House of Commons
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Today marks the fifth anniversary of the death of our friend and colleague Jo Cox, who was murdered on her way to meet constituents in her Batley and Spen constituency. She was doing what so many of us do as constituency MPs, and that made her death more shocking to us all. May I, on behalf of the whole House, express our sympathy with her family, friends and colleagues on this sad anniversary? We will never forget Jo or her legacy. We remember her wise words: that we have
“far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]
Business before Questions
Monken Hadley Common Bill
Bill read the Third time and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
May I associate myself with your remarks about Jo Cox, Mr Speaker? I am sure that none of us in that House will ever forget where we were on that day. My thoughts are with her friends and family, and the amazing legacy that she has left.
I would like to thank Arlene Foster, who resigned as First Minister of Northern Ireland earlier this week. Arlene has given 18 years of public service to the people of Northern Ireland. We have seen throughout the covid pandemic the phenomenal work that she has done as First Minister in Northern Ireland, working with all the parties to take Northern Ireland through a very difficult time, especially as the Executive were newly reformed just weeks before. I would like to thank Arlene for her work. I will continue to work, as I have done over the past few days, with all the party leaders in Northern Ireland to ensure that we can keep a sustained and stable Executive in the weeks, months and period ahead.
I regularly discuss our approach to the Northern Ireland protocol with Lord Frost. We have conducted joint engagements together in Northern Ireland on a regular basis with businesses and civil society, as well as joint engagements with Vice-President Šefčovič to consolidate our understanding of the real-world impacts of the protocol. At last week’s Joint Committee, the Government outlined our continued commitment to engaging to find the pragmatic solutions that are urgently required and needed to ensure that the protocol can achieve the delicate balance that was always intended. We in the UK will continue to work actively to find and deliver the solutions.
Joanna Cherry [V]
May I, too, express my condolences to the family, friends and comrades of our late colleague Jo Cox on this anniversary?
A trade war has been threatened, but, most importantly, the stability and the peace process in Northern Ireland are at stake. Two international treaties are at stake; so, too, is the reputation of the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world, because our allies fear that this Government would be prepared to breach either or both of those treaties. Does the Secretary of State now regret saying that the Government were prepared to
“break international law”,
albeit
“in a very specific and limited way”?—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]
Brandon Lewis
I was answering a question that I was asked last year and giving a factual position. The reality, as we outlined at the time, is that we were creating an insurance policy to ensure that we could continue to deliver on the Good Friday/Belfast agreement in terms of unfettered access from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. We were then able to secure that, and we therefore did not need to take those clauses forward. That was exactly what we said we would do. Our colleagues around the world can be very clear that we will do what we have said we would, and they can have confidence that we will continue to protect the Good Friday/Belfast agreement in all its aspects and all its strands.
Mr Speaker
Let us go to the Chair of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) [V]
Like the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), Jo Cox was in my intake in 2015. She was a sparkling light among us and we miss her enormously. I associate myself with your remarks at the start of our proceedings, Mr Speaker.
Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that mutual trust is possibly the key ingredient to sorting out the position with regard to the Northern Ireland protocol? Our Committee has just had Lord Frost before us for an hour and a half, taking questions; I think that he agreed on that proposition as well. What is my right hon. Friend doing as Secretary of State to ensure that the issue of trust and its importance is understood across Whitehall?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee makes an important point. I have not had a chance to see the transcript of the meeting this morning that he and his Committee had with Lord Foster, but I work closely with Lord Foster on these issues and one of the key things is that mutual understanding and trust. That is one of the reasons I have always felt strongly that our colleagues, friends and partners in the EU should be engaging with civic society and businesses in Northern Ireland to ensure that they really understand the sensitivities and the nuances in Northern Ireland. I am pleased that the Commission and Maroš Šefčovič have done a couple of those meetings already. I would like to see more of that as we go forward, so that we can build that understanding. It is fundamental to the basis of having trust that each one understands why it matters to deliver on the protocol in the way that was always intended: in a pragmatic, flexible way that delivers for the people of Northern Ireland.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State in sending all our love to Jo’s family on this very difficult day, and in paying tribute to the outgoing First Minister, Arlene Foster, for her many years of public service and for the lesson she has treated all of us to in recent weeks on how to do politics with dignity, even in difficult times.
I support the Secretary of State in his efforts to ensure that there is a strong, stable, functioning Executive in the current negotiations to meet the enormous challenges facing Northern Ireland, and one that respects all existing commitments. However, it was an extraordinary diplomatic failure for the Prime Minister to spend a crucial summit on home soil being rebuked by our closest allies. Northern Ireland does not have any more time for bickering or blame games, so is it not time to get serious and commit to a veterinary agreement that would eliminate the vast majority of checks down the middle of our Union?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady has a different reading of the weekend. One thing that was very clear over the weekend was that our partners—particularly our partners and friends in the United States—were very much in the same place as us on the precedence and importance of protecting and delivering on the Good Friday agreement. That is something that they were such a strong part of, and that we are always focused on as being of paramount importance for us. We have put forward a number of proposals—more than a dozen, I believe—to the European Union Commission around how we can deliver on the protocol in a pragmatic, flexible way that delivers for the people and businesses in Northern Ireland. We look forward to continuing those discussions with the EU, but when the EU talks about flexibility and pragmatism, it has to show it as well as talk about it.
Louise Haigh
We need to see the details of that veterinary agreement in order to ensure that it really would eliminate the vast majority of those checks. A significant part of the problem is that people in Northern Ireland feel that these changes have been imposed on them—that they have been done to them, not with them. So how is the Secretary of State going to ensure that representatives from politics, business and civil society in Northern Ireland are brought meaningfully into the negotiations, not just engagement, so that any solution is sustainable and permanently eases tensions?
Brandon Lewis
The Executive and Executive members have been part of a specialist committee. They have also been part of the wider engagement meetings and had a chance to feed into them. Obviously this is a negotiation between the UK Government and the European Commission, and it is therefore right that the UK Government lead on that, but we have been the ones who have been engaging across businesses and civic society, as well as with the Executive politicians, and we will continue to do that and continue to encourage the EU to do that.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
May I associate my colleagues with the comments made about the late Jo Cox and also pay tribute to our former leader and First Minister, Arlene Foster, for the sterling leadership that she provided to Northern Ireland during what has been a very difficult period for all of us?
What progress has been made in the Secretary of State’s discussions with the EU side to ensure that when people are travelling with their pets between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in either direction, they are not required by the EU to carry so-called pet passports and incur the cost of having their pets vaccinated for a disease that has not existed in the United Kingdom for almost a century?
Brandon Lewis
In reflecting on the excellence of delivery that Arlene Foster had, I am going to learn a lesson that I am sure all Members here will be pleased about: I am going to avoid singing at any point this afternoon as I simply cannot live up to the talent that she showed on Friday.
Pet travel from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is one of the critical issues that we have been discussing with the EU. We see no reason why part 1 listing could not be granted by the EU, and indeed it should be. We meet all the requirements for it, as the right hon. Gentleman has rightly outlined, and we have one of the most rigorous pet checking regimes in Europe to protect our biosecurity, so we will continue to push for a solution with the EU. As he will be aware, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland has recently confirmed that there will be no routine compliance checks on pets or assistance dogs entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain until at least October 2021.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
We hope it will go well beyond October and that this matter will be fully and completely resolved.
Does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister that it would be wrong for the EU to impose a ban on the sale of chilled meats, including sausages from Great Britain, to Northern Ireland? What action does he intend to take to prevent this from happening?
Brandon Lewis
I absolutely agree. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom and its consumers should be able to enjoy the products that they have bought from Great Britain for years. Any ban on chilled meats would, in fact, be contrary to the aims of the protocol itself and would be against the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. An urgent solution must be found so that Northern Ireland’s consumers can continue to enjoy chilled meat products bought from Great Britain.
We have proposed options for either extending the grace period or putting permanent arrangements in place. We are working hard to try to resolve these issues consensually with our partners, but as the PM has always made clear, we will consider all options in meeting our responsibility to sustain peace and prosperity for the people in and of Northern Ireland.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]
Mr Speaker, may I associate myself and my colleagues with your opening remarks, and those from both Front Benches, in paying tribute both to the legacy of Jo Cox and to the public service of the outgoing First Minister, Arlene Foster?
In his discussions with Lord Frost and Maroš Šefčovič, to which of the following did the Secretary of State commit his Government? The integrity of the Good Friday agreement; the free flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland; building trust by working to implement what they agreed to in the protocol; or further standards-lowering trade deals, which could restrict the ability to agree a veterinary deal with the EU? Surely the Secretary of State must recognise that it cannot possibly be all four.
Brandon Lewis
I fundamentally disagree with the principle that the hon. Gentleman has just outlined. The reality is that the Good Friday/Belfast agreement—he has fallen into the trap that too many people fall into—has more than one strand. East-west is a vital strand, and we will continue to protect it. That is why it is important for people to recognise and understand that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom and should have the same rights and access to products as anywhere in the United Kingdom.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
I, too, send my thoughts to Jo Cox’s family today.
With all the talk of sausages and the protocol, I hear very little from this Government on the benefits of the protocol for local producers. What is the Secretary of State doing to promote those benefits? Can he tell the people of Derry what exactly he and Lord Frost think is wrong with Doherty’s sausages?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman and I agree on a number of things, including the quality of sausages from across Northern Ireland, which, as Members can probably tell, I get to enjoy from time to time. He makes a fair point, and it is at the heart of the issue. It should be a matter of consumer choice, not regulatory regime. The reality is that, as across the United Kingdom, consumers who go into a supermarket in my constituency in Great Yarmouth will see a range of products that is different from what they will see in the midlands, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. That is because of consumer choice, not regulatory command.
We have to ensure that Northern Ireland’s residents have the ability to make that choice. If the hon. Gentleman looks, as I know he does constantly, at the media, I have made the point a few times that, if we get the protocol to work in a proper, flexible, pragmatic way, it creates an opportunity for Northern Ireland. But we also have to be cognisant of the fact that, at the moment, it is causing real disruption and real problems for businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland, across the whole community, and it has an impact on people’s sense of identity in the Unionist community. We have to accept that, respond to it and deal with the protocol in a pragmatic way. That is why I think it is so important that the EU engages with people in Northern Ireland to get a real understanding of why Northern Ireland is such an important part of our United Kingdom.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
The Government have always cherished our close relationship with the United States. It was a combined effort of the UK, Irish and US Governments that brought the troubles to an end, and it will take a renewed and ongoing partnership to safeguard Northern Ireland’s stability and prosperity in the future. That is why I announced earlier this month the appointment of Trevor Ringland MBE as the first special envoy to the United States on Northern Ireland. The special envoy will support our Government’s important mission to promote Northern Ireland as an excellent place to live, work and do business.
Julie Marson
I welcome the news that my right hon. Friend has appointed a special envoy. Does he agree that it is important to engage not just with the US but with all our international friends and partners to ensure a greater understanding of the challenges that Northern Ireland faces, but also of the opportunities that this integral part of the UK has?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is spot on: she is absolutely right. We in the UK are committed to working internationally to tackle global challenges, as was demonstrated by our hosting of the G7 just last weekend. As an integral part of the Union of the United Kingdom, we will always fully represent the issues that matter most to Northern Ireland when we engage with our international partners. That is the spirit in which we appointed the special envoy to the US, and I look forward to working with Trevor Ringland on that. She is also right to say that Northern Ireland is a phenomenally exciting place to live and work, with so much opportunity, in cyber, advanced engineering, technology—I could go on. It has a lot to offer the world and we will continue to promote that around the world.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
May I associate myself with your comments earlier today, Mr Speaker? My thoughts are with all of Jo’s friends, family and former colleagues.
Inflaming tensions, undermining trust and a formal diplomatic rebuke—we would expect this language and action to form the backdrop to a summit with our adversaries, rather than with our closest allies. Is the Secretary of State not alarmed that our Government are increasingly isolated from our partners on the protocol? What comfort can the Secretary of State, who boasted about breaching international law, provide to the new US Administration that his word can be trusted?
Brandon Lewis
Obviously, I do not recognise the context the hon. Lady outlines, but I would say to her, as I said earlier, that what colleagues and people around the world can see is that I will always be straight and give a direct and honest answer to a question, as I did last year. I work regularly with our partners in the US, and they are clear in understanding our determination to make sure we deliver on what is, to an extent, a joint endeavour between the UK and Irish Governments, with the support of the US: delivering protection of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. We make no apologies whatsoever for putting the people of the UK and the people of Northern Ireland first in everything we do around Northern Ireland.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) [V]
I congratulate the Secretary of State and wish Trevor Ringland well on his appointment as a special envoy from Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State will know that Northern Ireland has attracted significant interest internationally over the last number of decades. At pivotal moments, it has been incredibly helpful, but at other times that involvement can be naive and, worse still, partisan. In that vein, may I ask the Secretary of State what reflections he has to make on the deeply unhelpful and destabilising contribution from the Irish Tanaiste yesterday, at such a grave time of political instability in Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
I join the hon. Gentleman in expressing some surprise at the comments we saw yesterday. We would be concerned about any deviation from the principle of consent, as enshrined in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, but that agreement of course also respects the right of anyone to express their views, and we fully support that. We note the recent life and times survey, which showed support for a united Ireland at a low of 30% in Northern Ireland. I am also aware of the polls that put Sinn Féin ahead in the Republic, which may explain the timing of some of these comments from the Tanaiste. I urge everyone to dial down any rhetoric, particularly at this time of year, as it is unhelpful and ill-advised. Whatever the circumstances, this Government will support the principle of consent and all of our obligations under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
There have been extensive technical discussions with the European Commission, both as part of the formal withdrawal agreement structures and in support of them. I have joined Lord Frost in his comments, engagements with Vice-President Šefčovič, Northern Ireland businesses and civil society, as I have said, as well as meetings with the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Simon Coveney. These discussions have covered a wide range of issues related to the operation of the protocol. There is an urgent need for this ongoing dialogue to make real progress soon—as soon as possible—so that we avoid any disruption to critical supplies such as food and medicines.
Jerome Mayhew [V]
I was not lucky enough to be in this place with Jo Cox, but it is clear that she made an enormous impact during her time here and is much missed.
I know that both negotiating teams worked hard, but it was really disappointing to see the lack of a significant breakthrough last week. We need pragmatic, sensible arrangements in place, just as we need devolved government working again with a new First Minister. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the EU needs to engage with the practical proposals that are being put forward on issues such as veterinary agreements and authorised trader schemes if we are to make progress on the ground?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know that he has a huge knowledge and understanding of the nuances and the issues in Northern Ireland. It is absolutely right that we need to see a pragmatic and flexible approach. The EU has talked about that, and the vice-president himself outlined that point on British media. We need to see that in practice as we move forward. As I said, we have put forward a whole series of proposals and we look forward to the European Commission engaging with those in a real and direct way.
Jack Brereton
Following some of the comments last week, particularly those from President Macron, will my right hon. Friend do everything in his power to make it very clear to those in the EU who want to divide up our country that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the UK?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a correct and an important point. We have been crystal clear on this, and I will be again today: Northern Ireland is a full and an integral part of the United Kingdom. Authority is exercised within Northern Ireland by the UK, not the EU. We believe that being part of the UK is in the best interests of all in Northern Ireland, but we also believe, and I think it is fundamental, that Northern Ireland contributes to making us a stronger and more prosperous United Kingdom.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Given that certain provisions of European Union law apply to the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, can the Secretary of State explain the legal effect of the unilateral extension of grace periods? Does he not agree that the time has come to do the right thing by the people of Northern Ireland and make use of the diversion of trade provisions of article 16 that allow for legally effective action against arrangements that are damaging the United Kingdom’s internal market, businesses in Great Britain and consumers in Northern Ireland? Secretary of State, the time for action is now, not when the Belfast agreement is in complete tatters.
Brandon Lewis
We are working hard and in good faith to find solutions. Our overriding focus, as I have said, is on stability and safeguarding the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and restoring cross-community confidence in the practical operation of the protocol. The protocol could work with common sense, good faith and flexibility from the EU, and we are working to resolve the issues urgently, acutely aware of the time constraints that we face, as the hon. Lady rightly outlined. We are continuing to talk, and I hope that we can make better progress through the Joint Committee structures designed for resolving these problems. If we cannot do that, as I and the Prime Minister have said, no options are off the table.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
You are always here to help, Mr Speaker. Thank you.
We have taken extensive steps to implement the protocol, including providing £500 million for a range of support schemes, such as the trader support service and the movement assistance scheme. The trader support service alone has created 1.8 million declarations, supporting nearly 700,000 consignments since January. Despite these huge efforts, though, the protocol is presenting significant challenges for Northern Ireland, and we are seeing sustained disruption to trade, which is causing real impacts on livelihoods and disruption for citizens. So unless pragmatic, risk-based solutions can be found rapidly to a range of issues, cross-community confidence in the protocol will be eroded. We will therefore be continuing to work actively with the EU to find urgent solutions.
Kevin Brennan
Sorry for the delay, Mr Speaker— I have only been here 20 years.
Is not the truth that the Prime Minister signed up for something in the protocol that he had no intention of honouring, in the way and practice he has followed throughout his life and got away with? The truth is, though, that he is not getting away with it now. Is not that the reality?
Brandon Lewis
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a very good read of the protocol. The protocol that we signed up to is very clear that it will not disrupt the everyday lives of people in their communities, but it will respect the integral market of the United Kingdom and the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. Arguably, two—some would argue all three—of those things are currently in breach. We have a duty to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland and we will do that.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Is it not a fact that the protocol has partitioned the United Kingdom? It has undermined business, damaged the political and social fabric of Northern Ireland, and our EU partners, in whose single market we share, do not even know that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. There are more checks now happening between GB and Northern Ireland than between Belarus and the EU and between Russia and the EU. This morning, Lord Frost has told us that there is no risk whatever for any of these goods entering the single market. Give us a timeline, Secretary of State: when will this be fixed?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman makes some very important and correct points. The protocol was always about dealing with goods that are at risk or are moving into the European Union. It is farcical to have a situation with products that are never moving into the European Union. Indeed, businesses, including well-known super- markets that do not even have stores in the Republic of Ireland, are having to go through the same sort of checks. We want to ensure that that is resolved. We absolutely understand that the EU’s core focus, as it has said, is on protecting its single market. For us, this is about respecting the single market, but our core focus is on protecting the Good Friday/Belfast agreement in all its strands, and ensuring that the residents and citizens of Northern Ireland can have access to the products that they should have as an integral, important part of the United Kingdom.
Mr Speaker
Before we start Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British sign language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv. I call Sir Robert Neill.
The Prime Minister was asked—
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member has been away a long time. Question 1—try again.
Sir Robert Neill
Question 1, Mr Speaker; in my case, I have only been in the House for 15 years.
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
Today marks five years since the murder of our friend and colleague Jo Cox. My thoughts—and I am sure those of the whole House—are with her family and friends.
I am sure that the House will wish to join me in offering our thanks and best wishes to Sir Roy Stone, who is leaving the Government Chief Whip’s office and the civil service. He has worked for 13 Chief Whips, and for over 20 years has played an invaluable role in delivering the Government of the day’s legislative programme. We wish him well.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Sir Robert Neill
I am sure that we would all wish to associate ourselves with the Prime Minister’s remarks in relation to both Jo Cox and Roy Stone.
I know that the Prime Minister will report to the House in more detail later on the G7 summit, which President Biden described as “extremely collaborative” and successful. In taking forward the agenda—in particular, the part of the agenda of the summit that calls for us to work to uphold the rule of law and respect for an international rules-based system—will the Prime Minister bear in mind and task all parts of the Government to promote the great asset that we have in English common law, and in the expertise and reputation for integrity of our judiciary and legal systems? Will he make sure that those willing assets are harnessed in the pursuit of that G7 agenda, be it through writing commercial contracts with English law as a jurisdiction or helping, through our expertise, developing countries and markets?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important and vital sector of our economy—our legal services industry and judicial system, which is admired around the world. It is one of the reasons that we are capable of attracting so much inward investment to this country and one of the key exports that we have been able to promote just recently—thanks, for instance, to our free trade deal with Australia.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
May I join with the Prime Minister’s remarks in relation to Sir Roy Stone?
This week also marks the fourth anniversary of the Grenfell fire tragedy, in which 72 people lost their lives. It is frankly an outrage that there are still more than 200 high-rise flats with Grenfell-style cladding, and that many leaseholders are trapped in homes that are neither safe nor sellable. The best way to mark this tragedy is not with words, but with action; I urge the Prime Minister finally to end the cladding scandal.
As the Prime Minister has already said, today is the fifth anniversary of the death of our dear friend and colleague Jo Cox. Jo had already changed so many lives for the better. She was passionate about creating a fairer, more just world. I know she would have gone on to achieve so much more, and that she would have been so proud of the work of her foundation and what it is doing in her name. Jo and I were in the same intake into this House; we were friends and our children are around the same age. There is not a day that goes by when we do not miss Jo. I know that I speak not just for those on the Opposition Benches, but for many across the House, when I say that today we remember Jo. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Does the Prime Minister recognise that his decision to keep our borders open contributed to the spread of the delta variant in this country?
The Prime Minister
No. Captain Hindsight needs to adjust his retrospectoscope, because he is completely wrong. We put India on the red list on 23 April, and the delta variant was not so identified until 28 April and was only identified as a variant of concern on 7 May. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman criticises this Government for wanting to keep our borders open, just remember that he voted 43 times in the last five years to ensure that our border controls were kept in the hands of Brussels.
Keir Starmer
This is absurd. I have, on seven occasions at PMQs, raised the question of the borders with the Prime Minister. They are all marked up in the transcript; they are all there in Hansard, Prime Minister. It is time for a better defence: your defence is as bad as your border policy.
The Prime Minister talks about the dates. Let us go through the dates. On 24 March, a new variant was reported in India. On 1 April, India was reporting over 100,000 new infections a day, and rising. But the Prime Minister kept India off the red list until 23 April. In that time, 20,000 people came into the UK from India. What on earth did the Prime Minister expect would be the consequences of that? The British people did their bit by following the rules and getting vaccinated, but the Prime Minister squandered it by letting a new variant into the country. That was not inevitable; it was the consequence of his indecision. If the Prime Minister disagrees with me—he answered the first question, “No”—what is his explanation as to why Britain has such high rates of the delta variant?
The Prime Minister
There is a very simple reason why the UK generally has a better understanding of the variants in these countries: we do 47% of the genomic testing in the world. I really think that the Leader of the Opposition should get his facts straight, because the delta variant, as I have said, was identified in this country on 28 April. I have a document on which I believe he is relying—it seems to be published by somebody called David Evans, general secretary of the Labour party—in which he says that the delta variant was identified on 1 April. He says that B1617—the delta variant—was designated as under investigation on 1 April. That is not the delta variant; that is the kappa variant. It is a “gamma” for the Labour party. The delta variant, as it happens, is seeded around the world in 74 countries and, sadly, is growing. But there is a difference between those countries and this country. In this country, we have vaccinated almost 79% of the adult population and given two vaccinations to 56%—a programme that he would have stopped by keeping us in the European Medicines Agency.
Keir Starmer
The question was: what is the Prime Minister’s explanation for our high rates of the delta variant? Answer came there none, other than that, apparently, we understand the variants.
The data is very, very clear. Our NHS has been doing an amazing job with the vaccine roll-out, but while the NHS was vaccinating, the Prime Minister was vacillating. It is because of his indecision that our borders stayed open. It is because of his indecision that India stayed off the red list. It is because of his indecision that in that period 20,000 people came to this country from India. The consequences are now clear. The rate of the delta variant is much higher here than in other countries, and we learn today that tragically, once again, the UK has the highest infection rate in Europe: we did not want to top that table again. If his borders policy is so strong, how does the Prime Minister explain that?
The Prime Minister
For the ease of the House, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should begin by pulping his document in which he incorrectly identifies what the delta variant is. We took the most drastic steps possible to put India on the red list on 23 April, before that variant was even identified. The big difference between this country and the rest of Europe—he loves these comparisons—is that we have had the fastest vaccine roll-out anywhere in Europe. We have a very, very high degree of protection. It is thanks to the vaccine roll-out and the fantastic efforts of the NHS that we now have and can continue with one of the most open economies and societies in Europe and get on with our cautious but irreversible road map to freedom.
Keir Starmer
If the Prime Minister put as much effort into protecting our borders as he does to coming up with ridiculous excuses, the country would be reopening next week. Even now, what do we know? The delta variant is responsible for 90% of infections in this country. He is persisting with a traffic light system that does not work and will not stop other variants coming in. After so many mistakes, and with the stakes so high, why does the Prime Minister not do what Labour is calling for: drop the traffic light system, get rid of the amber list, secure the borders and do everything possible to save the British summer?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not even know what the delta variant is. We have the toughest border measures anywhere in the world, and we will continue. We have 50 countries on the red list. If he is now saying that he wants to stop all transit, traffic and travel to and from this country, it is yet another flip-flop from the Leader of the Opposition—yet another totally unintelligible flip-flop. If he wants to close this country down to travel, which is what I understood him to be saying, it is not only yet another flip-flop, but it is also totally pointless, because we have 75% of our medicines and 50% of our food coming in from abroad. He has got to adopt a consistent position.
Keir Starmer
What I have learned is that the worse the position for the Prime Minister, the more pathetic it gets. Is he really suggesting that the 20,000 people who came in from India were bringing in vital medical supplies or food? It is absolutely ridiculous. What we were arguing for was for India to be on the red list between 1 and 23 April. If that had happened, we would not have the delta variant here, and it is as simple as that. The Prime Minister’s former senior adviser got it absolutely right. He said, and I quote:
“Fundamentally, there was no proper border policy, because the Prime Minister never wanted a proper border policy.”
That is the man who was in the room. It is those in hospitality, in clubs, in pubs, the arts, tourism and travel who are paying the price of the Prime Minister’s failure. All they ask is that if they have to keep their businesses closed, they get the support they need, but where is it? Business rate relief is being withdrawn from the end of this month, affecting 750,000 businesses. Furlough is being phased out. In Wales, the Labour Government have acted by extending business rate relief for a year and providing new support for those affected. When is the Prime Minister going to do the same for businesses in England?
The Prime Minister
We are proud of the support we have given to businesses up and down the country. The whole point about the cautious approach we are taking is to continue support with furlough, support through business rates, support through grants of up to £18,000, and there is support from councils—all that is continuing, but what we are also seeing is businesses slowly recovering. The growth in the economy in April was 2.3%. Card spending over the bank holiday weekend was actually 20% above pre-pandemic levels. I know how tough things have been, and we will look after business throughout this pandemic, but thanks to the vaccine roll-out and the cautious steps we are taking, we are seeing a shot in the arm for business across the country, and we will look after them all the way.
Keir Starmer
Yet again, it is not what the Government have done; it is what is needed now in light of the decision taken this week. UKHospitality says that the sector will lose £3 billion because of the delay and that 200,000 jobs could be at risk. That is not what has been done, but what is needed now, Prime Minister. The Federation of Small Businesses warns that the Government are being dangerously complacent, and I think we have just seen an example of that.
We all want these restrictions to be over, for our economy to be open and for businesses to thrive, but the Prime Minister’s indecision at the borders has blown it. [Interruption.] The problem with everything that the Prime Minister says today—both what he says at the Dispatch Box and also what he mutters—is that we have heard it all before so many times. Last March, he said we could turn the tide in 12 weeks—remember that? Then he said it will all be over by Christmas. Then we were told 21 June would be freedom day. Now we are told that 19 July is terminus day.
The British people do not expect miracles, but they do expect basic competence and honesty. When it comes to care homes, protective equipment or borders, we see the same pattern from this Prime Minister—too slow, too indecisive, over-promising, under-delivering. After all these failures and mistakes, why should anyone believe the Prime Minister now?
The Prime Minister
Why should anybody believe the Leader of the Opposition when he cannot decide what he thinks from one week to the next? He says he has a tough position on borders. Actually, he was attacking quarantine only recently, and saying that it was a “blunt instrument” that should be lessened. What I think the people of this country want to see is a Government getting on with the vaccine roll-out and getting on with our cautious but irreversible road map to freedom. I am very pleased, and he should say it again, that we have one of the fastest vaccine roll-outs anywhere in the world—certainly the fastest in Europe. It would not have been possible if we had stayed in the European Medicines Agency. We would not have been able to control our borders if, as he voted for 43 times, we had stayed in the EU. We are getting on with the job. We are bringing forward now 23 and 24-year-olds and asking them to come forward for their vaccines. I ask everybody to come forward for their second jab. I trust he has had his. We are delivering on our commitments to the British people—not only a great outcome at the G7 summit last weekend in Carbis Bay, but a new free trade agreement with Australia and building back better across our country. We are getting on with the job, and it would be a wonderful thing, once in his time as Leader of the Opposition, to hear some support for what the Government are doing and some backing up for our approach.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very sad case with me, and I am sure the whole House will be thinking of Sonia Deleon and her family. I think that such decisions on “do not resuscitate” should be made only in accordance with a decision involving the person concerned and their carers and families.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Can I associate myself with the remarks made by you, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on the absolutely brutal death of our friend and colleague Jo Cox five years ago? She was a woman dedicated to public service who made, in her short time here, a tremendous contribution to this House. Our thoughts are very much with her family, her friends and all those who care very deeply for her loss.
Of course, as we do that, we should also reflect on what we saw earlier this week with the journalist Nick Watt chased through the streets of Whitehall by a mob seeking to intimidate. We must all stand up in this House for the rights of journalists to be able to go about their work safely.
I say good wishes both to Scotland and England ahead of the football match on Friday evening, but if I may say so, I hope that we do not see Scotland being dragged out of the Euros against our wishes at the end of the week.
As we enter the Chamber, we see what is reported to be a WhatsApp communication between the Prime Minister and Dominic Cummings. Perhaps the Prime Minister will clarify whether or not these are genuine, and whether or not the derogatory comments that he expressed on his Health Secretary are valid.
This morning, the details of the disastrous trade deal with Australia are slowly seeping out. It tells us everything we need to know that these details are being celebrated in Canberra, but are busy being concealed in London. For all the spin, it is clear that this Tory Government have just thrown Scottish farmers and crofters under their Brexit bus, just as they sold out our fishing community. So, today, those with most to lose from this deal do not need to hear the Prime Minister’s usual waffle. Their livelihoods are at stake, Prime Minister. Just this once— just this once—they deserve honest answers from this Government. Will the Prime Minister confirm that from day one of this deal, 35,000 tonnes of Australian beef, and 25,000 tonnes of Australian lamb will be free to flood the UK market, tariff free?
The Prime Minister
This is a great deal for the UK. It is a great deal for Scotland, for Scottish whisky, and for Scottish business and services exports. It is a great deal for Scottish legal services. It is also a great deal for Scottish farming, and how tragic—how absolutely tragic—that it should be the posture of the Scottish National party to see absolutely no way that Scottish farmers will be able to take advantage of opportunities to export around the world. What the right hon. Gentleman does not realise, is that £350 million-worth of UK food already goes from this country to Australia. This is an opportunity to turbocharge those exports, get behind Scottish farming, and encourage that, not run it down.
Ian Blackford
My goodness—I do not even think the Prime Minister can believe that tripe. In the Tories’ desperation to get a post-Brexit trade deal with somebody— anybody—they have given the farm away, literally. It is blindingly obvious who are the winners and who are the losers in this deal. Australia’s economy will benefit to the tune of $1.3 billion a year. The UK Government’s own assessment states that the Australian deal is worth just “0.02% of GDP”. We would need 200 Australian deals to come close to mitigating the cost of Brexit. We were told that Brexit was all about taking back control, but for our farmers and crofters there has been no scrutiny, no consultation, and no consent. If the Prime Minister is really confident about the benefits of this deal, does he have the guts to put it to a vote in this House?
The Prime Minister
The people of this country voted for this Government to get on and deliver free trade deals around the world. I believe they were totally right. The right hon. Gentleman talks about tripe, and when it comes to exporting the intestines of sheep, which I know is a valuable part of Scottish tradition, even that is now being opened up around the world, thanks to the deals that this country is doing. If he is saying that he wants to go back into the EU, hand back control of our fisheries and our agriculture to Brussels, and lose all the opportunities that this country has gained, I think he is frankly out of his mind and going in totally the wrong direction. If he means another referendum, we had one of those.
Mr Speaker
May I just say gently to everybody that we now need to turbocharge questions and answers?
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why we are working with industry to accelerate our rural network. Coverage across the UK has massively increased, and will be increasing thanks to the steps we are taking.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I know that, like me, the Prime Minister cares passionately about the Union. Can he confirm that the passing of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the Northern Ireland protocol that forms part of it, has not resulted in an implied repeal of article 6 of the Act of Union, which enables Northern Ireland to trade freely with the rest of this United Kingdom? Will he commit fully to restoring Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market?
The Prime Minister
Yes, of course. I can give assurances on both counts. I can say that unless we see progress on the implementation of the protocol, which I think is currently totally disproportionate, then we will have to take the necessary steps to do exactly what the right hon. Gentleman says.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is totally right about Hillingdon Hospital, which has a great future. I look forward to working with him to ensure that the future of services at Mount Vernon is also protected. I know that a full consultation is due to start in September.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Prime Minister
It is absolutely true that as we open up our economy there are more vacancies, which is great. We also have large numbers of young people in this country who need jobs and large numbers of people who are still furloughed. What we want to see is those people coming forward to get those jobs. Of course, we will retain an open and flexible approach towards allowing talent to come in from overseas.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I will do everything I can to ensure that we accelerate that process. My hon. Friend is right to raise it. A great deal of progress has already been made and the Food Standards Agency has been flexible, but we need to go further. We will make sure that great British shellfish can continue to be exported to Europe and around the world.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
From listening to the SNP, Mr Speaker, you would think there was no Scotch whisky industry or no banking and financial services industries in Scotland. Even then, they are missing the point because this is a massive opportunity for the Scottish agriculture sector. What they need is a different type of MP who can champion and get behind them, and who actually believes in Scotland. That is what the people of Scotland need.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Nobody, least of all my hon. Friend or I, wants to see covid restrictions last forever, nor do I think that they are going to last forever. As I made clear earlier this week, I think we can have a high degree of confidence that our vaccination programme will work. I think that we need to give it a little more time, as I have explained, to save many thousands more lives by vaccinating millions more people. That is what we want to do.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Prime Minister
I am aware of the problem, and we are doing what we can to accelerate the number of driving instructors and testers to allow young people such as the gentleman that she mentions to get their driving test done, and enable them to fulfil their ambitions.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I support the Prime Minister’s comments on Jo Cox and, as a former Chief Whip, his comment on Sir Roy Stone. Sir Roy gave amazing service to me when I was Chief Whip during the worst of the Brexit years in dealing with a hung Parliament and with the occasional disruptive Back Bencher.
Northern Ireland faces some challenges over the coming weeks in terms of nominating a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is vital that the parties stick to the agreements that have been made in the “New Decade, New Approach” deal, which he and I negotiated 18 months ago, and that if they fail to do that—I know he does not like this concept—the UK Government ultimately act as a backstop?
The Prime Minister
It gives me great pleasure to thank my right hon. Friend for all the work that he did on the “New Decade, New Approach” deal. I agree that it would be a good thing for the whole package to be agreed, and I certainly support the approach that he has set out. I think that what the people of Northern Ireland want is a stable, functioning and mature Executive.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
The Prime Minister
First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the outstanding success of his party in the recent elections. I will study the anomaly that he raises and revert to him as soon as possible.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
May I welcome the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform report, published today by my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman)? The report makes recommendations about how to seize new opportunities from Brexit and back start-ups and new tech. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister look closely at that report so that we can make the most of the great benefits of Brexit and lead the world in the development of new technologies?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I thank my hon. and right hon. Friends for their excellent report, and I think it is time to put a TIGRR in the tank.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We have invested massively in removing cladding from high-rise blocks, and we will continue to do so. I know the structure in question and I do believe that Ballymore, the company concerned, has been too slow. We are on its case. I think it is very important that people understand that overall risks of death by fire have been coming down for a very long time and will continue to come down. It is simply not the case that all the high-rise buildings in this country are unsafe, and it is very important that Members of Parliament stress that.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
Independent lifeboat stations such as the Hamble lifeboat in my constituency respond to over 100 incidents a year in the Solent. The pandemic has increased the operating costs of independent lifeboat stations while also restricting their ability to raise money. Will the Prime Minister look to see what more the Government can do to support independent lifeboat stations such as the Hamble lifeboat as they keep a watchful eye on all of us?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the excellent work of Hamble lifeboat. In April last year, my right hon Friend the Chancellor put forward another £750 million in support of charities such as that one.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
When can we expect the co-ordinated chorus of SAGE members recommencing their media appearances to depress morale, and does my right hon. Friend fear having to give another press conference at which he again postpones the return of our freedoms? We are rightly told that we need to learn to live with covid, so what can the Prime Minister say to the country to convince us of that reality?
