79, page 72, line 42, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
29, in clause 80, page 73, line 36, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
30, in clause 81, page 74, line 7, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
31, in clause 81, page 74, line 14, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
32, in clause 82, page 74, line 25, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
34, in clause 83, page 74, line 29, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
35, in clause 83, page 74, line 34, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
36, in clause 84, page 74, line 39, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
37, in clause 84, page 75, line 36, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
38, in clause 84, page 75, line 42, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
39, in clause 85, page 76, line 23, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
40, in clause 85, page 76, line 26, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
41, in clause 85, page 76, line 31, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
42, in clause 85, page 76, line 34, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
43, in clause 85, page 76, line 39, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
44, in clause 85, page 77, line 15, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
45, in clause 85, page 77, line 18, leave out “diversionary” and insert “conditional”.
47, in clause 86, page 77, line 36, leave out “of the”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 13.
48, in clause 86, page 77, line 41, leave out first “the” and insert “any”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 13.
Alex Cunningham
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Charles. First, I especially thank Unlock, Transform Justice, and the Centre for Justice Innovation for their considerate and constructive scrutiny of the proposals.
The Opposition are generally supportive of the changes to the statutory framework for out-of-court disposals, and we recognise the work that the Government have done to move in that direction. Three forces took part in a year-long pilot of the two-tier framework in 2014, and the Ministry of Justice commissioned an independent evaluation of that pilot, which was published in 2018. Fourteen police forces—a third of all forces in England and Wales—have already adopted the two-tier framework, and the National Police Chiefs’ Council has endorsed the two-tier framework through its strategy for charging and out-of-court disposals.
We do appreciate the need to simplify the six-option cautions menu, and we recognise the Government’s attempt to streamline the use of out-of-court disposals for police forces. We would like those reforms to go further, however, and I will go on to discuss those areas in speaking to our amendments. We would like much more to be done to incentivise the use of out-of-court disposals in appropriate cases. It is important to note that although the Government hope that the new system will reduce reoffending, current data does not suggest that short-term reoffending rates are likely to go down. The evaluation of the 2014 pilot found no statistically significant difference between the short-term reoffending rates of prisoners who were given out-of-court disposals in two-tier framework areas and those in comparable areas that were not using the new framework.
I understand that the Government also hope that the new system will improve victim satisfaction because more victims will be involved in the process, but it is important to recognise that victim satisfaction with the current out-of-court-disposal framework is already good. In 2019-20, 84% of victims whose offender was issued a caution said that they were satisfied with the police action. That is a similar rate to victims whose offenders were charged, 83% of whom said that they were satisfied with the police.
Although we support the principle of simplification for the purposes of enabling the police to work more effectively, we have to be realistic about the likely impact of that change to the system.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the greater involvement of victims in the process, particularly for out-of-court disposals, is much better for reaching a satisfactory conclusion for everybody concerned?
Alex Cunningham
I most certainly agree: the more that victims are involved, the easier the process is for them. Talking about victims goes well beyond what we are debating today. The Opposition have published a victims’ Bill and hope that one day soon, the Government will finally come up with their victims’ Bill to address some of the issues that need to be addressed if life is to be just a little easier for the people who fall victim to criminals in our society.
Although we support the simplification of the cautions system, we have concerns about the removal of the simple caution, which seems to be an extremely effective and non-resource-intensive disposal for police officers to choose to use. Indeed, the simple caution has the lowest rate of reoffending of any sentence or sanction.
The Bar Council has said that it, too, is concerned about the removal of the simple warning:
“The existence of a simple warning, which the Bill proposes to abolish, is useful in many ways, not least because it requires fewer resources from police forces.”
The Bar Council went on:
“To insist that cautions are imposed in all cases does not give sufficient flexibility to the judiciary. A national framework that is too rigid is likely to be unworkable in a courtroom.”
As the Chair of the Bar Council—Derek Sweeting, QC —said in one of the evidence sessions on the Bill:
“It would be useful to have something that was a more general tool that the police could use, that would not turn up in criminal records later on and so on, and that would give the police the option effectively just to give what is now the simple caution.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 87, Q141.]
There is a range of low-level offences for which the simple caution is supremely suitable and in response to which it would not necessarily be appropriate to initiate a more formal engagement with the justice system, so how does the Minister envisage this very low-level offending now being dealt with?
Another area on which we would appreciate further reassurance from the Minister is the funding system. The system being proposed is likely to be significantly more costly than the existing system. The evaluation of the 2014 pilot found that the criminal justice system in pilot areas was estimated to have spent around 70% more on administering out-of-court disposals than the system in non-pilot areas. It concluded that the increased spending was the result of using conditional cautions in place of simple cautions, because conditional cautions require more police time to administer and monitor.
The Government estimate that this change will cost around £109 million over 10 years and think the criminal justice system will incur extra operational costs of around £15.58 million every year. They further estimate that the new cautions system will cost the police around £30.7 million to implement over the first two years.
The actual costs are likely to be even higher than those estimates, because the estimates are based on data from a pilot of the current two-tier framework carried out in 2014, which did not include some of the costly features of the proposed system set out in the Bill, such as proposed restrictions on the use of out-of-court disposals for certain offences. That is a significant cost and, as I noted earlier, it does not necessarily come with the offsetting benefit of reduced reoffending rates.
The impact assessment refers to £1.5 million for a three-year programme aimed at supporting police forces to access local intervention services, identify gaps in available provision and help to prioritise what services are needed that are not currently available.
Bambos Charalambous
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be better to use some of the money that will be spent on this change for more community policing and more youth services, which would actually make a difference in diverting young people from crime?
Alex Cunningham
I certainly do agree with my hon. Friend, particularly when it comes to youth services. We have seen youth services being devastated over the last 10 or 11 years, and all manner of other services in the community have also gone, all of which could have contributed to reducing crime, better engaging young people and diverting them from crime. Nevertheless, this three-year programme is welcome all the same, and I am glad that the Government are providing some resource to identify and fill support gaps, which can help to keep people out of the criminal justice system all together.
However, as my hon. Friend has suggested, £1.5 million seems a small amount of money indeed when stretched across our 43 police forces, which all serve different and diverse community needs. I would be grateful if the Minister told us more about how his Department sees that £1.5 million being spent and what criteria he will set for its allocation.
I am interested to know whether there are any plans to boost funding for these types of programme, especially as they might save the Government significant amounts of money by diverting appropriate low-level cases from prosecution altogether.
I would appreciate further information from the Minister on training officers in this particular area. Adrian Crossley, head of the criminal justice policy unit at the Centre for Social Justice, raised that issue at an evidence session:
“Drawing from the 2014 audit, there are some learnings from the two-tier system, most notably the training of officers so that they can refer people to the intervention that is appropriate and useful, better inter-agency communication, and sufficient time for implementation.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 45, Q63.]
Will the Minister tell us what resources will be made available to train officers in such a way? Or will that also come out of the £1.5 million?
We know that keeping people out of the formal justice system can have a really positive impact, so the Opposition would like to see growing use of out-of-court disposals, but the matter needs to be dealt with across Government—everything from youth services to the development of support services in the community.
Given the energy and time that the Minister’s Department has put into the proposals, I know it recognises the need for greater numbers of out-of-court disposals. However, I have reservations about the fact that the available evidence suggests that the proposals might result in a further decline in the use of out-of-court disposals. In 2019, approximately 192,000 out-of-court disposals were issued in England and Wales. That is the lowest number in a year since 1984 and around 28,000 fewer than in 2018.
The Ministry of Justice evaluation of the 2014 pilot found no change in the volume of out-of-court disposals issued by police forces using the system. It seems that officers in the pilots switched to the disposing of offences with conditional cautions when they would have used a simple caution, so we can assume that police officers will not make significant changes to their use of those disposals as a result of the proposed changes.
Features introduced in the proposals were not in the two-tier framework pilot, which I worry will contribute to an even greater decline in the use of out-of-court disposals. For example, under the new system there will be more restrictions on the use of out-of-court disposals for certain offences, as police officers will need the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to issue out-of-court disposals for indictable-only offences. They will also be prohibited from disposing of some cases involving repeat offenders by out-of-court disposal.
While data is not available on how many cautions are issued for indictable-only offences or repeat offenders, we cannot estimate exactly how the changes might affect out-of-court disposal volumes, but we do have data to show that 55% of cautions issued in 2019 were for indictable and either-way offences, which suggests that restricting their use for those offences is likely to have some impact on out-of-court disposal volumes.
I am sure the Minister recognises the value of out-of-court disposals and would not want to see a further serious decline in their use, so it would be good to hear of any plans he has to safeguard against any such decline. Perhaps he has other data that we are not aware of that demonstrates the fact that he would expect the decline to be not only halted, but even reversed. I look forward to hearing his thoughts on that.
I will come to other concerns when I speak to the Opposition amendments with respect to other clauses, but there is one other issue that I want to deal with here and now: the admission of guilt. First, this requirement will place a further administrative burden on police officers by preventing them from administering community cautions on-street, which could restrict their use in otherwise suitable cases. It is important that in simplifying the system for the police’s use, we also ensure that the flexibility needed to deal with the range of offending across England and Wales is retained and that we do not cause difficulties for the police by putting in place restrictions that would be unhelpful.
More importantly, many organisations, including EQUAL, have raised concerns about the impact that requiring an admission of guilt will have on disproportionality in our already extremely disproportionate justice system. In the current framework, a person has to make a formal admission of guilt to receive an out-of-court disposal. If someone does not admit guilt, they will be charged and sent to court. Evidence cited in the Lammy review shows that black, Asian and minority ethnic people are more likely to plead not guilty owing to a lack of trust in the criminal justice system among BAME communities, which makes suspects less likely to co-operate with the police.
Bambos Charalambous
On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to engage with the BAME community to ensure that those discrepancies do not occur in the future?
Alex Cunningham
That is most certainly the case. We have seen a breakdown in those relationships in recent years, but funding for work in that area has also suffered considerably. The real point of this—I do not think we can say it often enough—is that BAME individuals are less likely to admit guilt and receive an out-of-court disposal. They are more likely to face prosecution; if they face prosecution, they are more likely to end up in prison; and if they end up in prison, they could be there for much longer under some of the legislation that the Government are promoting.
During the evidence sessions, that issue was raised by a series of witnesses as an area of concern. Phil Bowen of the Centre for Justice Innovation said that
“we would strongly argue that it should be possible to offer the community caution—the lower tier of the two tiers—to individuals who accept responsibility for their behaviour, rather than requiring a formal admission of guilt. This is an idea that was raised in the Lammy review and has subsequently been raised in the Sewell report. We think it would be better if that lower tier could be offered to people, who are required only to accept responsibility for their actions. As the Lammy review suggests, that may encourage the participation of people from groups who tend to have less trust in the police and the criminal justice system.”––[Official Report, Police Crime Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 44-45, Q63.]
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that where the offence is not admitted, it is only right and proper that the matter be referred to a court in the interests of justice?
Alex Cunningham
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Yes, if the police believe that they need to proceed to court because someone refuses to take responsibility, the case should be moved on. However, the fact remains that if the person admits responsibility rather than making a formal guilty plea at that stage, they could have an out-of-court disposal rather than having to be dragged through the criminal justice system again. The Victims Commissioner told us that this was one reservation she had about the proposed changes to the caution system, saying that
“something needing a bit of looking at is the obligation to admit guilt in order to get an out-of-court disposal. Sometimes something like a deferred prosecution might be something that a person would be readier to accept, and it should be no more of a problem for a victim.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2021; c. 114, Q180.]
Perhaps the Government might consider out-of-court disposals that do not require a formal admission of guilt, only individuals to accept responsibility. That might encourage the participation of people from groups that tend to have less trust in the criminal justice system, and who might therefore be more reluctant to make a more formal admission of guilt.
Bambos Charalambous
On the issue of deferred prosecutions, there is an excellent organisation in Lambeth called Juvenis that gets referrals from people in agreement with the police, via a panel. Those people are referred to Juvenis for help, and if they keep safe, prosecution does not follow. Is that not a good way to divert people from being criminalised and processed in the criminal justice system?
Alex Cunningham
It most certainly is. The Government should be looking at examples of that best practice and rolling it out across the country, because in the longer term, support for organisations such as that will reduce the number of people who end up in the formal criminal justice system. That will mean fewer people in prison, and the cost to society will be all the lower as a result. The Opposition share the serious concerns that have been raised, and would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the issue, because I know that tackling inequalities in our justice system and crime outcomes is something he takes very seriously. We would particularly like to hear his thoughts on the possibility of removing the requirement of an admission of guilt from the lower-tier disposal, at the very least.
Let me turn my attention to the amendments standing in my name. These amendments might seem rather cosmetic, but they address an important issue as to how we think about the handling of lower-level offending. Amendments 11 to 15, 18 to 32, and 34 to 45 would change the name of the diversionary caution to the conditional caution, while amendments 47 and 48 are minor consequential amendments that would result from that change. The Opposition are concerned that calling the upper-tier disposal the diversionary caution is potentially and unnecessarily confusing. Diversion is commonly used as a term to describe specific activity moving people away from any contact with the formal justice system altogether, regardless of whether that means diverting them from a prosecution or from a statutory out-of-court disposal. It matters what we call these things, because the diversionary caution is not diversion as the term is currently used across the criminal justice system. A third of police forces are already using the two-tier framework, which includes the conditional caution.
We are concerned that the name change will needlessly confuse police forces, even though the intention is to simplify the framework. It could also cause needless confusion for others who work in, engage with or come into contact with the justice system, but who are not consistently involved with it as police officers are. It is a small change, and I hope the Government can see the sense in it. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on it. If the Government are set on opposing the measure, I would welcome a further explanation as to why “diversionary” was chosen as the name for the upper-tier statutory out-of-court disposal.
The Chair
Do any other Members wish to speak before the Minister rises to his feet? I do not see you all jumping up and down, so I call the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and it is a pleasure, as always, to respond to the shadow Minister. Let me start by saying how glad I am to hear that he and the Opposition generally welcome the principles that lie behind the changes in these clauses. We intend to reduce the number of cautions from the current six to the two contemplated in the Bill, following, as he rightly said, the initial pilot with three police forces, which has now expanded to 14 or 15 police forces. The feedback that we received from those police forces is that they find the simpler structure of cautions much easier to follow and much more helpful. Broadly speaking, it sounds as though we are all on the same page—both sides of the House, and the police as well. I am glad that we are starting from a very similar place.
The shadow Minister asked a number of questions about the involvement of victims in the administration of cautions. Of course, victims should be at the heart of the criminal justice system—we all believe very strongly in that. On victims, I draw the Committee’s attention to paragraph 6.7 of the victims’ code, which says:
“Where the police or the Crown Prosecution Service are considering an out of court disposal you”—
the victim—
“have the Right to be asked for your views and to have these views taken into account when a decision is made.”
The police and CPS must make reasonable efforts to obtain the views of victims, and they must communicate with victims on the topic. As the shadow Minister rightly said, it is clear that victims need to be part of this endeavour, and paragraph 6.7 of the victims’ code ensures that.
The shadow Minister asked a second series of questions about the fact that both levels of caution—the diversionary caution and the community caution—have a requirement for conditions to be attached. He expressed some concern that that might impose additional bureaucracy on police forces. He also asked about the cost of the whole scheme more generally and mentioned the estimate that the whole of the criminal justice system cost might be in the order of £15 million a year.
On the conditions, it is important that the cautions have some effect. It is important that where someone has committed an offence and admitted guilt—I will come to the point about admission of guilt in a moment—there should be some sort of follow-up action to ensure remedial activity and that an appropriate step is taken. If we simply let someone go with no follow-up step, it undermines and diminishes the seriousness of the fact that they have committed an offence and admitted to it. It perhaps misses an opportunity to take a step that will reduce reoffending in future. In general, taking steps to stop people reoffending is a good thing. There are some opportunities that we are very keen to embrace via these conditions and sentences passed by the court. For example, if someone has a drug addiction, an alcohol addiction or a mental health problem, we want that to get treated. These cautions are an opportunity to impose a condition—seeking treatment, for example. Of course, in a court setting, there are community sentence treatment requirements, alternative dispute resolutions, mental health treatment requirements and so on. These cautions have an important role to play in ensuring that the underlying causes of offending get addressed.
Chris Philp
I will just finish the point, and then I will take the intervention in a moment.
There are opportunities to take a more calibrated approach if police officers or the Crown Prosecution Service think it is appropriate. First, in the code of practice that we will be tabling to accompany these new diversionary and community cautions, there will be significant latitude and quite a lot of flexibility for police officers and the CPS to set appropriate conditions. They could be quite low level. For a low-level offender, where it is not appropriate to impose an onerous condition, or where the police feel it would impose an unreasonable burden on police officers themselves, a much lower, light-touch condition could be applied. That would address the concern that the shadow Minister raised.
There is also the option of a community resolution, which the NPCC says it will retain. There will be the two cautions set out in statute, and there will be the community resolution option too. Although the community resolution comes with conditions, there is not an obligation for them to be followed up, so the administrative burden would not apply.
On the cost point, of course we should be aware that the police are generally receiving a great deal of extra funding as part of the recent police settlements in order to support the police uplift programme—the extra 23,000 police officers. It would be a good use of a bit of that time if it were spent on following up the conditions that have been imposed to try to prevent reoffending. We all agree that reoffending is too high; that is bad for the individual and society as a whole. That is a good use of a bit of the additional police resources.
Chris Philp
Perhaps I should give way to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate first, and then I will give way to the shadow Minister.
Bambos Charalambous
I am grateful to the Minister. On the issue of addressing the root of the offending in the first place, I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on attention deficit hyperactive disorder, and people with ADHD are disproportionally represented in the prison population. That is partly because of screening—they are not screened early enough and are sometimes not aware that they have ADHD. Has the Minister given any thought to whether some of the conditions could involve screening for people with ADHD if that is one of the roots of the offending?
Chris Philp
That is an extremely good point. That is the sort of issue that we should take up in the code of practice that accompanies the statutory framework. That is exactly the kind of thing that should be picked up. Where someone has a need for treatment of some kind, whether for drugs, mental health—ADHD in that example—or alcohol addiction, we need to try to get the underlying cause of the offending sorted out. That is something that we can and should pick up in the accompanying code of practice, and I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister is talking a lot of good sense, and I take issue with very little of what he has to say. I am keen to understand whether he is content that we are seeing lower numbers of out-of-court disposals. He talks about reoffending, which we all want to see reduced, but there is no evidence that this measure will contribute to that. Would he suggest otherwise?
Chris Philp
Clearly recent data, over the past 15 months or so, has been significantly distorted because of the effect of the pandemic on the criminal justice system, policing and everything else, so we need to be careful about post-dating data from February or March 2020.
The reoffending point links to the comments of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate. We need to ensure that, in the code of practice, we are guiding police forces and the CPS to the follow-up activities and conditions that are most likely to deliver a reduction in reoffending. The shadow Minister is right that, although the police preferred the new system that we are introducing, there was not evidence of a reduction of reoffending in the pilots areas. We have an opportunity via the code of practice to ensure that the conditions are proposed and designed, like the one that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate just proposed, with the purpose of reducing reoffending. This is an opportunity that we should seize, along the lines just suggested.
Allan Dorans
Does the Minister agree that the regulatory framework of diversionary and community cautions will prevent many young people from entering the formal criminal justice system—including having their fingerprints and photographs taken—which could affect their life chances and employment chances in later years for a mistake that they made at a very young age; that these measures will be welcomed by the parents who see their children perhaps having a second opportunity to live a crime-free life; and that this will allow rehabilitation within the family and the community?
Chris Philp
I do agree. Of course, I know that the hon. Gentleman had a long and distinguished career with, I think, the Metropolitan police.
Chris Philp
Therefore the hon. Gentleman’s comments are based on that long experience of public service in the police force. It is clearly better if we can get people to stop their offending by way of early intervention such as this, rather than having them end up in a young offenders institution or somewhere similar, which often leads to a pretty bad outcome. We should take this opportunity to stop that pattern of behaviour developing and worsening. That is why these conditions are important —to ensure that that prevention and rehabilitation take place. I fear that otherwise we are missing an opportunity —an opportunity that the shadow Minister is poised to grasp.
Alex Cunningham
I am really interested in what the Minister said about working with ethnic minority and BME communities. We have seen a tremendous cut in services over the last 10 or 11 years, so does he see the potential of legislation such as this to increase even further the need for the Government to think again and invest more in organisations that can help people to understand what the Government are about and how young men in particular—it is young black men who tend to be affected most—can avoid the criminal justice system and move on with their lives?
Chris Philp
Exactly—avoid the criminal justice system by desisting from criminal behaviour.
Obviously, a lot of initiatives are under way, particularly via the funding for serious violence reduction units, which has increased a great deal in the last couple of years. The work of serious violence reduction units with those communities, talking about issues exactly like this, is the right way to do that. I will make sure that my colleague the Minister for Policing is appraised of our discussions this morning—this afternoon, now—so that he can ensure that that is reflected as he works with SVRUs and the police on issues such as this.
Alex Cunningham
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I am sure that he will excuse me for being parochial about this. In Cleveland, we have the third-highest rate of serious violent crime in the country, but the Cleveland Police force has been passed over in the past when it has come to funding for the initiatives he is talking about. Will he remind the Policing Minister of the particular issues that we face in Cleveland, and perhaps secure us some more funding?
Chris Philp
It sounds like I have been engaged to act as a lobbyist on behalf of Cleveland, but I will pass that on, and while I am at it, I will mention the needs of Croydon, my own borough.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
And Lincolnshire!
Chris Philp
I will not forget the fine county of Lincolnshire, represented by the Minister for Safeguarding.
Chris Philp
Well, I am afraid that in the case of Croydon, there is quite a lot of crime. I will add Cleveland to my communication.
I turn to the large group of amendments starting with amendment 11, which the shadow Minister moved. He proposes replacing the word “diversionary” with the word “conditional”. I understand entirely what he is trying to do with that amendment, but unfortunately there are technical and legal reasons why that does not work. Essentially, the reason—as he touched on when moving the amendment—is that the concept of a conditional caution already exists in the current form of statutory out-of-court disposals for adults, which were enshrined in part 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
We cannot change the name because there would be transitional provisions when the old cautions may still apply, and that may lead to confusion about which type of caution is being referred to, whether that be the old conditional caution, which may still apply in some cases—depending on the time of the offence—or the new conditional caution, which would be called a “conditional caution” if we adopted the amendment. It would lead to confusion about which caution was in force. As the new diversionary caution is different from the old conditional caution, we think that, both for legal reasons and for reasons of general confusion and clarity, the use of a different word—“diversionary”, in this case—is the right thing to do.
Amendments 46 and 48 are in the shadow Minister’s name but I do not think that he moved them. Should I defer replying to them?
Chris Philp
In that case, I will not speak to those now—I will hold back for a subsequent opportunity—and I trust that I have answered the shadow Minister’s excellent questions.
Alex Cunningham
I appreciate the Minister’s response. As far as the amendment is concerned, I accept that we are perhaps all looking at different levels of confusion within the system. It is just a shame that we have to have any confusion at all. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but I repeat to the Minster what I said before: we need to address disproportionality across the whole justice system. There is no doubt that these particular measures will add to that, and it is important that the Government take measures to ensure that young people—and even older people—coming into the system have a full understanding of what they are getting into as a result of the Government’s proposed changes to the law. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 76, page 71, line 7, leave out from “Diversionary” to end of line 8 and insert—
“cautions must have one or more conditions attached to them.
(4A) Community cautions may have one or more conditions attached to them.”
This amendment would remove the requirement for community cautions to have conditions attached to them, and instead make such conditions discretionary.
The amendment would remove the necessity to attach conditions to the community caution, which is the lower-tier disposal. The Opposition are concerned that the provision in clause 76 means that both the diversionary and community cautions must have conditions attached to them. We believe it should be possible to offer the community caution to individuals without the imposition of conditions. There are a range of circumstances in which an offence has occurred but in which the police may judge that no conditions should be imposed.
I will reiterate what I said earlier: in simplifying the process to help police forces, we need to ensure that we do not unhelpfully restrict them by removing useful tools. The current framework contains the simple caution, in which no conditions are attached. As I mentioned earlier, the current simple caution is a very effective sanction, with the lowest reoffending rate of any sentence or sanction.
In the Government’s evaluation of the two-tier system, the conditional caution was shown to be effective in reducing reoffending, but it was no more effective than the simple caution. We are concerned that if all cautions have to have conditions imposed on them it may unhelpfully limit the police’s ability to effectively dispose of offending. The effect, at least in the adult regime, is that only conditional cautions are available. Conditional cautions are more expensive to administer and monitor than disposals with no conditions attached. There is a relatively in-depth process of paperwork to set and monitor conditions and to ensure compliance.
This is an issue that police forces are concerned about too. In an evidence session, Phil Bowen of the Centre for Justice Innovation said that
“in consultation events that we have already held with a number of police forces, they strongly suggested that they wanted to retain the flexibility to issue the community caution—the lower tier—without conditions. In the existing framework, they are able to issue a simple caution that does not involve conditions. Police forces want that flexibility, and the new framework proposed by the Government does not allow that in the lower tier.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 44, Q63.]
Does the Minister think it is necessary to always have the additional stringent burden of necessary conditions on the lower-tier disposal, in spite of the fact that the police would welcome flexibility in this area?
Another issue of serious concern for the Opposition was raised in the evidence sessions by Sam Doohan from Unlock. On the additional administrative and time burden placed on the lower-tier disposal, he said:
“As a result, forces will be much more hesitant to use a caution. Whereas in the past, they might have been quite content to give a simple caution and send someone on their way with a formal warning or reprimand, now the force in question will have to take on the burden of monitoring, compliance and potentially re-arresting someone if they breach conditions. They will be forced either to go above the caution and see more cases through to prosecution, even though it would not necessarily be in the public interest to do so, or not to take action at all.
As we know with the criminal justice system as a whole, when we start having these slightly weighted decisions about who falls into what tier of disposal, those who are from disadvantaged backgrounds, along the lines of race and religion, almost universally fall into the harsher end, and those who are not do not. We are creating a system that incentivises busy working police officers to say, ‘Actually, I am going to make this the CPS’s problem, not mine, and I have the choice of who to do it to.’ Is that going to lead to good criminal justice outcomes? We think it may not. We do not know yet—I stress that—because it has not been studied, but it does have the characteristics of a system that will not have the desired outcomes.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2021; c. 104, Q164.]
I have already raised some of the serious issues of disproportionality that may come from the proposed system, but I would welcome reassurances from the Minister that his Department plans to monitor, and safeguard against, any such unintended perverse outcomes. Far more of our concerns will be allayed if the Government agree to retain a level of flexibility in the lower-tier disposal. We are not asking for there to be no conditions attached to the community caution; the amendment would still allow for police to attach conditions in appropriate cases, but it would provide an important safeguard against further disproportionality in the criminal justice system and allow police forces to retain the flexibility they need to properly serve their community needs, which we believe they are best placed to know about.
The Chair
Right, who would like to speak? Are there any colleagues catching my eye or touching their face masks to indicate that they wish to speak? No. It is the Minister, smiling, who wants to speak.
Chris Philp
Smiling as always, Sir Charles. I thank the shadow Minister for his speech. I made a number of the points that I would make in response in my comments a few minutes ago, so I do not want to re-elaborate on them at too much length, lest I wear thin the patience of colleagues. I will just reiterate briefly the two or three key points in response to the shadow Minister.
First, the Government think that having some level of conditions is an inherently good thing because it means there is a mechanism by which follow-up can take place, and it provides an opportunity for rehabilitation. Secondly, in the code of practice, which we have discussed already, there will be considerable latitude over how the conditions are calibrated. It could therefore be possible to have quite light-touch conditions. What we will take away is that, in the code of practice that gets drafted, and subsequently tabled and approved by Parliament, there is a wide range of conditions, including some at the lower end that are not unduly onerous on the police to monitor and follow up. Thirdly, the community resolution is still an option available to the police, and although it has conditions, it does not require follow-up.
A combination of those three considerations makes the approach being taken the right one. The key point is that the code of practice is very important. We will no doubt debate it when it gets tabled and voted on in a Delegated Legislation Committee. I hear the shadow Minister’s point, and the code of practice will reflect that.
On the final point, about disproportionality, which the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate raised, we will certainly be mindful of disproportionality considerations. As the hon. Member for—help me out—
The Chair
There we go. Mr Dorans, are you happy with that description of your constituency?
Chris Philp
As the hon. Gentleman said in his intervention, this is an opportunity to divert people from a path towards more serious crime and into a regular life. That is important for everyone, including some of these communities, which get themselves into more trouble than we would like. That point is well made.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 76, page 71, line 21, at end insert—
“(8) The Secretary of State must, within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and every 12 months thereafter, lay before Parliament a report on the use of cautions in accordance with this Part.”
I will not keep the Committee long on this simple amendment, which would compel the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the use of cautions, as established under this clause. As I said earlier, in 2019 only about 192,000 out-of-court disposals were issued in England and Wales, which is the lowest number in a year since 1984. I bear in mind what the Minister said but, of course, those figures refer to 2019, not the time covered by the pandemic.
The use of out-of-court disposals has been in decline since 2008, after it peaked at 670,000 disposals in 2007. Their use has fallen nearly three quarters since then. In 2008, community resolutions were introduced, and they remain the only type of out-of-court disposal that has been used at a similar rate in each of the past five years. That has happened while recorded crime has increased by more than 1 million offences, from about 4.3 million in 2010 to about 6 million last year. I mentioned earlier that we have concerns that the new restrictions on using out-of-court disposals for certain offences are likely to have some impact on out-of-court disposal volumes, driving down their use further. I again ask the Minister to clarify whether he thinks there will be more or fewer out-of-court disposals in the future.
It is all the more important that we monitor the new system to ensure that the use of out-of-court disposals does not continue to decline significantly. Although I appreciate that there has been a pilot and evaluation done of a two-tier framework, this is the one that is already in use. There has not been such an assessment of this new proposed two-tier framework. I have already mentioned the reservations that we have about attaching conditions to all cautions and the potential impact that that will have on disproportionality. Again, these changes need to be monitored to ensure that they do not have unwanted, perverse consequences. We are all keen to see the use of effective out-of-court disposals increase, not decrease. They can allow police to deal quickly and proportionately with low-level, often first-time offending and help to keep people out of the formal criminal justice system, which in many cases is preferable for their communities and for the Government in the long run.
An annual report to Parliament would allow for the necessary scrutiny of the new system and help to stem the decline in the use of out-of-court disposals. I hope that the Minister agrees that that would be a useful exercise. It will be good to hear more generally from him about Government plans to monitor and scrutinise the new system.
Chris Philp
On the review of how out-of-court disposals are used and are going, they are, as the shadow Minister said, already recorded by all forces in England and Wales and reported to the Home Office and the MOJ for statistical purposes. The figures appear in criminal justice statistics, published quarterly, which include performance data tables for each individual police force, as well as trends in use—figures from which the shadow Minister was likely quoting a few minutes ago.
There is therefore already complete transparency on the numbers, which enable Parliament, the Opposition and the Departments—the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office—to look at them, take action, call parliamentary debates and so on. Those figures are all in the public domain.
In addition to that, however, all police forces are already required to have an out-of-court disposal scrutiny panel, led by an independent chairperson. Those panels are extremely important in holding the police to account and ensuring that disposals are being used appropriately, to provide assurances that difficult decisions are being made properly and to provide effective feedback to police officers and their forces.
Already, therefore, we have two levels of scrutiny: the data being reported, aggregated by police force and reported nationally to the Home Office and the MOJ, so we can debate it in Parliament; and, for each individual force area, a scrutiny panel. In addition, a standard review of legislation takes place after a Bill receives Royal Assent. I suggest to the Committee that those three mechanisms between them are sufficient.
The shadow Minister, however, is right to point to the figures. We in Parliament should be vigilant about them. If we, the Opposition or any Member of Parliament are concerned about how those quarterly figures look, there are a lot of ways to express those concerns in Parliament—by way of a Westminster Hall debate, an Opposition day debate or any of the usual mechanisms. I suggest that the existing mechanisms are adequate. I invite everyone in Government and in Parliament to use them.
Alex Cunningham
On this occasion, we are in a different place. I appreciate what the Minister said about the various methods through which information is available and about the opportunities to debate the issues, but I cannot understand why the Government are reluctant to have a formal report on the new system. We have discussed at some length the considerable reduction in the number of cautions used over the past 10 or 15 years. That decline is continuing. There is no evidence that the new system will result in any increase in the use of the cautions. For that matter, it is important for us to hold the Government particularly to account, so I will press for a vote on the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Chris Philp
Clauses 77 to 85 essentially provide for the statutory basis on which the diversionary caution—the higher of the two new cautions—will be introduced. We have already discussed at some length the principles that underpin the diversionary caution, and clauses 77 to 85 simply provide for the details necessary to facilitate their introduction. Given that we have already had a fairly extensive discussion on the principles, I will go through the clauses relatively quickly.
Clause 77 specifies the criteria for giving a diversionary caution, as introduced in clause 76, which we have just agreed. An authorised person may give a diversionary caution to a person over 18 years of age, subject to the specified conditions being met. The clause specifies key safeguards whereby an authorised person or prosecuting agency can authorise the use of this caution. They must establish that there is sufficient evidence to charge, that the recipient admits the offence and that the recipient signs and accepts the caution, along with understanding the effect of non-compliance. Those requirements mirror the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that apply to existing conditional cautions. The requirements are important safeguards, given the consequences that can flow from the breach of a condition attached to a diversionary caution, as we have discussed.
Clause 78 establishes the types of conditions that may be attached to a diversionary caution. We will expand on that in the code of practice that we discussed. The provision is similar to the existing conditional caution. Again, as we have already discussed, it requires reasonable efforts to be made to ensure that the victim’s views are sought before the conditions are set out. We have talked about the importance of taking victims’ views into account.
Clause 79 provides for the rehabilitation and reparation conditions that may be attached to a diversionary caution. Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, we talked about the importance of rehabilitation as well as reparation. The clause specifies the sort of activities that may be undertaken.
Clause 80 introduces a financial penalty condition. Clause 81 deals particularly with conditions that might attach when the offender is a foreign national. Clause 82 introduces a method whereby an authorised person or prosecution authority may, with the offender’s consent—should that be necessary subsequently—vary the conditions attached to a diversionary caution.
Clause 83 deals with the effect of failure to comply with a condition attached to a diversionary caution. As I said earlier, criminal proceedings can be instituted against the offender for the index offence in the event of any breach. That is why a formal admission of guilt is so important.
Clause 84 grants a constable power to arrest the offender without a warrant where the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the offender has failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with any condition attached to a diversionary caution. Clause 85 clarifies how the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 will be applied in the event that an offender is arrested under clause 84 if a breach has occurred.
The clauses essentially implement the principles that we discussed when we considered clause 76 a few moments ago.
Alex Cunningham
The new diversionary caution that these clauses introduce is extremely similar to the existing conditional caution. The same authorised persons would be able to issue them, issuing officers would have to meet the same requirements before applying them, and the range of conditions that could be attached would be extremely similar. They will still be used only in cases where officers have sufficient evidence and offenders admit guilt—we still have a problem with that—and the consequence of breaching conditions would be the same, in that the offender would be arrested and prosecuted for the initial offence.
However, there are two differences that would be helpful for the Committee to consider. The first is the range of offences for which the diversionary caution can be given. I raised this as a point of concern earlier when discussing whether we might see a further decline in the use of out-of-court disposals in appropriate cases as a result of clause 77, which sets out the restrictions on giving diversionary cautions for indictable-only offences. I will not repeat our concerns, but now that we are looking at the specific clauses, I would be grateful for some further information from the Minister.
Clause 77(3)(a) allows a diversionary caution to be given to an offender for an indictable-only offence
“in exceptional circumstances relating to the person or the offence”.
It would be helpful if the Minister could provide some illustrative examples of what such an exceptional case might be. The restriction for indictable-only offences existed only for the simple caution before, but it did not apply to conditional cautions. Has the Minister made any assessment of what impact the change might have with regards to up-tariffing for disposals given at this level of offending?
The second key difference is a change in the maximum amount that an offender can be fined through a financial penalty condition. For the current conditional caution, fine levels are set by the Secretary of State but cannot be above £250, and this limit is set in primary legislation. However, the Bill will not provide a limit for diversionary caution fines, and the value of any such fine will be set using rules from future secondary legislation made under the powers in the Bill. Although I appreciate that the secondary legislation would require parliamentary approval by a yes/no vote, and so Parliament could reject the fine limit, it would not be able to amend the proposals for the fine value.
Bambos Charalambous
The issue of fines disproport- ionately affects younger people, who may not have much money. That also needs to be taken into consideration when assessing the level of the fines.
Alex Cunningham
The summary that my hon. Friend offers is certainly to the point. Young people could find themselves unable to meet a fine and end up in court or with further fines as a result—poverty heaped upon poverty in that situation.
It would be helpful at this stage to hear any more information that the Minister has about what level the Government may intend to set the fines at. Perhaps he could just tell us what the motivation is behind changing the limit.
The Chair
I am sure it is the Minister’s intention to be helpful. Does he want to respond to the shadow Minister in winding up this part of the debate?
Chris Philp
I have already made the points that I wanted to make, but I will respond to one or two of the shadow Minister’s questions.
Indictable-only offences are by definition extremely serious. They are the most serious offences, so there would be an expectation of proper prosecution in such cases.
The shadow Minister asked what the exceptional circumstances might comprise. I cannot give him speculative examples, but the meaning of the term “exceptional circumstances” is well understood in law, and it is a very high bar. It is not a test that would be met readily or easily.
On the fact that the limit on the fine may be specified by a statutory instrument, there is a desire to retain a certain measure of flexibility. I understand the shadow Minister’s concern that the fine may end up escalating to an unreasonably high level, but as he acknowledged in his questions, it is subject to a vote in Parliament. If Parliament feels that the level of fine is inappropriately high, it is open to Parliament to simply vote it down. Then the Government would have to think again and come back to the House with a fine at a more reasonable level. On that basis, I recommend that the clauses stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 77 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 78 to 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86
Giving a community caution
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Philp
Rather like the previous group of clauses, which implemented the diversionary cautions, clauses 86 to 93 lay out the details of the proposed scheme for community cautions, implementing the principles that we have already debated pursuant to clause 76. As I did a few minutes ago, I will go through each clause quickly.
Clause 86 specifies the criteria for giving a community caution. It must be given by an authorised person to someone over the age of 18. The clause specifies the key safeguards whereby an authorised person or prosecuting authority can authorise the use of the caution: establishing sufficient evidence to charge, and an admission of guilt from the offender, who signs and accepts the caution and understands the effect of non-compliance. That mirrors precisely the provisions of clause 77, which we discussed a few minutes ago.
Clause 87 establishes the type of conditions that can be attached, specifying that they should be rehabilitative or reparative—that is very important for the reasons that we have already discussed. It requires that reasonable efforts are made to ascertain victims’ views.
Clause 88 introduces the permissible rehabilitation and reparation conditions, which must have the objective of facilitating rehabilitation in those cases. The clause provides that such conditions may be restricted in some cases and contain unpaid work conditions or attendance conditions.
Clause 89—again, mirroring the previous group—introduces the financial penalty condition. Clause 90 provides the framework for registering and enforcing financial penalties as part of this regime.
Clause 91 provides a framework for court proceedings arising from the enforcement of the financial penalty, essentially to ensure that it gets paid if someone does not pay it. Clause 92 introduces a method for an authorised person or prosecuting authority to vary the conditions, which, again, mirrors the previous group of clauses.
Clause 93 deals with the effect of community cautions where criminal proceedings may not be instituted against the offender for the offence. In particular, if the offender fails to comply with the condition under community caution without a reasonable excuse, the condition may be rescinded and a financial penalty order may be imposed instead, so the consequence of breach here is financial penalty rather than prosecution.
I hope that gives the Committee adequate oversight of the effect of clauses 86 to 93.
Alex Cunningham
Although we were on relatively familiar ground with the new diversionary cautions, the community cautions, on which clauses 86 to 93 set out the detail, are very different from the lower-tier out-of-court disposals currently in use. In fact, they are much more similar to the existing conditional cautions that the diversionary cautions are already designed to replace. There are lots of cautions here—cautions and cautions and cautions.
I spoke earlier about our concerns about the necessity of attaching conditions to the community cautions, so I will not tread the same ground again, but that is an important point. We very much support the simplification of the out-of-court disposal system and the introduction of the two-tier framework, but why are the Government introducing two tiers that are so similar? We should be able to get rid of the confusion of the current system of six out-of-court disposals without so severely restricting the choices of police officers who deal with such a wide range of low-level offending for which a range of penalties may be appropriate.
I understand that the community caution is intended to replace the community resolution. There are two major differences between the two. A community caution will be formally administered by the police, like other cautions, so it will appear on an offender’s criminal record in the same way that other cautions do. There will be a clear statutory rule about the conditions that can be attached to it. That is quite a jump from the community resolution. Community resolutions are voluntary agreements between the police and an accused person. They do not appear on an offender’s criminal record, and the actions agreed to are not legally enforceable.
Bambos Charalambous
Again, on the impact on the black and minority ethnic community, I wonder what thoughts my hon. Friend has on the fact that this would appear on their record if they were to be served a community caution.
Alex Cunningham
My colleague is right to raise the issue of disproportionality in the system. Anything that increases that is not good for us as a country and is certainly not good for the young people involved. It is important that the Government bear that in mind as they bring the measure forward. More importantly, as I said, the Government can get into a situation where they recognise that communities—ethnic minority communities, call them what we will—need to have an understanding of the changes that the Government are proposing, so that we do not find more young people, young black men in particular, with criminal records when that is not necessary.
Secondly, the community cautions will now involve financial penalties. Officers will be able to attach a fine to a community caution as a punitive condition. Failure to meet any of the conditions, including a financial penalty condition, could result in a police-issued fine. Again, that would be quite a departure from the community resolution. Offenders might be asked to pay damages to their victims as part of a resolution, but community resolutions are not used to fine individuals.
Will the Minister tell me, therefore, whether the intention is to replace the community resolution entirely with community cautions? I ask, because Transform Justice has rightly called for some clarity in this area:
“The status of community resolutions under the proposed legislation is not clear. Clause 96 ‘Abolition of other cautions and out-of-court disposals’ states that ‘No caution other than a diversionary or community caution may be given to a person aged 18 or over who admits to having committed an offence’. We are unsure what this means for community resolutions, although we understand the intention is that they will remain available to police if they wish to use them.
Given the value of community resolutions, as an out of court disposal that does not require a formal admission of guilt, the legislation and accompanying regulation should make clear in Clause 96 that use of community resolutions will not be prohibited under the new framework.”
I have already discussed our concerns about the need for a formal admission of guilt for the community caution and the potential that has to deepen disproportionality in our criminal justice system. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate just raised that issue. We all know that there are benefits to having a light-touch disposal to deal with low-level offending in some cases where appropriate. Keeping people out of the formal justice system at this level can help keep them out of it for good and so I wonder whether the Minister thinks that we might be losing a helpful method of disposal here. Finally, how does he anticipate that the low-level offences that benefited from community resolutions before will now be handled?
Chris Philp
I thank the shadow Minister for his speech and his questions. For clarity, in answer to his principal question, the community resolution will still be available to use. It will not be removed by the Bill. As he said, community resolutions have conditions attached to them, but they do not require the admission of guilt— they simply require someone to take responsibility—and, should the conditions not be adhered to, there is in essence no consequence to follow that.
That low-level entry provision will therefore still exist and be available to police officers to use. Because that will still exist, it is appropriate to pitch the community cautions—the ones we are debating—somewhere in between the community resolution, which will remain, and the diversionary caution that we just debated. That is why it is pitched where it is.
There are three principal differences between the diversionary caution and the community caution. The first is on disclosure. We will talk about this when we consider an amendment later, but the community caution is not disclosable in a criminal record check and so on from the moment that the condition ceases, whereas for the diversionary caution a spending period goes beyond that.
The second difference is that, as the shadow Minister said, the consequence of breaching the community caution is the imposition of a fine, whereas for the diversionary caution it can lead to substantive prosecution. Thirdly, the range of offences is somewhat different.
I hope that reassures the shadow Minister that the community resolution will remain—it is not being abolished—and therefore we have a sensible hierarchy of provisions available for the police to choose from. I hope that provides him with the reassurance that he was asking for.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 86 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 87 to 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 94
Code of practice
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Philp
The clauses in this group apply to both types of caution and provide an overarching framework in which the new cautions will sit. Each clause has a particular function, and I will address them in turn.
Clause 94 introduces a general code of practice and requires the Secretary of State to prepare it—we have talked about that already. It specifies the kind of matters that such a code will include, such as the circumstances within the clauses, the procedure, the conditions that may be imposed and the period of time. We talked about that earlier. It is very important that we get that right for the rehabilitative purposes that we have discussed and to cover issues such as the one that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate mentioned. That includes who may give the cautions, the manner in which they may be given, the places where they will be given, how the financial penalty should be paid, how we monitor compliance, the circumstances in which a power of arrest may arise, and so on. I should add that the code cannot be published or amended without the prior consent of the Attorney General. We need this clause to ensure the code can exist.
Clause 95 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations placing restrictions on the multiple use of diversionary and community cautions. They should have reference to the number of times a particular individual has received cautions previously. The regulations made under this clause will be laid in draft form before Parliament for scrutiny and will be subject to an approval resolution of both Houses. That provides a key safeguard and ensures that the out-of-court disposal framework is being used as intended and is not being used inappropriately—for example, where there is repeat offending that should be handled through more serious means, such as prosecution.
Clause 96 abolishes the previous caution regime, as the shadow Minister said, but does not abolish community resolutions. That obviously follows the widespread consultation that we had previously and lays the groundwork for the new system that we debated in the previous two groups.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 94 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 95 and 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 97
Consequential amendments relating to Part 6
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Philp
Clause 97 introduces schedule 10, which makes various consequential amendments to existing legislation to ensure the proper operation of the new two-tier system, which we have just discussed, and the removal of the existing out-of-court disposals. Clause 97 and schedule 10 make those technical changes.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 97 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10
Cautions: consequential amendments
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move amendment 117, page 228, line 15, in schedule 10, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) and insert—
‘(2) In paragraph 1(1)—
(a) for “—“ substitute “at the time the caution is given.”, and
(b) omit sub-sub-paragraphs (a) and (b).”
This amendment would remove the spending period for cautions.
We have discussed a number of important matters over the course of the morning, all of which impact on the lives of young people and older people. They have all been extremely important issues, but for me this amendment is particularly important, because it would make life a lot easier for a lot of people, and probably contribute more than some of the other things that we have discussed to keeping them out of the criminal justice system.
Amendment 117 would remove the spending period for cautions. It would revise the text of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 to the following:
“For the purposes of this Schedule a caution shall be regarded as a spent caution at the time the caution is given.”
Currently the upper-tier disposal of a conditional caution has a spending period that is the earlier of three months or the completion of the caution, and the Bill will maintain that spending period for the diversionary caution. We believe that the spending period associated with diversionary cautions should be removed so that those who receive one are not forced to disclose this record to potential employers. The effect of the spending period attached to cautions is to increase the barriers to employment for those who are diverted from court.
Given the Government’s commitment to reform of rehabilitation periods elsewhere in the Bill—at part 11—we believe that this is a good opportunity to continue the direction of travel that the Government are on, make another positive change in this area and remove the rehabilitation period for cautions as well. The Government may believe that a three-month spending period is required for a diversionary caution in order to support public protection. However, there is strong evidence, of which I am sure the Minister is aware, that employment is one of the most important factors, if not the most important, in enabling people to cease offending. Research has also found that employers discriminate against people with criminal records and that many do not differentiate between a caution and a conviction.
A three-month rehabilitation period is short enough to have little impact on public protection, but its existence requires people in employment to declare the caution and so risk losing their job. It acts as a barrier to those seeking work, education, insurance and volunteering opportunities. It is also important to remember that criminal record disclosure in itself is not really a public protection measure: the general public cannot check a person’s record or require them to disclose it. In any event, under present guidance, if the police or CPS believe that someone is a legitimate risk to others, they would never meet the public interest test for caution instead of charge.
Bambos Charalambous
On the issue of accepting a caution, if people think that it might lead to this being on the criminal record, they might be less inclined to accept a caution and might therefore take their chances by going to court. Does my hon. Friend think that it would potentially lead to more cases going to court if this matter stayed on the criminal record?
Alex Cunningham
Indeed. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that it could lead to greater congestion in the courts system, but the most important thing in all this is that it removes the person’s opportunity to move on with their life in an appropriate way. If they are able to have a caution and they do not have to tell their employer that they have had their knuckles rapped in such a way, they will be able to continue in employment, whereas otherwise they may well lose their job.
In some cases, cautions are appropriate for individuals who pose a low level of risk, but only when combined with other supervision measures. In such cases, that often means the sex offenders register. But in these cases, it is the sex offenders register—or other supervision measure—that acts as the public protection measure, not the spending period attached to the caution.
The spending period also introduces unnecessary confusion for those given cautions. The rehabilitation period will be the same as for the conditional caution, so it will be the earlier of three months or when the diversionary caution ceases to have effect. This is quite a perplexing element of the current system, because those who receive conditional cautions often do not understand the disclosure regime and have no way of knowing whether their conditions are judged as completed before three months. Officers often do not explain disclosure related to cautions comprehensively and offenders do not know that there is a link between meeting conditions and their becoming spent. The situation is so confusing that some third sector organisations that support offenders universally tell them that the spending period is three months from caution, because this is the only way for them to be certain that the caution is completely spent and, therefore, that the offender will not unintentionally fall foul of the disclosure process.
We think it would be preferable to have a “cautions are spent when given” standard. Otherwise, we will end up with a situation in which the criminal justice system is giving out more of the new cautions than prison sentences, but Parliament will have given the cautions a more complex disclosure regime. Perhaps the Government think that a spending period is necessary because of the seriousness of the diversionary caution, but we must remember that rehabilitation periods are not part of the punitive aspect of a disposal, and the knock-on effect on someone’s life from having to disclose should not be used as a punishment. Under current guidance, magistrates and judges are specifically precluded from considering disclosure periods when giving sentences, and they must always give the correct disposal, regardless of the criminal record impact.
With all that said, I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on the need for the spending period for the diversionary caution and other cautions outside the adult regime. We believe that introducing a spending period for the diversionary caution will hamper people’s efforts to gain employment, while doing little for public protection. That is true for the spending period for all cautions. The Government are doing good work in reforming the criminal records disclosure regime and, by extension, helping people to stay out of the offending cycle and rebuild their lives. The amendment has been tabled with the same intention, and I sincerely hope that the Government can support it.
The Chair
Can I just look a Whip in the eye? We are making good progress, and it is nearly 1 o’clock. Some of us—perhaps even myself—would like to have lunch. We do not want to cut the Minister off in full flow, so perhaps it is now time for a break.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Given your generosity, Sir Charles, I would be delighted to move that the Committee do now adjourn.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Thursday 10th June 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 June 2021 - (10 Jun 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
I trust that everyone has returned from lunch re-energised and refreshed. I want to respond to one or two of the points made prior to lunch by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North. In moving the amendment, he argued that the diversionary caution should not have a rehabilitation period of three months from the date of the caution being given or, if earlier, the date on which the caution ceases to have effect because the conditions have been met.
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but none the less I respectfully disagree with him, for the following reasons. First, the offences for which a diversionary caution might be given include offences of a certain degree of gravity. They are offences where there was sufficient evidence available to prosecute, and had that prosecution proceeded, a far more serious penalty, including a longer spending period, would have been applicable. There is a balance to strike between a desire to let the offender move on with their lives and public protection, and the relatively short spending period—only three months, which is not very long—aims to strike that balance.
Secondly, it is important that we distinguish between the diversionary caution and the community caution. One of the ways in which we do so is the fact that the diversionary caution has a three-month spending period until rehabilitation, whereas the community caution does not. Were we to remove that, it would diminish the difference between those two forms of caution. That sort of hierarchy, as I put it before lunch, is important, and we should seek to preserve it, reflecting the fact that diversionary cautions are more serious that community cautions.
There is also a third reason, which occurred to me during the shadow Minister’s speech. Given that the caution can be extinguished, in terms of the need to disclose it, the offender has an incentive to meet the conditions early within the three months. The conditions might include the need to attend a particular training course or to commence a treatment programme if they have a drug or alcohol problem. Saying that the offender has been rehabilitated at the point at which they meet the condition creates an incentive for them to meet it sooner rather than later. We should bear that in mind. Although I understand where the shadow Minister is coming from, for all those reasons I urge the Opposition to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am a little saddened and disappointed that, for all he has said, the Minister does not recognise the real impact that disclosure can have on people, perhaps preventing them from getting a job or even resulting in them losing their job. That is a great sadness. He says that three months is not a very long time, but a person has to report a caution to their employer on the day they receive it, and it could result in their dismissal. Similarly, anyone applying for a job would have to disclose it to the employer, which may well result in them losing that employment opportunity and the chance to turn their life around. Moreover, if an officer is content that a caution is appropriate, why on earth is the additional punishment of a disclosure period being sought? I intend to press the amendment to a Division, simply because I think it is in people’s best interests and represents for the individual given a caution the best chance to change for the better.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Chris Philp
These clauses essentially assist with the implementation of the measures we have debated. Clause 98 sets out that regulations under part 6 are to be made by statutory instrument and the parliamentary procedure applicable. It also provides that regulations may make different provisions for purposes and consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional and transitory provisions and savings. It would not be possible, or indeed appropriate, for all the detail to be set out in the Bill; there is simply too much, and doing so would entail a certain lack of flexibility, as we often discuss. The clause provides the appropriate parliamentary procedure to fill in those details as appropriate, which we will of course debate as they arise. However, the key principles are clearly set out in the Bill, as we have debated.
Clause 99 sets out certain definitions that are relevant for part 6 of the Bill—the out-of-court disposal provisions. The clause is essential to provide clarity in making sure that the new framework, which we spent this morning debating, is properly, accurately and precisely interpreted.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 98 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 100
Minimum sentences for particular offences
Chris Philp
Clause 100 amends the criteria applied for when a court may depart from imposing a minimum sentence. Minimum sentences are rare in this jurisdiction, and generally speaking, but not always, they apply to repeat offences. These minimum sentences are not, technically or legally speaking, mandatory or completely binding on the court, but it is mandatory that the court must consider passing that minimum sentence. The court may depart from imposing that minimum sentence only by having regard to the particular circumstances of the offender and the nature of the case, so an element of judicial discretion is retained.
However, given that Parliament has legislated to set out these minimum sentences, we think it right that the court should depart from the minimum sentences specified by Parliament not by having regard to the particular circumstances of the case but only in exceptional circumstances. In effect, the clause raises the bar for when a judge can depart from these minimum sentences; it tells the judge that circumstances must be exceptional before the minimum sentence is disregarded, to make sure that Parliament’s will in this area is better reflected by the sentences the court hands down.
Clause 100 will cover four offences: threatening a person with a weapon or bladed article, which carries a minimum sentence of four years; a third offence in relation to trafficking a class A drug, which carries a minimum sentence of seven years; a third domestic burglary offence, which carries a minimum sentence of three years; and a repeat offence—a second or higher offence—involving a weapon or bladed article. The clause strengthens the minimum sentences in those cases and makes it harder for the judge to depart from the minimum, or reduces the range of circumstances in which such a departure might occur. Three of the four offences are repeat offences; the fourth is a first-time offence. They are fairly clearly defined offences for drug trafficking or domestic burglary, where Parliament clearly decided in the past that there was less necessity for judicial discretion.
Schedule 11 makes consequential amendments to existing legislation as a result of clause 11, to give effect to what we have just discussed. The amendments are to section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and to the Armed Forces Act 2006.
These offences are serious. In the past, Parliament has taken a view that a minimum sentence is appropriate, particularly for repeat offences. It is therefore appropriate that we today make sure that the courts follow Parliament’s view as often as possible.
I asked for figures on how often judges depart from the minimum sentences. For the burglary offence, the data is a couple of years old, but it looks like the court departed from the minimum sentence in that year in about 37% of cases, so in quite a wide range of cases. It is on that basis—to tighten up the strength of minimum sentences—that we are introducing clause 100 and schedule 11 today.
Alex Cunningham
As the Minister said, clause 100 would change the law so that for certain offences a court is required to impose a custodial sentence of at least the statutory minimum term unless there are “exceptional” reasons not to. This is a change from allowing the court to impose a custodial sentence of at least the minimum unless there are “particular” reasons not to.
The offences and their statutory minimums are: a third-strike importation of class A drugs, with a seven-year minimum sentence; a third-strike domestic burglary, with a three-year minimum sentence; a second-strike possession of a knife or offensive weapon, with a six-month minimum; and threatening a person with a blade or offensive weapon in public, with a six-month minimum.
As the Minister has pointed out, the effect of clause 100 is relatively simple, although the Opposition are concerned that it will also be profound. The law currently allows for minimum custodial sentences to be handed down to those who repeatedly offend. As things stand, judges can depart from the minimum sentences when they are of the opinion that there are particular circumstances that would make it unjust not to do so.
Despite what the Minister says about judicial discretion, the proposition put forward by the Government seems to be that the Government are concerned that the judiciary has been too lenient when imposing minimum sentences, and therefore the law needs to be strengthened in this area. The Government’s solution is to change the law so that for certain repeat offences, a court is required to impose a minimum term unless there are exceptional circumstances not to. In a nutshell, clause 100 seeks to make it harder for judges to exercise their discretion and moves away from the statutory minimum sentence for a small number of offences.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Judges know the case and the circumstances of it, so they are better placed to use their discretion, taking into account the particular set of circumstances, which we cannot know about when we are passing something that gives carte blanche on a particular sentence minimum.
Alex Cunningham
Yes, that is very much the case. These organisations all make the same point: we are limiting the judges’ discretion. We are limiting the discretion of the individual who best knows the case, as they have actually heard the case, so it is certainly worrying. In fact, in the sentencing White Paper, the Government note that “concerns have been raised”, and that some repeat offenders are receiving too-lenient sentences, but they fall short of naming a single body that supports that view.
In the same vein, rather than presenting the evidence for change, the White Paper highlights only a single statistic in relation to those convicted of a burglary who receive a sentence lower than the minimum three-year term. I am sure I do not have to remind the Minister that that is as single statistic relating to a single offence out of his list of four. I ask him a very simple question: what evidence has he brought to the Committee today to show that judges have been unduly lenient when sentencing repeat offenders in relation to the importation of class A drugs, possession of a knife or offensive weapon or threatening a person with a blade or offensive weapon in public?
The second of the Opposition’s concerns is how the proposed changes to clause 100 will further entrench the already shameful levels of racial disparity in our criminal justice system. As the Minister is all too aware, since the Lammy review was published in September 2017, racial disparity in the criminal justice system has got considerably worse. The statistics speak for themselves. Black offenders are 26% more likely than white offenders to be remanded in custody, while the figure for black women is 29% more likely. Offenders from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds are 81% more likely than white offenders to be sent to prison for indictable offences, even when factoring in higher not guilty plea rates. Over one quarter—27%—of people in prison are from a minority ethnic group, despite the fact that they make up 14% of the total population of England and Wales. If our prison population reflected the ethnic make-up of England and Wales, we would have over 9,000 fewer people in prison—a truly staggering figure.
That is before we even begin to touch on disproportionality in the youth system, which is even more pronounced. For the first time, young people from a BAME background now make up 51%—over half—of those in custody, despite that group making up only 14% of the population. The proportion of black children who are arrested, cautioned or sentenced is now twice what it was 10 years ago, and the proportion of black children on remand in youth custody has increased to over a third.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) was asked by the then Conservative Government to carry out his review, he did so in the belief that that Government, and successive Governments, would implement the recommendations he made. Sadly, that was not the case. At the last count, fewer than 10 of the 35 recommendations had been fully implemented. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether that is still the case today and, if so, why the Government have made so little progress on that in the last four years.
The picture emerging from this Government is that they do not care about reducing racial disparities in our criminal justice system, which is not an accusation I make lightly. Statement after statement recognising the disparities and promising change appears to be no more than lip service. Worse still, many of the measures in the Bill will further entrench racial inequality in the criminal justice system—one of them being the introduction of clause 100. It is abundantly clear that the clause will have a disproportionate impact on offenders from a black, Asian or minority ethnic background.
We know from a Government report published in 2016 that for drugs offences the odds of receiving a prison sentence were around 240% higher for black, Asian and minority ethnic offenders than for white offenders. Even the equalities impact assessment that accompanies the Bill acknowledges an over-representation of certain ethnic groups and the increased likelihood of their being sentenced to custody and given a longer sentence. It states:
“We recognise that some individuals with protected characteristics are likely to be over-represented in the groups of people this policy will affect, by virtue of the demographics of the existing offender population.”
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
The figures the hon. Gentleman quotes are of great concern. Is he suggesting that judges show bias and discrimination in the sentences they give?
Alex Cunningham
I am not. The point I am making is that the Government are driving an agenda that will result in more black, Asian and ethnic minority people ending up in the criminal justice system and suffering even greater sentences.
The Government’s own equalities impact assessment goes on:
“BAME individuals appear to have high representation in the Class A drug trafficking cohort and possession of or threatening with a blade… As a result, the proposal may put people with these protected characteristics at a particular disadvantage when compared to persons who do not share these characteristics since they may be more likely to be given a custodial sentence and serve longer sentences than before.”
The Minister could do no better than looking to America to see how three-strike drug laws have had a horrific impact on disproportionality rates in the criminal justice system. As he will no doubt be aware, the three-strikes crime Bill that was introduced by Bill Clinton in the 1990s has been roundly criticised by all sides of the American political spectrum. Democrats, Republicans and even Bill Clinton himself have spoken of how the Bill was a grave mistake that contributed to overpopulated prisons and a mass incarceration of BAME offenders in particular.
What makes this all the more astonishing is that this Government have gone to some lengths in recent times to state their commitment to reducing racial disparity in the justice system. In his foreword to the latest update on tackling race disparity in the criminal justice system, the Lord Chancellor made it clear that addressing the over-representation of people from ethnic and racial minorities was a personal focus for him—that was very welcome. Will the Minister explain, then, why the Government chose not to undertake a full equalities impact assessment of how measures in the Bill could have a detrimental impact on minority groups? Given that many of the measures in the sentencing White Paper involve serious sentence uplifts, it is absolutely critical that the Government fully understand how those from minority backgrounds could be disproportionately impacted. As I have explained, failing to do so runs the risk of further exacerbating the already horrendous disparities that we see in the system today. Is the Minister content to see such disparities widen even further, or will he outline today just what the Government will do to address this issue?
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that being against this kind of disparity is all well and good, but the only way one can reduce it, which I believe is the Government’s policy, is to be very careful—moving policy initiative by policy initiative, and change in the law by change in the law —that new measures take into account the impact of such changes on that disparity?
Alex Cunningham
I most certainly do agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we posed the question: why has there not been a full impact assessment of the impact of these measures on the BAME community? I would go so far as to challenge the Minister and his Government not just to outline the measures they will take to end these disparities but to set themselves some targets to end this injustice once and for all.
The final point I will touch on is how the Government came to a decision on which of the four offences they have included under the scope of clause 100. I remind the Committee that they are trafficking of class A drugs, domestic burglary, possession of a knife or offensive weapon, and threatening a person with a blade or offensive weapon in public. Although those are undoubtedly serious crimes, we have some concerns that focusing on such a small cohort of crimes risks missing the larger criminal forces that are at work in our country.
Take possession of a knife or offensive weapon, for example. All too often when we think of knife crime, the focus of our thoughts is on young men—often young BAME men from a disadvantaged background—carrying knives as part of a gang. Yet this image is deeply simplistic and misses the greater criminal forces at play. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham pointed out, most of the time knife crime is not being driven by youths but by a sophisticated network of veteran organised criminals. As he wrote in The Guardian so eloquently:
“Young people falling into the wrong crowd in Tottenham, Salford or Croydon know nothing about the trafficking of tonnes of cocaine across our borders every single year. They know nothing of the shipment routes from Central and South America that have made London a cocaine capital of Europe. They know nothing of the lorries, container vessels, luxury yachts and private jets that supply our nation’s £11bn-a-year drug market….This isn’t about kids in tracksuits carrying knives, it’s about men in suits carrying briefcases. It is serious criminal networks that are exploiting our young people, arming them to the teeth and sending them out to fight turf wars.”
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman makes some very valid points. Does he agree that this issue is also about middle-class people taking illegal drugs and fuelling this terrible trade?
Alex Cunningham
I certainly agree with the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, and I have given his constituency its full title—how on earth could I ever forget Whitby, when it is one of my favourite destinations for a day out? I am sure he will understand why that is the case. For me, this issue is about how we tackle the guys with the briefcases and not just the young men on the streets? How do we make sure that we deal with organised crime? We have seen some great results recently in my own constituency and across the Cleveland police area, where there have been raids on individual houses and the police found large amounts of drugs. However, those drugs are finding their way in through Teesport and through the Tyneside ports as well. We are failing to get to the people who are driving the entire trade and we need to do much, much more to do so.
With the National Crime Agency currently prioritising cyber-crime, child sexual exploitation and terrorism, and the Serious Violence Taskforce having been disbanded recently, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how anything in clause 100 will tackle serious organised criminality.
To conclude, the Opposition have deep concerns about the introduction of the power in clause 100. We worry that it has been introduced without an evidential basis, without consultation with impacted groups, and without a full equalities impact assessment. Even more importantly, we worry that it will further entrench the already shameful levels of racial disparity in our criminal justice system while failing to tackle the underlying causes of the crimes that we have been discussing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, which I hope will address the issues that I have raised.
Chris Philp
Let me respond to some of the questions and points that the shadow Minister raised in his speech. First, I should be clear that in forming the proposals the Government have considered carefully, in accordance with the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010, the impact that these changes in the law might have on people with protected characteristics, including race. The full equality impact assessment was published alongside the draft legislation, and I can confirm that it is publicly available should anybody want to scrutinise it.
Maria Eagle
Does the Minister accept that despite the Government’s intentions, good as they may be, to reduce disparity, the reality is that it is not reducing and has not reduced since the report was published? Does he therefore accept that the Government need to do more?
Chris Philp
I have not seen the up-to-date data for the past year, but I accept that we need to pay continuous attention to these issues. We need to make sure that the justice system always behaves in a fair and even-handed manner. Clearly, we accept that we need to be eternally vigilant on that front.
To return to the topic of this clause, it is simply about making sure that the decisions taken by previous Parliaments are reflected in the way in which judges take their decisions. We also need to ensure that departing from what Parliament has specified happens only in exceptional cases. Believing as I do in parliamentary sovereignty, that seems reasonable to me.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 101, page 86, line 41, at end insert—
“(bb) the abduction, sexual assault and murder of a person not previously known to the offender,”.
The amendment would extend the whole life tariff captured by the clause to someone guilty of the murder, abduction and sexual assault of a stranger. Later in my speech I will provide substantial detail on why we should do that.
First, I want to demonstrate the Opposition’s support for what the Government are tyring to do with this particular clause. As the Minister will no doubt point out later, a whole life order is the most severe sentencing option available to members of the judiciary in England and Wales. Only a small number of criminals a year will ever be convicted of a crime so exceptionally terrible that it warrants such a punishment. The effect of a whole life order is as simple as it is final. Once sentenced, the offender loses any right of a sentence review. They will spend the rest of their lives in prison, without any possibility of hope or release. From the moment they are sentenced, they will never again set foot outside prison.
The decision to deprive someone of their liberty indefinitely is a daunting one, and I do not envy the enormous responsibility placed at the door of the judges who hear these types of cases. None the less, as an Opposition we are pragmatic. Although we are strong believers in the power and importance of rehabilitation, we accept that some offenders are so uniquely evil that even our greatest attempts to reform them would most likely be in vain.
One only has to consider some of the handful of offenders who have received a whole life order to realise the type of criminality we are dealing with. Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, the Moors murderers, were convicted of the torture and murder of three innocent children between 1963 and 1965. I was eight, nine and 10 years old during that time, and I actually remember the television reports. Dennis Nielsen was a former policeman who murdered and dismembered at least 12 young men and boys between 1978 and 1983. Rose West collaborated with her husband in the torture and murder of at least nine young women between 1973 and 1987, including her eight-year-old stepdaughter. Harold Shipman, the infamous GP, is thought to have been responsible for the murder of over 200 women who trusted him with their care and wellbeing. Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, murdered 13 women and attacked seven others in a killing spree that terrified the nation between 1975 and 1980—the list goes on. Each of those names will live in the consciousness of the nation for evermore. Each was found guilty of crimes so extraordinarily evil that their actions cannot, and should not, be forgotten.
Today, we have before us the question whether to extend the list of crimes for which a whole-life order can be handed down. Under the current sentencing framework, a whole-life order can be given only for
“the murder of two or more persons where each murder involves a substantial degree of premeditation, the abduction of the victim, or sexual or sadistic conduct… the murder of a child if involving the abduction of the child or sexual or sadistic motivation… the murder of a police or prison officer in the course of his duty… a murder done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; or… a murder by an offender previously convicted of murder.”
The clause will widen that list to cover the murder of a child if that murder can be shown to have involved a substantial degree of premeditation or planning.
In coming to a decision on whether that is a proposal the Opposition can support, we must first understand how many additional offenders the Government estimate will be caught by such a change in the law. The Government’s impact assessment acknowledges that whole-life orders are
“an exceptionally rare sentence, with fewer than 5 given out per year on average over the past decade.”
It goes on to note that the measure is expected to increase the number of whole-life orders handed out by
“a maximum of about 10 offenders per year”.
The Sentencing Academy response to the sentencing White Paper noted that the requirement of a substantial degree of premeditation or planning should mean that the number of offenders caught by that charge would be relatively small.
None the less, the Government must face the fact that widening the list of offences that can attract whole-life orders will naturally put an already overstretched prison system under even greater strain. As the Minister will have seen, only last week, an internal survey by the Prison Officers Association showed just how precarious the system is in our prisons. That survey showed that 85% of prison officers report feeling burned out; more than 40% of prison staff are suffering moderate or severe anxiety symptoms; and more than 80% feel that their mental and physical health have got worse during the pandemic. That is on top of what we already know—that our prisons are already overcrowded and understaffed, and are hotbeds of crime, as I said in my contribution to the driving offences debate earlier this week. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister today committed himself and the Government to ensuring that all the toughest sentences in the Bill—not just in the clause—will be properly resourced and funded. Can we have an assurance that whole-life orders will remain a sentencing option only for those who have committed the worst offences?
We must now consider whether the premeditated murder of a child is as heinous a crime as the other crimes that can attract a whole-life order. On that point, the Opposition are clear: it certainly is. The law allows for whole-life sentences to be handed down to those who murder a child following the child’s abduction, or if the murder involves sexual or sadistic motivation. However, the Opposition agree with the Government’s point that any murder of a child committed with a high degree of premeditation should also warrant a whole-life order. What we are talking about here is a purely evil act—killing someone in the prime of life, taking away their opportunity to go to university and to forge a career, and taking away their hopes of settling down and having a family.
For a whole-life order to be handed down, the current legal framework requires the killing of a child to involve abduction or a sexual or sadistic motivation. That raises the question, how can it be possible for the murder of a child not to involve a sadistic intention? When someone chooses to take the life of a child, they do so in the knowledge of the immense pain it will cause the loved ones of the victim for the rest of their lives. Thankfully, the number of offenders who commit the murder of a child with a high degree of premeditation is relatively small, but Labour fully agrees that those in that group of offenders deserve to spend the rest of their life in prison, not only to protect society, but to ensure that their sentence reflects the horrendous nature of their crime.
The Chair
Before we continue, can we be a little careful here? I have been in discussion with the Clerk and others, and I am not sure that we need to be careful, but let us be careful because there is still not a sentence yet. I am sorry—
Chris Philp
The shadow Minister has given a comprehensive and thorough introduction to the topic of whole-life orders, which I had intended to give the Committee myself. As he has laid out the background, I do not propose to repeat it. He accurately described how they operate and the categories of offender to which they apply. As he said, a whole-life order is the most severe punishment that a court can hand down, ensuring that the person so sentenced never leaves prison under any circumstances.
The shadow Minister illustrated the gravity and seriousness of such sentences by listing some of the terrible cases from the past 30 or 40 years, or indeed the past 50 years, in which whole-life orders have been imposed. The clause proposes to add to the small list of offences that qualify for a whole-life order as a starting point the heinous case of premeditated child murder—a crime so awful and appalling that I think all hon. Members agree it should be added to the list.
The murder of a child is particularly appalling, and whether we are parents or not, we all feel deeply, particularly when there is a degree of premeditation—when it is not just in the moment, but planned and intended for some time—that the crime is truly terrible and enormous. That is why the Government propose to expand the whole-life order. I think there is unanimity on that point.
The shadow Minister raised the important question of violence against women and girls, both in general terms and in the context of a particular case, which Sir Charles has asked us to be careful about because it is subject to live legal proceedings. The matter is not concluded before the courts, so of course we should be a little careful. Let me start with the wider issue of violence against women and girls.
For many years, the Government have had an unshakable commitment to protecting women and girls from the completely unacceptable violence and harassment that they all too often suffer at the hands of men. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, the safeguarding Minister, has been at the forefront in recent years—introducing the Domestic Abuse Bill, which reached the statute book as the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 a short time ago, and leading and taking forward our work in this area. In the relatively near future—certainly in the next few months—we will publish a refreshed violence against women and girls strategy and a domestic abuse strategy, both of which will take further our work in this area.
A great deal of work has been done in the last five or 10 years, almost always with cross-party support. For example, banning upskirting started off as a private Member’s Bill and the measure was then passed by the Government. There are also recent measures on non-fatal strangulation, which are critical to protecting women, and work on the rough sex defence, which is part of the Domestic Abuse Act. We have introduced additional stalking offences over the last few years and increased sentences for such offences. A huge amount of work has been done, is being done and will be done to protect women and girls from attack. As the shadow Minister rightly said, women and girls have the right to walk the streets any time of day or night without fear. That is not the case at the moment, and we all need to make sure that changes.
In relation to the terrible crime of rape, it is worth mentioning, by way of context, that sentences have been increasing over the past few years. The average adult rape sentence rose from 79 months in 2010 to 109 months in 2020, an increase of approximately two and a half years—and quite right, too. However, it is not just the sentence that matters, but how long the offender spends in prison.
Via a statutory instrument that we introduced last year, and a clause that we will come to later in the Bill, we are ensuring that rapists spend longer in prison. Those sentenced to a standard determinate sentence of over seven years will now, for the first time, serve two thirds of their sentence in prison, not half, as was previously the case. It was wrong that rapists, when given a standard determinate sentence, served only half of it in prison. It is right that that is now two thirds, when the sentence is over seven years. The Bill goes further, moving the release back to two thirds of the sentence for those convicted of rape and given a standard determinate sentence of over four years, ensuring that rapists spend longer in prison.
I hope that gives the Committee a high level of assurance about the work that has been done already, is being done through the Bill and will be done in future in this critical area. We discussed that extensively in yesterday’s Opposition day debate, which the Lord Chancellor opened and I closed. Labour’s Front-Bench spokesman made the point, fairly and rightly, that rape conviction rates are too low and must get higher. The rape review, which I am told will be published in days not weeks, will propose decisive action to address that serious problem.
I hope that lays out the Government’s firm commitment on the issue and our track record historically—
Alex Cunningham
It sounds as though the Minister is about to wind up without addressing my specific points.
Chris Philp
No, I certainly was not planning to ignore the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. I was simply setting out the wider context and the work that the Government have done, are doing and will do.
I have a couple of things to say about the amendment. First, the offence it describes is obviously horrendous and very serious. It currently carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. Where the murder involves sexual or sadistic conduct, the starting point for the tariff—the minimum term to be served in prison—is 30 years, so a very long time. It is important to note, however, that judges have the discretion to depart from that tariff where they see fit and, if necessary, increase it, including by giving a whole-life order. It is important to be clear that the law already allows for such an offence to receive a whole-life order where the judge thinks that appropriate.
Secondly, the amendment refers in particular to strangers. It would essentially move the tariff’s starting point from 30 years to a whole-life order, the maximum sentence being life in both cases—it would not change the maximum sentence—but it aims that change in minimum sentence only at cases where a stranger has perpetrated the abduction, sexual assault and murder. It strikes the Government as surprising that that distinction is drawn, because the crime described—abduction, sexual assault and murder—is as egregious and horrendous whether committed by a stranger or by someone known to the victim.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It is very easy for us all to determine our own shopping list of changes to the legislation. I take his point that crime committed by somebody who is known to the victim is not any less severe than crime committed by someone who is not known to the victim. However, rather than dismiss what the Opposition are saying, perhaps the Government should say that there is an opportunity here to look at whole life orders and some of the wider aspects. Perhaps other cases should attract a whole life order. The Government have quite a tight group currently, and there is a need for that to be reviewed.
Given the specific things that have happened in recent times, the amendment is about sending a message to women and girls that we are on their side and that we recognise the difficulties that they often face. We recognise their fear of walking home in the evening, particularly if they are on their own. Although society needs to do more to tackle the causes of this type of crime, we should still go ahead with the amendment and ensure that there is a clear message to strangers, or anybody out there, that if they abduct, murder or sexually assault a woman, they will face the full weight of the law. For me, that means the mandatory whole life order, except in exceptional circumstances.
The Chair
Minister, do you wish to come back? I saw you in discussions with another Minister, so I will give you the option. It is not normal to do this, but is there anything further that you would like to add in response?
Chris Philp
I will just say that we are always happy to talk to the Opposition about a matter of this sensitivity, but I remain of the view that we should not single out murders involving a stranger and exclude domestic cases from the Bill, because that would diminish those equally appalling offences in which the victim is known to the offender. It may even be a partner; it may even have happened in her house—yet that is not in the amendment. I ask that we think again about putting it to a vote. I am happy to sit down with the shadow Minister to talk about the issue and about the whole life order question, but I repeat the point that I made earlier.
Alex Cunningham
I appreciate that, but I still intend to divide the Committee on the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Chris Philp
Clause 102 relates to whole life orders, which we discussed fairly extensively a few moments ago. It will give judges the opportunity, in rare and exceptional cases, to use a whole life order on people who are convicted when they are aged between 18 and 20. At the moment, whole life orders can be imposed only on offenders aged 21 or over, but occasionally there are some very unusual cases in which offenders aged 18, 19 or 20 commit heinous offences and a whole life order might be appropriate. For example, an offence of murder, rape and abduction such as the shadow Minister described might be committed by someone aged 20. We think, as I hope the Opposition do, that the judge should be free to impose a whole life order; in fact, the shadow Minister himself made that case very compellingly a short while ago.
I will give an example in which a judge called for precisely that: the notorious, infamous case of Hashem Abedi, the brother of the Manchester Arena bomber. In sentencing him, the presiding judge, Mr Justice Baker, described the actions of the two bombers as
“atrocious crimes: large in their scale, deadly in their intent and appalling in their consequences.”
The judge said that he was satisfied that they had appeared to deliberately target the young audience in attendance at the arena’s Ariana Grande concert in order to heighten the risk of injury and death. He said in his sentencing remarks that
“If the defendant…had been aged 21 or over”
and if a whole life order had been available,
“the appropriate starting point…would have been a whole life order”,
given the seriousness of the crime.
I am sure that every member of the Committee, and indeed every Member of the House, will agree that for crimes as abhorrent as Hashem Abedi’s—murdering so many people in cold blood, many of them young—or in cases of the kind that the shadow Minister spoke about in our debate on clause 101, involving the murder, rape and abduction of a woman, where the offender is 19 or 20 years old, the whole life order should be available to the judge in those exceptional and thankfully rare circumstances.
I think that this extension to the whole life order regime is appropriate. On that basis, I urge that clause 102 stand part of the Bill.
Alex Cunningham
I am getting a little confused now with some of the things that the Minister has said in relation to the last debate and the imposition of whole life orders. I assume that he was referring to the fact that judges have that flexibility rather than being compelled to impose such a sentence.
Chris Philp
The shadow Minister is right. I was saying that, for the kind of offences that he described in the last debate, judges have the ability to impose a whole life order. For murders involving sexual assault and abduction, the starting point currently is a tariff of 30 years. However, the judge has the freedom to go up to a whole life order. But at the moment, the judge cannot do that if the offender is aged 18, 19 or 20. The clause will give judges that freedom.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification. As he said, clause 102 will allow judges to impose, in exceptional circumstances, a whole life order on offenders who were aged 18 to 20 when the offence was committed. Currently, a whole life order can be imposed only on offenders who were aged 21 or over when they committed the offence; we both recognise that. The court will be able to impose a whole life order
“only if it considers that the seriousness of the offence, or combination of offences, is exceptionally high even by the standard of offences”
that would normally attract a whole life order for an offender aged 21 or over.
I start by paying tribute to those who lost their lives on 22 May 2017 at the Manchester Arena. That evening was supposed to be one of fun. Instead, a truly wicked act claimed 22 innocent young lives and left many more lives shattered. As the Minister said, it is only right that Hashem Abedi received the longest sentence in history for his part in the atrocity that night. It is also right that he will spend the rest of his life in jail. Neither of those points has ever been in doubt.
Labour’s overarching commitment is to keeping the British public safe and to ensuring that horrific terrorist attacks such as the one at Manchester Arena cannot be repeated. For that reason, Labour will support the introduction of clause 102. We do, however, seek assurances that the Government will think carefully about their approach to young adults when making sentencing changes in the future.
As the Minister explained, since 2003 the law has provided that whole life orders can be handed down only to offenders who were aged 21 or over at the time of their offence. Clause 102 will make an exception to that rule, so that in exceptional circumstances whole life orders can be given to those who were aged 18 or over but under 21 at the time they committed their offence.
In its briefing on the Bill, the Sentencing Academy indicated that the inclusion of clause 102 seemed to be a response triggered by the trial of Hashem Abedi for his involvement in the Manchester Arena bombing. As many people will know, Hashem Abedi was the brother of Salman Ramadan Abedi and was found guilty of assisting his brother to order, stockpile and transport the deadly materials needed for the attack. In total, he was found guilty of 22 counts of murder, attempted murder and conspiring to cause explosions.
In his sentencing remarks, Mr Justice Jeremy Baker indicated that Hashem Abedi’s actions were so grave that if he had been aged 21 or over, he would have sentenced him to a whole life order. Given that Hashem was under the age of 21 at the time of his offences, the judge was precluded from sentencing him to a whole life order. Instead, he was sentenced to at least 55 years—the longest determinate sentence in British criminal history. Mr Justice Baker made it clear that Abedi would leave prison only if the Parole Board was convinced that he was no longer a risk to society. Even then, he would spend the remainder of his life on licence, with the risk of being recalled to prison. In all likelihood, he concluded, Abedi could expect to spend the rest of his life in prison.
This, to a certain extent, represents the first concern that the Opposition have about clause 102. If the current sentencing regime already allows courts to sentence someone to almost certainly spend the rest of their natural life behind bars, what does clause 102 actually add to the law? As Mr Justice Baker pointed out, the only way Hashem Abedi could conceivably be released from prison is if the Parole Board deemed him no longer to be a risk to society. I am sure that the Minister will agree that after committing such a heinous and fanatical crime, and while refusing to show any remorse for his actions, the chances of his being deemed safe to be released are close to zero. Moreover, given that he will be at least 78 years old before his minimum sentence comes to an end, the chances that he will die before appearing before the Parole Board are considerable.
The other reason why we have concerns in this area was neatly summed up by the Sentencing Academy, which pointed out that, since the current sentencing regime for murder came into force in 2003, the issue of a sentencing judge being prohibited from imposing a whole life order on someone aged 18 to 20 arose for the first time only in 2020. For the avoidance of any doubt, the event referred to in 2020 is that trial of Hashem Abedi.
Chris Philp
I will be brief in my reply. On the need for the sentence, we have already discussed the Abedi case. We have seen that, in his case, it is conceivable that the whole-life order might have made a difference. He would be eligible for Parole Board consideration at the age of 78. In that circumstance, a whole-life order would make a difference because, under one, such a consideration would not take place.
The shadow Minister said that such cases are very rare because, by definition, people who are 18, 19 or 20 have many years of life ahead of them. None the less, they occasionally occur, and it is important that we give judges the ability to deal with that. The fact that we have whole-life orders illustrates that there are limited circumstances in which they are appropriate.
I thought that there was a slight inconsistency in the shadow Minister’s arguments. On the previous clause, he argued for the expansion of whole-life orders, and on this clause—I know he will support it, so I do not want to push this too hard—he raised doubts about the appropriateness of the expansion of whole-life orders. It struck me that there was a slight tension in those arguments.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister must not misunderstand or misinterpret what I was saying. We are fully supportive of what he is trying to achieve here, but we want to make sure the Government recognise that such orders should be used only in the most extreme cases, and maturity has to be an issue.
Chris Philp
We do recognise that. The orders are intended to be used in exceptional circumstances. The phrase “exceptional circumstances” is well established and well known by judges and in law.
On the shadow Minister’s point about accounting for maturity more generally, of course judges take it into account at the point of sentencing. At about this time last year, during the passage of the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021, we discussed extensively the use of pre-sentence reports when someone who is just over the age of maturity but still maturing is sentenced. The fact is that pre-sentence reports can comment on maturity, and judges can take that into account.
I can give the shadow Minister the assurance he asked for. First, the Government are mindful of the issue generally, and, secondly, we expect this to be rare and exceptional. I have a great deal of confidence that the judiciary will apply the flexibility that we are providing in a way that reflects that. As the shadow Minister said, I would not expect the power to be used in very many circumstances, but where terrible cases arise, such as the appalling Abedi case, or a case in which a 19 or 20-year-old abducts, rapes and murders a woman, the whole-life order might be appropriate. It is right that judges have them available to use. I am glad to have the shadow Minister’s support on this clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 102 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 103
Starting points for murder committed when under 18
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Philp
We come now to the sentencing regime for children who commit murder. Thankfully, that is a very rare occurrence, but it does sadly happen. Clause 103 amends the sentencing code to replace the current 12-year tariff point for all children who commit murder, with a sliding scale of starting points. The sliding scale takes into account the age of the child and the seriousness of the offence. It means that the older the child and the more serious the murder, the higher the starting point.
Detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure is the mandatory life sentence for children who commit murder. Starting points are used by the judge to determine the minimum amount of time to be served in custody before the offender can be considered for release by the Parole Board. Judges can set a minimum term that is higher or lower than the starting point by taking into account aggravating or mitigating factors. Rather than having a flat 12-year starting point, as we have at the moment, which does not account for the age of the child—it could be 12 or 17—or the relative seriousness of the offence, instead we will have a sliding scale based on a more nuanced system.
The new starting points represent the approximate percentages of the equivalent sentence for an adult, which of course reflects the seriousness of the particular offence. If the child who has been convicted of murder is aged between 10 and 14, the tariff—the minimum amount to be served—will be set at half the adult equivalent. If they are 15 or 16 years old, it will be set at 66%, and if they are 17 years old—almost an adult but not quite—it will be set at 90%.
The introduction of this sliding scale recognises that children go through different stages of development and that a child of 17 is manifestly different from a child of 10. It seeks to reduce the gap in starting points between someone who is 17 versus someone who is 18, say, but increase it when the person is a lot younger. By linking it to the equivalent sentence for the same offence committed by an adult, it also seeks to reflect the different levels of seriousness that might apply.
This is a sensible and proportionate measure that reflects both age and seriousness. That is not currently reflected in the starting point, and we have to rely wholly on judicial discretion to correct that. This measure makes the provision a little more predictable and transparent, so that everyone can see how the system works.
Alex Cunningham
On 3 May 2019, Ellie Gould was murdered by her former boyfriend in the kitchen of her family home. She was strangled, and stabbed 13 times, in a brutal and frenzied attack. She was only 17 years old and was looking forward to university. Her whole life should have been ahead of her, but it was snatched away in the most horrendous way imaginable.
When Ellie’s former boyfriend was sentenced for his appalling crime, he received only 12 and a half years in prison, meaning he could be eligible for parole before his 30th birthday. If he had committed his crime a year later, after he had turned 18, he could have received a much longer sentence. As a dad and a grandad, I can only imagine the enormous life-changing pain of having a child taken away in such appalling circumstances, while knowing that the perpetrator will be released within a relatively short period.
On behalf of the Opposition and, I am sure, of the whole Committee, I praise the enormous fortitude and dignity that Carole Gould has shown amid such horrendous loss. It is thanks to her tireless campaigning for Ellie’s law that we are discussing the clause. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham made clear in the Chamber some time ago, there is no doubt that Thomas Griffiths received too short a sentence for the crime he committed, and Labour stands firmly behind the Gould family.
As the Minister pointed out, under the current sentencing framework, if a child commits murder before they turn 18, they are sentenced to detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure, with a starting point of 12 years, as opposed to the starting point of life imprisonment for an adult found guilty of the same offence. As such, the way that starting points are currently calculated means that a 17-year-old who, like Thomas Griffiths, commits murder, can receive a much shorter tariff than someone who has just turned 18, even if the crime is more serious.
Clause 103 would rectify that by replacing the 12-year starting point with a sliding scale of different starting points based on the age of the child, as the Minister outlined. The aim is to ensure that sentences given to children who commit murder are closely aligned to the sentences handed down to adults who commit the same offence.
As I set out at some length during the debate on clause 102, the Opposition are naturally cautious when it comes to the age of maturity and increasing the sentencing regime that applies to children. As I have said, that concern is held not only by the Opposition, but by the Justice Committee, which set out unequivocally that:
“Both age and maturity should be taken into significantly greater account within the criminal justice system.”
None the less, as I have said in the past, the Opposition are also pragmatic and recognise that on some occasions, such as the death of Ellie Gould, the sentences that are currently available do not properly reflect the severity of the offence committed.
As Carole Gould has described so movingly, the families of victims of these atrocious crimes often feel that they have faced two gross injustices: first, when the act is carried out, and secondly, when the sentence is delivered. Labour agrees with the Government that in the darkest days of grief, it is deeply unfair that the families of victims feel that they have been cheated of justice when a perpetrator receives a far shorter sentence because of an age difference of a matter of weeks or months.
That is why we, along with the Gould family, were quite appalled when the sentencing White Paper was published with proposals that would have seen Thomas Griffiths receive an even lighter sentence of only 10 years. I am glad that the Government have now seen sense and corrected that point, but not before Labour brought the anomaly to the Government’s attention back in October last year. Labour will support the Government on clause 103 today, but we feel that much more could be done in this area.
As Carole Gould has pointed out, clause 103 deals with the issue of older children being sentenced in a way that is closer to young adults. Another important issue, however, remains to be resolved: the sentencing gap which exists between those who murder within the domestic home and those who murder a stranger in the street. The point made by Carole is a poignant one:
“Why should a life taken in the home by someone you know be valued less than a life taken by a stranger in the streets?”
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move amendment 131, in clause 104, page 89, line 1, leave out “18” and insert “26”.
This amendment would make provision for minimum term reviews for those who are serving a sentence of detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure to continue to take place up to the age of 26.
As has been pointed out, the purpose of the clause is to alter the way in which sentence reviews are conducted for those serving detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure. As the law stands, a child sentenced to detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure may apply to the High Court to seek a review of their sentence once they have reached the halfway point of the sentence. The purpose of the review is to establish whether the offender has made sufficient progress while in prison for their sentence to be reconsidered. If the offender’s application for a review is unsuccessful, he or she may make a further application every two years until the sentence comes to an end.
The effect of the clause is twofold: first, those who have reached the age of 18 at the time of sentencing will no longer be entitled to a review of their sentence. Secondly, those who are entitled to reviews—in other words, those who were sentenced when a child—will be restricted to a single review at the halfway point and, if they have reached the age of 18 by that stage, they will be entitled to no further reviews.
In their White Paper, the Government set out that the intention behind clause 104 was to spare victims’ families the trauma of having to continually revisit the events that led to the loss of their loved one each time an offender applies for a review. Although we sympathise wholeheartedly with that sentiment, we are also mindful of the need to balance it with the right of young offenders to have their sentence reviewed in the light of good behaviour while in prison.
The Opposition’s first major concern with clause 104 is that we believe that those who commit an offence as a child should be treated as a child by the criminal justice system, irrespective of whether they turn 18 by the time they are sentenced. That view is widely held by stakeholders across the justice sector, as well as by Members across the House. As the Minister will be aware, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) has promoted a ten-minute rule Bill to achieve just that.
The Labour party is clear that no child should be put at a disadvantage by turning 18 before being sentenced, especially if the delay has been caused by the record-breaking court backlog. That concern is shared by the Sentencing Academy, which notes:
“We have grave concerns about the removal of reviews from people simply because they have reached the age of 18 at the time of sentencing—particularly at a time when cases are taking so long to reach court due to the backlog of cases that has been exacerbated by the pandemic.”
Bambos Charalambous
Obviously, delays are not particularly satisfactory for anybody, particularly in the criminal justice system. Long delays are not fair for victims, either, or for young people. As the maxim says, justice delayed is justice denied. Does my hon. Friend agree that the criminal justice system needs more investment so that things are speeded up and young people do not end up being sentenced as adults?
Alex Cunningham
I understand exactly what my hon. Friend is saying. However, I know from discussions with the Lord Chancellor that he is very shy about addressing the issue of people receiving an adult sentence for crimes committed under the age of 18 because their case did not get to court until after they had turned 18. He does not appear to have any sympathy for that. I hope that over time we can work with the Government on what happens to children who commit crimes. They should not be disadvantaged by not having their case heard until they become an adult.
The concept of basing minimum term reviews on age at sentencing, rather than on age at the time the crime was committed, has also been rejected by the courts as contrary to the purpose and rationale of the sentence of detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure. As the great Lord Bingham set out in the case of Smith:
“The requirement to impose a sentence of HMP detention is based not on the age of the offender when sentenced but on the age of the offender when the murder was committed, and it reflects the humane principle that an offender deemed by statute to be not fully mature when committing his crime should not be punished as if he were. As he grows into maturity a more reliable judgment may be made, perhaps of what punishment he deserves and certainly of what period of detention will best promote his rehabilitation.”
With that in mind, what guarantees can the Minister provide that no child will be put at a disadvantage because of court delays caused by the huge backlog that has accrued on the Conservative Government’s watch? Similarly, does he agree that it would be hugely unfair for children to be worse off because of something completely out of their control?
The Opposition’s second concern with clause 104 is the cliff edge created by the offender turning 18. As I set out at some length during our discussion of clause 102, the Opposition are very mindful of the significant advances made during the past 20 years relating to the age of maturity. As the Minister is all too aware, it is now widely recognised that young adults are still developing their decision making and impulse control skills well into their mid-20s. As I have said before, that is acknowledged not just by the Opposition but by the Justice Committee, neuroscientists, criminologists and, until recently, this very Government. It is somewhat disappointing, then, that the Government have chosen to create a cliff edge whereby anyone who turns 18 suddenly loses the right to have the High Court review their sentence.
That concern is shared by the Sentencing Academy, which points out:
“The accompanying ‘factsheet’ justifies removing reviews from those aged 18 by the time of sentencing on the grounds that: ‘This is because their age and maturity will have been taken into account at their sentencing’. However, it is an accepted feature of sentencing law that the passing of an offender’s 18th birthday is not a cliff edge in terms of their emotional and developmental maturity.”
I must therefore ask the Minister why, when the Government have previously accepted that
“the system…should presume that up to the age of 25 young adults are typically still maturing”,
they have chosen to create this cliff edge at the age of 18. Not only does this seem unfair; it also seems counterproductive. By removing an offender’s right to a review of their sentence based on good behaviour, the Government are also removing any incentive for that offender to behave well in prison. As the Howard League points out, minimum term reviews are infrequent but important, as they
“offer a rare source of hope and can powerfully motivate young people to make and maintain positive change.”
The Sentencing Academy points out that since 2010 fewer than 10% of offenders serving detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure applied for a second review of their sentence. It says of the proposed change:
“this restriction will merely remove the opportunity of review from a small handful of cases in which exceptional progress has been achieved after the halfway point in the sentence”.
Is the Minister not worried that by removing the right to these reviews, he could be putting overworked prison staff at increased risk of harm?
Although we sympathise with the stated goal that the Government are seeking to achieve through clause 104—to prevent unnecessary distress to the families of victims of crime—in its present form we are unable to support it. Instead, we have tabled amendment 131, which we believe balances the need to protect the families of victims of crime from distress with preserving the rehabilitative benefits of being able to request a sentence review. The mechanics of the amendment are simple. Instead of ending the right to a sentence review at the age of 18, the amendment would make provision for minimum term reviews up to the age of 26, reflecting the widely held view that young adults are still developing in maturity well into their twenties, while also providing a powerful incentive to motivate young offenders to reform and rehabilitate while in custody.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Chris Philp
Once again, the shadow Minister has helpfully laid out the context and the background to the clause. I will not irritate or detain the Committee—or perhaps both—by repeating the information that he has given.
These reviews provide an opportunity to look again at the minimum term handed down, but it is important to remember that we are talking about a cohort of people who have committed a very serious offence: murder. As the shadow Minister said, when sentence is first passed on a child, the judge passing the sentence will include in their consideration the maturity of the person at that point. There is an acceptance that further maturing may occur subsequently, which is why the review mechanism exists. Even with the reform proposed in clause 104 there can still be a single review once the individual is over 18; it is only subsequent reviews—a second, third or fourth review—that the clause would preclude. Given the likely length of sentences or of minimum terms, as well as the fact that most people receiving a first sentence will probably be in their mid or late teens, it is very likely that in almost all cases there will be one review after the age of 18. We are simply precluding those further reviews.
The shadow Minister says the clause might affect incentives. Once the minimum term has been reached, whether it has been reduced or not reduced, the Parole Board still has to consider whether release is appropriate, so even if the minimum term is not reduced, there is still an incentive to behave in prison and to engage in rehabilitation and so on, in the hope of getting the Parole Board release once the minimum term has been reached. So I do not accept the argument that the clause changes the incentives to behave well in prison.
On the point about people maturing beyond the age of 18, for first sentences, that is reflected in the sentence passed by the judge, informed by pre-sentencing reports. As I have said previously, the law as we propose to amend it will still allow—most likely in almost every case, or very many cases—a single review after the age of 18. That is analogous to the judge, when sentencing someone for the first time at the age of 20, 21 or 22, or even slightly older, taking into account maturity at the point of sentencing.
Alex Cunningham
I am sorry, but I do not accept the Minister’s argument. He himself talked about the small number of applications under the existing system, but he is choosing to remove that opportunity for all, with the exception of the one opportunity. I refer him again to the quote from the Sentencing Academy:
“We have grave concerns about the removal of reviews from people simply because they have reached the age of 18 at the time of sentencing—particularly at a time when cases are taking so long to reach court”.
The very fact that young people can be denied further reviews because they have reached the age of 18, and their case has not reached court through no fault of their own, is deeply unfair. For that reason, I will push the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Chris Philp
The clause will increase the amount of time that an offender sentenced to a discretionary life sentence will be required to serve in custody before they can be considered for release. A discretionary life sentence can be imposed for any offence that has a maximum period of life where the court believes that the high seriousness of the offending is such that a life sentence should be imposed, rather than a lesser determinate sentence. Such offences include manslaughter, rape, and grievous bodily harm with intent.
When imposing such a sentence, the court must set a minimum term, or tariff, that must be served in full in custody before the prisoner can be considered for release by the Parole Board. At present, when setting a discretionary life tariff, the sentencing judge will identify a notional determinate sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offence as well as time spent in custody on remand and the early release provisions that apply to that notional determinate sentence in order to calculate the tariff. In practice, the standard approach applied by the court is to decide what the notional determinate sentence would be for the offence committed and then calculate the tariff based on half that notional determinate sentence, reflecting the release provision requiring automatic release at the halfway point for prisoners sentenced to a standard determinate sentence.
That is no longer fit for purpose, because the Government have legislated to remove automatic halfway release for serious sexual and violent offenders serving a standard determinate sentence of seven years or more. In fact the next clause, 106, will extend that principle further to many standard determinate sentences of four years or more. That means—anomalously—that the most serious offenders given a standard determinate sentence will serve longer in prison and be released only after serving two thirds of their sentence, but the people I have just described with a discretionary life sentence will not. The Government’s proposal will align the automatic release point for serious offenders serving standard determinate sentences with the earliest possible point at which the Parole Board may direct release for those serving sentences of particular concern or extended determinate sentences, namely two thirds of the custodial term of such sentences.
For the most serious terrorist offences, through the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 we brought in new provisions meaning that offenders must serve their custodial term in full. The clause will ensure that the approach to release for those serving determinate sentences for serious offences is reflected in the way in which minimum terms for those serving discretionary life sentences are calculated. They will be brought into alignment, avoiding any anomalies. Judges will, of course, retain discretion to depart from the starting point as they consider appropriate in the cases before them.
The clause will bring discretionary life sentences into line with the broader approach for dangerous offenders, so that the most serious offenders will serve longer in prison before they become eligible to be considered for release by the Parole Board, thereby ensuring that the punishment better reflects the severity of the crime. In effect, it introduces consistency between the discretionary life sentences release provisions and those we introduced in the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act this year, which we are expanding in the Bill. It is a measure that brings consistency and keeps serious offenders in prison for longer. I therefore hope that the Committee will agree to the clause standing part of the Bill.
Alex Cunningham
As the Minister said, the clause will change the way in which the minimum terms of discretionary life sentences are calculated. As the law currently stands, and has stood for quite some time, discretionary life sentences are calculated at one half of what the equivalent determinate sentence would be. The clause enacts a proposal in the sentencing White Paper to change the way in which life sentences are calculated, so that they are based on two thirds of the equivalent determinate sentence rather than one half.
The Government’s rationale is set out in the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill, which say:
“This change is necessary because most serious violent and sexual offenders who receive determinate sentences—including those who may receive an extended determinate sentence—are required to serve two-thirds of their custodial term before they may be released.”
That refers, of course, to other recent changes to release arrangements that mean that certain categories of offender must now serve two thirds of their sentence, rather than half, before they can be released.
Like the previous sentencing changes, the clause will make an already complicated sentencing regime even more complex by changing the way in which sentences have long been calculated. It is somewhat ironic that the Government on the one hand claim to want to make sentencing simpler, and on the other hand make a series of reforms that do the exact opposite. I will develop that point in more detail when we come to clause 106, but let me give a broad overview of what I mean.
In advance of the publication of the sentencing White Paper in September 2020, the Lord Chancellor set out in a column for The Times—sorry, for the The Sun on Sunday, which is quite a different paper—that
“Sentences are too complicated and often confusing to the public—the very people they are supposed to protect.”
The Lord Chancellor returns to this point in his foreword to the White Paper, stating that
“The system we have today can be complex and is too often ineffectual. Victims and the public often find it difficult to understand, and have little faith that sentences are imposed with their safety sufficiently in mind. The courts can find it cumbersome and difficult to navigate, with judges’ hands too often tied in passing sentences that seem to make little sense. The new Sentencing Code is a good start in tidying up the system, however we must be mindful not just of how sentences are handed down, but also how they are put into effect.”
The Opposition agree wholeheartedly with the Lord Chancellor’s sentiment, which is why we welcome the new sentencing code with open arms and why we are a bit puzzled by some of the measures in the Bill.
I am not from a legal background, so perhaps I am missing something here. Can the Minister explain in simple terms how the myriad changes to release arrangements for certain offences will make sentencing simpler, rather than more complicated? If the Government’s objective is to keep dangerous offenders in prison for longer, why do they not simply legislate for longer custodial sentences, rather than moving the date at which prisoners are either automatically released or released by the Parole Board? Not only would it be a simpler approach, but it would ensure that offenders still serve 50% of their sentence in the community, which we know will significantly reduce their risk of reoffending. Again, this a point that I will draw on further when discussing the next clause.
The other concern we have about clause 105 is that it fails to recognise the fundamental difference between discretionary life sentences and determinate sentences. As the Howard League sets out in its briefing:
“In contrast with the determinate serious sentences, a person serving a discretionary life sentence will be liable to detention until the day he or she dies and there is no automatic release date. The blanket increase in the punitive period therefore cannot be grounded in protecting the public as that is covered by the jurisdiction of the Parole Board: it is simply a hike in the punitiveness and there is no evidence to justify this in terms of reducing long-term harm or increasing public safety.”
In other words, the Government cannot rely on the rationale that clause 105 and the extension in the way discretionary life sentences are calculated is for the purposes of public protection.
When discretionary life sentences are handed down, the offender knows that he or she will be released from prison only if the Parole Board considers it safe to do so. This is a decision made by the Parole Board, regardless of whether it is taken at the halfway point or two-thirds point of a sentence. Instead, we are inclined to agree with the Sentencing Academy, which suggests the clause is all about
“solving a problem of the Government’s own making”
as a result of previous changes to the point of automatic early release.
To wrap up, the Opposition are concerned that the clause will make an already overcomplicated sentencing regime even more complicated, contrary to the Government’s desire for simpler system. It will also have no impact at all on the decisions made by the Parole Board, which remains the ultimate decision maker as to when somebody on a discretionary life sentence is safe to be released. For those reasons, we cannot support the clause.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tobacco Control Plan
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
I remind Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements, and timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the following debate. There will also be a suspension between each debate.
I remind Members participating virtually and physically that they must arrive at the start of the debate in Westminster Hall, and Members are expected to remain for the entire debate. I also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, could they contact the Westminster Hall Clerks? Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them, and when they leave the room.
I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn, except, of course, when speaking. Members attending physically who are in the later stage of the call list can use the seats at the back of the Gallery, but I think we are okay on space today.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered recommendations for the forthcoming Tobacco Control Plan.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. In December, the Minister confirmed to Parliament that the Government will publish a new tobacco control plan this year, setting out measures to deliver the smoke-free 2030 ambition in the 2019 prevention Green Paper. I welcome this announcement: as a former chair of the Gateshead tobacco control alliance, this issue is close to my heart. In my own area of County Durham, adult smoking prevalence is 17%, compared with 13.9% nationally, and rising to 27% among people in routine and manual occupations. Some 16.8% of mothers smoke during pregnancy, compared with 10.4% in England, and smoking in County Durham has an annual cost to society of approximately £122 million.
The Secretary of State himself stated that the “extremely challenging ambition” of a smoke-free 2030 will not be delivered by business as usual. The new report from the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health sets out the evidence-based recommendations needed to achieve that ambition. Smoking is responsible for half the difference in life expectancy between rich and poor, and the impact is passed down through generations, with those who grow up in smoking households far more likely to become smokers. With 1,500 people dying from smoking-related diseases every week, and less than a decade to go to achieve a smoke-free 2030, there is no time to waste.
However, this will not happen without investment. That is why the key recommendation of the APPG’s report is for a smoke-free 2030 fund, requiring the tobacco industry to pay for tobacco control. This is the “polluters pay” approach that the Government committed to considering in the 2019 prevention Green Paper. As such, can the Minister assure me that the proposals put forward by the APPG on smoking and health will be considered as part of the forthcoming control plan? In particular, will the Government deliver on their commitment to consider a US-style “polluter pays” approach to fund the tobacco control measures needed to deliver a smoke-free 2030?
More investment is needed, because the huge gap in smoking prevalence between those in routine and manual occupations and those in other occupations is stubbornly persistent. Ending smoking would lift around 450,000 households out of poverty, including more than 250,000 million children and 140,000 pensioners, concentrated in the most disadvantaged parts of the country. That would not only benefit the health and wellbeing of individuals but inject money into local economies, which would show just how serious the Government are about the levelling-up agenda.
Smoking is linked to almost every indicator of disadvantage, and those indicators overlap different communities. Smokers in routine and manual occupations or who are unemployed are also more likely to live in social housing and to be diagnosed with mental health conditions. The Government have been unsuccessful so far in reducing the inequality gap in smoking and need to redouble their efforts to achieve a smoke-free 2030 for all. There is a clear need for a national strategy that targets investment and enhanced support at disadvantaged smokers.
Unfortunately, smokers from deprived communities with higher smoking rates tend to be more heavily addicted than those from more affluent areas. Analysis of Government data shows that in 2019 nearly half of England’s smokers were in routine and manual occupations or were long-term unemployed. They are just as motivated to quit as other smokers, but it is harder to succeed when smoking is more commonplace and cheap, illicit tobacco is widely available.
Regional tobacco control programmes have been effective in tackling these disparities, as shown by the example of Fresh in the north-east, which is the longest-running—indeed, the only surviving—regional office of tobacco control. When Fresh was founded in 2005, smoking prevalence in the north-east was over 20% higher than the national average for England, and the disparity was growing. Since then, the north-east has seen the greatest decline in smoking prevalence of any region: smoking prevalence in the north-east is now only 10% higher than the England average. However, the regional work done in the north-east and elsewhere has been limited by cuts to the public health grant for local authorities since 2015-16. This led to the closure of the regional offices in the north-west and the south-west, and funding in the north-east has been significantly reduced. New funding streams are needed.
Smokers can successfully quit only if they are motivated to make an attempt to quit. Sustained mass multimedia behaviour change campaigns are the most impactful and cost-effective way to provide that motivation. The US Government’s “Tips From Former Smokers” campaign was funded by tobacco manufacturers through the USA’s user-free scheme, which raises $711 million annually from the tobacco industry. The Food and Drug Administration campaign led to over half a million sustained quits in three years, and it was associated with healthcare cost savings of $11,400 per lifetime quit.
Such campaigns have an immediate impact and can be targeted with precision at disadvantaged smokers, yet investment in behaviour change campaigns has fallen year on year in England. This has coincided with a significant decline in the number of adult smokers who have tried to quit. In 2008, 40% of adult smokers in England had tried to quit within the previous year; by 2018, that had fallen to just 30%. Over the same period, funding for mass media campaigns fell by over £20 million.
Behaviour change campaigns need to be targeted at key groups and communities to reduce socioeconomic inequalities. The effectiveness of national campaigns can be significantly enhanced when they are supplemented by targeted regional campaigns. Regional funding for stop-smoking behaviour change campaigns in the north and midlands would support the levelling up of some of the more deprived regions of England. These are the regions with the highest rates of smoking, combined with the lowest gross disposable household income. Supporting smokers in these regions to quit will prevent people’s hard-earned incomes from going up in smoke, lifting thousands of households out of poverty and providing a boost to local economies.
Modelling by University College London for the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health estimates that a sustained national behaviour change campaign aimed at deprived smokers, combined with regional campaigns in the north and midlands, would result in an additional 1 million quit attempts, 179,000 successful quit attempts and 45,000 more ex-smokers in C2/DE occupations in England by 2030. The investment required is estimated to be about £28 million a year, which the tobacco manufacturers could easily afford to pay from their £900 million profits in the UK—and more than three quarters of the public want the tobacco manufacturers to pay for those measures. Does the Minister agree that targeted investment to tackle high rates of smoking among our most deprived communities is vital to delivering the Government’s levelling-up agenda?
Sadly, illicit tobacco is more accessible to children, and as it is cheaper than legally sold tobacco it reduces the incentive for adult smokers to quit. In 2018-19, the total tax revenue lost because of illicit tobacco was estimated by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to be £1.9 billion. The illicit trade is heavily concentrated in the more deprived communities, contributing to higher smoking rates. Addressing that disparity requires tackling both the supply and demand for illicit tobacco in communities where it is endemic.
In the north-east, there have been dedicated multi-stranded programmes of work in place since 2007 to reduce the supply and demand as part of a broader activity to reduce smoking prevalence and improve the population’s health. Such programmes drive a strategic approach to tackling illicit tobacco at local, regional and national level. One programme was described as follows:
“an exemplar of partnership working…and…deserves to be widely disseminated”—
a recommendation supported by the National Audit Office. Unfortunately, that has not yet been possible owing to lack of funding, and the funding in the regions where it does exist is under threat because of cuts to public health budgets. Fresh and the Greater Manchester health and social care partnership have estimated that it would cost approximately £5 million annually to roll it out across England.
As the Minister said at the launch of our report, we need to get HMRC to do more to tackle illicit tobacco. Just £5 million for a highly effective regional programme is peanuts and would return far more in lost revenue than it costs. Will the Minister commit to discussing with HMRC how funding can be found for the illicit tobacco partnership to extend cover to all the regions of England to reduce the use of illicit tobacco, which is endemic in poorer communities in every part of England?
We are delighted that the Minister was able to attend the launch of the report by the APPG. I know how passionate she is about the issue. I look forward to hearing her response to our report and recommendations. I am confident that if the Government can embrace our recommendations in the forthcoming tobacco control plan, we will be well on the way to a smoke-free England by 2030.
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, I should say that I shall be moving to Front-Bench contributions at 2.35 pm. I suggest an informal five-minute time limit to enable all colleagues to make their contributions. I call Bob Blackman.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I am the co-sponsor of the motion, so I crave your indulgence slightly because I have a rather longer speech than five minutes will allow. It is a pleasure to follow my co-sponsor, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). I chair the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, which published the report on the tobacco control plan yesterday.
We were delighted when my hon. Friend the Minister set out the need for a new control plan last December, and we commissioned Action on Smoking and Health and SPECTRUM, a widely acknowledged scientific research consortium, to put together a report for us on what needed to be done and why. The importance of the ambition is very clear: the chief medical officer, Professor Chris Whitty, recently said that smoking is likely to have killed more people in Britain than the covid-19 pandemic, with more than 70,000 people dying from smoking last year in England alone—and for every person killed by smoking, another 30 live with the serious consequences of smoking-related illnesses. Ending smoking is essential if we are to reduce health inequalities between rich and poor, level up the nation and increase healthy life expectancy by five years, in line with the Government’s manifesto commitments.
The smoking rate in my Harrow East constituency is lower than average for England, but there is no room for complacency. More than one in 10 of my constituents smoke, and smoking kills 250 of my constituents every year. In 2018, there were 1,566 smoking-attributable hospital admissions in Harrow alone. Research shows that smokers are likely to need social care a decade earlier than non-smokers because of the impact of smoking-related diseases and disability.
Inequalities in smoking have grown, not shrunk, in recent years. To be smoke free by 2030, we need to reduce smoking by two thirds in only a decade, and by three quarters for smokers in routine and manual occupations. Cancer Research UK has said that, at current rates of decline, we will miss the target by seven years, and by double that for the poorest in society, because there are still 6 million smokers in England. We will achieve a smoke-free 2030 only by motivating more smokers to attempt to quit using the most effective quitting aids, while reducing the number of children and young adults who start smoking.
It is right that the Government brought forward the ambition of the prevention Green Paper, and we need to ensure that bold action is implemented, with appropriate investment. The Health Foundation estimates that a minimum of £1.2 billion is needed to restore public health funding to 2015 levels, and that a further £2.6 billion is needed to level up public health across the country.
The APPG’s view is that when it comes to ending smoking, the industry that makes excess profits from the sale of tobacco should pay, as it does in the US. The US’s user fee legislation raises $711 million annually from the tobacco industry; a similar approach could be introduced in the UK, with a statutory smoke-free 2030 fund imposing a targeted tobacco manufacturer profit cap and utility-style price controls in order to raise funds from the industry through a charge-based mechanism on sales volumes. It would not apply just to tobacco, because obviously this is about incentivising the industry to deliver on making smoking obsolete by 2030. It is quite clear that this is more than demonstrated by the market failure that has happened, and we need to get on with it. Will the Minister commit that the APPG recommendations for a “polluter pays” approach will be considered as a funding mechanism for the forthcoming tobacco control plan?
We also need to look at raising the age at which young people can buy cigarettes. Clearly, young people who start smoking continue to smoke into adulthood, so one of the areas that we have explored is raising the age of sale. It was raised from 16 to 18, which produced a 30% reduction in smokers aged 16 to 17 years old. It would be helpful if we could get to a position whereby 18 to 20-year-olds were prevented from smoking, so will the Minister commit to conducting a consultation on raising the age of sale from 18 to 21 and to coming to a decision about whether to go ahead by the end of 2021?
We have been a leader in the tobacco control plan, but obviously the position is that we have set the record. Now that we are free from the European Union, we can make decisions on our own. Will the Minister investigate extending Official Development Assistance funding for the FCTC 2030 project for a further five years?
Finally, the Minister is the lead for the World Health Organisation’s FCTC in the Department of Health and Social Care, so will she commit to provide the leadership in other Government Departments and public authorities that we need to fulfil their legal obligations to prevent tobacco policy from being influenced by the tobacco industry?
I have been able to touch on only four of the recommendations that we have made, and there are 12 in the report. I urge all Members to read the full report and the recommendations. The recommendations are supported not just by the APPG, but by leading health organisations too numerous for me to mention. There is good evidence that the recommendations will work in synergy to drive down smoking rates, and the forthcoming tobacco control plan offers the perfect opportunity to put them in place. I commend our recommendations to the House, and look forward to the reply of my hon. Friend the Minister.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for having secured this important debate and speaking so eloquently, especially as the Department of Health and Social Care is looking to publish a new tobacco control plan later this year. The forthcoming plan is an enormous opportunity for the Government to cement the UK as a global leader in tobacco harm reduction. Having left the European Union, the Government must—alongside the post-implementation review of the tobacco and related products regulations—set a clear direction for reducing smoking prevalence and improving public health.
However, if the Government are to achieve their ambition for a smoke-free society by 2030, their forthcoming tobacco control plan must champion the less harmful alternatives to combustible tobacco. In particular, a significant and growing body of scientific evidence shows vaping to be the most effective alternative for adult smokers looking to quit smoking. In their blueprint for better regulation, the UK Vaping Industry Association made a series of recommendations to the Department of Health for consideration when reviewing the tobacco and related products regulations—a process that is already underway. These recommendations, many of which I support, can also be applied to the Government’s tobacco control plan.
The first recommendation involves effectively tackling the increasing levels of misinformation, as well as the increasing misperception of the relative harm of e-cigarettes versus combustible tobacco. Action on Smoking and Health data suggests that millions of smokers—more than half of the 6.9 million remaining in the UK—could now be dissuaded from exploring switching to e-cigarettes because of incorrect views or confusion about the harm of e-cigarettes. To combat increasing misinformation, the UKVIA recommends that the Department of Health launch an effective communication strategy. This should include the introduction of approved health claims and switching messages that can be displayed on vape device and e-liquid packaging alongside nicotine health warnings, a proposal similar to those explored by the Governments of Canada and New Zealand.