The Prime Minister
Academic and scientific freedom are an invaluable part of our country, and I note that my scientific colleagues would echo my sentiment that we need to learn to live with covid.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I would be happy to study the case, but the whole point of universal credit, which this Government introduced, is that it is helping hundreds of thousands of people into work. That is its success.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I associate myself with the comments of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about our friend Jo Cox. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating rugby league legend Kevin Sinfield on his OBE in the Queen’s birthday honours? Kevin has done so much to raise awareness of motor neurone disease and support his good friend Rob Burrow. MND is a devastating disease. There is no cure, but scientists believe they are on the cusp of developing effective treatments. Will the Government please commit to investing £50 million over five years to establish a virtual MND research institute and to accelerate research?
Mr Speaker
Prime Minister, I totally agree with that, and it should have been a knighthood.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is an OBE, and I thank Kevin Sinfield very much for his outstanding work. We are following it up by spending £55 million on research into MND, but there will be more to come as part of our general massive investment in life sciences.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I really think that these constant attacks on Australia, its standards and its animal welfare standards will be very much resented by the people of Australia, and will not be recognised. Australia is marked five out of five, which is the highest possible, for animal welfare by the World Organisation for Animal Health performance of veterinary services evaluation team. This deal that we have done is the first ever to incorporate high animal welfare standards, as part of the package that Australia has agreed.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to assisted dying campaigner Noel Conway, who has died after taking the decision to have his breathing support removed, and does my right hon. Friend agree that it is now time for Parliament to properly consider the law on assisted dying?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, and I know that the whole House will be in sympathy with Noel Conway’s family and friends. There are very deeply and sincerely held views on both sides of this matter, and a change in the law would obviously be one for Parliament to consider.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
We have not lost opportunities to Europe’s markets through Brexit.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
In 2014, Runnymede and Weybridge was hit by devastating floods, and my constituents live under the fear of flooding. Last week, the Government signed off the outline business case for the River Thames flooding alleviation scheme, which will allow the detailed design and planning for this scheme to begin in earnest. It is fantastic news and a monumental milestone, and it will massively improve our protection from flooding. Will the Prime Minister join me in celebrating and thanking everyone who has got us to where we are, and does he agree that we need to keep the momentum going?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is completely right. The £1 million River Thames scheme will reduce the flood risk for 11,000 homes and 16,000 businesses, and I thank him for raising it with me today.
Mr Speaker
That concludes the questions, so I will now go straight to the statement. I call the Prime Minister to make the statement.
G7 and NATO Summits
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the G7 summit I chaired in Carbis Bay and the NATO summit in Brussels.
Let me first thank the people of Cornwall, Carbis Bay and St Ives for welcoming the representatives of the world’s most powerful democracies to their home, an enchanting setting for the first gathering of G7 leaders in two years, the first since the pandemic began, and President Biden’s first overseas visit since taking office. Our aim was to demonstrate how the world’s democracies are ready and able to address the world’s toughest problems, offering solutions and backing them up with concrete action.
The G7 will combine our strengths and expertise to defeat covid, minimise the risk of another pandemic, and build back better, fairer and greener for the benefit of all. Alongside our partners, the G7 is now engaged in the biggest and fastest vaccination programme in history, which is designed to protect the whole world by the end of next year. My fellow leaders agreed to supply developing countries with another billion doses—either directly or through other channels—of which 100 million will come from the UK.
The world’s most popular vaccine was developed here, and the express purpose of the deal between the British Government, Oxford University and AstraZeneca was to create an inoculation that would be easy to store, quick to distribute and available at cost price, or zero profit, in order to protect as many people as possible. The results are becoming clearer every day: over 500 million Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines have been administered in 168 countries so far, accounting for 96% of the doses distributed to developing nations by COVAX, the global alliance that the UK helped to establish. With every passing hour, people are being protected across the world, and lives saved, by the formidable expertise that the UK was able to assemble.
But all the efforts of this country and many others, no matter how generous and far-sighted, would be futile in the face of another lethal virus that might escape our efforts, so the G7 has agreed to support a Global Pandemic Radar to spot new pathogens before they begin to spread, allowing immediate containment. In case a new virus gets through anyway, our scientists will embark on a mission to develop the ability to create new vaccines, treatments and tests in just 100 days, compared with the 300 required for covid.
Even as we persevere against this virus, my fellow leaders share my determination to look beyond today’s crisis and build back better, greener and fairer. If we can learn anything from this tragedy, we have at least been given a chance to break with the past, do things better and do them differently. This time, as our economies rebound, we must avoid the mistakes we made after the financial crash of 2008 and ensure that everyone benefits from the recovery. The surest way to our future prosperity is to design fair and open rules and standards for the new frontiers of the global economy, so the G7 will devise a fairer tax system for global corporations, reversing the race to the bottom, and will strive to ensure that new technology serves as a force for prosperity and hope, strengthening freedom and openness.
My fellow leaders will act as one against an increasing injustice—the denial of an education to millions of girls across the world—by working to get another 40 million girls into school by 2025. I am happy to say that the G7 agreed to provide more than half of the $5 billion sought by the Global Partnership for Education to transform the prospects of millions of children in developing countries, and £430 million will come from the UK.
Our duty to future generations compels us to protect our planet from catastrophic climate change. Every country in the G7 has promised to achieve net zero by 2050, wiping out our contribution to global warming from that date onwards. To achieve that target, we will halve our carbon emissions by 2030 compared with 2010 levels. The G7 resolved to end any Government support for unabated coal-fired power generation overseas, and to increase and improve climate finance between now and 2025. We will consecrate 30% of our land and sea to nature, protecting vast areas in all their abundance and diversity of life, giving millions of species the chance to recover from the ravages of recent decades.
It is precisely because safeguarding our planet requires global action that the G7 will offer developing countries a new partnership, the Build Back Better World, to help to construct new, clean and green infrastructure in a way that is transparent and environmentally responsible. There is no contradiction between averting climate change and creating highly skilled and well-paid jobs, both in our country and around the world; we can and will achieve both by means of a green industrial revolution at home and green infrastructure abroad.
I was honoured to welcome our friends the leaders of India, South Korea, Australia and South Africa as guests in Carbis Bay—virtually, of course, in the case of the Prime Minister of India. On Monday, Scott Morrison and I were delighted to reach a free trade agreement between the UK and Australia, creating fantastic opportunities for both our countries, eliminating tariffs on all British exports—whether Scotch whisky or cars from the midlands —and making it easier for young British people to live and work in Australia. We have also included protections for British farmers over the next 15 years and unprecedented protections and provisions for animal welfare. This House will, of course, be able to scrutinise the agreement once the texts are finalised.
This is exactly how global Britain will help to generate jobs and opportunities at home and level up our whole United Kingdom. Our agreement with Australia is a vital step towards the even greater prize of the UK joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a $9 trillion free trade area embracing the fastest growing economies of the world.
Together with the G7, the countries represented at Carbis Bay comprise a “Democratic XI”—free nations living on five continents, spanning different faiths and cultures, but united by a shared belief in liberty, democracy and human rights. Those ideals were encapsulated in the Atlantic charter agreed by Winston Churchill and President Roosevelt in 1941, when Britain was the only surviving democracy in Europe and the very existence of our freedom was in peril. The courage and valour of millions of people ensured that our ideals survived and flourished, and 80 years on, President Biden and I met within sight of HMS Prince of Wales, the Royal Navy’s newest aircraft carrier and the linear successor of the battleship on which the original charter was devised; and we agreed a new Atlantic charter, encompassing the full breadth of British and American co-operation in science and technology, trade and global security.
The surest guarantee of our security is NATO, which protects a billion people in 30 countries, and the summit in Brussels on Monday agreed the wholesale modernisation of the alliance to meet new dangers, including in space and cyber-space, reflecting the priorities of our own integrated review of foreign and defence policy.
Britain has the biggest defence budget in Europe, comfortably exceeding the NATO target of 2% of national income. We have committed our nuclear deterrent and our cyber capabilities to the alliance, and we contribute more troops than any other country to NATO’s deployment to protect Poland and the Baltic states. We do more for the security of our continent than any other European power, showing that we mean it when we say that an attack on any NATO ally shall be considered an attack on all—a pledge that has kept the peace for over 70 years, and which President Biden reaffirmed on behalf of the United States.
Together, these two summits showed the enduring strength of the Atlantic alliance and the bonds we treasure with kindred democracies across the globe. They have provided the best possible foundation for COP26 in Glasgow in November, when the UK will bring the whole world together in a common cause. They demonstrated how global Britain creates jobs at home, while striving in unison with our friends for a greener, safer and fairer world.
I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement.
It was a Labour Government and a Labour Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, who helped found NATO, and it is an alliance that Labour will always value and protect. So we welcome agreement on the NATO 2030 agenda—in particular, strengthening NATO’s cyber-security capability. We also welcome the deepening support for our friends and allies in Ukraine and Georgia, and the recognition of the global security implications of the climate emergency, and for the first time, of the challenges that China poses to global security and stability.
On the UK-Australia trade deal, we all want to see Britain taking trading opportunities around the world, but the devil will be in the detail, and we look forward to scrutinising the deal in Parliament, in particular for its impact on British farmers and on food standards.
The G7 summit should have been the most important G7 in a generation—the first of the recovery, the first with a new US President, a chance for Britain to lead the world, as we did at Gleneagles in 2005 or after the global financial crisis in 2009; but whether on global vaccination, the climate emergency, middle east peace or the Northern Ireland protocol, the summit ended up as a wasted opportunity.
The priority for the summit had to be a clear plan to vaccinate the world. That is not just a moral imperative; it is in our self-interest, as the delta variant makes clear. Without global vaccine coverage, this virus will continue to boomerang, bringing more variants and more disruption to these shores. The World Health Organisation has said that 11 billion doses are needed—11 billion doses. The summit promised less than one tenth of that. No new funding, no plan to build a global vaccine capacity and no progress on patent waivers. The headlines of 1 billion doses may be what the Prime Minister wanted, but it is not what the world needed.
The same is true of the climate emergency. This is the single greatest challenge that the world will face in decades to come, but this summit saw no progress on climate finance. The communiqué speaks only of “commitments already made” and of those yet to be made. There was no plan, let alone a Marshall plan, to speed up cuts to global emissions, and there was little in the communiqué beyond existing commitments. This summit was meant to be a stepping stone to COP26, but, if anything, it was a step back.
It was also disappointing that there was nothing to suggest that any progress was made to restart the middle east peace process. A new Government in Israel, combined with a new US President, provides a real opportunity to end the injustice and finally to deliver an independent and sovereign Palestine alongside a safe and secure Israel. Sadly, the resumption of hostilities overnight shows the price of that failure. Did the Prime Minister discuss this with world leaders, including with President Biden?
The summit should also have been an opportunity to resolve, not inflame, tensions over the Northern Ireland protocol. It started with an unprecedented diplomatic rebuke from our closest allies, and it ended with the White House still speaking of “candid” discussions. It was overshadowed by the failure of the Prime Minister to make the deal that he negotiated—he negotiated—work.
The Prime Minister may think that this is all part of a grand diplomatic game, but Northern Ireland is far too serious for that. When a Prime Minister loses the trust of our allies and trashes Britain’s reputation for upholding international law, it is hardly surprising that we are left isolated and unable to lead.
Despite all this, I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will be pleased with the G7 summit, because it delivered everything that he wanted: some good headlines; some nice photos; and even a row with the French over sausages. That just shows how narrow the Prime Minister’s ambition for Britain really is. It is why this was never going to be a Gleneagles-style success, and why the Prime Minister played the role of host but not leader, of tour guide but not statesman. On those terms, this G7 was a success, but on any other, it was a failure.
The Prime Minister
In a long career of miserabilism and defeatism, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has really excelled himself there. It was a very powerful statement after a long and difficult period in which the world came together and decided to build back better for the world. One thing that he did not mention was the fantastic agreement that we reached to come together to support the whole of the developing world, which I think he should approve of, in allowing them to have access to clean, green technology, financed by the multinational development banks, but bringing in the private sector from around the world. It is a fantastic step forward for the world.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman nickels and dimes what happened on vaccines. I think that it was fantastic that, on top of the 1 billion that we have already given, the world agreed another 1 billion vaccines, when people are racing to vaccinate their own populations. They agreed another 1 billion vaccines from the G7— 100 million more from this country. He is constantly running this country’s efforts down. Of the 1.4 billion COVAX vaccines that have already been distributed, 500 million of them are directly due to the efforts of this country, which has given £1.6 billion to supporting COVAX and another £548 million to supporting Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.
As for climate change, I do not know what planet the right hon. and learned Gentleman is on. This was an extraordinary achievement by the summit. Not only did all countries commit to net zero by 2050, but we are long way towards getting the £100 billion that we need for climate change financing. He complains about the Northern Ireland protocol, but it is not at all clear what he believes himself. He says that he is not in favour of checks at the border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] There should be no border, he says. He is quite right. Then what is his policy? That is exactly what this Government are standing for. I would like to understand what he actually stands for. [Interruption.] We want to get rid of those checks, and if he will support us in doing so, I would be grateful, finally, for his support.
I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman said something positive about the NATO summit. I am glad of that, although it is striking that he is not joined, for once, by the shadow Foreign Secretary, as it is still her view, as far as I can remember, that we should get rid of the nuclear deterrent—our own nuclear deterrent, on which our NATO security guarantee relies. [Interruption.] Maybe that is not her position; maybe she has changed it. As for the trade deal with Australia, the shadow International Trade Secretary has said that she does not think it possible for the UK to export food and drink to Australia because it goes “off”—actually, this country exports £350 million-worth of food and drink. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should congratulate UK exporters, support the free trade deal and stop being so generally down in the mouth about everything.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s leadership of the G7 over the weekend and many of its successful outcomes. During the G7, the United States proposed that all the countries adopt a common strategy on China’s disgusting use of forced labour and confront it. I understand that some of the European countries dissented from that approach, so I ask my right hon. Friend: does he stand with President Biden on this issue, not with his dissenters? If so, will my right hon. Friend emphasise that by informing the House when the Government will bring forward their promised export controls to keep goods produced by Uyghur slave labour off our shelves and the promised changes to the Modern Slavery Act 2015? Those things are very important and the Prime Minister can re-emphasise his strong credentials.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We have already put in Magnitsky sanctions against those involved in forced labour in Xinjiang, and we will continue to have very tough import controls on any such produce.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. I can sense, after a week of ascending to the heady heights of hosting global leaders, just how thrilled the Prime Minister is to be back in this House answering questions from us mere mortals. But even us mere mortals, looking at the G7 from afar, can detect the difference between a welcoming host and an influential leader. Even a raft of carefully crafted photo opportunities in Cornwall could not hide the fact that this Prime Minister and his Government are deeply diminished on the world stage. The UK is the only G7 country cutting overseas aid and the only G7 country being questioned about its commitment to previously signed international treaties; and the UK remains the G7 country with the smallest covid stimulus package.
Although the Prime Minister may have hoped to relaunch global Britain, what was really on show over the last week was Brexit Britain—a more isolated and less influential place. Prior to the summit, the Prime Minister built up the prospects of a new Marshall plan, promoting climate action in developing countries, but what was announced appeared to be a repackaging of previous announcements. I can see the Prime Minister shaking his head, so may I ask him to confirm the exact figure the UK will be contributing to this “Marshall plan” for climate action?
On covid recovery, President Biden openly encouraged other leaders to embrace the economic logic of an investment-led recovery, instead of returning to the failed policy of austerity cuts. Does the Prime Minister agree with that economic logic? Will he therefore explain why the UK has the smallest covid stimulus package of any G7 country? Finally on the NATO summit, will the Prime Minister detail what concrete proposals were agreed to apply appropriate pressure to protect the human rights of the persecuted Uyghur Muslim minority in China?
The Prime Minister
On the Uyghurs in China, no concrete measures were discussed at NATO, but as I said in my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), we in this country remain implacably committed to opposing the forced labour there and to sanctioning those who profit from the forced labour in Xinjiang.
The right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the summit is as erroneous as that of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). It was a fantastically successful summit in bringing the world together on vaccination and on tackling climate change. The UK’s own contribution, which the right hon. Gentleman deprecates, is massive. I think the people of this country will think it astonishing that at a time when we have been through a pandemic, and have spent £407 billion looking after jobs and livelihoods in this country, we are still able—[Interruption.] I will give him the figure: we are still able to supply £11.6 billion to help the developing world to tackle the consequences of climate change. The right hon. Gentleman should be proud of that and not run his country down.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend’s significant success at the G7 last weekend has sadly been dented by the fact that Britain is the only G7 country cutting vital aid and is doing so in the middle of a global pandemic. That decision is not only doing grave damage to the reputation of global Britain; it will also lead to more than 100,000 avoidable deaths, principally among women and children. Will he reflect on the fact that many of us, in all parts of the parliamentary party, are urging him to reverse these terrible humanitarian cuts, and that we are not, as he suggested in Prime Minister’s questions last week, lefty propagandists, but his political friends, allies and supporters, who want him to think again?
The Prime Minister
I have the utmost respect for my right hon. Friend’s record in overseas aid, but I have to say that the changes that we have made to official development assistance have not been raised with me by anybody at the G7; nor have they by any recipient country —and I have talked to many of them. That is because they know that the United Kingdom remains one of the biggest donors in the world—second in the G7—and, in spite of all the difficulties that we have been going through, we are contributing £10 billion this year to supporting countries around the world. We have also just increased our spending on female education. That was one thing that people did raise with me, and they did so to congratulate the UK Government on what we were doing. People in this country should be very proud of the contributions that they are making.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) [V]
[Inaudible] the Prime Minister waxed lyrical about the fight against climate change, but only after stepping off his private jet; he made the case for investing in girls’ education around the world, yet he is cutting the amount we spend on it by 40% this year; he talked up the importance of international agreements while reneging on the one he signed; and he advocated the importance of democracy while introducing plans to make it harder for people to vote in this country. When will the Prime Minister realise that his approach of “Do as I say, not as I do” is ruinous to Britain’s reputation on the world stage?
The Prime Minister
The Liberal Democrats should get their facts right. We are not cutting spending on girls’ education, to pick one of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman; we are actually increasing it by at least 15%. We are spending £432 million on the Global Partnership for Education.
Look at what this country is doing on tackling climate change, with the commitment to net zero. That was actually made after we were in coalition with the right hon. Gentleman. Freed from the shackles of Lib Dem hypocrisy, we were able to get on with some serious work and commit, under my premiership—freed from the uselessness of the Lib Dems—£11.6 billion to help the people of the world to tackle climate change. He should realise that for people listening to him who really care about tackling climate change and allowing the world to build back cleaner, greener and better, he is making it harder not just to vote, but to vote Lib Dem.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend recall President Macron insisting that nothing in the Northern Ireland protocol is negotiable even though he admits that it contains what he calls inconsistencies? If the peace and stability of Northern Ireland is being undermined by the application of the protocol, then it is obvious that the protocol itself must be renegotiated: how could anyone seriously consider otherwise? Will my right hon. Friend urge the EU not to give precedence to the protocol over the peace process and the Good Friday agreement, and will he remind it of the 2017 joint report, which included the aspiration that the then backstop would be removed via negotiations and what it calls “specific solutions”? Will he pursue that policy?
The Prime Minister
The problem at the moment is the application of the protocol. The protocol makes it very clear that there should be no distortions of trade and that the Good Friday peace process, above all, must be upheld, but it is being applied in such a way as to destabilise that peace process and applied in a highly asymmetrical way. All we are asking for is a pragmatic approach. I hope very much that we will get that, but if we cannot get that, then I will certainly take the steps that my hon. Friend describes.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Monday’s Australian trade deal announcement revealed the Prime Minister’s fear of democratic accountability. He has withheld details of the agreement and prevented Parliament from doing our proper job of scrutiny at the proper time. Yet, from day one, Australian farmers will be able to export over 60 times more beef before UK tariffs kick in—that is no tariff whatsoever on up to 35,000 tonnes of potentially low-welfare beef. So, from day one, will he at least commit to an annual assessment of the economic impact of his deal on Welsh beef and lamb farmers?
The Prime Minister
I will repeat the point I have made to many Opposition Members. This is an opportunity for UK farming and indeed for Welsh farmers. The right hon. Lady speaks with apprehension about 35,000 tonnes of Australian beef. We already import about 300,000 tonnes of EU beef. Australian farmers observe very, very high animal welfare standards, and they will only get completely tariff-free access after 15 years. After 15 years, we are going to give people in Australia the same rights of access as we give the 27 other EU countries.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The recent agreements on cyber defence policy and technological co-operation announced at the NATO summit in Brussels will mean that the alliance remains as strong as ever when faced with new threats. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirm that he remains utterly committed to NATO as the foundation of our collective security?
The Prime Minister
Yes. NATO has protected the world, and particularly the European continent, for 72 years, and it was clear from the conversation around the table that it will continue to do so for decades to come.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) [V]
Reports emanating from the summit suggest that Monsieur Macron does not seem to understand the constitutional parameters of the United Kingdom, given that he thought that we were part of a different country. Will the Prime Minister take steps to ensure that all our partners know what those parameters are? Will he also take great care in the next few days and weeks not to jeopardise devolution even further in Northern Ireland, as it has been put in jeopardy in the past few days as a result of Sinn Féin’s actions?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman. We want to strengthen Northern Ireland and strengthen Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom, and that is what we are going to be doing.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of the G7, which I think did Britain proud. May I ask him about the NATO summit and whether there were any discussions about the role for the alliance in the maintenance and protection of energy security and, in particular, about the need to reduce dependence on Russia? Specifically, were there any discussions about the strategic vulnerability being introduced to Europe by the Germans’ selfish obsession with the Nord Stream 2 project? If such a discussion did not occur, will he please ensure that it does?
The Prime Minister
I do not think I am giving anything away by telling my right hon. Friend that there were certainly discussions about the vital importance of all of us getting to net zero and avoiding a dependence on hydrocarbons, whether it is strategically unwise or not.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
The failure of the G7 to reach an agreement on ending investment in all fossil fuels speaks volumes about the Prime Minister’s true climate leadership. Today he mentions coal but again ignores oil and gas. That is not a green industrial revolution; that is business as usual. The International Energy Agency said last month that there must be no new oil, gas or coal developments if the world is to reach net zero, so with the success of COP26 now hanging in the balance, will he heed the call from 101 Nobel laureates for a global fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, and will he pursue that with G7 leaders and others before the climate summit, or is he happy for that to be judged a colossal failure of his leadership too?
The Prime Minister
When we consider how much some of these countries are dependent on coal, I think it was groundbreaking for the summit to agree not to support any more overseas coal. The commitments on net zero and on making progress by 2030 are outstanding, and it can be done. The hon. Lady’s mood of gloom and pessimism is not shared by the people of this country. We know that in 2012, 40% of our power came from coal. Now, thanks to this Conservative Government and the actions we have taken to reduce dependence on coal, it is down to less than 2% and falling the whole time. The whole world knows that, and they are following the UK’s example.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) [V]
It is absolutely right that I congratulate the Prime Minister and all those involved in hosting the G7 summit in my constituency over the weekend. It was an absolutely fantastic event and we in Cornwall feel very proud of the part that we played. I also want to thank the police, who were quite incredible and who travelled from all over the country to help out. I also have an apology for the Prime Minister, because the truth is that we are very proud of the Carbis Bay declaration and I may well mention it once or twice in the years to come. We are proud of the declaration because of the commitments to covid vaccines, to the education of 40 million extra girls, to the global climate change response and to a fairer economic recovery and job creation. Will my friend the Prime Minister commit to further opportunities for Parliament to understand the details of the Carbis Bay declaration as they become available?
The Prime Minister
Yes. The Carbis Bay declaration is the foundation of the treaty that this country has been helping to prepare, and which we have been pioneering, against any future pandemic. The crucial elements are zoonotic research hubs, the pathogen surveillance network, and the undertaking to share data to prevent barriers between our countries in the export of personal protective equipment, medicines, vaccines and other things. It is the foundation to ensure that the time between a new variant arriving and a new vaccine should be kept down to 100 days, and to ensure that we spread know-how and manufacturing capacity around the world. This is the foundation of a new global approach to tackling pandemics. The UK has been absolutely instrumental in setting this up, to say nothing of the funding that we have put in, and I believe that the Carbis Bay declaration will be seen as a very important step towards the treaty later this year.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba) [V]
I thank the Prime Minister for his update on the G7 summit. However, I find myself in the curious position of agreeing with one of my Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath predecessors, who commented on the commitments secured, with the Prime Minister in the chair, as an “unforgivable moral failure”.
The agreement is simply not good enough: 11 billion vaccines are needed and 1 billion have been promised; $50 billion of funding is needed, but only $5 billion has been promised. The World Health Organisation has said that covid-19 is moving faster than the vaccines, and the G7 commitment is simply not enough. For the aspiration of global Britain is fast becoming a global embarrassment, more indicative of a Del Boy Britain. Will the Prime Minister now show real leadership, and redouble efforts to secure the suspension of intellectual property protections, and further international efforts to prevent new variants from developing? I appeal to his self-interest that none of us are safe until everyone is safe.
The Prime Minister
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is running down the UK’s efforts, as well as what the summit achieved, which is 1 billion more vaccines, on top of the 1 billion that G7 countries have already committed to distributing around the world. This is only six months after these vaccines were invented—it is an astonishing thing! He attacks the performance of Britain and the people of the UK, but let me remind him that we in this country are responsible for one-third of the 1.5 billion vaccines that have been distributed around the world. When will he get that into his head? That is a fantastic record, on top of the 1.6 billion that we have been contributing to that COVAX roll-out. I think the people of this country should be immensely proud of the Carbis Bay declaration and the vaccines contribution that we are making. We are working as fast and as hard as we can, while still getting vaccines into the arms of our own people in this country, and that is absolutely right.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Communiqués from the G7 and NATO summits speak of increasing challenges and threats from China, be they military build- up, cyber-attacks, human rights abuses, or the belt and road initiative. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the common values and commitment that we and our partners have to democracy and the rules-based international order will result in the G7 and NATO tackling the malign actions of the Chinese Communist party, whatever form those take?
The Prime Minister
Yes. Nobody at either the G7 or NATO wants to get into a new cold war with China, but on the other hand they see that the opportunities we have to trade more and engage with China must be matched by firmness in our collective dealings with it, particularly when it comes to the Uyghurs, as colleagues have mentioned several times, and when it comes to navigation in the South China sea, and the freedoms and rights of the people of Hong Kong.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
The Northern Ireland protocol was a key theme on the margins of the G7 summit. The Biden Administration have made it clear that they want to see the Good Friday agreement upheld, and that while there is no immediate prospect of a US free trade agreement, a UK-EU veterinary agreement would not compromise that trade deal in any event. The Prime Minister has already said that he wants to get rid of checks across the Irish sea. Why is he so stubbornly resisting that ready-made solution, even on a temporary basis, to reduce those checks, ease tensions in Northern Ireland, and indeed help all UK food exporters?
The Prime Minister
I hope it will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s attention that we have just signed a free trade agreement with Australia, and we intend to do many more.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister knows that treaties can occasionally be negotiated and not quite make it through the House of Commons. In the interests of ensuring that we deliver what we need to deliver at COP26, building on the impressive work in the G7 and NATO statements, as well as on trade deals such as that with Australia, will he commit to ensuring that this House is informed well in advance of COP agreements, so that we can assist, advise, and perhaps even ensure that those agreements pass easily and smoothly through the House, and encourage others to do the same?
The Prime Minister
I will do my best to oblige my hon. Friend, although my experience of the matter over the past few years is that this House is a great legislator but not an ideal negotiator.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]
The G7 announcement of 1 billion additional vaccine doses for developing countries was, of course, welcome, but the Prime Minister knows that the head of the World Health Organisation says that we need 11 billion doses in total if we are to vaccinate 70% of the world population. Where does the right hon. Gentleman think that the rest of those doses will come from, so that everyone can be safe because everyone is vaccinated?
The Prime Minister
One of the most important things that we agreed at the G7, along with the Carbis Bay principles that I have outlined and that will form part of the health treaty, was that we should work together to increase vaccine manufacturing capacity and fill-and-finish facilities around the world, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that it has only been a few months since these vaccines were invented; we are going as fast as we can, but our ambition is to vaccinate the world by the end of next year.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
The G7 meeting was exactly the face that modern Britain should present to the world: competent and confident. In terms of the substance, the UK commitment to share 100 million vaccines with less developed countries is an extremely welcome first step. Can my right hon. Friend guarantee that the 70 million doses that will be delivered through 2022 will be in addition to our existing aid budget.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I kept on thinking, all weekend, “Thank God Biden beat Trump.” I think that the Prime Minister is nodding.
Following the Carbis Bay declaration, may I urge the Prime Minister to come to Wales to sign a Cardiff Bay declaration? That declaration would include radical extra investment in Wales to do the levelling up that I think he intends, so that every person—whether they live in the valleys of south Wales, in the posher parts of Cardiff or Swansea, or wherever—has an equal chance of getting to work, an equal chance of putting food on the table for their kids, an equal chance of getting on in life and, frankly, an equal chance of having an NHS that is really able to protect them. The problems that we have in Wales are exactly the same as those in England. We need significant extra investment, and the only way we can achieve it is by real, hard co-operation between the Government in Westminster and the Government in Wales.
The Prime Minister
Yes, of course; we have massively increased support for the NHS, for instance, all of which is passported through to Wales. Funding has massively increased, and of course we work very closely with the Government—the Administration—in Cardiff. I think that it would be helpful in delivering great infrastructure for Wales, whether that is improving the A55 or the M4, if there were some consistency of approach. With the M4 bypass, for instance, and the Brynglas tunnels, I think it was crazy to spend £144 million of taxpayers’ money on a study without actually doing the bypass itself. I am very happy to work with the Welsh Labour Government if they get their act together.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
No fewer than five representatives of the European Union at the G7 tried to hijack the agenda to undermine the people of Northern Ireland with their one-sided and unfair view of the protocol. Will the Prime Minister, who chaired the event well, make sure that goods can flow freely in the UK internal market, given that there are legal ways of doing this unilaterally? Does not the Good Friday agreement require the EU and the UK to respect the needs and wishes of both communities?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is completely right. It was the EU that shocked people in Northern Ireland by invoking article 16 of the protocol in January and trying to put a barrier on the movement of vaccines between the EU and the UK. We would never have dreamed of doing something like that, but it was that action that undermined people’s faith in the protocol.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
The recent violence and the loss of innocent life in Gaza and Israel underline the importance of restarting the middle east peace process. Britain has historical and continuing responsibilities in this region, so can the Prime Minister tell us what steps he took at the weekend to raise and progress the restarting of the important peace process in the middle east?
The Prime Minister
As I raise continuously with friends and partners around the world, we remain committed, as do our friends in the EU and in Washington, to a two-state solution for the middle east.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) [V]
May I first congratulate my right hon. Friend on successfully hosting the G7 after the trauma the world has just been through? He will recognise that the discussion of NATO 2030 at the NATO summit was one of the most forward thinking and important assessments NATO has undertaken in many a decade: reinforced unity; a broader approach to security; safeguarding the rules-based international order. Does he agree that our position on cyber and space defence not only makes us still one of the biggest contributors to NATO, but one of the integral partners of the alliance?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I thank my right hon. Friend because NATO’s project 2030, set out by Jens Stoltenberg at the summit, is completely in accordance with, and almost an echo of, the integrated review set out by the Government, with its emphasis on cyber and space defences.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman’s statement this afternoon. One of the things I am proud of is visiting my schools in Vauxhall and speaking to young people. Last week, he said that girls’ education is the best way that we can lift countries out of poverty and lead the global recovery. I heard his response to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on the fact that the G7 leaders did not mention the global aid cut. If that is the case, does the Prime Minister agree that his actions show a gaping hole between his words and actions? Will he respect this House by bringing that vote to Parliament and bringing that decision here?
The Prime Minister
Again, what I did hear from leaders around the world was massive, overwhelming support for the objective, which the hon. Member supports, of girls’ education. The G7 committed $2.75 billion, I think, towards the Global Partnership for Education, with the UK increasing our commitment by 15% in spite of the pandemic. I hope the message she will give to pupils in Vauxhall is that we are absolutely committed to that end.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister and his whole team on delivering such a wonderful G7 summit. I welcome the announcement on the replenishment of the Global Partnership for Education. As our economy recovers and we return to the promised 0.7%, will he put at the forefront of his work in his time in Government ensuring that we really boost the efforts to educate every child in the world through UNICEF, Education Cannot Wait, the Global Partnership for Education and, of course, our wonderful UK Girls’ Education Challenge?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her support for female education. I remember discussing it with her many, many times. I know how much she cares about it. The programme we are embarked on will mean 40 million more girls in school by 2025 and 20 million more girls reading over the next five years. We are going to do even more than I was saying to an hon. Lady on the Opposition Benches, when President Kenyatta of Kenya comes here in July for the Global Partnership for Education.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on his recent wedding and the delightful G7 family photos. What is his current thinking on granting amnesty to illegal immigrants? Did he have a chance to discuss that with President Biden, because they did it first there in 1986? The Prime Minister told me here on day two of the job that he was minded to go down the regularisation route, but he was thwarted by predecessors. Was that just an unscripted blurt-out flashback to the 2012, pre-PM, pre-red wall version of himself, or is he a man of his word?
The Prime Minister
We remain committed to a generous and open approach to immigration. This country already does regularise the position of those who have been here for a long time and have not fallen foul of the law. What we will not do is go back to a complete free-for-all and abandon control of our borders to Brussels, which the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) voted for 43 times in the last five years. I dare say that the hon. Member did, too.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) [V]
I welcome the new climate commitments made by G7 countries to almost halve their carbon emissions by 2030, which will pave the way towards a green and global recovery. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is essential that we build on the historic climate change commitments made at the G7 with even stronger global commitments at the upcoming COP26 conference?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is completely right. This was a good waymark and we made some good steps forward on the road to COP26. There is still a long way to go, but there is a great deal of enthusiasm from other countries because they can see that it creates high-wage, high-skill jobs as well as solving climate change.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The G7 did agree action on tax-dodging corporations, but it was watered down after the Prime Minister refused to back President Biden’s original proposal for a 21% minimum global corporation tax rate, which would have delivered £15 billion a year to Britain—enough to fund a proper covid catch-up in education and support for covid-excluded businesses that are now facing extended restrictions. Why did the Prime Minister put global corporation shareholders above British children and British businesses?
The Prime Minister
That is a great one from the Labour party, because they actually opposed the increase in corporation tax at the Budget. They should try to remember what they have been doing over the last few months. It was a great achievement, after a long time, to get the western world—the G7—to agree to find a way of taxing the multinational giants that make profits in one country and then hook them somewhere else. That was a fantastic thing, and we now have a minimum global corporation tax of 15%—I forgot to mention it in my opening remarks—which was another great step forward at the G7 summit.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]
As we reflect on the many successes of the G7 summit, the Prime Minister will know that the growing importance of soft power is very much recognised by the G7, yet there remains a £10 million shortfall between the Government’s generous package to see the British Council through the pandemic and what it needs to maintain its international network of offices, as defined by country directors in post abroad. If the gap is not bridged, the result will be the largest single set of closures in the British Council’s proud 90-year history. Given that the Prime Minister has told me personally that he gets it and that the £10 million can be given as a loan, and given that our competitors’ cultural institutes are actually expanding their physical footprint, will he now ensure that Government Departments also get it in time for the ministerial statement due shortly?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and thank him for his continuing campaigning on this issue. We are giving the British Council more support now, because I know it has been very tough for them during the pandemic. On the gap of £10 million that he identifies and the crucial part that he thinks that will play, I will see what further I can do.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister will know that the £100 billion every year for climate change transformation in developing countries is the same £100 billion that was announced 12 years ago, in 2009. He will also know that the £11.6 billion that he has announced today is over five years, and he actually announced it two years ago at the United Nations General Assembly. This is not new money, and nor is the UK’s contribution of £11.6 billion over five years enough to be our part of the £100 billion every year that was promised by the G7. If there is going to be credibility in the developing world to play its part at COP26 later this year, will the Prime Minister now give us some details and make sure that the rest of the G7 give those same details about real spending, not recycling?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman should study what all the G7 countries said, because several of them made very big commitments indeed—the Canadians, the EU—to financing the tackling of climate change. He says that £11.6 billion is not enough. I think that the people of this country will think that, in a very tough time, with huge pressure on our resources, to spend £11.6 billion over the next few years to help other countries tackle climate change is a huge commitment. He deprecates. I remember how people reacted in the UN when I announced that commitment. They were ecstatic and they are quite right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We still have 30 people who would like to ask questions to the Prime Minister, and around 20 minutes in which to do it. That is probably not possible. But the idea of a statement is that people ask questions; it is not a time for making a speech. If people ask short questions, it will be possible for the Prime Minister to give short answers and then all will be well, because we have a lot of business to get through this afternoon.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on a successful weekend in Cornwall and on a very successful summit. Away from the doom and gloom of the Opposition, it is staggering that global Britain was on display this weekend in striking new trade deals. Could he perhaps reassure the House that, when we look at trade deals, they are the floor, not the ceiling of the economic growth that this country will be able to strike now and in the future, as we reach for the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is completely right, particularly about the CPTPP.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
With coronavirus, none of us are safe until everyone is safe. The world needs over 11 billion vaccine doses to end the pandemic, but the G7 vaccine offer falls well short and leaves billions of people without protection. To ramp up vaccine production needs a temporary waiver on intellectual property, so that all countries can access the technology. President Biden supports that, more than 100 other countries support that, but this Prime Minister is one of the people blocking it. So is not the Prime Minister putting the interests of profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies ahead of the lives of millions of people?
The Prime Minister
For the hon. Gentleman to talk about profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies, in view of the efforts made by AstraZeneca to distribute 500 million vaccines around the world at cost, is utterly disgraceful, and he should withdraw his remarks.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I hugely welcome the Prime Minister’s focus on gender equality at the G7, and I note that the Leader of the Opposition, in his opening statement, did not mention girls or women once. Can the Prime Minister, who set some very ambitious targets on girls’ education and ending violence against women and girls, come back to the House before 2026 to reassure us that progress is being made on that very important topic?
The Prime Minister
Of course, Mr Speaker; the project will be scarcely off my lips.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am not sure whether you are more surprised at the Prime Minister consistently giving you a promotion or a sex change, Madam Deputy Speaker, but we will leave it to you to decide that for yourself.
While there are still billions of people across the world unvaccinated, all of us who have been vaccinated remain at risk that a new vaccine-resistant strain could evolve and undo all the work that has been done here and in other wealthy countries. So will the Prime Minister give a simple commitment to the principle that no one can claim to have defeated the coronavirus until the whole of humanity is adequately protected?
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
May I congratulate the Prime Minister on what was achieved at the G7 summit in Cornwall? The west had become a little risk-averse of late, and if the summit achieved anything, it was a recognition that the world is on a worrying trajectory, with new threats, new technology, new power bases posing complex, long-term challenges to our security, our trade, our freedoms and indeed our standards. The rise of China economically, technologically and militarily means that this will be their century, and the need for a new Atlantic charter underlines how frail our global order has become.
Would the Prime Minister agree that the actions that we, the west, choose to take over the next few years in addressing the long international to-do list will determine how the next few decades play out?
The Prime Minister
Yes indeed. I thank my right hon. Friend. These are crucial times, and it was great to see the summit accomplishing so much, so fast.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
Might I just start by noting that the Prime Minister seems a little irritable this afternoon? I know that it is difficult when friendships break down, but I have every faith he will find reconciliation in due course.
The International Monetary Fund concluded that there would be $9 trillion economic boost if the world’s covid vaccines are provided. We have heard multiple times that while the 860 million at the G7 is welcome, that is not enough. Could the Prime Minister explain to the House why we could not go further at the G7? What were the blockages to getting above 860 million vaccines?
The Prime Minister
We have gone above 860 million vaccines. On top of the 1 billion the G7 is already doing, we pledged a further 1 billion vaccines.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
Did the Prime Minister talk to Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Suga about the tremendous success of social care reforms in Japan and Germany? Did he talk to Prime Minister Trudeau about the brilliant innovation in care home villages in Canada? Did he talk to President Biden about the amazing things that older people are doing, including the most powerful job in the world? Did he return to Downing Street refreshed and resolute, and say to his neighbour, “No more international conferences until we fix the crisis at home: it is time to back Boris and get social care done”?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his continued support. I did actually talk to Angela Merkel about social care, and I will tell him what she said at another time.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
There was widespread disappointment that the G7 did not commit to additional climate finance beyond what has already been agreed. What steps will the Prime Minister take between now and COP26 to ensure that that summit does deal effectively with the challenge of loss and damage in the countries most at risk?
The Prime Minister
We will continue with our efforts —we are 80% of the way there—and we will blow away the clouds of despondency that seem to hang over some Members here today. I think it was a highly successful summit, and we are going to get there.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
In the Prime Minister’s statement, he refers to the G7 combining our strength to defeat covid. Would it not be more accurate to say that we need to make sure we can vaccinate the world to protect people, but then we need to learn to live with what will be an endemic virus? Does he share my concern about the things that are going on in Government at the moment, with the warnings about the restrictions coming back in the autumn and the winter as cases rise, and can he rule out that taking place? That would reassure many colleagues on both sides of the House.
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend. I did see something this morning about some paper or other that means absolutely nothing to me. Our objective is to go forward with the road map and bring back the freedoms we love.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
The original Atlantic charter made a commitment to banish from the world “fear and want”—curiously missing from the redraft—but the Prime Minister’s ambition to vaccinate the world by the end of 2022 is the right one. The IMF’s assessment of the deal done on Monday, however, is that two thirds of the grant financing needed to vaccinate the world is still missing—that is $23 billion. The question for the Prime Minister is: where is that money going to come from and when?
The Prime Minister
I think that the G7 and the west are making huge progress. These vaccines were only invented six months ago, or a little bit longer. We are making incredible progress in distributing them now. The ambition that we reconfirmed in Carbis Bay was to vaccinate the world by the end of next year, and that is a pretty rapid pace.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Can I welcome the plans set out by the G7 leaders to invest in global testing and slash the time needed to develop new vaccines? The Prime Minister mentioned just a moment ago that it is little over six months since scientists in Cheshire at the life science industries and AstraZeneca developed these new vaccines. I am sure he will want to join me in congratulating them on the work they have done not just here in the UK, but around the world. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that strengthening global co-operation on health and investing in new technologies is the only way to ensure that we never get a repeat of this health crisis?
The Prime Minister
Of course I congratulate AstraZeneca in Cheshire and everywhere else where it is established in the UK and around the world. It has done an outstanding job. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the importance of international co-operation, and we must never ever again see countries blockading vaccines and the movement of vaccines from one part of the world to another.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
A new EU-UK food and plant safety agreement would not only alleviate Northern Ireland friction, but remove non-tariff barriers for Welsh exporters created by the current Brexit deal. As the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) said, the US President guaranteed at the G7 that such alignment would not jeopardise a UK-US trade deal. The Prime Minister could actually have his slice of cake and eat it, if he sees sense. Can he clarify whether reports of reduced checks in the trade deal with Australia, as he mentioned in his reply to the hon. Member for North Down, would prevent such alignment with the EU?
The Prime Minister
Plainly, the free trade deals with the CPTPP, Australia and countries around the world that we are doing and will continue to do make a nonsense of the proposal that the hon. Gentleman outlines.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Our hosting of the G7 and the reaffirmation of our indestructible partnership with our cousins across the pond—also seen through NATO—sets the scene for a brighter and far more aspirational future for the whole of the UK. Does the Prime Minister agree and can he explain, perhaps in writing if he does not have time now, what this means for the people of Dudley North and the rest of the country?
The Prime Minister
The people of Dudley North and the rest of the country will benefit massively from a new age of co-operation between our democracies; from the security that we are establishing, but also from our global commitment to work together to build back greener, so that we generate hundreds of thousands—millions—of high-wage, high-skilled jobs in Dudley, in the west midlands and around the whole of the UK.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister said that no countries have raised concerns about the aid cuts. Well, I can give him a list as long as my arm of organisations and projects that are going to be devastated by these cuts. Does he not understand that as the only G7 country cutting aid, the UK is undermining any claim to be a soft power superpower and, more importantly, putting thousands and thousands of lives at risk?
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a very successful G7 and on his leadership of the meeting; so much was agreed. Will he confirm that global Britain will continue to champion and promote the provision of girls’ education right across the world?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend, and I know how much he cares about this; I remember campaigning with him on this myself. We have supported at least 15.6 million children in the last five years or so to get an education—8.1 million of them were girls. We are going to be spending, as I said, more than £400 million getting girls an education over the next five years.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Every day, we are hearing of more and more horrific experiences of violence against women and the wider Uyghur Muslim community, including the disappearance of children in the Xinjiang region of China. The scale of these atrocities has not been met by the Prime Minister’s report of the G7 and, therefore, what discussions did he have about extending economic and trade sanctions, about using his powers under the Magnitsky measures, and about calling for a special meeting at the UN to find a mechanism to hold those responsible for these crimes to account?
The Prime Minister
We did discuss many times over the last few days what has happened in Xinjiang, the suffering of the Uyghurs and particularly the crimes against women that the hon. Lady describes. The difficulty with the UN Security Council approach, as she will understand, is that China is a member.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Cornwall was proud to host the G7. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking all those who worked so hard to make it a success, including our police, who came from all over the country, Cornwall Council and public health officials, many businesses and volunteers, and the people of Cornwall, who with good humour welcomed the world, despite the inevitable disruption? I know that he is as keen as I am that the G7 leaves a lasting legacy in Cornwall, and I was pleased to show him our ambitions for Spaceport Cornwall. Will he join me in working on and putting the full weight of Government behind enabling us to achieve the ambition of launching satellites from the UK this time next year?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has been a fantastic campaigner for the Cornish spaceport. I was amazed to see what they have already done and the way it is inspiring young people in Cornwall, and I look forward to working with him on getting a launch before too long.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
When we left the EU, we were told that the economic hit would be made up by free trade agreements with the EU and the United States. As the sausage dispute and the rebuke from President Biden show, however, we are miles away from those agreements at the moment. Will the Prime Minister understand that whichever way he goes on the dispute in Northern Ireland, it will inflame the tensions with those two parties again? Is this not quite some dispute, to alienate our two closest trading partners?
The Prime Minister
We have a free trade deal with the EU. It is a fantastic deal, and our trade with the US is growing the whole time.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Prime Minister will have enjoyed formal and less formal dialogue with EU leaders at the G7. May I ask him whether any empathy was expressed for the trade frictions that we are currently experiencing with the Northern Ireland protocol at the behest of a third party? Was there any sense that the EU might acquiesce to unilateral action by this country because of the frankly bonkers situation in which the UK cannot sell sausages to the UK?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend puts the matter very succinctly. There are many ways in which we are seeing the disproportionate and unnecessary application of the protocol. I think our partners understand that, and we are hoping for some pragmatic solutions before too long.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We will manage to get everybody who is on the list in. I thank people for being succinct and the Prime Minister for also being brief. It is wonderful.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister delivered his statement on the Australian trade deal in his usual sunny, optimistic manner. Like all his statements, however, once we look at the detail, it comes with a nasty after-smell, the source of which will be familiar to many British farmers. May I ask him in detail how this deal will affect the livelihoods of farmers in my constituency of North Durham and across County Durham—particularly hill farmers, who not only produce good-quality British food, but are the custodians of some of the most beautiful land in this country?
The Prime Minister
Farmers in County Durham will have the opportunity to export their wonderful produce tariff-free to a market that is growing the whole time, and that includes the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. It is a huge opportunity for British produce—beef, dairy, the lot—and I hope that he will champion it.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
I welcome the commitment in the G7’s open societies statement to promoting the human rights of women and girls. As co-chair of the all-party group on women, peace and security, may I ask my right hon. Friend to keep in mind that this is vital for the future of Afghanistan, where women and children are under threat at present?
The Prime Minister
May I wish my hon. Friend a happy birthday? I confirm that we see the education of girls and young women as one of the great achievements of the UK presence in Afghanistan over the last two decades. We do not want that to be jeopardised now, which is why we are working with our friends in the G7 and NATO to make sure that we leave a lasting legacy.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister talks proudly about our commitment to NATO. That, of course, depends on having a strong military in the United Kingdom. Does he regret his decision to break his election promise and cut the armed forces by 10,000?
The Prime Minister
We are investing another £24 billion in our defence, with the biggest increase in spending since the end of the cold war, and we are one of the few countries in NATO to contribute more than 2% of our GDP to NATO. We are the party that believes in our armed services. It was only recently that the Labour party was campaigning to put into office a man who wanted to abolish the armed forces.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend was right on Monday when he said:
“The peace and stability brought by Nato has underpinned global prosperity for over 70 years”.
Can he assure me that levelling up our military as part of the new NATO 2030 agenda will encompass the potential of our forces across the whole country, including the excellent Royal Marines at the Chivenor barracks in my North Devon constituency—where I believe his grandfather was stationed for a time—so that NATO will continue to be the bedrock of global defence for future generations?
The Prime Minister
My grandfather was indeed stationed at Chivenor. I thank the Royal Marines at Chivenor, who did such an outstanding job of looking after us all during the G7 summit. They will transform into the future commando force that will contribute to a more agile and active NATO alliance.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
At the G7, the Prime Minister and other leaders reasserted their intention to honour the 2009 promise of $100 billion in climate finance annually to support developing nations, but sufficient concrete financial commitments to make up the shortfall did not materialise. Does he agree that the commitment must be met by the UN General Assembly in September at the very latest, if we are not to risk failure at COP26 in November?
The Prime Minister
UNGA is, indeed, a very important way station, but this was a great start.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given our shared belief that without the US and NATO there can be no security for the UK and Europe, does my right hon. Friend recall the strain on Anglo-American relations caused by Huawei’s infiltration of our critical national infrastructure? Will he therefore ensure that companies with dodgy and dubious links to the Chinese and Russian regimes will be firmly and fully shut out from building or operating our vital data and power pipelines in future?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend knows a great deal about what he speaks of. That is why we have passed the recent legislation to ensure that we protect this country from the loss of intellectual property and the sale of crucial national security businesses to unreliable partners overseas.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Virtually no rationale or assessment has been put forward for the UK Government cuts to international aid that have been confirmed so far. The lack of responsibility taken for the damage that they will do is astounding, especially as the 0.7% commitment was in the Tory manifesto. How does the Prime Minister think that that squares with global Britain? How does he justify these shameful cuts to his G7 counterparts?
The Prime Minister
I repeat that countries around the world are in awe of this country’s continued contributions. They know that we are spending £10 billion during a very difficult time; they also know, because they have long memories, that we are spending more now than the Labour party ever did under Gordon Brown or Tony Blair.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The G7 set out plans to lift women out of poverty and build back a more equal world by putting 40 million more girls into school in the next five years—another example of global Britain as a force for good. Does my right hon. Friend agree that investing in women, particularly girls’ education, is one of the most efficient ways to create economic growth in developing countries? Can he confirm that the UK will continue to lead the way on girls’ education moving forward?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is completely right. I think that investing in girls’ education—12 years of quality education for every girl—is probably the single best, most efficient policy that we can support around the world. That is why we are putting another £430 million into the Global Partnership for Education, with more to come in July.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]
Earlier this month, three civilians were tragically killed in a Turkish drone attack on a refugee camp in northern Iraq—all part of a sustained military action from the Turkish state against the Kurds that has been ongoing since April. We have also learned this month that the Turkish chief prosecutor has sought to expand the indictments seeking to shut down the country’s leading pro- Kurdish political party. This is a disgraceful attack on a minority community. Will the Prime Minister condemn the actions of the Turkish Government and call on our NATO partner to stop these attacks on Kurdish communities?
The Prime Minister
The situation in north-western Iraq is extremely complex. We must accept that the Kurdish fighters have done an extraordinary job against Isis and against the forces of Bashar al-Assad, but there is clearly a long-standing difficulty in their relations with Turkish forces, who themselves are bearing the brunt of a huge crisis of refugee flows. I will none the less study the incident that the hon. Gentleman describes.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I absolutely applaud the Prime Minister’s determination to provide 12 years of quality education for girls. It is something that he has done for many years, but with the FCDO budget being slashed—by 60% to UNICEF, and 80% to family planning, which stops a lot of girls going to school—how does he think that that will be achieved?
The Prime Minister
We are increasing our funding for girls’ education to £430 million, which is about a 15% increase and an outstanding thing for this country to do in very, very difficult times. By the way, may I congratulate my hon. Friend because I think that her proposal for banning under-age weddings, which she brought to me, is now being carried forward. I thank and congratulate her on her work in that matter.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today. Will he outline the steps taken to inform the members of the G7 summit of the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, which seems to have gotten confused? I refer in particular to American President Biden and French President Macron. Will follow-up instructions and information be sent to help them grasp the fact that Northern Ireland was, is—in this centenary year—and will continue to be an integral part of the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I think it is important that everybody understands that, although the media accounts of what took place differ very much from what actually happened at the summit where this was not really much of a topic of discussion. None the less, I think people do understand that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom for economic and all other purposes.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I applaud the Prime Minister for the time that he has spent at the Dispatch Box this afternoon in which he has spoken of the importance of increasing vaccine coverage around the world. I very much welcome the 100 million doses of covid vaccine that he has committed to countries with less-developed healthcare systems than our own. Supporting the poorest in this way does needs finance from both us and our partners, so may I ask him once again to look at our budget for this most valuable of causes?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that overseas spending should be one of the great focuses of UK spending in the next few years. I repeat what I said earlier about the 70 million doses next year. That will not come out of the existing ODA budget, but clearly funding vaccine technology around the world is one of those things in which this country excels and we will be doing a lot more of it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the Prime Minister and everybody who took part in this session for doing so with alacrity. I shall now suspend the House for three minutes, so that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
Economy Update
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
Before I make my statement, I add my appreciation to that of colleagues for Sir Roy Stone and the contribution he has made during his time in the House.
There is little doubt that the four-week extension to restrictions announced on Monday will present additional challenges to thousands of people and businesses across the country. That is why at the Budget we went long and erred on the side of additional support. The package of support from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was designed to accommodate short delays such as this. Indeed, he told the House at that time that we were
“extending our support well beyond the end of the road map to accommodate even the most cautious view about the time that it might take to exit the restrictions.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 255.]
Most of our economic support schemes do not end until September or after, providing crucial continuity and certainty for businesses and families—something that was welcomed by business leaders and sector leaders when it was announced. They praised the reassurance provided for the long term.
Let me remind the House of the scale of support we have announced for British households and businesses over the past 15 months: £352 billion. We have protected jobs, with 11.5 million unique jobs supported by the furlough scheme, which will be in place until the end of September. At the Budget, we also extended the self-employment income support scheme, supporting nearly 3 million self-employed people and taking the total expected support offered through the scheme to nearly £3 billion.
Businesses have been supported, too, with tax cuts, deferrals, loan schemes and cash grants worth over £100 billion. Our restart grants, worth up to £18,000 from April, have helped Britain’s businesses to get going, at a cost of £5 billion. Some £2.1 billion of discretionary grant funding has been provided for councils to help their local businesses. Last financial year, we provided an unprecedented 100% business rates holiday for all eligible businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure centres—a tax cut worth £10 billion. This financial year, over 90% of these businesses will receive a 75% cut in their business rates bill across the year to March 2022, and we have extended the 5% reduced rate of VAT for a further six months. The loan guarantee schemes, including the bounce back loan scheme, have provided £70 billion of loans to 1.5 million companies.
We have provided targeted sectoral support, too. At the Budget, for instance, we provided an additional £700 million to support local and national arts, culture and sports institutions as they reopen. That is on top of the £1.57 billion culture recovery fund, bringing our total support for sports and culture to more than £2 billion, with about £600 million yet to be distributed. It is businesses that will create jobs and grow the economy, and we have stood behind them since day one of this crisis.
Just as we have supported jobs and businesses, so have we supported livelihoods too: the temporary £20 uplift to universal credit will continue until the end of September; we increased the national living wage to £8.91 from April and extended it to those over 23; we have increased the local housing allowance for housing benefit, meaning that more than 1.5 million households have benefited from an additional £600 a year, on average; and we provided a £670 million hardship fund to help more than 3 million people keep up with their council bills. This comprehensive package has helped to protect millions of jobs, businesses and livelihoods, and our plan is working. GDP is outperforming expectations: unemployment is forecast to be much lower than previously feared; consumer confidence has returned to pre-crisis levels; businesses insolvencies in 2020 were actually lower than in 2019; and signs in the labour market are encouraging, with 5.5 million fewer people on the furlough than in April 2020. In fact, figures released by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs just yesterday showed that the number of people employed has risen by more than 400,000 since November. Of course, covid has impacted different sectors in very different ways, and some particularly acutely, but it should be welcome news to everyone in this House that the early signs are of a recovery in our labour market.
This plan has come at a cost, albeit one that has reduced economic scarring that would have been inflicted otherwise by covid. Last year saw the highest peacetime level of borrowing on record—£300 billion. We are forecast to borrow a further £234 billion this year and a further £107 billion next year, and at a higher level of debt the public finances are more vulnerable to changes in inflation and interest rates. Indeed, a sustained increase in inflation and interest rates of just 1% would increase debt interest level spending by more than £25 billion in 2025-26. As a result, at the next spending review, we will keep the public finances on a sustainable medium-term path, maintaining the trajectory established at the Budget, so that we have the resilience we need to respond to any future challenges.
A huge and comprehensive economic shock has been met with a huge and comprehensive response—one that is working. I am pleased, however, to be able to make one further announcement today. Many businesses have accrued debts to landlords during the pandemic. Because of the threat that posed to jobs, we introduced protections to prevent the eviction of commercial tenants due to non-payment of rent. It is the Government’s firm position that landlords and their tenants should continue to resolve those debts through negotiations, and I welcome the various industry-led schemes already in place, and those being developed, to provide resolutions through arbitration. But in recognition of the importance of jobs in the many affected businesses at the heart of local communities, we launched a call for evidence in April on further actions to take to resolve those debts. As a result of that call for evidence, the Government now plan to introduce legislation to support the orderly resolution of these debts that have resulted from covid-19 business closures. We will introduce legislation in this parliamentary Session to establish a backstop so that where commercial negotiations between tenants and landlords are not successful, tenants and landlords go into binding arbitration. Until that legislation is on the statute book, existing measures will remain in place, including extending the current moratorium to protect commercial tenants from eviction to 25 March 2022.
To be clear, all tenants should start to pay rent again in accordance with the terms of their lease, or as otherwise agreed with their landlord, as soon as restrictions are removed on their sector if they are not already doing so. We believe that that strikes the right balance between protecting landlords and supporting the businesses that are most in need. Based on the successful Australian approach, it sets out a long-term solution to the resolution of covid-19 rent, ensuring that many variable businesses can continue to operate and that debts accrued as a result of the pandemic are quickly resolved to mutual benefit. I thank those on both sides of the issue for their constructive engagement.
Striking the right balance, just as we are doing with commercial rents, has been the key to our approach all along, and it will continue to shape our approach in the weeks ahead.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Five years ago, my friend and colleague Jo Cox was murdered. There is not a day goes by when I do not think of her, and I know that on both sides of the House she is missed dearly.
All the way through this pandemic we have said that the economic and health responses must go together. That means keeping support in place for as long as the public health measures demand it. When the public health restrictions are extended, as they were by the Prime Minister on Monday, the economic support should be extended too; otherwise we risk falling at the final hurdle. Having spent billions of pounds supporting the economy, it would be tragic to see thousands of businesses go to the wall just because the Government withdrew support a few weeks too soon. We are not calling for forever support, but for economic support that matches the timetable for opening up that the Government have set. That is the right thing for business, for workers, and for our economy too.
Let us be clear about why we are here today: the Government’s delay in putting India on to the red list has allowed a dangerous new variant to enter our country. That is why we have the highest covid infection rate per person across the whole of Europe—all because the Prime Minister wanted his VIP trip to India. It was vain and short-sighted and has been devastating for public health. As well as the health impact, our assessment, using Office for National Statistics data, tells us that the delay in reopening will cost the UK economy £4.7 billion. That is money that is not being spent in British businesses at a crucial time in our recovery. That £4.7 billion would have been used by businesses to pay commercial rents, to pay people’s wages, to invest, to take on new staff, and to pay taxes into the Treasury as well.
Of course I welcome what the Chief Secretary has to say today on commercial evictions, but the truth is that if the Chancellor believed that this economic package was enough, he would be here announcing it himself. Whatever this is, it is not doing “whatever it takes” to support British businesses and our economy. Given that the Government have moved the goalposts, let me ask the Chief Secretary why Ministers have not delayed the employer contributions to furlough, due to start on 1 July. Employers are being asked to pay more when they cannot even properly open for business.
The vast majority of the 1.8 million people still on furlough are in the very sectors most affected by the ongoing restrictions: hospitality, live events and travel. On 1 July, loans to those businesses start having to be repaid. The self-employed and those excluded from financial support will be worried about their futures. Grants are ending, business rate bills are arriving and furlough is tapering off—all immediately after the Government have announced an extension to restrictions. How on earth can the Treasury justify turning off support and sending businesses new tax bills when the Government are saying that those businesses cannot even open?
On Monday, the Prime Minister told the country that we need to learn to live with the virus. Where is the much-needed plan that would enable us to do that? Where is the plan for greater ventilation in workplaces, including public buildings and schools? Where is the plan to shift contact tracing to a local level, where we know it works best—not in a centralised, Serco-led call centre? Where is the proper support for people needing to self-isolate? Those are all essential measures to save lives and livelihoods, and to avoid the stop-start approach that has characterised the Government’s response to the pandemic.
Given the WhatsApp messages from the Prime Minister about his own Health Secretary that have been revealed today—Madam Deputy Speaker, I will use more diplomatic language than the Prime Minister could manage—how can we have confidence in Government Ministers when the Prime Minister thinks that the person in charge of the pandemic response is “hopeless”?
Rachel Reeves
Not just “hopeless”. People have given up so much over the last year. We have pulled together and shown the best of our country. People have done everything that was asked of them and much, much more. We should not be in this position today. Businesses and workers do not deserve to have the rug pulled from under their feet at the eleventh hour. We want to see businesses make it through the pandemic and thrive again, because they are an important part of what makes our country so great and they are essential for our economic recovery. We need them and they need us today. That is why the economic support we have should match the health restrictions that are still in place, and that is what the Government have failed to deliver today.
Steve Barclay
May I first echo the remembrance by the hon. Lady and colleagues across the House of Jo Cox? I also pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work that she has done, including with my friend Seema Kennedy, through the loneliness commission.
Let me turn to the various points raised by the hon. Lady. She said that she is not calling for support forever, but suggested that the Government were withdrawing support. The package announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was designed deliberately to go long, until September. Measures such as furlough were extended to anticipate the fact that there were no guarantees on the covid road map. That was very much designed into the support, so there is no question of withdrawing support; it was in the very plan announced by the Chancellor.
The hon. Lady’s question about the delta variant was addressed comprehensively by the Prime Minister during Prime Minister’s questions, where he pointed out the timing. One can look back with hindsight now, but the issue was the timing of the delta variant becoming a variant of concern. I will not repeat the points made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for recognising the announcement regarding commercial rents. I hope that that is appreciated across the House. I know that it speaks to a very real concern that many Members will have seen through their constituency emails and post bags, and that it will provide some extended support.
The hon. Lady questioned whether the Government are doing whatever it takes. Again, I remind the House that the Government have spent £352 billion to date. By any definition, I think that is a comprehensive package. More to the point, the plan is working. We see that in the plan for jobs, in the fact that the unemployment projections have improved and in the number of jobs there have been since November. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s plan is working. He has done whatever it takes to protect our NHS and public services, putting a further £63 billion into the NHS for covid support measures last year. The plan is having clear benefits.
The hon. Lady asked specifically about the furlough taper. Labour market conditions have improved substantially since the turn of the year and will continue to do so. Indeed, demand for staff has increased at the quickest rate for more than two decades. With unemployment falling in the last four releases, there is clear evidence that the labour market is beginning to recover, but we went long in the first place to anticipate any slippage in the covid road map.
The hon. Lady had a query on business rates. Again, it is worth reminding the House just how comprehensive the support on business rates has been, with 100% business rates relief last year for many businesses, and those businesses now paying 75% over the course of this year. There is a comprehensive package of support for businesses. There is no question but that many businesses will feel strain as result of the further extension, and it is not a decision that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took lightly, but the package of support announced by the Chancellor anticipated this scenario. It went long in order to provide support and it continues to do so in a way that the evidence and the data shows is working.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. He is right: the latest employment and job vacancy figures do demonstrate that the UK economy is now rebounding strongly. I cannot recall a time when so many businesses in my constituency were telling me that they are struggling to hire staff, right across all sectors. Does he agree that we need to take a sober and clear-sighted look at the furlough scheme, because it is the view of a great many employers out there that there are still far too many people being paid to do nothing, which is distorting the efficient functioning of the labour market as well as costing the country tens of billions of pounds?
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend draws attention to exactly why the attack from the Opposition is misplaced and why the furlough taper is justified—because there is demand for labour from businesses. He also knows that it is part of the wider package of support. As a former Secretary of State, he has done a huge amount to champion the need to support people looking for work. That is what the doubling of the number of work coaches is doing. We announced a further £2.6 billion of additional support for the Department for Work and Pensions in the spending review, alongside further specific measures such as the restart scheme, to tackle the situation of those who have been unemployed for over a year. Over 1 million unemployed people on universal credit will have access to that scheme.
This is about a combination of the furlough, which is providing much-needed support but needs to taper, and a wider plan for jobs, including the restart scheme, the kickstart scheme, the tripling of traineeships, and the increase in the apprenticeships incentive to £3,000—a whole package alongside the doubling of the number of work coaches.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
My thoughts are also with the family and friends of Jo Cox.
Over the past 15 months, companies in sectors such as tourism, travel, hospitality, events, the arts, the night-time economy and weddings—and their supply chains—have been building up debts and have not even gotten close yet to breaking even. It is shameful that not an extra penny of support is being announced for them today. The debt incurred by businesses could take a decade to pay back and will be a drag on recovery. The Treasury Committee was told last week by the British Retail Consortium and UKHospitality that their estimate of commercial rent arrears alone stands at over £5 billion. The Minister has extended the moratorium today and spoken of legislation, but what is his plan to deal with this debt? He asks businesses to start paying back, but with what?
Under the Treasury’s furlough scheme, businesses must pay an additional 10% of their employees’ wages on 1 July, rising to 20% in August, before the scheme is due to end in September. When this happened last year, businesses could not cope with the costs and people lost their jobs. Kate Nicholls of UKHospitality has called this situation unsustainable, and the Federation of Small Businesses has called for urgent additional support.
So will the Minister delay the furlough increase, and will he now extend furlough and the self-employment income support scheme for as long as they are required? Will he act to support those like the Blue Dog employees in Glasgow, whose employer’s behaviour has meant that they have not received the payments they were entitled to? Will he finally—finally—put things right for the millions unjustifiably excluded from UK Government support schemes, such as those on short-term pay-as-you-earn contracts? Many have faced absolute financial ruin through no fault of their own, and it is high time they got support, and an apology from the Minister. Will he make the VAT cut to 5% permanent to give hospitality, tourism and events a much-needed boost into next year, and extend it to the hair, beauty and personal services sector? Will he keep the universal credit uplift and make an increase to sick pay?
The UK currently has the lowest stimulus package of any G7 country despite suffering the worst economic slump. We now need to boost it like Biden with a major fiscal stimulus of at least £100 billion. There is so much more that Scotland would do with the economic levers if we had access to them—so if the Minister will not act, will he give Scotland the power to do so?
Steve Barclay
The Scottish Government are still not using all the powers available to them on tax and welfare, and I always feel that before they seek further powers it would be useful for them to use fully the ones they already have. I found it slightly odd that the hon. Lady said that not a penny of support had been announced, because the whole point of the package that was announced was the extensive support going on until the end of September. She seems to be ignoring that and suggesting that everything should start afresh from today.
The hon. Lady mentioned business rates, which I picked up on earlier. This financial year, over 90% of businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector that benefited from the 100% business rates holiday last year will receive a 75% cut in their business rates for the full year to March 2022. Let me just put that in context. In that last year, that tax cut cost £10 billion. This year, it is an additional £6 billion. The hon. Lady says that not a penny has been announced, but there is a further £6 billion of tax cuts on business relief this year in addition to last year. I think it is worth remembering the wider picture of the £352 billion of support.
The hon. Lady mentioned universal credit. We have been very clear from the start that it was a temporary uplift; my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set that out at the time. She also mentioned delaying furlough. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) mentioned earlier, there are good reasons why it is not in people’s interests to be on furlough for extended periods of time if their job has disappeared and is not going to come back and if there are other businesses that want to employ that labour. The furlough has achieved its main purpose in retaining the link between labour and business and allowed businesses to bounce back better as a result. So before asking for new powers, the Scottish Government should be focusing on the delivery of their response to covid and recognising the fact that we have been able to respond in this way because we have the strength of one United Kingdom. It is through this wider resilience that we have been able to put together a package of the size that the Chancellor has done.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Thanks to decisions made by this Government, recent ONS data shows that UK unemployment is among the lowest in Europe at 4.7%, with almost 200,000 more people in work since April. My families on Ynys Môn desperately need more jobs, and a freeport on Anglesey would create thousands of high-skilled job opportunities. Can the Minister please update the House on what discussions he has had with the Welsh Government about the creation of at least one new freeport in Wales?
Steve Barclay
We want to ensure that the whole of the UK can benefit from freeports, and that is why we remain committed to establishing at least one freeport in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as soon as possible. As in England, a Welsh freeport will be chosen according to a fair, open and transparent allocation process.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
My thoughts and sympathies are with the family of Jo Cox on what must be a very difficult day for them.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has just been patting the Government on the back for what he calls “going long”, but does he appreciate that it does not feel that way for all the businesses facing another month of restrictions, during which time many will have to find 10% of salaries for furloughed staff, face increased VAT in hospitality, retail and leisure, and think about repaying bounce back loans without being able to trade again? When exactly will the Government abandon this piecemeal approach and reveal the long-term strategy for recovery and the extension of furlough and VAT holidays on which so many businesses, communities and families in this country depend for their future?
Steve Barclay
No one is saying that next month those businesses have to repay their bounce back loans. We have already extended the furlough and we have provided a huge amount of support to the businesses concerned. I have addressed some of the questions in relation to the business relief, VAT, the extension of the furlough scheme, the restart grants of up to £18,000 and the £2 billion of discretionary grant funding to local authorities. A comprehensive package of support has been offered, and it is simply not the case that these loans must be immediately paid back or that support has not been extended in line with the road map.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
Visiting businesses across Barrow and Furness last weekend, I had one clear message from both those who run the businesses and the staff: they are incredibly grateful for the support they have had from the Government, especially the furlough scheme, but they asked for continuity and certainty that these schemes will continue through the delay in the road map. With that in mind, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the schemes will continue through this time and that, if the high street faces future shocks, the Treasury will look sympathetically at what measures it can put in place to support businesses there?
Steve Barclay
One thing my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has shown throughout the challenges of the pandemic is his nimbleness and willingness to respond to changing circumstances, but part of the design of the package of support was that, if there was a delay to step 4, it would be accommodated through the continuation of measures such as the furlough, the self-employment income support scheme, the business grants, the business rates relief and the loans programme. That was part of the design, but throughout the pandemic it has very much been the Chancellor’s ethos to respond to changing needs.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
For as long as the health restrictions mean that businesses must stay closed, it is right that the economic support package supports jobs in those workplaces, but that simply is not the case. With the extension of the restrictions and, from 1 July, employers having to make a 10% further contribution to the wages of employees who are furloughed, jobs and livelihoods will be put at risk, including 3,700 jobs in my Lancaster and Fleetwood constituency. Surely the Minister can see how illogical that is, so will he reassess the tapering on the furlough scheme?
Steve Barclay
With respect to the hon. Lady, the number on the furlough has come down. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there has been an increase in the level of employment since November, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire mentioned some of the challenges around employers wanting to hire and finding on some occasions that the furlough is an impediment to labour moving. Actually, I do not think the data bears out the hon. Lady’s point. The furlough has been a very expensive but essential measure in order to reduce economic scarring, but it is right that it tapers as we bounce back and more businesses open, and I think the data supports that.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
As the Chief Secretary has mentioned, unemployment is down. It is 2 million people fewer than originally forecast in April last year, and the unemployment rate at the moment is about 4.7%. Does this not show that our plan for jobs is working, and will the Chief Secretary set out how the plan will help people take advantage of the many vacancies that there are across many sectors?