In addition, it is important that medical professionals at local stop smoking services are sufficiently supported, with clinicians signposted to the latest clinical guidance and evidence on e-cigarettes. An evidence-based approach to smoking cessation must be adopted consistently by local stop smoking services to support patients in their harm reduction journey. This is critical, considering the upcoming trials in NHS A&E departments. The forthcoming tobacco control plan should also make provisions for a review of the regulation of nicotine in e-cigarettes, to better understand the role nicotine plays in allowing e-cigarettes to be a satisfying alternative for adult smokers wishing to make the switch away from smoking. For them to compete with combustible cigarettes and provide a satisfactory alternative for those looking to switch, they must provide a comparably satisfying nicotine experience. It is the toxic by-products of combustion, not the nicotine, that are responsible for smoking-related death and disease.
Understanding the alternatives to combustible cigarettes and making a clear distinction between smoking and vaping is critical to our smoke-free ambitions and changing misconceptions. Our all-party parliamentary group for vaping made several recommendations in our report on vaping in workplaces and public places. These are endorsed by the UKVIA and, if implemented, would support adult smokers in their transition to less harmful alternatives and give those who have already made the switch the best chance of sticking at it. I can provide the Minister with a copy of that report, if she so wishes. My late husband Ray is an example of such a switcher: having smoked from the age of nine with a couple of interludes, he made the switch to vaping several years ago, and was never separated from what he called his “pipe”. I might add that he did not die of a smoking-related illness.
Finally, I turn to another opportunity to enact the meaningful regulatory change to support smoking cessation. The Government are currently considering the submissions made to the consultation on the review of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016. Like many others, I eagerly await the publication of the Department’s response, which has already been delayed from May 2021 until later this year. It is hoped that the Department of Health and Social Care will continue to take an evidence-based approach to the regulations and listen to the experts. The TRPR review can help shape the UK’s approach to tobacco harm reduction considerably and can significantly support the next tobacco control plan. I look forward to the Government’s response to the tobacco and related products regulations review and the publication of the tobacco control plan. I hope that they make the most of these unique opportunities to support adult smokers in their transition to a less harmful alternative.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and the APPG on securing this debate. I declare an interest: I am an honorary life governor of Cancer Research UK.
Smoking is, of course, a significant cause of ill health and death in this country, and the Government should be congratulated on the progress they have made to reduce the incidence of smoking, but the rate of reduction is sadly still not enough. A recent Cancer Research UK report found that, at current quit rates, the UK will not reach its smoke-free target until 2037 at the earliest—seven years late. To meet the target, quit rates will need to increase by some 40% over the next 10 years. In other words, we are at risk of enduring several more years of heartbreak for families, strain on the NHS and avoidable deaths—a pattern that can, and of course should, be broken.
Three months ago, I was fortunate enough to be selected for a Westminster Hall debate on this issue. I made the point then that the tobacco control plan was our chance to break that pattern. Now is our opportunity, and if we are to seize it, the control plan must be ambitious. I would like briefly to propose three courses that I believe should form part of the plan’s recommendations.
First, the key issue with smoking is, of course, the smoke. An evidence-based policy that seeks to assist the 7 million cigarette smokers in the UK must put forward alternative products to combustible tobacco. Continuing to raise awareness of those products is key, so I suggest that the plan should facilitate the use of cigarette pack inserts and online communications as ways of reaching smokers directly. E-cigarettes and other alternatives to combustible tobacco save lives, and we should make sure that that message reaches every smoker in Britain.
My second point is about access to those alternative products. E-cigarettes have been hugely important in the fight against smoking, and I commend NHS England for promoting them to smokers. The strategy is based on evidence, and has a proven positive effect on the health of the nation. In 2017, more than 50,000 smokers who would otherwise have carried on smoking stopped with the aid of a vaping product.
The tobacco control plan should advise what else can and should be used to assist smokers to quit, in addition to e-cigarettes. That is crucial when we consider that, for all the impact vaping has had, 50% of people who have tried e-cigarettes go back to smoking. We should not limit our response to one weapon. Nicotine pouches, heated tobacco and other emerging products are there to be used, and their efficacy and utility should be the subject of urgent study. The tobacco control plan should embrace the new products and allow for more measures for companies to promote.
Thirdly—this relates to my previous point—the plan should contemplate legislation for a new robust regulatory framework that can cover all the products within the market. We should not allow our focus to be narrowed to e-cigarettes alone. New products are entering the market, and the UK must be open to the kinds of innovations that save lives.
I have two brief final points that I wish to make, to which I hope the Minister will respond. First, there is a slight lack of clarity about whether the new plan will take account of the conclusions of the post-implementation review of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 and the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015. On Monday, I received a written reply from the Minister, in answer to a written question, which said:
“Evidence gathered from this Review will be considered as part of the development of the new TCP.”
I hope the Minister will confirm that all the evidence from the review will be fully reflected in the plan.
Secondly, I return to a point I made in the previous Westminster Hall debate—that is, the opposition of the World Health Organisation, which has called for a ban on reduced risk alternatives to combustible tobacco. To listen to that call would run counter to the success in smoking reduction that has been achieved in the UK, and I strongly urged the Government to stand up to the WHO at COP9 and to advocate a change in policy from it.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller, and lovely to see you in the Chair. I refer Members to my registered interests. I am the chairman of the Gallaher charitable trust, which was formed after the closure of a tobacco company in Northern Ireland.
Let me turn to the subject of the debate. Facts are stubborn things. We all appreciate that, and we must ensure that any actions we take to address facts are based on evidence. I am a non-smoker. I do not encourage people to smoke. I do not want people to smoke, and I recognise the impact that smoking has on people’s lives, but like many substances, tobacco is a lawful product, and I will not tell other adults what they should do or not do with lawful products.
Tobacco is one of the most highly regulated products and the most highly taxed product in the UK—about 90% of the cost of an average packet of cigarettes is taxation. That tax disadvantages poorer households in my constituency and across this country than the most affluent. The UK tax regime is designed to control tobacco and the sale of tobacco, but it has had the opposite impact. It has driven up the price of the product and encouraged smuggling of illicit product. Many people have made the wrong choice to purchase that illegal product. Therefore, under the current mechanism, everyone is a loser. It is not working.
On 2 June—just nine days ago—the Northern Ireland Border Force, at the real border in Northern Ireland, which is the land border, seized 4.4 tonnes of illegal tobacco, which, if sold, would have stolen from you, Mrs Miller, and me and our taxpaying constituents £7.24 million in unpaid duty. Tobacco control measures ought not to be about trophy taxation or gimmicks, but should be primarily about reducing consumption by good education and good enforcement, and secondly about minimising crime by directing resources to the tackling of criminality associated with activities related to illegal tobacco.
None of the control measures addresses that issue seriously. Government policy has failed to do that, and I believe that today’s proposals fail to do it. Instead, they are about unnecessary tax and minor tinkering such as putting another written warning on the cigarette stick. When the cigarette is in a person’s mouth, it is too late to put such a warning to them.
HMRC already generates £11.8 billion in tax on tobacco, yet it loses almost £2 billion in revenue annually in illegal sales of tobacco product. That is because the control plan is one-dimensional and, frankly, stupid. It does not work. Since 2000, tobacco smuggling has stolen from you, Mrs Miller, and me and our taxpaying constituents a revenue loss of—wait for it—£47.2 billion. That has been stolen from us by tobacco smugglers. Surely we can have a plan that, instead of punitively taxing a lawful product more, lets consumers see that money being spent on tackling this international, multibillion-pound crime of racketeering. Imagine a control plan that, over the next 10 years, would deliver £40 billion in revenue to hon. Members’ constituencies. Imagine what we could do for hospitals, schools and the defence budget. Imagine what we could do with the overseas aid budget.
I want the Government to be creative and to stand up to people who say, “Just put on more tax,” because clearly that does not work. Frankly, the control plan will not save one life from the effects of smoking, will not stop one smoker from smoking, and will not stop one smuggler from bringing in illegal products. If the Government want, unintentionally, to fill the pockets of organised crime gangs, undermine legitimate businesses and ruin small shops throughout the country, they should stick with the plan, but they should not be smug about it, because the plan is not working.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your strong and stable chairmanship, Mrs Miller. It is a great privilege to speak in the debate, and I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for introducing it.
We are debating a vital issue, and the UK can be No. 1 in the world for its approach on reducing smoking and the harm it causes. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his input into the report and his earlier contribution, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) for his apposite remarks, which I am sure the Minister took on board. I also commend the Minister herself, and the Government, for their approach. I would say that she is mistress of the brief, as we have had many conversations and interactions through correspondence, and there is no doubt that she gets all the issues to do with smoking cessation devices and the tobacco control plan.
The industry in the UK seems to be aligned with the Government’s objectives on reducing smoking, as Philip Morris, British American Tobacco and many of the other firms recognise that this is the end of the game—it is the end of smoking in the United Kingdom, even if that might not be the case in certain far eastern countries, in Africa or elsewhere. The companies accept their responsibilities, and it would be of no surprise to them—they would not be disappointed about this—that they needed to make contributions to a fund to help to secure the goal of a smoke-free Britain, which should certainly be firmly on the table.
I speak as chair of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology and a member of the all-party group on e-cigarettes, and it seems to me that we are in an era in which we must be driven by data and evidence. There can be no doubt that the data is completely one way on vaping devices, electronic nicotine delivery systems and all sorts of other technologies to help smoking cessation. Vaping, using an electronic device or even using snus is so much safer than smoking. Smoke is the killer; tobacco is the killer. I urge the Minister not to do what the European Union has done, or what the World Health Organisation seems to be doing, by mangling the two issues. Tobacco is one thing; smoking cessation devices, which in most cases contain nicotine, are a completely different thing, with a completely different scale of harm and risk.
I recognise that other hon. Members will talk about various recommendations from the all-party group on smoking and health, so let me briefly focus on three. Recommendation 5 says that smokers should be advised annually of their options for quitting. Reminding people that they can choose an alternative to smoking is an important step forward. If we ask any smoker—I was a smoker for a few years, some time ago—“Would you like your children to smoke?” they all say no. It is clear that no one really wants to smoke, no matter what their brain says about dopamine levels. In that scenario, I think it a good idea to remind people annually that there are alternatives. Nicotine patches are not the only alternatives. Those have some efficacy, but, to be frank, very little for the money that is paid for them. People should certainly consider vaping devices.
The second recommendation I draw to hon. Members’ attention to is No. 6, which is support for those with mental health challenges. It also says
“for those living in social housing”,
but I will broaden that slightly to those on lower incomes and in lower-paid jobs, among whom there is a far higher incidence of smoking than in the general population. There is work to be done to focus the efforts in those areas.
Recommendation 11 is also important, because there is still an ambiguity about whether vaping is a smoking cessation device or just another way of inhaling nicotine. It is clear from the evidence that it is a smoking cessation device that works, and it is twice as effective—if not more—at helping smokers to cease smoking as the other available treatments. Let us dig into the pockets of the tobacco companies—they are actually happy for their pockets to be dug into—and use that money to publish the relative health benefits of vaping, e-cigarettes and other alternatives to smoking.
Windsor is a lovely seat, and thankfully we have slightly lower smoking rates than the rest of the country, but we still have perhaps 200 or 300 people a year dying of smoking-related diseases, as well as all sorts of other challenges.
In conclusion, we are first in the world for genomics, for the vaccine roll-out, and for FinTech and financial services. Let us make this another one: let us be the first in the world to implement a tobacco control plan that completely takes on board the wonderful innovation of vaping devices, e-cigarettes and all the other technology, and let us not mangle it together in a tobacco directive.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Miller. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this important debate to consider smoking cessation.
I will start with a few figures, just to show why this issue is important to me. It is very difficult to get constituency figures, as I am sure colleagues have found, so we are looking at local authority areas. The covid-19 pandemic recovery makes it particularly important to set out an ambitious national strategy to tackle smoking and to address, once and for all, the tragic health inequalities that smoking causes.
In Gateshead, 17.1% of the population smokes, compared with 15.3% across the north-east. That figure is well above the England average of 13.9%. It is estimated that smoking costs Gateshead around £48.3 million a year through smoking-related health and care needs, lost productivity and premature death. Between 2016 and 2018, there were 1,227 deaths attributable to smoking in Gateshead, which is significantly higher than the per population average for England. Between 2016 and 2018 in Gateshead, there were 515 deaths from lung cancer and 412 deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. More than 80% of those disease cases were caused by smoking. Between 2016 and 2018, there were, sadly, 29 stillbirths in Gateshead, which is above the per population average for England. Smoking during pregnancy has been shown to double the risk of stillbirth.
Although adult smoking rates have declined in recent years, inequalities in smoking rates between different groups have remained stubbornly high. The next tobacco control plan must go further in providing additional quick support for smokers in communities and groups with high rates of smoking. That is essential if we are to tackle the health inequalities in our society after covid-19, and indeed before that time comes.
I support wholeheartedly the recommendation of the APPG that tobacco manufacturers should pay the costs—on the “polluter pays” principle—of creating a smoke-free 2030 fund and helping to meet that target. Indeed, it is absolutely essential that we achieve that target.
Smoking during pregnancy is the leading modifiable risk factor for poor birth outcomes, including stillbirth, miscarriage and pre-term birth. The Government’s ambition is to reduce smoking in pregnancy to 6% by 2022, but with a rate of 10.4% in 2019-20, that target is unlikely to be met. National rates of smoking in pregnancy have only declined by 0.6 percentage points since 2015, although some regions—such as the north-east, I am glad to say—have seen much larger declines. Clearly, there is much to be done.
Ensuring that pregnancies are smoke-free and that there is greater consistency across the country must be a major focus of the next tobacco control plan, if we are to deliver a smoke-free start for every child by 2030 and give them the best start in life. The highest rates of smoking among pregnant women are in young pregnant women. Nearly a third of pregnant women in England under the age of 20 are smoking during early pregnancy and at delivery, compared to around one in 10 pregnant women overall. As well as being more likely to smoke in the first place, younger mothers are less likely to quit prior to conception, whereas older mothers are more likely to have quit when planning a pregnancy. As such, driving down rates of smoking in the younger population should have a rapid impact on rates of smoking in pregnancy.
A woman’s circumstances also greatly affect the likelihood that she will smoke in pregnancy, with smoking in pregnancy concentrated among those who live in an area of deprivation or high smoking prevalence, those who live with a smoker, those who smoked through a previous pregnancy, and younger women.
There is so much more we could say on this issue, but the key thing is that we need to consider ideas such as financial incentive schemes. Those that have been implemented in Greater Manchester and south Tyneside are highly effective at reducing rates of smoking in pregnancy among women from deprived backgrounds. They are also cost-effective, with an estimated return on investment of £4 for every £1 invested.
To finish, can the Minister assure me that the next tobacco control plan will include a national strategy for reducing rates of smoking in pregnancy, learning the lessons from the areas where the greatest declines in smoking in pregnancy have occurred? Will she commit to introducing a national financial incentive scheme to achieve the aim set out in the tobacco control plan? Will she also commit to consulting on raising the age for the sale of tobacco to 21, to reduce the number of young people who become addicted to smoking?
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller, as others have said.
I also follow others in thanking the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for securing this debate. I also thank Action on Smoking and Health for providing a briefing for it. I am conscious that most of this debate and this documentation relates to England. There are some aspects that apply to Scotland; indeed, I hope they will be replicated in Scotland and I will do my best to encourage some action to be taken, because some actions are cross-border, if not universal. It is from that perspective that I come to this debate.
As others have said, or confessed to, I do not smoke; I never have smoked and I have discouraged my family from so doing. I come from a generation in which youngsters, such as myself, who were quite interested in sport were told by Jim Watt, the boxer, that he could be caught by a right but never with a fag in his hand. I think that Scotland would be a better place if we had had similar efforts on alcohol, but we only concentrated on smoking. That is where we are coming from. We have made progress from the time of my childhood in the ’60s and ’70s, but there is still a considerable distance to travel, especially when we find smoking rooted in the poorest areas, where there are already underlying health vulnerabilities, and indeed in other sections of our society. There is considerable work still to be done.
The question is this: what action is to be taken? It is not a question of what action per se, because action has to be taken; it is more about the extent and calibration of the action that is taken. I say that because I wish to ensure that the social progress that we need to make, and want to make, in tackling smoking and the social ill that it is does not come at a cost to other communities or, indeed, in the form of other aspects that cause harm in our community.
I come from the perspective of having served as Justice Secretary in Scotland for seven and a half years. I established a serious organised crime taskforce. As other speakers have mentioned, there is a link between illegal tobacco and serious organised crime. Not only is there a link between them; it also turns into other harms that plague our communities. In my interlude between Parliaments, I chaired the Scottish Anti-Illicit Trade Group, which sought to bring together all organisations involved in law enforcement and keeping communities safe, at whatever level and in whatever jurisdiction. Indeed, it also brought in business, because a problem shared is a problem halved.
I want simply to highlight that cost loading has limits. That is not to say that there should not be cost loading. It is quite correct that the “polluter pays” aspect should be considered. I certainly argued that as Justice Secretary in the case of alcohol, and that has been taken up. Equally, to what extent do we load it? I am no free market capitalist, but I recognise, as did Adam Smith, that there has to be some regulation and that we have to ensure that there is some control over the market, because we know that in other aspects of society, if we close down supply, we find it simply results in aspects coming around in other ways.
I am not here to make a special plea for big tobacco. I would not seek to do that. They can fight their own battles, but there is an effect on others. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), small grocers—people who pay their taxes—are affected. They employ staff, provide for their communities, work on limited margins and yet they lose out. The tragedy we face is that people view illicit tobacco as simply ripping off big tobacco or, even more likely, ripping off the taxman—they have no love for him either—but the reality is that they are harming their communities and those who pay their taxes and work hard. They are harming their families and, indeed, their neighbours who work in and depend on employment in local stores, whether they purchase from a pop-up Facebook page or from a white van man.
Action has to be taken, and I support calls for an improvement in what we do to tackle the illicit trade. Much more could be done at a governmental level on both sides of the border. In terms of today’s debate, I welcome progress and fully support what has been called for here today. I simply emphasise that we have to ensure that we get the calibration right. In seeking to tackle harm within our communities, we must keep it proportionate and at a level that will not be counterproductive, because we do not want to make further progress in tackling tobacco that at the same time results in fuelling organised crime and in other aspects being abused. It is therefore a matter of balance.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) [V]
Thank you for calling me to speak in this important discussion, Mrs Miller. It is a pleasure to speak here under such a distinguished Chair. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who secured this important debate.
I should declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. We have made fantastic strides in this country to reduce smoking, but black and minority ethnic communities are being left behind. Rates of smoking among Asians are declining more slowly than the national average, so I want to see more done to empower them to choose to go smoke-free. One size fits all does not work anywhere. When I chaired the health scrutiny taskforce on smoking cessation as a councillor in 2003, we knew that differential outcomes were inescapable while we did not offer a range of options. Now, nearly 20 years on, we have gone backwards. Government money for cessation services has dried up.
The report that our APPG launched yesterday says that polluters should pay. That is a principle we all recognise, and I agree with it. Some tobacco companies have been clear that they will fund smoking cessation services for local authorities at this time of massive pressure on local health budgets. I assume that that would be welcome. The real costs of losing smoking cessation services are the years of good health lost, and there is a range of lower-risk options out there right now. Any of them is better than smoking.
I come from a family of smokers, although I do not smoke and have never done so. Personally, I do not see the appeal, but clearly people are addicted, and addiction needs treatment, not moralising. Three million people now vape, and nearly all of them are former smokers. That is 3 million fewer people choosing a less harmful option. This is good news, but BAME communities, and people with manual jobs and without university degrees, are about two and a half times more likely to smoke than their white, office-working and university-educated colleagues. That has to be addressed, and it has to be part of our future plan to support everyone we can to be smoke-free.
Emerging opportunities, such as tobacco-free nicotine pouches and “heat not burn” products, still present a health risk, but it is less than that of cigarettes. I want my constituents, and anyone who wants to smoke less, to know about the opportunities to improve their health. A range of options make it easier to quit eventually, as we noted in the health scrutiny taskforce on smoking cessation. We need an ambitious tobacco control plan that recognises the opportunities and legislates for new products. “Heat not burn” products and tobacco-free nicotine pouches will play a role, just as vaping has persuaded more people to quit smoking or to move to less harmful alternatives.
In Asian communities, we need to offer alternatives to chewing tobacco and betel. There are terrible statistics about the rates of oral cancers, and anything that reduces those rates will save lives. Pretending that millions of people will give up smoking just because we hope they will do so will get us nowhere, but working to move people down a ladder of lower-risk products really would save lives.
Thank you, Mrs Miller, for giving me the opportunity to contribute my few thoughts.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and the APPG for securing this important debate.
I must first announce my interest in the debate as a former smoker. I grew up in the ’80s, and most of my peer group smoked. I can recall purchasing cigarettes at the local sweet shop, which was happy to accommodate the limited budget of schoolchildren by allowing us to buy our cigarettes individually. I came from a household in which there were adult smokers, and for me to take up the habit seemed almost inevitable. I have fought a lifelong struggle against smoking to kick the habit, but it was not until I was pregnant with my first son that I felt able to give up. Although I have returned to it once or twice, I am pleased to say that I have now not smoked for more than a decade.
The tobacco industry’s excessive profits are built on establishing an addiction in people like me in their teens, who unfortunately will often not succeed in stopping before it kills them. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) spoke about the figures in Gateshead, which is one of my local authorities. Smoking is estimated to cost my other local authority, South Tyneside, about £37.9 million every year. That is through smoking-related health and care needs, lost productivity and premature deaths.
I support the recommendations made by the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health for a comprehensive strategy. It calls for additional regulation and targeted investment, with the full engagement of health and care services and a shared mission to end smoking. The communities where smoking is still part of the daily fabric of life need investment to ensure that the support is there, particularly for those with high levels of addiction. Services need to be much closer to the people who need them—in social housing, mental health services, children’s centres and LGBT service settings. Wherever the need is greatest, we should make the support available. I agree with the APPG that it is not the taxpayer but highly profitable tobacco companies that should foot the bill for these important services. Funding is needed now—we cannot wait—so does the Minister agree that the Government should include provision for a smoke-free 2030 fund in the health and social care Bill and bring this measure into force in 2022?
Funding and investment in communities with the greatest need are important to help more smokers to quit, but we also need to prevent young people from starting. Reducing the availability of tobacco to young people can help to achieve that, and existing laws on age of sale need to be fully enforced. Although retailers need a licence to sell alcohol, no licence is required for the sale of tobacco products. Therefore enforcement action can be slower and more complex and, ultimately, have less impact on retailers that break the law than would be the case if a licensing scheme were in place. Data from both YouGov and ASH, which I thank for their help with my contribution, show that retailers and the public support the introduction of a licence for retailers selling tobacco products.
Introducing a licence need not be costly. The tracking and tracing system is already in place for tobacco retailers. As a result, there would be minimum extra burden for retailers and wholesalers in turning it into a public health licensing scheme; there would be little additional administrative cost. At the same time, it would equip local authorities with more effective powers to protect their local communities from those who sell tobacco products to children. Will the Minister commit to establishing a public health licensing scheme for tobacco retailers to make it easier to prevent underage and illicit sales of tobacco in order to further protect children from taking up smoking?
The NHS has committed to supporting more smokers through the NHS long-term plan, but as with all plans, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. With all the pressures in the system right now, there is a risk that the roll-out is uneven, with smokers who need support missing out. Integrated care systems are responsible for putting in place prevention plans for their populations, and those plans need to meet the needs of smokers and ensure that the commitments in the long-term plan are delivered on. Will the Minister ensure that all ICS prevention plans are published and include as an objective achieving a smoke-free 2030? Finally, I hope that the Minister will consider tasking NHS England with establishing an operational plan to support all smokers in primary care and community mental health settings.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mrs Miller. I say a big thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for their doughty leadership on this issue, for their work in the APPG on smoking and health and for securing this debate, which has been a particularly good one. The points that my hon. Friend made about regional disadvantage and the way in which that links to every indicator of social deprivation and then to smoking were really good ones. It was very interesting and pleasing to hear about the work that has been done in the north-east about closing the gap. That, to me, served as an endorsement of regional approaches and, beyond that, sub-regional approaches, which I think we have lost in recent years and which I hope, through this plan, we can rebuild.
On the regional theme, my hon Friend was joined by a fine array of north-east MPs, who surround me here— I did feel rather out of place. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) made a really strong and compelling case for alternatives such as e-cigarettes and vaping. The thing I took away from that was how unequivocal it was. There is a real danger of being squeamish and equivocal about these new models, and I do not think that serves anyone. That is a theme that I will come to shortly.
That theme was shared by the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones). I agreed with the points he made about the new regulatory framework and the regulations. The review gives us a real chance to look at these things, so I hope we will hear some more from the Minister on that. Similarly, the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) talked about data and evidence. We have a common goal: we want fewer people to smoke and die. It behoves us, therefore, to follow the data and evidence about how to do that and not to be squeamish when they point one way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) made very poignant points about baby loss and smoking during pregnancy. She and other hon. Members will have heard some of the reasons why women smoke in pregnancy, which include perceptions about having a smaller baby and family traditions of doing so. The reasons are complicated and various, so we need ground-level, peer-led services to tackle that. Much of the content of the Leadsom review will help us in that space, so I hope to hear a commitment to that from the Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) talked about regional inequalities and made a point about having services nearer to people. I will return to that shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) also talked about inequalities—this time around ethnicity. We should not lose that in this debate. He also talked about localised approaches by service leaders who know their communities and have effective ways to reach different people. I think that is the whole battle here.
The hon. Member for Harrow East spoke with characteristic plainness, but we needed a bit of that. The 2030 target is a stretching one. At the current rate, we are seven years behind, but in the poorest communities it is 14. That means that we need big ideas. The document that he co-authored through the APPG has big ideas, and I will touch on a couple shortly.
I agree with the points that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made about organised crime. Again, that can form part of a tobacco control plan. I think there is complete political consensus about that. I do not agree that increasing the cost has not been an effective way of reducing smoking. Over two decades, it absolutely has. I also do not agree that tobacco control plans over the past couple of decades have not had an impact. Clearly, they have, and I will touch on that shortly.
For me, smoking is the ultimate equalities issue. It accounts for half the difference in premature death between the best and the worst off, so if levelling up is to be the theme of this Parliament, post covid, it seems that smoking is a very good place to start. I have similar statistics to those of my colleagues. In Nottingham, where I live, smoking rates are well above the national average: 20.9% of our community smokes, compared with an England average of 13.9%; and 16.5% of pregnant women are smokers when their baby is born, compared with 10% nationally. The cost to us is about £75 million every year through health and care needs, lost productivity and premature death, so tackling this is a really big prize for a community such as mine.
We should be confident that we are building on a platform of two decades of good progress on smoking cessation. Under Labour and Conservative Governments, we have implemented a comprehensive approach to tobacco control, including banning smoking in public places and cars, point-of-sale display bans and standardised packaging. All that has contributed to driving down smoking rates and discouraging young people from starting. We are here in a spirit of cross-party co-operation, and we are in lockstep in support of the goal of being smoke free by 2030.
I very much welcome the APPG’s report, which sets out the bold steps that we ought to take if we are to achieve this extremely challenging ambition. Among other things—this is always a very good place to start—it highlights the strong public support for that ambition: three quarters of the public are in favour, and that includes majority support for key recommendations from voters of all political parties. There is a clear mandate for action. I want to take the opportunity to thank Action on Smoking and Health, both for its work as the secretariat to the APPG and for the support it has given me in developing policy.
In this debate and the one we had a few months ago, colleagues have given the Minister plenty of content for the new control plan—in fact, probably a whole control plan and a bit more—but I want to offer a few points myself. First, the focus must now be on inequalities. Yes, this is a national goal and effort, but to make the most progress, we need locally led, community-sensitive smoking cessation services. The evidence for those is very strong indeed. It is a source of sadness that the Government have lopped away at the public health grant to the point that it has reduced by more than 40% since 2013, and those cuts have of course fallen disproportionately on poorer communities. If we are wondering why progress is stubborn in those areas, that is a significant reason, so I hope to hear a commitment from the Minister today to restore funds lost, with a particular focus on need. The report helpfully suggests an industry fund to cover the cost. Frankly, we should never have disinvested in the first place—cutting smoking cessation services is the falsest of false economies—but if the Government come up with an alternative along those lines, we will of course be supportive.
I want briefly to mention raising the age of sale to 21. We know that the best way to reduce smoking is never to start and we know that young people who start smoking generally tend to regret doing so. Seventy per cent. of adult smokers in England want to quit and an even bigger proportion—three quarters—regret ever having started, which makes an interesting point about raising the age of sale to 21. One of the things that surprised me in the report was the level of public support for that proposal—I did not think it would be as popular as it is—so the recommendation of at least a public consultation is a sound one. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on that, because it would be a very interesting public debate to have.
Turning to e-cigarettes, vaping and similar, this must be a feature of the tobacco control plan. I hope that the Minister and the Government more generally, via their role in the World Health Organisation, can push harder for stronger and clearer messages, based on the data and evidence, at the WHO level. I looked at the WHO website yesterday, and while I fancy myself as quite a smart guy—I might hide it well sometimes—I could not fathom what it was trying to tell me. It was incredible. That sort of equivocation makes it really hard for people thinking about alternatives to know whether they are supposed to go ahead or not.
I always rely on the Public Health England position in 2018 that these products represent a 95% reduction in harm, which seems a pretty good place to start. The APPG report says that in 2017 they helped 50,000 people to stop smoking and that concerns around children’s starting have not materialised. The 2017 tobacco control plan included a promise that:
“The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency...will ensure that the route to medicinal regulation for e-cigarette products is fit for purpose so that a range of safe and effective products can potentially be made available for NHS prescription.”
This has not happened; it now must happen, and I hope it is a main feature of the new plan. The Government should also seek to regulate this market through the regulations review, to ensure that it promotes quality, safety and protection of young people.
Finally, the 2030 target is a vital and unifying goal, but we cannot wait until 31 December 2030 to look at the stats and see whether we have made it. We know it is a stretching target and we know we are currently not on course, hence the need for a new plan as soon as possible, but that plan has to have interim goals so that we know whether we are making enough progress. Again, the APPG report made some very good suggestions on that.
The report also makes strong recommendations on the data we do not currently have, which is a particular challenge in the case of people living with mental health conditions, who we know have disproportionately high rates of smoking. Data is collected in primary care on smoking status and mental health, but not routinely analysed. Smoking status data can also be collected through the mental health services dataset, but this is not done routinely. As a result, our data for folks with serious mental illness and others in secondary mental health services is not good. Reliable data is an important part of being sure that we are making the progress that we want to in this area, so I hope we will hear a commitment from the Minister on interim targets and better data.
To conclude, if we want a big public policy win—and goodness, this is about as big as they come—whether it is early intervention we are into or reducing inequalities, this is a major chance to make a step change. We need a plan, we need a good plan, and we very much look forward to playing our role in that process.
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
May I remind everyone that only Members physically present can intervene on the Minister?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this important debate. I also thank everybody for the constructive tone in which we have discussed what is an incredibly important subject and for the acknowledgement that if we are to meet what is a very stretching target, we will all need to work together.
The hon. Member for City of Durham has highlighted the excellent work being done through the smoke-free programme in County Durham to drive rates in her area down, and I know that she fully supports that. As she alluded to, the aim is to reach 5% by 2025 through the regional tobacco control plan that Fresh drives forward, but since the launch of that in 2005, the north-east has seen a massive—47%—drop in smoking rates. I know that those rates are still above the national average, but I wanted to highlight how much I agree with that localised approach to delivery, making sure that we can focus services on those living in the local area.
I congratulate people on their successes so far, but as several right hon. and hon. Members have said, we cannot be complacent. Smoking rates at the time of delivery are among the lowest the country has ever seen, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has a relatively low rate in his area. I appreciate the passion shown through the cross-party work that has taken place to bring together these recommendations, because, as many have highlighted, one of the big challenges is the variation—across different groups in our society, but also across different regions of the country. If we are going to target those with higher incidence, we are going to have to accept that some areas will probably need more help than others.
We need to work together, and yesterday I was incredibly pleased to go to the launch of this report. I found the speech by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) incredibly poignant. I could not agree more: specialist cessation to help young mothers quit is so important, and the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) has said that it was that point in her life that was pivotal in helping her make that decision. Yesterday, we listened to a respiratory consultant who said that she ran out of her office and downstairs to speak to a young mother who was pregnant with twins, to try to get her to stop smoking. I do hope that mother was able to quit, and I assure hon. Members that this is a particular focus of mine. I have already spoken to the chief medical officer about the new Office for Health Promotion making smoking, and particularly smoking in pregnancy, a real focus. As I said yesterday, we get more bang for our buck here: not only do we help Mum but, in this case, we helped twins—that is three people—and as I have seen through some fantastic smoking cessation work in Bolton, we often get a partner, a mother, or someone who is supporting Mum to quit as well. That helps everybody to move forward.
The report and its recommendations are excellent, and I have listened with interest to the remarks made by right hon. and hon. Members today. Smoking prevalence is at an all-time low—just under 14%, and almost half the rate it was back in 2002—and it is right to celebrate where we have come to, but it is also right to say that we have a long way to go. The continued support through stop smoking services across England has been pivotal: since 1990, these services have stopped 4.7 million people smoking. That is more people quitting than the combined populations of Birmingham, Greater Manchester and Leeds, which is quite a remarkable achievement.
Smoking is linked to half a million hospital admissions each year, so the role that the NHS and charities play in helping smokers quit is also essential. The NHS long-term plan commits to supporting smokers admitted to hospital to quit, as well as pregnant smokers—pregnant mums—and their partners. It also commits to helping long-term users of specialist mental health and learning disability services, and we are ensuring that there is sufficient training, with challenge groups making sure that people get the right interventions and the right help when they intersect with these services. Funded early-implementer sites and services are also being stood up, because we cannot be complacent and we cannot wait for these timelines. I heard strongly that people want interim targets, and we will look at that in the strategy. It is important that we try to keep on track and ensure that we keep our focus on 5%.
Smoking is responsible for an estimated 75,000 deaths in England each year. That is unacceptable because it does not just affect the individual; families and everybody around them also suffer. As many hon. Members pointed out, it has a substantial financial impact on the country as well as a health and emotional impact. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) said, we have to go at things hard if we are to see that success.
I assure everyone that we are considering alternative products in the plan in so far as they are alternatives. Ultimately, we want people to quit, but as the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) said just a few moments ago, the indication is that e-cigarettes, for example, are 95% better than smoking, so let us be sensible about how we take people on this journey. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) will be interested to hear that, although snus is currently banned under the regulations, we are undertaking a review and will consider the evidence base.
The Government will publish the new tobacco control plan, which will set out how we achieve this, and I am pushing hard to ensure that the strategy is published as soon as possible; I am ambitious to try to publish ahead of the recess in July. However, as I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members are aware, new data on smoking prevalence will be released in July and I want to have time to ensure that the plan takes appropriate, targeted action on that data. Anecdotal evidence causes me some concern that we may have seen individuals taking up smoking. The new plan, which will expand on the success of the 2017 plan, builds momentum to support communities and groups where rates are not falling enough. As I say, I am exploring many of the issues we have covered to guarantee that the new plan will be bold enough for smoke-free 2030.
We know that reductions in smoking at a national level mask the significant health inequalities that many right hon. and hon. Members have spoken about. Smoking remains very high in certain areas of the country, particularly in deprived areas and among communities who can least afford the financial effects—as if anyone can afford the health effects. For example, prevalence in Blackpool is nearly 24%; in Richmond, it is down at 8%.
Adam Afriyie
I am encouraged by the Minister’s words. Will she confirm that she sees this as part of the levelling-up agenda? Given that particular regions and social groups have more of a challenge than others, it seems to me that it collides well with the Prime Minister’s levelling-up agenda, certainly in terms of health inequality.
Jo Churchill
Indeed I do. Actually, the levelling-up agenda and our manifesto commitment to ensure five more healthy life years must be driven by achieving the targets we have set ourselves. Smoking has such a direct correlation with other illnesses. My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West mentioned his interest with Cancer Research UK, and we know about the link to cancer, but there is also a link to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as well as other respiratory challenges and so on. As I say, a disproportionate burden is borne by those disadvantaged families and communities.
I thank the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) for making an interesting point. I assure him that we are focused on the need to make these interventions local. The local directors of public health and PHE drive plans in localities. I would like to think that we have taken, and can take, much learning from the successful local interventions of the past 18 months, such as with the vaccination programme. There are also clever uses of technology, where we have prompted people to take a vaccination. That might be interesting to look at in connection with recommendation 11, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) alluded—I think it was him—requiring people to be prompted annually. They might look at that particular behaviour in order to modify it.
I could not agree more with the person who said that data saves lives—indeed, it does. The more we understand about the data held across the NHS, the more we can use it effectively to target interventions and to ensure that people get not only the right treatment but the right care, at the right point on their life’s journey.
In the new plan, we will ensure that we have a strong focus to drive down rates across the whole country, ensuring that they are level to where rates are the lowest, because everybody deserves to live in an area where we have targeted smoking rates and are achieving success. For too long, the harms from smoking have hit those areas that already face challenges. One in 10 babies is born to a mother who smokes. It is estimated that one in five new mothers smokes in Kingston upon Hull, compared with one in 50 in west London. It is those disparities that we need to tackle.
We must also close the gap seen among smokers with mental health conditions and smokers in routine and manual occupations. Could we be cleverer? Could we work in workplaces, for example? It is vital we continue to support interventions that make the most difference, helping people to cease smoking and encouraging them to move to less harmful products.
Liz Twist
We have not had much time to talk about mental health in any detail. Will the Minister ensure that funding is found to deliver the original NHS long-term plan commitment to provide tobacco dependence treatment to all smokers accessing secondary mental health services?
Jo Churchill
If I have time, I will come on to that—I will try to speed up.
Many Members will be pleased to know that, within the plan, we will recommit to our evidenced approach to e-cigarettes. The products certainly have a role in supporting smokers to quit, and we will ensure that they remain accessible to smokers while protecting non-smokers and young people.
The fight against tobacco is not one we can win alone. It requires a joint effort through the health and care system and working across Government. There are good examples of that, because while NHS England is working to roll out the tobacco dependence treatment and the commitments in the long-term plan—we know there have been some delays—we are putting effort into driving the agenda forward, funding seven early implementer sites across England and establishing services as we speak.
Other Departments, such as HMRC, are tackling illicit tobacco. Her Majesty’s Treasury has taken action to raise tobacco taxation. We have also introduced a ring-fenced grant of £1 million to support an HMRC and trading standards intelligence cell called Operation CeCe. That was operational earlier this year. We are also working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the suitability of options for littering.
I shall have to come to a close, but I will address the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West about how we are working with the WHO. We are a global leader in tobacco control and were instrumental in the framework convention on tobacco control. We will continue to take our treaty obligations seriously, including the commitment under article 5.3. I was particularly proud that we have been recognised in that work. The recognised commitment to our global prevention work with the WHO is important.
I hope the Chamber is aware that I am determined to protect the population from the harms of tobacco. As we build back better, we must make smoking a thing of the past, to improve the health of the nation and level up society, freeing up the billions of pounds spent on smoking by disadvantaged families and protecting the NHS. Clearly, with investment and with us all pushing in the same direction, we can truly make that target.
Mary Kelly Foy
I thank you, Mrs Miller, the Minister and right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I am so pleased that there is cross-party support. I just want to reiterate that in order to go some way towards reducing inequalities, levelling up and increasing healthy life expectancy—especially in poorer communities—we must implement this plan.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Winterbourne View Hospital and the Transforming Care Programme
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate.
I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall. Members are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address, which is: westminsterhallclerks@parliament.uk. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room and please take the cleaning materials they have used with them and put them in the bin.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the 10th anniversary of the investigation into the Winterbourne View Hospital and the Transforming Care Programme.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this important debate.
The debate is being held to mark the 10th anniversary of the BBC “Panorama” programme that revealed the scandalous treatment of autistic people and people with learning disabilities in Winterbourne View Hospital. One of the experts on the programme said that Winterbourne View was
“run by a group of bullies for their own entertainment.”
It should shame everyone involved in the healthcare system that it took a team of journalists to uncover those abuses, when complaints from whistleblower Terry Bryan were ignored by the management of Castlebeck, which ran the hospital, and by the regulator, the Care Quality Commission.
I recently re-watched the programme—a decade on, the abuse shown is still shocking. At the time, it was rightly described as “torture”. One resident was showered while fully clothed, and had mouthwash poured in her eyes. On the same day, she had jugs of cold water poured over her head and was kept outside in March until she was shivering. Another resident was asked by a member of staff whether they wanted the staff member to
“get a cheese grater and grate their face off”’.
Residents were slapped and held down under chairs. They had their hair pulled and were pinned down while medication was forced into their mouths. One resident was so distressed by that treatment that she tried to throw herself out of a second-floor window and was then mocked by staff.
That behaviour was the end result of a system that did not see residents as people. Rather than the person-centred support that we would rightly expect in any hospital, a closed culture developed where abuse became normalised. Such abuse should not have been left to be uncovered by a journalist and secret filming. A whistleblower, Terry Bryan, had taken his concerns to the management of Castlebeck, then to the local safeguarding board, then to the Royal College of Nursing and then to the Care Quality Commission on three separate occasions. It was only when all that led to no action that he approached the BBC.
Ultimately, 11 members of staff at Winterbourne View pleaded guilty to neglect or abuse, and six of them ended up spending time in jail. However, Winterbourne View was not just a failure of one hospital or a few staff—although it certainly was that. The people in that hospital were let down by the entire system: from a provider that did not pay enough to attract or retain dedicated or qualified staff and did not supervise or manage them, to a regulator that failed to listen to the concerns of a whistleblower and to commissioners who were happy to put people in that hospital and then fail to monitor the placement or follow up with discharge plans.
Since 2011, residents in other in-patient units have been subject to similar abuse. As recently as 2019, another BBC “Panorama” programme uncovered similar treatment at Whorlton Hall in County Durham. Staff there were filmed verbally and physically abusing residents.
If the residents of Winterbourne View were let down by a system that simply did not place enough value on them to intervene, everyone who has faced abuse in those units since 2011 has been let down by a string of Governments, who have failed to take the action necessary to stop the abuse happening.
The only way we can ensure that there is no abusive treatment in those units is to move autistic people and people with learning disabilities into the community, where they can be given appropriate support to live independently. In 2011, following those shocking revelations, the Government seemed to recognise that, and David Cameron pledged to close all inappropriate in-patient units by 2014—but that was only the first in a long line of broken promises. By 2014, there were still thousands of people detained in those inappropriate institutions.
In 2015, NHS England pledged to reduce the number of people in assessment and treatment units by between 35% and 50% by 2019, but that target was missed, with the number falling only 5%. NHS England then pushed the target back a year, but that was also missed. By April 2020, the number of people in in-patient units had fallen only 15% in five years.
The NHS long-term plan then committed to reducing the number in units by 50% of the 2015 level by 2024, but on the current trajectory that will be yet another target the Government do not get close to meeting. A decade after the abuse at Winterbourne View was uncovered, more than 2,000 people are still detained in inappropriate institutions. As today’s learning disability mortality review shows, people with learning disabilities who end up in mental health units are nearly five times more likely to die young than their peers. The mistreatment people experience in those units stays with them for life, even after they are discharged. On average, people in such units have been detained in some form of hospital placement for more than five years.
What progress we have seen has been painfully slow. We still see hundreds of people admitted to in-patient units every year, and the number of children detained has risen by a third since 2015. We normally talk of admission to hospital being for care or for treatment, but neither of those words is appropriate here, and far too many people admitted to such a unit will have stories of poor treatment and abuse by staff.
Dan was left scarred by poor treatment in in-patient units, which led to him trying to overdose on pills when he was discharged, and then being detained in hospital for another 18 months. Kayleigh was moved from Winterbourne View to another hospital. Within weeks, she had been pushed and hit, and had made more serious accusations against the staff. Ryan was first detained when he was 17. Over the years, he has been isolated and held in long-term segregation. He has been heavily medicated with drugs so powerful that their side effects meant he had to have 18 teeth removed.
Hospital reports show that Ryan has experienced broken bones, and other injuries that sometimes were treated only after a week had passed. Ryan was supposed to be discharged three years ago. He has had an independent case review, which flagged urgent issues with his care. Over the past year, his family have seen their visits restricted and there have been covid-19 outbreaks on his ward. Despite media attention and legal support, Ryan’s discharge plan stalled repeatedly. While things are now looking up for him, hundreds of other people have not been so lucky, and it should not need TV crews and lawyers to get people basic dignity and proper care and support.
People end up in these totally inappropriate units because the funding is not available to support them in the community. One Winterbourne View resident, Dan, had previously been supported at home by a small specialist provider. When it asked for funding for two more hours a day of support so it could manage the triggers that set off Dan’s challenging behaviour, it was turned down. Dan’s family were then told they had no choice but to allow him to be moved to an assessment and treatment unit. That removed him from his home and from his support network. In the unit, Dan was forcibly restrained and ultimately ended up in Winterbourne View. That abusive care cost the Government £3,500 a week—far more than the extra couple of support hours he needed to remain at home.
Clearly, that was not inevitable. After the BBC’s “Panorama” programme, Dan’s family were supported to move him back home. A suitable property was found in his home village and the care staff who had worked with him before he was admitted to Winterbourne View were rehired. Nearly a decade later, he is still living independently in his own home. Unfortunately, such success stories are far too rare.
A similar story is that of a young autistic woman, Bethany, which I have raised many times in the House. She ended up in in-patient units because her local authority said it needed
“a break from paying for her support”.
By sending her to an assessment and treatment unit, it could shift the burden of funding to the NHS. That is the root cause of the Government’s failure to address this scandal over the last decade. If people are moved out of an in-patient unit, they need to be moved somewhere they will be supported. Under our current system, that kind of community support is funded by local authorities, which have had £9 billion taken out of their social care budgets over the past 10 years. Supporting a person with learning disabilities who might have complex needs is not cheap when compared with many other social care packages, so it is not surprising that cash-strapped local authorities have tried to pass the buck on funding to the NHS.
In the 1980s and 1990s, when the long-term psychiatric hospitals were closed, there was a system of dowries whereby the funding moved with the person as they were discharged to a local authority. That discouraged the kind of siloed thinking that sees a person’s human rights denied because a local authority cannot afford to fund the care they need. The Government could have reinstated those dowries. They could have given local authorities far more funding to ensure that they can support autistic people and people with learning disabilities properly in the community. They could have matched the ambition of their rhetoric with the resources that are needed.
Instead, we currently have a £62 million funding pot spread over three years to support people to be discharged. High-quality community support for people moved out of those units can cost as much as £100,000 a year, but even that is much less expensive than placements in private hospitals, which can cost six times as much. That means that the Government’s funding settlement is probably only enough to discharge 200 of the 2,000 people currently trapped in in-patient units. Because the funding only runs for three years, there is a real risk that when the funding runs out, those people will be readmitted to an in-patient unit.
We are not talking about huge sums of money when compared with the expenditure the Government have taken on over the last year. In 2019, the Labour party proposed spending £355 million a year on dedicated and targeted support, which would have been sufficient to move everyone currently in an in-patient unit into their community.
At the same time as discharging the 2,000 people currently detained, we also need to ensure that nobody else is admitted to those units, and we may need legislative measures to ensure that that happens. Underpinning any changes must be the reform of our adult social care system. We are still awaiting the details of that long-promised reform, but perhaps the Minister can tell us more today. Perhaps she can tell us whether the Government’s reform will increase funding so that local authorities can afford to support everyone who needs help to live independently in their community, including autistic people and people with learning disabilities. If it will not, one of the largest issues in our social care system will be left unaddressed.
It is a decade since BBC “Panorama” revealed the appalling treatment of the residents of Winterbourne View. As a society, we could and should have taken that as a cue to say, “Never again,” and to ensure that all autistic people and people with learning disabilities were given the support they needed to live independently in their own communities. Instead, we have had a decade of broken promises and broken targets. Rather than putting in place an ambitious programme of change, the Government have repeatedly promised reform while simultaneously cutting the funding for the very local services that would deliver that reform.
Autistic people and people with learning disabilities trapped in those inappropriate institutions cannot afford to wait any longer. Rather than more empty promises, they need legal changes to end the use of detention. Alongside that, we must see a radical programme of investment in community social care services to support them to live independently in bespoke accommodation, with care packages designed around their needs. We need a new commissioner, independent of Government, to oversee the process of moving people out of those institutions and hold the Government to account if they fail to make the progress that is needed.
After a decade of failure, I hope today the Minister can give autistic people and people with learning disabilities and their families the reassurance that they need and deserve, because it is long past time that we fixed this problem. However slow the progress, there is no excuse for not making sure all the people detained in institutions are safe. That needs to happen now—today. The two most important changes are the proper oversight of community provision, which is centred round choice and personalisation. We need bespoke packages of accommodation and care, not institutions. People can live happily and independently with an environment and support made for them.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I remind Members that we will be going to the Front Benchers no later than 4.25 pm, and we would also like to hear Barbara Keeley wind up within that time limit.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Thank you, Ms McVey. First, let me put on the record a declaration of interest: I chair the all-party parliamentary group on learning disability, so that is the context in which I am speaking. Mencap, which provides the secretariat for the APPG, has provided a very helpful briefing for the debate, which it has made available to all Members.
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). I do not propose to repeat everything she said, although I agree with the large bulk of it and the thrust of her remarks. I want to focus on the specific commitments that the Government have made. I am afraid—I say this with no great pleasure as a Government Back Bencher—that the Government have missed commitments on a number of occasions. I want to put on the record some very specific questions for the Minister about what the Government are doing to ensure they hit the revised targets that they have set out. I also want to remind people listening that the Government have now made a clear commitment to introduce proposals to reform social care this year. I know the Minister is well aware, as is the shadow Minister and everyone present, that social care does not just include care for older people; it includes care for people with disabilities.
I say that is because, when the public conversation happens, after about five seconds it immediately turns into a discussion only about older people—usually older people in a residential setting. We tend not to talk about older people who receive domiciliary care that enables them to stay in their homes, and the media do not focus on the fact that, actually—I think it is still the case—the majority of public spending on social care in England is not on older people; it is on people of working age. If we are to introduce social care reforms, they will not be worth having unless they properly encompass people of working age, including people with learning disabilities or autism. They will need to be very different reforms from those that deal with older people, because although many older people, though not all, have assets that enable them to make a contribution—obviously we will have a debate about the appropriate level of contribution—people of working age do not have such assets, particularly if they have been disabled from birth. If we were to have a means test of any description, we would simply build in a new barrier to people of working age with learning disabilities or autism getting into the workplace and working, which is what most of them want to do. Most of them are able to do so if we provide the tools.
I want to focus specifically on some questions for the Minister. I am mindful about what you said about ensuring we can get everyone in, Ms McVey, so I will try not to make my remarks too lengthy. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South set out the various targets that have been missed. As I said, I take no great pleasure in that as a Government Back Bencher, so I will not repeat all the misses. I want to focus on the latest target in NHS England’s long-term plan, which is to deliver a 50% reduction in in-patient beds by March 2024.
First, I want to ask the Minister whether the Government have done any thinking about whether the 50% reduction is ambitious enough. It would be ideal if we did not have anybody in such settings and we were able to support almost everybody in the community. Perhaps the Minister could comment on whether the target remains ambitious enough. Given that the original target was to deliver a 35% to 50% reduction by March 2019, and that another five years has been added on and we are only in 2021, is March 2024 an ambitious enough target to hit the 50% reduction? Given that the previous targets have been missed, I accept that it might seem ridiculously ambitious to talk about introducing the latest target. However, given that we have let it slip by another five years, I want to test whether it is actually the right target.
The second thing is to focus on how we will reach the target. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South rightly said that the only way we can really stop people being in those institutions is to provide proper support in the community. The Government have set out how they will do that with their transforming care plan and objectives about building the right support. I understand that the intention is that a cross-government action plan will be produced, so it will be helpful if the Minister will tell us how that is going and when it will be published. To what extent will the proposals to reform social care that are being worked on improve or transform care in the community for people with learning disabilities and autism? Will the decisions to be taken this year—alongside the comprehensive spending review, I presume—provide an opportunity for a step change in getting this ambitious target delivered on time?
The Minister will be familiar with the fact that the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights said in its report that it had no confidence that the Government would hit the target in the NHS long-term plan. It proposed a No. 10 unit with Cabinet-level leadership to ensure reform. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South said about a commissioner, but I am slightly traditional and old-fashioned, and I think that accountability in government is held by Ministers. They are elected and accountable to both Houses of Parliament, and political responsibility for delivering on the proposals sits with the Secretary of State and the Minister. I am not keen on having a commissioner as another person who feels that it is their job to chivvy Ministers along, because that is our job, collectively, in Parliament.
I do want to know, however, what mechanisms are in place whereby the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister for Care can monitor what NHS England is doing. At present—this will not be the case under the proposed legislation—NHS England is an arm’s length body with a chief executive, so what are the Secretary of State and the Minister doing, on a regular basis, to hold NHS England to account to ensure that it delivers on this ambitious timetable, and perhaps achieves a more ambitious one?
My experience in government is that if something challenging has not happened in the past, there is only one way to get it done: Ministers making it clear, and saying, that they care about it; and, most importantly, showing that they care about it by focusing on it regularly, asking for information about delivery across the country—Mencap’s report shows that delivery is inconsistent throughout the country—and getting regular updates on progress, putting a bit of stick about when things are not on track. To do that, they need a plan with regular milestones so that progress towards a target can be measured. It would be helpful—there is no reason why it could not be done—if progress towards such milestones were not just shared with the House, but published, so that the families of people who have been badly treated, including those at Winterbourne View, can see that we are making progress.
Before I conclude, I wish to focus on the use of restraint, seclusion and segregation. I understand that a trigger for the Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry and a CQC investigation was a BBC Radio 4 “File on 4” programme revealing the shocking use of restrictive practices in in-patient units. The CQC report, which was ordered by the Secretary of State, revealed widespread and frequent use of restrictive practices, including physical and chemical restraint, long-term seclusion and segregation. I understand that we are still waiting for the Government’s response to the report, so it would be helpful if the Minister would set out when it will be published so that we can find out what the Government will do as a result.
I hope that the Minister will set out a plan to make sure that we deliver against the new target so that we will not sit here in a few years saying, “The target that was set has been missed and rolled forward again,” with the families who have been subjected to unacceptable care feeling that no one is listening to them, and we are back on the hamster wheel with nothing having been done. If the Minister can focus on that, we will have taken a big step forward.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Ms McVey. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for having secured today’s debate, and for the depth of her commitment to the rights of disabled and autistic people over many years.
The 10th anniversary of the screening of the “Panorama” documentary that showed the horrific abuse of vulnerable residents at Winterbourne View near Bristol is a time for sober reflection. We remember the victims and their families, and the horrific trauma they suffered. What happened at Winterbourne View was sickening, and it was chilling that despite safeguarding concerns having been raised several times previously, it took an undercover documentary to prompt urgent action. The Winterbourne View scandal should have led to a genuine transformation of care and support for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. The scandal revealed a system that was not fit for purpose; a level of institutionalisation that resulted in a dehumanising culture; and huge problems with transparency and accountability. The Government acknowledged that hospitals were not the right place for people with learning disabilities and autistic people to be living, and promised to end that practice.
However, in a terrible failure, not only are around 2,000 autistic people and people with learning disabilities still trapped in inappropriate hospitals, there have been further appalling scandals. At Mendip House, eight years after Winterbourne View, we saw the taunting, bulling and abuse of autistic people. At Whorlton Hall, nine years after Winterbourne View, we saw a disturbingly similar revelation of horrific abuse in a private hospital behind closed doors. There have been many, many individual stories of families whose loved ones end up in assessment and treatment units under the Mental Health Act 1983, who battle—sometimes for years—to get them out, and live in fear for their health and safety every single day as they do so.
The failures are all the more distressing because we know what good care and support in the community looks like, from examples such as Alderwood LLA in Northamptonshire. It runs small homes for autistic people, and all of its services are rated by the Care Quality Commission as good or outstanding. I have spoken many times in this place about my constituent Matthew Garnett, who as a 15-year-old was sectioned and taken to an ATU. I supported Matthew’s parents as they battled for months to get him out of hospitals. With his parents, I visited him in hospital—at St Andrew’s in Northampton—where I was shocked both by how ill Matthew had become, particularly how much weight he had lost, and by the attitude of some of the staff who were responsible for his care. St Andrew’s has been found by the CQC to have multiple failings in several different inspections. Later, I visited Matthew in his new home, provided by Alderwood, where he was almost unrecognisable—a healthy, happy young man, enjoying football and trips to the seaside, volunteering in his local community, requiring a tiny fraction of the medication he had been prescribed in hospital, and living life to the full.
One of the keys to Alderwood’s success was undoubtedly the training and skill of their staff, who are highly specialised in communicating with, and supporting, autistic people. They were able to see such huge improvements in Matthew’s health in part because they were able to communicate with him in ways that reduced, rather than exacerbated, his anxiety. I pay tribute to the campaigning work of Matthew’s mother, Isabelle Garnett, who in recent years has used her family’s terrible experience to campaign under the banner of Homes Not Hospitals. Matthew should never have been in St Andrew’s, yet the Government continue to funnel millions of pounds into inappropriate hospital-based accommodation —places where health and wellbeing deteriorates, where people are physically and chemically restrained or put into seclusion, where contact with friends and family is limited, and where patient advocacy is in short supply.
The Government’s failure to deliver transforming care has been due to a lack of political will. It is not enough to just close hospital beds if the funding is not available to deliver homes in communities. It is not enough to expect that people will not be admitted to hospital if there is such limited support available for people with learning disabilities and autistic people in communities that many families find that they are unable to cope, and face crises of mental health or increasingly challenging behaviour.
The failure to deliver transforming care is also fundamentally linked to the failure to deliver social care reform more widely, and to the paucity of the Government’s vision. We need a sustainably funded social care system that enables everyone with support needs—whether they are working-age adults or older people—to live as independently as possible with dignity and love, but the Government have dragged their feet, ignoring social care for more than a decade.
We have heard far too many statements of outrage and warm words from the Government; we need action. I call on the Minister to put in place the funding needed to deliver homes not hospitals for people with learning disabilities and autistic people, and to stop funnelling NHS money into inappropriate private hospital placements, which so often do more harm than good.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing this important debate.
Winterbourne View Hospital was in my constituency. The horrifying evidence of the systematic abuse of some of the most vulnerable people in my society, which happened in a place where they were meant to be safe and looked after, came to light just a year after I was first elected to serve as the Member of Parliament for Filton and Bradley Stoke. Immediately after the “Panorama” documentary was broadcast, I summoned to Westminster the chief executive of Castlebeck, which ran the hospital, and told him that the hospital had to close and that patients must be properly looked after in a sympathetic and caring manner.
Nobody who watched the documentary could be anything other than horrified by what they saw: a total and complete failure of humanity, a lack of any sort of care on the part of the staff responsible for those vulnerable adults, and the catastrophic failure of agencies and organisations to act sooner, which could have stopped the abuse before so many people fell victim to it.
In 2010, Terry Bryan, a former senior nurse at the hospital, brought forward concerns to the review. As the council states in its report on the hospital, his concerns
“made no difference in an unnoticing environment.”
The Care Quality Commission also acknowledged that it did not respond to Mr Bryan’s concerns. According to the report, it did not follow up because it thought Castlebeck and the council were doing so.
As I said in the House in September 2012, 40 safe- guarding alerts were sent to the council but not acted upon, because the council assumed that the hospital was being honest. Many of those terrible incidents could have been avoided had those alerts been dealt with. Twenty-nine contacts between the hospital and Avon and Somerset police were reported between January 2008 and May 2011. The police acknowledge that for staff-on-patients incidents, they relied far too heavily on the hospital’s information instead of listening to what patients were telling them or properly investigating concerns. Only one member of staff was ever prosecuted before the documentary was aired. Winterbourne View was a catastrophic failure of corporate responsibility and care for the most vulnerable.
In October 2012, I asked at Prime Minister’s questions whether care providers should be prosecuted for wilful corporate negligence if patients in their care had been abused. In 2013, I co-sponsored a private Members’ Bill to hold corporations criminally accountable for abuse and neglect in care settings. I am glad that since that dreadful incident, the Government have put in place some measures to improve the care of residents, and I welcome the steps that the Government have taken through national agencies such as the NHS, and local authorities, to ensure that care providers and givers are adequately resourced, and that patients are adequately protected and that their families can have confidence in the care system.
In December 2012, the Government published the “Transforming Care” report. It was of course vital to look at what lessons had to be learned and at what actions the Government must take to stop that abuse ever happening again. Some changes were made. The Government introduced a more rigorous registration, assessment and inspection process for learning disability services, and the Care Act 2014 set out a new basis for adult social care, which included the concept of wellbeing for individuals, including people being in control of their day-to-day lives, and residents having suitable accommodation and being able to contribute to society. The Act also reiterates the importance of good-quality, independent advocacy, and supports people, their families and carers, to help them raise concerns. It also requires local authorities to consider people’s views, wishes and beliefs, and focus on the end results that the people themselves want to achieve.
In January this year, the Government closed the consultation on reforming the Mental Health Act 1983. The changes that the Government are proposing are based on four patient-centred principles. Those principles are choice, autonomy—using the Act’s powers in the least restrictive way—ensuring that patients are supported to get better and, crucially, ensuring that patients are viewed and treated as individuals. The changes will allow people to make choices about their own care when they are well, and choose who might represent them should they become unwell. The Government have focused, as has been said earlier, on reducing levels of in-patient care for people with a learning disability and/or autism. Hospitals are not where people should live, and the Government have committed to move more people into community-based support. However, as we all know, that ambition has been postponed. The most recent target, as set out in the NHS long-term plan, is for a reduction in in-patient provision of 50%, compared with 2015 levels, by 2023-24.
As the commission recommended, the priority for the Government now must be to improve access to community-based mental health support, including crisis care, to prevent avoidable detentions under the Mental Health Act. I am pleased that this is already under way, backed by a ring-fenced fund of £2.3 billion a year as part of the NHS long-term plan.
We must continue to learn the lessons from the terrible events at Winterbourne View. Those who are entrusted to the care system, and their families, must be confident that their wellbeing is the highest priority for those responsible for their care, and of course we must all continue to ensure that such horrific abuse can never be repeated. It cannot be in any way justifiable that alerts are ignored by local authorities and the police, as they were with those terrible incidents, which could have been prevented and should never have happened.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for securing this debate. I am pleased to be here to speak on such a crucial topic. First, I want to reflect on the past 10 years since the Winterbourne View scandal, and secondly, look forward and ensure that such horrific events cannot happen again.
What the BBC “Panorama” programme exposed was absolutely shocking, disgusting and heartbreaking. It revealed patients with a learning disability and/or autism being repeatedly pinned down, slapped and taunted by staff. That community was let down. Following that, the Government promised to transform care for people with a learning disability and/or autism by 2014 by supporting those in assessment and treatment units to move out of those settings and get the right support in the community. The Government still have a long way to go before they achieve what was promised. It is vital that we continue to learn from Winterbourne View. The Government have shown that they are willing to make the necessary changes by publishing the White Paper on reforming the Mental Health Act. I commend the reforms that it has set out.
I want to send my personal thanks to the Department of Health and Social Care as well as the Lord Chancellor for driving forward reform of the Mental Health Act. The Act has long been outdated, and I hope that implementing many of the recommended changes will fire the starting gun on changing the way our country views and treats mental health conditions.
There is a clear desire, set out in the White Paper, to change the culture surrounding mental health by enacting a person-centred approach to care. That is a new approach to the way in which our mental health service is run, and will begin to achieve the desired goal of bringing the Mental Health Act in line with 21st-century principles in medical care.
Having spoken to stakeholders, including Mind, the National Autistic Society, Rethink Mental Illness and the Mental Health Foundation, I want to share the conclusions that I have drawn and the lessons that must be learnt following the atrocities of Winterbourne View. Broadly speaking, they are, first, ensuring that the shift from in-patient care to care in the community is backed by a Government commitment to provide community support services. Secondly, all in-patient facilities must take into consideration the requirements of all their residents, and ensure that when individuals are ready to be released, the right care in the community is in place for them. Thirdly, to prevent situations from reaching a stage where individuals have to be placed in an in-patient facility, we must emphasise early intervention.
I applaud the long overdue decision in the White Paper to remove autism and learning disabilities from the definition of mental disorder in the Mental Health Act. For too long, autism and learning disabilities have been grounds for detention under the Act. I also welcome the commitment to build new mental health hospitals, with two schemes already approved and more to come. And we will tackle the maintenance work needed in the mental health facilities where patients are treated.
Before new projects commence, however, it is essential that we ensure that all new facilities that are built take into account the needs of those with autism and learning difficulties. Removing autism and learning disabilities from the terminology of the Mental Health Act will not mean that individuals with autism and learning disorders will not suffer from poor mental health, so they will require access to those facilities in time. Therefore, we cannot continue establishing new mental health facilities that are not constructed with all those who will access them in mind. The needs of those with autism and learning difficulties may be different from those of others who access in-patient services, and those needs must be catered for. I would welcome a new approach to the creation of in-patient facilities that means that the needs of those with autism and learning disabilities are given greater consideration.
The White Paper states that care and treatment reviews will have statutory force to help to address inappropriately long stays in in-patient units. This is a welcome development that will ensure that people with autism and learning disabilities do not become trapped in in-patient care. In total, 2,040 people who have a learning disability and autism remain detained in in-patient settings and 59% of those people who have been detained in hospital have had a length of stay of over two years. That is simply not good enough. However, there are other barriers in place, ensuring that individuals are not being released from in-patient care at the appropriate time. There is a lack of programmes and facilities for people to be released into.
Without the appropriate resources in place, individuals are becoming trapped in facilities that may no longer have the correct environment. I spoke about this today with one of my constituents in Broxtowe, Justin Donne, who is chairman of the board of trustees at Autistic Nottingham. He had this to share:
“What has become clear in our communities is that the suffering of autistic people being locked up is needless, as our advocacy, social and personal assistance services have successfully kept most of our service users out of that condition. Moreover, we get occasional requests from outside our geographical remit”—
that is Nottinghamshire—
“regretting that they do not have the appropriate facilities in their location. This proves that we obviously need to significantly invest more funding in organisations such as ours”—
that is Autistic Nottingham—
“who provide real, tangible help that benefits both the individual and the community, and saves money and hospital resources by investing in essential preventative services.”
The National Autistic Society’s vital community work is a testament to just how successful community support can be in helping individuals outside an in-patient facility. More must be done to address these issues and I look forward to hearing the Government’s comments on this area in particular. I would welcome a commitment to evaluate and improve the services that are currently in place across the UK to support individuals with autism and learning disabilities when leaving in-patient facilities.
The Government have committed £31 million of mental health recovery funding for a range of projects, including admission avoidance and quality of in-patient care. I would welcome a breakdown from the Minister of what specific projects will be funded.
The focus of the White Paper is on a new person-centred approach to care. Putting the individual at the centre of their own treatment enables them to make their own decisions surrounding care and results in a more tailored approach. To those with autism or learning disabilities, it is even more vital that the care is centred on their specific needs. The introduction of a statutory advanced choice document will go a long way to ensuring that that is acted upon and to enable people to express their view on the care and treatment that works best for them as in-patients, and that is before the need arises for them to go to hospital. As the White Paper states, putting these plans on a statutory footing for the first time will require them to be developed in good time in partnership with patients.
My concern about shifting the emphasis of care away from in-patient facilities to community support relates to whether properly established and funded support is in place in the community. The NHS long-term plan established a commitment for increased community support for early mental health intervention, which is echoed in the White Paper. I would welcome a detailed outline of what this expansion of community support will look like at all levels, how and when it can be expected and how it will be implemented across the UK to ensure that all areas of the UK have the same levels of support. As I have stated, we need to focus on prevention. If that is not possible due to the complex needs of the individual, how can we ensure that individuals with learning disabilities and autism in hospitals are safe and respected, that their dignity is maintained and that their human rights are not violated?
I spoke recently with another constituent of mine, Ashley Swinscoe, who does vital work in my local community supporting those with autism and/or learning disabilities within our local community. He discussed early intervention and proposed that schools needed to offer support to individuals until they were 21 years old. He said that through this stage, consistent support should be offered from childhood to adulthood. This consistency would help the individuals manage the stress caused by the changes in life. That would also reduce the risk of behavioural and mental health declines.
If individuals are not ready for supported living and require residential care, providers must also offer supported living in the future. Residential care is not long term, and providers should promise to progress individuals to become more independent, with fewer restrictions, and to move to supported living. That is a suggestion from Ashley Swinscoe from my constituency.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I am incredibly grateful to speak in this debate on such an important topic, which many of my constituents have written to me about. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for bringing this matter to the House.
It was my constituency predecessor, the Care Minister at the time, Sir Norman Lamb, who publish the in-depth review commissioned by Paul Burstow into what happened at Winterbourne View. As we know, the abuse and neglect inflicted on patients there was utterly horrific. Inspections by the CQC of 150 hospitals and care homes for people with learning disabilities found inadequate practice in in-patient services, including poor person-centred care, limited appropriate activities and a lack of monitoring and learning from incidents of restraint. The inspections were clear: we can and, as it was pledged, must do better.
In my constituency it is a real pleasure to support Frances Dawney and all the staff and residents at Abbottswood Lodge. It is an exemplary care home for residents with complex needs and, sadly, with the pandemic I have been unable to visit as much as I would like to. It is a real model of what care and love with dignity should be for adults with learning disabilities.
Ten years on, we must recognise the NHS long-term plan and the much-needed changes that it will bring to in-patient units for those with disabilities and autism. Crucially, the plan states that by March 2023 or 2024 in-patient levels will have reduced to less than half of those in 2015, and that for every 1 million adults there will be no more than 30 people with a learning disability or autism in an in-patient unit. That is something that we absolutely must achieve, because we probably all recognise that progress has not been fast enough. It is also important to recognise, as I am sure we all do, that hospitals are not where people should live. As such, I absolutely support the long-terms plans and that commitment, as we move people towards community-based support and, ultimately, closer to home.
Drawing on the new care models in mental health services, local providers will be able to take control of budgets to reduce avoidable admissions, enable shorter lengths of stay and end out-of-area placements. Where possible, more people with a learning disability, autism or both will be able to have a personal health budget, which will give them a real opportunity to live in their own homes or with their families, rather than in an institution. In North Norfolk, I have worked tirelessly on mental health—my predecessor was such a champion of it. It is so important across the country that we get mental health hubs implemented in areas, and see mental health practitioners in primary care GP networks. That is something that is beginning to be rolled out in my constituency.
Since 2015, the number of people in in-patient care has decreased by almost a fifth, and about 635 people who have been in hospital for more than five years have been supported to move back into the community. Although that is encouraging, it is also a sign of how much we still need to do to ensure that every single person with a learning disability can lead a fulfilled life with the dignity and respect that they deserve.
Social care reform cannot come soon enough. It is rather nice that I have the Minister sitting so close to me. I regularly talk about this matter, and I want to go back to what was said earlier: older people dominate this agenda, but about 50% of all people requiring social care are adults with disabilities, and we must not forget them. The golden question for the Minister to answer is: will we see the social care reforms later this year? We must address social care reforms, not just for older people but for people with disabilities, right the way through to young carers. That is an apt point, as this week is Carers Week.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I direct Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing this important debate.
The circumstances of the Winterbourne View scandal have already been described, so I do not want to repeat that history, but I share others’ shock and outrage at the way in which some of the most vulnerable patients in our healthcare system have been treated in assessment and treatment units. Those attitudes and that kind of abuse should be historical; the shameful thing is that they are still with us a decade later. Ten years after the NHS should have changed for good, new scandals keep emerging.
Across the system, the levels of physical and chemical restraint remain disturbingly high. The CQC report is the latest to recommend change, and the Government’s response is needed urgently. Although there has been a welcome emphasis on moving patients into other settings, we know that there are more than 2,000 people with a learning disability or autism in assessment and treatment units right now, and about 200 of them are children.
Progress has been slow. Admissions are not falling, and those patients are still staying in ATUs for an average of five and a half years. We have yet to build enough support in the community. The building the right support programme is a catalogue of missed targets, and I hope the Minister can tell us why. We should have done more, and we should have more confidence in the targets set by NHS England’s long-term plan.
The record to date is not encouraging. Until the cross-governmental action plan is published, as promised, scepticism will prevail. We have heard why families are worried. There are two aspects of current care that particularly trouble me. The first is the widespread use of anti-psychotic medication. Drugged-up patients are no doubt easier to manage, but it can take years to wean them off those drugs, and even then the consequences continue.
The second aspect, which can be read about in The Daily Telegraph today, is “do not resuscitate” notices. I put that matter to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care at the Select Committee meeting today. What we are really talking about here is a culture—a culture in which the needs of those with learning difficulties or autistic people are sometimes treated as not important. As many hon. Members have said, these people are able to live fulfilled lives. They are human beings, with plenty to live for. It is hard to accept the idea that a “do not resuscitate” notice could be placed on the record of Sonia Deleon, who very sadly died. When they looked at why she would not be resuscitated, it simply said the words “learning disabilities”. That is unacceptable.
Our pride in the NHS should not blind us to its failings. It has systematically failed people with learning difficulties and autistic people. Their trauma is real. The damage is lasting. I have confidence that we now have a Government who are going to take their commitments on social care seriously and, as many Members have said, that includes those in the working-age population and not just those who are old. This action must finally happen.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I join other hon. Members in this Westminster Hall debate by thanking the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for leading it. The note that I passed to you, Ms McVey, was to apologise and to hope that you had received notification beforehand that I was running from the main Chamber to speak here. I very much hope that that was the case, but I apologise both to you and to the hon. Lady.
I begin by paying tribute to our former friend and colleague, the late Dame Cheryl Gillan, who chaired the all-party parliamentary group on autism and was a long-standing advocate for the 700,000 autistic adults and children and their 3 million family members and carers. I now chair that all-party parliamentary group, but I very much wish that I was sitting here, as I would tend to be in these debates, watching Dame Cheryl and listening to her advocate so finely for all of that community. She will be remembered for her passion, drive and kindness.
For more than a decade, Dame Cheryl worked tirelessly to ensure that Government and Parliament took more account of autistic people and the need to improve the support for them. She began her campaign for an autism Act in England in 2008 to tackle the lack of support for autistic people and to improve the understanding of autism. That landmark law—I think it is quite remarkable that she got it delivered—remains the only legislation aimed at supporting one particular group of disabled people. I am deeply saddened that Dame Cheryl passed away before getting to see the new autism strategy, which is set to be published shortly—I hope imminently. I hope that she would have been very proud of what gets delivered.
Following the passing of the Autism Act 2009, Dame Cheryl campaigned hard on so many of the crucial issues. Even during her illness, she fought hard to take on these issues, ranging from diagnosis to waiting times, teacher training, employment and, importantly, the subject that we are talking about today—health, mental health, and those who feel imprisoned by the system. It is a topic on which so much more needs to be done and, in Dame Cheryl’s memory, I very much hope that it will be.
As other hon. Members have said, it is 10 years since the appalling abuse and neglect of some of the residents of the Winterbourne View home were exposed. There were shocking levels of violence, degrading treatment and taunting. It was a scandal that led to widespread acknowledgement that a significant number of people with autism and with learning disabilities, or with both, were stuck inappropriately in in-patient settings. However, the latest monthly data show that 2,040 autistic people and people with learning disabilities are still in in-patient mental health hospitals, of whom 1,150 are autistic.
That means that since 2015, the number and proportion of identified autistic people in in-patient facilities has actually increased, from 38% to 56%. A lack of appropriate community support and issues with legislation have meant that a growing number of autistic people are ending up in mental health hospitals against their will and that of their families. Once a person has been admitted to an in-patient unit, they will stay there for an average of 5.6 years, and they will be on average over 60 miles from their home.
The National Autistic Society, which provides the secretariat for the all-party parliamentary group on autism, has continued to hear of alarming cases of over-medication, seclusion and unnecessary restraint. That is completely unacceptable in 2021. Autism is not a mental health condition, and hospital is not the right place for the vast majority of autistic people. Hospital wards can be noisy, bright and unpredictable. Without reasonable adjustments to the environment, and without the support of professionals who understand autism and how to adapt these people’s care, wards can be completely overwhelming for them.
For autistic people who are particularly sensitive to sound, light or touch, the experience of being in an in-patient setting can dramatically increase their level of distress and lead to further restrictions, making it even harder to be moved into the community. It becomes a perpetual cycle, unless something breaks that cycle. Even then, there is a challenge in finding the right type of mental health and social care services in the community for autistic people to move into. It is not right that thousands of autistic people are developing avoidable mental health conditions because they cannot access the support they need early on. To end the travesty, there must be commitment and significant investment in better social care and mental health services that work for autistic people.
I am the last Back-Bench speaker, so I will add my list, too, for the Minister for Care. I have worked with her over the years and know that she is absolutely dedicated to this cause. Without wishing to keep her at the ministerial level at which she is, we need consistency in ministerial position to follow this through. I understand that she is setting up a report group to ensure that all those responsible for delivering outcomes do act. I absolutely support the call from my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) that milestones need to be set. I had written that down before he said it, but I had not written down that they should be published. He is right. They should be published not just for us as Members of Parliament to hold the Government to account, but for the Government to hold to account those in the report group who have to deliver, so that there is no hiding place when it comes to what should be done by when. If there is a failure to meet individual timescales, more pressure and perhaps more resource can be added. The Minister will have all our support in holding their feet to the fire.
When will mental health legislation be amended? It will need to be amended. Indeed, it is not just an issue of moving the community from inappropriate settings into appropriate settings. Do we actually have those appropriate settings? Do those milestones include not just the transition but the provision that must be there? I will end there, because we want to hear from the shadow Minister and the Minister, but I very much support all the calls made by Dame Cheryl’s former colleagues that more must be done.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for acknowledging Dame Cheryl Gillan and all the work she did in the world of autism. I know we all share that view.
I will now call the Front-Bench speakers, mindful that we do want to hear from Barbara Keeley at the end to close the debate.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for securing this extremely important debate, marking the 10th anniversary of the Winterbourne View scandal. I want to say at the start that the repeated and abject failure to move people with learning disabilities and autism out of long-stay institutions and into the community, following what we saw at Winterbourne View, is the worst political and institutional failure I have seen in my 25-year experience of working in health and social care as a Member of Parliament and before I became an MP. It is essential that we understand the underlying reasons for this failure and what we will do differently so that we can put it right in future. That is what I really want to focus on.
Many hon. Members have spoken about the horrors that the BBC’s “Panorama” programme exposed at Winterbourne View in May 2011, with patients repeatedly abused, pinned down, slapped, soaked with water, trapped under chairs, threatened and taunted by staff. The incidents included a member of staff slapping a resident across the cheek and—forgive me, Ms McVey—saying:
“Do you want a scrap? Do you want a fight? Go on and I will bite your bloody face off.”
A member of staff claimed a resident “loved pain”, and then said to the resident:
“Simone, come here and I’ll punch your face.”
Staff gave a patient cold showers as a punishment, leaving her outside in near-zero temperature, pouring mouthwash in her eyes. Patients were shown screaming and shaking, one trying to jump out of a second-floor window to escape the torment but just being mocked by members of staff.
Straight after the programme was aired, the then Minister commissioned an in-depth review into what happened, the results of which were published on 10 December 2012—a day I remember extremely clearly, as the Government statement to Parliament was the very first time I had spoken at the Dispatch Box as a Member of Parliament and a new shadow Minister. The new Minister of State promised that all patients, 3,400 in total, would have their placements reviewed by June 2013, and that everyone who was there inappropriately would be moved into the community no later than June 2014. This was followed by the Government’s transforming care programme, which aimed to close up to half of in-patient beds by June 2014.
June 2014 arrived; the Government had failed to deliver. There were still 2,615 people in in-patient units, including 148 children. Sir Stephen Bubb was commissioned to do another review, which was published in November 2014. As a result, NHS England announced a three-year closure programme called building the right support. This had a slightly reduced target of reducing the number of in-patient beds by between 35% and 50% by March 2019. March 2019 arrived; the target was once again missed. The Government had missed even the more modest target of a 35% reduction. Instead of trying to really get to grips with the cause of the failure, the target was downgraded again, from between 35% and 50% to just 35%. Surprise, surprise: a year later and even the downgraded target was missed.
The grim reality is that there are still 2,040 people with learning disabilities and autism in in-patient units, including 215 children. The average length of stay is over five and a half years, and 355 people have been in these units for at least 10 years. Unbelievably, after everything that has happened, there has been little if any change in the number of people being admitted into in-patient units each month, when, as many hon. Members have said, one of the key priorities must be preventing people from going into hospital in the first place.
Far from closing large-scale units, the Government are opening new ones. Last year, a new 123-bed medium-secure unit, including 45 beds for people with learning disabilities and autism, was opened by Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust. Mersey Care also got planning permission to build an additional 40-bed unit, going against the Government’s own recommendations. Report after report has shown continuing unacceptable treatment in these long-stay institutions. In one month this year—just one month—3,390 restrictive interventions were used, by which we mean physically restricting people or restricting them with chemicals—drugging or isolating them. In reality, that is a massive underestimate because, scandalously, we have data for only 31 of 56 NHS providers, and for one of 16 private providers. I have one question that I hope the Minister will answer: why is providing that data every month not a requirement for every provider in this country and will she consider making it available a requirement of Care Quality Commission registration?
The latest target set out in the NHS long-term plan is to deliver a 50% reduction in in-patient beds by March 2024, but unless we are clear about why the Government have failed to achieve anywhere near that over the past decade and what we are going to do differently, we cannot have confidence that things will change.
It is my view that the first reason for that failure is simply that this has not been a political priority. I am singling out not the current Minister but Ministers over a decade who have failed to grip the issue, failed to make it one of the repeated, unmissable priorities for the Department of Health and the NHS, and failed to secure the funding that the NHS and local authorities need to shift the focus of services fundamentally towards prevention and co-ordinate support not just between the NHS and local authorities but with housing and other community services. Will the Government consider the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to set up
“a Number 10 unit, with cabinet level leadership… to ensure reform is driven forward”?
If we do not change that, we will not have that leadership in place.
Secondly, there are institutional failings. It is just too easy for services to keep doing the same thing—commissioning large-hospital services—rather than the difficult work of individual, personalised support in the community or at home. We do not have the financial incentives in place, or the accountability mechanisms, to do things differently. Mencap says that in my own region, the east midlands provider collaborative, which commissions these services, includes some of the very private providers that have been shown to have poor records of care. How is that allowed and who is responsible?
Thirdly, and I really believe this is the key to change, we have failed to put families at the heart of the process and not just to listen to their views but put them in the driving seat of change. There are many ways to do that, but I know, and I have seen, that one of the most powerful ways to get that change is personal care budgets given to families and developed in partnership with the services. The average cost of a weekly stay in an in-patient unit run by the NHS is £3,000. If we gave families greater control over that money, I bet they could find a better way to spend it on care for the people they love.
Last but by no means least, one reason why people with learning disabilities and autism and their families believe change never happens is that they feel they just do not matter, are not important enough, and are out of sight and out of mind. As Members here know, what has happened in those in-patient units is part of a much wider pattern of unacceptable inequalities in access to services and in health outcomes for people with learning disabilities and autism. For example, women die 18 years earlier than the average and there are much worse health outcomes in a range of areas.
I am afraid that with covid-19, and despite initial claims they were at no greater risk, people with learning disabilities and autism have death rates six times higher than those for the rest of the general population. Changing that requires concerted action across the board. We need to change how we train health and care professionals, and ensure absolute clarity at every level about who is responsible for change and how they will be held to account. The trouble is that this is everybody’s and nobody’s problem. That is why we cannot get change.
I say all that to be constructive. The Minister knows that I want to solve problems, not just criticise. I would be happy to meet with her and the families and providers, as well as her officials, to see whether we can put in place a more effective plan of action. I ask her one thing: can she tell me what the Government and NHS England now propose that is different from the proposals of 10 years ago, five years ago or one year ago? From what I have read, there is no difference. The trouble with that is that we will get the same result. That is not good enough for people with learning disabilities and autism and their families.
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for securing this important debate, for opening the debate and for her committed campaigning for people with learning disabilities and for autistic people. I also thank all Members who have spoken powerfully today, both in the Chamber and virtually, and shown the strength of feeling on the issue among parliamentarians. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), as he has taken on the role of chair of the all-party parliamentary group on autism following, as he said, the very sad death of our right hon. Friend Dame Cheryl Gillan. She is missed so much by all of us, both as a colleague and for her work for autistic people, which has made such a huge difference over the years, although there is clearly much further to go.
The appalling abuse uncovered at Winterbourne View has no place in our society, and I share the shock and anger that hon. Members have expressed today. It was rightly described as heartbreaking and disgusting by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry), and it should never have happened, as my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) said. None of us accepts this kind of cruel and abusive treatment of people with learning disabilities and autistic people, and none of us wants people to be in-patients unnecessarily when they could be better off living in the community. I will use my time to talk about the work of Government, the NHS, the CQC, local authorities, and others we are working with to stop poor and—worse still—abusive care, and to improve care. As part of that, I will talk about what we are doing to reduce the number of people with learning disabilities and autistic people in in-patient units, which we know are rarely the best place for those people to be. As I do so, I will seek to respond to questions raised by right hon. and hon. Members.
First, I will talk about the approach we are taking to stopping abusive care. We are working with the NHS as care commissioners, local authorities, and of course the CQC, which plays a critical part. I fully support the much tougher approach that the CQC is rightly taking through its more robust inspection regime and updated methodology, which includes speaking more to patients and families and really digging into the culture of providers. It is in some of these closed cultures where there has been such concerning treatment of patients, and the CQC is taking a robust enforcement approach, including wasting no time in closing down services when it uncovers unsafe care. The sad truth is that this tougher approach by the CQC has exposed more cases of poor care, and I fully support the CQC in taking very robust action in those cases.
A significant number of people with learning disabilities and autistic people in in-patient units, about 59%, are autistic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle said, an in-patient unit is rarely a good environment for someone who is autistic, and can often be a really inappropriate one. I am clear that no one should be in an in-patient unit if it is not to their benefit—if they are not receiving some form of therapeutic treatment that helps them. Even then, their time in an in-patient unit should be as short as possible, and that unit should be as close to home as possible. Our target is to achieve a 50% net reduction in in-patients by 2025, from a base starting in 2015. Back in 2015, there were 2,895 people with learning disabilities and autistic people in in-patient units; that figure has come down to 2,035, which is a 30% reduction. England is divided into 44 transforming care partnership areas, 17 of which are on track to achieve the target, but that means that 27 are not on track. I take that failure very seriously.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) asked whether our target of a 50% reduction is ambitious enough, and whether we should be aiming for zero in-patients. That is a question that I have asked myself, and I have also asked it of the NHS and of clinicians. It has been made clear to me that there are times when people with learning disabilities and autism may need to be in an in-patient unit, when they have a mental health condition that could benefit from in-patient treatment. As such, I do not think it would be right to say that it is never appropriate, but it should be rarely considered appropriate, and alternatives should be tried wherever possible. I must also mention to my right hon. Friend that just under 30% of the numbers I am talking about are individuals who are under Ministry of Justice restrictions, so that is another challenge to discharging them. Those are net figures, however, and in the period that we are talking about, there have been more than 10,000 discharges, so it is not a static population. Of course, given that reduction of 30% and more than 10,000 discharges, there have also been a large number of admissions.
When I became the Minister for Care, with this in my portfolio, I straightaway asked the question, right back at the beginning of the pandemic, why are we behind the target? Why have we not made the progress that we should be making? Why is it taking so long? What needs to be done to fix that and to get back on track? We need to have a plan that we can all be confident in—all of us in the Chamber and the families of in-patients.
Mr Harper
Before the Minister moves on, may I test her? She said that she asked whether the 50% target was right. After all those conversations and yes, accepting that there might be some need for in-patient units, is the Government’s position that the 50% reduction is the right end state, or is there a different number? If it is 50%, will she publish the analysis that sets out why that is the right number?
Helen Whately
I can tell him that achieving the 50% will be hard. I am all for being ambitious, but in fact, from everything I have seen, achieving it will be hard, partly because some are more easily discharged—I pause as I say that, because it has been difficult to discharge many because we have complex situations here. We have seen some people continuing to be in-patients with long lengths of stay, and it has become almost harder and harder to find a way to find the right support for them in the community. Achieving the 50% will not be easy. I will get to the other part of my right hon. Friend’s question.
When I saw the position we were in and that we were not on target, I asked why and how come. Clearly, however, this is a complex system—it involves the NHS and local authorities doing things, and there are questions about housing supply, community schools and in-patient services. I therefore set up the building the right support delivery board, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle referred—I thank him for his supportive words. That board’s aim is to bring those involved together, because, much though we all like a clear line of accountability, to point a finger at somebody to say, “Solve this!”, the reality is that solving this involves bringing different organisations and different parts of our system together.
The delivery board has identified six priorities that we need to focus on to overcome the barriers to achieving lower numbers of in-patients: first, identifying the best practice models of care in the community. What does good look like? That may sound obvious, but getting the right answers is not the easiest thing to do. What is the right care for people in the community? First we have to find out what we want to see in all our constituencies that is available for that group of people.
Secondly, we have to focus on improving the transition into adulthood, in particular for autistic young people, because that is a particular problem resulting in in-patient admission. Thirdly, we have to reduce the number of people in in-patient care with judicial restrictions who, as I mentioned, are a significant proportion. Fourthly, we have to address some of the issues with funding flows and potential financial disincentives in the system, which hon. Members have mentioned, including the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South. Fifthly, we have to address the lack of available suitable supported housing. Housing is often cited as the most frequent barrier to discharge. Finally, we have to ensure that we have the right workforce.
Those are the priorities. Yes, we are working on a delivery plan, which will include milestones, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean rightly called for—we all need to be able to see those. Specifically on the NHS role, since the pandemic, I have asked each of the 44 areas in the NHS to review where they are on delivering against our target and to come to me with what their trajectory is. Where will they get to over the coming months and years and, to the extent that they may be below the ambition, what actions will they take to close that gap?
I hope that that addresses my right hon. Friend’s question about my similar commitment to ensuring that we have clear milestones and targets, can see who is doing what, and have a grip on getting this delivered.
Helen Whately
Yes, we plan to publish the delivery plan. We want to have time for the delivery board to feed into it, because we set that up earlier this year. It is complex and cross-government, so it takes a bit of time to bring that together, but broadly yes.
I want to touch on funding, because it was mentioned a number of times as one of the barriers. As part of the NHS England long-term plan, we are investing £40 million this year in improving community support and preventing avoidable admissions. There is an initial £31 million of funding for this issue as part of the NHS mental health covid recovery package. There is £11.35 million specifically to accelerate discharges from mental health hospitals, which includes funding to strengthen advocacy for people with a learning disability and autistic people, and £19.65 million to help prevent crises from occurring and to avoid admissions into in-patient care. There is also the £62 million community discharge grant, which is a fund over three years. The first tranche was issued last year, with a further £21 million to be distributed this year and next. That is particularly to cover some of the double running costs involved when a discharge happens. Someone may need care as an in-patient, but it also has to be set up in the community.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean also asked about the response to the CQC’s “Out of sight” review, which was requested by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and which reported back in October last year. It was a review of the use of restraint, seclusion and segregation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean asked when we would respond to it, and I can say that we will do so imminently. I hope he finds that reassuring, even if I cannot give a specific date.
I am mindful of the time, so I will wrap up. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I know we are all deeply committed to ensuring that everybody with learning disabilities and autistic people get the care and support that they need. None of this is easy. Some of the individuals we are worried about have really complex needs, but I do not accept that as an excuse for poor or, worse still, abusive care. I will continue to work with the CQC, the NHS, local authorities and other Government Departments, and with the families and user representatives, who play a really important part and are part of the delivery board. I will work together with them to bring an end to this and make sure that autistic people and those with learning disabilities get the care and support that they need, and the support that their families need, to live their lives to the full.
Barbara Keeley [V]
I thank the organisations and campaigners who supported the debate, including Mencap, Rightful Lives—particularly Julie Newcombe—Care England, Dimensions and the Equality and Human Rights Commission for their support and briefings, to which other Members have rightly referred.
There is not a lot of time left, but I have heard across the different contributions—I thank colleagues for them—a real desire for change. We do not agree on every last detail of that—not everybody agrees with my recommendation to have a commissioner—but there is a real hunger and desire for change. Across the contributions, a great deal was said about personalisation, changing cultures, having pride in the NHS and not binding us to its failings, to which the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) rightly talked about putting families in the driving seat of change.
A decade after Winterbourne View, it simply is not acceptable that people are still detained, when they could and should be supported in the community. There is real agreement about that. I hope the Minister will listen to what has been said and ensure that the necessary resources and political leadership are delivered, so that we can ensure that the horrors of Winterbourne View are finally a thing of the past.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the 10th anniversary of the investigation into the Winterbourne View Hospital and the Transforming Care Programme.
Written Statements
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Student Loans: Interest Rates
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
On 9 June I announced a temporary reduction in the maximum student loan interest rate following the recent decline in the prevailing market rate for comparable unsecured personal loans.
In accordance with the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, where the Government consider that the student loan interest rate is higher than the prevailing market rate for comparable unsecured loans, we will take steps to reduce the maximum student loan interest rate.
The Government regularly monitor the interest rates set on student loans against the interest rates prevailing on the market for comparable loans.
Following a decline in the prevailing market rate, on 9 June I laid legislation to cap the maximum post-2012 undergraduate income contingent repayment and the postgraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rate in line with the prevailing market rate. The cap will come into effect from 1 July 2021 and last for a period of three months.
The reduction will be 0.3 percentage point on the maximum student loan interest rate to reflect the average market rates during the preceding monitoring period.
Student loan interest rates are updated each year to take account of changes in the retail prices index (RPI). The updates are applied annually at the start of each academic year, 1 September. To take into account this annual change in the ordinary student loan interest rates, two separate caps will be implemented, one for the period 1 July to 31 August and one for the period 1 to 30 September.
The maximum post-2012 undergraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rate and the postgraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rate will be 5.3% between 1 July and 31 August.
The maximum post-2012 undergraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rate and the postgraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rate will be 4.2% between 1 September and 30 September.
From 1 October 2021, the post-2012 undergraduate and postgraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rates will revert to the standard rate +3%.
Further caps may be put in place should the prevailing market rate continue to be below student loan interest rates.
[HCWS82]
Annual Fisheries Negotiations
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
The UK and EU have now reached an agreement on fishing opportunities for the current fishing year. This concludes all annual fisheries negotiations for 2021. This has been a landmark year with the UK negotiating as an independent coastal state for the first time in over 40 years.
Throughout the negotiations we have worked as a UK team with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments to take advantage of our new status as an independent coastal state. The outcomes secured by the UK team will enable us to improve the sustainable management of our fish stocks in support of the whole of the UK fishing industry in the short and long term.
Collectively, from all the negotiations, the UK has secured agreement on the total allowable catches (TACs) for 87 stocks.
UK-EU agreement
The agreement we have just reached with the EU, for 70 EU-UK TACs, results in a total value of fishing opportunities for the UK in 2021 of approximately 160,000 tonnes, worth approximately £333 million. This is around 26,000 tonnes more than in 2020, with an estimated value of £27 million.
On non-quota stocks, due to the late conclusion of negotiations this year and the need to provide our respective industries with clarity, the UK and EU agreed that, exceptionally, tonnage limits would not be applied in 2021.
The UK and EU have instead agreed to work together through the specialised committee on fisheries to develop multi-year strategies for managing non-quota stocks as a priority, as well as addressing challenges in mixed fisheries management, particularly in the Celtic sea, and on implementing a longer-term exchange system for quota.
Exchanges of quota with the EU, as part of annual negotiations, were not possible this year. However, the agreement includes a commitment to quickly develop an interim basis for exchanging fishing quota ahead of a longer-term exchange system to be decided by the specialised committee on fisheries. The UK expects that quota exchanges would be part of future annual negotiations, as provided for in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement.
We have also agreed changes for 2021 on seabass to reduce wasteful discarding, without increasing fishing mortality.
UK-EU-Norway agreement
The trilateral negotiations between the UK, EU and Norway concluded on 16 March 2021, and set TACs for the six North sea jointly-managed stocks. Three of these stocks were set consistent with independently assessed sustainability levels.
The agreed TACs resulted in catch reductions for North sea cod, plaice, saithe and herring compared with 2020, whilst there were increases for haddock and whiting.
The UK and Norway also committed to several priority work areas including a review of the management of North sea herring.
UK-Norway and UK-Faroes bilateral negotiations
Since the beginning of the negotiations, we have been very clear that the UK’s overriding priority in all negotiations is to agree a balanced deal in the best interests of the entire UK fishing industry. We worked hard to find a way to reach an agreement between the UK and Norway and the UK and Faroes this year, and regret that we concluded that we were too far apart.
In these negotiations, the UK sought to secure fishing opportunities for the UK industry, whilst at the same time addressing the historic imbalance between fishing opportunities taken in UK waters by other coastal states compared to those the UK took in theirs. In 2019 Norway landed approximately eight times higher value of fish from UK waters than UK vessels landed from Norwegian waters.
Whilst negotiations were constructive, neither Norway nor the Faroes were willing to provide appropriate compensation for access to fish in UK waters, without which the relationships would have been left significantly weighted against the UK. Neither coastal state was willing to conclude an agreement with the UK solely on quota exchanges.
Other international negotiations
This year the UK also participated, and reached agreement, in a number of other international negotiations. This included multilateral negotiations on TACs not covered under the EU-UK and trilateral negotiations, such as mackerel, blue whiting, Atlanto-Scandian herring, and redfish. We also took part in negotiations in several regional fisheries management organisations.
[HCWS86]
Hong Kong: Six-monthly Report
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
The latest six-monthly report on the implementation of the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong was published today. It covers the period from 1 July to 31 December 2020. The report has been placed in the Library of the House. A copy is available on the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ foreign-commonwealth-development-office. I commend the report to the House.
[HCWS85]
Patient Safety
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I would like to inform the House of the launch of a public consultation on proposed legislative provisions governing the appointment and operation of the patient safety commissioner for England.
As my colleagues will be aware, on 14 December 2020, the Government tabled an amendment to the Medicine and Medical Devices Bill to establish an independent patient safety commissioner for England. The Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 (MMD Act) achieved Royal Assent on 11 February 2021 and on 11 April established the commissioner position and its main duties and powers.
The introduction of a patient safety commissioner also acts on the second recommendation of the independent medicines and medical devices safety review, “First Do No Harm”, published in July 2020 by Baroness Cumberlege.
The patient safety commissioner will add to and enhance the existing work that has been done to improve patient safety by acting as a champion for patients. Listening to our patients is integral to our healthcare system and the commissioner will help to make sure patient voices are heard.
The core duties of the commissioner are to promote the safety of patients in the context of the use of medicines and medical devices and to promote the importance of the views of patients and other members of the public in relation to the safety of medicines and medical devices.
Under the MMD Act 2021, (paragraph 6 of schedule 1) the Secretary of State is able to make legislative provisions about the appointment and operation of the commissioner, for example, the terms of office, finances and other support for the commissioner. As is required by the MMD Act, the Department has launched a public consultation to gather views from interested persons on the detail on the appointment and operation of the commissioner. Consultation responses will be carefully considered and will feed into the required secondary legislation.
This consultation will help to ensure that the provisions governing the appointment and operation of the patient safety commissioner are as comprehensive as needed, so that the commissioner will be able to work for, with and in the best interests of patients.
I would like to take this opportunity to reassure the House that the Government continue to prioritise work on this initiative. The launch of this consultation represents good progress in setting up of the commissioner.
The consultation can be accessed using the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/the-appointment-and-operation-of-the-patient-safety-commissioner.
[HCWS80]
Learning Disabilities Mortality Review Programme: Fifth Annual Report
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I would like to acknowledge today the publication of the fifth annual report of the learning disability mortality review (LeDeR) programme, now known as “Learning from lives and deaths—People with a learning disability and autistic people” by the University of Bristol. A copy will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
Sadly, as set out in today’s report, we know that some people with a learning disability have died from covid-19, and this report provides moving, personal stories of some of those who lost their lives. My deepest sympathies are with their families and loved ones.
This annual report recommends that the needs of people with a learning disability should be built into the national policy response by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) in the case of future emergency health situations. This is absolutely essential, and throughout the covid-19 pandemic, we have taken action to protect people with a learning disability and used emerging evidence to inform our policy response. For example, in October, we added adults with Down’s syndrome to the clinically extremely vulnerable list following the identification of an elevated risk of severe outcomes for this group of people. And the Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunisation added people with severe and profound learning disabilities to group 6 for the vaccine, and people with Down’s syndrome to group 4.
We value the insight that the LeDeR programme has brought us during the challenging time we have all faced over the past year. We have been able to use data from the LeDeR covid-19 report to inform our response to the pandemic. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the team at the University of Bristol for their invaluable work over the past years on the LeDeR programme. Past reports have prompted action across the health and care sector, including the trialling of the Oliver McGowan mandatory training in learning disability and autism.
Today’s report makes several recommendations for Government and their system partners to help to improve the care of people with a learning disability. We remain absolutely committed that people with a learning disability should, and must, receive high quality care which will in turn reduce preventable deaths and health inequalities.
NHS England has published its “Action from Learning” report alongside the fifth LeDeR report, which sets out a range of work taking place to improve the safety and quality of care to reduce early deaths and health inequalities. We welcome the ongoing invaluable work by NHS England, including during the covid-19 pandemic, in this area.
The Government’s focus in 2020 was on the covid-19 response, and our priority was to protect people’s lives. We will publish a response to both the fourth and fifth reports in late summer/autumn of this year, to allow time for us to fully consider the recommendations for the Department, and agree actions, including those on covid-19 related issues and on mandating reporting to the LeDeR programme.
This report also highlights the disparities experienced by ethnic minority people with a learning disability. It is vital that we continue to work with our partners to tackle the poor outcomes experienced by ethnic minority people with a learning disability.
Based on the evidence from completed LeDeR reviews, the fifth annual report makes 10 recommendations for the health and care system, as follows:
Recommendation 1. LeDeR reviews to be undertaken through the lens of greater racial awareness. (Audience: NHS England and NHS Improvement)
Recommendation 2. Local Authorities to ensure that joint strategic needs assessments (JSNA) collect and publish local data on the health needs of children and adults with learning disabilities, capturing any characteristics that relate to specific ethnic groups. Integrated care systems (ICSs), and their commissioned primary care networks to take actions to reduce any disparities between people from different ethnic groups when planning local services for people with learning disabilities and their families. Accountability for this to be monitored at regional level, and by NHS England. (Audience: Local authorities, NHS England and NHS Improvement, ICSs, NHS Race and Health Observatory)
Recommendation 3. A nationally endorsed standard resource is required, with local flexibility, that provides information for people with learning disabilities and their families about their legal rights and entitlements, national services available and how to access them, and local sources of support. Mechanisms must be in place for its effective distribution, particularly to people from minority ethnic groups. (Audience: NHS England and NHS Improvement)
Recommendation 4. Strategically planned, long-term, targeted, joint investment is needed to strengthen partnerships with local communities and provide support for peer-to-peer networks, to build on and future-proof existing contacts and structures within local communities and increase trusted word-of-mouth communication and information sharing. (Audience: Local authorities, ICSs, primary care networks)
Recommendation 5. Local systems, including commissioning, to be responsive and develop strategic plans that address the longstanding needs of people with learning disabilities and their families that the covid-19 pandemic has illuminated, including the availability of specialist learning disability teams in acute, primary and community care. (Audience: ICSs)
Recommendation 6. From the outset of any future public health emergency, the needs and circumstances of people with learning disabilities must be considered and built into national policy and guidance by the National Institute for Health Protection and the Department of Health and Social Care. A data collection tool should be established to capture emerging evidence relating to people with learning disabilities, which would trigger adjustments to policy, guidance, systems and processes as required. (Audience: National Institute for Health Protection, Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and NHS Improvement)
Recommendation 7. Commissioning guidance for NHS 111 services to include a requirement for the provision of specifically tailored training to NHS 111 staff about how to respond appropriately to calls about people with a learning disability or from people with a learning disability and their families. (Audience: NHS England and NHS Improvement)
Recommendation 8. A LeDeR representative should routinely and as of right be involved with the child death review meeting/process for children with learning disabilities, in order to ensure that necessary information is collected and transferred into the wider LeDeR programme. (Audience: NHS England and NHS Improvement)
Recommendation 9. NHS England to collect and collate evidence about the needs and circumstances of people who have been subject to mental health or criminal justice restrictions and use this to inform appropriate, personalised service provision for this group of people. While waiting for this evidence, robust after-care support (as required by S117 of the Mental Health Act) must be provided. (Audience: NHS England and NHS Improvement, local authorities)
Recommendation 10. Progress on actions in response to previous recommendations about minimising the risk of aspiration pneumonia in people with learning disabilities needs to be published. (Audience: NICE, Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and NHS Improvement)
While we have taken urgent action during the covid-19 pandemic to protect the lives of people with a learning disability, we know that there is more to be done as we begin to move out of the pandemic. We will continue to work with partners to ensure improvements are made, and to address the recommendations in the reports.
[HCWS81]
EEA citizens and Right to Work and Rent Schemes
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
The UK has left the European Union (EU), and the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 ended free movement law in the UK on 31 December 2020. On 1 January 2021, a grace period of six-months began, during which time relevant aspects of free movement law have been saved to allow eligible EEA citizens and their family members resident in the UK by 31 December 2020 to apply to the EU settlement scheme. This period ends on 30 June 2021.
We have committed to providing parity between EEA and non-EEA citizens under the new immigration system. All migrants residing and coming to the UK will be required to obtain the correct immigration status, regardless of their nationality. From 1 July 2021, EEA citizens and their family members require UK immigration status to evidence their rights and entitlements in the UK, in the same way as other foreign nationals, such as their right to work or right to rent.
The right to work and right to rent schemes—the schemes—were introduced as part of a suite of measures designed to tackle and deter illegal immigration. They are intended to prevent individuals without lawful immigration status in the UK from taking up employment or accessing accommodation in the private rented sector; and to support efforts to tackle those who exploit vulnerable migrants, often in very poor conditions.
Employers and landlords are required to carry out simple checks, applicable to everyone, including British citizens, to ensure the individual has lawful status in the UK before they employ or let a property to an individual.
Today, I have laid before Parliament the Immigration (Restrictions on Employment and Residential Accommodation) (Prescribed Requirements and Codes of Practice) And Licencing Act 2003 (Personal and Premises Licences) (Forms) Order.
The order seeks to amend the schemes’ lists of acceptable documents which demonstrate a right to work or a right to rent, by removing EEA passports and national identity cards. It provides the following additions to the lists: an Irish passport or passport card, frontier worker permit, service provider of Switzerland visa, and documents issued by the Crown dependencies EU settlement schemes.
From 1 July, employers and landlords will undertake right to work and right to rent checks on EEA citizens, who have been issued with digital evidence of their UK immigration status using the Home Office online services. We have already begun this journey, with employers being able to use the online right to work service since January 2019. Since the launch of the optional online right to work service, there have been over 1.3 million views by individuals and over 390,000 views by employers carrying out right to work checks digitally. The online right to rent checking service went live in November 2020, and since then there have been over 36,000 profile views by individuals, and over 6,500 views by landlords carrying out right to rent checks digitally.
The online services make it simpler for employers and landlords to carry out the checks, as they do not need to see or check documents. The checks can be carried out by video call, as the individual’s immigration status information is provided in real time directly from Home Office systems. The service is secure and free to use.
However, we recognise that some individuals are anxious about navigating a digital system. Therefore, users will be supported to adapt through clear guidance, with direct support available for those who are less digitally confident, ensuring they are not disadvantaged due to any inability to access or use digital services, including where they have no access to a device or the internet.
The order also enables employers and landlords to confirm via the Home Office employer or landlord checking service a certificate of application or document issued by the UK, Bailiwick of Jersey or Bailiwick of Guernsey EU settlement schemes, which confirms an outstanding application made by the 30 June deadline. This will ensure that EEA citizens can continue to evidence their eligibility to work and rent until the application is finally determined.
The order also amends the Immigration (Residential Accommodation) (Prescribed Requirements and Codes of Practice) Order 2014 by extending the list of those granted status as a visitor who can prove their right to rent using the combination of a national passport, plus proof of their arrival within the last six months, for example a physical or electronic air/sea/rail ticket or boarding pass, to EEA citizens.
Finally, the order amends and updates the existing statutory codes of practice to reflect these important changes which will improve the operation of the schemes. It also makes consequential amendments to the Licensing Act 2003 (Personal licences) Regulations 2005 and the Licensing Act 2003 (Premises licences and club premises certificates) Regulations 2005, and the Illegal Working Compliance Order Regulations 2016, to align with the changes in this order in relation to right to work check.
[HCWS83]
Liverpool City Council
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
On 24 March 2021, I announced to the House that I was minded to appoint commissioners to take over functions associated with highways, regeneration and property management, together with associated audit and governance arrangements at Liverpool City Council (“the Authority”). I also announced that I was minded to appoint commissioners to take over functions associated with the appointment and dismissal of statutory officers.
At the same time, I also announced proposals to introduce electoral changes, in particular:
to make an order using my powers in the Local Government Act 2000 to provide for whole council elections in 2023 and every fourth year thereafter; and
to direct the authority to consider and consult upon a new submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England as part of the current boundary review, which includes consideration of a proposal to reduce the number of councillors to those consistent with elections on a single member ward basis, and be approved by the commissioners.
These proposals followed the publication of the independent best value inspection report, led by Max Caller CBE, which concluded that the Authority had failed to comply with its best value duty over a number of years. The Report did not comment on the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, on Mayor Steve Rotheram, or on other councils in Merseyside.
The main finding of the Report, as set out in the inspector’s covering letter, is that:
“Liverpool City Council itself, under the officer leadership of Tony Reeves, has started to make some of the improvements necessary. However, the burden of the police investigation, the pandemic, and the legacy of past actions by the Council has prevented speedy progress. At political level, the Council needs a reset, until that happens and the work that is currently being undertaken is continued at pace and embedded, I cannot be confident about continued progress.”
As part of my announcement in March, I invited the Authority to make representations about my proposals on or before 24 May 2021. The Authority and two advocacy groups made representations, as did 13 members of the public. Most representations were supportive of the intervention and the proposal to appoint commissioners. However, a number expressed concern about aspects of the electoral reforms which I had proposed, specifically in relation to the proposal to introduce single member wards and to reduce the number of councillors for the City.
Best value intervention in Liverpool City Council
Following consideration of these representations, and further consideration of the inspector’s report, I have decided to proceed with the proposals that I announced on 24 March, with the following modifications:
The commissioners’ functions relating to the appointment and dismissal of statutory officers are expanded to include the role of assistant director governance, audit and assurance.
This modification is to reflect what was proposed in the inspection report and has been accepted by the Authority;
The direction to the council to consider and consult upon a new submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE), as part of the current boundary review, is clarified to include consideration of a proposal to reduce the number of councillors to those consistent with elections on the basis of predominantly single member wards, that is single member wards across the whole council area save where the LGBCE consider a multi member ward is essential to balance their statutory duties of delivering electoral equality, reflecting interests and identities of local communities, and of promoting effective and convenient local government. This modification is in response to the representations I received; and
As part of my intention to make an order using my powers in the Local Government Act 2000 to achieve the fresh start the Authority requires by providing full council elections from 2023,1 am now setting out my intention that the order specifically provides for:
Liverpool City Council to hold all-out elections every four years from 2023 and to adjust retirement dates for existing councillors accordingly;
Postponement for one year of the May 2022 elections of one third of Liverpool City councillors and extend terms of office accordingly; and
The movement of the next election for Liverpool City’s mayor to 2023 from 2024 and shorten the term of office accordingly.
I am mindful that the lessons from past interventions suggest that once commissioners are in post additional issues can arise. I have therefore asked commissioners to specifically have regard to:
the Council’s LGBCE submission;
the Council’s governance referendum;
the financial position of the Council; and
broader service delivery insofar as they raise concerns for the Council’s wider improvement journey.
I will write to the lead commissioner asking him to provide assurance to me on these issues as well as to work with and support the council to minimise the risk of further intervention.
Rationale for whole council elections in Liverpool City Council
These modifications will help address the inspection report recommendation of ensuring as much stability as possible during a period of significant change. Going forward, the city mayoral and council elections will take place in the same year every four years. The order will be subject to the negative resolution procedure and will be made as soon as practicable and well in advance of the local government elections currently scheduled for 2022. Following the making of the order, the independent Local Government Boundary Commission for England will be able to undertake their electoral review, with its necessary legislation, subject to parliamentary approval.
My decision to make an order providing for Liverpool City Council to have whole council elections reflects not only the recommendations in the best value inspection report but also our past experience of the merits of whole council elections. The absence of such elections is often a consistent feature of underperforming councils and a common thread through many council interventions. I of course recognise that there are many excellent councillors up and down the country performing their duties effectively with elections by thirds or other patterns. But holding elections three years out of four, or every other year, risks creating a culture of perpetual electioneering in a council where there is little focus on the strategic, an inability to address longer-term challenges and leadership which can lack the stability needed for a high performing authority.
In contrast, holding whole council elections every fourth year can facilitate stable, strategic local leadership, delivering a clear programme for which it can be held to account by the electorate, and having the time to tackle some of the longer term issues its communities might face. Whole council elections can thus add a higher degree of accountability, and the stability they can bring can help effective partnership working and give greater confidence to the business community in their dealings with the council. Whole council elections are also more cost effective than holding elections say three years out of four, and hence I am clear they represent better value for money for local taxpayers.
Accordingly, for all these reasons I would like to take this opportunity strongly to urge all those councils still not holding whole council elections to consider using the powers which Parliament has given them to switch to such elections. I believe this could lead to councils providing stronger, more accountable local leadership better able to serve their communities, promote local economic growth, and drive forward the levelling up of opportunity and prosperity across the country. If councils which still elect by thirds or halves now take the opportunity to switch to whole council elections, this could significantly strengthen local government and its ability to serve local people. It is an opportunity I hope all other councils will take in due course.
Appointing commissioners for Liverpool City Council
I have decided to appoint four commissioners forming a team with a proven record in adherence to the rule of law, leadership and delivering cultural change, together with specific expertise relevant to their functions:
Mike Cunningham QPM (Lead Commissioner). Has been involved in policing for more than 30 years, most recently as Chief Executive of the College of Policing from 2018 to 2020, the standards setting body for policing in England and Wales. Formerly one of Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Constabulary, inspecting forces in the north of England and Northern Ireland, and the national lead inspector for the development and implementation of inspections into police efficiency, legitimacy and leadership, and Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police.
Joanna Killian (Local Government Improvement Commissioner). Has more than 30 years of experience in the public sector delivering transformational change and service improvement. Since March 2018 she has been Chief Executive of Surrey County Council. Prior to this Joanna worked at KPMG and was also Chief Executive of Essex County Council for 9 years.
Neil Gibson (Highways Commissioner). Former Executive Director of Transport Economy and Environment for Buckinghamshire County Council, where he also acted for a time as Interim Chief Executive. A Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation and former President of the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport.
Deborah McLaughlin (Regeneration Commissioner). Extensive experience working in regeneration and housing for over 30 years across public and private sectors, including as Director of Housing at Manchester City Council, regional director for the North West at Homes England and Director of Capita’s real estate business. Also worked at the Audit Commission as a best value inspector and auditor.
The Commissioners have been appointed for the period from 10 June 2021 to 9 June 2024 or such earlier or later time as I determine. I am clear that the directions should operate for as long, and only as long, and only in the form, as necessary.
I want to be clear that most decisions will continue to be made by the council; the intention being that commissioners will only use their powers as a last resort if they are dissatisfied with the council’s improvement processes.
The Government will continue to work closely with the political, the business and the cultural leadership of the city and with the wider region, including with Steve Rotheram, the Mayor of the Liverpool City Region.
Conclusion
We will do all that we can to support Liverpool, as it recovers from the covid-19 pandemic, and to give confidence to those who want to invest in the city to contract with the council, and to do business in the city.
I have published the directions and explanatory memorandum associated with this announcement on https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inspection-into-the-governance-of-liverpool-city-council
[HCWS84]
Rescue Aviation Programme
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency plays a vital role in saving lives, and the Government’s second-generation search and rescue aviation programme called UKSAR2G has now reached a pivotal point. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency announces today the shortlisted companies that will be invited to tender for the provision of the next decade of coastguard aviation.
The UKSAR2G programme will procure services that will provide the next generation of coastguard search and rescue helicopters, planes and remotely piloted drones. New technology will enable the coastguard to find people who need help even more quickly.
Data has been used extensively to enable aviation operators and manufacturers to put forward innovative solutions that meet the complex demands of all the emergency services and the other Government Departments that benefit from coastguard aviation long into the future. The programme will build upon the success of the current contracts which provide search and rescue helicopters and reconnaissance planes.
Like the arrangements it replaces, UKSAR2G will be a pan-Government aviation service that supports not just Her Majesty’s Coastguard, but UK policing in the search for lost and missing people as well as the health services in the transfer of critically ill people between NHS hospitals. This will also continue to support the work of our colleagues in other law enforcement bodies in an even more collaborative fashion than today. The scale of this collaboration is seldom seen in Government procurement. The MCA should be commended for thinking beyond requirements to maximise the value from its investment in aviation services.
The UKSAR2G invitation to tender will be issued today to shortlisted bidders to provide their responses by the end of August 2021. Following negotiation, the MCA expects to award the contract in mid-2022. This will allow time for the successful bidder or bidders to establish operations before commencing service from 2024 for at least 10 years.