Steve Barclay
I agree with my hon. Friend that the plan for jobs is working. We see that in the furlough data from the end of April, which is the last set of data that we have. There were 3.4 million people on furlough—down from a peak of 8.7 million—which shows the effectiveness of that. Output grew by 2.3% in April, and there was growth of 2.1% in March. Again, one can see the trajectory and the improvement there. Indeed, GDP data so far through 2021 has come out above the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast. There is still much work to do, but my hon. Friend can take comfort from the trajectory, which shows that the plan is indeed working.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
At the weekend, I visited Tip Top Linen Services in Luton North, which is a fantastic part of the local hospitality supply chain, with its roots committed to the community and an ethical ethos to be proud of, but the Government’s abject failure means that many of the company’s clients now cannot reopen for at least another four weeks. What does the Chief Secretary say to this and other brilliant but forgotten firms, which have taken a hit yet again because of his Government’s failure to contain this dangerous new variant and to recognise that the hospitality sector is not just hotels and restaurants?
Steve Barclay
I do not accept that. Looking at the vaccine programme that the UK has had thanks to the huge efforts of our NHS, volunteers and so many people in communities up and down the country, I would not characterise it as an abject failure. Actually, our deployment of vaccines is the envy of many countries, and it is key to the road map.
For Tip Top Linen Services, and businesses across the United Kingdom, we have provided a comprehensive package of support, as I set out in a number of responses. That is key to those important businesses being able to bounce back as the road map moves to step 4.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call Dame Andrea, whom I congratulate on her extremely well deserved honour.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend will be aware that some people who have been furloughed during lockdown have taken on other jobs. A big hotel and golf complex—a family-owned business in South Northamptonshire—furloughed about 300 staff. When it came to unlocking and it called back all those staff, around half of them resigned because they already had other jobs at supermarkets, delivery companies and so on. What can my right hon. Friend do, first, to protect the taxpayer from people effectively earning double pay, and also to stop that happening to the huge detriment of this family-run business?
Steve Barclay
First, may I join you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in offering congratulations to my right hon. Friend on her well-deserved recognition? She raises an important and legitimate point. The furlough scheme was designed to operate within the employment law framework. An employee is able to have a second job while on furlough, provided that that was allowed within the terms of their existing employment contract. I appreciate the spirit of the point she raises, and that was not the original intention when someone moved on to another job. It was part of the balance, as we have debated in this House many times, between the speed of the scheme’s deployment and how one designed its various features. What is allowed within an employment contract shapes what employees can do while on furlough.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC) [V]
In addition to addressing the public health emergency of covid-19, there is a pressing need for Governments across the world to act decisively to combat climate change. The Climate Change Committee has today criticised the Government’s lack of action on climate-proofing our economy and society. Will the Treasury adopt the same urgency in tackling this crisis as it did when tackling the covid-19 pandemic, by allocating the funding necessary to address the recommendations in today’s report, and accelerating our net-zero transition?
Steve Barclay
Future spending commitments on net zero will be matters for the spending review, but the hon. Gentleman will know well the Prime Minister’s commitment to that agenda and the 10-point plan, as well as the leadership that the UK is providing through COP26. This issue is a key priority of the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole. There is much agreement across the House about the urgency of addressing climate change, but spending decisions on that will be for the spending review.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for the £352 billion for jobs and businesses. Will he look urgently at sectors such as aviation, travel agents, and the events industry, which cannot currently trade out of the pandemic? For example, Ace Bar Events in Studham has had very little income and no help since the March 2020 £10,000 grant.
Steve Barclay
As my hon. Friend will know, Treasury Ministers and colleagues across the Government are always keen to engage with him on specific sectoral issues. The wider package of support was designed to work across sectors, and in addition to that I also mentioned specific support for the culture and sport sectors, such as the £1.57 billion announced and the further grant of £300 million. More than £11 billion of support has gone to the aviation sector. There are targeted measures of support for specific sectors, but they fit within the wider package of support such as the covid corporate financing facility, grants on research and development, and the furlough package of support.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) [V]
People and businesses, especially in the hospitality sector, still need urgent and ongoing help to navigate the continuing covid emergency. The UK Treasury alone can help in three ways: it could continue the VAT cut for the sector or, even better, remove VAT; it could continue furlough at its current rate; or, as less than a fifth of the promised £350 billion for covid loans has been used, it could convert a chunk of it to grant funding. Will the Treasury do all or any of those three things?
Steve Barclay
The support package announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was designed to anticipate any potential slippage in the covid road map. The hon. Gentleman specifically mentions VAT, which has not been raised so far. The package of support in terms of reducing VAT totals £7 billion so far, with the 5% rate being extended to 30 September. Then there is a further transitional period for six months at 12.5%. Again, the narrative that VAT reductions are coming to an end, and that that is out of step with the covid road map, is not the case: the VAT reduction has already been extended to 30 September and then there is a transitional period at the lower level of 12.5%, in anticipation of the situation we face.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
The business rates holiday last year delivered a tax cut worth £10 billion for businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors—businesses such as the Goat’s Gate in Whitefield in my constituency, which won my best pub competition. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that 90% of the businesses that benefited last year will also receive a 75% cut to their business rates bill for the full year to March 2022, thus continuing to support vital businesses in Prestwich, Whitefield and Radcliffe?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that businesses will continue to benefit from support. It is about getting the balance right between support for businesses and the cost to the Exchequer. There was 100% support for those businesses last year, and this year it equates to a 75% reduction in their business rates bill across the financial year.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
Both the Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed and the CBI have this week called for urgent sector-specific support packages; the British Chambers of Commerce and the TUC have urged the extension of the full furlough scheme; and ExcludedUK has reiterated calls to support the millions who have been left without support for over 15 months.
Will the Chief Secretary heed these calls and commit today to outlining urgently updated sector-specific support for industries subject to continuing restrictions, to extending the full furlough scheme for as long as needed and, finally, to ensuring a comprehensive and backdated package of income support for the excluded?
Steve Barclay
We have already covered the point that furlough has been extended until the end of September. As I said in my answer only a moment ago, there are specific sectoral support packages in addition to that. At the same time, we need to get the balance right between that and the very considerable cost to the Exchequer—borrowing £200 billion last year and with significant further borrowing this year and next. We need to get the balance right between that level of borrowing and the wider package of support offered.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I appreciate that these are complex issues and that the Chief Secretary is being most assiduous in giving full answers, but I wonder if we could go just a little faster now. We have a lot of business to get through, which means people have to ask questions, not make statements.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Nobody in this House, or indeed in Blackpool South, wanted to see a pause in our road map of easing restrictions. Does my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that this short delay is necessary so that we can proceed irreversibly out of lockdown, build back better from covid and, finally, begin to get our public finances back in order?
Steve Barclay
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The key is that it will allow time for more second vaccinations, which is key in the step-forward decision on the road map.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
My constituents will be very disappointed that the Chancellor has not bothered to come to this Chamber in such a week as this to answer my question relating to freelancers—particularly but not uniquely in the creative sector—who have been excluded from any package. So to pay for that, will the Minister have an urgent meeting with me and other Members who are worried about those who have been excluded from all packages of support, by the end of this week?
Steve Barclay
It is slightly odd to criticise me when I am literally in the Chamber answering the hon. Lady’s question. The point is that there has been a comprehensive package of support for those on the self-employment income support scheme, which has been further extended. Many of those who were of most concern to colleagues on both sides of the House in earlier debates have come into scope of those schemes as we have gone through extensions, and I understand that my colleague the Financial Secretary has met groups to hear representations on these issues.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
I welcome the measures announced today to help business tenants resolve any arrears disputes with their landlords. Does the Chief Secretary think that money could be found for a similar scheme for residential tenants who have gone into arrears with their landlords, to help to contribute to clearing those arrears so that tenants can have a fresh start once the pandemic is over?
Steve Barclay
Today’s announcement clearly pertains to commercial rents. Of course, colleagues continue to listen to Members from across the House on other issues as they arise. I am very happy to have further discussions with my hon. Friend.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the assistance and tax cuts that he has given to businesses. Unlike Opposition Members, I will not demand additional spending and borrowing: does my right hon. Friend agree that we must come to grips with our level of borrowing and spending? We must have sound financial management moving forward out of the pandemic. Will he confirm that the Government have firm plans to do that?
Steve Barclay
I strongly welcome my hon. Friend’s question. She is absolutely right to focus on that. That is why, at the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced key measures such as maintaining the level of personal tax thresholds until 2025-26 and increasing the main rate of corporation tax. It is important that we take measures to protect the public finances and get them back on to a sustainable path in the medium term. She is absolutely right to highlight that important issue.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
In December, the UK Government provided a quarantine exemption to people flying business class, as if somehow the richest were immune to covid. Despite the bluster, we know that India was not added to the red list quickly enough. In terms of learning lessons, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that financial analysis needs to be undertaken on the cost of protecting borders with full quarantine and supporting the travel and tourism industries, versus the damage in financial impact of the longer imposition of restrictions?
Steve Barclay
Where there is a balance between protecting the unlocking of the wider UK economy versus a tougher approach at the border, the bigger prize economically is the UK’s ability to unlock our economy. As the Prime Minister set out in Prime Minister’s questions, we should not judge that with the benefit of hindsight when information on variants of concern which were not known at the time subsequently come to light, not least because of the UK’s capacity to undertake 47% of current global genome testing. Again, that is a further illustration of the UK-wide capacity that allows us to be more effective in our response.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
At the Budget in March, the Chancellor made it clear that he was taking a long-term approach to the support schemes for two specific reasons: to accommodate any short pauses in the road map, and to provide certainty in planning for businesses and families. Does my right hon. Friend agree that because the support schemes—most of them, anyway—do not end until September, the principle of continuity and certainty is being delivered? Will it continue to be a part of all planning?
Steve Barclay
Very much. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and he is absolutely right. That was exactly the Chancellor’s design for that continuity and certainty. Indeed, that particular thing was recognised and welcomed by many business leaders at the time.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]
Nightclubs and live music venues across Birmingham have been busy preparing and selling tickets for events in anticipation of the now delayed reopening. That is a further cost they can ill afford. Is there any further support the Minister is prepared to give them?
Steve Barclay
I have set out the comprehensive package of support that applies to businesses with restart grants and so forth. Of course, I would draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the support through local authorities, including the discretionary grants that are available as well.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I continue to meet businesses in Bosworth, most recently those from the Hinckley business improvement district. They told me they were very grateful for all the support the Government have offered during this time, but they are looking to grow for the future as they come out into the post-pandemic economy, and one of the biggest concerns they have is business rates. I know the Chancellor is committed to a review of business rates. Is the Treasury heeding that call, is the Chancellor committed to bring that forward, and is there a timeline to do so?
Steve Barclay
As my hon. Friend touched on in his question, the Government have committed to conclude the business rates review by autumn 2021. The review is considering the issues he mentions, including the fundamental changes to the administration of the business rates system and indeed the impact that has on businesses.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
It is wonderful to see cafés, restaurants, pubs and bars in my constituency reopening their doors. Local spots like Levenshulme Bakery, Mediterranean Café and Coffee Cranks in Whalley Range and the Sanam restaurants in both Longsight and Rusholme are well worth a visit, if the Minister would like to join me some time. Despite doors being open again, the hospitality sector is now facing a mountain of debt. Forcing businesses to pay this back while many are still struggling to turn a profit is unfair and could well harm the recovery, so does the Minister agree that a flexible repayment scheme tied to profits is now necessary?
Steve Barclay
First, I am very grateful to the hon. Member for the kind invitation, and I hope one day to be able to join him in what I am sure are fantastic local businesses to which he is quite right to draw the House’s attention. The key is the support that those businesses have had so that they are able to bounce back and to be open now. On the issue of debts carried by business, part of the design of the Chancellor’s schemes such as bounce back loans has been to allow additional time for those loans to be repaid so that they do not become an undue burden on those businesses.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
East Devon is back open for business, but step into any pub, café, hotel or restaurant and it is clear that it is struggling with the impact of social distancing. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that social distancing in hospitality must go next month to give these businesses a fighting chance of survival?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of the review of social distancing that the Government are committed to undertaking, and that will obviously shape the approach. We have said that we will have a review, and we are very committed to that. The future beyond step 4 will therefore need to be taken in the round, shaped by the data in that review.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
Last year, when faced with the second wave of covid-19, the Scottish Government called for an extension of furlough as Scotland went into a further lockdown. However, the Tories only extended the scheme when it was clear that the south of England needed to be placed under tighter restrictions. Does the Minister agree that if Scotland is to be treated as an equal partner in the United Kingdom, furlough must be available if and when we need it?
Steve Barclay
The furlough is available—it extends to the end of September—but the hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that it is there almost indefinitely, as opposed to being an exceptional measure in response to the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic. Given the wider fiscal cost, not least the £352 billion spent to date, I do not think that that would be fiscally responsible.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
May I commend my right hon. Friend for the Treasury’s response to the immediate challenge of covid, but also for having an eye on the longer-term challenge of inflation? We are now in the 13th year of competitive quantitative easing by the Fed, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England. May I ask for his reflections on its effect on his near-term economic plans?
Steve Barclay
Of course, decisions on quantitative easing are for the Bank of England, which is independent. The last time I looked, I think the initial response to the global financial crisis was approximately £75 billion, and there has been about a twelvefold increase in QE since then, so I understand my hon. Friend’s underlying point. Ultimately, what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been focused on is the plan for jobs and supporting the economic recovery. We can see from the output data that the economy grew by 2.3% in April, as I said earlier, and GDP data has come out of the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast.
However, as my hon. Friend, who takes a deep interest in the matter, well knows, the picture remains challenging. There were 1.9%—or half a million—fewer employees in May than in February 2020, and 3.4 million people are still on furlough. It is a challenging picture, but I think that the plan for jobs is working, and the data suggests that.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The impact of these restrictions on Britain’s pubs has been very tough indeed, but it has been even worse for nightclubs that have been unable to open at all. It seems entirely wrong to me that, from 1 July, a nightclub that is unable to open will be paying a 33% business rate bill and seeing an increase in its furlough contributions. Given that the Government’s failure has forced them to extend how long the nightclubs are closed for, will the Chief Secretary confirm that he will consider whether nightclubs should no longer be expected to pay that 33% on their business rates?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly legitimate point about how acutely that sector in particular has been affected, as I think everyone in government recognises, but I do not think it fair to say that the Government have not announced any measures that reflect those challenges. Indeed, on commercial rent, he will have heard in my statement today’s specific announcement that applies to the sector. There are also other things, such as the furlough going long, the restart grant and a number of things within the comprehensive package, that are obviously of benefit to nightclubs.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
This morning’s ONS inflation report highlights the risk we face of rising rates, given the amount of debt that we have incurred during the pandemic. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important we focus on sustainable public finances, and that one way we can help is by mobilising more private capital investment?
Steve Barclay
I absolutely agree, and I think that the importance of securing private investment is a very good note on which to end. My hon. Friend will know that in May, on the consumer prices index, inflation rose to 2.1% and the Monetary Policy Committee judged:
“Inflation expectations remained well anchored.”
However, with debt at nearly 100% of GDP, we need to pay close attention. To finish on a more sobering note, perhaps, a sustained increase in inflation by one percentage point would increase debt interest spending by £6.9 billion in ’25-26, so my hon. Friend raises—as did the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves)—an important point that the House needs to keep under review.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the Chief Secretary and everyone who took part in the statement for getting through it in 58 and a half minutes. That always keeps the occupant of the Chair happy.
I would like to take a second to thank Sir Roy Stone for his extraordinary, long and patient service to this House; I cannot imagine this place without him. I know that we all wish him well.
We come to the result of today’s deferred Division on the Draft Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2021. The Ayes were 363 and the Noes were 263, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
We now come to the exciting annual event of the presentation of Bills, which have arisen as a result of the private Members’ Bills ballot. We have 20 such Bills. Contrary to the normal procedure when Members queue up behind the Chair, I hope that all 20 Members are either now in their places, or ready to participate virtually.
Bills Presented
Education (Careers Guidance in Schools) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mark Jenkinson presented a Bill to extend the duty to provide careers guidance in schools.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 14).
Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Barry Gardiner, supported by Robert Halfon, Gavin Newlands, Christine Jardine, Caroline Lucas, Sammy Wilson, Ben Lake, Andy McDonald, Dawn Butler, Darren Jones and Bell Ribeiro-Addy, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to workplace information and consultation, employment protection and trade union rights to provide safeguards for workers against dismissal and re-engagement on inferior terms and conditions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 15).
Menopause (Support and Services) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Carolyn Harris, supported by Judith Cummins, Peter Dowd, Rosie Duffield, Nick Smith, Karin Smyth, Jim Shannon, Tracey Crouch, Jackie Doyle-Price, Tim Loughton and Caroline Nokes, presented a Bill to make provision about menopause support and services; to exempt hormone replacement therapy from National Health Service prescription charges; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 16).
Down Syndrome Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dr Liam Fox, supported by Ben Lake, Ian Paisley, Dr Lisa Cameron, Mark Logan, Nick Fletcher, Layla Moran, Darren Jones, James Daly, Mrs Flick Drummond and Elliot Colburn presented a Bill to make provision about meeting the needs of persons with Down syndrome; to place a duty on local authorities to assess the likely social care needs of persons with Down syndrome and plan provision accordingly; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 November, and to be printed (Bill 17).
Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sajid Javid, supported by Mrs Pauline Latham, Robert Halfon, Sir Graham Brady,
Philip Davies, Sarah Champion, Mrs Maria Miller, Alun Cairns, Fiona Bruce, Siobhan Baillie, Mr Virendra Sharma and Ms Nusrat Ghani, presented a Bill to make provision about the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed (Bill 18).
Copyright (Rights and Remuneration of Musicians, Etc.) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Kevin Brennan, supported by Ms Karen Buck, Damian Green, Alex Davies-Jones,
Claire Hanna, Sir Greg Knight, Ben Lake, Esther McVey, Abena Oppong-Asare, Jim Shannon, David Warburton and Pete Wishart, presented a Bill to make provision about the rights and remuneration of musicians and other rights holders; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 19).
Medical Cannabis (Access) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Jeff Smith presented a Bill to make provision about access to cannabis for medical reasons; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 20).
Climate Change Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Colum Eastwood, supported by Clare Hanna, presented a Bill to place a duty on the government to declare a climate emergency; to amend the Climate Change Act 2008 to bring forward the date by which the United Kingdom is required to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions; to place a duty on the Government to create and implement a strategy to achieve objectives related to climate change, including for the creation of environmentally-friendly jobs; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on proposals for increased taxation of large companies to generate revenue to be spent to further those objectives; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December and to be printed (Bill 21).
Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Peter Gibson, supported by Daniel Zeichner, Caroline Nokes, Mr Robert Goodwill, Sarah Champion, Sir John Hayes, Ms Nusrat Ghani, Esther McVey, Ms Harriet Harman and Lee Anderson, presented a Bill to make provision about licensing in relation to taxis and private hire vehicles for purposes relating to the safeguarding of passengers and road safety; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 22).
Planning (Enforcement) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dr Ben Spencer presented a Bill to create offences relating to repeat breaches of planning controls; to make provision about penalties for planning offences; to establish a national register of persons who have committed planning offences or breached planning controls and make associated provision about planning applications; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed (Bill 23).
Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mel Stride presented a Bill to extend the protection from seizure or forfeiture given to cultural objects.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 24).
Pension Schemes (Conversion of Guaranteed Minimum Pensions) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Margaret Ferrier presented a Bill to make provision about the amendment of pension schemes so as to provide for the conversion of rights to a guaranteed minimum pension.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 November, and to be printed (Bill 25).
Childcare Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Matt Rodda presented a Bill to enable provision to be made for appeals relating to free childcare for young children of working parents to be settled by agreement; to make further provision designed to increase efficiency in the administration of free childcare schemes; to make provision about the promotion of the availability of free childcare, including to disadvantaged groups; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 26).
Glue Traps (Offences) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Jane Stevenson presented a Bill to make certain uses of glue traps an offence; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed (Bill 27).
Acquired Brain Injury Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Bryant presented a Bill to make provision about meeting the needs of adults and children with an acquired brain injury; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 28).
Local Government (Disqualification) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Paul Beresford presented a Bill to make provision about the grounds on which a person is disqualified from being elected to, or holding, certain positions in local government in England.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 29).
Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Jeremy Wright presented a Bill to make provision relating to the carrying of disabled persons by taxis and private hire vehicles.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 30).
Hare Coursing Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Richard Fuller presented a Bill to make provision about hare coursing offences; to increase penalties for such offences; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 31).
Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Andrew Rosindell, supported by Sir David Amess, Tom Hunt, Mrs Sheryll Murray, Bob Stewart, Alexander Stafford, Theresa Villiers, Chris Grayling, Miss Sarah Dines, Henry Smith, Bill Wiggin and Joy Morrissey, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the giving of penalty notices for certain offences in relation to animals and animal products.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 32).
British Sign Language Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Rosie Cooper presented a Bill to declare British Sign Language (BSL) an official language of the United Kingdom; to provide for a British Sign Language Council to promote and advise on the use of BSL; to establish principles for the use of BSL in public services; to require public bodies to have regard to those principles and to guidance issued by the Council; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 33).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Thank you. That concludes the presentation of all 20 private Members’ Bills, and I wish them well. I will now suspend the House for three minutes in order that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
Coronavirus
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 461 / Noes: 60 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 588 / Noes: 25 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The business of the House motion just agreed to by the House provides for motions No. 2 and No.3 on today’s Order Paper to be debated together. The question on each motion will be put separately at the end of the debate.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
I beg to move,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps and Other Provisions) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 705) dated 15 June 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this we shall debate the following motion:
That
(1) the Order of 2 June 2020 (Proceedings during the pandemic (No. 2)), as amended on 1 July, 2 September and 22 October 2020 and 25 March, the Order of 4 June 2020 (Virtual participation in proceedings during the pandemic), as amended on 1 July, 2 September, 22 October and 30 December 2020 and 25 March, and the Orders of 23 September 2020 (Proxy voting during the pandemic), 3 November 2020 (Proxy voting during the pandemic (No. 2)), and 25 February (Sittings in Westminster Hall during the pandemic), as amended on 25 March, shall have effect until 22 July;
and
(2) the Order of 24 March 2020 (Select Committees (Participation and Reporting) (Temporary Order)) be amended as follows:
leave out paragraph (4) and insert “(4) this Order shall have effect until 22 July 2021.”
Matt Hancock
I bring to the House these regulations to change the date of implementation of step 4 of the Government’s road map. On 8 December last year, we fired the starting gun on the race between the vaccine and the virus and started delivering a programme that has allowed us to restore so many of the precious freedoms that we cherish. In the space of just six months, we have now given first doses of coronavirus vaccines to almost four in five adults in the UK, and we have given second doses to over 30 million people. We have made such rapid progress through the cohorts that, today, we are able to extend the offer of a vaccine to anyone aged 21 and over.
Thanks to the protection of the vaccination programme, huge advances in treatments like dexamethasone, which was discovered a year ago today, and the resolve of the British people in following the rules that this House has laid down, we have been able to take the first three steps on our road map, removing restrictions and restoring colour to the nation, but we have always said that we would take each step at a time and look at the data and our four tests before deciding whether to proceed. The regulations before the House today put into effect our decision to pause step 4 on our roadmap until 19 July. Before outlining the regulations that will put this into effect, I would like to set out why we made this difficult but essential decision.
Unfortunately, there has been a significant change since we started on our journey down the road map in February. A new variant has given the virus extra legs, both because it spreads more easily and because there is some evidence that the risk of hospitalisation is higher than for the alpha variant, which was, of course, previously dominant in this country. The delta variant now accounts for 96% of new cases. The number of cases is rising and hospitalisations are starting to rise, too—they are up 48% over the past week. The number of deaths in England is thankfully not rising and remains very low, but, as I told the House on Monday, we do not yet know the extent to which the link between hospitalisations and deaths has been broken, so we propose to give the NHS a few more crucial weeks to get those remaining jabs into the arms of those who need them.
Although we are taking the steps outlined in the regulations today, and I know this is disappointing for many people, we know that science has given us a solution. We must use this time to protect as many people as we can as quickly as we can, because even though the vaccination programme has been going at a blistering pace, there are still people who we must protect.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Can I just ask my right hon. Friend what we expect to achieve in the four weeks? I think I am right in saying that there are 1.3 million people in priority groups one to nine who have yet to have a second dose of the vaccination. The good point is that that means we have vaccinated 96% of people in those groups, but I just wonder—after four weeks, I doubt that we will get to 100%, so there will still be a significant number of people in those groups not vaccinated with two doses, and at that point, there is still going to be some risk. My worry, and the worry of others, is that we are going to get to this point in four weeks’ time and we will just be back here all over again extending the restrictions. That is what we are concerned about.
Matt Hancock
No—on the contrary, that is our view of how far through the vaccination programme we need to get. We are not aiming to eradicate the virus in this country because that is not possible. Indeed, in the parts of the country where it has been tried, it has been found to be not possible. We are aiming to live with this virus like we do with flu. I can give my right hon. Friend an update: as of midnight last night, 1.2 million over-50s and 4.4 million over-40s have had their first jab, but not their second. We seek to get a second jab into a majority—not all, but a majority—of them by 19 July. The estimate is that by taking that pause in this step, we can save thousands of lives. I can tell my right hon. Friend that taking further time and pausing for longer is not estimated to save many more lives, because of the level of protection especially among the over-50s, who are, as we all know, the most likely to die from this disease.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Secretary of State knows that I broadly agree with what he is doing today. He referred just now to us having to live with the virus as we do with flu. With flu, we do not require people to self-isolate, and we do not ask them to test and trace. My understanding is that the Government intend to keep test and trace on a mandatory, statutory basis all the way through the rest of this year and possibly until the end of March—or am I wrong?
Matt Hancock
With flu, of course, if people have symptomatic flu and are ill, they do tend to stay at home. Of course we have not done that on a mandatory basis before, but it is advisable that if people have symptoms of flu, they stay at home. For contacts, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, we are already piloting an approach whereby instead of having to isolate as contacts, vaccinated people go into a testing regime. That is an approach that I am very attracted to for the future, especially as more and more people get vaccinated, because we know that the risk once vaccinated is so much lower.
We are accelerating the second doses, and we are reducing from 12 weeks to eight weeks the time from first to second jab for all those aged 40 and above. In fact, since I came to this House on Monday, I have rearranged my second jab to be eight weeks rather than 12 weeks after my first.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Me too—I have rearranged mine for tomorrow morning, in line with my right hon. Friend’s advice.
Further to the intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), it is very clear that the regulations will be passed by the House today. Regulation 2(3) talks about substituting 18 July for 30 June, and the Prime Minister talked about 19 July being a “terminus”. The definition of a terminus is the end point—the end of the line. Would the Secretary of State categorise it in exactly those terms? I think our constituents want to know what 19 July means that 21 June did not.
Matt Hancock
Yes, I would characterise it in that way. Our goal, ahead of 19 July, is to take step 4. On the basis of the evidence so far, I am confident that we will not need more than the four weeks to get this job done and take step 4.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend give us a little more information about the rise in hospitalisations that he mentioned? Of those who are being hospitalised, how many are in the younger age group who were not yet eligible for the vaccine, and how many are above that age—in other words, those who were able to get the vaccine but chose not to?
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. The answer is that the majority are in the younger age group who have not yet had the chance to be vaccinated. Just under one fifth of those going into hospital in the last week have had both jabs, about a fifth have had one jab and the majority have not had any. The majority are under the age of 50 and have not yet had the opportunity to have both jabs. I think there is a material difference when it comes to the state’s responsibility to offer the vaccine to all adults. The duty that we have when somebody has not been offered the vaccine is greater than the duty we have when we have offered a vaccine but somebody has chosen not to take it up. There is a material difference between those two situations that I think my right hon. Friend was getting at.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
May I just take what our right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said one step further? If I choose not to have, say, a yellow fever jab when I am going to a place that suffers yellow fever, the Government of the United Kingdom take no interest whatever in my illness status. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says that he has less of a duty, surely what he means is that he has no duty at all. It is for people to take up the vaccine.
Matt Hancock
Up to a point, and the point is that, should that be taken as an absolute principle, there is a challenge should there be an overwhelming demand on the NHS that would impact on others. Of course, with a communicable disease, there is an impact on others in terms of spreading the disease, so we do have to have an eye to that. That is why I phrased it as I did, but in terms of my right hon. Friend’s argument, I think she and I concur on the broad thrust of the case being made.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
My point is slightly niche. The reason why we developed all the vaccines was that thousands of Brits volunteered to trial them. There are now a number who trialled vaccines that are not yet approved, such as the Valneva vaccine, and who therefore cannot use the NHS app and some other things. Should they go for two shots of another vaccine, or will the Health Department take that into account?
Matt Hancock
Being certified as having had a vaccine includes being on a vaccine clinical trial. The deputy chief medical officer, Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, has written to participants in vaccine clinical trials, who are doing, as my right hon Friend says, a great service to their country and indeed to the world by offering themselves to have an unlicensed vaccine in order to check that it works. I am very grateful to all of them. We will not put them in a more difficult position because of that.
We will make sure that when it comes to someone proving that they have been certified as vaccinated, being on a clinical trial counts as certified and continues to count as certified during a grace period after they are unblinded, so that if they are in the placebo arm, they can get both jabs and will not be disadvantaged for being on the clinical trial. That is a very important point. I am very glad that right hon. Friend raises it. If anybody from any part of the House gets that question from a constituent, please point them to the comprehensive letter by Professor Jonathan Van-Tam that explains and reassures.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. May I commend him for the efforts he has put in to keeping colleagues informed and responding to their questions along the way? It has been extremely good. Can I press him on this two-week break point that he and the Prime Minister have referred to? What underpins that? Is it simply a desire to get through a certain number of vaccinations—a figure that he presumably already knows? Or is it uncertainty over the data as it currently exists, because if it is, and given that this should be led by the data, there is every likelihood that in the next few days, we will get some indication as to whether the increase in the delta variant incidence is being translated into intensive care unit admissions and deaths? Can he give me and others considering how to vote this evening any comfort on that two-week point? If we have the sense that there may indeed be a genuine break at that point—if those cases do not translate into deaths or ICU admissions—we will be a little more comfortable.
Matt Hancock
As so often, my right hon. Friend, who is one of the most astute medical practitioners in this House—crikey, I could get myself into trouble there, because all the medical practitioners in this House are astute, but he is also a public health expert. I will start again. My right hon. Friend’s point was a really good one and very astute. He is exactly right about our approach: the two-week review is a data review.
Up to around 10 days to a week before the decision making cut-off for the proposal to take step 4 on 21 June, it looked like hospitalisations were staying flat, despite rising case rates. We did not know whether that was because of a lag or because there was now going to be no cases turning into hospitalisations. That remains the case now for the link to the number of people dying, because the number of people dying each day in England is actually slightly falling at the moment—thank goodness —and there has not been a rise in the number of deaths following the rise in the case rates, which started about three weeks ago. Within a couple of weeks, we will know whether that continues to be flat or whether it rises a little. It has risen a little in Scotland; I just put that warning out there. That is precisely the sort of data that we will be looking at at the two-week point. We have been absolutely clear that the goal on which we hang the decision ahead of 19 July is one of delivering the vaccines, and we have a very high degree of confidence that we can deliver the vaccines that we think are needed in order to be able to take step 4 on 19 July.
I hope that was a clear and comprehensive answer, once I untangled myself from my initial response to my right hon. Friend.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Is not the problem with the two-week checkpoint that it creates another moment of hope for people who still feel even these restrictions very acutely, and that if we create hope and then shift the goalposts again, people will continue to deepen their despair? What will he say to those people?
Matt Hancock
No, because I think people understand that we are putting forward the moments by which we can and then will make assessments according to the data. We have done that throughout. I think people get that and they understood that ahead of 21 June. I think people are smart enough to understand that distinction.
After this four-week pause, we will be in a stronger position—because of the vaccination rollout that we have been discussing—to keep hospitalisations down, and so to live with this disease and take that final step on the road map.
Let me turn to the regulations themselves, which put the pause into effect by amending the expiry date of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021, so that they expire at midnight on the evening of 18 July. To reflect this change, we also need to align the dates on several other covid regulations that are essential for keeping us safe, including: the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020; the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 3) Regulations, which give powers to manage local outbreaks by cancelling events and closing individual premises; and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Local Authority Enforcement Powers and Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020, which give local authorities powers to enforce covid-secure measures for businesses. They will all be extended until midnight on 18 July.
We do not want to extend these sets of regulations a day longer than we have to and have always said that we would ease restrictions as soon as we were able to safely to do so. Even though we have put forward these regulations to pause step 4, we are also putting forward regulations to ease restrictions in some areas, allowing us to remove the 30-person gathering limit for weddings, receptions and commemorative events—subject, of course, to social distancing measures—and to run another phase of our pilots for large events at higher capacity, including some, such as the Wimbledon finals, at full capacity. Even though we have not been able to take the full step 4 as we wanted, the regulations will allow us to make some cautious changes that will bring some joy to many people and move us slightly further down the road to recovery.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Although the slight relaxing of things such as weddings is to be welcomed, certain other key life events have not been included. I am thinking of the likes of bar mitzvahs and baptisms, which mean so much to so many. Will my right hon. Friend look at those restrictions again, or even look at them at the two-week point, to see whether life events such as baptisms can be subject to reduced regulations?
Matt Hancock
I am happy to look at other life events, although not for the regulations that are before the House today, which are not open to amendment. I am happy to discuss other life events with my hon. Friend.
Let me turn to two other points before I close. First, let us look at the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The House has been determined to ensure that, even in the worst clutches of the pandemic, we have found a way that democracy can function and this House can perform its vital functions. Like everyone here, I miss the bustle and clamour of the Chamber when it is full. I cannot wait for the moment when we can all cram once more into our cockpit of democracy.
Just as we have extended other regulations, we propose extending the hybrid arrangements for the House until the House rises for summer recess on 22 July.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
Matt Hancock
Yes, in a moment.
This will allow for proxy voting to continue along with virtual participation. Crucially, the regulations on the hybrid arrangements fall this summer recess, so when we return in September, we are confident that we can return in full, cheek by jowl once more. I do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker—nor, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—but I cannot wait.
Matt Hancock
I would dearly love that, and I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who, as I well know, is an enthusiast. I would love it if we could make that so—let us see.
Finally, I want to tell the House about the results of our consultation on vaccination as a condition of deployment in care homes. After careful consultation, we have decided to take this proposal forward, to protect residents. The vast majority of staff in care homes are already vaccinated, but not all of them are. We know that the vaccine protects not only you, but those around you. Therefore we will be taking forward the measures to ensure the “mandation” as a condition of deployment for staff in care homes, and we will consult on the same approach in the NHS, in order to save lives and protect patients from disease.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Will the Secretary of State then explain to the House whether visitors to care homes or to hospitals will also require proof of vaccination? Will delivery drivers require it? Will others who provide other services to those care homes and hospitals require the same? Is he not now walking down the road of requiring mandatory vaccination for almost everyone?
Matt Hancock
No, I do not agree with mandatory vaccination of the public, but for those who have a duty to care, in an environment that includes some of the most vulnerable people in the country, I think this is a sensible and reasonable step in order to save lives.
Mr Harper
The Secretary of State will also be aware that staff who provide domiciliary care in people’s homes—they potentially provide care to many people, going to many homes during the day—are also caring and present a similar challenge. It would be preferable, in the first instance, if we could get those vaccination rates up by education and persuasion. I am prepared, if that is not possible, and following the precedent we have in the NHS for those who perform operations and have to be vaccinated against hepatitis, to agree to this matter, but there is a real issue here with the millions of people who provide domiciliary care, who are often employed directly. How is that going to work and provide the level of protection required?
Matt Hancock
Yes, we do propose to consult on this point, alongside the consultation on mandatory vaccination as a condition of deployment in the NHS. As my right hon. Friend rightly says, this is a complicated operational matter. The principle of vaccination for those in a caring responsibility is already embedded, as he says; there is a history going back more than a century of vaccination being required in certain circumstances. I think these are reasonable circumstances, so we will go ahead for those who work in care homes and we will consult about those in domiciliary care and those working in the NHS. However, I have no proposals for going, and would not expect us to go, any wider.