Since 2013, the UK search and rescue helicopter service has been delivered by Bristow Helicopters Ltd, with planes being provided by 2Excel. All existing aviation services currently under contract to the MCA will be replaced once the new contract commences.
The transition out from the current contracts will start 30 September 2024 and runs through to 31 December 2026, to guarantee a smooth transition of aviation services.
[HCWS79]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Payment and Electronic Money Institution Insolvency Regulations 2021
Baroness Penn
That the Grand Committee do consider the Payment and Electronic Money Institution Insolvency Regulations 2021.
Relevant documents: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the UK’s payment sector has changed rapidly over the last decade, with an increasing use of card, mobile and electronic wallets to make payments. Firms today range from small remittance firms on the high street to fintech giants with millions of customers.
The growth of the payment sector has offered opportunities to UK businesses and consumers, with many using payment and electronic money institutions not only to make payments but as their transactional banking provider, to access their salaries and savings. Customers are now able to make faster, cheaper and more secure payments. However, as the sector has grown, this has increased the number of customers exposed to risk if these firms fail and enter insolvency.
There is evidence that the existing insolvency regime for payment and electronic money institutions is suboptimal for customers. Recent administration cases involving these types of firm have taken years to resolve, with customers left without access to their money for prolonged periods of time and receiving reduced money as a result of high distribution costs. This legislation therefore proposes to introduce a new special administration regime for payment and electronic money institutions and an extension of provisions under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to these firms. The new regime is modelled on the 2011 special administration regime for investment banks.
HM Treasury conducted a public consultation during December and January and received useful responses from a number of trade bodies, relevant firms and other interested parties. Officials also met with industry groups before and after the consultation and spoke with the Banking Liaison Panel.
These changes will help to make managing insolvency of a firm quicker and clearer, ultimately leading to customers receiving their funds more quickly and giving continuity and confidence to consumers and businesses in the event of a payment and electronic money firm being put into insolvency. The legislation also corrects a minor defect in the recent legislation which transposed and onshored the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive II.
The special administration regime for payment and electronic money services is a new insolvency process that provides consumer protection objectives and a toolkit for insolvency practitioners to aid them in efficiently managing an insolvent payment or electronic money institution. The key provisions of this regime include: bespoke objectives for an insolvency practitioner to ensure the return of customer funds as soon as reasonably practicable, to engage with the relevant authorities and to either rescue or wind up the institution in the best interests of creditors; continuity of supply provisions that will allow an insolvency practitioner to keep the firm’s key functions operational for customers; provisions to ease the transfer of business processes such that a new firm can take on the incumbent’s business and provide continuity for customers; and bar date provisions to allow the insolvency practitioner to set a deadline for consumers to claim and thus enable an earlier distribution of customer funds.
I note that additional work is required to apply the special administration regime to firms located in Northern Ireland and partnerships or limited liability partnerships located in Scotland. Around 1% of the 1,300 UK payments and electronic money firms are located in Northern Ireland, and there are no firms that are partnerships or LLPs based in Scotland. The Economic Secretary has written to his counterparts in the Northern Ireland Executive and Scottish Government, committing to rectify this as soon as is practicable in future legislation. In the interim period, consumers will still benefit from the changes to the Financial Services and Markets Act and from the protections offered to the 99% of eligible firms, as it does not matter where in the UK the customer is located.
The instrument also provides for Part XXIV of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to be applied to payment and electronic money institution insolvencies. The extension of these provisions will provide the FCA with the same powers to participate and protect consumers in an insolvency process for these sectors as it does for other FCA-supervised firms. This includes the right for the FCA to speak at court hearings regarding the insolvency and a requirement for the administrator to work with the FCA during the insolvency process.
These regulations will provide a modern and effective insolvency process for a world-leading British financial services sub-sector, inspiring confidence from investors and customers alike. I therefore hope that the Committee supports them, and I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I call the next speaker, Lord Davies of Brixton. Oh, we cannot hear him, so we will adjourn for five minutes.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, many thanks to the Minister for her introduction and the opportunity to consider the regulations. I welcome the opportunity to say something about a continuing subject of interest: the significant shift to electronic money that has led to these regulations. As outlined by the Minister, the background to these regulations is the rapid change over recent years with people increasingly using cards, mobiles and electronic wallets to make payments. This shift is now unstoppable and, in general terms, is to be welcomed. The ease of using online technology is a good thing so long as no one gets left behind—but perhaps that is a subject for another day.
We have the Chancellor’s ambition for a digital economy and, only three days ago, the Bank of England published an important discussion paper, New Forms of Digital Money. The paper notes:
“Over the past decade, there has been rapid innovation in how people make payments … The use of physical cash in payments continues to decline, and demand for convenience, especially with regard to e-commerce, has fuelled public appetite for digital payments. Fintech firms, and in some cases big technology firms, are developing alternatives to traditional forms of money.”
The Bank’s paper also notes, crucially in this context, that
“Presently, payments typically rely on the use of either cash or deposits held in commercial banks —referred to as ‘commercial bank money’. If new forms of digital money are to become widely used as a trusted form of retail payments, it is essential that the public can have the same confidence in them as they have in existing forms of money”.
I take it that the Government’s intention in introducing these changes is to help to protect customers in the event of a payment or electronic money institution being put into insolvency, and I welcome that. This in turn will strengthen confidence in the payment and e-money sectors, by improving customer and market outcomes.
I understand that these draft regulations, if made, will create a new special administrative regime for payment and electronic money institutions. The Explanatory Memorandum states that this new regime
“will give insolvency practitioners administering … insolvencies”
at these institutions
“an expanded toolkit. This will allow the insolvency practitioner to keep an insolvent institution operational with the aim of ensuring continuity for consumers and prioritising the return of their funds.”
The Explanatory Memorandum then says that the draft regulations
“will also extend the full suite of Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 … Part 24 provisions to all payment and electronic money institutions entering the standard insolvency process. This will provide”
the FCA
“with specific powers to participate and protect consumers in the event of an insolvency of a payment or electronic money institution as it does for other FCA supervised firms.”
The implication is that these powers will go well beyond what is in these regulations, so perhaps the Minister could say something about what putting these regulations into a wider context might involve. What is it envisaged that the FCA will undertake that goes beyond these regulations?
I fully support the objectives of the regulations. The return of funds as soon as is reasonably practicable, the timely engagement of system operators and the emphasis on the best interests of the creditors are all obviously right. I admit that, to a considerable extent, I have to take it on trust that the 75 pages we have before us will achieve these objectives. However, it is also clear that they depend in practice on what is meant by “reasonable”, “timely” and “best interests”. Initially, I assumed that these terms will be interpreted by the administrator and are not unique to these circumstances. Can the Minister tell us anything about what discussion of guidance there might be about what these terms mean in the specific circumstances of these institutions? Is this something that will be left to the courts in the end?
Having these objectives set out in the Explanatory Memorandum and the regulations leads to another question: are there any circumstances involving an insolvency where these three objectives do not apply? I do not claim to be an expert in this area. Are there insolvencies where it is not intended that they should be resolved as soon as is reasonably practicable? Are there insolvencies where timely engagement is not appropriate?
More specifically, can the Minister tell us a bit more about the way in which Regulation 12(10) will be used? This relates to small institutions and the wording involves a double negative, which leaves me at a bit of a loss. Do we have information on what specific provisions will be applied to small institutions?
Finally—this is proof that I am paying attention—I can point out what I assume is a typo in the Explanatory Memorandum. Paragraph 3.1 refers to “s34”, which I take to mean the correct Section 234. Even without the typo, I must admit that I struggled with this paragraph. It certainly gives the impression that the Treasury is grasping at straws here, with what appears to be some recursive reasoning. This suggests that, at some stage, despite the statement that these regulations do not need to be consolidated, it would be a good idea to start again—particularly given the growing importance of this area of regulation.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction of these regulations, which are substantial in length and complexity. The underlying principle, however, is relatively simple and one that we support. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton for keeping us company this afternoon, albeit from a safe distance. The speakers’ list may be short but it is perfectly formed.
Insolvency is a tricky topic. Different rules apply to different forms of insolvency, and such processes are often complex and slow. This inevitably adds to the already strong emotions experienced by all parties when a business relationship breaks down. It is also clear from the reference in paragraph 7.14 of the Explanatory Memorandum that, in extremis, the stability of the UK’s financial system may be at risk. As the Explanatory Memorandum notes, payments in the UK are undergoing rapid transformation, with electronic payments ever more popular. There is a clear justification for this new special administrative regime and the new FCA powers that come with it.
The consultation carried out prior to the regulations being laid cited only a small number of insolvency cases among payment and electronic money institutions. Nevertheless, those cases have been drawn out over many years and, as a rule, customers have not received the money due.
I hope that the Minister will forgive me for raising a contentious issue so soon after the passage of the then Financial Services Bill. Does she agree that concerns around consumer detriment in the insolvency context add to the case for a general duty of care on financial services firms? Can she provide a quick update on work by the Treasury and FCA in that area?
A key part of the special administration regime and its expanded toolkit is how so-called asset pools should be treated. Among other things, the regulations deal with the reconciliation process and impose bar dates on claims for relevant funds. While that is all helpful, what does the Minister expect to happen when asset pools are, for want of a better phrase, too shallow for customers to get their money back? What path to recourse, if any, will customers have if they disagree with the court’s determination that the administrator has taken all reasonable measures to initiate contact with affected persons? What additional powers, if any, does the special administrator have compared with those enjoyed under the present regulations? Further, who pays the remuneration and cost of the special administrator? Does any money for such payments come out of the asset pool?
Yesterday, my right honourable friend Pat McFadden asked in the other place why, given the rapid increase in the use of payment and electronic money institutions, they are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. He rightly observed that disparities in which institutions are covered by the FSCS mean significant gaps in consumer protection levels. What plans, if any, do the Government have to explore that?
Finally, the Government intend to introduce an additional set of new insolvency rules, in due course, to deal with procedural issues and so forth. Is the Minister able to offer any clarity on the anticipated timescales?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for this short but productive discussion on the statutory instrument. This is an important issue and I am glad to have had the opportunity to debate it. They raised a number of points that I will try to cover.
I hope that a potential duty of care or other new duty towards consumers is not too contentious. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, will know, the Financial Services Act required the FCA to consult on whether it should make rules providing that authorised persons owe a duty of care to consumers. In accordance with that, the FCA launched a consultation in May on clear proposals to raise and clarify its expectations of firms’ actions and behaviours, and on any necessary changes to deliver them. The consultation proposes a new consumer duty that seeks to set higher and clearer expectations for the standard of care provided by firms to consumers. The FCA is seeking stakeholder views on its proposals in the ongoing consultation, which is due to close on 31 July.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, also asked what would happen in an insolvency process where asset pools were too shallow for consumers to get their money back. Although the changes made through the statutory instrument will help to ensure that consumers get more of their money back more quickly, the regime will not be able to correct for any previous safeguarding failures that would cause consumers to receive less than all their money back. While the regime should help to make administration more efficient, it cannot itself prevent customer loss if the asset pool is too shallow for any distribution to be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, also asked what paths to recourse, if any, consumers would have if they disagreed with the court’s determination that the administrator had taken all reasonable measures to initiate contact with affected persons in the case of the use of the bar date provisions. I am not aware of any further recourse for a customer who feels that the administrator has not taken all reasonable measures to initiate contact with affected persons. However, there are safeguards provided within the regime, such as the objectives of the administrator and the Financial Conduct Authority’s scrutiny of the administrator in its role.
The noble Lord also asked who pays the remuneration and costs of the special administrator, and whether they come out of the asset pool. The rules that will be made subsequent to this SI will consider which costs are to be paid out of the institution’s assets and which are to be paid out of the asset pool. However, the regulations set out that where costs are incurred due to safeguarding failures, they will in the first instance come from an institution’s assets. If an institution’s assets are insufficient to meet these costs, the remaining money will come out of the asset pool.
Both noble Lords raised questions about the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. Payments and e-money firms are not currently covered by the FSCS, as they rightly identified. However, funds held by payment institutions and e-money institutions are required by legislation to be protected via safeguarding. These insolvency regulations will complement and enhance the consumer protections provided by the existing safeguarding regime. Indeed, on 18 May the FCA sent a Dear CEO letter to all e-money institutions setting out its concerns about those institutions comparing their services to traditional banks, or holding themselves out to be an alternative to banks in their financial promotions. It has asked e-money firms to write to their customers within six weeks to remind them that their money is protected through safeguarding and that FSCS protection does not apply in those cases.
I referred to the further rules that need to be made for the special administration regime, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about the timing of further statutory instruments on that matter. We expect them to be laid in Parliament later this year, following which the changes to the regime are expected to come into full effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about the interpretation of the three objectives for this process. In May, the FCA published further guidance for insolvency practitioners. The special administration regime allows the FCA under certain circumstances to direct the administrator to prioritise a particular objective. Further, if an insolvency practitioner is unclear, it can apply to the court for direction if any meanings are not clear in administering the scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, was correct in identifying a typo in the Explanatory Memorandum. I apologise to him for that. I do not have the substance of his inquiry on that point before me, so I undertake to write to him and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, if there are any remaining questions that I have not answered. With that, I commend the instrument to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 3.05 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. The time limit for this debate is one hour.
Financial Markets and Insolvency (Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
Baroness Penn
That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Markets and Insolvency (Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
Relevant documents: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, prior to the end of the transition period, the Treasury undertook a significant programme of legislation, introducing more than 65 statutory instruments under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. As noble Lords will know, these SIs covered all the essential legislative changes that needed to be in law to ensure we had a coherent and effective financial services regulatory regime at the end of the transition period.
This statutory instrument amends a transitional regime created in an earlier financial services EU exit instrument. It is intended to ensure that the transitional regime continues to provide continuity for UK firms, as was originally intended. The instrument, broadly speaking, concerns insolvency-related protections that are provided to systems under the EU settlement finality directive, or SFD. In this instance, these systems are financial market infrastructure such as central counterparties, central securities depositories and payment systems, which provide essential services and functions relied on by the financial services sector.
Prior to the end of the transition period, if an EEA-based system was designated under the SFD it received specific protections in insolvency law. For example, where a designated system had received funds or securities from a system user—for example, a UK bank—those funds and securities could not be clawed back in the event of the UK bank being subject to insolvency proceedings. Importantly, this framework ensured that these vital elements of the financial plumbing were not at risk when individual members were in insolvency procedures. Now that we have left the EU, providing such insolvency protections is sometimes also a requirement for UK firms’ continued membership of these systems. Designation is therefore important, as it facilitates the smooth functioning of, and confidence in, financial markets.
Under the SI that we are amending today, a UK framework was established for designating any non-UK system so that it can receive settlement finality protections under UK law. It also established a temporary designation regime to provide settlement finality protections for a period of three years to existing designated EEA systems that intended to submit an application under the UK’s framework. The purpose of temporary designation is to allow time for applications to be processed by the Bank of England, while ensuring continuity of access for UK firms to relevant EEA systems.
However, there is a requirement in the temporary designation regime for EEA systems to submit an application under the UK framework by 30 June 2021; they will otherwise lose UK insolvency protections. This instrument amends the consequences for EEA systems failing to submit an application by this deadline. Instead of immediately losing settlement finality protections under the temporary designation regime, EEA systems will retain protections for an additional two years. This ensures that UK firms using those EEA systems have sufficient time to put mitigants in place should access to those systems be impacted.
The Treasury has worked closely with the financial services regulators in the drafting of the EU exit instruments amended by this instrument. We have also engaged extensively with the financial services industry on the instrument to which this SI relates. I also note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has reported on this SI as an instrument of interest.
In summary, the Government believe that the proposed legislation is necessary to ensure continuity for UK firms following the end of the transition period. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting these regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the memorandum for this instrument has been prepared by the Treasury. It contains information for the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Explanatory Memorandum says:
“This instrument is being made in order to ensure there is a coherent and functioning financial services regulatory regime”
in the UK
“following the end of the Transition Period ... This instrument makes amendments to an earlier financial services EU Exit instrument”
which will address
“deficiencies in retained EU law arising as a result of the UK's withdrawal from the EU, in line with the approach taken in other financial services EU exit instruments under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”.
It continues:
“To ensure the legal framework for settlement finality protections continued to operate effectively after the end of the TP, the FM&I Transitional SI introduced a Temporary Designation Regime”
which will ensure
“that non-UK systems benefitting from Settlement Finality Regulations … protection … at the end of the TP will continue to do so for three years from that point. The purpose of the TDR is to allow time for applications from such EEA systems under the UK SFR to be considered by the Bank of England. In order for systems to begin to benefit from the TDR, they were required to notify the Bank of England before the end of the TP that they wished to enter the regime. In order to remain in the TDR, EEA systems are required to submit an application to the Bank of England for SFR designation within 6 months following the end of the TP”.
This SI will amend
“the consequences for systems failing to submit an application within 6 months. Instead of immediately losing settlement finality protections under the TDR, systems will retain protections for a period of 30 months following the end of the TP. This ensures that UK firms which are using EEA systems that fail to submit an application for designation under the UK SFR, will have sufficient time to find alternative providers should those systems choose to stop providing services to UK firms”.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, first, I declare my interests in financial services as in the register, in particular as a director of London Stock Exchange plc. I thank the noble Baroness for the introduction to this instrument. I do not have any objections, as it is pragmatic.
I guess we always knew as we waded through the sea of Brexit SIs—I think it was said there were 65 —that updates and possible extensions would be needed. Although, I am not sure that it was understood, or at least clear to us at the time, how often such changes and extensions would come along and why, but this is one of them. For settlement finality, originally there was to be a separation between those intending to be part of a continuing UK settlement finality system—which had to give notice by the end of this month, with the Bank of England having until 2023 to deal with their applications—and those which did not give such notice and would cease to be part of the system.
That always was a cliff edge in the absence of other measures to ensure migration for those that were going to remain in the system and would therefore have the transitional provisions in place. There did not seem to be any system to manage that migration and make sure that it happened. Now we have until 2023. Both the systems that will join the UK procedures under the Bank of England and those that will be leaving still have until 2023 to enjoy those protections in the event of insolvency.
My concern is whether this will be the end of the story. I accept that migration from one system to another takes time, and I know only too well that industry was slow to make a start, expecting that there would be some kind of ongoing relationship with the EU that would make things all right on the night. Can the Minister now say with any degree of certainty that there will not be a repeating pressure for the 2023 end date to be extended yet again for the systems that are not transitioning into the UK regime? In connection with that, how will businesses using those systems know when it is safe to jump? Will lists of those that have and have not applied to the UKSFR be made public so that there is knowledge about where to move to if you are going to change from system to another? If that does not happen then surely some businesses will come back crying in 2023, saying that they have not done it yet. What will be the response and what monitoring of progress will take place to make sure that does not happen?
As part of that, when will the Bank of England have approved the applications? Will it not be necessary for businesses to know that they have approved systems to transfer to, rather than ones simply awaiting approval? If not, they may fear that they will go to one that is not going to get approval and they will have to change yet again. Until there are approvals, will there not always be reluctance to move and further cliff edges? What incentive is there to move from this run-off system into an as yet unauthorised system that is waiting among the applicants?
I do not really see that this is the end of the legislative story. I do not disagree with what is being done here, but I still do not see that it solves the problem of what the future picture will be for ensuring that everybody has their businesses in the right place. I do not know whether the Treasury has an overview of this now that there has been more time to work out how things are measuring up post Brexit, to make sure that we end in the right place by 2023—or, if needs be, by 2025 or some other date. But it cannot just be “never, never”, where we never manage to get businesses onboarded to the right system and we are therefore always up against a deadline and another extension always come along. I approve of and agree with the pragmatism of our regulators but if it is used to the extreme then, in the end, one undermines the credibility of having separately running UK systems. I wonder whether anything can be said to reassure us that we are not just part of a continuing cycle that will repeat until some far time in the future.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this SI and to other colleagues who have spoken. As she outlined, the instrument essentially extends protections under the temporary designation regime to give UK firms more time to find alternative providers. This is deemed necessary to ensure continuity of service in cases where domestic firms rely on EEA systems that miss the 30 June deadline for applying to the Bank of England for designation under the UK settlement finality regulations.
While we certainly do not oppose giving UK firms time to
“put proper contingency plans in place”,
as the Explanatory Memorandum puts it, the need for this measure once again calls into question the Government’s approach to Brexit and the practical impacts of their lack of preparedness for our new relationship with Europe. For example, having been desperate to implement their own customs regime, we have debated statutory instruments which immediately disapplied certain rules and procedures, and Ministers had to extend grace periods due to lack of readiness on the ground.
In today’s newspapers, we have read about the continued difficulties around the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol, with talks led by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, supposedly close to breaking down. This would be concerning enough without the reports of unprecedented diplomatic steps taken by the Biden Administration due to their fears for the peace process.
I return to the broad topic of the statutory instrument. Could the Minister provide an update on negotiations with the EU in the field of financial services? Measures such as these are designed to keep the show on the road in the absence of the comprehensive financial services agreement that the Government have promised. While they may afford firms more time to plan, does the Minister acknowledge that it is hard for different parts of the sector to do so when facing so much uncertainty?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their contributions to this debate and for their ongoing participation in debates on financial services and the expertise they bring to them.
As the Committee will know, the Treasury took extensive action to provide certainty for firms around the end of the transition period, and the Government continue to engage extensively with industry. I hope the Committee can rest assured that the Government will continue to do what it takes to ensure that the UK remains the best place in the world to do financial services business.
I am happy to provide the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, with an update on the negotiations with the EU on financial services, although I note that the provisions within this statutory instrument are not subject to any further negotiations or equivalence decisions. Indeed, the EU does not have an equivalence process or a third-country regime for settlement finality, thus the UK created the third-country regime to designate non-UK systems as part of the original statutory instrument.
However, on the broader question of ongoing negotiations on financial services, technical discussions with the EU on the text of the memorandum of understanding on financial services regulatory co-operation have now concluded. The MoU, once signed, will establish the Joint UK-EU Financial Regulatory Forum, which will serve as a platform to facilitate dialogue on financial services issues, including our respective frameworks and any discrete equivalence issues or changes. This is an important step forward in normalising the future relationship on financial services between the UK and the EU. The Treasury is now working to operationalise our future relationship with the EU on financial services, on the basis of the trade and co-operation agreement and the MoU.
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, I say that the original design of the temporary designation regime was to allow three years for the Bank of England to assess all applications for permanent designation under the UK regime. The amendment proposed in this SI does not change that, and we still expect all applications to be assessed by the end of 2023. We expect UK firms that are members of EEA systems which enter into the run-off regime to put contingency plans in place to ensure that they are prepared for any actions that those systems may take as a result of losing UK insolvency protections on 30 June 2023.
The Bank of England publishes a list of all EEA systems that are in the temporary designation regime. The list currently published is of those who notified to enter the regime. After 30 June, only those which submitted an application will remain and a new list will be published so that firms using the services of these organisations will be aware of who has entered the application process, and who has entered the run-off period and does not seek to be designated.
I thank the noble Lords and the noble Baroness once again for this short debate. I commend this instrument to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 3.40 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Carbon Budget Order 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Carbon Budget Order 2021.
Relevant documents: 1st Report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that this draft order, which was laid before the House on 21 April 2021, be approved. The UK was the first country to enter legally binding long-term carbon budgets into legislation, introduced in 2008 as part of the Climate Change Act. Carbon budgets are set with a view to meeting our target of reducing the UK’s net emissions by at least 100% by 2050. So far, five carbon budgets have been set in law, setting our decarbonisation path through the last decade and the next.
This statutory instrument sets the sixth carbon budget, which will limit the net amount of UK greenhouse gas emissions for the period from 2033 to 2037. The Government are proposing to set the sixth carbon budget at 965 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 78% by the 2033-37 budgetary period, compared to 1990 levels. This is in line with the latest science as the level recommended by our statutory expert advisory body, the Climate Change Committee, and is endorsed by the devolved Administrations.
This is a highly ambitious target and marks a decisive step towards net zero by 2050, achieving well over half of the emissions reductions required between now and 2050 in the next 15 years. It builds on the momentum of our new nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions in 2030 by at least 68% compared to 1990 levels—the highest reduction target made by a major economy to date.
For the first time, the sixth carbon budget will also incorporate the UK’s share of international aviation and shipping emissions; an important part of the Government’s decarbonisation efforts will be to allow for these emissions to be accounted for consistently. We will bring forward the necessary legislative proposals to include these emissions formally, which we aim to do as soon as practicably possible and within one year.
Setting the level for carbon budget 6 is an important step on the path to meeting net zero but we recognise the need to put in place clear actions to meet it. Once the budget is set in law, we will bring forward further policies and proposals. The net-zero strategy, to be published before COP 26, will show how we intend to meet this ambitious target as well as our nationally determined contribution along the way, setting out the Government’s vision for transitioning to a net-zero economy by 2050.
We have already seen the effects of climate change on our planet. Without further preventive measures, this will only get worse. The arguments for decisive action are overwhelming and the consequences of inaction stark. It will lead to rising temperatures and sea levels, extreme weather, damaged ecosystems and reduced productivity of crops. Co-ordinated global action is critical to cutting emissions and mitigating the potentially catastrophic effects on the environment and economies across the world.
The sixth carbon budget demonstrates the UK’s continued leading role in tackling climate change. This target ensures that we are acting consistently with the Paris Agreement temperature goal: to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees centigrade and pursue efforts towards 1.5 degrees centigrade. Importantly, it will allow us to call credibly on others to increase their own efforts, including at this year’s COP 26 summit.
Our ambition to protect the planet goes hand in hand with supporting economic growth across the UK. Between 1990 and 2019, we have grown our economy by more than three-quarters. At the same time, we have cut emissions by more than 40%—again, faster than any other G7 country.
The UK continues to be world-leading in tackling climate change: for example, more than quadrupling renewable electricity generation since 2010, with low-carbon electricity overall now giving us more than 50% of our total generation. The net-zero transition has huge potential to support jobs in low-carbon industries, building on the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan which will mobilise £12 billion of government investment, and potentially three times as much from the private sector, to create and support up to 250,000 more green jobs by 2030.
The sixth carbon budget is a further demonstration of this Government’s dedication to the green industrial revolution and positions the UK as a global leader in green technologies of the future, such as carbon capture and hydrogen. We acknowledge there will be significant costs in reaching this target, but it is clear the cost of inaction is much higher. The Stern review estimated the impacts of unmitigated climate change to be equivalent to 5% to 20% of global GDP.
The net-zero transition also brings significant benefits and opportunities, such as economic growth and jobs in new green sectors, reducing air pollution, enhancing biodiversity and reducing the risks of catastrophic climate change. We expect costs to continue to fall as green technology advances, industries decarbonise and private sector investment grows. Setting the sixth carbon budget will provide a clear signal to businesses, investors and the international community on our efforts to decarbonise.
We understand that ambitious plans across all sectors of the economy are needed to reach our targets. These plans will build on strong recent progress, such as the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, as well as sector strategies such as the Energy White Paper and the Industrial Decarbonisation Strategy. We will bring forward further bold proposals in the coming months, including a comprehensive net-zero strategy to cut emissions and create new jobs and industries across the country, going further and faster towards building a stronger, more resilient future and protecting our planet for this generation and those to come.
I conclude by stressing the paramount importance of the sixth carbon budget in our efforts to cut emissions and strengthen our strong climate leadership ahead of COP 26. I hope noble Lords will support the statutory instrument. I commend this draft order to the Committee and beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow my noble friend and to thank him for his clear and concise explanation of the Carbon Budget Order and, in particular, for what he said about the ambitions that will support it by way of decarbonisation strategies and the promotion of a green industrial revolution. These are tremendously important.
As a Conservative, to go all the way back, I was Margaret Thatcher’s last director of research. I am proud of the fact that the Conservative Party has been for 30 years, with perhaps the slight exception of George Osborne as Chancellor of the Exchequer, consistently promoting a clear understanding of the necessity of tackling climate change and delivering on challenging climate change objectives.
I want to make a point about delivery. As paragraph 115 of the impact assessment states
“the policies required to meet the sixth carbon budget levels are as yet undecided”.
All the things that my noble friend referred to are tremendously important and I thoroughly subscribe to the need for us to deliver on carbon capture and storage. I just know, from personal experience, that we spent 20 years trying to deliver that with a commercially sustainable design. We need to deliver new nuclear generation and the limitations we have on that at present are obvious to all. We need to deliver on much more efficient energy storage and hydrogen capacity, and a strategy that enables us to convert to hydrogen in many of our transport systems. All those things are tremendously important and we cannot operate without them; at the same time, we are going to need dramatic fiscal incentives, and those are the points to which I want to refer.
My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham quite rightly pointed in a previous debate to the anomaly of our subscribing to challenging, ambitious decarbonisation targets while at the same time maintaining a freeze on fuel duty. We cannot carry on like this. In a previous debate in Grand Committee, I talked about the necessity of, for example, giving stamp duty relief on energy-efficiency measures in homes. I hope we will see something done on that, because the green homes grant did not work, which is the point we were making at the time.
On 19 May, we had the first auction under the UK Emissions Trading Scheme. I will focus on the importance of developing that as a basis for our decarbonisation strategies and creating a powerful fiscal incentive for decarbonisation. Clearly, this can work; we have seen in the power generation sector that the carbon price support at £18 per metric tonne has enabled us to drive out coal from power generation, but it is not set at a level that will enable us to reduce and eliminate gas-fired, fossil fuel-fired power generation. We need to increase the carbon price support level.
If we are serious about this, we need to accelerate the process of phasing out free allowances under the emissions trading scheme. We need to ensure that the ETS cap on carbon emissions each year is sustaining downward pressure. At the moment, it is in fact set at a higher level than the carbon emissions levels in 2019 and 2020. We must go further and faster. We should raise the floor price from £22; without much notice being taken, the Chancellor raised it from £15 to £22 back in November. We must continue to raise it.
The likely result of all these measures is that we will have a substantial increase in carbon price under the emissions trading scheme. Our industry cannot sustain that unless we have international alignment and, if necessary, carbon border adjustments. The European Union is presently—next week, I think—issuing further detail on its planned legislation for a carbon border adjustment. In the G7 and our international negotiations, it is more important for us to align carbon pricing and the emissions trading schemes than to align corporation tax rates. That is where we should be putting our effort in Carbis Bay. If we can bring other leading economies—mostly notably the Americans, but the Chinese have not yet committed—to an aligned emissions trading scheme, we can escape the trap of carbon border adjustments, which would lead to an endless succession of non-tariff barrier arguments between countries, interfering with free trade.
We really have to see the UK take a lead in the months ahead. We took a lead in Europe on the emissions trading scheme; we must now take a lead alongside Europe and, more importantly, the United States and other leading economies, in creating a carbon pricing and emissions trading scheme which is applicable and effective globally—ideally without carbon border adjustments, but we must legislate for them if necessary.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Lansley, 30 years on from when we were both working for Margaret Thatcher. I was Minister for Energy, making a series of energy transition speeches, launching the first non-fossil fuel obligation order. Indeed, this issue has been about for many decades.
There are three issues relating to this order that I would like to draw to the attention of the Grand Committee and the Minister. The first, covered in the outstanding report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, focuses not on the carbon budget which, as has been noted, brings a welcome addition in the form of the inclusion of emissions from international aviation and shipping; instead, it emphasises the need for a much clearer policy framework to clarify government thinking on the policies that will be needed to deliver this and other carbon budgets.
I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could confirm when the Government intend to publish the net-zero strategy and say whether it will cover cross-departmental policies to include a significant electrification of sectors such as transport, heating and industry; the continued decarbonisation of the power grid; substantial improvement to energy-efficiency measures in all sectors; large-scale deployment of low-carbon hydrogen carbon capture and storage and GHG removal technologies; increased switching to low-carbon fuels, such as hydrogen or biomass in sectors that are hard to electrify, such as industry, heavy transport, aviation and shipping—to which he referred—and implementation of available abatement options across all sectors that deal with natural resources, for example through afforestation and low-carbon farming practices.
Without such policies—and I appreciate that a number of them have already been touched upon and announced, but not comprehensively, in advance of Glasgow—we will not be able to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will appreciate that for the Committee to agree to this order it is always preferable to be able to review and analyse the mechanisms to be deployed to meet its admirable objectives. In a sense, without that, the order is exposed as a worthy objective but of no further consequence.
As part of that analysis, the second issue that I wish to raise with the Minister is exploratory in nature and follows on from the comments made by my noble friend Lord Lansley. There is no doubt that the increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases is the greatest challenge that the world faces and it is truly global. CO2 respects no boundaries. The CO2 emitted in the UK will have exactly the same impact in, say, India as that produced locally and vice versa.
Many informed experts, including Sir Dick Olver and Simon Ayers, propose that a collection of leading nations promote a global scheme of capped production allowances, co-ordinated not at the level of emitters, which burn fossil fuels for their specific processes, but at the levels of producers of fossil fuels by reference to GWP content. The production allowance is to be progressively auctioned or levied by a periodically updated fee so as to deliver the cap. As has been very clearly stated by my noble friend Lord Lansley, to succeed this has to include the US, China and the European Union. Whichever form of policy we implement, it has to be global.
I believe that producer-level action has a number of clear and significant advantages and think we should still closely study them. One advantage is that the constituency is relatively constrained. There are some 100 global dominant producers; emitters number orders of magnitude higher. Another advantage is that producers are predominantly global and this would therefore facilitate global adoption. They or their customer chains are inescapably engaged with global trading and financial, consumer and political networks, which provide leverage to secure universal producer participation without the contravention of Paris sovereignty principles.
The advantage is the realisation of substantial production allowance proceeds at the international level whose allocation can incentivise participation in a scheme for the developed world as the least-cost route to securing our future and proceeds to selectively mitigate the impact of the carbon price. The developing world would see significant net inflows under such a scheme as proceeds are eventually allocated likely by population. Finally, producer nations would assist with the inevitable social and economic cost of economy adaptation. The production-level cap on carbon pricing ensures comprehensive, uniform application and no leakage for hard-to-monitor emissions. It is still worthy of consideration while we move forward with the revised European scheme and our response to it. I would appreciate hearing today from my noble friend the Minister whether there is an appetite for a production-level cap on carbon pricing.
Finally, and in raising this issue I declare an interest as chairman and partner of Buckthorn Partners LLP, which invests in the energy transition space, there is real concern that with the impending ban on gas-fired boilers in new-build properties from 2025—which is, as we always counted in the run up to the Olympics Games, only a matter of 180 Mondays away—an important requirement is to move to heat pumps.
Yet if you run a spell-check on Taylor Wimpey’s latest annual report, there is not a single reference to heat pumps in the document. That is not a criticism of Taylor Wimpey; it applies across the board to many of our leading housebuilders. Even the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy states that
“in many cases the up-front costs of low carbon technologies, such as heat pumps, are currently higher than the technologies they replace.”
So if we are going to end gas in new builds, what are the alternatives that are cost-competitive and practical, overcoming a broad range of barriers, including technical, market-pricing, behavioural, regulatory and socio-political? I would very much appreciate it if the Minister has any observations on this and can cast light on these questions because they will be critical to any new home standard guidance that the Government are looking to work on and will no doubt publish in the near future.
Lord Lilley (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is an extraordinary indication of the priorities of this place that we are considering, briefly, for one hour, with just half a dozen of us taking part, one of the biggest budgets that this Parliament has ever imposed on the British people. The nonchalance with which we embark on breathtakingly complex technological projects and impose those burdens on our fellow citizens I find extraordinary.
The impact assessment states that the cost of this budget will be £651 billion. Can the Minister confirm that that is on top of the costs of the previous five carbon budgets? I will not question the reliability of those figures. They are clearly as uncertain as they are huge and depend on as yet non-existent technologies coming on-stream, and I do not recall any large projects, from Channel Tunnel to HS2—you name it—that has ever come in on time and within budget. Why we should assume the huge array of projects comprising this sixth carbon budget will come in within the sort of cost estimates we have here, I do not know.
Ultimately, all those costs will fall on households—£41.1 billion a year, we are told. That is £1,500 per household per year. Most of those households earn a good deal less than we in this place do. It means that they will have to replace their cars with more expensive cars and dispose of their existing fossil fuel cars for a fraction of what they would otherwise get. It means they have to replace their fossil fuel boilers with heat pumps, at great cost and before they have even had to insulate their homes to ensure that they get a reasonable level of heat, though probably nothing like what they were getting when they relied on gas. It involves us doubling the electricity-generating capacity in this country so that fossil fuel power can be replaced by electric power.
What about the benefits? They are put in this document as even greater—more than £900 billion, as I recall—but none of those benefits will be enjoyed by the people who are paying the costs. The Minister quoted the noble Lord, Lord Stern, as saying that the cost of doing nothing was, I think he said, “equal” to 5% of GDP; actually, he said that it was “equivalent to” 5%.
However, that is taking costs over centuries ahead and smoothing them over the years, regardless of the fact that most of those costs will not accrue for centuries. Even in the most pessimistic forecast by the noble Lord, Lord Stern—the 95th percentile worst forecast—the cumulative costs of doing nothing are less than the cumulative benefits of the early stages of the warming of the climate until beyond 2200. So nobody in this century will benefit from postponing global warming. People in future centuries will but, again, according to the figures from the noble Lord, Lord Stern, those people will be many times better off than us; even the inhabitants of Africa will be better off then than we are now, and that is taking into account the impact of climate change on biodiversity and the environment as well as the market costs of its impact on the economy.
The cost-benefit analysis rightly says that there is a consensus among scientists that we are experiencing global climate change and that this is predominantly due to carbon dioxide and other warming greenhouse gases. That is true; no one disputes that. It then goes on to refer to “catastrophic consequences”. There is very little in the IPCC reports that suggests that there will be catastrophic consequences. If I thought that doing little or nothing or taking a more moderate approach would put at risk the existence of the human race—as Extinction Rebellion implies by its very title—or even cause its immiseration, almost no cost would be too great to avoid that.
However, the IPCC does not say that. In fact, in its economic chapter, it states:
“For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change”—
that is, if we do nothing—
“will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers … Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change.”
So, we talk ourselves into fear, claiming that it is based on science, and ignore the main body that we set up to provide us with evidence and forecasts.
Will it be economically and politically possible to put these things through? Initially, the answer is of course yes because the costs will be in the future, but that future is rapidly approaching. I remind noble Lords that every time the cost of trying to mitigate climate change becomes a political issue—be it the gilets jaunes in France, when Macron wanted to put a few extra pence on the cost of diesel, the impact in Holland, where a party that did not even exist became the largest in the municipal elections because it opposed the costs of climate change, or Australia, Canada—Ontario and so on—the public have reacted against the burdens that we so nonchalantly impose on them. I hope that we think twice, thrice, even four times, before we go ahead.
Lord Sarfraz (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow such experienced and distinguished noble Lords. I declare my interest in agricultural technology as set out in the register.
The monsoons will shortly start in south Asia. Traditionally, the arrival of the monsoons begins with a festival to celebrate nature and express gratitude for all that the planet gives us, but things are different now. As the climate has changed, so has the mood on the subcontinent. Sadly, the rains that give sustenance have become floods that take lives. So as we think about our carbon budget today, we are reminded of those living with the real effects of climate change around the world.
Our carbon budget is part of an international balance sheet. For us to achieve net zero, carbon offsets must work too. Despite a false start a decade ago, this time round, the voluntary carbon market can be a real success. For this to happen, we need to make some improvements—and quickly. Currently, the entire system of carbon offsets is extremely complex and needs specialist advisers and consultants to navigate it. This desperately needs to be simplified, standardised and made accessible so that income from carbon offsets can directly benefit those changing their practices—particularly those using nature-based solutions and those in low-income countries. This must be done without compromising the quality of credits; the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets has proposed a very good set of core carbon principles, which are a useful framework to verify credits. The verification and validation of carbon savings also need to be digitised so they can be rolled out at scale.
We must also recognise that the voluntary market is voluntary, and the institutional investors driving it must be supported. We must fully support the voluntary carbon market. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that we have a duty to make sure that this market works for everyone?
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clarity in introducing this order. I welcome it, the ambition it sets out and the decision to follow the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations—particularly its recommendation to include the UK’s share of international aviation and shipping. I was concerned that that was not included in the order before us; I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance that it is simply because of differing statutory deadlines. He said in his letter to me that it would be laid in due course, which was a worryingly vague term, but he has given some clarity today. I thank him for that.
We urgently need to address these issues, not least around aviation. On that point, we are still awaiting the publication of the Government’s net-zero aviation policy. However, the Climate Change Committee has already told us that adequate airport capacity already exists to meet the future levels of demand that are compatible with a pathway to net zero. Does the Minister agree that, until the Government have developed their net-zero strategy for the sector—including a national strategy for airport capacity—the only responsible approach is to impose a moratorium on all airport expansion? If he does not agree with that, can he explain how we can have any chance of meeting the sixth carbon budget unless we are able to take the decisions that are consistent with it?
As I said, the Liberal Democrats very much welcome the ambition of these targets, but we remain concerned that the Government seem much more ambitious about target-setting than they do about action-taking. I do not know whether I am becoming more conservative in my old age or the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is becoming more liberal, but I agreed with every word—I was going to say almost every word—he said. He will be pleased to know that quite a lot of it is in the Liberal Democrat manifesto.
The noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Moynihan, made the point that delivery is key now. We have had a whole series of target-setting. We have the net-zero target, which I welcome. We now have the 78% target by 2035; we had the 68% target by 2030. These are all good things to point towards. However, they are worthless if we do not actually take action to get there. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said that, without that action plan, they are nothing more than a worthy objective—I agree. It is good to have worthy objectives but it is important to have action.
I agree 100% with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that fiscal incentives are absolutely critical. We have to start shaping our fiscal system to take into account what is the biggest economic and existential threat to us. We cannot just keep putting it off. We cannot keep taking decisions that are entirely contrary to the targets we set. The consultation on air passenger duty that the Government have embarked on is completely the wrong approach. We should be reflecting much more along the lines that have been taken in France: they are restricting domestic flights where train journeys can get you there within two and a half hours, I think it is. We should place that on all carbon-emitting domestic flights but we should have an exemption for all clean technologies. That would also be a way of advancing clean technologies in the aviation sector.
We cannot go on with a situation where, in 2016, we scrapped the net-zero carbon homes standard. Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that one of the good things about climate change policy in this country is that it has been, in general, cross-party. The one real exception was George Osborne’s occupation of the Treasury where, despite a guarantee that they would be the greenest Government in history, throughout the time of the coalition Government, the Treasury was the major obstacle and a lot of promises were made in that regard. I am glad that we have moved on from that time, but we must get back to what should have been the 2016 target.
As the Climate Change Committee points out, since then, we have built a huge number of houses that are going to have to be retrofitted. That makes no sense at all. We have to tackle the building sector. I know the complications and difficulties in that, but we must learn from the mistakes we have made in the past and not keep repeating them. I know that the Minister agrees on that. I suspect that the Treasury is again the problem. The stamp duty relief that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned is an idea that must be implemented. We must get on with this stuff to give people incentives; even then, it will be very difficult.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, on one point, if not on many others: that there is a nonchalance about how we are going about this. We must get on with this and we have to be clear about what it means.
This morning, I was speaking to sixth-form students at a Roman Catholic girls’ school. Among the many questions they asked was, “When are adults really going to understand the urgency for action?” I hope that the Minister will understand the urgency for action, not just target-setting.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this order today. It is not a moment too soon. We are in the midst of a climate and environmental emergency, and all steps to meet the challenge are welcomed and encouraged.
The strengthening and development of policies are clear imperatives and follow the pathway of Labour’s ground-breaking Climate Change Act 2008. The Conservatives slowed momentum following the majority Cameron victory in 2015 with the result that the UK is no longer on track to meet the fourth and fifth carbon budgets for the years 2023-27 and 2028-32. This carbon budget—the sixth, for 2033-37—necessarily has to reset the pace. I am grateful to the Climate Change Committee for its purposeful determination in recognising the problems and coming forward with robust recommendations. Inevitably, the Government’s slow realisation and slow pace mean that this budget demands deeper and more stringent action to get the UK back on track, not only to meet the old targets but to meet the new pressing targets and the international obligations of the Paris Agreement 2015.
I congratulate the Government on resetting the targets and legislating for net zero by 2050. Following the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee, this order is the next step towards determining that pathway by setting the carbon budget—the maximum volume of greenhouse gas emissions that can be emitted —for the period 2033-37.
Let us recognise that although this is a small step, it is a crucial one. Now the Government must bring forward their policies and proposals for the UK to achieve this. That means the Government must close the existing £22.4 billion gap in net-zero spending, according to Green Alliance, for the duration of this Parliament. They cannot do this through wishful thinking or self-congratulatory soundbites. This is the decisive decade for climate action. The substantial majority of UK emissions must be cut by the end of the 2020s, as the world must get to net zero well before 2050.
The CCC’s recommendations include a more ambitious scenario of 87% rather than 78% reductions by 2035, based on greater public engagement and faster innovation, which reflects the urgency of the situation and the nation’s capacity to respond. Gaps must be filled. I am grateful to the CCC for recommending for the first time making international aviation and shipping—responsible for 10% of UK emissions by 2018 figures—now subject to domestic inclusion in this budget, and to the Government for finally recognising this clear imperative.
Net zero will involve big changes to everybody’s daily lives. The UK can reach the target and stem climate change only with the support of the public, companies, business, the Government and all their agencies, and the devolved Administrations. I thank the International Energy Agency for its international net-zero pathway modelling on a global scale, identifying the annual additions of renewable energy needed, the energy efficiency increases necessary and the technology that is ready or near to market. It recognises battery and energy storage as vital areas for urgent development.
The Government must come forward with far more than a scattergun 10-point plan. Carbon Brief has recognised that, while the UK has committed £8 billion to green recovery this year, Germany has invested £38 billion and France £31 billion, and the US has committed $1 trillion to green initiatives under the President’s green infrastructure plan. The totality of the scattergun 10-point plan promises only £54 billion of public and private investment over the next 10 years put together. Green Alliance estimates that policies announced in 2020 will lead to only 26% of the reductions necessary to get the UK on track to meet its 2030 target.
At the time of the scattergun 10-point plan announcement in November 2020, the Government had a plethora of missing strategy documents which will be needed to map out the necessary policies within a framework to produce a comprehensive agenda so that industry and the public can respond. With the CCC’s recommendations now accepted and enacted in this order, the Government must issue these policy statements as soon as possible.
I thank the Minister for responding with the Government’s energy White Paper and the industrial decarbonisation strategy. Clearly, this order necessitates urgency for the net-zero strategy, which will need to be supplemented by the transport decarbonisation plan, the hydrogen strategy and the heat and buildings strategy, among other things such as a public engagement plan, discussed in your Lordships’ House recently. The Government have promised the necessary net-zero finance review from the Treasury in September.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, identified carbon capture and storage, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, identified heat pumps for new homes. Plus, a comprehensive plan now has to be set out, ruling out anomalies in carbon pricing. Can the Minister confirm that the urgency of the situation will be met with the publication of all these strategy documents, with policies, before COP 26 this November? Does he recognise the value of being ready to provide leadership to the conference? Can he tell the Committee how the Government propose to tackle the requirement to include international aviation and shipping in this sixth carbon budget? This is necessarily part of transport, but will it be addressed separately, as it is clearly a more difficult challenge that must now be faced?
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, spoke of the initiatives put forward by the French Government. Will this Government come forward with better solutions for energy efficiency following the collapse of the green homes grant scheme? How do they propose to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles, especially by low and middle-income families, and to remove the up-front costs barrier? Does the Minister favour Labour’s plan to offer interest-free loans for new and used electric vehicles? How will the Government accelerate the rollout of charging points in streets?
Labour calls for a green economic recovery, with the delivery of high-skilled jobs in every part of the UK as part of the drive towards a decarbonised—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Can I remind the noble Lord of the seven-minute speaking limit?
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I can see that it is 24 seconds past the minute. I have another 15 to 20 seconds to speak, and then I will finish. I thank the noble Baroness, though, for reminding me that the clock is ticking.
Will the Government come forward with a new skills plan? With so many issues to cover and so much urgency needed for ambitious plans, I am pleased to approve the order before the Committee.
Lord Callanan (Con)
First, let me thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to the debate. I hope that I will be able to provide in my response all the necessary assurances that will enable noble Lords to approve the statutory instrument before us.
As I stated in my opening speech, this SI will set a world-leading target in line with the independent expert advice of the Climate Change Committee and is supported by all four Governments of the UK nations. Carbon budget 6 is an important step towards meeting our 2050 net-zero target, building on our NDC to reduce our emissions in 2030 by at least 68% compared to 1990 levels. It will strengthen our position as a global climate leader going into our G7 and COP 26 presidencies, highlighting our commitment to taking decisive action against climate change. In addition to showing the world that the UK is serious about protecting the health of our planet, it will help to seize the opportunities and benefits that the net-zero transition will bring, not only reducing the risks of catastrophic climate change but leading to economic growth and jobs in new green sectors. The UK can position itself as a global leader in green technologies of the future.
My noble friend Lord Lansley made a number of important points on how we will implement the range of ambitious policies that will be needed as we transition to net zero. He rightly highlighted the need for a clear focus on the delivery of new measures across, for example, carbon capture, energy efficiency and hydrogen. He also highlighted the importance of using all possible policy levers across government to meet our ambitious targets. I agree with him that targets are in and of themselves insufficient. Our net-zero strategy, which is to be published before COP 26, will set out bold proposals to make progress across the economy. We will also set out further proposals throughout the year—for example, our heat and buildings strategy and the transport decarbonisation plan. This will be a bold and ambitious programme of the co-ordinated action needed to end the UK’s road transport greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and, at the same time, ensure that the transport sector plays its part in delivering our legally binding carbon budgets.
My noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Moynihan raised the important issue of carbon pricing. The UK is a strong supporter of carbon pricing and a pioneer of carbon markets through both domestic action and our support for the uptake of carbon-pricing schemes around the world. Putting a price on carbon is recognised as an important element of climate change mitigation. It provides a cost-effective and technology-neutral way to reduce emissions, mobilising the private sector. It can of course also offer social and biodiversity benefits.
As COP president, the UK is fully committed to reaching a successful outcome on carbon trading rules at COP 26. This is a fundamental element of the Paris Agreement, enabling parties to co-operate to achieve higher ambition in both adaptation and mitigation actions. We will build on the good progress made at COP 25 in Madrid, working with all parties towards a successful outcome in Glasgow.
In response to my noble friend Lord Lilley, who rightly raised issues about the costs of the transition, I can say that the costs cited in the impact assessment include the full costs and benefits of the transition to net zero. I recognise that we need to manage the costs of this significant transition carefully but, overall, we expect the costs to be outweighed by significant benefits: reducing polluting emissions as well as bringing fuel savings and improvements to air quality and enhancing biodiversity.
It is of course important that we consider the impacts on the most vulnerable when decarbonising our homes. We are offering additional protections to the vulnerable and fuel poor. The expanded warm home discount and the energy company obligation will provide around £6 billion of support to low-income and vulnerable households between 2022 and 2026—an increase of more than £1.7 billion over that period. Over the last year, we have committed over £1 billion of energy-efficiency funding through the local authority delivery scheme, the home upgrade grant and the social housing decarbonisation fund. This will fund home improvements for low-income households now and over the next two years. Her Majesty’s Treasury is soon to publish its net-zero review and BEIS a call for evidence on energy consumer funding, fairness and affordability, on the costs of reaching net zero and ensuring fairness and affordability in the energy system. These will all inform the Government’s approach to achieving transition in a way that works for households, for businesses and, of course, for the public finances, while at the same time maximising our economic growth opportunities.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, who asked about carbon off-sets, the UK is working through international fora to set the foundations for a credible global carbon trading system rooted in environmental integrity. As COP president, the UK is fully committed to reaching a successful negotiated outcome on carbon trading rules at COP 26. The UK’s international climate finance is strengthening the international carbon market, helping to reduce emissions and leverage additional investment.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, who highlighted the importance of delivery and some important considerations, again, we know that setting a target is only a first step and that further action is of course needed. Ahead of COP 26, we are setting out ambitious plans across many key sectors of the economy. These will build on strong recent progress on the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan and will culminate in our net-zero strategy, to be published later in the year.
I am pleased that the noble Lord welcomed the inclusion of international aviation and shipping in the carbon budget, as that of course allows for those emissions to be accounted for consistently with others. The Government take the matter of aviation and their commitments on the environment extremely seriously and the expansion of any airport must always be within the UK’s environmental obligations. By taking immediate steps to drive the uptake of sustainable aviation fuels and investments in R&D to develop zero-emission aircraft, and developing the infrastructure of the future at our airports and seaports, we will make the UK the home of green ships and green planes.
Through the Aerospace Growth Partnership, industry and government have made a joint funding commitment of £3.9 billion for aerospace research and development from 2013 through to 2026. This includes the FlyZero project to study in depth the potential for zero-emission aircraft. We are also investing £125 million in the future flight challenge to enable the use of new forms of green and autonomous aircraft. Further work on sustainable aviation fuels and air traffic control is co-ordinated by the Department for Transport and our partnership with industry through the Jet Zero Council. The Government are planning to consult shortly to update our position on aviation and climate change.
In response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who emphasised the points that a number of other noble Lords made about the importance of policy action, I agree that urgent action is needed to address the threat and help secure the UK’s long-term economic security. That is why we are committed to these world-leading targets, and we will bring forward further plans shortly to meet them.
The independent advisers, the Climate Change Committee, are clear that their recommendations have been explicitly designed to reflect the UK’s highest possible ambition within the UK’s particular capabilities as required by the Paris Agreement. Our sector decarbonisation strategies will contain further proposals to put us on track for meeting our carbon budgets and to provide clear direction for different sectors of the economy.
The comprehensive net-zero strategy ahead of COP 26 will set out the Government’s vision for transitioning to a net-zero economy. It will outline our path to meet net zero by 2050 and our emission targets along the way. We are in no doubt about the challenge that this target presents, but it is right that we pursue the highest possible ambition in the face of climate change. This target ensures that we are playing our part in meeting the Paris temperature goal, and we will be urging other countries to follow us and do the same. It is in line with the level recommended by the CCC and it is feasible to meet with substantial efforts across every sector of the economy.
I set out in my opening speech what we have already achieved, and we can make considerable progress in the power sector as we now boast the world’s largest offshore wind capacity. Now we look at the even greater benefits that net zero can bring, such as protecting the planet for future generations, through economic growth and jobs in the new green sectors. This statutory instrument will keep the UK on a credible path to meeting that 2050 net-zero target, seeing well over half of the emissions reduction needed by 2050 in the next 15 years. It will build on the recent momentum to capitalise on the vast opportunities of net zero and will strengthen our ability to urge countries to go further in delivering net zero globally. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Arrangement of Business
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021, which were laid before the House on 12 May this year, be approved.
This draft instrument makes a number of amendments to three separate contracts for difference regulations: the Contracts for Difference (Definition of Eligible Generator) Regulations, the Electricity Market Reform (General) Regulations and the Contracts for Difference (Allocation) Regulations. These amendments will help to support the ambition for the next contracts for difference auction, planned to open in December this year, and will make progress towards our 2050 net-zero target.
The amendments include adding and removing technologies from the list of technologies eligible to compete in a contracts for difference round, strengthening the supply chain plan process and extending the delivery years that can be set for successful projects. They also include some small technical amendments to the non-delivery disincentive rules and capacity cap rules, as well as technical changes to improve the operation and clarity of the allocation regulations. We are proposing these legislative amendments following two public consultations of 13 and nine weeks respectively, in 2020 and earlier this year, during which our proposals received broad support.
The CfD scheme is designed to offer long-term price stabilisation to new low-carbon generators, allowing investment to come forward at a lower cost of capital and therefore at a lower cost to consumers. The scheme typically sees support contracts awarded in a competitive auction process, which has been successful in driving substantial deployment of renewables at scale in Great Britain while rapidly reducing costs to electricity consumers.
The most recent allocation round in 2019 saw contracts awarded to 5.8 gigawatts of new renewable energy projects, with the costs of offshore wind falling by around 30% from the previous allocation round in 2017. This is the first time that renewables are expected to come online below predicted market prices—meaning, of course, a better deal for consumers. The next CfD auction, which is the fourth to date, is planned to open in December 2021. It will be available to both established technologies, such as solar PV and onshore wind, and less established technologies, such as floating offshore wind. Offshore wind will sit in its own newly created third pot.
In October 2020, the Prime Minister announced new plans to accelerate the UK’s progress towards net-zero emissions while making the UK a world leader in clean wind energy. This included the ambition to secure up to 12 gigawatts of renewable electricity capacity in this round, subject to the pipeline of projects expected to bid, which is double that secured in the last round held in 2019. We are laying these amendments today to give certainty to businesses about the basis on which projects will be eligible to take part in the next CfD scheme in advance of the round opening in December.
CfD applicants with a capacity of 300 megawatts or more are currently required to present a supply chain statement to the EMR Delivery Body as part of their application. A statement is provided if a developer can demonstrate to the Secretary of State’s satisfaction that the project will make a material contribution to the development of relevant supply chains. The aim of the policy is to encourage the effective development of open and competitive supply chains and the promotion of innovation and skills in the low-carbon electricity generating sector. The Government believe that the current policy approach needs to be strengthened to boost competitiveness and productivity in places that stand to benefit the most and to harness innovation and invest in skills while driving progress towards the UK’s 2050 net-zero target.
These regulations revise the criteria that the Secretary of State must consider when assessing an application for a supply chain statement. In addition, they create a new stage in the process, requiring a CfD generator to apply for a supply chain implementation statement to demonstrate the extent to which they have delivered on the commitments set out in their original supply chain statement, setting out the process for providing or refusing a supply chain implementation statement.
This supply chain implementation statement will enable an CfD generator to fulfil an operational condition precedent required under a CfD contract. The Low Carbon Contracts Company, as CfD counterparty, may terminate the CfD if this operational condition precedent is not fulfilled by the CfD long-stop date. This requirement will be inserted into the CfD standard terms and conditions for new CfDs awarded from the fourth allocation round.
Biomass conversions have played a material role in helping to meet the UK’s 2020 renewables targets by replacing coal-fired power stations with renewable energy generation. However, as electricity generation has become less carbon intensive, we have reviewed the role of biomass conversions. These regulations remove biomass conversion projects from the list of technologies eligible to apply for a CfD in future allocation rounds.
Allocation rounds, and their associated budgets, can be made available only for projects commissioning in set periods, known as delivery years, which are set before each round opens. In order to run allocation rounds with delivery years after 31 March 2026 and to further provide necessary flexibility to support the level of ambition needed to meet the 2050 net-zero target, we are extending the CfD scheme delivery years until 31 March 2035.
The Government have confirmed a series of more ambitious targets for offshore wind, including a boost to the Government’s previous target to deliver up to 30 gigawatts of offshore wind to delivering 40 gigawatts by 2030, and a new ambition for 1 gigawatt of this 40 gigawatts target to come from floating offshore wind. This is due to widespread agreement that floating offshore wind will play an important role in helping the UK to meet its longer-term decarbonisation targets.
This technology is in an earlier phase of development, making it currently more costly than offshore wind that is attached to the seabed. It is therefore appropriate for floating offshore wind projects to be recognised as a distinct technology within the CfD scheme; one subject to its own administrative maximum strike price and eligible to take part in pot 2 auctions alongside other less-established technologies. These regulations therefore establish floating offshore wind projects as a category of technology eligible to take part in the CfD scheme and compete alongside other less-established technologies. In doing so, we deliver on one of our manifesto commitments.
The UK’s new 2050 net-zero emissions and carbon budget 6 targets mean that we will continue to require substantial amounts of new, low-carbon power sources to be built before 2050. These changes ensure that CfD allocation rounds can best support an increase in the pace of deployment of new renewable electricity generation needed to achieve our ambitions while continuing to consider value for money for consumers. Subject to the will of Parliament, these arrangements will come into force on the day after the regulations are made. I commend the regulations to the House.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I feel privileged to be in this very elite grouping discussing this statutory instrument. However, the limited number of us participating should not take away from the importance of what is proposed here. I hope the Minister will be pleased that I welcome these regulations without a “but”. I have an “and” and some questions, but overall I think the regulations are very welcome.
As the Explanatory Memorandum points out, the private-law contract nature of CfDs provides the certainty needed for investment in these green technologies. It is very important that we get this part right. It is the CfDs that have led to such a dramatic reduction in the cost, for example, of offshore wind.
I welcome the fact that the regulations will remove biomass conversion from future allocation rounds, which seems sensible, and that floating offshore wind will be put into a separate pot. I hope that, in future, CfDs may be extended beyond just this sector so that we can look at how they—or similar mechanisms to provide certainty—might be applied to technologies such as green hydrogen. That is an important thing for the Government to look into.
The regulations, as the Minister pointed out, strengthen the supply chain policy, which is aimed at a more open and competitive supply chain and at promoting innovation and skills. I welcome that but, given that the Secretary of State has the power to refuse to provide an eligible generator with such a statement, can the Minister give us some understanding of the basis on which such refusals would be made?
Paragraph 7.11 of the Explanatory Memorandum explains:
“These Regulations also extend the confidentiality provisions relating to the disclosure of information that may damage the commercial interests of any other person”.
I do not think the Minister touched on this in his opening remarks; can he explain why that change is felt to be needed now? I am suspicious of extending confidentiality provisions beyond what is absolutely necessary.
I was going to criticise the lack of clarity in paragraph 7.12 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which seemed almost incomprehensible to me, but then the Minister read it out almost word for word. I do not think that particularly helped to explain anything. Can he perhaps ensure that these Explanatory Memoranda explain things a bit better?
I have a couple of further points. Paragraph 7.27 states:
“These Regulations amend the Allocation Regulations by amending the way the budget operates to provide the flexibility to decide … whether each capacity cap, maximum and/or minimum … would be applied as a ‘soft’ or as a ‘hard’ constraint.”
What will the considerations be in determining whether a hard or soft constraint will be applied, as that was not clear to me?
Finally, paragraph 7.30 makes it clear that the regulations are amended to make it
“explicit that the overall budget, both monetary and capacity may be varied using a budget revision notice.”
Can the Minister tell us what that does for the level of certainty he referred to in his statement as being extremely important for industry? I note from the consultation responses that there was a good deal of concern about this change. The Government argue that it is not a change but simply makes something explicit. I am a little sceptical about that argument on the basis that, if the Government had the power to do it anyway, I suspect they would not be giving themselves the power to do it. Can he give us some more information on that?
However, as I said at the start, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, we welcome these proposals. We welcome the extension of the period, which will give greater certainty, and are pleased that the regulations have been brought before the Grand Committee.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
Once again, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations before the Committee today. They amend a number of regulations covering contracts for difference, as well as the general regulations for electricity market reform.
The aforementioned contracts for difference cover the definition of eligible generator by removing biomass as a qualifying generation to apply for a CFD. I welcome this change, as biomass has largely fulfilled its purpose of replacing coal-fired power stations with renewable energy fuel. Now that electricity generation has become less carbon intensive, continued supply of woodchip has caused controversial activity to be reassessed.
In relation to contracts for difference regulations, these regulations also amend the allocation regulations by including floating offshore wind as eligible to apply for CfD funding. Through the consultation process, other minor improvements and better drafting to aid clarity have also been identified, such as supply chain plans and period definitions to application rounds to provide better certainty to applicants. Thus these regulations bring many improvements and developments to the CfD process. As an initiative to incentivise investment in low-carbon electricity generation and bring forward renewable sources of energy while improving affordability for consumers and maintaining energy security during energy market reform, the CfD regime has been largely a huge success. While there has been controversy over the setting of strike prices for specific technologies, the mass deployment of renewables has led to more competitive renewable generation and better energy efficiency. The consultation process has been very productive and the resulting redrafting of guidance is also very welcome. Can the Minister give any indication of when National Grid and the Low Carbon Contracts Company will publish their updates to reflect these changes? In turn, the Minister’s department intends to publish an updated version of its supply chain plan guidance. Will the Minister commit to publishing it well in advance of the next CfD allocation round?
Floating offshore wind is an interesting development that the Government have identified as potentially a very productive new source of energy generation. Will the Minister expand a bit on the operation of pot 2 as a separate budget for less-established technologies to which floating offshore wind will have to apply? What is the size of this pot in relation to the more recognised pot to which established technologies would apply? What have been the relative awards total between the two pots in the past and what is the breakdown of those awards? I will be happy to receive a letter with more detailed information from the Minister rather than take up the Committee’s time now. I merely wish to understand how new technologies are supported in relation to the generality of technologies and when a new technology will graduate, and by what defining characteristics, from one pot to another. Can the Minister say in any meaningful way at the moment what strike price might be awarded to offshore floating wind in relation to strike prices for the various stages of conventional fixed offshore wind? With that, I approve the regulations before the Committee.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank both noble Lords, the gallant duo, for turning up to debate an important statutory instrument this afternoon. As I set out in my opening speech, decarbonising the power sector is a vital part of the UK’s effort to meet its world-leading net-zero target. While we cannot, of course, predict exactly what the generating mix will look like in 2050, we can be fairly confident that renewables will play a key role alongside firm or flexible low-carbon generating capacity, such as carbon capture, usage and storage technology and nuclear power. Net zero defines what we must achieve by 2050 but, as pointed out in the previous debate, not how to get there. We must take the necessary decisions now to deliver the resilient, low-cost, low-carbon power system that we will need to reach net zero.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, asked about the circumstances should a developer not obtain a supply chain plan statement. If a developer fails to make ambitious, feasible and measurable commitments in a supply chain plan, it may not receive an SCP statement. However, it will have the opportunity to resubmit its application before the auction begins. Subsequently we expect that commitments made should be met. If a developer fails to implement the majority of its commitments in a supply chain plan, its CfD contract may be terminated. However, the termination of a CfD contract is very much a last resort. The purpose of the monitoring process is to support the implementation of a supply chain plan commitment that developers have freely entered into. It is in the best interests of both the Government and the developer that that chain plan commitments are implemented.
In response to the question on making explicit powers under the budget revision, we are seeking to make explicit our existing powers and not to add any new powers. Although in the May 2020 consultation we proposed making changes to clarify our ability to amend the overall budget—meaning the monetary budget—and add the ability to amend a supply cap, on reflection, we consider that we already have the power to amend the capacity cap due to the fact that the definition of “overall budget” includes both the monetary and capacity budget. Therefore, both proposed changes would make explicit existing powers which, although they exist, we consider not clear enough for stakeholders.
The noble Lord also asked about soft constraints. When deciding whether a capacity cap—maximum or minimum—should apply as a soft or hard constraint in an allocation round, we will consider what we are trying to achieve from the round generally or for specific individual technologies, including in terms of how much new capacity is supported. We also want to ensure value for money by creating competitive tension between bidders.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked about the strike price for FOW. We will publish specific allocation round parameters in due course. We typically announce the auction parameters four to six months in advance in a draft budget notice and draft allocation framework although, of course, the exact timing differs between rounds.
On the noble Lord’s question about SCP guidance, that has been published in draft and a final version will be published in the next couple of months. The noble Lord asked a couple of other questions but, if he will forgive me, I will write to him with more detailed answers.
The changes in these regulations are varied but they are essential to ensure that CfD allocation rounds can best support the increase in the pace of renewable deployment needed to achieve our net-zero ambitions, while continuing to consider value for money for consumers. They must be made now ahead of the next CfD allocation round, which is planned for December this year, so that developers have certainty as to who will be eligible to take part and on what basis. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
That completes the business of the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs.
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, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing and wear face coverings while in the Chamber, except when speaking. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Royal Assent
Thursday 10th June 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2021 View all Finance Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 May 2021 - large print - (24 May 2021)
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
UN Peacebuilding Fund: Financial Support
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what financial support they will provide (1) to the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund, and (2) to other peacebuilding organisations, in 2021-22.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I draw attention to my entry in the Lords register.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom has been one of the first and biggest supporters of the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund, the PBF, and its work, being among the top five donors. We recently announced our contribution of £10 million to the PBF for this financial year. The cross-government Conflict, Stability and Security Fund will receive £874 million for 2021-22, to focus on the link between stability, resilience and security and to work with Governments and civil society on key peace initiatives.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s recent integrated review of foreign and security policy quite rightly stated that it was a major strategic objective
“to reduce the frequency and intensity of conflict and instability”.
It is therefore astonishing that the Government have reduced the contribution to the UN Peacebuilding Fund from more than £20 million in 2018 and 2019 to £10 million this year, and reduced the contribution to the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund by one-third to the sum that the Minister has just declared.
Do the Government not realise that, in peacebuilding and conflict prevention, trust, learning lessons and long-term consistency are absolutely fundamental, and that when projects such as those in Myanmar, which have been cut by the Government by 100%, are decimated at short notice, that breaks trust and causes instability? Will the Government look again at this and consider the creation of a transition fund that would at least allow these conflict prevention and peacebuilding projects to transition to new funders and allow some continuity so that peace can be maintained?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the peacebuilding fund, we have retained our contribution at the same level as in the previous financial year. The noble Lord is well aware of the challenges we have faced on funding. I have been dealing directly with our support for multilateral agencies, particularly with the United Nations, and have engaged directly at the most senior level—indeed, I am looking forward to my meeting with the Secretary-General tomorrow, when he is in London for the G7.
I reiterate that the United Kingdom stands very much at the forefront of peacebuilding initiatives. Of course, it is not just about funding but also about the contributions we make in terms of peacebuilders, peace mediators and peacekeepers, as well as our support for training initiatives, through both FCDO funding and the MoD.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, one issue that UN agencies, other delivery partners, countries that the FCDO works in and parliamentarians are struggling with is transparency over these cuts. The Government have a duty to be more transparent. I am sure my noble friend the Minister will point me to the FCDO annual report. Can he tell me when that report will be published? I still await an answer to my question to the Foreign Secretary on 27 April and to my noble friend on 17 May. Is my noble friend now in a position to tell me when the department will publish the equalities impact assessment?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on my noble friend’s second question, we are seeking to do that at the earliest opportunity, but I can reassure her that the equalities assessment across all areas was very much part of our thinking and our decision-making, including across bilateral country spend. We are working on the annual report and looking to produce it—it will be later this year. When I have a specific date, I will of course inform my noble friend.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister aware that when António Guterres became Secretary-General of the UN—I am delighted that the Minister will be seeing him tomorrow—among his top priorities were conflict prevention and peacebuilding? Our Government supported those priorities, including with resources. Does the Minister recognise that the cuts he referred to today are, in fact, us letting down the United Nations? I suggest that is hardly an auspicious way of recognising the 80th anniversary of that first Atlantic charter, which laid the foundation stone for the establishment of the UN.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Lord will know that I respect his deep insights into the workings of the UN. However, as I indicated, my experience, through my direct dealings, is that, while these are challenging circumstances, the United Nations recognises the circumstances we are working in and, equally, the importance of the United Kingdom’s continued support of the multilateral system, through the UN.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, surely the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, must agree with Mark Lowcock, a former Permanent Secretary for the Department for International Development, who said that the Government’s aid cuts are “very corrosive of trust” and confidence in the UK globally. This is especially the case in Myanmar, Yemen, South Sudan, Nigeria, the Central African Republic, Ethiopia and Somalia. At least 23 partner organisations from these countries will tragically have to wholly or partly suspend their plans to build peace in these areas of serious conflict.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I accept that, because of the reductions we have had to make, particularly to ODA, there are projects we have previously supported that may or will not receive funding. However, we have specifically targeted our funding. I cite one example of a country the noble Lord mentioned, South Sudan, where a particular focus has been on addressing violence against women and we continue to support initiatives implemented by the UNFPA, UNICEF, UNDP and UN Women.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I chair the UK board of Search for Common Ground, the global peacebuilding charity. Last year, the Government said that the centrepiece of their Africa strategy was a pivot to the Sahel because of the issues regarding conflict in the area. But the letter from the Foreign Secretary to the International Development Committee of 3 June highlighted that there will be no UK bilateral support at all to the entirety of north Africa, including Libya, conflict-afflicted Cameroon, Mali and the Central African Republic. What reassurance can the Minister give that the UK will be supporting any bilateral peacebuilding projects at all in those countries?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, in our approach to Africa, we are funding specific programmes, working through multilateral partners. As the noble Lord will be aware from his own work, there are countries across the Sahel where France has a key leadership role and we have been looking to complement its efforts. We continue to work across Africa in Burkina Faso, the Lake Chad region and, notwithstanding challenging circumstances, in Ethiopia.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said that it is not just about funding; civil society engagement is central to the concept of peacebuilding. The United Kingdom must always make room in the UN system for voices from conflict-affected areas. What steps have the Government taken to engage civil society in their peace and security work? Will the Government support proposals to strengthen mechanisms of civil society engagement at the United Nations?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord’s second question is yes. It is an excellent idea; it is something I am pursuing, and I will seek to mention it in meetings with the UN. I can assure him that, internally, notwithstanding the challenging circumstances, we have strengthened our engagement. They have not been easy conversations—I accept that premise—but it is important that we communicate because civil society is an important partner in development support across the world.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I find it depressing that we seem to be judging the UK Government’s contribution to peacebuilding and peace- keeping solely by financial input. What about over 40 years of peacekeeping in Cyprus? What about long-range recce in Mali or supporting the UN peace- keeping mission in Somalia? What about the delivery of an engineer battalion and a role 2 hospital in South Sudan over the last five years? What about the doubling of our contribution to UN peacekeeping missions over the last five years? All were at no charge to the United Nations, unlike the contributions of other nations. Should we not be celebrating that as well?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Suffice it to say that I totally agree with my noble friend.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
On 1 June more than 60 parliamentarians signed a letter calling on the Government to support coexistence in the Middle East by committing to the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace. Given last month’s violence, surely this is the time to invest in peace and coexistence in the Middle East. Can my noble friend—the Minister—tell me whether the Government intend to support this fund and whether they will raise the issue at the G7?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I think the noble Baroness referred to me as her noble friend, and of course we are friends outside the Chamber, beyond the formalities. I can reassure her that the Middle East will be among the key areas of discussion, both bilaterally and collectively within the G7. I will write directly to the noble Baroness on the issue of the fund.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, once again, I declare my interest as an ambassador for the HALO Trust, whose activities include mine clearance in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Yesterday, 10 of its employees were murdered and 16 injured in a tribal attack. HALO Trust will continue its dangerous but essential work for peacebuilding. Can it count on the wholehearted support of this Government?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord refers to yet another tragic event in Afghanistan. As the Minister responsible for our relations in Afghanistan, and I am sure I speak for all noble Lords, we totally deplore the continued targeting of those seeking to assist the progress of Afghanistan, particularly the targeting of those seeking to create peace and stability. The HALO Trust is recognised by all of us for its important work in demining. I assure the noble Lord that we are engaging directly with the HALO Trust, not just on its excellent work in Afghanistan but elsewhere around the world.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Youth Justice Statistics
Baroness Hussein-Ece
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the finding in the Youth Justice Statistics 2019-20, published on 28 January, that more than half of all children in custody in 2020 were from a Black, Asian or minority ethnic background.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, not only are children in the criminal justice—
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
Sorry—it is so long since I have been in the Chamber. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The over-representation of ethnic minority children in the youth justice system, including in custody, is a real concern to the Government. We want people to have confidence in our justice system, and a justice system that is fair and open, with no person suffering discrimination of any sort. We continue to prioritise the understanding and tackling of disproportionality within the youth justice system, which includes practical work on diversion and better support for front-line justice services.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness for that response and apologise for my hasty intervention. Not only are children in the criminal justice system disproportionately black, Asian or from a minority ethnic background, they are more likely to be in care and extremely likely to have autism-spectrum disorders and communication difficulties. Just over 40% will reoffend within a year, and self-harm has gone up by 35%. This is compelling evidence of systematic failure and institutional racism. Does the Minister think that this national scandal is an acceptable way to treat children? What joined-up work is being done across government, police and all agencies to effect radical change? Scotland recently stopped treating under-12s as criminals and has moved away from an adversarial system, putting welfare above punishment. Will the Government urgently look at this more humane approach for England and Wales?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am aware that my noble friend the Minister sent a comprehensive response to the Question from the noble Baroness when it was dropped due to Prorogation. However, I will answer the main point of her question. Of course this needs to be a cross-governmental issue: the youth justice system alone can only partially address the inequalities. It is important that we look at poverty, mental ill-health, educational attainment, school inclusion and looked-after children, where many young people from ethnic minority backgrounds also fare worse.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. The Government have had many decades to address disproportionality in relation to ethnic minorities in the youth justice system, with many young black boys’ futures being blighted. Many in your Lordships’ House know of the disparity. When will the Government start to take action and stop commissioning more reports to look into the problem in the justice system?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I understand the noble Baroness’s keen interest in this and all the work that she does, but we are working to strengthen further our understanding of how we can ensure that children from ethnic minorities can be diverted from the formal youth justice system where appropriate. We have secured funding to support ethnic minority children at risk of entering the criminal justice system through sports and other activities, and we are undertaking practical local initiatives on out-of-court disposals.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, the criminal justice system at every stage disproportionately impacts black people. For example, if you are black, you are eight times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police for drugs, but you are just as likely as white people to be found with drugs. Largely due to minor drugs offences, there are more African Americans in jail than in university in the United States. What are the comparable figures for the United Kingdom? If the noble Baroness does not have the answer to hand, perhaps she could write to me and place a copy in the Library.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. I do not have those figures with me, and I will certainly write to him and place a copy in the Library.
Lord Woolf (CB) [V]
I refer to my interests in the register that are relevant to this Question. In particular, I refer to my presidency of the Prison Reform Trust. In view of what the Minister rightly said about the concerns in relation to the statistics referred to in the Question, does she not think that this could be a good opportunity to take positive action, at least to start dealing with the very worrying situation that the statistics reveal?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right, and that is exactly what the Government, and particularly the Ministry of Justice, are doing. We are looking at the report and putting in place pilot schemes in particular, as well as other measures, to make sure that we are tackling this problem, which we understand is of great concern.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House that I sit as a youth magistrate in London. I am in no doubt that the noble Baroness has sensed the exasperation of the previous questioners. In February 2021, the Justice Committee published the report Children and Young People in Custody. The Government responded to this in April 2021, listing the various measures they had already taken—but they did not include a timetable setting out how they would implement the remainder of the recommendations that have not yet been implemented. When will the Government publish such a timetable?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the noble Lord and thank him for the work that he does with the magistrates’ service. The Youth Custody Service has refreshed equality plans across its establishments, providing effective practice briefings and training, with a focus on diversity and inclusion. The Youth Custody Service has also put in place a project to improve recruitment and promotion opportunities for ethnic minority staff, and it is embedding a diverse leadership model. So, as noble Lords can see, we are working on it, and I will certainly write to the noble Lord and give him an idea of the timescale for delivery.
Lord German (LD)
The Youth Justice Board’s analysis of how BAME children are treated makes very salutary reading. Even taking into account all the factors, black children are more likely to be remanded in custody, rather than the alternatives available. They are also more likely to receive a longer custodial sentence than other children. So, in respect of remand, what steps are the Government taking to ensure parity of esteem and treatment for black children? Secondly, as a result of Covid, the Government decided to mix those remanded in custody with those serving a custodial sentence. Have these damaging arrangements now ended, and, if not, when will they?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we are aware of this concern and are examining it in the context of a departmental review into the use of custodial remand for children, which is shortly to be published. The reforms in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which aim to limit the use of custodial remand for children, also have the potential to help reduce the racial disparity in remand decisions.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It is impossible to look at these figures for the disproportionate number of ethnic minority children in custody without drawing the conclusion that the criminal justice system is institutionally racist. However, the problem starts with the police because of their stops and searches. So what is the Ministry of Justice going to do, and how will it approach the Home Office to try to clear up the whole mess?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government fully support the police in the fair and proportionate use of their powers and the lawful use of stop and search. However, we remain clear that no one should be stopped and searched based on race or ethnicity, and extensive safeguards exist to ensure that this does not happen.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
Is my noble friend aware of any geographic or regional variation in the disproportionate sentencing of ethnic minority children?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her question. The number of children being sentenced has decreased considerably over the past 10 years. However, we recognise that this decrease has fallen unevenly for children of different ethnicities—which is a matter of concern, as I have said. I do not have the data for different localities at this time, but I will be very happy to respond in writing to the noble Baroness.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB) [V]
My Lords, I sat on the David Lammy review into racism within the criminal justice system in 2017, which that laid bare the shocking data that 45% of youth incarceration was black, Asian and minority ethnic. Fast forward to 2021, and that has increased to 55%—going the wrong way. Given that we have a thoroughly discredited Dr Sewell race report, I make a plea to the Government to sit down with me and other interested parties and begin to formulate a comprehensive race equality strategy to deal with this and other issues.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am very happy to take that offer to sit down with the department back to it, and I will be in touch with the noble Lord.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I just remind all noble Lords that the recommended time for a question is 30 seconds. If we could all make an effort to keep to that, I will do my best to ensure that Ministers are equally brief.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed, and we now move to the third Oral Question.
Environment Bill: Royal Assent
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Young of Old Scone
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend for the Environment Bill to be presented for Royal Assent before the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties commences on 1 November.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, our landmark Environment Bill was officially reintroduced in the Commons following the Queen’s Speech at the start of May. The Bill completed its passage through the Commons and entered the Lords at the end of May. First and Second Reading have been completed. We have publicly committed to Royal Assent by autumn as a key part of our domestic and international environment agenda ahead of COP 26.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister. The Environment Bill is big and important, and Peers at Second Reading showed its need for amendment; it must be given adequate time. Does the Minister accept that the Bill would go a lot faster if sensible amendments for improvement were accepted by the Government in a collaborative spirit rather than routinely rejected as if by rote? Would he accept that it would pretty difficult for the Government to show global leadership at COP 15 and COP 26 if they passed a Bill that is watering down previous environmental commitments —for example, on the office for environmental protection and halting biodiversity, climate and habitat regulations?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, it is absolutely right that this House will want to subject the Bill to full and proper scrutiny, but I hope noble Lords will agree that it represents a giant step forward in environmental protection: whether through biodiversity net gain, record-breaking targets, local nature recovery strategies, conservation covenants or the office for environmental protection. There is a whole package of measures to take us towards a zero-waste society. Of course I will approach debate on the Bill with an open mind, as all Ministers should, but it is already an important piece of work.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The range of topics raised on Second Reading, coupled with the number of amendments tabled since, highlights the gap we have long identified between the Government’s promises and proposals. The Minister has been refreshingly honest about the challenges our climate and ecological system faces, but does he accept that to get this Bill passed in a timely manner and ensure it is fit for purpose, the Government will have to compromise?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, very few pieces of legislation enter the process in exactly the same form as they end it. To that end, a number of changes have been introduced already in the Commons on due diligence obligations—a world first—on dealing with our international footprint, and amendments on the organisation of the OEP and species conservation strategies. A number of amendments have been tabled in recent days for the remaining stages here in the Lords on species abundance targets, nature targets and much more besides. So, of course, the Bill will improve over time.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
Part 2 of the Environment Bill deals with environmental governance in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister specify when the Northern Ireland member of the office for environmental protection will be appointed?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, environment policy is mostly a devolved matter. Although a small number of provisions are drafted for Northern Ireland and Wales only, only half the provisions in the Bill extend beyond England. I cannot answer the question of when that appointment will be made, but I will be sure to inform the noble Baroness as soon as I have that information.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Bill will be a success only if it ties in with existing legislation and the proposed planning Bill. Can my noble friend tell us whether there are any plans to introduce it or present a full picture of the jigsaw of environmental legislation, rather than piece by piece?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very important point, but it is true of almost all legislation: no piece of legislation can be seen in isolation. The department I stand here representing today is closely involved in the formulation of any planning amendments and changes that are being made. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the planning changes are completely consistent with the aspirations in the Environment Bill.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, Clause 24 of the Bill allows the Secretary of State to give guidance to the office for environmental protection that it must take into consideration when exercising its enforcement functions. This seems to completely undermine and take away the independence of the OEP. Will the Government rethink this clause during the Bill’s passage through the House?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the Secretary of State will be able to issue guidance to the OEP to ensure that the organisation retains a focus on the key priorities, but the OEP is just as able to reject that advice. It retains independence, and that independence is confirmed through a number of mechanisms in the Bill that ensure that, whether with financial independence or decision-making independence, it is free from ministerial interference.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, “perfect legislation” is the ultimate oxymoron, but does my noble friend accept this is landmark legislation, so it must be as near perfection as possible? That means that an artificial deadline is far less important than thorough scrutiny? This House must have the chance to do that.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Again, the noble Lord makes a very important point, and of course the Bill must be subjected to full and proper scrutiny—as I believe it will in the days and hours that have been given for its scrutiny. We have seven days for Committee, and I have no doubt that that debate will be lively and that the results will be effective in helping us to ensure that it is as close to perfect as possible.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, as president of the CBI, I was privileged to chair the B7, which feeds into the G7 this weekend, which in turn will lead to the B20, the G20 and, eventually, COP 26. Is the Minister aware that one-third of the UK’s largest businesses— representing a market capitalisation of £650 billion—has already committed to net zero by 2050, leading the world in this transition? The UK Government are urging more businesses to commit to net-zero emissions by 2050 and build back greener ahead of COP 26 in Glasgow in November. Surely, the Government must lead by example and ensure that this crucial Bill is debated thoroughly and passed before then?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, it is absolutely our intention that the Bill be passed before COP 26. I note the comments of the noble Lord. Huge progress has been made since the UK assumed the role of president-designate. We have seen huge success at the G7 with all members committed to net zero and steep emissions reductions in the first part of that target—over the next nine years. We have had commitments on nature in the G7 the likes of which we have never seen before. Of course, we now have to turn those words into action.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment to a species abundance target. I regard this as even more important than tackling climate change, since the loss of species is irreversible. Will the Government commit to publishing clear tracking data on the reduction in species abundance and on individual species, and to do that in series going backwards as well as forwards, so we can see exactly what is happening and all the public can be properly aware of the significant declines in species in the UK?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord says, we have seen significant declines in biodiversity in recent decades. For a target to be successful, there needs to be a strong element of bench- marking, and that will be a feature of the measures we bring in.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Given the priority that the Government have given this Bill and the fact that most of the detail will be in regulations, will my noble friend commit to publishing the regulations as the Bill is going through, so we have a better idea of the detail and can scrutinise it as we go along?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I do not think I am in a position to make that commitment, but I will certainly commit to ensuring that the House is presented with as much information as is possible during the passage of the Bill in order that noble Lords can make informed decisions.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, there is quite a degree of concern about the new watchdog, the office for environmental protection, and a feeling that it should be strengthened, but it cannot exist as a legal entity until the Bill passes, which leaves a big gap in environmental law enforcement. Indeed, the chair designate, Dame Glenys Stacey, has called that delay “extremely disappointing”. Will the Minister outline what the Government are going to do about the delay? Also, in a spirit of collaboration, will the Government agree that they will not resist all noble Lords’ proposed changes to strengthen the OEP?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, it is unfortunate that the Bill was delayed. I think most will understand why it was delayed—we have had extraordinary circumstances—but during this pause we have seen a lot of progress, not least the appointment of Dame Glenys Stacey, in addition to the process of beginning to develop those long-term, legally binding environmental targets, as well as consulting on a number of changes, including the DRS. Of course, it is hard to comment on amendments until we see them, but the Government will approach this with an open mind.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we now move to the fourth Oral Question.
Carers: Support
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that carers get the support and breaks they need.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the love, commitment and sheer hard work of Britain’s unpaid carers have saved lives and made a huge difference to the country’s most vulnerable. The nation is hugely grateful. I completely recognise the impact the pandemic has had on access to support and breaks. Local authorities have an important responsibility to assess carers’ needs, and I pay tribute to the efforts of local authorities as we work together to reopen day and respite services.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I commend to the Minister Carers UK’s excellent 40-page report produced for Carers Week. In it, we hear from carers themselves, not just on the lack of essential breaks and respite but on caring during the pandemic, their own health and their worries about when key day care and other services vital to the loved ones they care for, and suspended during lockdown for over a year now, will be reinstated. If he reads the report carefully, he will see the reality of everyday life for thousands of carers. Funding given to councils during the pandemic has not been anywhere near enough for the vital role they have been expected to play, and the funding the Minister repeatedly refers to has simply not reached carers. How will the Government address this appalling situation and ensure that unpaid carers are given the funding and support they need and deserve?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the Carers UK report. I read the very moving personal testimonies in that report and for that reason I took a call with Carers UK this morning in order to understand the recommendations it has made. There is an enormous amount to do. The practical role of the department is to work with local authorities to ensure that day centres and care services are reopened. There are massive infection control issues, but we are working extremely hard with local authorities to ensure that that reopening can happen quickly so that carers get the support they need.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, I declare an interest as co-chair of the Archbishops’ commission on social care. Given that there are 750,000 young carers in England and that some 27% of them regularly miss school because of their caring responsibilities, can the Minister tell us whether Her Majesty’s Government have any plans to identify these children and offer them extra support, not least in the wake of the added disruption to their education that has been caused by the pandemic?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the testimony from the right reverend Prelate is entirely right and is echoed in the Carers UK report. The point he makes about identification is key. One of the good things that came out of the pandemic is that we made progress on identifying and putting together registers of carers. That was seen in the delivery of the vaccination, when nearly 1.6 million of them received the vaccination early as part of priority group 6. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that more needs to be done on data collection.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, will my noble friend join me in commending the work of unpaid carers in this country who have done so much to help through the pandemic? Will he request that Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions consider increasing the carer’s allowance, which pays anyone caring for somebody less than £2 an hour for at least 35 hours a week of care? The complexity of the current system, with overlapping benefits, would certainly be advantaged by significant simplification. At the moment, people need advice before they understand whether they can claim carers benefit.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely agree with my noble friend on commending the role of unpaid carers. We could not have got through this pandemic in the way we did without them. The system is complex and work is under way at the DWP to try to simplify it. As my noble friend knows from her significant expertise, this is a difficult task but we are very focused on it.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-president of Carers UK, and in that capacity and further to his phone call this morning, will the Minister agree to meet Carers UK and interested colleagues in the House to discuss further the contents of this important report? I know he understands the moral and ethical case for supporting carers, as he has made that very clear on many occasions, but I want to ask him about economic issues. If carers reach breaking point—this report shows that many of them are at that point—and they give up caring, any other form of care costs vastly more, so will the economic contribution of carers be taken into account when proposals for social care reform are brought forward? Might we even hope that they could influence the Treasury?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness that economic considerations absolutely will be borne in mind. It is a huge challenge to take on the massive economic benefits of unpaid carers, and I will be glad to meet Carers UK—I have in fact already begun scheduling a follow-up meeting to this morning’s call.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
Too often, the family carers of children with the most serious and complex health needs are at the back of the queue for care breaks, and many had no breaks during the pandemic at all. Research by Together for Short Lives has found that cash-strapped English local authorities fund just 1% of the care costs of children’s hospices which provide these short breaks. Does the Minister agree that the Government need to fill the £400 million funding gap in social care for disabled children as a matter of urgency, to ensure that these carers get the breaks they desperately need?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, we have worked very closely with hospices to fill the funding gap that hit them hard during the pandemic, and I pay tribute to those who worked so hard looking after younger vulnerable people. The pressure on care breaks has been intense during the pandemic.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, 81% of carers are taking on more care since the start of the pandemic and, as the Carers UK report says,
“Most striking is the lack of confidence that carers feel about support in the future.”
Carers UK is calling for a new deal for carers, with an urgent review of breaks provision by the Government, better respite care, an uplift in universal credit and sufficient funds for local authorities to provide support. The Minister has already said he will meet Carers UK, which is very welcome. Will he also be prepared to meet other interested parties to see what can be implemented?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is undoubtedly right that carers have taken on a hugely bigger burden. More carers have been involved in looking after loved ones and families; those already working have worked longer hours; and the kinds of work they have done has been extended because some local authority provision has not been possible during the lockdown and the pandemic. I recognise that it is taking time to reopen many of those services, but I reassure the noble Baroness that we are working hard, we recognise the issue, and the issue of breaks in particular is one that concerns us. I will be glad to meet anyone she recommends.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Pendry. No? In that case, I call the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the millions of unpaid carers across the country; they contribute and sacrifice so much on a daily basis. We recognise the great demands and burdens that have resulted because of the pandemic. I urge the Minister to think what more can be done to provide these people with breaks. They need them to counter social isolation and loneliness and for their mental and physical well-being. I thank the Government for what they are already doing. What more can be done?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord puts it very well. Breaks are key. Some 6.5 million carers work flat out throughout the year. It makes all the difference to them if they can have moments of respite when they can lift their heads, conduct their usual tasks and get a little mental clarity. We are very focused on this issue, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising it.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I also join colleagues in paying tribute to the millions of unpaid carers. Even before the pandemic, they were keeping the whole system going. The Minister has paid tribute to their need for respite care. Can this be translated into something tangible? How many weeks respite care can an unpaid carer have? I know unpaid carers who are desperate to have just a small break from their 24/7 commitment and work. How much time should this be? Furthermore, local authorities are in desperate financial difficulties. Surely, there should be some help for them so that they can provide residential respite care and give unpaid carers the chance to continue.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I cannot provide a direct answer to the noble Lord’s reasonably broad question, which illustrates the very wide range of care undertaken by Britain’s unpaid carers. As the noble Lord rightly says, some are working 24/7, almost without respite, in incredibly demanding and challenging circumstances, others are dropping in to see a neighbour for an hour or two a day, and there are many permutations in between. It is really important to have local provision so that there is tailor-made support by people who are close and in the community. I am afraid there are not the kind of blanket measures that the noble Lord seeks, which is why we work through charities and local authorities to provide the support that people need.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Official Development Assistance
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they intend to seek parliamentary approval for the proposed cut to the Official Development Assistance budget.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to returning to spending 0.7% of GNI on official development assistance when the fiscal situation allows. The 2015 Act envisages situations in which departure from the target may be necessary and provides for the Secretary of State’s accountability to Parliament through the requirement to lay a Statement before Parliament and, if relevant, make reference to economic and fiscal circumstances. The Foreign Secretary has already committed to doing that.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Minister had said that the Government would bring legislation forward to amend the Act that I took through this place, and then the Government said that they would not. The Government said that they would give out more information on the fiscal conditions for restoration, but they have not. They said that they would publish reports and impact assessments, but we have yet to see them. Claims that setting a different and lesser target of 0.5% is in line with the Act are false. Assertions that the law allows for proactive changes to the duty to meet 0.7% are wrong and there is no provision in the Act to do that. I have been patient over the last six months—I sometimes think too patient. The Minister responsible for these cuts disagrees with me, as the Member in charge of the Act and who took it through this House. What is the problem with us both allowing Parliament to decide on this?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, equally, on the various questions that the noble Lord has asked me, I maintain that the Government remain steadfast. They recognise their obligations under law and their obligations to your Lordships’ House.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister repeated the mantra that we have heard many times: that we intend to return to spending 0.7% of our national income on international development when the fiscal situation allows. What specific circumstances will have to be met for the Government to return to 0.7%? Why is it taking six months to define? Give us an answer today.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord should recognise—I am sure he does—that, as I have said repeatedly, we have been faced with the worst economic contraction for almost 300 years and a budget deficit of close to £400 billion. It is therefore right that we take time to understand fully what the long-term impact of our financial position will be. As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made clear this week, we have had to look at a range of fiscal measures, including our situation on debt and borrowing. Last year we borrowed over £300 billion and this year we are forecast to borrow a further £234 billion. We will provide details as we move forward. However, I am sure that, if the noble Lord reflects, he will agree that we are facing very challenging times. Notwithstanding that, we are still among the largest providers when it comes to development support across the globe.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to the fact that I have a daughter who works in overseas development, but my question is not directed to the merits or demerits of the government proposal. Following up the question of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, how is it consistent with the sovereignty of Parliament, which is, after all, the pre-eminent constitutional principle that all of us in this Chamber embrace, for an unequivocal statutory obligation on the Executive to be postponed without further reference to Parliament, except through a mere Ministerial Statement? At least with Henry VIII provisions we have the notional fig leaf of parliamentary consent, but this is Executive reliance on Section 3 of the Act and it removes that fig leaf. Is not the sight rather unpleasant?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, when I saw the noble and learned Lord’s name on the speakers’ list, the Henry VIII element came to mind from previous occasions taking legislation through this House. He makes a pertinent point about legislation, but I assure him that we are looking specifically at our obligations under the Act and we are of course taking advice in this respect. I am sure that in due course, we will be able to provide further detail on the return to 0.7%.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, British taxpayers can take immense pride in the fact that their funds have helped to save the lives of over 1 million people in the last five years alone, most of those children. The fact that this budget is now being reduced means that tens or hundreds of thousands of lives will be lost. It is a life-or-death issue, and I know that my noble friend cares as much as any of the rest of us about the consequences of these difficult decisions which need to be taken. I will mention just one, and in doing so record my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Group on WaSH. Over 50 million people have depended on UK Aid for clean water and sanitation, which are crucial during the current Covid pandemic. Does my noble friend agree that it would be inappropriate if WaSH programmes were disproportionately impacted by the overall reductions in the aid budget?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first, I recognise the important role that my noble friend has played and continues to play on the development scene, in particular in a specific number of programmes and through his role as co-chair of the APPG on WaSH. Having visited projects in the field, I know the importance of the WaSH programmes. As I am sure my noble friend recognises, that is why we continue to work with the likes of Unilever and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. I can also assure him that I am working directly, notwithstanding the challenging reductions we have had to make, with all key agencies of the UN to see how we can optimise the work of multilateral organisations through the UN and indeed complement them through our bilateral programmes in country. The WaSH programmes provide a very good example of what can be sustained and retained, and indeed of prevention of the spread of further diseases and viruses, as we have seen throughout the pandemic.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, exactly how are the Government respecting either the law or this House in the way the Minister said in answer to my noble friend? The Minister knows that the Act allows a reduction in aid spending if the economy contracts, but the Government have gone beyond that. Why, then, do they fear bringing this back to Parliament? He knows the impact this is having on lives—he has just heard an example of that. Does he really think that the British public, when we know of their generosity to Comic Relief, believe that this is the right thing to do? Who ordered that there would be no impact assessments of these cuts, and why?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we fully understand and recognise the implications of the challenging decisions we have made, to which I have already alluded not just today but previously. However, I am sure that the noble Baroness recognises that we continue to spend a large proportion of our budget on overseas development aid when compared to other countries, including G7 members. Undoubtedly, the temporary reduction has had an impact on the programmes we are carrying out both through multilateral agencies and in country. On impact assessments, as I said in answer to a previous Question, we have done an equality impact assessment to understand important issues in our programmes relating to girls’ education, for example. As I also said earlier, we are currently considering the publication of that very equality impact assessment.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I deeply regret that the Government were not able to compromise on what is clearly the will of the democratically elected other place. I hope that they are reflecting carefully on Mr Speaker’s words about an effective and meaningful vote, as this issue is not going away. One of the consequences of the aid cuts and the ceiling of 0.5% is the limits it places on our response to Covid-19. For example, we have not been able to make a contribution to COVAX since the cuts were announced. I welcome the Prime Minister’s focus on global vaccinations at this weekend’s G7 summit. However, can the Minister tell me whether any UK donations will be over and above the 0.5%, or will there have to be further cuts to UK aid to pay for them?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend will know, the 0.5% reductions that we have made were carried out on a one-year settlement. As a Minister responsible for multilateral agencies in a number of country projects where development assistance plays an important role, we are now working very much with country partners on the basis of the budgets agreed. We stand by the more than £0.5 billion contribution that we have made to the COVAX facility, and I know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is looking to further announcements that may be made in the aftermath of the G7 meeting.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester [V]
My Lords, I salute the commitment of the Minister to development, which is much appreciated. However, I was disappointed to hear him say again that we remain among the largest givers in the G7. Surely, that is not the point. The point is that a manifesto commitment of which the Conservative Party could be proud has been broken. The argument marshalled for breaking that promise is the fiscal situation, but it is surely a matter of priorities. Eye-watering amounts of money have been spent on other things; this is a relatively small part of UK expenditure. Furthermore, is that spending not in our own interests? Jesus tells us to love our neighbour as ourself. The implication is that by loving our neighbours we will actually love ourselves better. At the moment, we need to commit more to overseas aid and fighting this terrible pandemic, which, as we all know, is global and not confined just to this country. Other countries are suffering much worse. Surely this matter should be debated by Parliament soon.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the right reverend Prelate’s final point, the debates continue, as has been demonstrated today. As the Minister responsible for the business of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, I fully expect that we will return to this matter again. However, I should say to the right reverend Prelate that I, as a person of faith myself, appreciate that it is right to recognise the importance of the role that development assistance has played around the world in standing up for the most vulnerable and in providing people with an opportunity to better their lives. That remains a key priority for this Government. We have had to make some challenging decisions over the past year because of the domestic situation, and I am sure that he recognises the increased level of support that we have given citizens across the UK. Nevertheless, the Government, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, the Chancellor remain resolute that we will return to the 0.7% at the earliest opportunity that the surrounding economic situation allows.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. In response to my noble friend Lord Judge, the Minister said that the department was taking legal advice. Can he give a little more detail on that? Does it reflect a view within the department that it is quite possible that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is correct to say that what the Executive is doing is, in fact, illegal? Given that and the strength of feeling on this issue, not least from every living ex-Prime Minister, do not the Government need to respect Parliament and give it a meaningful vote on this issue?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I cannot agree with the premise of what the noble Baroness is suggesting. What I can say to her is to reiterate the point. Of course, the Government take legal advice on a range of issues to ensure that our obligations under the law and to Parliament are being met. As I have said on a number of occasions—and I repeat again—we are fully cognisant of our obligations on both those fronts.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, how will the plethora of cut programmes be reinstated once the temporary cuts to the aid budget are restored—or are they lost in perpetuity?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to ask a practical question. I assure her that the approach that we have been taking— I can share this with her directly—looks at the core of projects to ensure that our equities on the ground with multilateral and key partners in delivery are sustained to allow for the ability to scale up as and when the circumstances allow.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, Britain will contribute £10 billion this year to the European Union, which is roughly the same sum as the Government propose to spend on overseas aid. Can my noble friend give an undertaking that, if there is to be a vote on the overseas aid budget in this House, it could be accompanied by a vote on our contributions to the European Union, so that priorities for overseas disbursements could be considered in the round?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend presents an interesting proposition. What I will say in response is that, as part of the withdrawal agreement, which was ratified back in January 2020, a financial settlement was agreed on the UK’s past obligations as a departing member state from the EU and that, by definition, this does not relate to any future arrangements. The EU and the UK both recognise our financial commitments to each other in this respect.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I may take the Minister to questions of parliamentary sovereignty, legality and trust. If Governments are permitted to break laws, politicians to break manifesto promises, parliamentarians to break commitments to the destitute and starving, why should anyone take the blindest bit of notice when the United Kingdom proclaims the rule of law and the primacy of Parliament? Before the Prime Minister travels to the G7 summit, I ask the Minister to take the message to him—it is the one he has heard today during these exchanges, but it is from many in your Lordships’ House—that this country’s word should be its bond, even when that is difficult or inconvenient, and urgently to put right this deeply troubling and, arguably, illegal decision.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord is fully aware, I respect greatly his commitment and passion and, of course, his principles for the issues around our support of the most vulnerable communities around the world, as well as his advocacy for human rights. On a lighter note, he has suggested that I should talk to the Prime Minister before he departs for the G7 summit. The Prime Minister is already in Cornwall, so I cannot promise that I will be able to do that in practical terms. What I will say to the noble Lord is that, as I have said before, I recognise, as do the Government, the important role that Parliament plays, its sovereignty and the importance of standing up for the rule of law. Indeed, as the Minister responsible for standing up for the rule of law, I can assure the noble Lord of my engagement in that directly—as was demonstrated in our support for recent candidatures for the International Criminal Court, for example. That demonstrated the strength and respect for the United Kingdom as a state that stands up for its international obligations and for the international rule of law, and long may that continue.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for the Private Notice Question has elapsed.
Game Birds (Cage Breeding) Bill [HL]
Thursday 10th June 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Game Birds (Cage Breeding) Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Game Birds (Cage Breeding) Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement) Bill [HL]
Thursday 10th June 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement) Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement) Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Procedure and Privileges Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2021
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Orders laid before the House on 14 and 26 April be approved.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 June.
Myanmar (Sanctions) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 29 April be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 7 June.
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development etc.) (England) (Amendment) Order 2021
13:22 - Division conducted remotely on Baroness Pinnock’s Motion - Ayes: 104 / Noes: 241 - Baroness Pinnock’s Motion disagreed.
Baroness Pinnock
That a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development etc.) (England) (Amendment) Order 2021, laid before the House on 31 March, be annulled because it introduces a significant policy change without being subject to sufficient parliamentary scrutiny; it affects the ability of communities to have a say in important changes to their local areas; and it does not present an effective or sustainable solution to the housing crisis (SI 2021/428).
Relevant document: 52nd Report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2019–21 (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, as it was not possible to proceed with the Divison on the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on Tuesday 8 June, I will call the deferred Division on the Motion. The Motion was fully debated and pressed to a Division on Tuesday.
If the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is agreed to, I cannot call the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, which will otherwise follow. No further speeches will be heard on these Motions. I instruct the clerk to start a remote Divison on the question that Baroness Pinnock’s Motion be agreed to.
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development etc.) (England) (Amendment) Order 2021
13:37 - Division conducted remotely on Lord Kennedy of Southwark’s Motion. - Ayes: 260 / Noes: 229 - Motion agreed.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
That this House regrets that the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development etc.) (England) (Amendment) Order 2021 (SI 2021/428) will remove the voice of local communities, result in a new swathe of poor-quality housing, and detrimentally impact the prosperity of high streets; further regrets that these changes have been introduced with insufficient parliamentary scrutiny and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to withdraw the Order.
Relevant document: 52nd Report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2019–21 (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, in moving my Motion that is before the House, I have a few brief words to say. I do not intend to detain the House for very long, and I intend to divide the House after my remarks.
We had a good debate last Tuesday with many excellent contributions from around the House, but I was struck that there was not a single contribution from the Government Benches other than from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh. There was not one word of support for the position that the noble Lord was taking; it was non-existent. This is the party that talks local and talks about localism and community but votes to prevent local communities, councillors and people from having a say. That is wrong and that is why I tabled this Motion to Regret. I hope that, when the House divides shortly, it will pass that Motion to reflect how cross the House is with the actions of the Government.
I am confident that, when the noble Lord, whom I like very much, was leader of Hammersmith and Fulham, he would have been jumping up and down if a Government had tried to do what they are doing today, in denying local people their say and riding roughshod over their wishes. I hope that the House expresses its regret over the action of the Government. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Employment Rights
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, workers face a real crisis of insecurity and a lack of protections, but the proposals announced in this Statement will do little to turn around the record of inaction from the Government. Whether it is dropping the employment Bill, allowing 2 million people to be paid below the minimum wage or indeed leaving the post of Director of Labour Market Enforcement vacant for months, the Government’s rhetoric on workers’ rights simply fails to match reality. We see this again today.
There is no plan for when the legislation for the single enforcement body will come to Parliament, despite three-quarters of respondents in the consultation stating that the current enforcement system is ineffective. As the Government said that the new body will
“significantly improve the Government’s ability to protect vulnerable workers and ensure they receive their employment rights”,
can the Minister confirm that the Bill is a priority and will at least be published this year?
There is no new money to merge three existing bodies into a single organisation with a significantly expanded remit. The consultation response states that the current funding will be “used more effectively”, but more funding for its new responsibilities, such as
“enforcement of holiday pay for vulnerable workers”,
is yet to be considered. So can the Minister explain how effective the body will be across all its responsibilities without additional support?
The most glaring omission in this plan is that many of the most exploitative employment practices will remain perfectly legal. Bogus self-employment denies millions of workers in the gig economy basic protections and rights. On fire and rehire, the Minister said:
“This Government have always been clear that we do not accept fire and rehire as a negotiation tactic.”
But the weak promise of further guidance only kicks the can further down the road.
Almost three million people—one in 10—have been subjected to fire and rehire since last March. This will not stop until this morally wrong and economically illiterate practice is outlawed. So will the Minister commit to giving workers full employment rights to ensure that everybody has dignity and security at work?
The Statement also reconfirms that the Government are determined to hobble trade unions, which are the best mechanism for protecting workers’ rights. The proposal to give the certification officer powers to commission investigations and fine trade unions even when there has been no complaint from a member—funded by a levy on trade unions—is an attack on working people and seeks to solve a problem that simply does not exist. Why are the Government not following President Biden’s proposals—he is here in the country—to empower trade unions to rejuvenate the American economy and raise living standards? If Ministers really want to do whatever they can to protect and enhance workers’ rights, they need to stop overpromising and start delivering for working people.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. This is a relatively small, long-overdue step towards upholding workers’ rights, and to that extent it is welcome. However, it comes with no parliamentary time allocated for legislation and no new funding.
There was a glaring hole in the Queen’s Speech. After a pandemic that has made life extremely hard for many people, it is disappointing that the Government are yet to announce an employment Bill to strengthen workers’ rights and to make the rules fit for modern working practice.
A single enforcement agency is welcome but, unless we look again at people’s working conditions and the rules in place, this agency—when it eventually emerges—will not be able to deliver the change that people need in their lives. To do that, it needs proper funding. For example, the International Labour Organization recommends that Governments have one inspector per 10,000 workers. In the UK the current funding is for 0.4, so can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House if and when the new agency will be funded to deliver ILO levels of inspection?
When an illusionist is practising their art, the key skill is misdirection. In this case, our attention is in danger of being distracted by decent and welcome words condemning the practice of fire and rehire. Meanwhile, the Government have conflated employment abuses with measures to crack down on trade unions. While there may be some issues in a small number of unions, they are not the cause of the problems faced by so many families. It is sharp employment practice that is taking UK families to the edge, not trade unions, so my next question to the Minister is: how do the Parliamentary Under-Secretary’s words in this Statement help people who right now are being fired and taken back on downgraded working contracts? This Statement condemns the practice, but now the Government have asked for a further report on the subject. This is kicking it into the long grass. When will the Government actually do something to help workers?
More broadly, in October 2016 the Government commissioned Matthew Taylor to carry out an independent review of the UK employment framework. The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices found that the labour market was changing due to the emergence of new business models and different forms of gig economy working; the Minister knows about this very well. It proposed many important measures to help support people’s jobs in those sectors. These measures received a broad welcome, and indeed warm words flowed from the Benches opposite. In their last manifesto, the Conservatives undertook to implement many of the report’s findings—yet it still gathers dust. Mr Taylor became interim Director of Labour Market Enforcement in August 2019, but then in January this year he announced that he was leaving and the role was not refilled. So have the Government abandoned their pledge to implement the Taylor review?
With or without Taylor, things need to change—and quickly. When will we see an end to the toxic practice of delivery workers being required to drive illegally so that they can meet their quotas? When will we see an end to people being forced to skip bathroom breaks? When will nearly two in five workers get more than a week’s notice of their working hours? When will gig economy workers get the wages they deserve—for example, the 20% higher minimum wage for people on zero-hours contracts? Because this is the real world of work that is facing many people right now.
Speaking in the Commons, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said:
“Nothing is off the table.”—[Official Report, Commons, 8/6/21; col. 849.]
Actually, for the poorest, most exploited workers there is nothing on the table. These are words. When will we see some action?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Fox, for their comments. To pick up the final question from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about the Taylor review and workers’ rights, we have made good progress in bringing forward legislation to protect workers’ rights. We have closed the loophole that sees agency workers employed on cheaper rates than permanent workers, we have quadrupled the maximum fine for employers who treat their workers badly and we have given all workers the right to receive a statement of their rights from day one.
We are committed to protecting and enhancing workers’ rights. The noble Lord pointed to the Uber Supreme Court judgment. It was clear that those who qualify as workers under existing employment law are entitled to rights such as the minimum wage, and all gig economy businesses should ensure that they are fulfilling their legal responsibilities.
On the employment Bill, which both noble Lords asked me about, I can tell them, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, who said that the Bill had been dropped, that he is not correct. We are committed to bringing forward an employment Bill to protect and enhance workers’ rights as we build back better. We want a high-productivity, high-wage economy that delivers on our ambition, and we want to see workers protected.
With regard to firing and rehiring, the Government have set out a clear and proportionate course of action to address fire and rehire. It is a complex area of law so we have asked ACAS to produce better, more comprehensive and clearer guidance to help employers explore all the options before considering fire and rehire and to encourage good employment relations practice. We are looking closely at the ACAS report. While we are not legislating at this stage, we will continue to monitor the evidence on the use and prevalence of fire and rehire.
Both noble Lords asked me about the funding for the single enforcement body. As with all government funding, that will be considered during the spending review later this year. On the questions about the Certification Officer, it is important to point out that the principle of this in the legislation was passed and agreed in the Trade Union Act 2016. This is merely the enactment of those provisions, and it does no more than give powers to the Certification Officer similar to those that many other regulators already possess in these sorts of areas.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, we come to the 20 minutes allocated to Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the improved guidance that the Government have asked ACAS to produce on fire and rehire, because it is a balanced position in the impact on employers. However, the Minister will know that without strong enforcement powers a regulator, however much of a super regulator it might be, cannot do very much. He also knows that some of the most egregious abuses are happening within supply chains, not in faraway countries of which we know little but here in this country, in places such as Leicester. So when the Government tell us they are still considering options on a garment trade adjudicator, will they recognise how disappointing that is? Like other noble Lords who have gone before me, I want to press the Minister to get moving on setting up this body, giving it strong powers and then going so far as to ban goods in shops that are supplied by people who break the law.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness makes some good points. I agree with her that some of the appalling treatment in places such as Leicester that was highlighted in press articles is unacceptable. Our response to the consultation sets out the high-level proposals for the single enforcement body. We will be developing more detailed plans for the body’s operation and structure in partnership with the existing enforcement bodies. The noble Baroness will be aware that creating the new body will require primary legislation, and timing will depend on the legislative timescale. However, we are committed to ensuring that it has adequate funding for enforcement; we will do that through the spending review, as I mentioned.
The Government have a good record on protecting employment rights enforcement. We have more than doubled the budget for minimum wage enforcement and compliance, which is now over £27 million per year.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, a number of noble Lords have mentioned the warm words in this Statement. The one-third of active trade unionists who vote Conservative will welcome those warm words from this Government.
I have two specific questions. First, when will the proposed changes in the power of the Certification Officer be made public and put in the public domain for us to discuss? Secondly, does the Minister agree that it is important to balance flexibility with effective protection for workers?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his comments. The legislation will be introduced shortly, and it is important that we balance flexibility with protections. My noble friend feels very strongly about this issue. It is a dynamic, flexible economy that makes the UK such a fantastic place to work and gives us such relatively low levels of unemployment compared to many other European countries. We are the envy of the world in terms of not only our protection for workers’ rights but our flexible economy. The steps that we are taking on enforcement will help the country to build back better by taking a smarter approach to the enforcement of employment law, and will make it easier for the vast majority of responsible businesses to comply with the rules.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister in the other place said yesterday:
“It is unacceptable and, frankly, immoral to use the threat of fire and rehire as a negotiating tactic to force through changes to people’s employment contracts”,—[Official Report, Commons, 8/6/21; col. 841.]
yet in only seven months of last year just short of 3 million workers were subjected to it. There is nothing in the ACAS report to justify not legislating. Can the Minister not accept that these millions of workers merit legislation, not just guidance, to protect them?
Lord Callanan (Con)
This is a complicated area of employment law. We want to give employers flexibility to manage their business without producing undue effects on workers. Sometimes, sadly, it is necessary for employers to introduce changes; the alternative is that they go bust and no one has a job at all. We want to get this right and we want to introduce proportionate responses, but it is a complex area and we will be looking closely at it.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, has the Minister had the opportunity to consider the relevant employment law that made it possible for a tribunal judge, as reported in yesterday’s media, to rule in favour of an employee who was dismissed by his employer for dishonesty in respect of sick leave and sick pay? Of course, the specifics of the case are not something on which it would be proper for the Minister to comment and neither is it a matter for this House. However, I would be grateful for the Government’s view on the impact of a ruling such as this one on upstanding employees as well as good employers, especially small business owners.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her question. She is correct that it would not be right for me to comment on the specifics of the case without being in possession of all the facts, but it is vital that employees do not abuse their sick leave and pay. If they do, the employer may be able to dismiss them on the grounds of misconduct.