Mr Steve Baker
I can understand why we would want especially to protect people in those circumstances, of course, but will the Secretary of State explain why it is not possible to maintain their right to choose not to be vaccinated by instead, for example, requiring daily lateral flow tests for workers in those industries?
Matt Hancock
We already have significant testing, but this is a matter of risk and we know that the vaccine reduces that risk very significantly.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I will not be joining the Secretary of State in the Lobby later on, partly for civil liberties reasons, but I do agree with what he is saying about vaccination. About four years ago, the Science and Technology Committee looked at the level of flu vaccination in care homes, which at that time was about 20%. Flu, like covid, is a killer of elderly people. Will he be looking to make not only covid vaccination, but flu vaccination a condition of employment?
Matt Hancock
Yes we will, for exactly the reason that the hon. Gentleman sets out.
Chris Bryant
On someone proving that they are double vaccinated, there is still an issue between England and Wales and other parts of the UK. I wonder when that will be solved, because obviously everybody does not live in a hermetically sealed unit.
Matt Hancock
As somebody who grew up right on the Welsh border, I entirely understand that. I am working with Baroness Morgan, the new Health Minister in the Welsh Government, to ensure that we have the interoperability that the hon. Gentleman calls for. That is a significant piece of work that is under way. We need to sort this for vaccine data flows, and frankly all health data flows, across the border, and use this particularly acute need to change the policy and practices, to sort this out once and for all.
The regulations before the House today are there in order to pursue our goal, as throughout, to work to protect lives and get us out of the pandemic as soon as is safely possible. I commend the motion to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I begin by paying tribute to our much-missed friend and colleague Jo Cox. Jo was an internationalist, and I know that, if she were with us today, she would be rallying support not just across this country but through her international contacts for a campaign to vaccinate the world. She would remind us that we will defeat this virus only through our common endeavour. I think that all of us miss Jo and want to send our best wishes to her family today.
We will support the extension of restrictions in the Lobbies tonight, but we of course do so with a heavy heart. We are guided by data not dates, and we have to recognise the facts before us. The delta variant is 60% more transmissible than the alpha, and even with the current restrictions in place the daily total of positive cases has been rising, with a seven-day rolling average of more than 7,000 per day compared with around 2,000 per day in early May. That is beginning to translate into hospitalisations. With cases doubling every nine days, at the moment it looks like hospitalisations are also doubling. On 4 June, 96 people with covid were admitted; nine days later, 187 people were admitted—almost double. If that continues to double, within four sets of doublings we will be close to the April 2020 peak.
Given that we know that there is always a lag in the figures, we are no doubt likely to see around 250 admissions a day in 10 days’ time. We are seeing a third wave in the NHS. We need to do all that we can to stop hospitalisations rising, because this is a time of huge pressure on the national health service. We have lost a number of beds over the past 10 years, and because of the need for infection control measures we have fewer general and acute beds open today in the NHS as well. We are facing a monumental backlog in care, with 5 million people on the waiting list, more than 385,000 waiting over 12 months for treatment, and nearly 3,000 now waiting over two years for treatment.
Throughout the crisis, we have said that the NHS was not overwhelmed, but it was not overwhelmed only because of some of the terrible choices that had to be made. To be frank, I do not want to see the NHS forced to make choices between providing covid care and cancer care. That is why we should listen to those NHS leaders who have warned us about the increasing pressures on the NHS. Chris Hopson of NHS Providers said:
“The NHS is running hot at the moment dealing with backlog recovery and emergency care pressures.”
The NHS Confederation said:
“Health leaders are very aware of the damaging effects that prolonged social restrictions could have on the nation’s physical health and mental wellbeing…Yet, according to our survey the majority of NHS leaders are concerned about the risks that lifting prematurely could have on the NHS’s ability to cope”.
Steve Brine
I know that the official Opposition’s position will be to support the regulations today, but I am keen to explore this with the right hon. Gentleman. Would he be happy to see the terminus on 19 July, or would he like to see it maybe at the end of September, when the entire adult population will be double-jabbed, or at the end of next year, when the G7 thinks that the rest of the world will be vaccinated? What would his instinct be?
Jonathan Ashworth
Of course I want to see terminus day on the 19th, although I am not sure if we are going to see terminus day on the 19th. The hon. Gentleman, who is always well-informed, will no doubt have read the explanatory notes, which indicate that this four-week period is to assess the data, and the four tests will be applied at the end of that four-week period. That is not quite the terminus day that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have indicated.
Chris Bryant
It is wholly misleading to call it a terminus date anyway. Even if we were to implement cessation of some of the measures on 19 July, there will still be lots of other measures that will exist, including test and trace, maybe for quite proper reasons. To mislead the nation by constantly going on about freedom days and terminus days is just a mistake.
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Of course I want to see terminus day. I want to see freedom; I want to get back to doing the things that I enjoy—although I am quite happy to sit in a group of six in a pub; I am not sure that I have more than six friends, Mr Deputy Speaker, so it has suited me in many ways. But more generally—[Interruption.] I see you have one less friend today, Secretary of State.
I am keen to see terminus day. But interestingly, although the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State have tried to hint that restrictions are coming to an end by using the new phrase, “We have to learn to live with the virus like we live with flu,” the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister have not outlined to us what that means. They are trying to suggest to us that it is all going to go back to normal, but actually we put in place mitigations to deal with flu year by year. The hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) was a Public Health Minister. He was very much involved in the flu vaccination campaign. We vaccinate children to deal with flu. We put infection control measures into care homes when there is a flu outbreak. There will have to be mitigations in place when we go back to living with this virus, but the Secretary of State must explain to us what those mitigations are. Will we continue wearing masks?
Jonathan Ashworth
Well, the Secretary of State needs to explain whether we should or not. Will we be supporting the installation of proper ventilation systems? We have known about the importance of ventilation in dealing with respiratory viruses since the days of Florence Nightingale. Countries such as Belgium are now providing premises and buildings with CO2 monitors to improve their air quality; will we be doing that?
The other thing about this virus is that, even when we vaccinate people—of course I want to see us meet the various vaccination targets—we know that some people will still be at more severe risk than they would be from flu. There will be people who will develop long covid symptoms. For some people, those symptoms are beyond achiness and tiredness. We have seen people lose hair, lose teeth. In some people it presents as depression, anxiety—even psychosis in some circumstances. So Ministers must explain exactly what “living with this virus like flu” means.
There is something else that they should explain to us. What are we going to do in the winter? It did not come up in the earlier exchanges; I thought that it might. Perhaps the Secretary of State, or the Minister in responding to the debate, can tell us whether the Secretary of State, the Minister or departmental officials are putting together plans for restrictions this winter, and whether the Secretary of State has developed or discussed those plans with any colleagues in Whitehall. I shall be grateful if the Secretary of State or the Minister would tell us about that.
Jonathan Ashworth
I will give way first to the former Public Health Minister, and then to the former Chief Whip.
Steve Brine
The right hon. Gentleman is right: we had a battle royal with influenza in the first year that I was in the job, but the difference was that we did not have any non-pharmaceutical interventions. Our interventions were about the take-up of the vaccine—yes, for children as well as for adults, especially the vulnerable. One of our chief advisers, the deputy chief medical officer then, one Professor Chris Whitty, never suggested masks, let alone closing schools—just a really good roll-out of the flu vaccine. We lost 22,000 people that year. Never were those numbers rolled on BBC News; never did we know the R number, but there was a point where we accepted an element of risk in society. I guess that was the point of my earlier intervention on the hon. Gentleman: what element of risk is he prepared to accept? Because that is what it comes down to—our own mortality is part of the human condition.
Jonathan Ashworth
We do accept it but we do not glibly accept it, because year by year we are looking for improvements in vaccinations, therapeutics and medicines to push infection rates down as low as possible. Even though we are grown-up enough to be aware that sadly some people will die from flu and pneumonia, we do all we can to avoid it. That is what we will have to do with this, but I do not want to see it done by some of the wider restrictions and lockdowns that we have heard about. That is why I would be interested to know whether the Department has developed plans for restrictions this winter and whether the Secretary of State has been discussing that with Whitehall colleagues.
Mr Harper
On the point about the restrictions, I know that those discussions are going on because I have seen documents from within Government with very detailed suggestions about what measures may continue. I asked the Secretary of State about this when he was in the Commons earlier this week, and he did not rule out bringing in restrictions this winter. That is partly why some Conservative Members are very concerned and why we are not going to vote for these regulations today. However, I want to take the right hon. Gentleman back to his comments on what Chris Hopson said about the fact that the NHS is very busy at the moment. There is a danger here. I am very sympathetic to colleagues who work in the NHS, who have done a fantastic job, but we cannot get to a point where we restrict and manage society in order to manage NHS waiting lists. That is not the right way round. The NHS is there to serve society. If we need to enable it to do that, we have to think of a way of doing it other than putting restrictions on the rest of society. That is not a sustainable or a desirable position, but it is the logical consequence of what Chris Hopson was saying earlier this month.
Jonathan Ashworth
Even though we will find ourselves in different Lobbies this evening, I think there is more in common between us than perhaps one might expect. I do not want restrictions to remain in place for any longer than they need to. I want to move to a system where we are trying to push down covid infection rates by, yes, rolling out vaccination as far and as fast as possible to everybody, but also putting in place the proper framework so that those who are ill or a contact of someone who has been ill with covid is able to isolate themselves.
We still have a culture in this country of soldiering on; the Secretary of State has referred to it in the past. I dare say that it is true of many of us in this Chamber. I have certainly done it in the past 20 years of my working life. I have gone into work with a sore throat or feeling under the weather, thinking I will just have some paracetamol and get on with it. Things like this have got to change, because although that sore throat may well have been fine for me, we now understand in great detail that it could have been very dangerous for others. We have to change our attitudes. However, there will still be a lot of people who have to go to work because they cannot afford to stay at home, so we need decent sick pay sorted out. One of the things that was revealed in this morning’s Politico email was the leak of a Government document that said that the isolation system is still not effective. That is because we still do not pay people proper sick pay. This is going to become more of an issue because presumably Test and Trace is to stay in place for the next year or so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) indicated. People who have had two jabs and are asked to isolate themselves will ask themselves, not unreasonably, “If I have had two jabs, why do I need to isolate myself?” This is going to become much more of a challenge and we will need proper sick pay in place.
Let me finish dealing with the point made by the hon. Member for Winchester. I want us to control the virus by doing things such as proper sick pay, proper ventilation support, and investing properly in public health systems and local primary care systems. One of the things we know about this virus is that, like flu, it disproportionately hits the poorest and the disadvantaged because they are the people who have to go to work or the people in those communities where significant long-term conditions such as diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease tend to cluster. That often makes those people more vulnerable to these types of respiratory viruses.
Dr Murrison
On the subject of the poorest and most disadvantaged, what does the right hon. Gentleman then make of the recent observation by the chief medical officer on the annual toll taken by the ill effects of smoking? He said that because he wanted to compare and contrast the number of people that we are losing, sadly, to covid with those we lose every single year to the ill effects of smoking. We have been prepared to countenance some swingeing restrictions on all our liberties for the past 15 months; banning smoking, for example, would be far less restrictive by comparison. It is smoking that is driving up health inequalities, but I have not heard him comment on that yet.
Jonathan Ashworth
I have not commented on it in my remarks so far, but I have commented on it in the past and I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We need to do more to drive down smoking rates, we need to do more to deal with alcohol abuse and we need to do more with the fact that too many of us eat food that is high in salt and sugar. I am prepared to work with the Government to be more interventionist on these matters. I would look at levies and taxes on tobacco companies, and I would invest more in anti-smoking and public health facilities locally, some of which have been cut back, sadly, because the public health grant has been cut back. So yes, I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
Dr Murrison
With respect, the right hon. Gentleman has missed the point. Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough. The chief medical officer was introducing that because he was trying to explain that we are going to have to live with some level of risk. We need to have a discussion about the public’s appetite for risk if we are to live with covid. The reason he cited smoking and the figure of 90,000 a year is that it approximates to the number of people we have lost from covid so far in this pandemic. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that we need to have a discussion about where we are prepared to pitch this? Is it 22,000, which is the figure for a bad flu year? Is it 90,000, which is the number we lose every single year from the ill effects of smoking?
Jonathan Ashworth
I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. It is in some ways similar to the flu point. We do not just glibly accept smoking. We take measures in society to try to push down rates. I do not think the House would want to go as far as to ban smoking outright, despite what any of us might feel as individuals about smoking, but we do what we can to push down smoking rates because we want to reduce the poor health outcomes from smoking. That is what we will have to do with covid. We will have to put measures in place to mitigate the negative effects of covid, which I would argue is about allowing people to isolate themselves with proper sick pay, doing things around ventilation, giving local authorities more responsibility, perhaps to inspect premises without proper ventilation standards in place, and obviously resolving some of the issues around contact tracing that still have not been resolved 15 months on. So I do understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, and he makes it well, as always in this place.
Before I was taken off course, I was quoting some of the health organisations. The point is that, given where we are now in our response to the virus, I believe that we should listen to those health professionals and take into account what they are saying. Delaying the road map by four weeks will hopefully relieve the pressures on hospitals, which is why we are prepared to support the restrictions tonight in the Lobby. I fear that lifting all the restrictions now could be akin to throwing petrol on a fire, so we will support the Government. But, of course, we should not be here. We are only here because over the last eight weeks we have failed to contain the delta variant and have allowed it to become dominant.
I have always tried to keep our dealings with the Secretary of State civil in public and private, but that is not so, it seems, for the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman is now forever branded as “hopeless” Hancock by his own leader. Our constituents watching the news tonight will know that the Government have failed to protect our borders, that they have allowed this variant to take off and that restrictions are being extended, and I have no doubt that many of them will repeat the Prime Minister’s expletive-laden sentiments about the Secretary of State tonight.
We are being asked to endorse these restrictions because the Government failed to prevent this variant from reaching our shores. Rather than red-listing the delta variant when that was needed, they gave it the red carpet instead. Let me remind the House what happened. On 24 March, India’s health ministry warned about a so-called double mutant variant. On 30 March, The BMJ warned that India’s cases had taken a sharp upward turn since March and that India had the third highest number of confirmed cases and deaths from covid-19. On 1 April, the original B1617.1 was designated as under investigation. By 2 April, the Government had put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list, but not India. By this time, cases were running at close to 100,000 a day in India and thousands of people were returning to the UK from India. The Secretary of State justifies his position by saying that he did not have the data, but he should have acted on a precautionary basis. When he could see that the virus was raging, with 100,000 cases a day in India, he should have immediately put India on the red list, because the one thing that we know about the virus is that if we do not get ahead of it, it quickly gets ahead of us.
The House is being asked to extend these restrictions, but there are a number of pressing issues. First, many of us have been contacted by business people in our constituencies who are deeply concerned about the extension of these restrictions. For my constituency in Leicester, which has been living under a form of restrictions more severe than other parts of the country, other than perhaps parts of Greater Manchester, this has been particularly devastating. I hope that the Government will be putting in place full support for businesses such as mine in Leicester and Greater Manchester and elsewhere.
The second issue, which we have touched on a little bit, is whether these restrictions will ever end, or whether the Prime Minister has trapped us in Hotel California, where we can never leave. He has talked about 19 July as the terminus date, but the explanatory notes themselves say that the four tests will apply on 19 July, and that these four weeks will be used to gather more data.
Even with the vaccination programme going ahead and going further—I, like the Secretary of State, have had my second jab rearranged and am looking forward to it in a couple of weeks’ time—there will still be a large proportion of the population who have had one jab or no jab and who will still be vulnerable to catching the virus, and the virus can still exploit that opportunity to transmit.
It was the Secretary of State himself who said some weeks ago that
“Delta can spread like wildfire”
among those who have not had a jab. That will mean further disruption to people’s lives, more people needing to isolate and more people suffering from long covid. When I put these points to him on Monday, he said that the logical conclusion of that is that restrictions remain in place forever. On the contrary, the logical conclusion of that is that we put the other measures in place that will allow us to push down infection rates. I am talking about basic infection control measures such as sick pay and isolation support. A total of £38 billion has been allocated to testing and tracing, and yet the numbers using lateral flow tests have gone down six weeks in a row. This is because we do not have proper sick pay for people. Moreover, anecdotally, we are also hearing that more people are deleting the app from their phones.
We will support these restrictions tonight, and we hope that the Secretary of State or the Minister can give us a commitment that they will come to the House in two weeks’ time and give us an update on that data. We hope that the Secretary of State will give us a commitment to put in place the other measures that will help push down infection rates, but the sad truth is that we have to push forward these restrictions again for another four weeks, because the Secretary of State was indeed hopeless and failed to contain the delta variant.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We will have a four-minute limit immediately, but I think that that will be reduced later on. We have had a few withdrawals, so please do not assume that everybody is here on the list. Of everybody contributing, there are only four contributing virtually today, so everybody else is physical, which is very pleasing for the Chair. The four-minute limit is for Back-Bench contributions only.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I never believed that it was proportionate, even from the outset, for Ministers to take such liberties with our liberty. I always thought that it was wrong for them to take our freedoms, even though they believed that they were acting in our best interests in an emergency, but by any measure that emergency has now passed and yet freedoms are still withheld and the Government will not allow us to assess for ourselves the risks that we are prepared to encounter in our ordinary, everyday lives. The Government do not trust the people whom they govern.
Many members of SAGE—a misnomer if ever there was one—have been out busily undermining public morale. One of them even shared her dystopian vision that we must all remain masked and distanced in perpetuity—a shocking, horrible prospect. The fact is that once the consequences of this virus in terms of their financial and health impacts have long been addressed, the moral impact will remain. The Government have set a disastrous precedent in terms of the future of liberty on these islands. I could understand it if we were a communist party, but this is the party that inherited the true wisdom of the Whig tradition. This is the party of Margaret Thatcher, who said that liberty was indivisible. This is the party that only recently elected a leader whom we believed was a libertarian. There is much on which we are going to have to reflect.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I will be relatively brief, recognising that the public health motion relates to English covid public health regulations, and address most of my comments to the second motion. However, I think it is worth noting and picking up on a number of the comments made by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and other Members in relation to the outlook beyond covid.
Next week, the Scottish Government will publish a paper setting out what they hope life after covid will look like as we get back to something like normal and the remaining restrictions begin to be removed. None of us wants to see the restrictions in place any longer than they have to be, but while there is a risk to public health, we need to be very careful. The Scottish Government have been very, very minded to focus on the data, not the dates. I have to say that there seems to be quite a marked difference in the approach between the two Governments, given such a focus on freedom days and terminus dates all having to be attached to a particular date, rather than just looking at what the data actually tells us. As I say, none of us wants to see restrictions any longer than we need them, but while there is still a risk we must continue. The vaccine roll-out has been spectacular —nobody can deny that—but there are still so many people we need to continue to protect.
Turning to the second motion, I very much welcome the inclusion of the motion to extend virtual proceedings. It would have been unreasonable, when there is an extension for the general public, not to have extended such provisions in this place. Many times over the course of the past year and a bit, we have heard how we need to make sure that this place keeps step with the general public. I suggest that keeping step with the general public also means that we continue to look at what steps we can take to enhance that ability in this place as we go forward, as workplaces across the country will be doing. They are looking at different ways of working, and at adopting new and different ways to encourage participation from all. I fear that at some stage we may again be at a place where we are disenfranchising some Members. With this extension, we have perhaps given ourselves the opportunity to re-examine some of the points on medical proxy voting. There are some Members with very particular medical situations that are unique to them where a case could very strongly be made that a proxy vote would be appropriate on a longer-term basis than has been outlined. I am not saying that we should be putting in place something that makes it easier for a Minister to be given a proxy to be able to avoid a vote just because it suits. This is about a very particular set of situations where a specific number of Members have unique circumstances, and we need to take account of them.
I raised this point yesterday when the motions were presented. Given the variability in the virus and the changes of circumstances that can happen, and by the nature of the fact that we have had to have an extension at this point, I fear that having an end date at the start of a recess and effectively coming back in September with no opportunity in advance to consider what may or may not need to be done at that stage puts us in a slightly unusual situation. Should the situation arise in September where we need to do something else, this place will have to return in full numbers to effectively decide whether or not we want to have any further restrictions. I urge caution on that and ask for consideration as to how that could be managed, because I think that would be a particular anomaly. As I say, workplaces across the country are looking at how they can adapt, so why would we not? I think it is appropriate. Given the number of Members looking to speak in the debate, I will restrict my comments to that.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I wish to try to be constructive about how we can improve SAGE. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, SAGE has huge power over our lives. It has power over whom we hug and hold. It has power over which businesses open and which businesses close. In essence, it has power over who keeps their job and who loses their job. We, too, in this place have great power, but our power is matched by accountability.
Accountability is very important in the exercising of power, so I want to suggest some reforms to SAGE—some quite technical reforms. First, there is a need for greater financial transparency from members of SAGE in line with that expected of Members of Parliament. For example, I think when we look at SAGE members, we should be able to see what their annual income is—not only from their substantive job, but from their pensions accrued or the pensions they might well be in receipt of. This is something that is freely available for all Members of Parliament. I think we should also know and constituents should know if they have any significant shareholdings in companies, in the same way that our constituents know if we have significant shareholdings in companies. We could also look at whether they get other forms of income—from rent, for example.
I am not suggesting for a minute that this would include the spouses or partners of members of SAGE in the same way this does not include our spouses and partners, but given that they are making huge decisions that have huge financial consequences for tens of millions of people, it is important that our constituents know whether or not the people making these decisions are sharing the pain or are insulated from the pain. For example, in the case of young people, many SAGE experts say that young people should be working from home. We know that young people are now tied to their small kitchen table or in their bedroom in miserable environments—the new dark satanic mills—and working endless hours in appalling circumstances, because people with nice gardens and comfortable homes think that is what they should be doing.
There should also be far greater personal accountability. There should be no more, “Here is Sir Mark Walport—of SAGE, but here in a personal capacity”. Nonsense! He is there because he is a member of SAGE. We should also have elections to SAGE, so we could see Sir Mark Walport, Professor Susan Michie, John Edmunds and regular talking heads in our TV studios challenged by people with a different perspective—people such as Professor Karol Sikora, Professor Paul Dolan, who is an expert on human behaviour and quality of life, and Professor Ellen Townsend, who has a huge interest in the welfare of children and adolescents who are now being plagued by anxiety and eating disorders.
Mr Steve Baker
My hon. Friend is making a great case, with which I largely agree, but does he agree with me that experts are only human and to an extent we have been asking the impossible of them? They are risk averse—they do not want to be blamed for a disaster—and they will choose to give advice that is cautious. Would he join me in recommending to the Prime Minister the reform that I have put forward, which is to have competitive multidisciplinary expert advice with red team challenge?
Sir Charles Walker
I think that is a fantastic and plausible suggestion. We need a diversity of voices, but of course if we had elections, we could get people elected from Independent SAGE, and we know what they want—harder lockdowns, tighter lockdowns and a permanent end to freedoms.
But there is an alternative to elections and to financial disclosure, which is that the Prime Minister could say to members of SAGE, “Here it is: you can either advise me or you can advise the “Today” programme, Sky and Channel 4, but you can’t do both. You can either be a serious scientist at this moment in time advising your Government or you can be a media talking head building a career outside SAGE, but you can’t do both”. I think that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. We would not expect our generals to give a running commentary on a war, undermining politicians. It is just not acceptable. It is just not acceptable, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you imagine if the Clerks who advise my Administration Committee were going out and briefing what they would like to see my Committee do and pushing us into a corner all the time? It would not be tolerable. It would not be tolerated in this place, and it should not be tolerated by No. 10.
So here it is: full financial disclosure from members of SAGE and full elections, or they advise the Government, and if they do not want to do that, but want to advise TV studios, they do that, but they do not do both.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
As ever, it is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker). On his interesting point about SAGE, we could do with full disclosure from the Government about all the facts that they have available to them on covid. In the Science and Technology Committee this morning, we were told that vaccinations have saved 14,000 lives. I have no doubt that that is an accurate figure, but there are many figures that have not been given. As we said the last time we debated this issue, only one side of the equation is given. Let me ask this question: how many lives have been lost in order to save capacity in the NHS? When it comes to looking at people untested and untreated for cancer, heart disease and other diseases, we will find that the figures are of a similar, if not greater, magnitude than the number of people who have died from covid.
We should have transparency and open declarations of what really happened with the 26,000 deaths in care homes, where untested people were sent from hospital. We should have disclosure about all those people who were triaged by age and who were not treated, and all those people in care homes who were not allowed into hospitals because they were not taking people from care homes. There is a great deal more information that we require in order to make a rational decision about whether the lockdown should continue. I agree with the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) that what we have here is the Government asking for emergency powers when there is no longer an emergency.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; we were in the Science and Technology Committee this morning. Does he share my disquiet at the fact that the vaccine effectiveness numbers that Public Health England has published—96% effectiveness against hospitalisation from two doses of Pfizer, and 92% from Oxford-AstraZeneca—are much higher than the numbers that have been plugged into the models used by Imperial and the London School of Hygiene and Medical to underpin the data that the Government are relying on?
Graham Stringer
I agree completely that those sorts of numbers—the real numbers, as opposed to model numbers—are the numbers that should have been plugged into that model. They would have given a different scenario. The hon. Gentleman makes my point: in order to come to rational decisions about what risks we should take as a country and what risks individuals should take, we should have all the information up to date and available. The Government have refused on a number of occasions to give out that information. They have run a campaign to scare people into accepting their decisions.
To go back to the comments of the hon. Member for Broxbourne, who was talking about elections to SAGE, at least the behavioural psychologists who advise the Government have made a public apology. They say that they have undermined their professional credibility by joining the campaign of fear. I wish that the Government would not only put out more information, but apologise for frightening people. They should not frighten the electorate, and they certainly should not frighten people in this Chamber into taking people’s liberties away.
One of the things that has annoyed me most in the last 15 months is when the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care say, “We instruct you”—meaning the population—“to do various things,” when there is nothing in the legislation that would give the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister the ability to instruct individuals. We live in a liberal democracy in which we pass laws that are enforced by the police, and then the courts make a decision if there is a prosecution, not one in which the Secretary of State acts like some kind of uniformed Minister of the Interior.
I will vote against the regulations today. We need a more direct debate on the issue and we need what Members have searched for—a straightforward comparison, with real statistics, of what risks everybody faces.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
For over 800 years, this House has been making decisions on risk, be it sending men and women to war, providing financial support or instigating reform in trade or even laws, and tonight’s vote boils down to an assessment of risk. Essentially, there are three options: we open on the 21st, we delay or we close and put more lockdown measures back in.
If we accept the premise that we cannot get rid of covid, we can disregard the reintroduction of lockdown rules on the basis that it is too risky to the economy, non-covid health and education. I do not think that even a tiered approach to deal with regional variation would be stomached by the public. That leaves us with two options: open as planned or delay.
I checked the data on the dashboard this morning, as many Members have, and it shows that the seven-day increase of cases, the average, is 38.8% and hospitalisation is increasing by 22%, but we also know that we have vaccinated 79% of the population with one dose and 57% with two doses. We also know that no measure is 100% effective, that no mask is 100% effective and that no vaccine is 100% effective, but we know that putting those measures together mitigates the risk.
That is all against the backdrop of a delta variant that is 50% to 70% more contagious than the alpha variant at Christmas, which in turn was 50% to 70% more virulent than the original variant. This House is therefore being asked to make a judgment call: carry on opening as we are, risking further spread and increased hospitalisations, or buy time, see the trend, get more people vaccinated and reassess but, of course, at the expense of businesses and freedom.
This is another Sophie’s choice. I know from my constituents that they will not thank this House for a four-week delay, but they will not forgive this House if further lockdowns return. I will vote to support the motions today, but they still leave certain sectors as zombie industries: not officially closed but not open, because there are not enough customers. For the travel, events and wedding industries, and for the night-time economy, I urge the Government to consider sector-specific support.
Some might mistake my words for the sound of a risk-averse man, or a doctor who thinks too much about health. In my day job, my entire career has been spent managing risk, from dealing with people’s cholesterol to working out whether a headache is stress or a brain tumour. I do that openly and frankly with my patients, and now it is what we need from the Government: a debate on the acceptable level of covid risk.
There were 1,500 deaths and 25,000 deaths or serious injuries on UK roads last year. As a society, we accept this risk. We could ban all road travel and stop all deaths, but of course we would lose the economic benefits and our freedoms. During the next month, I urge the Government to bring forward a debate on the risk this House is prepared to accept from covid. After all, as I said at the start of this speech, the House has been deciding this for 800 years. Why should it change now?
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not in his place, because he is a Chester lad and I was hoping to offer him some Cestrian solidarity after the criticism of him as “totally f****** hopeless”; I give him an assurance that I would never have used “f******” myself. He needs a bit of support here, because he clearly does not have very much on the Conservative side.
The announcement today and the process leading up to it have been typical of the Government’s handling—chaotic and totally lacking in clarity. One Minister says one thing, then the same day another Minister says something slightly different or even wholly contradictory, and the announcements drip out inconsistently in a series of leaks and pre-briefings. I think it was just announced this afternoon that we have the highest number of cases since February, so actually people would understand the Government’s position if they would only level with them and be more honest. The reason they are not being honest is the serried ranks of hon. Members from the libertarian Covid Recovery Group wing on the Back Benches behind them who are putting undue pressure on them. It is understandable, but Ministers need to stand up to that instead and be a lot more open and direct with people.
The other thing that we need is an end to the Prime Minister giving his usual bluff, bluster and bombast, which creates false hope. He uses the phrases such as “terminus day” and “freedom day” that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) spoke about to build people up, when he does not know that he can deliver them—and then conveniently forgets that he said them in the first place. It does not help the process.
In Cheshire west and Chester, we have gone into “enhanced measures”; I am not quite sure exactly what that means, because it can mean anything that people want. Again, that is because of a lack of clarity from the Government: they “request”, “suggest” or “advise” that perhaps people should not meet indoors. What it does mean is that, because there is no instruction, there is no support for businesses, for the night-time economy or for the visitor economy that is so important to Chester.
I was contacted by Jamie Northrop from Alexander’s Live, a brilliant small venue in Chester. He has been working his socks off just to keep afloat during the pandemic. In common with everybody else, as hon. Members will know from their constituents, the hospitality sector and the pubs have been doing everything asked of them to meet restrictions and just try to keep afloat, but often that has not happened. Jamie talked to me about the Music Venue Trust’s six-point plan for support, which includes measures to:
“Extend the moratorium on Commercial eviction”
and:
“Cancel the introduction of Business Rates from 1 July”.
He points out that the delivery of three of the measures in the plan is in the Government’s direct control. I urge Ministers to look very carefully at that.
It is all well and good asking, advising and cajoling, but if we are to extend the restrictions there has to be support, because so many businesses will have planned for the relaxation that will not now take place. We need to give them the extra support to get over that final hurdle. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) talked about the “zombie” sectors that are alive, but not quite alive—a fantastic phrase that absolutely pins the problem down.
Other sectors will not be able to pick up straight away because by their nature they face a time lag. They include aviation, travel and tourism, and aerospace; I chair the all-party parliamentary group on aerospace. There has to be consideration for longer-term support for them, because they will not be able to pick up straight away.
My final point is that Cheshire west and Chester does not seem to be getting enough physical supplies or doses of the vaccine, compared with other areas. Could the Minister please look at that? We do not seem to be getting our fair share.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I refer the House to the declarations that I have made relating to the Covid Recovery Group.
No one can deny the brilliance of the Government’s—the NHS’s—vaccination programme. By mid-April, the over-50s and the vulnerable had had their first vaccination, and overwhelmingly they have now had their second. That is reflected in the Office for National Statistics antibody data, which shows extraordinary levels for anyone over 50. Antibodies are there in that population, which is vulnerable to the disease.
That brings me to the best case that the Government could make for the regulations before the House, which is that the ability of the NHS to provide other healthcare could be compromised by admissions from a younger population, because a small percentage of a big number is still a big number. But the huge problem with that is that it concedes the point that our liberties can be used to manage the capacity of the NHS. I cannot concede that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) said, that is not the way in which we should be going as a society. If the restrictions that we are extending had been proposed for that purpose in the past, we would never have accepted them.
In Wycombe, people have of course been dutifully washing their hands, covering their faces and keeping social distancing rules, yet early in this pandemic, I remember one dear, sweet, older lady was beside herself with anxiety at the thought of having to go about her ordinary life with her face covered, and look at us now, taking it for granted. This is not normal. This is the dystopia that I stood here and forecast on the day we went into lockdown.
Thousands of pubs, restaurants and theatres have struggled by—if open at all, then hardly breaking even. We have been told by UKHospitality that they are still making a loss. The truth is that the Government do not have a systematic way of showing us the cost-benefit of the measures that they propose. One of my colleagues earlier mentioned Professor Paul Dolan. I have done a lot of work with him and I will write to Ministers with a paper from him. He shows how to look at not just the splash of policy, but the ripples. We really need to get this sorted out and embedded in a new public health Act, together with reform to modelling and some changes to expert advice, which I raised in an intervention.
One of the most important things that we have learned from Mr Cummings’ leaked WhatsApp messages is that it seems that the Government have been significantly influenced by polling. I fear we have had a real doom loop here between polling and policy making, which has driven us into a disastrous position. We now must not tolerate lockdowns being perpetually on the table. We must not tolerate a situation going on where we and the police are unclear about what the law is and how it should be applied. Imagine that you can hug but not dance—what madness is this? We cannot tolerate a situation any more in which a Government social scientist told the author of the book “A State of Fear” that the Government had used unethical techniques of behavioural science to deliver a policy which he said, in his own words, “smacks of totalitarianism”.
We have transformed this society for the worst. We have it put in place a culture and habits that will take years to shake off and that distance people from one another and diminish their quality of life and the quality of relationships that they have with one another. High streets are in danger of becoming haunted alleyways. We are in danger of hollowing out and destroying the entertainment industry—much of what makes life worth living. Today’s vote will go through—it is a foregone conclusion—but as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) implied, if the Conservative party does not stand for freedom under the rule of law, in my view, it stands for nothing. We have got to have a turning point. We have got to recapture a spirit of freedom.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It feels a little like groundhog day—another month, another debate on covid regulations—yet we really should not be here having this debate today. For people and businesses up and down the country, this four-week delay to fully restoring our freedoms is a huge and very costly blow, yet the sacrifices that continue to be demanded of the British people are not being coupled with the support that they need to do the right thing. That is why Liberal Democrats will not be voting with the Government tonight on the public health provisions. While we support the motion on continuing the hybrid proceedings in this place, I gently ask the Minister why the Government think we as Parliament need to continue meeting in a hybrid way whereas councils up and down the country have been forced to meet in person, often at great cost when they are already under huge pressure.
As my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have been saying for the past six months, the way to restore our freedoms must be three-pronged: vaccination; test, trace and isolate; and robust border controls. The point has already been made countless times that the reason we are here is that Ministers undoubtedly failed completely on the last of those three points by putting India on the red list far too late, for political reasons, allowing the delta variant to be seeded into the community. Even once the Secretary of State recognised it as a variant of concern, we know there was a 17-day delay in designating it as such, which meant that surge testing commenced far too late. That cannot happen again.
The situation we find ourselves in was avoidable. Ministers must take full responsibility for having to delay the lifting of restrictions next week, and part of that responsibility is to support people to do the right thing. With businesses on their knees, jobs are at risk and many of the self-employed have yet to get a penny of support. The hospitality, events, weddings, culture, tourism and travel industries are on their knees. Even after domestic restrictions are lifted, we know that the travel sector will have to continue to bear the brunt of restrictions, given that the biggest threat to our full reopening in the UK will be variants brought back in through international travel, so the complete lack of a bespoke package of support for those industries beggars belief.
If we want to restore our freedoms fully next month, as the Prime Minister has promised us, and allow our economy to thrive again, it will be critical to test every potential case, trace every contact and support self-isolation. Experts have been calling for better financial and practical support for the past year, and finally the penny dropped earlier this month for the former head of Test and Trace that supported self-isolation was the missing piece. Even so, there has still been no comprehensive package announced to pay people their wages to self-isolate, provide accommodation if necessary and support those with caring responsibilities. That is the way to break chains of transmission and stop new outbreaks in their tracks, and it is an awful lot cheaper than blanket restrictions.