There is a vital balance to be struck to protect employers and employees. As the recent judgment shows, employers must act reasonably in all circumstances, follow the right procedures and conduct appropriate investigations. They should look to the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures and may want to refer to the guidance on dismissal.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, for three bodies to become one, legislation will indeed be required, but there is none. Neither is there any commitment to adequate funding, as my noble friend Lord Lennie said. Specifically, why are the HSE and local authority health and safety inspectors not included in the plan for a single enforcement body? Why is there no commitment to increase the existing pathetically low number of inspectors and, regrettably, the equally pathetically low number of notices and prosecutions?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness is right: we are not proposing that the HSE become part of the single enforcement body. The HSE is a large, established organisation. Given its size and scope of its functions, and the focus on high-harm incidents, incorporating it into a new body could lead to a shift in priorities away from other employment rights, but we will ensure that the HSE remains a key partner for the single enforcement body. The noble Baroness should be aware that since the start of the pandemic, HSE has carried out more than 243,000 Covid-19 spot checks and responded to more than 22,000 concerns. There are currently around 1,300 workplace spot-checks carried out per day, targeted on those industries whose workers are most likely to be vulnerable to transmission risks.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government’s response to the recent court cases on the gig economy—on issues that concerned the minimum wage, sick pay and holiday pay entitlements—are that no further changes to employment law are considered necessary?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are considering all these matters. We keep these matters under review. We are committed to protecting and enhancing workers’ rights. As I said earlier, the Uber Supreme Court judgment was clear that those who qualify as workers, under existing employment law, are entitled to rights such as the minimum wage. All gig economy businesses should ensure that they are fulfilling their legal responsibilities. I think it is important to point out that the gig economy offers individuals flexibility and it can provide opportunities for those who may not be able to work in more conventional ways. Indeed, Government research has indicated that people mostly value the flexibility that it offers—56% of respondents said that. An individual’s entitlement to rights at work is determined by their employment status, whether employee, worker or self-employed, and gig economy workers can be classed under any of these, depending on their particular employment relationship.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, we are witnessing the rampant spread of precarious contracts, exemplified by fire and rehire. Has the aphorism that we are moving to a position where instead of a proletariat we have in its place a precariat. In the absence of legislation, where is the levelling-up to come from? In addition to stronger enforcement, which is indeed vital, the trade unions’ role itself is vital—more vital than ever. The Minister said he does not want too much legislation, but will he welcome the fact that we now have a growth in trade union membership for the fourth year running? It is hardly the time for proposing, in the words of Frances O’Grady of the TUC, to tie them up in red tape. Rather, should we not be facilitating the negotiation of pro-rata rights for workers’ representatives, this being the norm in the most successful European economies?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I bow to the noble Lord’s superior knowledge of the proletariat and the precariat, or whatever words he used. I do not have strong feelings about any potential growth in trade union membership. People are free to join a trade union if they wish. I would merely point out to the noble Lord that, of course, only a small minority of employees choose to join trade unions.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I start by telling the Minister that the claim in the Statement that the UK has one of the best records on workers’ rights is patent nonsense. We know it and, as a reasonable man, I am sure he knows it too. We also know, not only from the Taylor review, that one thing that could be done to improve the regulation of workers’ rights is to eliminate the scope for employers to exploit regulatory arbitrage. Will the Minister therefore give a commitment to reduce the number of categories of workers with different entitlement to statutory rights?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am afraid I just do not agree with noble Lord. We have an excellent record of workers’ rights in this country. Of course, the best workers’ right of all is the right to a job. We have a better record on employment and employment creation than most of the rest of Europe.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister outline what discussions have taken place with the devolved Administrations to ensure that all workers throughout the UK have full employment rights? Will the recruitment practice of fire and rehire be outlawed once and for all?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I can indeed tell the noble Baroness that Ministers and officials from both my department and from the Department for Work and Pensions, hold regular meetings with counterparts in the devolved Administrations to discuss various employment-related issues, including regular reviews of the legislative framework.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
The Statement upholding employment rights gives and takes away at the same time. Its praise for ACAS is right. I remind the House that I am a former chair and in receipt of an ACAS pension. As the Minister knows, the Certification Officer is part of the ACAS family, and the proposals in the Trade Union Act 2016 were of such concern that my party raised it at Report. They are not technical measures, as the Statement claims, and third-party claims are an invitation to anti-union newspapers to make mischief. Will the Minister be willing to discuss these points, particularly about the future of the Certification Office, to ensure that this really is about upholding employment rights, not about feeding red meat to his less enlightened colleagues?
Lord Callanan (Con)
This is not about feeding red meat to anybody. Some people may be vegetarian and not enjoy red meat. The noble Baroness may not like it, but the principle of the reforms was introduced in the Trade Union Act. We debated it at the time in this House, and the principle was passed then. This is merely the enactment of those provisions, which have previously been agreed.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I draw on figures from The UK’s Enforcement Gap 2020 report by Unchecked. These are figures for the fall in staffing numbers between 2009 and 2019: the Equality and Human Rights Commission, 61%; the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, 57%; the Health and Safety Executive, 34%; Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, 16%. That has rightly been described as a collapse of enforcement. We are told we have to wait until the spending review—apparently what was exposed in Leicester is not a sufficient emergency to require emergency action from the Government—but will the Minister assure me that the department will be pushing in that spending review to at least get funding levels and staff members back to 2009 levels?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I said earlier, of course we will provide the appropriate funding in the spending review. I do not know where the noble Baroness has got her figures from, but we have more than doubled the budget for minimum wage enforcement and compliance. It is now more than £27 million annually, up from £13.2 million in 2015-16. More than 400 HMRC staff are involved in the enforcement of the minimum wage. In 2021, HMRC concluded more than 2,700 minimum wage investigations and returned more than £16.7 million in arrears to more than 155,000 workers.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in 2020, 347,000 workers did not receive the statutory minimum wage. That has been a persistent problem. The financial penalties have not had the desired effect and clearly need to be strengthened. Will the Minister introduce legislation stating that the penalty for each violation should be not less than the total remuneration of the directors of the offending business? If not, why not?
Lord Callanan (Con)
This builds on my answer to the previous question. Since 2015, the Government have ordered employers to repay more than £100 million to a million workers. Over the course of 2020-21, HMRC’s Promote team facilitated nearly 800,000 employers and workers to seek further information on the minimum wage. So there is considerable enforcement going on in this space, and I just do not recognise the picture painted by the noble Lord and the previous speaker.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, all speakers have now spoken. The next business is due to start in less than a minute, so I suggest that instead of adjourning the House, we all just sit quietly and compose other thoughts until 2.20 pm.
Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment Committee Report
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Krebs
That this House takes note of the report from the Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment Committee Hungry for change: fixing the failures in food (Session 2019–21, HL Paper 85).
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to introduce this debate on behalf of the Select Committee on Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment. I start by thanking all the members of the committee for their excellent contributions to our inquiry. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lady Boycott, as well as Anna Taylor of the Food Foundation, who first suggested the idea for this inquiry. We were supported by two superb specialist advisers, Professor Martin White from Cambridge University and Professor Elizabeth Robinson from Reading University. We received over 100 submissions of written evidence and heard 44 oral evidence witnesses. Last but not least, I express our gratitude for the support of a truly outstanding team of Beth Hooper, the committee clerk, Sam Kenny, the policy analyst, and Rebecca Pickavance, the committee assistant.
The title of our report, Hungry For Change: Fixing the Failures in Food, neatly encapsulates our findings. Our witnesses told us that the food system in this country is broken and that the poorest people suffer the most as a consequence. In a moment I shall explain in more detail what this means and what we recommended as solutions, but I hope noble Lords we will indulge me if I start with a very short historical digression.
As the historian David Cannadine wrote:
“For most of recorded history … poverty was not a problem at all: it was a fact of life … Only … during the last two hundred years, has it been upgraded from an insuperable and ‘natural’ condition into an intolerable but solvable problem”.
He might have said “in principle a solvable problem”, because in the past 200 years, although we have had the means to eradicate poverty in Britain, we have not done so.
Perhaps the clearest manifestation of poverty is malnutrition. Some 100 years ago, malnutrition in Britain meant starvation. Although we were the richest country in the world in the late 19th century, malnutrition among the poor was rife. The Government took notice when they tried to recruit soldiers for the second Boer War in 1899: 80% of the recruits were deemed unfit to fight and the Army had to reduce the height threshold for recruits from five feet three inches to five feet because poor people were so short as a result of malnutrition. The Government of the day were shocked into action and set up an Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration, which recommended that the poorest children in this country should be given free school meals.
Fast forward another 120 years, and today, according to official figures, between one in four and one in five children in this country still live in poverty. This is probably an underestimate, as the Government’s measure is based entirely on relative income and does not consider the cost of living a decent life. Today’s malnutrition associated with poverty manifests itself in two very distinct ways: either poor people cannot afford to buy enough to eat—they are undernourished—or they can afford or get access to only an unhealthy diet, commonly known as junk food, which might fill them with cheap and delicious calories but at the same time contribute to chronic disease and a shortened lifespan. The resulting inequalities are stark. Healthy life expectancy for the poorest decile in this country is about 53 years—nearly 20 years less than for the richest decile. By the age of five, children in the poorest areas are already twice as likely to be obese as children of the same age in the least deprived areas.
Modern malnutrition is not the only factor, but the evidence we heard suggested that it is significant in contributing to these inequalities. The term often used to describe the stress of poverty and food is “food insecurity”, which the National Diet and Nutrition Survey defines as
“limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways.”
The Government have not in the past routinely measured food insecurity, but in March this year the DWP estimated that 13% of children in this country live in low food security and 6% in very low food security.
Nothing that I have said so far is new, but successive Governments have done precious little about it, perhaps because it is often below the radar. Tia from Lancashire, one of our witnesses living with food insecurity, said this:
“You know everyone’s struggling but you just don’t know how much everyone is struggling because no one wants to talk about it. An older person who is struggling doesn’t want to talk about it because they feel embarrassed or they’re embarrassing their kids. Some people don’t want to talk about it in Darwen”—
where she comes from—
“because there is such a stigma.”
The pandemic has underlined the problems of food insecurity and food poverty. Obese people appear to be more likely to die of Covid-19. At the same time, we were told that food bank use—an indicator of food poverty —has risen by 81%.
I turn from describing the problem to some of our proposed solutions. We made more than 50 recommendations. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that I will not go through all of them; I shall highlight just a few. First, on the causes of food insecurity, many of our witnesses referred to universal credit. We were told that the five-week delay in receiving payment and the fact that the amount of benefit does not consider the cost of a healthy diet are major contributors to food insecurity. The Food Foundation estimates that the poorest decile of the population would have to spend 74% of their disposable income to eat according to the government guidelines for a healthy diet. Eating unhealthily is much cheaper. For the richest decile, the figure is just 6%.
Money is important but not the only factor. We also heard that access to healthy food—many people live in so-called food deserts—knowledge, time and the emotional bandwidth to think about diet and health were also important. We acknowledge that other select committees were investigating the universal credit system, but we recommended that the cost of a healthy diet should be included in the calculation of the quantum of benefit. We also recommended that the Government should address the problem of food poverty among those with no recourse to public funds and that the value of Healthy Start vouchers should be increased. Finally, we recommended that the Government should collect data on food insecurity through the National Diet and Nutrition Survey.
I turn to the food system. Many of our witnesses told us that the UK food system is not fit for purpose and they called for whole-system change. What does a food system actually mean? It refers to the way food is produced, processed, marketed, sold and consumed—everything from plough to plate. In comparison with other European countries, we eat a relatively high proportion of highly processed food, artfully constructed by the food industry to be cheap and delicious. We as humans are evolutionary programmed to like sugar, fat and salt, as these were essential for survival in our ancient history. It is cheap processed foods, high in sugar, fat and salt—commonly known as junk food—that contribute to dietary ill health and health inequalities.
On the basis of the evidence we heard, we recommended a series of changes to the food system to make healthier choices easy, especially for the poorest people in this country. These included restrictions on the promotion and advertising of unhealthy food—food high in fat, sugar and salt—and greater pressure on the food industry to reformulate highly processed food. We noted that there was good progress in the early days of the salt reduction campaign—I declare an interest as chairman of the Food Standards Agency when that was launched—but this appears to have stalled since responsibility for it was taken away from the FSA. We also heard that the soft drinks industry levy had been successful in reducing the sugar content of soft drinks and should therefore be extended to other products.
We felt that local authorities need to be given the powers and incentives to restrict the creation of new fast-food outlets, which are often the only way to get food in the poorest communities. We recommended a mandatory limit on the calories per portion in the out-of-home sector. When we asked a representative of the fast-food sector why it sells such massive portions of chips, he said, very honestly, “That’s because it’s about competition; the bigger the portion, the better value for money the people who shop for it feel that it is.” We concluded that labelling has a role to play but that it is mostly used by those who are least in need of help to improve their diets—the worried well.
Malnutrition starts in infancy, and the life trajectories of poor diet are set early on. I have already referred to the obesity figures for children by the time they are five years old. We made recommendations about school food and childhood nutrition. School meals standards should be properly monitored and evaluated—which they are not—and initiatives to address holiday hunger, as well as the national school breakfast programme, should be properly funded. I am sure that other noble Lords will expand on these points.
I turn briefly to the impact of food on the natural environment. At the time of our inquiry, the then Agriculture Bill was still in progress, and a number of our recommendations relating to it are now out of date. There is no doubt that, in this country and globally, food production is a major contributor to environmental damage—using fresh water, contributing to climate change and to the destruction of natural habitats, as well as the use of pesticides which pollute the environment and damage wildlife.
Three points are of continuing relevance. We recommended that the Government should include environmental sustainability alongside health in its dietary guidelines. As part of this, the Government should develop a plan to increase fruit and vegetable consumption, because we know that the consumption of too much red meat is bad for both health and the environment. Finally in this section, we recommended that the Government should adhere to their commitment to not allowing the importation of food produced to lower environmental standards than that produced in the UK, and not simply offshore the problem of environmental damage. I would welcome unequivocal confirmation on this from the Minister, particularly as I still hear the view from senior politicians that cheaper, lower-standard imported food will be beneficial for poor people in this country.
In concluding my summary of the recommendations, I return briefly to governance. Henry Dimbleby will shortly publish the second part of his national food strategy, following which the Government are committed to publishing a White Paper within six months. According to the Minister,
“This strategy will set out proposals that will aim to ensure that the food system delivers healthy, sustainable, affordable food for all.”—[Official Report, 20/10/20; col. 1473.]
How do we know that the strategy will be implemented? We recommended the creation of an independent oversight body, analogous to the Committee on Climate Change, to monitor and report on progress on implementation.
The Government’s response to our report fell broadly into three categories. The first was, “We are waiting for the national food strategy.” Part I of the national food strategy was published nearly a year ago, shortly after our report. It made a number of similar recommendations to ours. I am not aware that the Government have formally responded, and I hope that the Minister will update us. The second category of response was, “We reject the recommendations”—for instance, embedding the cost of a healthy diet in benefit rates; uprating Healthy Start vouchers; improving the poorest schoolchildren’s access to healthy food; giving local authorities more power to restrict new fast-food outlets; accelerating the reformulation of unhealthy food; and establishing an independent oversight body to oversee implementation of the national food strategy. The third category was, “We will consider further action”—for instance, restricting the promotion and advertising of junk food.
Overall, I was, frankly, disappointed by these responses. However, since then, we have seen some developments. Following Marcus Rashford’s campaign, the Government have committed to allocating additional money to support holiday free school meals. I hope the Minister will confirm that this will be a long-term commitment. The Government have announced that they intend to ban adverts for junk food before the 9 pm watershed and online, restrict in-store marketing and require calorie labelling in food outlets with more than 250 employees. I would welcome confirmation from the Minister that these plans will go ahead and some indication of the timeline. Last week, it was reported that, following a legal challenge, eligibility for Healthy Start vouchers will be extended to asylum seekers and immigrants without settled status.
In conclusion, I hope that these recent developments are a sign that the Government are at last taking the issue of poverty, diet, health and the environment seriously. I look forward to the contributions from other noble Lords, and to the Minister’s response. I hope he will update us on progress and assure us that, when it is published, the White Paper will really address the urgent issues in our report. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I much regret my very early departure, due to health circumstances, from the Select Committee after one meeting in summer 2019. I was looking forward to its work and was not disappointed in the outcome. It is a very good analysis of the food system and its failures, and it provides solution after solution.
Food poverty, health and the environment provide a social picture of the present UK, and it is not a pleasing one. There is not a single one of the report’s recommendations I take exception to, which is more than can be said for the Government. The strong recommendations regarding the universal credit £20 uplift, free school meals, an obesity strategy, commercial incentives on processed foods and long-term food insecurity all require action this day.
I am afraid that the silo-working of government comes through loud and clear in the report. The present Government cannot be wholly to blame for that—it is a culture of which I have first-hand experience. What is more, I do not have the answer, except to say that strong and firm ministerial leadership from the top can have a major effect. We saw that with the programme to set up the Social Exclusion Unit in December 1997. Civil servants from across Whitehall queued up to work there.
Although it deals with England, the report also explores Scotland and Wales. There is far less silo working in the devolved Administrations—at least, that is how it appears from the outside. Certainly, the role of Food Standards Scotland is more holistic than that of the agency in England, because it retains the original remit of food safety, as well as nutrition and health.
I too was disappointed on reading the Government’s response to the report, given its flat refusal to consider some poverty issues and a constant refrain of “waiting for Dimbleby”. There are some points I refuse to believe or take seriously. Paragraph 129 states:
“The Government are also putting public health at the heart of everything we do.”
The evidence is the opposite. One sentence, which I will quote when I conclude, is a massive porky. I am afraid the Government’s response to the recommendations on food imports—from paragraphs 133 and 134 onwards—is simply not believable. All the evidence from trade talks points in the opposite direction. In the main, the Government’s response is shoddy and second rate.
I accept that the report is a year old, which is nothing in the scale of things. The note for this debate from the excellent Food Foundation is not a year old. I will list just a few of the policy changes it recommends, which support those of the Select Committee. It says that our food environment does not support healthy choices, particularly in low-income neighbourhoods. One in four places to buy food is a fast-food outlet. That is the average; it is higher in low-income authorities. Food and drink advertising is focused on unhealthy options: 17% on confectionary, 12% on soft drinks, 16% on snacks—and just 2.5% on fruit and vegetables.
On the affordability of healthy food, the Food Foundation points out that the poorest fifth of UK households would need to spend almost 40% of disposable income on food to meet the Eatwell Guide standards compared to 7% for the well-off. Calorie for calorie, healthier foods are three times more expensive than less healthy foods.
Finally, the Food Foundation finds that children from more deprived families have less healthy diets and experience worse outcomes from the food system. By ages four to six, the most deprived fifth of households are twice as likely to be obese than those in the least deprived fifth. In paragraph 31 of their shoddy response, the Government give a flat refusal to consider the committee’s recommendation to embed the cost of the Eatwell Guide in the social security system.
I want finally to refer to a key aspect of the consequences of lack of action. I realise that what I am about to say will not go down well in some quarters, but given that healthy eating leads to a healthy, longer life, it is clear that lack of action and attention leads to the conclusion that the Government are not too concerned about people not living longer, especially if they are poorer and maybe less likely to vote for them. The evidence is abundant.
Paragraph 165 of the report states clearly:
“The food environment has a substantially more negative impact on lower-income groups than … wealthier counterparts, and therefore directly contributes to rising health inequalities.”
This is a serious conclusion. The Food Foundation also says in its note that increasing vegetable intake, while reducing meat and sugar, so that everybody gets a five-a-day, could contribute eight additional months to the UK’s average life expectancy. The national life tables from the Office for National Statistics, published in September 2020 and after the report, show that life expectancy has slowed in the last decade compared with the previous decade. The ONS’s note says that
“a marked slowdown in the rate of improvements has been observed since 2011”.
According to the Marmot review, life expectancy has flatlined since 2010, which is the first time since 1900. According to Sir Michael Marmot’s evidence to the people’s Covid review, since 2010 we have lost a decade in terms of the public’s health. Marmot’s report in 2010, Fair Society, Healthy Lives, commissioned by Gordon Brown, was welcomed by the coalition Government, but they did not put any of the principles into practice. There was no interest in doing so. On 17 December last year, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said in answer to a question of mine about the stalling of life expectancy that it was “extremely worrying”. In fact, I can almost hear Johnson saying, “Poor people are poor because of their own fault and they die earlier as a result of their own lifestyles.” The Government’s response indicates that they plan to do nothing about this.
The executive summary to the latest Marmot review, Health Equity in England: The Marmot Review 10 Years On, states:
“The national government has not prioritised health inequalities, despite the concerning trends and there has been no national health inequalities strategy since 2010.”
That brings me to the porky in the Governments response—it is the final sentence:
“The Government of the day is always accountable to Parliament.”
I do not believe that this Government think that they are accountable. In my, now long, experience in both Houses, they are certainly far less accountable to Parliament than the Government of Margaret Thatcher. Frankly, we all need to wake up to this fact. Otherwise, we will get no action at all, which is at the moment causing poorer people to die earlier.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, as with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, it was a pleasure to serve on the Select Committee, chaired so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and staffed by our in-House team and the special advisers. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, the committee put forward a very impressive bid to tackle this issue holistically and coherently, looking in parallel at the issues of hunger, health and sustainability to try to develop some coherent policies.
My remarks will be brief because I must apologise to the House that I have to leave shortly for a meeting. I shall not be able to listen to everybody’s speeches. Therefore, I thought your Lordships should be saved from listening to me drone on.
Like the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Krebs, I was disappointed by the Government’s response. Since the report was published and the Government published their response, there have been several initiatives by the Government in this field, notably in the obesity strategy, where some of the approaches that they look to take will have unintended consequences—but there will be time enough to discuss those when the regulations on calorie labelling come before this House shortly. Other of the Government’s initiatives are far more welcome. I am sure that few Members of this House do not look favourably on the provisions in the Environment Bill to mandate weekly collections for food waste, which is an important step forward.
However, the stock response to the report seemed very much to be, “Well, we’re waiting for the food strategy from Henry Dimbleby and we will publish a White Paper in due course.” I wish to make one suggestion in regard to that. Our recommendation 51 was:
“The Government’s White Paper … must include a definitive outline of what constitutes a sustainable diet with regards to health, social and environmental impacts. It must be accompanied with a graded … plan and communications strategy to move towards this diet.”
Choice is what we have in this country, and choice is what people should have in their diets, but I contend that it is the role of a responsible Government to give advice to individuals as consumers about what constitutes a diet that will support their health and the health of the planet. Since our report and the Government’s response were published, the Government have accepted as the sixth carbon budget the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee, outlining that they support the delivery of a target of a 78% reduction on 1990 levels by 2035.
However, the Climate Change Committee was absolutely clear that a fundamental tool to achieve that target was a 20% shift away from meat and dairy towards more plant-based diets. We have yet to see the Government’s net-zero strategy, which will show us in some detail how they intend to deliver their new, welcome target for 2035, but it is hard to see how they would achieve it without taking forward the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee on diets. Not only should they accept those recommendations but, as the committee said:
“An effective strategy to tackle awareness of the climate impacts of what we eat is an essential part of our pathway.”
That was something that our committee made absolutely clear: that, as we move forward, the Government need to communicate clearly with the public, educating them about what constitutes a sustainable and healthy diet. When the Climate Assembly was brought together to look at how we can bring people along with us on the journey towards net zero, it was very strong on the need for people to be supported, educated and communicated with about the issues of a sustainable diet. It focused particularly on the areas of education, procurement and waste.
I can hear the Minister now saying, “Oh, it’s fine. She’s saying things which are all about the national food strategy and we can just say, ‘It’s lovely to hear what the House is saying and, of course, we will reply in due course’.” I am expecting that, so why did I bother to make my one point today? I made it because, before we get to the White Paper following the national food strategy, we need to address this issue of communication.
Of course, Public Health England has been disbanded, and, by this autumn, we will have a new centre for health promotion, which will be an in-house department—part of the Department of Health and Social Care. Therefore, there is a genuine question that needs to be answered now—I hope that the Minister will respond to this in his remarks at the end—about what Defra is doing now in terms of discussing the constitution of that new body to make sure that the issues around sustainable diet will be addressed at the same time as the laudable aims for tackling the nation’s health, making sure that the resources are there, the connections are made and the remit includes the issue of sustainability so that we can make those joined-up solutions. It will be a wasted opportunity if, by the time we come to the Government’s response in their White Paper, this new body, which will have significant resources to promote public health, has been set up and it is too late to include sustainability in its remit.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, it was a privilege to serve on the committee that produced this report. It was my first experience of a committee in this House, and it set a very high standard. I too would like to thank my fellow members and pass on sincere apologies from my noble friend Lady Sater, who is so sorry that she cannot be here with us today to contribute, as she did so ably during our inquiries. I know that we are all grateful to our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I personally thank him for his patience, courtesy and, above all, his wisdom and knowledge, which were key to producing such an insightful and, I hope, constructive report.
As others have mentioned, we had a wide-ranging brief, but today I will focus on one aspect already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs: childhood food poverty. It is more than 80 years since George Orwell famously wrote, in The Road to Wigan Pier:
“Twenty million people are underfed but literally everyone ... has access to a radio. What we have lost in food we have gained in electricity. Whole sections of the working class who have been plundered of all they really need are being compensated, in part, by cheap luxuries which mitigate the surface of life.”
I wonder whether we have to ask ourselves: has enough really changed since then? Look under the surface and an estimated 11 million people, including around 2.8 million children, are living in poverty in the UK today. Look further still and you come to food poverty and food insecurity—the inability to secure food of sufficient quality and quantity to enable good health and enable you to participate properly in society.
According to the latest official data, approximately 1.1 million children are living in households classed as “food insecure”. For those children, the consequences of not being able to put decent food on the table can be literally life-changing. Food insecurity can cause anxiety and affect children’s academic attainment and therefore their future prospects—and, of course, it affects their physical health.
Replace Orwell’s “underfed” with “undernourished” and consider that children living in deprived areas are around twice as likely to be obese, with all the far-reaching implications that that entails. Of all the troubling evidence that we heard during the course of our inquiries, the most shocking came from Health Minister Jo Churchill, who told us:
“One in 10 children enters primary school obese, and that rises to one in five by the time they leave”.
I still struggle to come to terms with that statistic. In the years when we should be protecting our children the most—when they are at the beginning of their lives, with their futures ahead of them—we are failing them.
Our report made clear that there are three public food programmes, as mentioned—Healthy Start vouchers, free school meals and holiday hunger initiatives—that should be extended and reformed if we are to set about fixing this problem. The Government deserve credit for the changes that they have since made: they have increased the value and implementation of Healthy Start vouchers, and the DfE has announced an extension of funding for school breakfast clubs until 2023.
There have also been various interim measures, as government, local authorities and schools have had to deal with the fallout of the pandemic. However, while coronavirus has highlighted and indeed exacerbated the issue of childhood food insecurity, as we gradually make our way back to normal life, we still need long-term solutions to these problems. They were here long before Covid hit and will be here long after if we do not do something about them.
To this end, and with regard to Healthy Start vouchers, I ask my noble friend the Minister to clarify whether the recent increase is a one-off or whether the vouchers will be linked to the consumer price index, as recommended in our report? It is fantastic to see so many retailers boosting the value of these vouchers and offering various connected promotions. How do the Government intend to continue raising awareness of the scheme, particularly for individuals, as it is this that will ensure proper take-up?
On breakfast clubs, while the extension of funding is most welcome, the eligibility threshold remains the same, potentially excluding many of those in need. Could my noble friend confirm whether the Government will look at this and whether there is any intention for the National School Breakfast Programme to train facilitators to enable schools to access external funding in the future, which was the Government’s original intention, to sustain the scheme into the future?
Breakfast clubs are there to address a specific problem: quite simply, children are coming to school hungry, which inevitably affects their performance throughout the day. Holiday programmes fulfil a similar role, catching those most in need, when the schools are not there to provide for them. I welcome the Government’s initiative to extend the holiday activities and food programme across 2021, but I also ask the Minister whether work is ongoing to assess the need in the longer term? As I said, the threat from Covid may recede, but this particular problem is not going away.
Finally, I will address free school meals. This is a complicated area but, in a nutshell, by changing the eligibility rules from all those claiming universal credit to those with a net annual income of below £7,400, there is an understandable worry that many thousands of children will fall through the net. The Government say that the new rules will result in approximately 50,000 more children from low-income households becoming eligible. This may be the case, but the rules also mean that significantly more children—approximately 160,000, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies—will now be excluded from free school meals.
We were quite modest in what we asked of the Government, simply suggesting that they outline how they intend to mitigate the impact of their eligibility proposals. However, in the National Food Strategy, Henry Dimbleby went further, recommending that the Government should:
“Expand eligibility ... to include every child (up to the age of 16) from a household where the parent or guardian is in receipt of Universal Credit (or equivalent benefits).”
I agree with him.
It is not just about who receives free school meals but how they receive them. One young girl from Blackburn told the committee’s researchers:
“Because it was such a small school, everyone was friends with each other but I never wanted to use my free school meals because sometimes you had to go in with a massive pink slip to get them and I just felt too embarrassed so I sometimes got my mum to put money on my card so I could use that instead.”
No child should have to feel ashamed in this way. I ask my noble friend the Minister not only whether he will consider Henry Dimbleby’s proposals but whether the Government will look at how free school meals are administered?
There are many other questions that could be asked and many recommendations from our report that have not yet had a considered response. At the time, this was because the national food strategy had not then been published. Now that part 1 of that strategy has been completed, with part 2 due in the summer, I hope that the committee will receive the response that this report not only deserves but requires, given the urgency of many of the issues it has raised.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I am thankful to Members of your Lordships’ House who sent me their best wishes when I was created, by Her Majesty the Queen, Baron Sentamu of Lindisfarne in the County of Northumberland and of Masooli in the Republic of Uganda.
“Masooli” means “plentiful place of maize”; it is the village where I was born and grew up. Today is my birthday, and it would have been Prince Philip’s 100th birthday. He rests in peace and will rise in glory. Lindisfarne needs no explanation, save to say that Aidan of Lindisfarne’s great passion was to help everyone in Anglo-Saxon Northumbria, especially the poor, to encounter Jesus Christ, His compassion and His friendliness. He greatly valued education and the development of young people.
Therefore, I am honoured to be delivering my “maiden” speech in this debate on Hungry for Change. I thank the Committee and all those who worked hard to bring this to our attention. Already three of its members have spoken and I associate myself with their views. This report covers many burning issues facing us today of poverty, social justice, and education.
There comes a time in the life of a nation when a great crisis challenges a thoughtful Government to reimagine not only their own vision of themselves as a governing body but their vision of the kind of nation that they hope to govern in future. It is an opportunity for radical reassessment, calling for courage, imagination, and a readiness to set in motion practical actions which will have transformative outcomes in serving the well-being and flourishing of all. The United Kingdom is not short of people who are hungry for change and have good ideas, but it is short in discerning the ways of achieving sustainable change and stability. This report hints at it. Therefore, let us keep to task. I am very grateful for it.
In the first half of the last century, the crises we faced were two world wars, a pandemic, and the Great Depression of the 1930s. The result was a brave and radical reimagining, with some of the blessings that we enjoy today: the development of the “welfare state”—a phrase coined by Archbishop William Temple, instead of Beveridge’s “social insurance”—the great liberalising Education Act, and a National Health Service, the continued safety of which has been a key part of our Covid-19 response.
In the early years of this century, we have experienced two crises which offered similar moments for reflection, action, and reform. It could be argued that the financial crisis of 2007-08 was an opportunity missed for radical reform. I believe that austerity was the wrong medicine, and that it was applied for far too long. The second crisis is the Covid-19 pandemic. May we all learn the lessons and act on them. I am glad that our National Health Service is now the National Health Service and social care—so a full implementation of the Dilnot report is a must.
Thankfully, no one now talks about how there is no “money tree”. The furlough scheme and support for people’s livelihoods has lifted our gaze to the horizon of hope. We are all in this together, in word and in deed, in ordering our society, our politics, our economy, with well-being and human flourishing as our aim. As the late Lord Jonathan Sacks said in the introduction to his book, Morality: Restoring the Common Good in Divided Times:
“Societal freedom cannot be sustained by market economics and liberal democratic politics alone. It needs a third element: morality, a concern for the welfare of others, an active commitment to justice and compassion, a willingness to ask not just what is good for me but what is ‘good for all of us together’. It is about ‘Us’, not ‘Me’; about ‘We’, not ‘I’.”
He goes on to say that we need some kind of moral community
“for there to be a society as opposed to a state. States function on the basis of power. But societies function on the basis of a shared vision of what unites the people who comprise it. Societies are moral communities. That was Lord Devlin's argument at the beginning of the great liberalisation debate in 1957.”
Even before the financial challenges and loss of livelihoods over the past year due to the various lockdown restrictions, the statistics for food banks told their own story of poverty, hunger, income inequality and the need to change. Just as the Covid-19 pandemic is a global challenge, food poverty is truly global, affecting the third world here, too, in the United Kingdom. Poverty—food poverty in particular—long predates the problems of the pandemic. It is good that the committee has already produced this comprehensive study of the elements which underlie the problems and is making serious proposals for change and reform. For example, paragraphs 68 and 69 of the report refer to the staggering increase in food bank use. This crisis of hunger is real. Marcus Rashford’s campaign calls us to slay this dragon together for the sake of our children —so well done, Marcus.
Consistently, research has shown that children need a good diet to learn effectively. When children come to school without having eaten properly, they are less likely to learn, thrive and progress, and their future chances will be impaired. That is why breakfast clubs were set up, so that those who are not getting a proper diet could be given the necessary advantages to help them flourish.
Last year, I led a debate in your Lordships’ House on income inequality. It was a debate of unanimity. Today, this report focuses on the dangerous consequences of food inequality and draws our attention to the costs of a healthy diet. We have heard in the last year of parents wondering if they can give their children more than bread and potatoes, and whether they should go without food themselves, or heating, to feed their families. How heart-breaking is that? Please, may the report’s recommendation in chapter 3 receive further assessment, so that practical proposals for radical change are brought forward.
A dismaying table at paragraph 173 on page 65 challenges all of us to have courage and imagination for our future, and the will and determination to see it through to its conclusion. Her Majesty’s Government has learned during the Covid-19 challenge that big government solutions are important for big problems. Free vaccination for all is a good example. Can the lessons learned be applied to government action for the health and well-being crisis? I pray that they can and will, and may it be soon, promising less and delivering more. This is a vital report which we want to take seriously. May the committee continue to work out practicalities which resolve. I congratulate the committee on this wonderful report.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I warmly welcome the former Archbishop of York, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, on behalf of these Benches and the whole House. It is a great privilege to follow him in today’s debate, on his return to the House, and I am sure that his wisdom, compassion, and insight, will be valuable as we move forward in this new parliamentary session.
Hungry for Change outlines the challenges in health and production underlying our food system. Like others, I pay tribute to Marcus Rashford for his campaign last summer in extending the national voucher scheme. I also wish him and the entire English football team good fortune for their opening Euro 2021 match against Croatia this Sunday.
Food poverty remains a serious issue here in the UK, one which has been exacerbated by the economic hardships endured by low-income individuals during the Covid crisis. The Department for Work and Pensions HBAI statistics for 2020 identify 5 million people, including 1.7 million children, as experiencing food insecurity, and half of them had very low food security. Part of the problem is the lack of non-credit based lifelines for people facing financial crises, forcing them to incur debt to pay for essentials. Often this is not a one-off situation but the result of chronic income shortages, particularly where social security payments are reduced to pay debts.
Christians Against Poverty reported that 37% of its clients have sacrificed meals due to debt. A further 56% have borrowed money to pay for food, clothing and other living costs. There is a health and human cost to this. Christians Against Poverty reported diabetic clients relying on sugar water because of insufficient food and parents who avoided eating dinner so that their children could eat each night. Surely this should not be happening in a country as developed and wealthy as ours.
As identified in the Hungry for Change report, repayments of advance payments for universal credit often leave people without enough money for food, let alone a healthy diet. However, deductions for rent, utilities or council tax arrears, court fines or benefit overpayments also contribute to insufficient funds. As of January 2021, Citizens Advice estimated that
“over 3.5 million people are currently behind on council tax”,
largely due to lost income from the Covid pandemic.
The interconnectivity of health, food poverty and financial well-being calls for more generous repayment terms for both universal credit advance payments and other arrears, allowing for affordable repayments on an extended timeframe. The cap of 25% standard allowance does not factor in individuals who are already required to use part of their standard allowance to pay a rent top-up in cases where money provided for housing costs has been reduced.
One innovative way to deal with the issue of health and financial insecurity is the Centre for Responsible Credit’s Financial Shield programme currently being piloted in Lambeth and Southwark. The programme works within the existing NHS framework with GPs and community groups to identify individuals suffering poor health outcomes relating to debt. In particular, its joint debt protocol seeks to prevent creditors from competing for repayments from impoverished individuals. It organises repayment under a single recovery protocol, giving the debtor time and space without the threat of enforcement, which could further affect their health. Tackling the issue of arrears will inevitably lead to better health outcomes. Levelling up in the post-Covid era will require innovative mechanisms and ideas like the Financial Shield to tackle issues like debt and income insecurity that lead to poor diets.
On the production side, it is important that agriculture and food production are not treated in isolation but seen in the context of the overall sustainability of the rural economy and rural communities. Although agriculture is no longer the major source of employment it once was in rural areas, it continues to have a major impact on the overall economy and sustainability of rural areas. It is why the new environmental land management scheme, or ELMS, provides great significance to rural areas and the overall rural economy. We need to align the interests of our farmers and rural communities in tackling the issues of climate change and biodiversity loss.
Already, some of the pilot ELM programmes have raised concerns about ensuring the viability of farm businesses while delivering the vital landscape protections set out in the ELMS. Farmers want to do the right thing for nature but will need proper incentives, clarity of guidance and assistance. So I hope the Government will continue to monitor the situation and get this right when introducing the full scheme in 2024.
The increased focus on the importance of rural areas in providing natural capital and sustainable supply chains presents opportunities to create new, greener jobs. The Hungry for Change report focused on the need for stable and secure funding for research and development. I believe it would be a real boon to make rural areas the focus of this new infrastructure as part of a wider strategy to revitalise the rural economy. It is important the Government recognise the vital nature of rural economies in being at the very centre of the green revolution and come forward with a strategic vision for the rural economy that incorporates agriculture and food production, as promised in their response to the Lords Rural Economy Committee.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a bit daunting to follow a Bishop and an ex-Archbishop. I wish to congratulate the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, on the rare achievement of a second maiden speech in this House. I served on the committee too, and I would like to pay tribute to the way the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, conducted the committee and marshalled the views, not only of a heterogeneous committee, but also of a wide range of witnesses. I would also like to put on record my thanks to the staff in producing this report.
Food, from farm to fork, is by far our largest single industry. It has repercussions for difficult areas of public policy on health and diet, the local and global environment, air, water and soil quality, our nature, countryside and biodiversity. It is noticeable that the distribution of the benefits and detriments in the way we deliver food creates severe social inequalities and some serious health dysfunctions. Healthy food is often not affordable, particularly among our poorest communities.
In this report, we have attempted to deal with all aspects, with recommendations that will involve several departments beyond Defra and the Department for International Trade. The same will be true of the report we hope to see shortly from Henry Dimbleby, the second stage of which I hope the Government will treat rather more seriously than their response to this report has yet shown. Our media is unaccountable: for some reason, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, received rather less media attention than Marcus Rashford for his recommendations on school meals and universal credit. The Government did at least respond in part to that.
I wish to focus on a less obvious and more mundane aspect, which is the institutional one. My points relate to the structure of the food system as a whole and the ineffectiveness of the regulatory structure and enforcement we currently have. Our specific recommendations range from more effective local planning controls for retail outlets right through to the creation of an independent body analogous to the Committee on Climate Change. One key proposition is that we should reverse the decision made a decade ago and give the responsibility for nutrition, labelling and reformulation back to the Food Standards Agency.
At present, our regulatory system on food is concentrated on the two ends of the food chain—farmers and their methods, and consumer protection. Underlying the totality of the chain is the domination in the middle of it by major, often multinational, corporate players who largely escape criticism. The regulation on farmers is arguably about to become more complex through the new subsidy system replacing the CAP, which most of us support. The operation of public goods will be extremely complex, and the proposed ELMS and related interventions on agriculture to deliver public goods will inevitably involve a very sophisticated form of regulatory intervention. At the consumer end, both the Government and the report propose more sophisticated systems of labelling and consumer protection for safety and nutritional reasons. Again, those will need to be implemented in a way that improves the consumer experience rather than confuses the consumer. Between those two, regulation is and will be much less.
However, this market is hugely dominated by a limited number of large companies in the middle: the big supermarket retailers—obviously; the big processors and manufacturers; the big wholesalers and importers; and the big catering chains and food service companies. Although there is a market distortion in terms of a tendency to both oligopoly and oligopsony, it is in those fields where the decisions of those large companies determine the nature, quality and standards to which food is produced, the availability of it, and the price, and therefore affordability, to the ultimate consumers. Standards formulation and pricing conditions and, of course, advertising—the primary information that goes to consumers and smaller retail outlets—are dominated by the priorities of those companies.
There have been previous interventions. The relationship between the big supermarkets and farmers and other first-line producers were supposed to be regulated, or at least overseen, by the groceries code. To be fair, some of the standards and contract formulations have significantly improved for small producers, but not only has enforcement been extremely light-touch, but the reality is that the groceries code deals with only a small part of the issue and is largely confined to the large supermarkets dealing directly with primary producers, whereas the reality is that virtually the whole of our largest sector, the food chain as a whole, is a markets and competition issue, with wider repercussions for consumer protection and health and environmental impacts.
Given the externalities we have been concerned about in this debate, on the environment and on health, we need to take further steps. To take two examples, advertising expenditure by the large companies in the food chain is 40 times larger on confectionery than it is on fresh food and vegetables. No wonder our consumer diets are so far from ideal. The balance of market power between processors and primary producers means that, for most farmers, there is no profit without subsidy, and the new agricultural regime will not change that. The office of the Groceries Code Adjudicator is inadequate to the task. We need a much more effective body and, although the report does not spell this out in detail, it points inexorably in that direction.
I have a final point. Trade is a vital part of our food chain and imports provide us with key products, but when most assessments of sustainability in our food system emphasise the desirability of shorter supply chains, the Government’s emphasis is to prioritise a trade deal with Australia—one which potentially undermines our environmental and welfare standards and which appears to be concluded without a view from the safeguarding mechanism we all agreed in the process of delivering the Agriculture Act: the statutory Trade and Agriculture Commission. If we go down that road, it will not improve the health and diet of our nation, nor will it improve the environment. It may drive out a few livestock producers, but it will provide no solution to the problem that this report identifies.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
My Lords, the importance of this Select Committee report cannot be overestimated, and I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for his chairmanship and leadership of the committee. I also thank my fellow members and the staff for their diligence and enthusiasm throughout the meetings of the committee.
There is no doubt that food, its quality, access and affordability, is fundamental in its impact on people’s lives, especially for children, as it not only affects their present well-being and health but will be a major determinant of their future lives and, indeed, their health and life expectancy. Yet, as the evidence in this report points out, and other Members have also pointed out, large numbers of children do not get enough to eat. They live in families that cannot afford enough food to feed them, let alone afford a healthy diet. I shall limit my remarks today to some of the recommendations relating to chapter 3 of the report and the Government’s response.
The report recommends:
“The Government should embed consideration of the cost of the Eatwell Guide into calculations of benefit payment rates ... the Government should undertake a fuller assessment of the cost of a healthy and sustainable diet. The cost of the Government’s dietary guidance should be built in as a reference point to consideration of government interventions, including those relating to welfare and public food provision.”
This seems to me to be a very important recommendation and, as others have said, we are disappointed by the Government’s response to it.
The report points out that families already disadvantaged are penalised through the benefits system.
“The Food Foundation estimate … that only 53% of households spent at least enough to follow the Government’s Eatwell guidance.”
As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has already said, the report also stated that
“the poorest decile of UK households would need to spend 74% of their after-housing disposable income on food to meet the cost of the Eatwell Guide.”
This seems absolutely breath-taking. What on earth is the purpose of recommending a diet that cannot be afforded by those who most need it? The Government must seek a fuller understanding on whether their dietary guidance is affordable if they are at all serious about fighting obesity. Healthy food costs much more, calorie for calorie, than unhealthy food, so it is no surprise that the poor suffer not only deprivation but threats to their own health from obesity through not being able to afford anything more than cheap food.
The report says:
“There are a series of hurdles to overcome to access a healthy diet.”
These mean that
“it is significantly harder for people with a lower income to access a healthy diet. The current food system requires much more of people with fewer resources.”
Yet the Government say in their response:
“To embed the consideration of the cost of the Eatwell Guide into the calculation of benefit and pension rates would require an amendment to the up-rating primary legislation.”
Really? Is this such a barrier to being able to include this in calculations of benefit to ensure that people receiving benefits are not excluded from healthy food as well, as so many other things? For these reasons, the Government say they will not be including the cost of the Eatwell Guide in the calculation of benefit rates. I believe this is a very damning indictment of this Government. What we are really saying here is that people who cannot afford food should not have access to a healthy diet, and I believe that most of us would consider that totally unacceptable.
The report says:
“The Government should be fully aware of the cost of eating the diet it recommends, and the ability of different demographic groups to access this diet. To underpin any national food strategy, the Government must, in its 2021 review of benefits rates, commit to giving its dietary guidance—the Eatwell Guide—a firm place in the development of policy.”
I believe this is crucial to any future food policy.
“Written evidence from the Government stated that income-related benefit rates: ‘Derive from a review in the 1980s’ rather than being based on a ‘single mathematical calculation or historic set of rules’. This means that benefits are not based on an understanding of how much things cost or a representative household budget.”
Again, the Government’s response is at best underwhelming and at worst quite shocking:
“PHE will explore options on assessing the cost of a healthy balanced diet”.
I suspect that most of us would think Public Health England probably has quite enough on its plate at the moment and that there really is a clear need for action. We heard repeatedly from people giving evidence to the committee that the Government have carried out repeated consultations, investigations and inquiries, and that much has been written, yet little is being achieved.
“Given the enormous economic cost to the NHS and wider society of failing to encourage healthy diets, we find it puzzling that the Eatwell Guide is not used by the Government in the calculation of benefit payment rates. Ensuring that the large (and, recently, dramatically increasing) number of people in receipt of universal credit are able to afford a healthy diet could be a sensible economic step”,
we are told in the report.
The fact that healthy food is not affordable by poorer families particularly penalises the poor, and disadvantaged children will suffer the future costs of poor health and the threat of obesity in adulthood. Not including the cost of food in the calculation of benefit is a huge mistake that will be paid for in costs to the NHS of this regressive and damaging policy. Should not any policy of recovery from the pandemic include measures to invest in the health of our nation, in terms of reform of our food systems, as this report proposes? We should be using this opportunity of building back better to face up to the issues of food insecurity, diet-related ill-health and food sustainability described in this report. The report provides not only a vision of what could be achieved but a comprehensive plan for achieving it, and I very much hope we will pursue its objectives into the future.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may add my voice to those who have welcomed back the noble Lord, Lord Sentamu. His has always been an original and powerful voice, often raised on behalf of those who have no other voice. Its echoing around this Chamber will enrich and elevate our counsels.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for bringing his trained scientific mind to this important issue. I wanted to focus on one statistic that he quoted from the report, which was that in order to follow the recommended dietary guidelines, for the richest 10% it would require 6% of their post-housing disposable income, and for the poorest decile 74%. Please bear those figures in mind when we hear people talking dismissively of cheap food. When did “cheap” become an insult? The fall in price of high-quality and nutritious food has been transformative for people around the world. One rarely hears the word “cheap” used in that way by the 70% of human beings who cannot yet afford a washing machine.
Of course, the price of food is not the sole or even the main determinant of poverty. One could argue that the price of housing and the knock-on impact is more immediate. Indeed, one could argue that poverty is bound up with a number of other non-economic factors such as substance abuse, family breakdown and poor educational qualifications. However, the thing about the price of food is that we can do something about it easily and at no real cost to anyone else, because all we need to do is remove some of the obstacles between the suppliers and the people who want to get it.
I am struck by how often there seems to be a mismatch in the way in which people discuss this issue. Noble Lords in this Chamber and many more outside will talk, on the one hand, about the need to address food poverty and then, moments later, make a paradigm shift and start talking about how dangerous all these trade deals are, and how we need to protect our domestic farmers and markets and to keep prices up. It is as though there are two circles that do not overlap —but they should do. The idea that it is progressive and humane to be in favour of cheaper food but somehow cold, capitalist and heartless to be in favour of free trade would have seemed utterly bizarre at almost any moment in the past 200 years.
Free trade was always a progressive cause and seen as a way to end the racket whereby poorer people subsidised wealthier people. If you consider free trade’s great exponents, they were all, by the standards of their day, what we would now call progressives. The Adam Smiths and the David Ricardos were campaigners for abolition, a wider franchise and reforms of the Poor Law. All over Europe there was a strong overlap between people who favoured freer trade and people who favoured the reduction of monarchical and aristocratic power, the extension of the franchise and so on.
Let me quote, more or less at random, the leader of the National Agricultural Labourers’ Union in 1884, who said:
“The natural effect of Protection is to restrict trade, and restriction means less of everything for the working classes.”
That would have been a recognisable Labour sentiment well into the mid-20th century. Philip Snowden used to talk about that as the “free breakfast table” because he understood that the best way to improve the lives of people on low incomes would be to remove the unnecessary costs that were there to protect domestic cartels. Why has that changed? Why do we now have this peculiar debate whereby we have, if one likes, gone back to those pre-modern notions of protection? It is natural, almost inevitable, in politics for there to be a shift from consumer to producer interests, especially where those producers are either politically connected or have a sentimental hold on the imagination.
Part of that, I have to say, seems to be a little bit of nostalgia about having left the European Union. I am struck by how many people, including some noble Lords, make the argument that we should have absolutely unrestricted free trade in food with the 27 countries of the EU but not really with anyone else. It must be one or the other. We heard a little hint of that from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, a moment ago when he was talking about freer trade with Australia somehow being bad for consumers in this country. Australia has exceptionally high food and welfare standards. The idea that restoring the commercial relationship that we had with Australia before the 1970s is somehow going to be deleterious to British consumers is seen as absurd by British consumers, as a mountain of polling evidence shows.
Then there is the biggest change. I go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said in another passage of his speech about our being attracted to salt and sugar because we have those ancient instincts. That is absolutely right. We have those caveman heuristics—intuitions that were evolved for an altogether hungrier world. We are not designed for this life of skyscrapers and super-abundance. One of those instincts is a deep genetic desire to hoard food. We want to be able to see it and to know that we are able to get through the winter. The idea of depending on strangers for food that we cannot see, which is the basis of a modern economy, does not come naturally. It offends our inner caveman.
For that reason, it is always possible to get a certain amount of popular support by saying, “We should be self-sufficient. We should grow more of our own stuff”. One would be speaking to and for all those Neolithic inner cavemen wandering the savannahs of Pleistocene Africa. The trouble is that every country that has tried to do that has made itself not just poorer but hungrier. I illustrate that with examples from two ends of the spectrum. The country that has most obsessively pursued self-sufficiency in food and elevated it to the supreme governing principle is North Korea. It is called Juche. Everything that is imported can be substituted. The country at the other end of the scale, which imports everything, barely produces one edible ounce and relies on imports for its food, water and electricity, is Singapore. It has the cheapest and most secure food supplies in the world. Where would you rather live, my Lords? Where would you rather be as a person in the bottom decile? North Korea is the last place that has manmade famines; Singapore is a place where people simply would not recognise a debate like this about absence of food.
It is our role as a Chamber to overcome the misleading algorithms inherited from our hunter-gatherer past. We are here as an upper House precisely to be a cool, rational and cautious voice, to stand against those intuitive but sometimes incorrect promptings. That is why I hope that this House will take the opportunity to restate its support for freer commerce, especially in those commodities that make up the biggest share of the income of the poorest people. Free trade is the ultimate mechanism of poverty reduction, conflict resolution and social justice.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the report of the Select Committee on Food, Poverty, Health and Environment addressing the important issue of failures in food. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for his introduction to this debate and fully support the points he made.
During the pandemic, there have been programmes that ensure access to food for many who were unable to leave their homes during lockdown. For those deemed clinically extremely vulnerable or “shielders”, many programmes were set up around the country to ensure that they did not go without food or other essential supplies. However, we know that for non-sheilding vulnerable people, many of whom were over the age of 70, those programmes were not available. A survey conducted by Independent Age in May 2020 found that 48% of people in that group were struggling to access food during the first lockdown.
Ensuring that people have access to healthy food is an essential component of prevention in healthcare. Preventing many serious and avoidable long-term health issues resulting from poor diet requires collaboration across government departments, local authorities, third-sector organisations, community groups and the business community. An example of this is local planning. Local authorities should have the power to restrict the number of unhealthy food retailers. At the same time, local and central government should set policies that help to make healthy food options available in all UK communities.
It would be very easy to see only business, and specifically food retailers, as part of the problem. I welcome the recommendation in this report to work with the food industry to reform and reduce salt, sugar and unhealthy fats. Engaging the talent and creativity of the business community and working closely with food producers and retailers are key to improving diets. The role of government should be to foster an environment that incentivises businesses to support healthy diets as part of healthy living. Food producers and retailers are as important to the prevention agenda as the NHS. Through such a partnership there is a real opportunity to meet the Government’s guidelines of halving childhood obesity by the end of this decade. As part of a broader campaign of prevention, there is an opportunity to reduce the diagnoses of many preventable diseases. Given this, I hope the Government’s 2019 manifesto commitment to support people to live
“at least 5 extra healthy, independent years of life by 2035, while narrowing the gap between the experience of the richest and poorest”
remains a priority. But it has been largely ignored until now.
A key component of prevention is a healthy diet and nutrition. It is common knowledge that the prevalence of conditions such as high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and many cancers can be reduced through a good diet. Conversely, these conditions can be exacerbated through diets with high levels of sugar, salt, saturates and calories and low amounts of fruit and vegetables.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, we know those with underlying health conditions, such as type 2 diabetes or lung problems, are at a greater risk of hospitalisation or death if they catch the virus. As part of any preparations for future pandemics or similar public health crises, better resourcing of prevention is going to be critical. Ensuring we do all we can to prevent food insecurity and promote healthy diets is a key health priority and will help prepare our society for any future pandemics. Therefore, high-profile education programmes and collaboration across public and private sector bodies are absolutely essential, and they must be speedily introduced.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the committee on its report and welcome its unequivocal message that food insecurity is “a symptom of poverty”—which is the focus of my contribution.
As it happens, I spoke yesterday at the launch of an in-depth study of food poverty by Rebecca O’Connell and Julia Brannen of UCL’s Institute of Education. Like the committee, they underlined the importance of food as a symbolic as well as a material resource—one which
“mediates social relations and can bestow social status”,
with implications not just for health but for how people, especially mothers, are judged.
But recognition of the importance of food must not detract from the key message that, in the committee’s words:
“Food insecurity is a consequence of poverty.”
The same message comes from charities such as the Trussell Trust, which has documented the growing reliance on food banks, especially among disabled people and lone mothers, who the UCL research found to be among the most deprived households.
The Trussell Trust is clear that the problem lies not in access to food but in the growing number with insufficient resources to afford an adequate diet. The committee warns:
“The Government should not be reliant on charitable food aid to plug the holes in the welfare system”
which
“is failing to provide adequate support to people in the lowest income groups.”
The committee was clearly shocked by some of the evidence it received, leading it to conclude that
“there are many children in this country living with constant or intermittent hunger”—
one end of a “spectrum of food insecurity” in which people in poverty find it increasingly difficult to access a healthy diet.
Since the report, the evidence has accumulated further. Underlying it is a worrying increase in deep poverty, to which the Social Metrics Commission, among others, has drawn attention. Indeed, the latest official data show that two-thirds of the growing number of children in poverty are in deep poverty. According to analysis by Leeds University, children in larger families and from black, Asian and other minority ethnic backgrounds are particularly at risk. Trussell Trust data show that 95% of people referred to food banks in early 2020 could be classified as destitute.
I have to say that I find the Government’s response to the committee’s concerns about poverty shockingly inadequate. Other than replying to specific recommendations, they in effect ignored all the underlying messages about poverty and hunger. Of course, most of the poverty-related recommendations were rejected, though I do welcome the commitment to the continued inclusion of food security questions in the Family Resources Survey. The most recent such data showed that, even before the pandemic, over two-fifths of universal credit households had experienced high or very high levels of food insecurity in the previous 30 days. Such a finding must surely lead the Government to reconsider the decision to end the £20 uplift in the autumn, as called for by the Food Foundation and many others. The welcome original introduction of the uplift was a tacit acknowledgement that UC is too low.
As already noted, the committee recommended:
“The Government should embed consideration of the cost of the Eatwell Guide into calculations of benefit payment rates … Written evidence from the Government stated that”
these benefit rates
“derive from a review in the 1980s.”
I do not recall that review being published but, given that it was 40 years ago and that UC was presented as such a fundamental reform, and given the growing evidence of hardship and food insecurity among those reliant on UC, is it not time the Government undertook another review of the adequacy of benefits? I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that.
In drawing attention to the growing number of children whose families need to turn to a food bank, the Trussell Trust notes the role played by the two-child limit and benefit cap in the increased food insecurity experienced by larger families. In a recent QSD, I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, what assessment the Government had made of the impact on child poverty of the refusal to rethink the two-child limit—condemned by three of the UK Children’s Commissioners as a clear breach of children’s human rights. I also asked for a review the benefit cap as a matter of urgency, as called for by the Economic Affairs Committee back in December. She simply restated the Government’s position without answering the question about a poverty impact assessment. I take it from that that the Government have made no such assessment. Is the same true of these policies’ impact on food insecurity among children? If the Government fail to carry out such assessments, it raises serious questions about their stated commitment to tackling child poverty and food insecurity. Just yesterday, over 150 children’s organisations published a statement calling for a cross-government vision for childhood, starting with a long-term solution to child poverty, which is sadly lacking at the current time, when paid work is increasingly failing to provide protection against poverty.
Turning to the Government’s response to three other committee recommendations: first, I am afraid it is simply not good enough to bat away the call for an urgent overhaul of the five-week wait for UC with the claim that no new claimant need wait five weeks, given the availability of advance payments. The committee had already anticipated that response when citing the Trussell Trust’s description of it as a choice between
“destitution now or destitution later”
and concluding that
“the repayment of advances still creates significant problems.”
Both the Economic Affairs Committee report and the Work and Pensions Committee report, published subsequently but referenced by the committee, reached similar conclusions and suggested how the five-week wait could be overhauled. Given the Economic Affairs Committee’s observation that the wait
“is the primary cause of insecurity”
in UC, and the growing evidence of the hardship it causes, I call on the Government to think again.
Secondly, the committee rightly notes the particular vulnerability of those with no recourse to public funds, highlighted too by the Trussell Trust as at “particular risk of destitution” and in the UCL research which found such families were
“living in situations of extreme uncertainty and insecurity.”
The book quotes one child, not entitled to free school meals because of the rule, as saying the pain in his stomach from hunger
“was like I got stabbed with a knife and it’s still there.”
Thankfully, the Government extended entitlement to some no-recourse families during the pandemic and are currently reviewing the situation for the longer term. In a recent Commons debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Education said the department hoped to report back “soon”. Is the Minister able to say how soon, given that that is a rather elastic term in the government lexicon? However, welcome as this review is, it goes only a small way towards ensuring that those with no recourse to public funds
“are able to access sufficient, nutritious food”,
as called for by the committee.
Finally, the report underlines the importance of school meals and makes a number of recommendations which there is not time to go into. However, I draw attention to part 1 of the report of the National Food Strategy, published shortly after the committee’s report. Among other things, this called for free school meals to cover all children in families on UC, as already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, and for the provision of meals during all school holidays, demands which received the support of 1.1 million members of the public when included in a petition by Marcus Rashford, who, as already mentioned, has done so much to shame the Government into action. In their response to the committee report, the Government say that they will respond to the food strategy review within six months of its final report. That is all well and good, but how many more children will suffer hunger in the meantime? The title of the report we are debating today, Hungry for Change, suggests an urgency that is absent from the Government’s response to it. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will acknowledge the need for urgent action to address widespread food insecurity and the poverty underlying it, particularly among children.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, I too was privileged to be a member of this committee and, like other noble Lords, I put on record my appreciation of the sterling chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the excellent support the committee received from its clerk, analysts, administrative assistants and special advisers. I believe that the committee was held at the right time. Clearly, huge issues are building up and they have all been exacerbated by subsequent events, the pandemic and the way things have developed in the 12 months or so since we reported.
Little did I think when I signed up for this debate that we would be discussing cavemen and hunter-gatherers, who seem to have come on to the agenda. However, I understand on what that is based. Normally, I would say that people should be free to eat what they want, buy what they want, and so on. That is all well and good, but the evidence that the committee received, which in many respects was quite shocking, illustrated that this is not an area where the state itself can merely be an observer. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made some controversial remarks earlier in the debate. I would not go as far as he has but, having represented an inner-city area for over 25 years, I have seen at first hand how a cycle develops. We may have a standard image of somebody cooking at home and so on, but those lifestyles have changed and gone and have been replaced by fast-food outlets.
An advertisement in my former constituency that caught my eye was for the “gut-buster” at £4.99. In other words, as was pointed out, it is for the maximum: a large portion of chips, and the bigger, the better. That is how products are marketed. The facts are that products that are high in calories are those that sell because they are cheaper and people get at least a feeling that they have eaten something and it will keep them going. The price is due to the nature of the products that are sold at that price point, but I point out that it is not simply about supermarkets; there are many other wholesalers, street vendors, and so on. As was pointed out, the recommended diets, which cost up to 74% of disposable income for some groups, are completely irrelevant, and in fact the difference between that and the reality is almost grotesque. That we do not take that into account in the calculation of UC makes me feel that perhaps we would do as well not even to publicise it, because the gap between the reality and the ideal is so great.
School meals was one of the issues that came up, and of course that got an exceptionally high profile as a result of the pandemic and the campaigns to keep school meals going during the summer months. However, there is an issue with school meals, which is that of stigma. In many cases, where you have schools where pupils go to lunch together and some are in receipt of free school meals and others are not, it creates circumstances where in some cases parents, to save their children embarrassment, do not even take up the opportunity or offer of free school meals. To make school meals more universal would be one way of avoiding that and ensuring that people get at least one decent meal a day.
We heard evidence that teachers were helping some pupils coming in in the morning who had clearly not had a proper breakfast. We know that if children do not receive adequate nutrition, their capacity to learn is dramatically reduced. There is widespread evidence to support this proposition. When one looks at the costs in an area of ignoring these issues, where obesity is out of control, we have huge long-term health issues. Not only do people suffer a shorter life, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, pointed out, but the quality of that life dramatically deteriorates with age. If people are obese, they have huge mobility issues, you have the requirement perhaps for electric wheelchairs and people getting vehicles, and of course more frequent admissions to hospital, and so on. A vast cost is building up in the health service as a result of ignoring these issues.
The evidence was clear that the sugar levy had worked, but I think the state will have to intervene further with regard to salt and other matters. I would much prefer that people were able to make their own choices, but the reality is that, with the way things are in our society at the moment, that is not working.
It would be useful for the committee, under the new rules that the House is introducing on follow-up to committees, if, in a year’s time or whenever, we had some sort of follow-up to this to monitor progress. It is easy to bat off a committee’s report by saying “We’ll have a look at this and report back”, but the truth is that inertia in these matters is a very powerful force.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, made another point about having access to low-cost food imports and not having to ensure that we are self-sufficient. I understand his argument but he will recall what happened to this country during World War Two: there was a direct attempt to starve us out. There has to be a balance, because there is quite clearly a national security imperative to ensure that we at least have the capacity in extremis to keep our people fed.
Again, I thank the chair and am grateful for the backup support that the committee received. The question is out there, but will we do anything about this? I believe that only sustained, consistent pressure will ensure that we deliver an outcome that will help those people who are struggling to feed their families today.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and all the members of the committee for the excellent work that they have done and the recommendations they have brought before us, and thank them for the opportunity to debate these issues today. I welcome back to this House the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu; it is good to see him back in his new position and we warmly welcome him today.
I want to respond to some of the issues that have been raised, taking a more global and outward-looking approach. In particular, I am delighted that so much of the work done by the committee chimes with, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, indicated, the work of Henry Dimbleby in his report, which I will come to in a moment.
I always rise to the opportunity presented when my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere lays down a challenge, to which I shall respond. My noble friend said that free trade is a progressive cause. I would go further and say that it is a little like communism: it sounds excellent in principle but is very difficult to achieve in practice. He asked why a number of us, and I include myself in this regard, would like to see unrestricted free trade with the EU and no other trade with others. Of course, we went further than free trade: we were in a single market and a customs union. I am not quite sure why we have to keep repeating this, but that is the state that we are in. Why, as my noble friend asked, do I take that particular view? I am always mindful of my late mother spending her formative years under German occupation in Copenhagen having her freedom and liberty stolen from her, and I know that was experienced by the parents of many others across the Chamber. I believe that at the time, pooling our sovereignty was a very natural way forward.
Why do I see problems with countries such as Australia that my noble friend Lord Hannan does not foresee? It is very clear that Australia does not produce meat to the same high standards—which both my noble friend Lord Hannan and I, as MEPs at the time, were party to imposing—that our producers in this country have to meet. In my time, it was the sow stall and tether ban that we introduced unilaterally. That put 50% of pig producers out of business in this country, which I do not think was the intention of the law. Australia, regrettably, does not meet those high standards. It allows much longer distances for animal transport than we would possibly allow in this country or any other part of the EU’s remaining membership. It uses pesticides such as paraquat, which we have banned in this country and in the EU, and tolerates hormones in beef production, which not only do I find unpalatable but is something that I think British consumers will not tolerate. It is fair to say that these issues must be brought to the table when we discuss any free trade and lowering of tariffs with countries such as Australia.
Other reasons for us to do free trade with countries in the EU are that they are there, they are close, we have historic and cultural links, and environmentally it makes sense that we do not transport animals or wine halfway around the world. Our carbon costs are lower by trading with our near neighbours. I thought that was one of the principal policies of TTIP and why in particular the Pacific Rim countries trade so well together: they have a natural affinity and partnership there. That does not prevent us from doing deals with them, but we realise that there are additional costs that we will have to meet.
I am delighted that the report addresses issues such as self-sufficiency and food security. It also touches on the issue of Covid. I pay my tribute not just to those in the farming community who work extra hours in all weathers but to those working in supermarkets and the supply chains to make sure that the shortages that were much feared at the start of the pandemic never materialised. How the question of import substitution and increased self-sufficiency will play out now that we have left the EU is something that remains to be seen.
I understand from reports, notably in the Grocer, that the department has replied privately, sotto voce, to the interim National Food Strategy: Part One from Henry Dimbleby and his team. I urge the Minister—we have worked together before and I am delighted to see him back in this place—to ensure that the Government publish that and to endeavour to ensure that his department, as other noble Lords have pleaded, brings all the strands of the legislation together, particularly the Agriculture Act, the Environment Bill and the Trade Act, as well as all the benefits under the DWP, along with the Department of Health and Social Care, to make sure that we tackle food poverty and food security.
I pay tribute to those such as the Yorkshire Agricultural Society who do such good work in opening up the countryside to schoolchildren and indeed adults to demonstrate where our food comes from. What I regret in this debate more than anything else is the fact that towns, cities, market towns, countryside and rural life are further apart today than ever in my lifetime. I look at countries such as Ireland and to a certain extent Scotland and Denmark, where there is a very strong link with the production of food and the food industry. Even rural and urban France are not that close, but the food production industry and farmers in France are heard much more clearly than farmers would argue they are in this country. That is something we are very mindful of.
One policy that I am particularly worried about is the recent government consultation on animal movement. If that were to jeopardise in any way the ability of our farmers to get their meat to market or indeed the future of country shows, large and small, across the country, that would be a very regrettable move. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to say there will be no legislation that could lead to any ban that would mean further difficulty in accessing abattoirs or that the future of our country shows might be in doubt.
I support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, by drawing on recommendations 5, 6 and 7 in the interim National Food Strategy: Part One from Henry Dimbleby and his team. It says very specifically that:
“The Government should only agree to cut tariffs in new trade deals on products which meet our core standards.”
That to me is key. Whether it is regarding animal welfare, animal health or environmental production, we must make sure that having—dare I say?—clobbered our farmers with these increased costs, which our consumers support, we do right by them by ensuring that any imported foods meet the same high standards.
The report says in recommendation 6 that:
“The Government should give itself a statutory duty to commission an independent report on all proposed trade agreements”,
and goes on to say that the timing is key. I record my disappointment that the new trade and agriculture commission is not in place at a time when many of these trade agreements are going through.
Finally,
“The Government should adopt a statutory duty to give Parliament the time and opportunity to properly scrutinise any new trade deal.”
If colleagues are right and free trade is the brave new world, why should we be shy about debating it? Let us look at the issues. Let us not bring them out at the last possible minute, but embrace them, scrutinise them properly and make sure that we do right by those who work in all weathers to bring food to our table—our forgotten heroes, the farmers and food producers of this country.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and his committee for their extraordinarily valuable and challenging report. It covers and makes recommendations on many of the key strategic challenges we face, not just in the United Kingdom, but globally. I draw attention to my interests recorded in the register. In particular, I chair the Prince’s Countryside Fund and the Cawood Group, which provides analytical services to the agri-food, environmental and waste sectors. I am also president of Social Farms & Gardens. I welcome back the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and thank him for his speech. As a Northumbrian living not so far from Lindisfarne and very close to the history of St Cuthbert, I welcomed his comments.
First, while the Government’s response to the report is welcome, it is easy to delay action on a number of key concerns while waiting for Henry Dimbleby’s stage 2 report. The Government are fuelling an expectation that Henry will address the issues, and I am sure he will, so we can anticipate a positive and clear response from the Government after his report is released. I hope the Minister appreciates that he will have the task of managing our expectations.
I focus on a number of related issues. The fundamental challenges that the report highlights have already been mentioned in this debate: child poverty, healthy school meals, food insecurity, the composition of processed food, obesity and dietary health, and a net-zero environmental impact from food production. Many of these have been accentuated by Covid and lockdown, but have been trending worse and worse for at least two or three decades, perhaps longer. Successive Governments have tried to intervene in a variety of ways, with limited success, so all the evidence suggests that tinkering at the edges will not succeed.
It is almost 20 years since I was part of an obesity taskforce—and look at how much worse the problem is now. This is an embarrassingly acute crisis. The report highlights the serious societal cross-cutting issues and all government departments need to commit to a strategic plan to address them. If ever there was a need to see evidence of joined-up government action, it is now, on these issues.
Let me refer to some specifics. First, on public procurement, in the 2000s, I spent years working with local authorities, contractors, schools, hospitals, et cetera, along with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, trying to promote sustainable and healthy sourcing of food. It is hard work to change a culture driven by economics that has no regard to the impact it might be having on health or the environment, but it is possible. It requires sustained effort and ongoing monitoring. It beggars belief that we spend billions on the procurement of public food for a wide range of institutions from prisons to government departments and everything in between—schools, hospitals, et cetera—without having clear national specifications on nutritional and environmental standards. Government can directly influence this and numerous local initiatives have succeeded for at least a while, but it requires sustained discipline and constant oversight to become firmly embedded within policy and systems. I would like the Minister to comment on that.
I also endorse the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, in stressing the importance of retaining a viable family farm network in the management of our countryside and ensuring that the market for healthy sustainable food is not undermined by cheap lower-standard imports. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I would be failing in my responsibility if I did not refer to the current uncertainty around the Australian deal and the lack of opportunity to scrutinise it by the trade and agriculture commission, which has not yet been established, and to debate it in this House. I endorse what the noble Baroness said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, about free trade deals. I desperately want to sign a free trade deal with Australia, provided Australian farmers are subject to the same standards that we are. That would be good. I just remind the noble Lord that Singapore does not have any farmers to worry about.
Secondly, we have all been shocked by how many households and individuals have become dependent on food banks. In an advanced society like ours, this is a serious indictment. However, I am not of the view that this is a perfect indicator of poverty levels, but others who have spoken on this topic are much better qualified than I am. It is a complex issue and will not simply be resolved by throwing more cash at the problem, although this may be necessary. To undertake an analysis of what a sustainable and healthy diet would cost and how it relates to current levels of benefits and universal credit would be useful, but other measures are also essential to address the fundamental problems that we face.
I have been impressed by the work of Christians Against Poverty, for example, which was mentioned earlier in the debate by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, and its work to help willing households and families, in crisis, to better manage their weekly budgets, recover from indebtedness and, I hope, eat healthier diets in the process. This help, together with access to healthy raw ingredients and the ability to prepare and cook healthy meals, is essential if this issue is to be addressed and dependence on food banks and the consumption of processed unhealthy food is to be reduced. I encourage the Government to help and support such bodies undertaking this crucial service.
Finally, I address a hobbyhorse of mine: that of helping schoolchildren to better understand the importance of food—where it comes from, how to prepare it, how it can influence their health and how incredibly important their decisions are when they are filling a shopping basket. Visiting the countryside and farms to see how food is grown, how animals are cared for and why food production is an important function of farming businesses and the management of the countryside are important influences. They also begin to have their minds opened to environmental issues, what sustainability means and how their decisions and their families’ decisions can make a real difference to their carbon footprint. Linking these experiences to cooking in schools—domestic science or whatever the topic is called—and integrating curriculum lessons and projects over a wide range of subjects, which can be done, will influence their attitudes and diets, and begin to reverse the current trends for this and future generations.
Wherever possible, we should endeavour to link local sourcing to procurement of food for local schools, and encourage schools to visit the farms that supply them. Inner-city schools are more of a challenge, but I have hosted thousands of inner-city schoolchildren on my farm and they have hugely benefited from the experience. It all makes complete sense to me and it works, but it requires effort on the part of the Government, Defra, the Department for Education and local authorities all working together. Being an optimist, I live in hope that it might be possible to deliver this on a national scale. As far as Defra is concerned, it is essential that public access within ELMS includes educational school visits, and that all farms that are equipped and willing to host school visits are encouraged to do so, with this included within the scope of the definition of public good, not just for the higher-tier scheme, but for all three tiers. I hope the Minister confirms this.
In conclusion, I restate that we are facing the consequences of decades of worsening trends. It will take decades of concerted effort to turn these around and reverse what we are seeing around us every day. That will be achieved only if this Government and future Governments commit to an integrated programme of action, across all departments, and apply it locally as well as nationally.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Curry, who has such a tremendous background in farming and food. I welcome the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, to your Lordships’ House on his return and his second maiden speech.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on securing this important debate and commend him on chairing our scrutiny committee and publishing our report, Hungry for Change, in July last year. I was proud to join the committee in February 2020 as the pandemic situation was unfolding, because that was an important test whereby it was possible to assess the resilience of our food system. In May and June we had several remote meetings of the committee to deal with our report and take further evidence from government Ministers, including Health Minister Jo Churchill.
I agree with other noble Lords—the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry—that there should be commendation, praise and support for our food producers, whether of the land or of the sea. We should support a viable farming industry and a viable fishing industry. In that respect, it is therefore important that we as the House of Lords and Parliament be allowed to scrutinise those trade deals, because I am in no doubt that the quality of our food produce of the land and the sea is equal to, if not better than, that of the produce we may import. It is important that those safeguards are in place and, for that to happen, parliamentary protocol and parliamentary accountability are absolutely vital.
Our committee found that:
“The UK’s food system—the production, manufacture, retail and consumption of food—is failing.”
We made a series of recommendations to which other noble Lords have referred. They were all
“built around the central aim of ensuring that everyone, regardless of income, has access to a healthy and sustainable diet.”
There are stark contrasts in the way that people experience food. The report argued:
“For many people, food is the source of considerable anxiety. Significant numbers of people are unable to access the food they need, let alone access a healthy diet.”
It also highlighted that the NHS spends billions of pounds every year
“treating significant, but avoidable, levels of diet-related obesity and non-communicable disease.”
In addition, our report revealed that:
“The food industries, manufacturers, retailers and the food services sector, perpetuate the demand for less healthy, highly processed products. This not only impacts on public health, but also inhibits efforts to produce food in an environmentally sustainable way.”
The report made significant recommendations, focused on the need to initiate routine levels of food security; to make urgent changes to universal credit; to factor in the cost of a healthy diet to benefit rates; to publish consultations on
“proposals to impose restrictions on the marketing, advertising and price promotion of less healthy foods”;
to step up
“efforts to encourage the food industry to reformulate its products to reduce harmful levels of salt, sugar and unhealthy types of fats”;
to extend and reform Healthy Start vouchers, free school meals and holiday hunger programmes; and to create a standardised framework for every public good outlined in the agriculture legislation. We push and urge the Government to ensure they stand by their commitment not to
“compromise on … high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards”
in trade agreements, to which I have already referred; and to establish an
“independent body, responsible for strategic oversight of the implementation of the National Food Strategy.”
Notwithstanding that the Government in their response are moving along our trajectory, they seem a little dilatory about implementing our recommendations. Last year they published their Childhood Obesity report; I urge the Government to implement their own recommendations. In other respects, they reacted only when Marcus Rashford shamed them into doing so in his campaign to end child food poverty and feed vulnerable children over the summer vacation amid the economic disruption caused by Covid.
Sadly, there are no real commitments on addressing the needs of the food environment or reformulation, and no engagement with the recommendation to return responsibility for nutrition labelling and reformulation programmes to the Food Standards Agency. I ask the Minister, whom I welcome back to the Dispatch Box—when we were all in the other place, he was a very good agriculture and fisheries Minister—why this is the case. Can he explain the delay in addressing these issues amid a pandemic that has exposed the fragility and insecurity of our food system?
There needs to be a root-and-branch review of the whole benefits system and a permanent uplift to universal credit. I commend the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in this regard.
In 2021 the Food Foundation published its report, The Impact of Covid-19 on Household Food Security, which in many ways chimed with recommendations in our report. It stated that
“more people are food insecure now than before the pandemic … Households with children have been hit hard, with many … still falling through the cracks in support … Existing support schemes have made a difference, but gaps have meant many people still struggle to eat adequately.”
Its recommendations, mirroring those in our report, include that the Government should review free school meal policy across the UK and ensure that
“no disadvantaged children are missing out on the benefits of a Free School Meal … Food insecurity levels are high among those in work and those on benefits”.
There is a need to increase wages, to retain the £20 uplift to universal credit and to remove that five-week wait. There is a need for proper governance structures to be in place to have
“oversight on food insecurity tracking or responsibility to tackle it.”
There has been considerable analysis of the problems with food security and insecurity and the need for people to be able to access nutritious food. There is Mr Dimbleby’s first report—we look forward to his second—our report and the report from the Food Foundation. My fear is that we could become paralysed by analysis. We now need to see the Government working with the Food Foundation, Parliament, local government and education and health authorities to bring forward and implement proposals to ensure greater accessibility to environmentally sustainable food for all at a reasonable cost.
We all need to work together to develop a food system that is resilient to systemic shocks and to safeguard our people. We need a benefits system fit for purpose that will help people climb out of poverty. We need wages to be uplifted so that those in work can afford to purchase good-quality food, and to reduce the reliance on food banks. Can the Minister outline how he, working with colleagues, intends to do just that and to implement the recommendations in our report as a matter of urgency, so that a resilient food system is accessible to all in our society?
Baroness Osamor (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. I also thank and welcome the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, back to the House, and congratulate him on his maiden speech.
I thank all the members of the Select Committee—I was one of them—the staff, those who gave evidence, and the chair, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. Their excellent work, if implemented, will save lots of lives, keep us healthy and stop those who harm us through the food we eat, the environment we live in and so on. Daal, as we say in Igbo: thank you.
Most people agree that post Covid-19 will not be business as normal, but a new normal that will take on board what the report is calling for: change. People are hungry for change and they want the failures in food fixed. They do not want any harm done to them through their food.
In the London Borough of Haringey, where I live, children and young people under the age of 20 make up 20.4% of the population. Some 10.8% of children aged four to five and 23.1% of 10 to 11 year-olds in Haringey are classified as obese. Obesity in Haringey costs our NHS more than £81 million a year. Two-fifths of all the children in Haringey were living below the poverty line in the lead-up to the pandemic. Their families lack the income to buy the food they need.
Haringey’s coalition against obesity, made up of local businesses, churches and voluntary organisations, is working with Haringey Council to defeat obesity and save our young people. At the same time, it is working very hard to maintain a viable and vital local economy. Its mission was to stop takeaways targeting school pupils. Put pupils’ health first: stop the scourge of takeaways setting up on the doorsteps of our schools.
The Government could implement the outstanding proposals from the childhood obesity plan without delay. They could introduce mandatory reporting requirements for food businesses on metrics relating to sustainable and healthy diets. They could implement the outstanding proposals from the 2020 obesity strategy.
On fast food outlets, the Government’s response says:
“Councils should support the role that town centres play at the heart of their communities and promote their long-term vitality and viability. They will need to consider the interaction with the location of existing high streets, shopping parades and local shops as rigid exclusion zones could serve to undermine the viability of such long-standing retail uses.”
Where is the evidence? That is the question I ask the Minister.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to welcome the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, to the Cross Benches. I hope he finds them as supportive as I have. It is also a pleasure to speak in the Chamber once more. It has been a very long year since last I was here, and a similar length of time since this excellent report was first published. The 12-month delay to this debate has only increased its urgency.
My appreciation goes to my noble friend Lord Krebs and the whole committee for producing such an excellent and insightful report in the teeth of the pandemic. The inequalities of which they write have been brutally exposed by Covid-19’s assault on those with poor diet and related ill health. There could not be a more important time to consider its conclusions and to press for the change that our nation is so hungry for.
As many have said, in reply the Government will doubtless repeat their reliance on the national food strategy, which is due to provide its second and concluding report at some point this year. The work of Henry Dimbleby and his team is to be welcomed and applauded, but we must be wary of the Government kicking the can by delegating their responsibility to bodies that will report at some future point. Assuming that the national food strategy reports later this year, the Government have a further six months to respond, so we will not see those details until the summer of 2022. With every month of delay, inequalities and ill health build. This delay will be fatal for many.
I note my interest as a Devon farmer—not quite Neanderthal but with some feudal origins. I am also a member of the advisory board of the South West Food Hub. I will restrict my focus to issues of food production, education and procurement.
As your Lordships are well aware from the Agriculture Act and the Environment Bill, never in recent times has there been more upheaval in policy and funding for land management. The loss of basic area payments and the introduction of ELMS heralds a sea change in how our rural environment is funded, providing public money for public good and moving focus away from the provision of food. Your Lordships will recall many hours debating the 10 ELMS purposes in Section 1(1) of the Agriculture Act, none of which include the provision of food—the basic purpose of agriculture for a millennium. Section 1(4) does require the Secretary of State to
“have regard to the need to encourage the production of food”,
but it is a secondary concern—it is a “regard”. British farmers are now predominantly environmental land managers.
Add to this elements of the Environment Bill, such as local nature recovery strategies and biodiversity net gain, and we have additional incentives pushing farmers away from the production of food towards the provision of ecosystem services. These worthy developments risk fundamentally altering our land use, and I request that the Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the principal role of farming being the provision of locally sourced, sustainable and nutritious food for the benefit of the British people. If that is not the case, we need to know.
At the same time as these major upheavals are impacting farming, the Government are pursuing a trade policy focused on establishing a post-Brexit free trade network at seemingly any expense. The import of lower-cost, lower-standard agricultural products are at the heart of those negotiations. At this very moment we are in an arm wrestle with Australia over its desire for access to British consumers for Aussie red meat, providing an existential competitive challenge to the British pasture farmer.
Although I agree with the report that we need a dietary shift to less and better-quality meat, that shift should not be to meat produced to lower welfare and environmental standards imported at considerable carbon cost. This would not improve the diet of the British public. Indeed, it might make meat even cheaper and thus increase its consumption, moving us yet further from the Eatwell guidelines. Rather than subjecting our high-quality livestock production to an uneven playing field through unbalanced trade capitulations, our Government should be banging the drum for grass-fed British meat and dairy as the highest-quality and most sustainable natural protein available. Will the Minister confirm that British livestock farming will not be sacrificed by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, on the altar of free trade?
The story of our food and the sustainable natural heritage from which it derives needs to be better told. Professor Dasgupta’s recent report on the economics of biodiversity is adamant that environmental education is key to restoring an understanding of our natural world. The Government have not responded to that recommendation, and I wonder whether the Minister can let us know whether they intend to do so.
I applaud the Government’s efforts to increase public understanding of a healthy diet, and to making health education compulsory for state-funded pupils. If the Government are able to do that for human health, would it not be reasonable to expand the syllabus to include our planetary health, thereby providing all state-funded pupils with the environmental education Professor Dasgupta considered essential? This would enable them to adopt both a healthy and an environmentally sustainable diet.
As the noble Lord, Lord Curry, has noted, public food procurement is the one area in which the Government could have the quickest and most fundamental impact on public health and sustainable food production. I note the Government’s commitment to using public sector procurement to improve the quality of food, as well as supporting local communities, improving nutrition and sustainability.
The South West Food Hub is a community interest company working in partnership with the Crown Commercial Service to deliver a new approach to public sector food procurement, known as the future food framework. The aim is to support small and medium-size producers in the region to sell directly to public sector institutions, ensuring that hospitals, schools, prisons, the armed services et cetera are eating healthy and locally produced food procured at a consistent and affordable price. The scheme both minimises food mileage and maximises the opportunity for those consuming the food to engage with and understand its production. Will the Minister confirm the Government’s support for the work of the South West Food Hub and its ground-breaking pilot with the CCS?
Finally, there has been much talk of obesity and the Government’s obesity strategy. As a member of the National Plan for Sports and Recreation Select Committee, I just add that we will be addressing another aspect of the obesity crisis—as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, well knows—with a view to encouraging greater activity and well-being for those who we hope will be enjoying a healthier and more balanced diet. I congratulate the Liaison Committee for its joined-up thinking in that regard.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, on his maiden speech.
There is so much to support in this report, and I hope that together the Government, the National Health Service, schools and charities can act together on the recommendations to help ensure that healthy food is available to everyone and that food waste is eradicated. It is also interconnected with food production, with too much focus on unhealthy processed food and food wastage worth £200 billion a year. Even teaching adults and children how to cook a healthy meal and how to reuse left-over food is part of this equation.
It will come as no surprise that food poverty has been at its peak during the coronavirus pandemic, with more people from all walks of life accessing food banks. The work done by the likes of the Felix project, which delivered 29.1 million meals to Londoners in a year since the first UK lockdown, has been so important. A founder of the Felix project, Justin Byam Shaw, said:
“The Covid epidemic has created a dramatic hunger crisis in the UK, not seen perhaps since the 1930s ... In 2020, The Felix Project delivered 8,600 tonnes of good food to 980 local charities and schools—completely for free. As a result, 260,000 Londoners were given food every week and 43,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases were stopped from polluting the planet in the form of wasted food.”
More than 2,000 volunteers gave their time and more than 500 businesses donated their surplus food, ranging from farms to supermarkets and others.
The work of the Felix project is just one of many great examples of charitable work, but it also highlights a fundamental flaw in how much food is being discarded. We need to look at how we can stem this flow and get people and retailers to better manage their food and supplies. It has been found that where councils introduce food waste collections, people have been shocked to see what they throw away and either buy less or use their food more wisely. WRAP does much work in the area, particularly with businesses and manufacturers. We need to work together to make a real difference.
I have spoken before of the need to retain the £20 universal credit payment introduced during the Covid lockdowns. This remains critical to many families to help them feed their children. Research has shown how important proper meals are to school children, helping them to concentrate in lessons. Whether this is free via school meals or through their parents, it is vital that we ensure that children receive proper meals—through their school holidays, too. I ask the Government to look at how this can be achieved.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I am unable to call the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, my fellow Australian-born female Peer in your Lordships’ House. That will become somewhat relevant later. I also welcome the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, back to your Lordships’ House. The last time we met, I believe we were talking about Yorkshire devolution, so I look forward to having future conversations on such matters.
I join pretty well all noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and his committee on a spectacularly weighty report that really deserves the paper it is printed on. That is not something that can always be said. I join him, the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Lister, and many others in expressing strong disappointment at the Government’s response to the report. “Thin” is, I think, the adjective that has been used. I would probably go further and say “derisory”. However, I take one piece of consolation from reading the Government response. It seems to have evaded that incredibly powerful directive being delivered to all Government output. It does not seem to contain the phrase “world-leading”. That is quite telling, because it reflects the fact that even this Government cannot apply the phrase “world-leading” to the UK’s food system—the broken food system that this report so clearly identifies.
We find ourselves in a very curious constitutional position. The Government’s response says that we all have to wait for Mr Dimbleby’s report. I am not quite sure what place Mr Dimbleby has in the British constitution, but it seems to be a very important one, according to that.
However, I hold great hopes for Mr Dimbleby’s work, and I very much look forward to it, but I have a small disagreement with the words from Henry Dimbleby quoted in this report, in which he says of the food system,
“it is almost impossible to act on it … without creating winners and losers.”
The word I question in that sentence is “creating”. What we have is a food system that now has some truly spectacular winners: the supermarkets, the multinational food manufacturers, the fast-food companies, the seed and agrochemical companies. It also has some truly spectacular losers, as many noble Lords have outlined, starting with the children of the UK who are losing out with a dreadful quality of diet. Our public health is losing out very spectacularly—and, of course, our environment. It has often been said that Mr Dimbleby is producing England’s first ever food strategy. I would say that this is not the first food strategy, it is the first written-down food strategy. Our strategy for decades has been to allow multinational companies and supermarkets decide what we eat, and we can see the results in this report.
However, I want always to look forward and be positive. I want to pick out some words from the report by the National Farmers Union. Philip Hambling talks about the traditional “three-legged stool” of sustainability, in that it has economic, environmental and social legs. It is already clear from what many other noble Lords have said that the social leg has not so much been broken off as smashed to smithereens, given the level of food poverty in the UK. In fact, I would say that this is not food poverty; it is simply poverty. This has been covered very well by other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, compared the situation 100 or so years ago with the disastrous situation we are in now, saying that somehow, we have been through a cycle and ended up in a similar position. I will draw a further parallel. Back then, our food system was starving many millions of people in India, in the Empire. Today, there is more than enough food for everyone to be fed, but nearly 1 billion people regularly go to bed hungry.
I turn to an issue that no one else has yet referred to today. We need to acknowledge—particularly the Minister who is now speaking for the Government—that this should all be seen in the context of COP 26 and our chairing of it. Repairing our food system is surely part of our responsibility in that role.
That brings me back to Australian issues. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, all referred to the potential for an Australian free trade deal. I refer to paragraph 469 of the report, which states:
“Food imports must be required to adhere to the same environmental and health welfare standards that are in the UK.”
Most other noble Lords have rightly expressed concern about the impact on British farmers of food imports from Australia, particularly meat imports, but I raise the question of the environmental impact of producing those food imports, along with the animal welfare impact. A week or so ago I wrote a piece for the Yorkshire Post reflecting on the fact that not only are my origins Australian, but my first degree was in agricultural science. I worked on Australian farms, and I told some tales from those farms and their animal welfare standards then. I should warn noble Lords not to read them over breakfast. However, I can also tell noble Lords that I was significantly pulling my punches, because there are some things that you simply cannot write in a national or regional newspaper.
Are the Government considering the environmental and animal welfare impacts in terms not only of competition but the state of the world? Is it appropriate to take food from a production system based on the ecocide and genocide of white settler capitalism in Australia that continues to be utterly destructive and profoundly damaging to the environment?
I want to put a couple of more questions to the Minister, given the department he represents, and given that the UK will be chairing COP 26. A former Secretary of State of that department, Michael Gove, was keen on agroecology and agroforestry. Although the report does not use the term “agroecology”, it does refer to farming systems that would fit the agroecological model. As the new Minister, does the noble Lord intend to push agroecological approaches, particularly given the emphasis the report places on the importance of research and development? Is he keen to see far more research and development in the agroecological area?
I stress that I want to be positive, so I thought I would take that three-legged stool idea and construct a new one that the Government might find attractive and be prepared to adopt. I will reframe the report in my final two minutes. I shall refer to “three Ps” that I hope the Government will at least in theory agree to adopting. The first “P” stands for productivity. I hear often from the Benches opposite the desire to improve the productivity of the UK. Can the Minister say whether there has been any consideration of, or reports on, the impact of our poor diet on the UK’s productivity? We hear a lot about the impact on health, and we know that obesity, heart disease, diabetes and all such diseases pose a significant problem for public health. I would posit that they also have a significant impact on the productivity of this country. The Government might like to think about that.
The second “P” is prosperity. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, talked about the South-West Food Hub and how exciting efforts are being made in local food production, bringing huge opportunities to small independent businesses and local traders in order to spread prosperity around the country. That fits very much with the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
The final “P”—I admit I am stretching the “Ps” a little here—is polarity. The levelling-up agenda talks about dealing with regional inequalities in the UK. We have poles of wealth and poles of poverty. If we have strong food systems in every region of the UK—small independent businesses, local greengrocers, markets and cafes all being supplied with local food—what you will have is economic circulation.
These are my suggestions for the three-legged stool, framed in a form that the Government might like. Much of this report could be implemented in that direction, so I hope that the Government will reconsider their response.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I cannot call the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, so I will call the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, I join with all those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and his committee and team on producing a report that is remarkably broad and deep. It has been impeccably researched and contains clear recommendations that still stand, despite the time lag since it was written. I also want to congratulate the noble and right reverend Prelate, Lord Sentamu, on his second maiden speech and to wish him a happy birthday. I hope that we can finish our debates early enough for him to enjoy what is left of it.
It does not matter how often you read this report or the evidence that goes along with it: there is always something new to shock and sadden you. That we are still having this debate some three-quarters of a century after Beveridge identified want as one of the “great giants” to be slayed should make us all stop and wonder where our collective system of government has gone wrong.
Much in the personal evidence and testimony is pretty heart-rending, but for those who are of a less emotional disposition than I am, there is also a huge amount of evidence about the cost to the public purse of poor diet in its various forms: an estimated £6 billion to the NHS. Public Health England has predicted that UK-wide costs attributable to obesity alone will reach £9.7 billion by 2050, with wider costs to society being estimated to reach almost £50 billion by then. According to the Sustainable Food Trust, for every £1 spent in shops by UK consumers, another £1 is spent by taxpayers in associated costs. As the report states, continuing with business as usual actually makes no economic sense.
Over the past 15 months we have seen government intervention on a scale we could never have imagined before. Levels of public expenditure and restrictions on our personal liberty have been accepted by the public, by and large, because they can see the need for drastic action at this time of crisis. But as the report demonstrates, failure in the food—[Inaudible]—and has been accelerated by the pandemic. None of the proposals suggested by this report, by noble Lords today or by any of the groups that have given evidence come anywhere near to government intervention on the scale we have seen in the last year, but what they do require is an act of will.
One of the things that comes across clearly in the report, and which has been raised by a number of noble Lords, is that while there is no shortage of data, very little of it is being collected by the Government. They simply do not have any benchmarks or data. The committee received a lot of evidence. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, identified how the Government either do not know about, or are not saying anything about what they regard as, problems in the food system. For example, the food security assessment was last published as a complete document in 2010. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister about this.
There also appears to be a massive disconnect between the Government’s aspirations on one side and their actions on another. A number of noble Lords have raised the point about the standards for a healthy diet and a benefits system that puts such a diet far beyond the reach of recipients. Another example is the childhood obesity plan, which makes recommendations that are very hard for poor families to follow. Five years on, childhood obesity levels are rising—this point was made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sanderson and Lady Osamor. As my noble friend Lady Janke said, if you are an obese child, you are much more likely to be an obese adult, so this is an ongoing cost.
The Government are putting a lot of store by their levelling-up agenda, which is usually seen in a geographical context, with solutions that are based on investment in physical infrastructure. However, we need levelling up within communities as well because, even within prosperous communities, there are areas of deprivation and individuals in serious need. Where I live, the Suffolk Community Foundation has done some remarkable work in producing a report called Hidden Needs, which describes the poverty that exists even in a relatively prosperous county such as Suffolk. Diet-related ill health is much more likely to affect those in lower-income groups, and it is reasonable to accept that those who are struggling to afford to eat are struggling to afford to eat properly.
As we have heard in today’s debate, and in the report:
“Food insecurity not only damages physical health but also causes social harm bringing profound anxiety and stress to families and can affect children’s school attendance, achievement and attainment.”
I know that the Government will argue that creating jobs in deprived areas would deal with this, but it is worth noting that food poverty is not just an issue for the workless. Pre pandemic, the biggest growth in food bank use was among people who were working in either low-paid or unpredictable zero-hours-type jobs. As we have heard, child poverty has risen from 3.6 million to 4.1 million since 2010, and seven out of 10 of those children live in a family where at least one parent is working.
Others argue that it is possible to retrain and upskill workers out of poverty. I am very much in favour of doing both, but the fact remains that we need workers in jobs that we tend to call “unskilled”. It cannot be right that people who are doing these jobs, many of whom we simply could not do without—the pandemic has really highlighted their value to society—can work full time in those sectors and still rely on food banks to feed their families.
As the report sets out, food insecurity is largely a “consequence of poverty”. The idea that we could somehow trade our way out of it and that buying cheap food would solve the problem simply flies in the face of the facts in this report and others. As the report also sets out, and as we have heard clearly from the noble Lord, Lord Curry, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and others, this is not just a matter of food insecurity and poverty. There is a fundamental problem with our whole food system. Evidence from the Food Foundation, the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and others has shown that the least healthy diets actually produce more carbon emissions than the most healthy ones.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, pointed out, there are still high levels of food waste in the UK. An estimated 10.2 million tonnes of food and drink are wasted virtually at the farm gate. This is worth £20 billion, and to that we can add food waste at every stage, through production, retailers, the food service sector and consumers.
Many noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in particular, have talked about the link with agriculture and the Environment Bill. These are based on principles of, first, public money for public goods and, secondly, the polluter pays. So I would be interested to hear the noble Lord’s thoughts about how those principles can be reflected in our attitude to food.
In 2014, I chaired a committee looking into the subject of food waste; it was the first time that this had ever been done, and the resulting report got attention right across the world. As a result, I was asked to speak at conferences across Europe. Inevitably, the subject of food banks came up in discussions, and it is worth reflecting on the fact that this is not just a UK problem. What struck me was the reluctance of all Governments, everywhere, to admit that some of their citizens are going hungry. No Government seem to want to admit that they are not meeting one of the basic needs of the people whom they are elected to serve—and that is the big problem because, if you do not admit that there is an issue, you will never put it right and the problem will get worse.
The Government always say they are world leading. We have not heard it today, but I have no doubt we shall in weeks to come. They could show genuine leadership in this area by acknowledging that there is a problem of food poverty. They could develop metrics to measure it and then create an action plan to deal with the worst of these problems, so that we are not debating this in 75 years’ time.
There are many immediate measures, outlined in this and in other reports, that could be taken to ameliorate the situation. Scrapping the five-week wait for universal credit, retaining the £20 uplift, reforming the scheme for paying back advances, and having another look at the free school meals system so that it does not rely on a campaign by a young footballer every time we have a school holiday—all these could be done relatively quickly and without primary legislation.
Other changes, such as reforming the food system, will take longer, but the Government could show leadership. The vaccination programme has shown us that when all the different sectors in our society—from government, through to academia, business and the charity sector—pull together, we can achieve a huge amount. This is something we could tackle.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, to his new role and thank him very much for his contribution.
I too want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and to all noble Lords who worked on this report. As others have said, it stands out as a hugely authoritative piece of work to which we can return again and again for its in-depth analysis and for the quality of its recommendations.
I share the frustration of others that it has taken a year to have this debate—a year in which the Covid crisis has caused terrible death and devastation. But it is a testament to the report that its recommendations are as fresh and relevant as ever, which is why the Government’s response—which seemed complacent at the time—seems even more inadequate now. I hope that, having had time to reflect, the Minister will be able to provide a more optimistic account of the actions that the Government are now prepared to take. I also thank the Food Foundation for its important and continuing work on these issues.
Of course I am aware that the Government’s default position is that these issues are being dealt with in the national food strategy report, due to be published shortly. But this does not mean that all policy needs should be put on hold. Many of the proposals, both in this report and in part 1 of the Dimbleby report, published last year, are urgent. They relate to the aftermath of the Covid crisis and the need to address the health and poverty issues thrown up by the pandemic.
The Hungry for Change report says:
“The crisis has exposed the fragility of many people’s economic situation and exacerbated many of the problems relating to poverty, food insecurity and health inequalities.”
And, as Henry Dimbleby said in the introduction to part 1 of his report:
“These recommendations are urgent, specific and carefully targeted. In this period of acute crisis, they could save many thousands from hunger, illness and even death.”
So can the Minister say what has happened to the more immediate, pressing recommendations in these reports? Is it the case—as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh suggested—that a response to the first part of Dimbleby has already been sent? If so, I think we should all like to see it. I hope it is not the intention to leave all the issues to be addressed in the White Paper that is promised six months after the second report. Action is needed now.
In particular, I would highlight three issues which will not wait another year. First, as the report points out, food insecurity is
“a consequence of poverty and the economic and social failures that sit behind it”.
Eleven years of government failure have left our country ill-prepared for a job and welfare crisis. A recent report from the Trussell Trust shows that 700,000 households used a food bank last year, with a 49% increase in the number of children supported via that route and 95% of people referred to food banks categorised as very deprived or destitute. Even before the pandemic, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that 2.4 million people were living in destitution, unable to afford the essentials to eat and keep warm. These underlying inequalities have now been thrown into sharp relief by Covid, with debt and destitution rising and the number of children living in poverty increasing by a third. As the report points out, we cannot address poverty and food insecurity separately; they are intrinsically linked.
Clearly, the welfare system is broken. I absolutely agree with the report’s submission that:
“The Government should not be reliant on charitable food aid to plug the holes in the welfare system”—
a point made powerfully also by my noble friend Lady Lister. That is why the recommendations in the report which address the failings of universal credit, particularly the five-week wait—which puts people into debt from which they cannot recover—are so important. It is why it is important to extend the £20 uplift in universal credit, a policy which the Government failed to support in a recent vote. It is also why we need a plan to address that fact that eating well, and embracing the Eatwell Guide, is unrealistic for many low-income groups and financially out of reach for many.
I was therefore very disappointed to see the Government’s response to these proposals, which is best described as “Thank you but, no, we have no plans to address these issues.” It symbolises a hardness and cruelty at the heart of this Government’s thinking which belie all the talk of levelling up, a point made powerfully by my noble friend Lord Rooker. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the House that the links between poverty and poor diet are now better understood, that detailed monitoring of and collection of data on food insecurity will continue, and that the link between universal credit and food bank use will be properly addressed.
Secondly, the Covid experience illustrated starkly the role that school food plays in supporting childhood healthy eating. The image of children going hungry when the schools were closed, and the heroic efforts of Marcus Rashford to get the Government to continue funding lunchtime food, is a stand-out feature of our experience in the past 12 months. All the evidence shows that good food is essential for learning, and all the talk of levelling up will not work if children are hungry. The free school meals system increasingly excludes children who would previously be eligible. The Dimbleby report recommends expanding eligibility to every child from a household in receipt of universal credit. The existence of holiday hunger continues to blight us. Even now, the Government are proposing to feed children on free school meals for only 16 of the 30 weekdays during the upcoming summer holidays. We need an urgent rethink of the system to ensure that every child has a hot meal once a day, and that breakfast clubs and holiday activities have the funding to fill the void in demand.
Again, the Government’s response on these issues was complacent, at a time when poor children are being left behind in the education system. The resignation of Kevan Collins, the education recovery commissioner, is a damning indictment of their meagre education catch-up plan. I hope that the Minister can reassure the House that steps will be taken to ensure that access to good, nutritious school food for all will be part of a more ambitious and urgent catch-up plan.
Thirdly, as the report points out, Public Health England has made a clear link between obesity and Covid, with a disproportionate number of patients in intensive care categorised as morbidly obese. There is an urgent need to address diet-related ill health and the consequences for the individuals and society. It is vital that we increase public understanding of what constitutes a healthy and sustainable diet. We need to address the difficult but essential challenge of encouraging the nation to eat less meat and more plant-based products.
The report makes some really important recommendations on the labelling, advertising and promotion of food, mandating maximum calories per portion, action to reduce sugar and salt, and the voluntary and regulatory measures needed to underpin these changes. We need to be clear with industry that, if it does not respond swiftly and comprehensively, regulatory action will follow—including fiscal levers and levies where necessary—although, as my noble friend Lord Whitty said, addressing this with multinational manufacturers and retailers is a much more difficult challenge.
I am pleased that the Government acknowledge action needs to be taken in their response, but as ever, their reliance on long consultations and even longer implementation dates does not reflect the urgency of the public health issues we now face. The Government’s obesity strategy published last year is welcome as far as it goes, but that needs to be underpinned by a degree of urgency and with targets and measurements of success to deliver a real shift towards healthy and sustainable diets.
Finally, I am conscious that I have been able to cover only a small part of the more comprehensive report. We look forward to the publication of part 2 of the National Food Strategy and the debate that will follow. I hope the Government will give it the weight and seriousness I am sure it will deserve. I hope as part of their response they will feel able to follow up part of this report’s recommendation to establish
“an independent body, analogous to the Committee on Climate Change”
to deliver the strategic oversight of the implementation of the national food strategy, ensuring the comprehensive change in eating habits and food policy that the nation deserves.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for initiating this important debate and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. What was absolutely apparent from the members of his committee who spoke was the respect they have for him and his chairmanship. It was so good to hear so many of the members of his committee contribute to our debate and I am grateful to them for bringing forward such an interesting report—the Hungry for Change report.
I fully admit that I have a difficulty here today, because I will irritate your Lordships if I hide behind the publication of future documents such as the Dimbleby report and the food strategy. However, I would be wrong to pre-empt those reports by prejudging them and saying too much at this stage. I hope your Lordships will humour me if I try and sail a middle course.
As highlighted in the committee’s comprehensive report,
“Food should be a source of enjoyment, good health and cultural expression”.
It is paramount that our food system delivers safe, healthy and affordable food for everyone, regardless of where they live or how much they earn. This Government are committed to ensuring that our food system is built on a sustainable and resilient agriculture sector so that we and future generations can continue to access good, healthy and sustainable food.
I will try to tackle as many of the points that have been raised in the debate as possible. I apologise if I cannot answer everybody, but if I cannot, I will try to write to them. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, raised a very important point. Since the start of the pandemic, government departments have come together to co-ordinate support for the most vulnerable. For example, the food for the vulnerable ministerial task force was set up a year ago to respond to some of the initial challenges of Covid-19 for a limited time with a defined remit. The task force membership spanned departments across government including the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government, the Department for Work and Pensions and Ministers from the devolved Administrations.
The task force was instrumental in putting support for the most vulnerable in place. That included £63 million for the local authority grant scheme, delivered by Defra with support from MHCLG, to enable local authorities to provide further support for individuals struggling to afford food and essential items. There was £10.5 million for the food redistributor FareShare, £1.8 million for the Covid-19 emergency food redistribution scheme, £3.4 million to support individual charities through the food charity grant scheme and much more. Of course, the billions that have been spent on measures such as furlough have supported family incomes and therefore have contributed to tackling food poverty.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, raised a straightforward question, and I assure her that Defra is working closely with departments across Whitehall, including the Department for Health and Social Care and Public Health England. Defra has been feeding into discussions around the setting up of the office for health promotion to develop a White Paper when it is established. As part of these discussions, we are setting out a plan to ensure that the food system is sustainable and affordable, and that it supports industry and innovation and encourages healthy diets while protecting animal health and welfare.
The Government’s food strategy White Paper will cover the entire food system from farm to fork, building on work already under way in the agriculture and fisheries Acts, and the Environment Bill, as well as docking into wider government priorities, including build back better, levelling up, our net-zero strategy and our obesity strategy, which I will come on to.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made a powerful speech. I respected him when he was a Minister, but I simply cannot agree with him here. It would be an appalling situation if what he suggested was true, and I absolutely refute it. I would not be part of such a Government. It was an extraordinary allegation to make.
Like everyone in this House, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sentamu, to his place here, as he returns for his second maiden speech. I wish him a happy birthday. He made a very powerful speech. He said that it is about “us”, not about “me”. The state does have a role. We often talk about big state versus small state, and there are times when many of us leading comfortable lives do not want the state taking all our taxes and interfering with us, but if you are poor and cannot afford to feed your children, you need loads of state, and it is about getting that balance right. He was absolutely right to raise that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, showed a great understanding, as we would all expect, of the food chain, and gave that very important statistic that 40 times the amount of money spent on advertising is spent on confectionary than is spent on fruit and veg. If noble Lords want to see the direction of travel that the Government are going in, and why they are asked Henry Dimbleby to do this work, they should look at Henry Dimbleby’s TED talk. It is nine minutes long and absolutely brilliant, because it talks about the holistic nature of the problem.
My noble friend Lord Hannan gave us a history lesson. I had the privilege of representing Newbury, a seat that was lost by the Conservative Party in the free trade election of 1906, when there was a bit of negative campaigning by the Liberal candidate—I know that is hard to believe—which suggested that the sitting MP, Mr Mount
“wants you to pay more for bread”,
because he was opposed to free trade. Mr Mount lost his seat, a factor that was well remembered by his great-grandson, David Cameron, and which made him so passionate about free trade. The noble Lord is right however, that we have to do it in the right way, and we must recognise the cost of bringing food from all over the world, not just in terms of what it costs individuals but what it costs our planet. We want to ensure that the Government’s policy about the standard of food that is produced is weighed in the balance as well. My noble friend Lady McIntosh made a very important point about the crisis—I put it like that—between lack of understanding about town and country, a point that was well supported by the noble Lord, Lord Curry. If I was not here and had not accepted this job, I would be at home with 800 schoolchildren visiting my farm today. I have left my wife in charge, so I will pay a price for that later.
The noble Lord, Lord Curry, made a very important point about obesity, as did my noble friend Lady Sanderson, the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie, Lady Osamor and Lady Scott, and of course the Opposition spokesperson. This year is the 30th anniversary of the first obesity strategy; there have been 14 government obesity strategies, introducing more than 700 policies but, since then, we have worse health outcomes related to diet, worse physical activity and worse mental health. Four out of five death and disability causes are diet-related. This is a social justice issue, a point well made in the Centre for Social Justice report, a brilliant piece of work chaired by my noble friend Lady Jenkin. This looked abroad at where success has achieved results, in places such as Amsterdam, and has fed through to an obesity strategy by implementing our policies and seeing them as part of an exciting, evolving long-term policy plan to improve population health. This can be the time when we break the decades-long cycle of repeated policies of little meaningful change. This is the opportunity we have to really tackle this problem. The Government’s obesity strategy is different from its predecessors and it is one that, with our support, will work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made a characteristically powerful speech, but I say to her that in our changes to the farming system, we are now able to encourage all sorts of different farming activities. Next week, there is the Groundswell event, promoting regenerative farming. No longer will farmers be narrowly pathed down a route prescribed by a common agricultural policy that has been disastrous for our ecosystems and our health as well. This is an opportunity to get this right and we are determined to do it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, made a very important point about levelling up within communities. As Rural Affairs Minister, I take this very seriously. The rural poor are very often hidden from our eyes because they live in relatively affluent communities. The noble Baroness was absolutely right to point out that levelling up is not something that is just north-south or geographically important, which is why the Government and the committees, on some of which I sit, are really keen to make the point that we are looking for poverty wherever it exists, to tackle it and to end it. And, yes, we admit there is a problem. There is a problem when any single person is prevented from having a healthy diet out of poverty, and we are determined to tackle it. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that there is an urgency. The interim report that Henry Dimbleby wrote was responded to by the Secretary of State, but we will respond more fully as his main report is published and we will keep the House informed about that.
Tackling poverty in all its forms is a key priority of this Government. This includes ensuring that everyone has access to food. During the last year, significant support has been given to the economically vulnerable as part of the Government’s Covid-19 response. As I said earlier, this has included increasing the value of Healthy Start vouchers; the national rollout of the holiday activities and food programme; Covid support grants through local authorities; and direct funding to support food aid organisations. Building on the significant support given to the most vulnerable during the pandemic, the Government will continue to monitor food insecurity regularly. As part of the Agriculture Act we have included a new requirement to lay a comprehensive report on UK food security before Parliament by the end of this year and at least once every three years thereafter. The report will cover a range of current issues relevant to food security, including global food availability; supply sources for food; food supply chain resilience; household food security and expenditure on food; and food safety and consumer confidence.
I have already spoken about obesity, but it is one of the greatest long-term health challenges this country faces. Living with obesity reduces life expectancy, increases the chances of serious diseases such as cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Covid-19 has brought this into even sharper focus, as excess weight increases the risk of serious illness and death from the virus.
The Government launched their obesity strategy a year ago, which sets out the actions to empower people to make informed and healthier choices about the food they purchase. It includes introducing calorie labelling on menus in cafes, restaurants and takeaways and restricting the advertising of high-fat, salt and sugar products being shown on television and online before 9 pm. This is not just about childhood obesity; this is about tackling the problem throughout society.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs: part 1 of Henry Dimbleby’s review of the food system was published in July last year and contained recommendations relating to the Covid-19 pandemic and the time preceding the end of the transition period. Several of these recommendations were aimed at addressing food insecurity, including the expansion of the holiday activities programme, as I have said. Having already taken steps to adopt some of the recommendations from the first report, we look forward to considering recommendations from the second.
Now that we have left the European Union, the Government are working to ensure that our food is produced more sustainably and that our environment is left in a better state than we inherited it. We published the agricultural transition plan in November 2020, which sets out our plans to gradually reduce and stop untargeted direct payments and invest the money freed up to pay farmers to improve the environment, animal health and welfare and reduce emissions. We will also provide significant grants to support farmers to invest in equipment, technology, and infrastructure that will improve their productivity in a sustainable way. I make this point to the noble Earl, Lord Devon: we want to ensure our farmers are supported to grow food in a way that also delivers environmental improvements. We are introducing three environmental land management schemes that reward farmers and land managers for producing public goods—the sustainable farming incentive, local nature recovery and landscape recovery. Together, these schemes are intended to provide a powerful vehicle for achieving the goals of the 25-year environment plan and our commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050, while supporting our rural economy.
A number of your Lordships mentioned food waste. As your Lordships will know, the UK is—I am going to say it—a world-leader in tackling food waste, from educating the public on reducing food waste in our homes to making our supply chains greener. We are consulting this year on introducing regulations that would make the reporting of food waste volumes mandatory for food businesses of a certain size. By ensuring businesses are publicly reporting their food waste, we hope they will act to reduce it. The Environment Bill, which had its Second Reading in this House on Monday, will ensure that we go further to ensure less of our food is wasted. The Bill will ensure that councils operate weekly separate food waste collections to prevent food waste from going to landfill or being incinerated.
On trade, the UK is rightly proud of our food, health and animal welfare standards and environmental protections. As set out in our manifesto, we will stand firm in trade negotiations to ensure any future trade deals live up to the values of farmers and consumers across the UK.
We have said a lot about Henry Dimbleby and his reviews, but it is evident that food has an impact on all areas of our society—our economy, our environment and our health. It was for this reason that in 2019 Michael Gove, in a previous position, commissioned Henry Dimbleby to carry out a comprehensive review of the food system to help ensure it delivers healthy, affordable food, is resilient in the face of shocks and restores and enhances the natural environment. I want to thank Mr Dimbleby, on behalf of my department and others across Whitehall, for his tireless work. He really is an innovative thinker, and I will commend his report when it comes. From conversations I have had with him, it seems it is going to be ground-breaking.
I want to assure noble Lords that this Government are wholeheartedly committed to listening to Mr. Dimbleby’s recommendations set out in both parts of his independent review. These will inform our own food strategy White Paper, which we have committed to publishing within six months of Henry Dimbleby’s final report.
Defra is working with colleagues across Whitehall to ensure that the entirety of the food system is covered within the White Paper. It will build on work already under way in the Agriculture Act, Fisheries Act and Environment Bill, as well as on wider government priorities, including the others that I mentioned earlier.
I should make one final point to the noble Earl, Lord Devon. The question of meat and diet was raised by a number of noble Lords. There is a challenge for the farming community, and for us, to make the distinction between “good meat” and “bad meat”. Good meat is locally produced and grass-based. We have studied Stéphane Le Foll’s “4 per 1000” presentation to the Paris talks. It is a fantastic way in which to lock up carbon and deal with agriculture’s emissions. It is entirely virtuous to eat locally produced, grass-fed meat. Bad meat comes from a long way away, is often grown on feedlots and has a terrible impact on the environment in so many ways. That is a challenge that we have to face. We have to educate people about what the difference is. We can prove that meat is not bad but can be a real force for good in tackling climate change and our food miles.
I want to end by thanking noble Lords for taking part in this debate and for raising some extremely important points that I will take back to Defra and colleagues across Whitehall. I will look at Hansard and write to noble Lords to follow up on questions that I have been unable to answer.
The food system is complex and requires careful work to ensure that the nation has access to a healthy, sustainable and affordable food supply. Such work is no small feat, which is why our food strategy White Paper will see the Government leading pioneering, cross-cutting policies to establish the UK as a global leader, using a holistic, government-wide approach to transforming the food system. It is urgent and we are managing to do this at a time when we are introducing new farming systems, and dealing with Brexit, trade issues and the pandemic. But this issue is a priority for this Government and for my department. I eagerly anticipate the recommendations that will be set out in Henry Dimbleby’s report and discussing the food strategy White Paper with noble Lords in the coming months.
Lord Krebs (CB)
In concluding, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for their excellent contributions. We have heard many well-thought- out and passionate remarks, and I am sure that the Minister can be in no doubt about the strength of feeling and interest in this topic from across this House.
I particularly thank and congratulate my noble and right reverend friend Lord Sentamu for his thoughtful speech, and wish him happy birthday. I wrote down two comments that he made. The first was to reimagine the kind of country in which you want to live and the second was to come up with practical proposals for radical change. I hope that, when we finally see the food strategy in the White Paper, it embraces those two thoughts.
I also thank the Minister for his reply and, at the same time, as this is my first opportunity, I congratulate him on his appointment as Minister in Defra. I am very much looking forward to working with him in the future. He warned us that he might disappoint slightly by alluding to the national food strategy, rather than giving us the answers here and now. He did indeed postpone the answers to a few questions, but he generally tried to respond to some of the points made. Towards the end, I noticed, he succumbed to the temptation to refer to the national food strategy as “world-leading”, despite the cautionary note sounded by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
In closing, I return to the question of governance. Henry Dimbleby’s work will no doubt be excellent. From looking at part 1 and talking to him, from time to time, I know that he is thinking deeply and innovatively about these problems, but there is a danger that, like other very good reports, it all ends up in a filing cabinet. That is why we were so keen to have independent scrutiny of the implementation of Dimbleby, through the White Paper and food strategy. The Government rejected our proposal to set up a new quango. I can see why; it is anathema for Governments to create quangos that then cause trouble. I still believe that would be the best mechanism but, as an olive branch, I offer an alternative for the Minister to take away.
The problem with food is that it does not come top of the agenda in any government department, except one—the Food Standards Agency. This is a non-ministerial department with food as its central priority. In closing, I ask this question for consideration: why not charge the Food Standards Agency with the task of monitoring and reporting on progress in implementing the national food strategy? It would not involve creating a new quango, and would help to ensure that we keep our eyes on the prize of tackling the costly and debilitating blot on our society that is food poverty.