Learning to live with this virus, as I believe we absolutely must, requires a proper strategy and an action plan—not hoping for a fair wind. It means bringing together the UK’s world-leading genomic sequencing capability with traditional public health test and trace at a local level, coupled with the right support. Our public health directors up and down the country are crying out for that. They will continue to be our frontline in managing this virus as we learn to live with covid. Let us give them the tools they need and not be back here again in a month’s time asking for a further delay—or, worse still, be asked to reintroduce restrictions months down the line.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Dame Andrea Leadsom—congratulations on your well-deserved recognition in the Queen’s birthday honours list.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Is it not wonderful to see so many colleagues in the Chamber having a proper debate? It is really interesting to hear what colleagues have to say. I have to add my own deep concern about any restrictions on people’s liberty. Frankly, if we were not already in step 3 of lockdown, I cannot imagine that with the current data, anyone in this place would today vote for four weeks of restrictions on businesses, on weddings, on church congregations and, yes, on young people’s end of school year celebrations. Nevertheless, I am going to disappoint some colleagues in this place by saying that I will, with a very heavy heart, support the Government, trusting that the Government are determined—as we have been assured by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health—that, if possible, those restrictions will be lifted after two weeks and not four. I urge them to do that.
I want to use these short remarks to raise a few specific questions on behalf of my constituency and others. First, many businesses in the hospitality sector are open but unable to make a profit because of the social distancing rules. Can those rules be relaxed a bit in these last few weeks? Surely we can do that.
Secondly, many employers in hospitality and other sectors are now desperately trying to recruit staff through jobcentres, yet I am told by businesses in my patch that many people are not responding to offers of interviews. I do not know whether colleagues are also finding that, but businesses in my area are concerned that the long period of enforced lockdown and enforced inactivity is leading to an issue of motivation. Sometimes it is just easier to stay at home rather than getting back out there again. What are we going to do? Many colleagues have talked about the success of frightening people into staying home. Surely we are going to need something to help people feel motivated and want to get back out there to work, to get our economy going again and to help themselves to recover from this difficult period.
Thirdly, my constituency is home to Silverstone and the British grand prix, which is due to take place from 16 to 19 July. Can my hon. Friend the Minister assure me that this iconic, world-famous event—surely, one of the best of British—can go ahead with a capacity crowd, albeit subject to covid testing?
Fourthly, I am pleased that the Government have listened to wedding businesses and the many couples who are looking to tie the knot, and have agreed to let weddings of any size go ahead, subject to social distancing. As colleagues have said and as my hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate, for many couples, if they can hug but not dance, if they cannot have a band and they have to socially distance, that will not be the kind of big day they wanted for themselves and their families. Will he reconsider that?
Finally, my hon. Friend will realise that school and university students are now faced, for the second year in a row, with no end-of-year celebrations. No parents’ days, no prize-givings—in other words, none of the rites of passage that mean so much to so many people. Can we look at that again in these last few weeks? It has been such a long haul. As I have said, I will reluctantly support the Government, but I do urge the Front Benchers to show more flexibility during these final few weeks so that some of the joys of summer can light up people’s lives once again.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
What a mess: a hopeless border policy, a hopeless promise of “freedom day”, and a hopeless Government left ducking for political cover. We may have grown used to it by now—yet another let down by this hopeless Government during this pandemic, which at times has seemed endless. We have been here before with the Prime Minister, yet it still hurts every time.
Businesses in Luton North that still cannot reopen are now left without any hope. Families are still separated after months and months, and young people are not able to do the fun things that young people should be doing. It is just like when the Government let us down in December. Yet again, it is all beginning to look a lot like Christmas. An offer of freedom is dangled in front of people by a gung-ho, hopeless Prime Minister, only for it to be pulled away from us at the last minute, when his bumbling and blustering gets the better of him. “We’ll turn the tide on coronavirus in three weeks”, he said, “it will all be over by Christmas…June 21st will be our Freedom Day.”
People in Luton North understand that this delay is necessary to slow the spread of the delta variant, but it is a bitter, bitter pill to swallow for those couples who have to rearrange their wedding plans, for the missed birthday celebrations, and for those with loved ones abroad who will have to wait even longer to see them. All people wanted all along from the Prime Minister was for him to be upfront and honest about the difficult situation our country is in. At times of crisis the country is not looking for a funny best mate; it is looking for a leader. Instead, we have a Prime Minister who is too scared to tell it how it is.
It did not have to be this way. Labour Members have been warning about the hopeless situation at our borders for more than a year. Last week the Health Secretary admitted to the Health and Social Care Committee that a strong border policy has to be part of planning for any future pandemics. It is time for the Government finally to get a grip on the border, and stop new and dangerous variants delaying our freedoms. They must stop over-promising and under-delivering.
Let me finish by returning to that word: hopeless. We now know that the hopeless Prime Minister thinks he has a hopeless Health Secretary. It is now obvious that at points in this pandemic when people were getting sick, families were losing loved ones and businesses were going to the wall, this hopeless Health Secretary, the hopeless Chancellor, and the hopeless Prime Minister were more focused on playing politics in Downing Street, and struggling to contain all those egos in one room, than they were on the priorities of people in Luton North and across the country.
When doctors and nurses were on covid wards in bin bags because there was not enough PPE, and when families had to have Christmases, Eids, and new years separated from the people they love, or when they were grieving the loss of loved ones, Downing Street was in chaos and the Prime Minister was not focused on them. Instead, he was focused on slating the Health Secretary on WhatsApp. I expect that from squabbling teenagers, not from supposed leaders. People in Luton North and across the country deserve better than that. For this to be the final delay on our road back to freedom, the Government must finally get a grip on themselves and on this virus. The British public have done their bit, but this hopeless Government have been found wanting again.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
May I join you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) on her well-deserved honour? She is a marvellous example of a Dame, and I am pleased to call her my right hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend and I know that the art of government, and the art of being a Minister, is balance. It is about taking conflicting lobby and interest groups, analysing and assessing them, and working out what is the right decision to take in the interests of the country. That includes money that the Government can spend—it is taxpayers’ money, not our money—but it also includes where the resources of the Government must go. It is a difficult job. Competing interests come to explain why their interest is the one that matters; they are not interested in whether someone else’s interests will be affected by their interest. Actually, Ministers are probably doing quite a good job if nobody is terribly happy, because it probably means that they are catering to all interests a little.
I have had a fear throughout the whole sorry saga of the pandemic. I pay tribute to the work that Ministers have done. They have done an incredible amount of work and acted in the best interests of the country, but “follow the science” has become the mantra and sometimes simply following the science is not enough, because the science is looking for one outcome and one single thing. It is really reassuring to have heard Ministers over the past few days say that we will have to accept that this is an endemic virus and learn to live with it, because there was a time when all we heard is that we would eliminate it, which we simply cannot do.
I ask that Ministers think very hard about not just the science but the interests of people. We have been told for so long that we must do just essential activities. For a long time that was merely sleep, eat, drink and possibly go out for an hour for exercise. Well, life is more than that. Life is so much more than the essentials. Life is those weddings, with dancing and greeting loved ones. Life is being able to see loved ones in hospital when they are sick, something that we have been unable to do throughout covid. Life is about attending the British grand prix and many other occasions. Life is about the joy that we can get from such occasions and events. We are constantly being told that we cannot have that joy because it will have an impact on the science.
The Government have to start to celebrate and take advantage of the vaccine programme. We have the most successful vaccine programme in the G7—something that I am sure the Prime Minister reflected on last week. I am very proud that in the north Staffordshire clinical commissioning group, which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), we have the highest level of vaccinations anywhere in the country. We need to start to reap the benefits of that vaccine programme.
With a heavy heart, I say to the Minister that I cannot support the Government this evening, because I cannot find a way to explain to my constituents why the things that they are looking forward to getting back to doing have to wait. I understand how it will have been put to the Minister—“If you do not do this, Minister, it will cost lives”—but we have to accept that we cannot save every life. I might have been persuaded if the Government were able to support businesses that are unable to open, but that support is simply not there for the weddings industry, the hospitality sector and nightclubs. With a heavy heart, I will not be able to support the Government, although I will on procedural matters.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Like the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) I will not support the Government this evening, but it will not be with a heavy heart; it will be because I have a real conviction that what is being done and the approach that the Government have taken on this issue is wrong. We have heard again today, as we heard yesterday from the Prime Minister, that the very basis of pushing and promoting the policy is to instil fear into the hearts of people across the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister yesterday said that we have to delay because the new variant could kill people in ways that we cannot foresee, or do not understand. It is the same old message: “If you do not obey the restrictions, you are in danger—either of dying yourself or of your relatives dying. You can’t put your nose out the door. You can’t do the things you want to do in normal life, because there’s a real danger you’ll die.” Of course, the statistics show that of those who contract coronavirus a very small proportion, less than 0.3%, actually die. Even the World Health Organisation has said that many of those deaths may not even be attributable to coronavirus anyway. If someone has been tested for coronavirus 28 days before they die in a car accident they still qualify as a coronavirus death. So the statistics themselves have even been used in a way to try to reinforce the message of fear.
I wish to make two points today. The first is that if we follow the logic of what we have heard from the Minister and the Prime Minister in the past two days, we will never get away from the restrictions we are living with at present, because the Minister has admitted that we will have to live with coronavirus, and we know that it will mutate, so we will get different versions of it. If we get different versions, we will be told, “This version is different from the last version. It is more dangerous. It is more contagious. It leads to more deaths. It leads to higher infection rates.” And so on and so on. We will be told that there is therefore a justification for keeping the restrictions in place.
Indeed, we heard from the Minister today not only about the current restrictions; we know that we are going to have further restrictions in the future. Those who work in the care sector are going to be forced to have a vaccination. He did not answer the question, but I assume that people visiting anybody in a hospital or care home are going to have to prove they have had a vaccination. Are peripheral workers going to have to have the vaccination? We can see already that the Government are thinking that people have accepted these restrictions and there will be other things in the future that are going to be forced on them.
Let me come to my second point. The Minister said he was going to follow the data, so let me tell him about some data: unemployment in my constituency has gone up by more than 100% as a result of restrictions. Businesses are going under. Between now and “terminus day” many people will find their employment terminated, their business terminated, their livelihoods terminated, and for those reasons, I will not be voting for these restrictions.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Throughout, this process has been heartbreaking, debilitating and wearing, so to be here again talking about a further four-week extension is the worst possible outcome for so many of us—it is so, so disheartening. However, I say that knowing that I will be supporting the Government tonight. Unfortunately, my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) is no longer in his place, but he made an eloquent speech talking about why he could not support these measures on the grounds of civil liberties and I wanted to remind him that about a quarter of his seat is in the city of Salford, where I was a councillor for a while. The city’s motto is, “Salus populi suprema lex” or, “The welfare of the people is the highest law”. The infection rates in Greater Manchester are some of the highest in the entire country, with Manchester and Salford having the highest rates. His seat straddles those areas, so he cannot say that he is putting the welfare of the people in his constituency at the highest level.
I wish to turn to something that was brought up by the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) when she was talking about getting the politics out of this issue. I completely agree with that, which is why it was so frustrating yesterday that in the Manchester Evening News the lead member for health in Rochdale Borough Council was dismissing the vaccination programme as a gimmick and a slogan, and was hinting that the Government were withholding vaccines from certain areas. Anybody with the slightest idea about how logistics work knows that the programme is rate-limited purely by supply. I say to Members: we have four weeks to nail this down. We cannot have another extension. We cannot keep going through this process. We are going to have to work together. We are going to have stop sniping at each other and trying to make little jibes to score a little point here or there. There are people who are depending on us to do the right thing now.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
This extension is, sadly, necessary, so I will vote for it. However, once again, this Government’s failures have meant that longer restrictions have become necessary, just as there has been more economic harm and more human suffering than should have been necessary. Time after time, the Government have got it wrong. Let us think back to last summer, when we had very low case levels. The experts said it was a chance to crush the virus, but the Government did the opposite and cases spiralled out of control. In the autumn, as cases rose again, the Government locked down far too late and released far too early, leading to tens of thousands of avoidable deaths. When warned about the risk posed by new variants, the Government refused to close the border, all because the Prime Minister wanted to go to India to pose with Prime Minister Modi.
The Government claim that only hindsight can spot this pattern, but that is simply not true. The Government were warned time and again. They ignored the warnings. In the words seemingly put into writing by the Prime Minister, it has been effing useless, but it is not funny—it is not a joke. So many people have lost their lives and it is now necessary to elongate the misery further because of the Government’s unnecessary failures.
The Government are now saying that we should, and I quote, “live with it”. I do not agree. We should be suppressing the virus. That does not mean more lockdowns. To tackle this virus, the Government should finally put in place the basic public health measures they have refused from day one. Alongside the vaccine, we need decent sick pay for people who need help to isolate. We need to kick out the profiteers from test and trace. We need to invest properly in local health teams to do effective tracing. The failure to sort out these public health measures has led to more than 100,000 needless deaths. It has prolonged economic suffering, and it has prolonged the curtailment of our lives.
If we do not suppress the virus now through test, trace, isolate and support, we risk hundreds of thousands more cases and many thousands more hospitalisations, with huge pressure on our national health service. Many more will suffer from long covid—400,000 already are. It creates conditions for new variants, perhaps even those invulnerable to the vaccine.
I call on the Government today to finally sort out sick pay at real living wage levels. Government Ministers claim—this is very interesting—that the reason they refuse to properly financially support people to isolate when they have covid is that they believe that people would abuse the system. It is no wonder, given how they behave, that they think so little of other people. Just because the Tory party is gaming the system to help its super-rich donors with covid contracts, it does not mean that working people should stoop to their level, and working people would not stoop to their level. The Government’s failure to support people with covid is a moral outrage, and it is creating a public health crisis of which this Government should be ashamed. I am voting for the extension tonight because it is necessary, but without Government failure it would not have needed to happen.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I am afraid that the previous speaker will be very disappointed, because we are going to have to live with covid, like we have to learn to live with every other infectious disease that exists in the world. Yes, we have tried to suppress it. Yes, we tried to deal with it, but we will have to learn to live with it. Viruses, the hon. Member may be surprised to know, have been around for 400 million years—a lot longer than us. Guess which one is winning the Darwinian race.
When we do have to make decisions, I think one thing is very clear. Up to this point, the aims of the medical profession and the Government’s advisers and the aims of the Government have been broadly similar, but they will have to diverge at some point, because the medical profession will always want to see the rate of infection brought down to the smallest level possible at whatever cost, but the Government have different considerations. The Government need to ensure that the rest of the health service is able to operate properly, that the economy is moving and that the social and wellbeing aspects of the population are looked after. That is why the aims are different.
While I am at it, on a private note, I am sick to death of the Government’s so-called advisers coming on TV and giving their individual views, rather than giving advice to the Government on a confidential basis. If they want to be stars of Sky News, let them leave SAGE and carve their own path.
On what basis will we decide when we have this divergence? The first thing to say is that the variant will not be a reason for keeping lockdown. The variant may be more transmissible, but that is irrelevant if it is not causing more hospitalisations or more deaths. We have already heard from Public Health England that the two vaccines—Pfizer and AstraZeneca—can cope as well as with the new Indian variant as they can with the Kent variant. We do not need to hear about the variant argument, because I do not think it holds water.
What matters is who is being hospitalised, and where. Are the hospitalisations young people who have not yet had the vaccine, who may be at risk because of the increased transmissibility of the new variant, or is it people, as we have seen in some parts of the country, who have been offered the vaccine, but for one reason or another have chosen not to get it? We cannot have the country being held to ransom by any groups who have been offered a vaccine but have chosen not to take it; that is utterly unacceptable.
It seems to me that the essence of the Government’s case—if the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), wants to, he can intervene to confirm it—is this: the Government’s strategy was based on a single vaccine strategy, in the belief that, if enough people got it, the efficacy would be high enough that we could unlock at that point. However, the evidence published by Public Health England yesterday showed that the Pfizer vaccine is 94% effective against hospitalisation after one dose, but that AstraZeneca is only 71% after one dose and takes the second dose to get up to 92%.
It seems to me that the Government are telling us— I wish they would be clear about this—that they need a little more time to get people, especially those on AstraZeneca, to the second dose so that there is the level of protection against hospitalisation that we see with the Pfizer vaccine. If the Government presented their case in that way, it would be an awful lot easier for the rest of us to give the Government our support, because that would be a clear rationale.
We also need a clear assurance that the two-week review point is not a ploy to buy support in the House of Commons, but a genuine review of the data, whereby we will see within a couple of weeks whether the hospitalisation rate is increasing or not. If the Government give us a clear assurance that the two-week point is a real review and that we can achieve the full relief of the lockdown at that point, the Minister might be able to buy a little support from his own Benches this evening.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba) [V]
It feels like we have entered yet another episode of “Hancock’s Half Hour”, but unfortunately it is laughable for all the wrong reasons.
The first motion under debate today is indirectly relevant to Scotland and to my Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency. Without independence, Scotland will continue to suffer the consequences of the UK Government’s hapless leadership on covid. Travel agencies in my constituency have another month of pouring money down the drain and another month with no tangible support from the Government. The first motion is England only, so Alba Members will abstain on that principle, but to those who have suffered loss of life and bereavement, the Government’s response of repetitious, braggadocious claims at every juncture must be disheartening. It is more indicative, as I said earlier today, of a Del Boy Britain: “Everything will be fine because we’re British.” But it is precisely why we find ourselves in this position.
This Government have put political priorities over public safety. There was a lack of action on border control at the start of pandemic and with the identification of the delta variant. They have allowed new variants to enter and seed, and the weekend’s failure by the UK Prime Minister to lead the G7 to invest in vaccines and cash in line with the World Health Organisation’s identified need is absolutely unforgivable.
There has been an unwillingness to listen, to learn and to respond; chaotic messaging; and the abandonment of testing in March 2020, instead of using that nadir of the pandemic to expand testing. The Secretary of State has continued with his overconfidence in in-the-field lateral flow test devices, and the chaotic education policy has only made things worse. There are continued huge gaps in support, driving poverty and disadvantage in the face of repeated warnings. These are not just my concerns; many have been raised in the prestigious British Medical Journal.
Not every misstep can be mitigated by the effective work of Kate Bingham’s vaccines taskforce. Recently, the Secretary of State supported my calls for surveillance across a range of indicators to beat the virus, but vaccines are not foolproof.
The G7 chair opportunity was an unforgivable moral failure. Vaccines, cash, but also robust international surveillance, are urgently required. The Government’s growing propensity to ignore scrutiny of Parliament is absolutely staggering, and now the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) derides scrutiny of experts in the media. It has been never clearer than with their vote-dodging reduction in overseas aid and that will not be forgiven.
This is a global and dynamic challenge. The completely inadequate response from the G7 summit risks the development of ever more virulent variants. In the light of that failure in leadership from the Prime Minister, can we get some straight answers—probably not? What action is the Secretary of State taking to secure our public health by working to meet those WHO targets for vaccines, cash and surveillance? Any return to normality will happen only when we are all safe.
Dr Fox
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Would it be possible for you to convey to Mr Speaker that, while we are still operating under the restrictions that we have in Parliament, we need to try to find ways to intervene on contributions that are being made on video? Otherwise, we are unable to challenge the views of the Scottish nationalists, who claim that the problems that they suffer from in the covid pandemic are a result of the United Kingdom Government’s actions, when they themselves have the same powers to deal with them in Scotland, had they chosen to do so differently, but they have not.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I will make absolutely certain that the right hon. Member’s request is presented to Mr Speaker and I am sure that he will respond in his usual fashion.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
The pandemic has been a massive challenge to the British Government. I happen to think that, given the uncertainties that they have faced, the Prime Minister and senior Ministers have done a pretty good job. In terms of the vaccination programme, they have certainly proved to the world that Britain can go alone and do a lot to safeguard its population when it uses its science and its ability to get things done.
When the road map was unveiled, I thought to myself, “At least that stops me voting against the Government again”— until we get to the point when the Government have delayed opening up. I do think that this is a matter of balance and judgment. My view is that most of the senior Ministers who took this decision need a damn good holiday. If we look at the data and at what is happening in the country, the restrictions are totally out of kilter with the sense of the problem.
Let me take the south-west of England. There are 5.6 million people in the south-west of England.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Sir Robert, can you please face the Chair? Your voice is not being picked up by the microphone and Hansard cannot hear you.
Sir Robert Syms
There are 5.6 million people in the south-west of England. There are 23 people in hospital. There are two in ICU. In Dorset, where there are nearly 1 million people, we have one person in hospital. Yet there are hundreds of couples who want to get married, businesses that want to be viable, and people who want to get their lives back in order. I just think that the balance is wrong. Most of the population have now been vaccinated. We may not totally break the link with people going into hospital, but there are more than 100,000 beds in the NHS. One per cent. are taken by covid patients. Now it might go up to 2%. We already have experts on TV saying, “In order for the NHS to catch up, we may well have to keep restrictions for longer.” I think that is unacceptable to the British people. As a Conservative, I am perfectly willing to accept restrictions when hundreds and thousands of people are dying and we are dealing with a virus that we do not understand, but we have sort of got to the point where we have won the battle. There will be variants. There will be challenges, but we have to get on with normal life.
The points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) are perfectly right. If it is simply that we need to get second doses in—if that had been explained—we might be a little more relaxed. If we look at the explanatory notes, though, we will see that we have a review of data in two or four weeks’ time, and not necessarily a release date. We need to get people’s freedoms back. We cannot save everybody, but what we have done is save thousands and thousands of lives. Now we need to safeguard employment, safeguard businesses and safeguard people’s personal relationships.
I began by saying that the Government have done a pretty good job and that the vaccine programme is outstanding, but we have to now take the dividend from that to get people back to normal life. When they queued up with their enthusiasm to get that jab in their arm, they thought that that meant that things would get back to normal. They did not expect that they would be in further restrictions which would go on and on and on. I think we should have lifted all restrictions on 21 June. I hope and I pray that, in two weeks’ time, the Government will look at the data again and set people free.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]
Like many areas with some of the highest infection rates during this pandemic, my constituency of Stockport has been in a lockdown of some form for more than a year, along with the vast majority of Greater Manchester. Although the people of Stockport have worked tirelessly to keep our community safe, they have been repeatedly let down by the Government. As a result, thousands of workers risk losing their jobs as businesses struggle to survive, with insufficient financial support packages and an endless cycle of lockdowns and restrictions that has pushed our high streets to breaking point.
I want to hear the Minister tell the House why, 15 months into this pandemic, the Government have failed to take any meaningful action to help businesses, schools and leisure facilities improve ventilation, when we have long known that covid is an airborne virus. He will no doubt tell me that the Treasury has spent billions on furlough payments and support schemes, but businesses know the reality—namely, that measures such as furlough payments are little more than a drop in the ocean when it comes to their bottom line and ability to plan for the long term in order to survive this pandemic. Far more needs to be done if we are to avoid our economy nosediving and millions of people across the UK ending up unemployed. I have heard today that the Government have also repeatedly failed my constituents, and millions of others around the country, on the issue of healthcare. Indeed, we have already heard what the Prime Minister really thinks of the Health Secretary—perhaps it will be the only time in the House that I admit to agreeing with him.
We are witnessing a crisis in our healthcare system, and the Government cannot simply blame the pandemic. Indeed, in the months before the covid crisis began, a source at Stepping Hill Hospital in my town told the Manchester Evening News that patients were “stuck outside in ambulances” and that:
“Every corridor is full of patients on trolleys.”
Many were forced to wait up to 24 hours to be seen for treatment. That is not the fault of NHS workers, who have performed heroically throughout this pandemic. The blame must be laid squarely at the Government’s door, following a decade of chronic underfunding of our health service.
The latest set of official NHS figures has revealed that record numbers of people are on hospital waiting lists across Greater Manchester. Stockport clinical commissioning group, which covers my constituency, has more than 37,000 people waiting for vital hospital treatment. That is the highest level in the region, which is completely unacceptable, and it is compounded by the fact that most people have to wait at least 18 weeks for treatment.
My constituents are not alone. Across the country, more than 5 million people are now waiting for routine treatment such as hip and knee operations, which is the highest level on record. Covid is of course a factor, but the reality is that this crisis has followed years of chronic underfunding by this Conservative Government, and we are now unfortunately having to reap what they have sown. A further contributory factor to the rising number of infections is the scandalous lack of sick pay for workers who are forced to self-isolate, who feel unwell or who take time off to look after loved ones who are ill. They are being punished for following Government guidance, and in many cases they are left with no alternative but to continue to work while potentially infectious due to the lack of available support.
A Unison North West survey recently revealed that 80% of care workers will continue to receive just £95 per week as statutory sick pay if they are ill or following the Government’s advice to self-isolate or shield themselves or loved ones. The right thing to do would be to give them full pay. Does the Minister accept that his Government’s failure to introduce proper financial support for people to self-isolate, and proper sick pay, has contributed to our failure to keep on top of the delta variant and has led to the delay in lifting lockdown restrictions?
As the Prime Minister’s former senior adviser recently said:
“Fundamentally, there was no proper border policy, because the Prime Minister never wanted a proper border policy.”
Our workers, businesses and most vulnerable in society are now paying the price for this wanton disregard for our nation’s health.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I do not think anyone envies the tasks and decisions that this Government and this Prime Minister have to make. We have a vaccination programme that is the envy of much of the world, with 30 million adults now having had two jabs, which offer 90%-plus protection against hospitalisation from the delta variant. We also have a road map that is clear and is linked to the success of that same vaccination programme, but against that backdrop, we are being asked to approve a further delay today.
I spoke to local health leaders in Cumbria and in Barrow and Furness over the past few days, and the message from them was clear: they support this delay. Our director of public health was stark: because we are trying to cover and backfill 5 million people on an NHS waiting list, even a small fraction of covid-19 patients going into hospital risks the NHS being overwhelmed. On that basis, and on the basis of the rationale advanced by the Secretary of State, I support these measures as one final push—one last heave—before we return our freedoms.
However, we need to be absolutely clear about what this delay means. It extends impositions on our liberty, our livelihoods, people’s health and the future of young people. While the state has a duty to protect its citizens, our objective cannot be zero deaths. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) so eloquently wrote this week—I apologise for bastardising her words—“We don’t live to avoid death; we live to enjoy life,” and it has to be on that basis that we make the final judgment to unlock next month.
Mr Steve Baker
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, and it is a good argument for voting for these restrictions, of course it is, but has he considered the possibility that, very sadly, the NHS will now be under pressure for years, dealing with the backlog?
Simon Fell
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am making the judgment based on my local knowledge and that of my director of public health, but we all have to make that decision in this place today.
We cannot afford for schools to close again, for young people to miss any more of their lives, or for any of our businesses to close as a result of further impositions, so it has to be one more heave, to protect more people, and then we have to accept that, in the face of a virus that we are not going to get rid of, and which will continue to mutate and challenge us while we are on this Earth, we must vaccinate as many people as possible and then give people back their freedom.
There is a more fundamental issue at play here—public acceptance. We made a delicate compact with people over the last year. We restricted their liberties to keep them safe, and already we are seeing compliance with that law beginning to fray. We must accept that people expected their liberty to return as vaccinations were rolled out, but as we vaccinate more, acceptance of that compromise falls. If we cannot maintain that compact, our response to it has to change.
So I hope and expect that after this final surge of vaccinations, we will return on 19 July to a society where people are able to make their own choices. It is easy to sloganise about freedom. I, for one, am deeply uncomfortable about living in a country where we dictate to newly married couples whether they can cut their wedding cake or not.
I believe that this Government have acted honourably and with good intentions throughout this horrible pandemic, so I am giving them my support tonight for one last heave to finish the job, and then we must return all of our freedoms on 19 July.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could help me in regard to social distancing. There is not a single Labour Member on the Opposition Benches. There are no SNP; there are no Liberal Democrats; there are no Plaid Cymru. Of course there are the DUP. Would it be appropriate, because the Conservative Benches are packed, for half of us to move over to the other side of the House to improve social distancing?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I think, Peter Bone, if you look around, even on the Conservative Benches there are a few green ticks, so please stay where you are. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would be very happy for the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) to come over here and join us on our side if he wishes to do so. I know that we are together in many things anyway.
I believe that we have to live with covid-19. Just as I get a flu jab every September or October because I am a diabetic and that is the way it is, in the same way we will get a covid-19 jab come that time as well. It has been a long, hard road to recovery and I want to place on the record very clearly my thanks to the Government, and to the Health Minister Matt Hancock, and to the Northern Ireland Health Minister Robin Swann, for all that they have done to keep us safe over this period of time. It is important to put that on the record.
I understand that weddings are an issue for many; they certainly are for me, and for my constituents in the hospitality sector. Wedding attendance is calculated based on the risk assessment of the said venue. Self-distancing is absolutely critical to making that happen. So many wedding venues can accommodate extra numbers because of their scope for self-distancing. Weddings are the most significant day for couples and there is nothing more heartwarming than seeing one’s guests smile with joy. Self-distancing has made that happen.
May I make a plea to the Minister for churches? I do that because I am a regular church attender, but also for everybody else who attends church or would like to do so. We know that we must self-distance and wear a mask in church, and we understand that. However, are we getting to the stage where we can attend church and do not have to wear a mask, while adhering to social distancing? When we go to a restaurant, we do not have to wear a mask, and perhaps the same rules should apply for churches. I request easement for weddings in churches as well. I understand that not every church has the capacity for self-distancing to have a wedding, but there are many that would, and I believe there is a way forward to do that.
Tourism is a crucial sector for our economy where the restrictions are blurred and many are left confused. I again request the Government to address the issue of tests and passenger location forms discouraging people from booking holidays, not to mention the fact that Portugal was taken off the green list. I do not say that as a criticism, but just to make the point that perhaps we need more clarity in relation to that. The focus needs to be on making travel more accessible and efficient to encourage those who travel, even if it is within the United Kingdom.
A constituent of mine recently left for work in the EU, where he was charged £85 for a PCR test, not to mention the test requirements when he comes home. Is it possible to review this approach to allow the lateral flow tests that are acceptable in our schools to be acceptable for travellers? This would instil more efficient travel where travellers can save money and travel with less hassle. I also make a plea for tour operators and buses. We know all the problems with buses. People cannot self-distance on a bus and so these services cannot be viable. If we are going to have this for another few weeks, as we are, can we make sure that those businesses are protected and that jobs are secured?
Live music is crucial to many aspects of life for us personally but also for venues, for the hospitality sector, for weddings and for concerts. I appreciate that there is always a risk in singing. When I sing, the rain usually comes on. The Bible says, “Sing, make a joyful noise”. When I make a joyful noise, it is never melodious but it is always joyful. It is always loud as well. I would love to able to sing in church again, but it is not happening and it is not likely to happen in the near future. I understand that for those who are involved in this, there is a real need to have it.
I make the plea that as we move forward together over the next four weeks, we can ensure that these businesses can be protected and have the support that is needed through the furlough. I understand that the vaccine roll-out is a part of any moving forward, and I support that. I welcome younger people getting the vaccine. To me, this signals being able to move forward safely, which is what we need to do.
I fully appreciate that the Prime Minister and the Government are being careful and cautious, and I support that. To use a saying that we often use in Northern Ireland, it is better to be safe than sorry, and it is better to be safe than sorry today. I will support the Government in both votes on what they are putting forward because I believe that it is right: we can do this for another four weeks and that will be the end of it. As there are more people with the vaccine, confidence will be restored, and if confidence is restored, then we must all be in a better place. I know that is not the opinion of some, but it is certainly my opinion and that of others in my party as well. I want to ensure that the Government are supported and I will support them tonight.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I want to discuss two sides of the science—science as the liberator and science as the captor. We have seen through this process that new vaccines have been created using messenger RNA of a completely new type that will, I am sure, serve us well globally into the future. We have rapidly created them, tested them and rolled them out, and that is all to the good. We have repurposed existing drugs such as the very cheap steroid, dexamethasone. We have used antivirals that were used before, remdesivir being just one, and we have discovered new treatments such as monoclonal antibodies. We have created a testing regime that enables us to rapidly test vast numbers of the population for their covid status.
These were the new tools that I had hoped would prove science as the liberator, and the results are extremely good. Let us look at those facts again. We have heard them many times, but I think they are worth putting on record once more. With just one dose of any of these vaccines, protection is good. With two doses, it is truly exceptional at over 90% protection against hospitalisation. Even those who do find themselves in hospital after vaccination are generally not finding themselves dreadfully unwell. We have seen hospitalisations reduced. We have less than 1,000 people in hospital, or 1,000 or thereabouts, which is just 1% of NHS capacity.
I am sure Ministers would respond to that by saying that this is the way they want to keep it, but I am afraid that argument will never end. We have a death rate of about 10 deaths per day out of a background death rate in the country of 1,100 per day, which is currently under the usual average. However, let us look at those 10 deaths per day within 28 days of a positive covid test. They are husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, parents and friends. Each is a tragedy, each is a family loss and each is a dreadful event. But surely with such low levels we should now be provided with the data as to why: what were the deeper underlying reasons behind those deaths? I certainly hope that Ministers have been provided with that information. There is a world of difference, and a difference of interpretation that this place would make, between the death of a young, fit person and that of somebody with comorbidities, perhaps in a hospice with life-threatening conditions.
Let us examine science as the captor. Our ability to sequence the genome is incredible. The UK is a world leader. Hundreds of variants have been discovered, and doubtless once the delta variant has passed through, just as the alpha Kent variant has been and gone, we will discover more. Will it be a Californian one, a Buenos Aires one, or the epsilon or the zeta? I am sure we will simply run out of Greek alphabet over the coming months. However, each one causes hysteria, and the media go berserk. With the scientists, it is like having the decorator in your house: you get sucking of teeth and shaking of head, and you know there is bad news around the corner. We have seen the modelling. The five key modellers have come up with a road map, published in February, which the Government understood, and it led to the road map we are on, but every one of our figures are better than that, and that makes this statutory instrument so unintelligible.
I would rather trust the people. What if we were to go for freedom on 21 June? What would I do, because I think I am pretty normal? Would I be throwing away my mask in the supermarket? I very much doubt it. I carry sterilising gel in my pocket, and I can say to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that more alcohol goes through my hands on a daily basis than on a night out with George Best and Oliver Reed. Would that stop? No, it will not. The public outside this bubble have already moved on. They have broadly given up on these pettifogging rules. We should trust the public, and I will not be supporting the Government this evening.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
The Government assert that they do not have a zero covid policy or a zero covid strategy. If I accept that that is the case, it does seem as though it is a 0.1 covid strategy: it is almost zero, but not quite. At the same time, the Government accept that the disease is endemic. This is a very curious position, in which it is endemic, but the Government are still trying to get the disease as close to zero as possible. I would suggest that that requires pretty robust action from the Government for the long term.
The original lockdown was to flatten the curve and protect the national health service. Even though the Nightingale hospitals were soon mothballed and then closed, that was not enough. Lockdown was then intended to enable test, track, trace and isolate to get up to speed, and it must surely be there by now, but again, that was not enough. Then it was to vaccinate the most vulnerable—the over-50s or the most frail in our society. This was when the narrative was that the first dose would provide the vast majority of the protection required—far better than the influenza jab—and the second jab, at that point, was only really to give longevity to the resistance to covid that would be required. The expectation, at that stage, was that this would cut the overwhelming majority of deaths and hospitalisations, and this is the case, but still that was not enough. Then it was to have everyone then given the second dose. That has almost been achieved, but as the Secretary of State announced a short while ago, the roll-out of vaccinations has now extended so that 21-year-olds can sign up to get them. Again, that seems not to be enough.
In Bolton, we have been through a very difficult time—there has been an amazing amount of good work and hard work from so many locally—but with this new Indian variant, or variant of concern, we have coped. The impact on our health service was far less than during the peak in January. The NHS held up, and I believe that it is quite clear now that the link between transmission, hospitalisation and death has been severed. Again, that is not enough to find our lockdown terminus.
The narrative seems to have shifted in recent weeks. It was initially about dealing with the Indian variant and seeing how risky and dangerous it was to the country. I think that the evidence available at the moment shows that we can cope with it, but the position now seems to have shifted from dealing with the Indian variant and trying to understand it to offering the first dose to every adult of 18 and over. As night follows day, that will still not be enough.
Earlier this week, the Health Secretary was to some extent downplaying the value of the first dose and promoting that of the second. Should we now anticipate a shift later in the year to every adult being offered the second dose as well? That would take us well into September and perhaps a little beyond. We can see the rolling of the pitch for child vaccinations and for compulsory vaccination of certain care workers and perhaps others.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Could my hon. Friend and Greater Manchester neighbour reflect briefly on his experience in Bolton and the declining case rates?
Chris Green
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point, Transmission in Bolton is clearly on the way down. That demonstrates the actions taken and the effect of the particular variant of concern, which had more impact in Bolton than almost anywhere else in the country. It should give reassurance to the country that we can cope without a further extension of measures that are having such an impact on so many people. For example, the waiting list of 5 million for hospital treatment would be far longer if people had better access to GPs to get those referrals.
The G7 is suggesting a global vaccine programme. Would we have to wait until that has been delivered, because until everyone is safe, no one is safe? When the Prime Minister refers to a terminus, I fear that he does not mean the end, but that he is thinking more of a bus terminus where we end one journey to start another—and that there will be another vehicle to impose another lockdown extension.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
When I have confronted these votes over the past nine months, I have done my best to look at the entire health needs and entire health case of all the nation, not just of those who have unfortunately been struck down with covid. When it came to the 10 pm curfew last year, I felt that it did not make sense from a health perspective for everyone to be leaving the pub at the same time, so I voted against, whereas when it came to the decisions towards the end of last year and into January, I could see the hospitalisation cases and the need to get the vaccine rolled out, so I supported the Government.
Where are we now? Let us look at the hospitalisation cases. We were at 35,000 covid in-patients, and clearly the NHS was struggling to cope. When academics at Imperial College modelled what a freedom day on 5 July would look like in hospitalisation numbers, it came up with a figure of 7,000; Warwick University came up with 1,750. The figure for covid in-patients is currently under 1,000—better than expected. In the combined county of Sussex, with 1.6 million residents, there are six covid in-patients, and in my own county of East Sussex there are two of the six. Interestingly, they did not present with covid or get admitted because of it; they were just tested while being admitted, found to have covid and included in the numbers. The hospitalisation numbers are looking much better, and the NHS now has resilience. What is striking to me is the number of people who are waiting to have their lives enhanced by elective treatment. In England alone, 5 million people are waiting for surgery. Over 400,000 of them have been waiting for more than a year; prior to covid, that figure was 1,600. That demonstrates the wider health impact of restrictions. Those people deserve a life, too, and they deserve to be looked after. There should not be an apartheid system when it comes to our health service.
What about the vaccine? What a great success! We should be basking in the vaccine dividend that this Government have delivered. In East Sussex as a whole, we have double dosed 85% of cohorts 1 to 9, which account for 99% of mortality. We know that the vaccine is effective against all known strains. We are there, but the difficulty is that we are not willing to confront the concept of living with covid. Ministers say that we have to live with covid, and yet we are given another month on top. The arguments that Ministers use as to why we need that extra month will still be there in a month’s time, and at that point we will have to decide where we are going to jump.
I have spoken to a very senior NHS lead, who has university-age children. He said to me—I wrote it down:
“Too many of us making decisions have forgotten what it feels like to be a 20-year-old or how miserable it is to be a 20-year-old right now.”
Those young people have made great sacrifices to help cohorts 1 to 9, and they need to see the return of their lives this summer.
Although Ministers say that just a few restrictions remain, we will not start tackling the backlog in NHS waiting times on elective surgery and we will not start tackling the mental health crisis that young people in particular are suffering, with such great detriment. We need to tell the people of this country that we have turned the corner thanks to them and thanks to this vaccine dividend, and we are now ready to accept the risk and move on. It is about everyone’s lives, not just certain lives.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). Like him, I have followed a journey of sometimes voting with the Government on these restrictions and sometimes voting against. It is unusual to be able to say that I agree with the previous speaker, because the previous speaker is nearly always from the Opposition, but, of the 51 speakers in this debate, only five are Labour Back Benchers. This is one of our most important debates. It is about the freedom and liberty of the British people.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman find rather odd not only the absence of Opposition Members, but the fact that the Government are comfortable about getting the restrictions through only because they have the support of the Labour party, and yet most Labour Members who have spoken today have condemned the Government for their actions?
Mr Bone
I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman—may I call him my right hon. Friend from across the aisle? He has, of course, been here for the whole debate.
This debate is about the liberty of the British people. We are taking away something that is our right. For instance, I am due to go to a wedding, but I cannot have a group of friends round to my house beforehand because there would be too many of us. When I get to church, I cannot sing. I cannot sing anyway, but I am not allowed to sing. Then I cannot dance at the wedding—[Interruption.] I cannot dance, either. More importantly, as the evening drags out, I cannot then go to a nightclub to boogie the night away in celebration. The following day, I cannot go for a park run to run all these problems off, so I might need to call a doctor, but I cannot go and see a doctor because they will not do face-to-face appointments. This is withdrawing our very liberty.
I am a great fan of the Prime Minister, and I think most Conservative Members are. He came to lead the Conservative party at the end of the Bercow Parliament, when Parliament was in chaos. He took us through a general election, he won a mandate, he delivered Brexit, he dealt with the awful covid pandemic and he has led the world with the vaccine programme, yet tonight, unfortunately, I cannot support him. I think every Member has to put their country first, their constituency second and their party third. On very many—indeed, most—occasions, all those three are in line, but this time I do not think the Government have made the case for putting off unlocking.
With apologies to Mark Twain, there are lies, damned lies and covid statistics, and the Government have been using an extraordinary propaganda machine to take certain statistics to try to prove their case, but if we look at other statistics, we can see that the total number of deaths at the moment is running below the five-year average. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle said that he had very few cases in his area. In Northamptonshire, thankfully, our two hospitals have zero covid patients and we have not had a death due to covid for five weeks. The Government made their own original forecasts for what would happen on 17 May when we did the major unlocking, but we have done better than their best prediction of the situation, so why have we now gone into this doom and gloom?
I have no doubt that if we were in opposition, our Benches would now be packed and there would be this blond guy, fairly chubby and a bit scruffy—well, as scruffy as me—jumping up and down and making the case for getting rid of these restrictions. I know it is a balance and I know people have to make a choice, but we, as Conservatives, believe in personal responsibility and common sense. Going back to my original example, of course I would not go into a busy nightclub, and of course I would not have 100 friends round, but that would be my decision, not the decision of the state. So unfortunately, as much as I like the Prime Minister, I think he has got this wrong, and I will vote against the regulations tonight.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as chair of the Covid Recovery Group.
Before I turn to the matters before us, I would like to put on record my thoughts about the loss of Jo Cox five years ago. Sadly, I remember that day very well. Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I were both in different roles at that time, and it was our joint responsibility—in my case as the Government Chief Whip and in yours as the Opposition Chief Whip—to ensure that the House was able to be recalled for appropriate tributes to the paid to Jo Cox and her memory. I know that, in your position, you are unable to speak often in the House, but it was a great pleasure working with you on that very sad occasion to make sure that a fitting tribute was paid. Sadly, I remember that day very well.
On a happier note, in one sense, I would like to put on record my thanks to Sir Roy Stone for his 44 years of service in the civil service, which will shortly come to an end, although I am told he is not retiring; he is going to turn his attention to other things. He was a fantastic principal private secretary to me when I was Government Chief Whip, and I know that his loss will be felt across Government.
Mr Steve Baker
May I take this moment to put on record my apologies to my right hon. Friend, who was Chief Whip during a period when I was leading various rebellions? I also want to offer a great apology to Roy Stone, who will have had to put up with the trouble that I caused my right hon. Friend. I am very grateful for the things that my right hon. Friend has said.
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend reminds us all how we can have different roles in this House. It is worth noting that, as a former Government Chief Whip, I do not find not supporting the Government a particularly comfortable place to be. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said, sometimes we have to put what we believe to be the interests of our country first, and that is what I feel I am doing.
I want to draw attention to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) said, because he is right. There are documents with Government—I am not saying that these have been agreed by Ministers, but certainly this advice is being given to Ministers—that Government should aim to have a very low prevalence of covid. That is not zero covid, but it is not a great distance away. If Ministers were to agree to that strategy, it would mean restrictions going on for the foreseeable future, and that is one of the things that we are very concerned about.
I note, at this point, what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said: the Labour Benches are somewhat empty—the Back Benches are completely empty— and it is colleagues on the Government side of the House who are holding the Government to account. I accept that the Government may occasionally find that uncomfortable, but it is our role as Members of Parliament.
I always find it helpful to draw attention to the documents actually before us. For those who do not know, we have an explanatory memorandum, which explains what it is we are voting on today. It has been prepared by the Department of Health and Social Care and it will have been approved by a Minister of the Crown. It is very clear, and it is worth reading. Paragraph 7.3, bullet two, makes it clear that the Government will
“likely be able to offer a first dose”
of vaccine
“to all adults…by July, but the vaccinations”
themselves will probably not take place until August “due to supply constraints.” We know that it takes two or three weeks until those vaccinations are effective, so those adults will not actually be protected until later in August, so that means that this delay is therefore pointless, or alternatively, that we are not going to cease these restrictions on 19 July if vaccinating all adults is the goal.
If we then turn to the review dates and whether this is indeed a terminus, paragraphs 7.4 to 7.7 are very interesting. There is a review required by the Secretary of State every 35 days. The first review, according to this, is not due until Monday 19 July. There is no mention here of an earlier review after two weeks—
“the first review due by Monday 19th July 2021.”
It says that
“England will remain at Step 3 for a further 4 weeks (subject to further review).”
It also says that the primary purpose of extending these regulations is
“to gather more evidence that the…tests can be met”—
not that these rules will expire after four weeks never to be reintroduced, but to gather evidence for tests to be met and then for a decision to be taken about whether these restrictions are to continue. The second reason given is to
“allow more people to receive vaccinations…further reducing these risks”,
as Ministers have said, but as I just pointed out, the first doses are not going to be delivered until August, so that makes no sense. Something does not add up here, and we are concerned that these regulations are not going to end on 19 July.
Chris Green
In the context of timetables and how things are going to pan out in the near future, it is now the Government’s intention to ensure the vaccination of a very large number of care workers. That is presumably going to take legislation and a period of time for them to have a vaccination, and perhaps a second vaccination, and to deal with all the other problems. If this is a requirement for the Government to be able to deliver an exit from lockdown, how long will that take?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and it is part of the reason why we are concerned. If this was genuinely going to be the end of it, that would be one thing. I have listened carefully to the Members who have spoken and a number have said that they will support the Government on this occasion, but this is it. I am afraid that we have heard that before and it has turned out not to be true, and I am afraid, just from reading the documents in front of us, that that is why I have some scepticism.
The final thing I will say—I hope the Minister who will be winding up the debate, who I have a great deal of respect for, can clarify this—is that I am not quite sure what is going to happen at the end. The review of the evidence that has been gathered about whether the tests are met is not due to be done until 19 July, so I am not clear about when Ministers are going to come to Parliament to set out whether those four tests have been met. Is it going to be on 19 July, or is it going to be before 19 July? I am not clear whether they are going to give that one week’s notice—all the way through the road map so far, we have had four weeks, then a week’s notice. I am not quite clear about the timetable, and this is important, because, as has been said, people’s lives will now be reoriented around that new date, including weddings, family events and people’s plans. It is important that our constituents know what to expect. When can they expect a decision? When can they expect to know what their life will look like? It is because of concerns about whether the regulations really are the end that I will, I am afraid, vote against them this evening.
My final point is on the motion about proceedings in this House. It is my strong view that, although it has been welcome that we have been able to have Parliament meet through a pandemic, and thanks should go to all the parliamentary staff who have made that possible, it is, I think, indisputable that this Parliament, in its current form, is not as effective in holding the Government to account and enabling us to do our job as Parliament should be. I think that we should get back to as normal as possible in this House as fast as we can. For that reason I will also vote against the motion to continue these proceedings effectively until we return in September.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words about how closely we worked together after the tragic murder of Jo Cox. I much appreciated the work that we did together at that terrible time. I also echo his words about Sir Roy Stone, who I saw this afternoon to say how much I had always valued the advice that he gave to me when I was Opposition Chief Whip.
We now go to Sir John Redwood.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
It is time to trust people more. It is time to control people less. I would like to praise Ministers and officials, and particularly all the scientists, medics and researchers, who have worked so hard to ensure that the UK is a leader in vaccines—supplying one of the best vaccines to the world, getting it out early and making it available for all of us, and ensuring that we had bought in other vaccines that became available so that we were in a position to protect our population well and relatively early compared with other countries. I pay tribute to all the work by the NHS and the medics to understand how to treat the disease better and how it is transmitted so that we can take better actions to give people greater security.
I say now to all those experts, the NHS and the Government, “Share what is relevant with the rest of us—the public—and let us make more of our own risk assessments.” We are now saying to people that there are two major ways in which we can all protect ourselves against the possibility of getting this disease, or a bad version of it. First, we are making two jabs available to all adults who want them, and the figures so far show that that gives them a much better probability of not catching the disease at all and very strong protection against a serious case of it, which is what we are mainly worried about, as we are trying to stop people dying or struggling in intensive care, and to stop that pressure on the NHS and all the suffering that it produces.
We are also saying to people, “If you’re still worried about the residual risk or if you really don’t like vaccines, you can self-isolate.” I hope that the Government will continue, as an employer and as the Government, guiding others in the economy to say that we should be generous and supportive of anyone who really does feel that they need to protect themselves against the virus by self-isolation, but I think that we are now well beyond the stage where we have to isolate practically everybody else to some extent when so many people now have protection, are making their own risk judgments, and want to get on with their lives.
In the room, when assessing the data, it is important that we look at all the data about jobs, livelihoods, incomes, family stress and mental health pressures, because this policy is creating all of those. The Government can do more. They should be helping the private sector to manage air flows, air extraction, ultraviolet cleaning and so forth to make it safer for many more social contact businesses to reopen and have a reasonable number of people enjoying their services. I think that more could be done on ensuring that all our health settings have really great infection control, because we do not want any more slippages from health settings themselves.
I urge the Government to think again about an idea they looked at early on but did not develop, which is in the large populated areas, particularly the conurbations, to have isolation hospitals that deal with covid and other variant infectious diseases well away from general hospitals. We add to the pressures and the likelihood of cross-infection if we have a general hospital taking in a very infectious disease.
There is now huge scope to get a really good economic recovery to save jobs, create new jobs and get pay up, to have many more transactions in the economy. To do that, however, we need to relax and to trust the people more. I think my constituents are ready to make decisions about their own lives again and many are very frustrated that they are not allowed to. We have all this great advice and knowledge. Let us not get too gloomy and let us not lock everybody up again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
As colleagues will be aware, there have been quite a few interventions, so after the next speaker I will have to take the time limit down to three minutes in order to get everybody in.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I will be supporting the Government this evening, but on this occasion my support is heavily qualified. Like many of my constituents, I am disappointed that stage 4 of the Government’s road map for reopening has been pushed back to 19 July. However, like—I believe—the majority of my constituents, I understand the reasoning for the four-week delay. The Government have consistently stated that the road map marks 21 June as the earliest opportunity to end restrictions, not a date set in stone. It is clear, however, that the delta variant has changed the race between the virus and the vaccine. If we faced only the alpha variant, then the extraordinary level of first doses that the NHS has delivered would undoubtedly have been enough for us to be fully reopening next week, but two jabs are needed for the highest level of protection against the dominant delta variant. Understandably, I believe, this means that the NHS needs more time to vaccinate more people fully before ending restrictions.
However, I share concerns that one more short delay may in fact lead to many more. There is a risk that the Government’s decision-making process is becoming too cautious in the face of the next wave of coronavirus. If that happens, we may miss our chance to fully reopen in the summer before the trickier autumn and winter months. I believe my constituents can stomach a short delay, but the Government must provide assurances that this delay will be the final hurdle. Coronavirus is not going anywhere. We will have to learn to live with it and the risk it poses to public health, just as we do with the flu.
The Government must hold their nerve and let the vaccines do their job. They should not be afraid of their own success. The NHS vaccination programme has been a resounding triumph. In my constituency of Orpington, nearly 100,000 people have been vaccinated thanks to the tremendous effort of the local NHS staff and volunteers. Almost 60,000 of those jabs have been administered in the Orpington Health and Wellbeing Centre, which marks six months as a vaccination centre this week. Data shows clearly that the vaccines we have available are successful in combating all known variations of the virus. As vaccine numbers continue to increase, it will therefore be impossible to explain any further delay.
This delay has serious economic ramifications, especially for small businesses. For example, the 100% business rate relief for retail, hospitality and the leisure sector is due to end on 30 June. Employer contribution changes to the coronavirus job retention scheme are due to take effect on 1 July. Many businesses that are not able to reopen fully are now faced with paying their bounce back loans. The Government therefore need to set out what support businesses can expect as a result of this delay. We also need to know what proportion of people need to be vaccinated to sever the ties between cases and hospitalisations. How many more adults, therefore, need to be fully vaccinated? The Government need to plan to deliver those vaccines in time, so that we can reopen on 19 July.
If the Government can provide that detail, it will go a long way to calm worries that restrictions will go on and on, and never be lifted. That is why I hope the Government will now set out in detail what needs to happen in the next five weeks so that we can, finally and fully, reopen on 19 July.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
As has been noted by my colleagues, there are very few Labour Back Benchers taking part in this debate, a point made in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). Our Labour colleagues are not bad people; they are not lazy; but they are not as interested as we are in freedom. This whole debate is a mortal threat—a mortal threat—to the Conservative party. This is proven by history. When we had wartime regulation and a controlled economy between 1939 and 1945, it led to a Labour landslide. People get used to controls and at the end of July—the motion will go through today, obviously—there must be an entire re-set of the Conservative Government. We must be talking about freedom, civil liberties, trusting business not subsidising business, and low taxes. That is what the Conservative party is about.
Let us look at the data. In Lincolnshire, sadly, we have had one death in the past month. We have a population of 651,000 adults, 504,000 of whom have had their first jab, and of those, 400,000 have had their second jab. Some 95% of over-70s in Lincolnshire have had two jabs, as have 75% of the over-50s. There is no reason for Lincolnshire to be under any restrictions at all. I accept that we are one country, but if we must have controls I do not know why we cannot have regionalised controls.
The Government must act according to reasonable proportionality. Our job as Back Benchers is to scrutinise the Executive, but how can we do that if we do not know what the Executive’s goal is? There has been too much shifting of goal posts, and too many fatuous rules based not on science but on populism. Our society should be free and open, and there is a real danger that the public will increasingly ignore the restrictions. The Government will be a Government of the emperor without clothes. Of course the public in large part support the further controls, but what about business? Business is being driven into the ground. We do not support businesses with endless subsidies; we let business get on with business.
This will never end: at the end of this month there will be another variant. It will come from darkest Peru—the Peruvian variant—and Paddington Bear will be arrested at Paddington station and put in quarantine. It will go on and on and on. It is a bit of a cliché, but we are never going to eradicate this disease. It is like no other disease. It will constantly vary and constantly attack us, and we have to learn to live with it. We must not base our policy on the number of infections, which will rise and fall, and probably keep rising with every new variant. Our policy is to save the NHS. Our policy is to protect the NHS and stop it falling over. Only one policy makes sense at the end of July: is the NHS in danger, and are hospitals in danger of becoming over-full? That should be our policy.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Happy Sussex day, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like every good, horny-handed son and daughter of Sussex, I am afraid I “wunt be druv” into the Government Lobby this evening.
The hashtag #i’mdone was the overwhelming message on social media on Monday when independence day, so tantalisingly close, was again cruelly whipped away from my constituents. Madam Deputy Speaker, I’m done with making excuses to my constituents about when their lives might get back to some degree of normality.
We are constantly told that these decisions are about data, not dates—quite right—but we have the imminent dates by which the vaccination programme will have achieved effective herd immunity, which is well ahead of what was imagined when the lockdown road map was designed. Now, 80% of adults have had their first dose. We have data showing that the Pfizer vaccine is 96% effective against the delta variant after two doses, and that the AstraZeneca vaccine is 92% effective. We have data showing an average of nine deaths a day at the moment, and 136 hospitalisations—a world away from where we were at the start of the road map. We have data from Public Health England that only 3% of the delta variant cases have received two vaccinations.
We also have dodgy data from three modelling studies by the University of Warwick, Imperial College, and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. They show widely different scenarios, with the most pessimistic warning that the UK could experience a further 203,000 deaths by next June, which is around 50,000 more than the first and second waves combined. Yet how can that be when we know the vaccine works, and the data show a likely 90% take-up rate?
Those doomsday models by largely anonymous wonks with no remit for considering the impact of further lockdown on life at large seem to trump all the other data, and the Government put them on a pedestal above all others. They are confusing modelling for scientific forecasts.
Tim Loughton
The trouble is that there are lots of different scientists and they do not agree with each other, yet only certain scientists seem to have an impact on the Government. Usually, it is the most doomsday of those scenarios.
Where is the data that shows that allowing six people inside a pub has increased infection rates, and by how much? Where is the data that shows how much faster an infection has spread because up to 30 people have been able to meet outside since the original journey out of lockdown? Where is the data showing that the NHS is being overwhelmed, not by covid patients, but by a huge increase in children and families suffering mental illness, including many worrying episodes that we have seen as constituency MPs, or by the surge in advanced cancer cases that could not be diagnosed and treated early? Where is the data showing how many businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector, cannot wait a further four weeks to be profitable and are likely now to fail, with the accompanying impact on people’s jobs, livelihoods and wellbeing? Where is the data showing the impact on the wellbeing of children now denied sports days for another year and school proms? Students are again being denied graduation ceremonies for a second year, having missed out on so much of their university experience. Where is the data on the impact of domestic abuse, which has risen so much, as we have seen? Where is the data showing the continued impact on babies? The problem is that the only data considered seems exclusively to be the worst-case scenarios about the spread of covid, regardless of the current single-figure average death rates.
No covid strategy is risk-free, but a further delay is by no means a victimless decision. It is time that we trusted people to live with covid just, as the Prime Minister announced in February, in the same way that we “live with flu”: we do not let flu get in the way of living our lives. The Government promised at that stage that we would move to personal responsibility. My fear is that if the Government continue to try to nanny people, they will just not take any notice and no amount of retained rules will make any difference. People are already increasingly making their own risk assessments. As somebody tweeted the other day:
“I had Covid. I have antibodies. I have had both jabs. I’ve worn a mask. I’ve sanitised to within an inch of my life… But now, #ImDone no more. It's over.”
My fear is that this will become a much more widely held view if the Government just keep delaying freedom day, without the evidence to back it up.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I really do not mind interventions taking place, but we have 13 people to get in before I start the wind-ups, so every intervention means that somebody is not going to get in. I urge people to speak for fewer than three minutes if they can.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
In all the difficult judgments the House has had to make during the pandemic, this is perhaps one of the most difficult, and I entirely respect the argument of those who have spoken in this debate and come to a different conclusion from me. As ever, this is about a balance of risks: between the delta variant and the risks of ongoing restrictions, which are not insignificant. We have to ask ourselves: what has changed since the last time we looked at the road map and at its end point? The Government’s strategy has not changed; it remains to vaccinate, prioritising the most vulnerable. That cannot require everyone to be vaccinated. That is neither scientifically necessary, nor practically achievable. The significant change is what an effective response to the delta variant now seems to require: two doses of vaccine, not just one. I see the significance in that of the difference between the 57% of the adult population with two doses now and the 76% we should reach by 19 July. That argument allows me, just, to support the Government tonight, but I wish to make two other points.
The first is that the logic of this extension is to protect the NHS from a significant increase in hospitalisations from covid-19, and this protection comes at a high cost to the economy and to the rest of society. So we need to take full advantage of it, whether in reducing the backlog of treatments for other medical conditions or in giving NHS staff a break before what may be another difficult winter. It would help if Ministers could explain what we are doing with the time and space this extension is buying us. The second point is that I am extremely concerned, as others have been, about what our recent decision making tells us about our collective tolerance of risk. Scientists and Ministers alike have told us that we are going to have to live with covid indefinitely, but we do not know what that means, if not the acceptance of ongoing risk of illness or even death. We do not understand what tolerable risk looks like. The road map had four stages, no more, and if the logic of this extension to the last stage is to allow greater vaccination, when that is achieved we must be able to say that the restrictions will be lifted, so that businesses and individuals can, at long last, start to plan with certainty. Anything else will move us from risk management to risk aversion, and risk aversion has consequences broader than the management of the pandemic. Appetite for risk, for example, is a crucial ingredient of innovation and invention—ironically, the things that have delivered the vaccines and the progress we have made against covid so far.
Despite my reservations, I will support the Government tonight, but I want a commitment to use that period of extra restrictions wisely and a firmer commitment to end restrictions on 19 July.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
This great country is the cradle of freedom. For over eight centuries, at least since the time of Magna Carta, this mother of Parliaments has protected the rights and liberties of the British people. I, together with many others in this place, have been deeply troubled by the temporary restrictions that we have asked the British people to observe and the sacrifices we have asked them to make. I have supported every covid decision to date with a clear sight of the need to tackle the virus that was rampaging through Gloucestershire and the UK, when hospitalisations and covid deaths were a serious daily threat. My heart continues to go out to everybody who has lost loved ones.
However, we are in a very different situation now, and I cannot support a confused further delay of the road map in these circumstances. Now is the time to trust the British people, and we have heard that a lot tonight. We must trust them to continue acting with caution, and we must trust them to make choices to protect the health of their friends, family and loved ones.
I am proud of how the people and businesses of Stroud, the valleys and vale have supported their neighbours. They have volunteered in their thousands and put themselves forward for vaccinations, all to regain their historic freedoms, to stay well and to get back to some form of normal. In Stroud, we have 87% of people vaccinated for the first time and 55% fully vaccinated. Thankfully, only three people are in hospital in Gloucestershire with covid, and I pray for their swift recovery.
At a time when our hospitals are nowhere near overwhelmed by covid and we are told we need to learn to live with the virus, it is only right that we now look to protect the others from the impact of restrictions. To dismiss this delay as only being four weeks is disrespectful. These weeks are crucial for many, but not least for businesses that invested money and hope in being able to trade viably next week. For those in the hospitality, entertainment, weddings, exercise and travel sectors, these summer weeks follow a lost summer last year, and they cannot be made up over the autumn and winter months.
Being involved in the negotiations for the wedding industry has also led me to this position. Months of work, evidence gathering and sensible suggestions were swept aside by health officials at the last minute without explanation and against a backdrop of thousands of people hugging at the football and the cricket, which I loved by the way. Why reject testing, like we have in sporting events, and then make a father wear a mask walking his daughter down the aisle? He will eat a maskless dinner with her later that day. What have we come to when the Government are banning dance floors? I am equally confuzzled by banning singing in churches. Our predominantly double-jabbed congregations just want to sing to God—let them sing.
These are not easy decisions. The difficulties facing our Government are extraordinary, and I sincerely respect those on both sides of the House who have different views. I have the utmost respect for the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary, and I do not mind saying out loud that this was a difficult decision, but with the welfare of Stroud firmly in my mind, I praise the courage and sacrifice that the people of this great nation have shown, and I say that now is the time for us to trust the people and give them their freedom day.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
What on earth is happening to our country? Muzzled, acquiescent and fearful. Having fought and defeated one Project Fear, I never thought we would experience another. Sadly, unlike the first, the polls suggest that the majority of the population has succumbed to the second. Armed with that information, the decision makers feel they can creep out with their shovels and move the goalposts at will. Personally I am not surprised that the nation has been beaten into submission when, day after day and hour after hour, we are deluged with dire warnings of doom and gloom by Government advisers of one kind or another.
A section of the press and media must take responsibility for their role in creating this near Orwellian nightmare. Do not get me wrong; I have never underestimated the threat that this pandemic poses. Every death and illness is deeply regrettable, but surely there comes a time when, for the greater good of the majority, a sense of proportion must be adopted. This is not easy to do when graphs and statistics are presented to support this one-month extension, despite those far better qualified than I questioning their methodology, presentation and even accuracy.
So much that was predicted has not come to pass, and the so-called third wave is not killing or hospitalising anywhere near the numbers affected in waves 1 or 2. Why? Well, it is due to the remarkable vaccine rollout, for which the Government Front-Bench team and the NHS must take huge credit. From the initial promise of regaining our freedom when the vulnerable had been inoculated, I can understand the Government’s reluctance to give it back. First, it is easier to say no. Secondly, let us not forget that there is a public inquiry hanging over the Government like the sword of Damocles. The revelations from Dominic Cummings and the accusations that followed them were no doubt a sobering taster to Ministers of what is to come. However, fearing an inquiry and variants are not reasons for delaying freedom day.
Mistakes have been made. That was inevitable given the unprecedented nature of the pandemic, but it does not mean being risk averse now. We desperately need a confident Government to take a proportionate stand in the face of the evidence. For months, the Government’s cry was, “Protect the NHS”. On Tuesday, the organisation’s chief executive said that only 1% of hospital beds are occupied by covid patients. We know that admissions are rising in the north-west, but not on the scale seen during the second wave. Yes, totally unlocking is a risk, but it is a proportionate one when considering the appalling damage being done to the risk takers—those who create our prosperity and jobs—and the continued successful rollout of the vaccines.
As for this place, I have been here long enough to know that, when there is agreement across the majority of the House, something is fundamentally wrong.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Over the past few months, I have repeatedly called for an end to restrictions at the earliest opportunity and I believe that the success of our vaccination programme gives us that opportunity. We are all aware of the pain that has been inflicted on so many: leisure, tourism, hospitality, aviation—the list goes on. This has manifested itself in the loss of jobs and livelihoods, and although the Government have done much to mitigate the fallout through their generous support schemes, they have just scratched the surface when what people really want to do is to return to normal.
When we walk down the voting Lobby, it is never a binary choice; no decision is clear-cut and there are bits of every motion that we agree with and bits that we do not like. Any self-respecting politician with the best interests of constituency, country and party at heart just hopes that the stars do align. I have mixed feelings about the extension to the current lockdown rules. On the one hand, creating a wall of immunity among all in the adult demographics seems sensible so that we can move forward, but by the same token the ongoing restrictions on how we live our lives is killing businesses and people all over the UK. Not only is the cost to the taxpayer immense; there is also a cost to our hopes, dreams and mental health. The sooner that we can smash through lockdown, the better.
However, I have also been unequivocal that any policy decision needs to be driven by the science and it remains a fact that the delta variant is causing real concern, with infections, hospitalisations and deaths spiking alarmingly. Aside from all the disappointment, the Prime Minister could not have been clearer in his stated position at the weekend.
It may just be that our younger generation have an expectation of being vaccinated against the killer disease before all restrictions are lifted. It may be that cases are growing by 65% a week, and that hospitalisations are increasing by 50% a week across the UK. It may be that the NHS needs and deserves four more weeks to complete its job. Therefore, in the light of the evidence presented to me and the decisions that have been made in good faith, I will be supporting all Government motions this evening.
I would like to raise two final points. First, my central plea is that, when the list of authorised pilots is released, it must include flagship global events such as the Euros, Wimbledon, the British Grand Prix, the Chelsea Flower Show and the Goodwood Festival of Speed. I am afraid that the alternative would be cataclysmic.
Lastly, I am increasingly concerned by the dichotomy between the unprecedented success of our vaccination programme and the ongoing risk aversion of the Government. As a military man, I am comfortable with risk and feel that we all now need to live with covid in a way that has not been achieved so far. Using military parlance, given that we cannot transfer or terminate it—and lord knows we have tried to treat it—it is now time to robustly tolerate covid. I have a feeling that all good will will be exhausted if the Government do not honour their promise of 19 July.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
Following the science is an attractive and even comforting idea in a time of uncertainty. But—I say this as a scientist —we can no more follow science than we can follow history. Science gives us knowledge and understanding, but it cannot give us wisdom, and it is wisdom that we need to make what are essentially moral and political decisions about how we balance the short and long- term best interests of our whole society. I am saddened that we have lost—I hope only temporarily—that sense of balance.
Preventing death from covid seems to have become the principal purpose of our national endeavour, no matter the cost to our way of life. We have placed insufficient emphasis on the terrible long-term consequences of lockdown—poverty, unemployment, lost education, debt, undiagnosed cancer, loneliness, hopelessness and fear—and focused far too narrowly on just one set of metrics: the daily covid data. Even the most hardened libertarian would accept that, in a national emergency and in the face of significant threat to life, restrictions on our freedoms have been necessary and right, but with all vulnerable people having now been offered vaccination, the balance of risk has shifted.
Covid is no longer a substantial threat. The average covid mortality so far in June is seven deaths a day—seven out of around 1,500 daily deaths that we could expect in normal times. The number of people in hospital now stands at 1,177—some 37,000 fewer than at the peak in January. Thanks to the incredible efficacy of our vaccination programme, it is hard to comprehend how our hospitals could quickly become overwhelmed. The idea that we are still in a state of emergency is not supported by the evidence, yet significant legal restrictions on our basic freedoms are to remain, even dictating how many of our family and friends can visit us in our private homes. The restrictions we face are now out of proportion to the threat, so extending the measures sets a dangerous precedent.
We must learn to live with covid in the way that we live with so many other risks. Vaccines will never be 100% effective, just like seatbelts, smoke alarms or contraception, but it is vital to our autonomy and our identity as human beings that we are able to make our own choices and evaluations of everyday risks, as has been the norm in our country for generations. I have the greatest respect for Ministers, who have had to make unimaginably difficult decisions over the past year, but now is the time to restore a sense of balance, proportion and fairness, and to make a return to life in all its fullness.
In my final seconds, I want to say this: childhood should be a time that is care-free. Testing our children twice a week, making them wear masks when they are not at risk, and constantly reminding them that they may be a danger to people whom they love, is damaging them psychologically, and we have to stop.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
If everybody now takes two minutes, everybody will get in. I am sure Dr Kieran Mullan will lead the way.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have listened carefully to the contributions this afternoon and we have done a good job at articulating the challenge we face. Basically, what is reasonable to do to stop coronavirus spreading, infecting and killing enormous numbers of people and overwhelming the NHS? The answer to that asks us to consider what the costs are for doing something, and what the costs are for doing nothing.
There has been a cost to freedom from lockdowns, but freedom is complex. What freedom would people aged 50 years and up have had to venture out of their homes when coronavirus ran rampant and left them with at least a one-in-200 chance, or worse, of dying if they caught it?
There has been a cost to businesses, particularly those in hospitality and other businesses that people have been prevented from visiting. I am certain that had our NHS been overwhelmed, had one in 200 people aged 50 started dying en masse, and had the news shown patients being turned away from intensive therapy units, the impact on those businesses would have been similar to, if not the same as, that of lockdown.
There has been a cost to children’s welfare. Which parent would really have carried on sending their children to school, knowing that there would be no help if there was an outbreak of meningitis or measles? How traumatised would the nation’s children have been when one in 200, or more, of their grandparents died in the space of a year or two?
There has been a cost from lockdown to people with illnesses such as cancer. Where exactly would cancer patients have gone after their operations when ITUs were full? Which immunocompromised patients having chemo would have risked visiting their local hospital for treatment and catching covid? It is wrong for critics of lockdown to think that they alone care about freedom, hospitality businesses, children and those suffering from other illnesses; we all do. I do, but I just took what I thought was a rational choice in weighing up the costs across the board. I must take issue with people today who have talked about our freedoms not being used to support the NHS, as if that were some kind of abstract concept. What we are talking about is supporting the patients, their friends and their family who would have been prevented from accessing the NHS if the restrictions had not prevented the NHS from being overwhelmed.
It was always inevitable that, over time, these judgments would have become more finely balanced, as they have done, but I will not be told that I am not capable of continuing to make these finely balanced judgments. It is right that the next phase means a new discussion. Like others, I find these types of restrictions—restrictions that stop us living out our fundamental desires to mix, socialise and spend time with each other—a heavy, heavy price to pay. I have no doubt that the public will be willing to pay a similarly heavy price to remove most, if not all, of them. That is not to say that people will not mind wearing a mask on the tube, for example.
We have some tough decisions ahead of us, and I welcome the recognition of that from the Government. It is now time for the Government to state more clearly and starkly what these choices are, so that the British public can decide together what sacrifices we are and we are not willing to make.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
As MPs, we are asked to take fundamentally political decisions, balancing the certainty of harm done to people’s livelihoods and wellbeing, which is caused by restrictions, with the imminent risk to people’s lives and the ability of our health services to cope if the pandemic were to spiral out of control. We can only do so on the basis of the very best medical and scientific advice that is available.
Two weeks ago, I was sure that there was no reason why step 4 should not go ahead on 21 June. Within days, that certainty looked foolish. The advice now is clear that pressing ahead on Monday would lead to massive increases in admissions that would leave our hospitals with more covid patients than at any of the worst points of last year. Given that and given the clear guidance from our local NHS leaders of the impact that this would have on their ability to treat people in need, the only responsible course of action is to pause. However, that does not mean that we should not question and test that advice.
Unlike some, I do not believe that the advice has been manipulated to secure a specific outcome. This is not another 45-minute dossier. None the less, some of the modelling does look strange. Some of the assumptions could be questionable. The effectiveness of the vaccines are estimated at 89% and 90% in the modelling, whereas Public Health England data put it at 92% and 96%. The difference between 89% and 96% might not sound huge, but, if we flip it around, the difference in the ineffectiveness rate between 4% and 11% is enormous and clearly would have significant policy implications.
The models project 2,500 hospital admissions a day within eight weeks. That suggests a rate of increase of 40% a week, which is much higher than we are currently experiencing. If that increase was actually 30%, the admissions would be closer to 1,400 a day. If the current rate of 22%, which was seen in the past week, were to continue, then it would reach just 800 after eight weeks. Surely those differences would lead to different policy choices. That is why this two-week break point is important and why it is vital that Ministers take it seriously.
I will back the motions tonight, but if, over the next two weeks, the data do not bear out the hypotheses in the models, we must rethink.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I have been contacted by many constituents who are concerned about the extension of these restrictions, especially when cases and hospitalisations are still at an absolutely low level. I also represent a central London constituency, and central London is suffering badly, as a result of people still being encouraged to work from home and our having very few international business visitors and residents, with the result that unemployment in central London is looking very bad.
However, I acknowledge that, clearly, with two shots of the vaccines, there is no question but that there is better resistance to hospitalisation. I will support the Government tonight for one final heave over the line, but I urge them to make sure that we do not lose the benefit of two vaccines. For instance, why are we still encouraging people to work from home when they are double vaccinated, and why are we asking people to quarantine at home if they have been in contact with a case when they are double vaccinated? We need to refine and perfect all these features, because this is having a meaningful impact on people’s lives. I will support the Government, but we have work to do and we need to get out of these restrictions.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I have supported the Government throughout on coronavirus measures, but today we have come very close to the point, for me personally, at which the line has been breached. I have listened to some very persuasive speeches from colleagues who have come to that point today, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates). I myself am sticking with the Government on this occasion for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) gave— the same reasons, in fact, that the Health Secretary gave me in the Lobby earlier—including the need to get those second jabs into people who are still at risk of hospitalisation.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) recently said, we must take the two-week review seriously, because there is evidence even today that we are starting to bend the curve of exponential growth and that the R rate is starting to fall on cases in England. We know there is a 10-day lag to hospitalisations, but we have also seen the hospitalisation percentage falling. It was 8% of cases turning into hospitalisations in the autumn, and it is down to 4% now. If that continues to drop, the case that the Government are making will get weaker and weaker.
I would like briefly to pay tribute to the Health Secretary not only for all his work on this and his assiduousness in coming to the House, but for helping me with a major public health issue in Newcastle-under-Lyme—a landfill—which he has been incredibly engaged with. I think the Health Secretary has done a fantastic job throughout this pandemic, and I welcome what he said today. He himself obviously has his reservations, but this is the right decision for the country at this time.
As I serve on the Procedure Committee with my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley)—its Chair, who spoke earlier—let me say very briefly that I will be supporting the other motion as well. As we have said in the Committee, I think it is absolutely fundamental that we align what we do in this House with what we are asked in the country to do.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate—one that I know is of huge importance both to this House and to the country. In West Dorset, we have had one of the lowest numbers of cases and of deaths across the whole country. As it stands today, in the whole of Dorset we have just one person poorly in hospital. We have not lost anybody from this virus for around two months, so it is with great regret that I have to tell the Government that I find it very difficult to support their line and will not be doing so in the Lobby this evening.
The vaccination scheme—which has been a source of national pride and I think many if not all of us have now received a vaccination—has brought great reassurance to many people across this country. But we now have to help everybody in the nation, particularly those who, as in my constituency, where 97% of our businesses are small or micro-sized, are feeling this so painfully. We need to be able to give them the summer as the opportunity to get their business back not just for the short term, but for the long term. That is why, as the Member for West Dorset, I must make it clear to the Government that I am afraid I am unable to support them in the Lobby this evening.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now go to Neil O’Brien, whom I have also asked to stick to two minutes.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) [V]
None of us wants these restrictions to go on for a moment longer than they have to. All of us are proud of our world-leading vaccination effort, and I pay tribute to everyone involved in delivering it in Harborough, Oadby and Wigston. However, when we see that cases are doubling roughly every 10 days and that within a week or two we will be back to the same number of cases every day that we had at the start of the November lockdown, we can see why there is real cause for concern. That is why it is right to go for the delay that we will vote for this evening. We know that getting a second vaccination dose gives people a lot more protection against this dangerous new variant. We know that many more people will be fully vaccinated as a result of this delay and that will potentially save thousands of lives, so it is the right thing to do.
My pleas to Ministers are as follows. The first is that we use the time that we are buying tonight to really drive vaccination rates among that last 4%—perhaps 1 million people—among the most clinically vulnerable groups. As the number of cases accelerates, those people have a target on their back, and it would be a tragedy for them to die of fear, ignorance or simple lack of knowledge at this stage, at the very end of the pandemic.
My second plea to Ministers is to continue to improve our ability to detect at an early stage and close our borders against dangerous new strains. While the Indian variant is very dangerous, as this thing bounces around the world, one day there will potentially be something worse, and we need to be ready for that. Last but not least, we must improve our ability to nip future pandemics in the bud. I believe that involves reappraising our attitudes to things like challenge trials, so that we never have to go through this again.
It is the right thing to do to delay ending the restrictions for a few more weeks. It is a difficult decision but it is the right one. We need to put in place all the right measures to ensure that we are never in this position again, and that when we abolish these restrictions, we abolish them forever.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
No. 47 has withdrawn, so the final Back-Bench speaker is Shaun Bailey.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is always a little bit trepidatious coming in at this stage of the debate.
The debate has been very finely balanced, and the difficulty is that after so many great contributions, one feels as though one is repeating oneself a bit. This is a difficult decision, and I do not envy the Government in the position that they find themselves in. We must tread a nuanced, balanced path, ensuring that we protect the most vulnerable while safeguarding those liberties that I am sure all of us in this House want to ensure that we and our constituents can enjoy.
The pandemic in my communities, in Sandwell, has been different, because we have not been able to work from home. The majority of my constituents have had to go out to work in the factories or in other places. They have had to be there. I want to dispel the notion that we can all carry on as normal—that we can all work from home. It just does not happen, I am afraid; it is just not reality. An important point that was raised by many hon. Members from both sides of the House this evening is that we must use the time that we will now have as a result of the regulations—because they will pass this evening—to ensure that we plan properly, to tackle the issues and the challenges that we are faced with in our NHS.
I want to talk about primary care, because that is a big thing for my constituents—no more so, at the moment, than in one of my communities, in Tividale, where my constituents struggle to get a GP appointment. One constituent who contacted me today had had to call the surgery 150 times to try and get in to see someone. It is not acceptable; it cannot carry on. I have had really positive discussions with the Minister and his team in the Department of Health, but we must find a solution. And we must use this time, not just on short-term matters, but to flesh out a long-term plan to deal with these issues, going forward. Because our NHS has done a fantastic job during this pandemic, now we must be sure that the issues that have come to light as a result of the situation we find ourselves in, are dealt with for the long term, so that the legacy of the pandemic is that we ensure that we pay back those NHS heroes who have saved so many people.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
As no. 49 has withdrawn, I call the shadow Minister, Justin Madders.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
May I start by associating myself with the many Members who have paid tribute to Jo Cox? As we have heard from the tributes, she transcended intake and party in bringing people together, and my thoughts are with her family at this time.
There have been many excellent speeches from both sides of the Chamber. People who will be voting different ways often made many similar points. I believe that shows the disappointment that we all feel that we are here once again, grappling with many overlapping and multiple considerations.
There were some particularly thought-provoking Opposition speeches, by my hon. Friends the Members for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), for Luton North (Sarah Owen), for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and for Stockport (Navendu Mishra). I particularly enjoyed the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North and her repeated use of the word hopeless—a word that I am sure is on many people’s lips at the moment. She was right that we have been here before—at Christmas, with the Prime Minister dangling the carrot of freedom before pulling it away at the last minute. It is the hallmark of a Prime Minister who struggles to deliver bad news to the public.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East made the similar point that there is a pattern here of the Government making the same mistakes over and over again. He also rightly highlighted the continuing failure to provide adequate financial support for those who self-isolate—a point that was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport and is particularly apposite today, when a Government report has reached the news which states that the current self-isolation policy has “low to medium” effectiveness and that there are “barriers” to self-isolation. That is a point that we have been making since the start of the pandemic, so it is about time the Government listened to us and to their own advisers and fixed it.
It would be remiss of me not to highlight the fantastic contribution from my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester, who drew attention to how the announcement came out, once again, via the media. He also raised an important point about the enhanced measures that a number of areas, including our own county of Cheshire, have been put into this week. Unfortunately, we have seen a surge in cases, but there is apparently no prospect of our getting a rise in vaccines.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
When I spoke to my fellow healthcare professionals in my local hospital vaccination centre weeks ago, many expressed their concerns about the delta variant and its possible impact on the local NHS and on delaying lockdown. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to do more to prevent workplace burnout by providing more workplace support to our fellow healthcare professionals, who have spent the past 18 months supporting the Government through their incompetency?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We owe a great debt to those in the NHS and to those who have worked on the frontline during the past 18 months. Last week, the Health and Social Care Committee released a very important report on burnout; I really hope that the Government address it, because without the workforce, the NHS is nothing.
To return to the issues in Cheshire, we have not had the increase in vaccines that the surge in cases requires and that the Government’s own scientific advisers say is the best way to deal with such an outbreak. Our constituents are being sent far and wide to get their first jabs. We have fantastic volunteers and NHS workers ready, willing and able to deliver those jabs, but we need the Government to match that ambition by increasing supply. That will be where we can make the most difference.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester also made a very important point about how we are now in the worst of all worlds with the new guidance that was issued at the same time that the regulations came into force. We are now advised not to meet indoors: again, that diverts people away from the hospitality sector, which was just opening up again, but without a penny more in financial support for it. As he mentioned, other sectors have also been affected by the regulations and are still not getting any additional financial support in recognition of the change in policy.
On the issue of guidance and law, I hope that the Minister will look at last week’s report by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, which stated that the use of guidance had
“in some instances undermined legal certainty by laying claim to legal requirements that do not exist. The Government does not have, and must not assume, authority to mandate public behaviour other than as required by law. The consequence has been a lack of clarity on which rules are legally enforceable, posing challenges for the police and local government…and potentially undermining public compliance and confidence.”
If living with covid means living with guidance rather than laws, I really do urge the Government to read that report before they proceed down that road.
Will the Minister clarify whether the Government are still making decisions based on data rather than dates? As the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), pointed out, the Prime Minister was pretty clear that the 19 July was the “terminus date” for restrictions, yet paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory memorandum accompanying the regulations states that the delay is
“to gather more evidence that the…tests can be met”
under the road map in the light of the delta variant. There would be little point in gathering that data if it were not used to inform future decisions, so that rather implies that 19 July might not be the end date after all.
As the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) pointed out, there is no mention in the explanatory memorandum or the regulations of the two-week point at which things will be reconsidered. Of course, we all hope that 19 July is the end date, but we have been down the road of false promises many times in the past 18 months, and I do not think it unreasonable to be a little sceptical about what the Prime Minister says and what actually materialises, given his record to date. Any clarity that the Minister can shed on the precise reason for the delay would be much appreciated.
Of course, it did not have to be this way. The delays to our unlocking that we are debating were not inevitable; in fact, they were totally avoidable. The British public have been magnificent throughout the crisis—they have followed the rules and played their part. Yet when they see world leaders ignoring social distancing at a barbecue but are told that the rules cannot yet be relaxed for them, and when they see thousands of people attending football matches but are told that they cannot attend their own children’s school sports day, they grow frustrated at what they see as a lack of consistency from those who make the rules. That frustration grows into anger when they see a Prime Minister who has thrown it all away by keeping the borders open and letting the delta variant run wild through the country. As a result, the delta variant now makes up 96% of new infections. That did not happen by accident, and, as the chief medical officer said on Monday, we would be lifting restrictions now if it were not for the delta variant. All that good work and all the benefits of the vaccine have been blown because the Prime Minister was once again too slow, just as he was too slow with the first lockdown, the second lockdown and the third.
I know that the Government will say that they acted as soon as they could on the information that they had, but the explanation for why they did not act sooner on the delta variant has changed in the last few days. We were initially told on multiple occasions that the data did not support putting India on the red list earlier because the positivity rates of the new variant were three times higher for Pakistan, but now we are told that India was not put on earlier because the variant had not been identified as one of interest or concern.
Neither explanation stands up to scrutiny. The only published data on the Indian variant does not show a positivity rate three times as high for Pakistan, and the idea that action was taken shortly before it was designated as a variant of concern does not explain why Pakistan and Bangladesh were red listed weeks earlier. The only credible explanation I can therefore find for treating India differently is that the Prime Minister did not want to scupper his trade visit and photo opportunity with the Indian Prime Minister.
Instead of excuses, we should be getting an apology. It is beyond doubt that the Prime Minister’s incompetence, dithering and vanity have cost this country dear, and that is the only reason why the full unlocking of this country is not going ahead next week. Having heard today via WhatsApp from Dominic Cummings what the Prime Minister thinks of the Health Secretary, I wonder whether the Health Secretary has at any point in the last few weeks had similar feelings towards the Prime Minister. If he has, at least that is something we can both agree on.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
At the outset, I associate myself with the shadow Minister’s remarks in respect of our late colleague, Jo Cox. As we stand at this Dispatch Box, we can see the coat of arms above the Opposition Benches. I pay tribute to her and to all the work that she did while she was in this place, and before.
I would much rather I were not standing here today urging and encouraging colleagues to vote for this motion. I know that colleagues would wish that it were not necessary, but I regret to say that it is. We have made huge progress—progress that has been made possible by our phenomenal vaccine roll-out programme. The tribute for that goes to the scientists who developed the vaccine, those who procured it, the NHS, all the volunteers, the charities, the military, The Sun’s jabs army and everyone who has played their part in helping to deliver this programme. That progress has also been made possible by the incredible efforts of the British people, and by the dedication of everyone who works in our health and care system. I know the shadow Minister will join me in expressing our joint gratitude to them all.
As the Prime Minister set out on Monday, this vaccine remains our route out of the pandemic. With every day that goes by, we are better protected by our vaccines, but the delta variant has made the race between virus and vaccine much tighter. Cases continue to grow rapidly each week in the worst-affected areas. The number of people being admitted to hospital in England has begun to rise, and the number of people in ICUs is also rising, but the vaccine remains our way out.
Data published this week shows that two doses of the jab are just as effective against hospital admission with the delta variant, compared with the alpha variant, and indeed they may even be more effective against the delta variant. That underlines the importance of that second jab and the need for more of us to have the chance to get its life-saving protection.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) put it far more effectively than I dare say I will be able to do. He was absolutely right to highlight the crucial importance, over the next few weeks, of getting those second jabs—particularly the AstraZeneca vaccine—into people’s arms. He is right to highlight that after one jab, the Pfizer vaccine is highly effective, but we need two jabs of the AstraZeneca vaccine to provide that level of protection. It is important, in that context, to remember that the AZ vaccine is the workhorse of our vaccination programme. More than 30 million people have now received their second jab, and in one month’s time that number could stand as high as 40 million. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State highlighted in his remarks an important factor in getting those second doses into people’s arms. There are still 1.2 million over-50s who have had their first dose—they are not declining the vaccine; they have had the first dose—but who need the second dose to provide that high level of protection. Similarly, there are 4.4 million over-40s who need their second dose. With the delta variant now making up nine in 10 of the cases across the UK, it is vital we bridge the gap and get many more people that life-saving second jab.
This extra time will allow us to get more needles into more arms, getting us the protection that we need and enabling us to see restrictions fall away on 19 July. In that vein, I would remind colleagues of the quote from the Prime Minister on Monday, when he was very clear:
“As things stand, and on the evidence that I can see right now, I am confident that we will not need more than four weeks and that we won’t need to go beyond 19 July.”
Sarah Owen
The Minister just said that the Prime Minister has given assurances about another four weeks, but we have had this time and time again. Why should the British people believe the Prime Minister now?
Edward Argar
The short answer is that the British people do believe the Prime Minister now.
We face a difficult choice, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) set it out extremely clearly. It reflects the underlying debate about risk. I am clear that we must learn to live with this disease, without the sort of restrictions we have seen. We cannot eradicate it. I have to say that, rather than relying on the views of the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), I am inclined to rely on the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset, who made that point very clear. Those who advocate zero covid must realise that that is impractical and unachievable, and I consistently do not subscribe to the logic of those who argue for that course.
I am sure the House will agree that, to get to the point where we can learn to live with this disease, an extra few weeks are a price worth paying. I therefore urge the House to support these regulations today. No one can fail to be sympathetic to those who will be affected by this delay, including those couples who want to start their married lives together but have had to change or delay their plans. This weighs on me greatly, as it will on all hon. Members, and in this case I was pleased that we could ease the restrictions on weddings. Equally, I am mindful of those whose livelihoods will be affected by any delay in our road map. I urge the House to support this motion. It provides a short-term delay that significantly strengthens our position for the longer term.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) raised a couple of specific points which I will try to answer here; they relate to each other. He mentioned paragraph 7.7 of the explanatory memorandum and his concern that the first review date was on 19 July. I can clarify that the first review date is due by Monday 19 July and will be in advance of that point. That is a legal end point. I would anticipate an announcement coming probably a week before that on the decision and the data. I hope that gives him some reassurance about people having notice of what is coming.
In closing, I wish to express my sincere thanks to all those who have contributed to today’s debate. I am sorry that so few on the Opposition Benches chose to take part, but I pay tribute to those who did and to those on this side of the House for the sincerity, the strength of feeling and the integrity that they have shown. I hope the House recognises that I have a deep-seated respect for all the views I have heard this afternoon. Hon. Members all want the same thing, which is to save lives and to see us exit these restrictions and return to normality as soon as possible. Difficult as it may be, I urge hon. Members across the House to vote for these measures to give ourselves that short extra time to vaccinate more people—crucially, with that second dose—and take us forward to the stronger, more confident future that we all seek, which I know is just around the corner and which I am confident the Prime Minister will take us to. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put.
Business without Debate
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Anti-loitering Devices: Safety
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) [V]
It is a great pleasure to speak on this important issue once again. Colleagues may remember that I introduced a private Member’s Bill to regulate the use of sonic anti-loitering devices in 2018. In my view, unregulated, these things can be a menace. They are discriminatory, painful to some, and can cause suffering to children, babies and animals. I find it amazing that some in civilised Britain even consider them to be a useful adjunct to policing—that is the stuff of totalitarian regimes. We police by consent, not by fear and pain.
I will not simply regurgitate my earlier speech now, but I would like to remind the House of some key points. Sonic anti-loitering devices, also known as mosquitos or teenager repellents, target young people with a pulsing sound. My daughters tell me it is like a prolonged beep, akin to tinnitus. Some devices emit ultrasound specifically to achieve that effect. There are no firm figures for how many of these devices there are nationally, although the manufacturers claim to have sold thousands. In 2010, the Council of Europe found that this device was “degrading and discriminatory” to youngsters and should be banned because it “violates legislation prohibiting torture.” Academics also contest that these devices contravene several pieces of UK legislation regarding antisocial behaviour and discrimination. Despite the assertion of manufacturers, there are reports that people as old as 40 can hear these devices, and those who use them neglect their impact on very young children, babies, and animals, all of whom will struggle to communicate any distress caused. Likewise, they ignore the impact on those with pre-existing conditions that make them especially sensitive, such as autism. Many children with these conditions cannot avoid long-term exposure, because they might live next door to somebody who has one of these devices, or their school might be close to one. They could equally struggle to communicate any distress.
There is a lack of research on the harm caused by these devices, especially the effects of ultrasound and the impact on those who cannot even hear them. Some 40% of young people regularly come across these devices, but 75% of young people said that they would just put up with the irritating noise and go where they want, when they want and do what they want anyway. These devices will not necessarily stop those who want to commit antisocial behaviour, but they will harm innocent young people in public spaces.
Finally, these devices have been banned on all council buildings in Sheffield, Kent, Edinburgh and Dublin on safety grounds, so as it stands I still believe that we do not know enough about them to be confident that they are indeed safe, and therefore we must control their use. Moreover, these potentially dangerous devices are not wholly successful in preventing antisocial behaviour, as they do not stop those intending to do harm from entering a certain public space if they are so minded. Even if these devices were effective against ASB in a certain location, we would just be moving criminals and their urge to cause damage somewhere else.
Consequently, I believe that these devices are not a solution for antisocial behaviour. They succeed only in causing distress to young people who cannot avoid them, but who have a right to use the public spaces where they are often located. There are plenty of examples of innocent young people feeling unable to use railway and bus stations, shops, schools, and spaces in their own town centres—all places where these devices have been installed, and all places that young people are entitled to visit safely.
Indeed, there are reports from a Scottish survey that 41% of young respondents experienced health effects or discomfort after encountering a device, and I highly doubt whether any of them were engaged in any sort of antisocial behaviour at the time. According to those respondents, discomfort included headaches, migraines, ear problems, tinnitus, dizziness, nausea, anxiety and/or panic. We have not even touched on the potential effect on wildlife and animal habitats, both of which can be equally affected.
However, despite my clear opposition to these devices, I am not seeking an outright ban, as I understand that there are circumstances where they could legitimately be used, such as warehouses, business premises, railway lines, industrial estates and electricity pylons—places where nobody should be in the first place. Also, there is a strong case for using them to deter animals around food stores and such. If the owners of such locations wish to use these devices, they should be able to do so, but they must be used responsibly, with proper oversight. That is why, in my private Member’s Bill, I argued that the use of these devices should be regulated, with a necessary licence obtained by the local authority before use.
In short, I do not argue that these devices should be better regulated just because they are ineffective; their use should be better regulated because they are also discriminatory and potentially hazardous to health, with a particularly acute impact on the most vulnerable. Moreover, I do not believe that it is fair for members of the public of any age to be exposed to these devices without adequate control. There are too many stories of families suffering because these devices have been installed nearby, and they have no effective power of redress under current legislation.
After bringing forward this proposal, I was grateful to the then Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Corporate Responsibility, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), for engaging with me on the issue. In her letter she sent to me on 21 April 2019, she set out how she had asked officials in the Office for Product Safety and Standards to consider the evidence against these devices. I was disappointed by its conclusion that they do not present a safety risk, and I maintain that that position is based on insufficient evidence. We just do not know enough about these devices to know either way, because the research just is not there. The only safe approach is to be cautious.
Following a further letter to the same Minister arguing that point, she set out the following in her subsequent reply of 8 June 2019. First, in response to my suggestion that such devices infringe on the rights of young people, mirroring an argument put forward by Northumbria University, she asked the Ministry of Justice to reply, as that falls under its remit. Regrettably, with everything that we now know took place in late 2019, I quite understandably did not receive a reply from Justice at that time. I would be grateful if the current Minister would follow up with his colleagues at that Department on that point.
Secondly, I asked the then Minister for further research to be undertaken by the OPSS into these devices. Unfortunately, at the time the office had set out its priorities for research going into early 2020, so of course my request was not approved. I believe that needs to change. We must improve our understanding of such devices, especially when it comes to the effect of ultrasound. Worryingly, as the former Minister said in her first response to me, there is some evidence that ultrasound can cause potential health issues. Although there is insufficient evidence that those potential health risks constitute safety risks, that does not mean that they are not present.
Currently, our knowledge of ultrasound is limited and flawed. We simply do not fully understand its effects and cannot draw any definitive conclusions about its use. As Professor Timothy Leighton set out in September 2019 work on ultrasound,
“whilst there is over fifty years of anecdotal reports of the adverse effects of ultrasound on humans (supplemented by limited laboratory testing), the state of knowledge is insufficient to meet regulatory needs.”
He concludes that
“the priority must be on ensuring that these devices are safe for any humans they may expose. It is not possible to do this with the current data on the adverse effects on humans”.
We simply do not understand ultrasound enough to use it legitimately to support any policy positions, but we are doing just that by allowing the liberal use of devices that emit ultrasound, including anti-loitering sonic devices. We are dealing with a potential harm here, and we must increase our knowledge of these devices and their impacts. We owe that to those who have already been affected inadvertently by these devices, and until we do so we must be cautious and properly oversee the use of them.
We cannot continue to treat this as a case of safe until proven otherwise. Instead, I believe it must be a case of potential harm, used with caution and in controlled conditions. I understand from previous correspondence that
“if further data or research emerges about the safety impact of such devices, then the OPSS will review their assessment.”
I argue that such further research has emerged, some of which I have mentioned, and we need the OPSS to commission further work to increase our understanding of the long-term impact of ultrasound and the impact of exposure to such devices. I hope that the current Minister will consider taking that work forward. I would welcome a meeting with him, perhaps with a representative of the OPSS, to discuss that further. I also ask him to follow up with the Ministry of Justice on the point about children’s rights that I mentioned earlier. I will write to him to set out those requests further, but for now I thank him for listening, and will welcome any comments on these devices that he may have to share with us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) on securing today’s important debate. I assure him that, although the House did not need an anti-loitering device to empty this evening, that was in no way a reflection of his excellent speech, in which he outlined his concerns about this important issue.
As Consumer Minister, the safety of these products falls under my ministerial portfolio, and the safety of the public is a key priority for the Government. The safety of such products contributes to ensuring the safety of the public and, in particular, children and young people, so I am pleased to be able to discuss this important issue, and I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity for us to exchange views on it. I am aware that he had an exchange of letters with my predecessor on the subject and that, as he has outlined, he has a long history of discussing and raising his concerns.
Many of the issues raised go beyond safety and fall within the remit of ministerial colleagues in other Departments. I will ensure that my officials draw the Hansard of the debate to the attention of relevant counterparts and continue to join up on this issue. I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issues further, as he has requested.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) for bringing the debate forward; it is on an excellent issue. On the safety of the general public, the Minister knows, as do I and others, about the effect of autism and the number of children and adults with autism across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that, for the safety of the general public, children and adults with autism must be taken on board as a priority?
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which was as wise as always. It is important that we protect all children, but especially vulnerable children, and he raises an interesting point. I will talk a bit more about safety in a second.
It might be useful if I set out the context of the regulatory and enforcement regime with which products such as anti-loitering devices must comply. As my hon. Friend mentioned, OPSS is the UK’s national product safety regulator. It was established in 2018 to lead and co-ordinate the product safety system, providing national capacity and supporting local enforcement, and it plays a key role in protecting consumers from unsafe products and providing an environment that enables businesses to thrive. It works closely with a wide range of market surveillance authorities, including local authority trading standards in Great Britain and environmental health in Northern Ireland, which have responsibility for enforcing product safety and compliance in the UK.
The UK product safety system is one of the most robust in the world. It places strict obligations on those best placed to control or mitigate risk. We have a comprehensive regulatory framework in place for product safety, with stringent requirements on producers and distributors to ensure that their products are safe before they are placed on the market. Its approach places an obligation on those best placed to control and mitigate the risk.
The safety of acoustic anti-loitering devices, commonly known as mosquito devices, is regulated by the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 and other product-specific laws, such as the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016. These provide a baseline of safety for applicable products, requiring that only safe products, in their normal or reasonably foreseeable usage, can be placed on the market. Where product-specific legislation applies, such as the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016, a product must comply with a specific set of essential safety requirements before it can be placed on the market. Once their products are on the market, businesses have a continuing responsibility to monitor them and to act if a safety issue is identified.
The current regulatory framework enables the relevant enforcing authority—either local authorities or the OPSS—to investigate specific allegations of unsafe products and take action where it is appropriate to do so. That includes prompting businesses to take corrective action and to provide additional advice to consumers or instigate a recall. I can confirm that there have been no reports of dangerous anti-loitering devices on the UK product safety database, which is used by regulators to share information about safety risks and ensure that appropriate action is taken.
When the Government last reviewed and set out their position on the safety of these products, in 2010, the Health and Safety Executive concluded that there was little likelihood of any long-term ill effects associated with them, and that the use of anti-loitering devices should remain an option available to local authorities in tackling antisocial behaviour. That decision followed testing that was carried out by the National Physical Laboratory, which determined that mosquito devices did not operate at a high enough volume to damage hearing. However, we continue to monitor reports of safety in relation to all products. If, as my predecessor said, there is further evidence or data on the use and impact of anti-loitering devices, clearly we will review it. The 2005 regulations already provide protection for consumers from unsafe products. Where specific products are found to be unsafe, they can be removed from the market, so there are no current plans to introduce a licensing regime for anti-loitering devices on the basis of safety, as our current assessment is that such devices do not present a safety risk.
What we are discussing today, several years after that testing was done, goes beyond safety and regulation by the 2005 regulations. The basis of the debate broadens to include considerations of human rights and potential psychological impacts, and the need to understand the potential for certain vulnerable groups to experience greater harms. My Department recognises that concern but maintains that the 2005 regulations already provide protection for consumers from unsafe products.
I want to take a few moments to talk about the wider protections already in place and what the Government are doing to ensure that the freedoms of individuals are protected while also protecting the public. While these are matters for my ministerial colleagues in other Departments, I feel that it would be useful to set these out to provide the broader context for our debate. Concern has been expressed about the impact of anti-loitering devices on the freedom of assembly. The Government are committed to upholding the right to freedom of assembly and association for all, as protected by article 11 of the European convention on human rights, which is given further effect domestically by the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Government are also committed to tackling and preventing antisocial behaviour, because we know the serious impact that persistent antisocial behaviour can have on both individuals and communities. Everybody has a right to feel safe in their own homes and neighbourhoods. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 seeks to put victims first, giving power to local people and enabling professionals to find the best solutions for their local area. To do this, local enforcement agencies have a range of tools and powers that they can use to respond quickly and effectively to antisocial behaviour through the 2014 Act. It is up to local areas to decide how best to deploy such powers, depending on the specific circumstances. That is because they are best placed to understand what is driving the behaviour in question, the impact that it is having, and to determine the most appropriate response.
The Home Office issued statutory guidance for the 2014 Act, which was updated in January 2021, to support agencies to make appropriate and proportionate use of the powers, when they target specific problems in a public setting, depending on the circumstances. In a similar vein, where these devices are misused and create a noise nuisance for members of the public, there are statutory protections in place to deal with such nuisance.
The potential impact of anti-loitering devices on children’s rights has been discussed. The UK Government regularly report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on the work that we have been doing across the UK to implement the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and to promote children’s rights. The UN committee published a list of issues for the UK to report against early next year. One of these issues relates to anti-loitering mosquito devices and the measures taken to guarantee children’s right to freedom of movement and peaceful assembly.
The UK Government response will involve the input of a number of Government Departments and devolved Administrations, including the Crown dependencies and British overseas territories, and children’s rights stakeholders to record progress. I will ensure that my hon. Friend receives a copy of that response when it is issued.
In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this topic for debate today. It is really important that the Government continue to keep such issues, with wide-ranging interests and potential impacts, under close review, and I thank him for his dogged work in raising these concerns across Government. I would also like to reassure him, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is in his place today, and others that the Government will always take steps, where appropriate, to ensure safety and to protect the public.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con) | Mark Tami |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Zarah Sultana |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) | Ben Everitt |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Zarah Sultana |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba) | Kenny MacAskill |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Zarah Sultana |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Owen Thompson |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Zarah Sultana |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Peter Aldous |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Zarah Sultana |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) PC) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Deferred Divisions
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in the assigned places with a tick—as everyone is doing, I think. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has deemed that masks should be worn in Committee—apart from by me, because I might need to speak at any second. Our Hansard colleagues will be most grateful if Members send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2021.
It is a great pleasure to appear under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.
The draft order was laid before the House on 25 March. I thank the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for its advice, which has helped to inform the order before the Committee for consideration. To that end, the proposed amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 follows the ACMD’s advice, published on 29 April last year, about three benzodiazepines.
The three benzodiazepines under consideration are flualprazolam, flunitrazolam and norfludiazepam. The ACMD recommended controlling all three substances under class C of the 1971 Act, owing to their potential harm and the evidence for the prevalence of the drugs in the UK. This will be the first additional control of benzodiazepines under the Act since the control of 16 benzos in May 2017; those are also controlled under class C of the 1971 Act.
Benzodiazepine medicines with specific uses may be prescribed by clinicians, but the matter before us today is the consideration of illicit benzodiazepines, with no known medicinal benefits in this country. High dependency is often associated with benzodiazepine use, together with severe withdrawal symptoms for even short-term use. When combined with other “recreational” drugs, most particularly opioids and other central nervous depressants, there is an increased risk of mortality, which has contributed to a significant number of drug-related deaths each year.
Data from the national programme on substance abuse deaths showed that there were 5,740 benzodiazepine-related deaths in England between 2006 and 2015. Just under 4% of those recorded benzodiazepines as the only compounds implicated in the cause of death, which suggests the frequency with which they are associated with poly drug use.
I thought it might help the Committee if I explained a bit more about the specific details related to each of the three benzodiazepines—in particular their prevalence in the UK, which has a significant effect on the consideration of harm. Beginning with flualprazolam, the ACMD’s report states that, as of March 2020, as recorded by regional statistical agencies, there have been 12 flualprazolam-associated deaths in the UK. The ACMD report also cites the report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction on flualprazolam in March 2019, which outlines deaths with confirmed exposure to the compound in 24 reported cases in Sweden and two in Finland. In eight of those cases, flualprazolam was cited as a contributory or possibly contributory factor.
On flunitrazolam, the ACMD’s report states that it is likely that the potency of the compound is greater than that of flunitrazepam, otherwise known as Rohypnol, which is highly potent and controlled as a class C drug under the 1971 Act. The report goes on to confirm that between 2014 and October 2019, a small number of seizures have been made at the UK border and that small-scale seizures of a mixture of tablets and powder have been identified in Germany in 2016 and Denmark in 2017.
Norfludiazepam has been identified twice in the UK. Both occasions took place in 2017, once from a police seizure and once by TICTAC, a drug identification provider. Further afield, there were small-scale seizures in Germany in 2016, Sweden in 2017 and Norway in 2018. PostScript360, an organisation providing treatment for those undergoing withdrawal from benzodiazepines highlighted anecdotal reporting of the use or purchase of norfludiazepam.
The ACMD report recommended not only the control of these three drugs under class C of the 1971 Act, but that they be placed in schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 and part 1, schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) (England, Wales and Scotland) Order 2015, given that the drugs have no known medicinal benefits in the UK.
Should this order be approved, the Government intend that a further statutory instrument, subject to the negative resolution procedure, come into force at the same time as this order. That would be 28 days after the date when the Order in Council is made. That further instrument would make the necessary amendments for the 2001 regulations and the 2015 order. The approval by Parliament of that order would make it unlawful to possess, supply, produce, import or export these drugs, except under a Home Office licence for research. The maximum sentence for possession of a class C drug is two years in prison and unlimited fine or both, while for supply it is up to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both.
We all know the destructive effects that illegal drugs have on not only the lives of those who take them, but their families and wider societies. The ACMD’s advice makes clear that these benzodiazepines are harmful, and I trust that I have made a clear case for their control today.
I give a real-life example. You will remember, Dr Huq, that early last year the National Crime Agency undertook an operation called Venetic, which revealed a variety of information about organised criminal gangs producing and importing drugs into the UK. As part of that operation, the NCA managed to bust open a factory in Kent, where they discovered 27 million street benzo tablets, which had been manufactured and were specifically targeted at Scotland—27 million is quite a lot of tablets for each and every Scot. The impact of the drugs, particularly north of the border, is very significant and I hope that the order today will contribute to their control.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the Minister for his remarks. The Opposition support the proposals of this instrument, which brings three benzodiazepines—the compounds known as flualprazolam, flunitrazolam and norfludiazepam, under control as class C drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We are committed to working with the Government, the police and other public bodies to tackle drug misuse, strengthen controls on dangerous substances and widen the availability of treatments to prevent overdose deaths and get drug users clean. Clearly, where drugs cause harm, they must be classified and enforcement action must be taken.
On the three benzodiazepines covered by this order, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs provides some statistics, some of which the Minister highlighted, and background information. On flualprazolam, the report states:
“In the UK, several identifications of the compound have been reported from seizures and samples analysed by National Crime Agency…as well as anecdotal reports of use from clients in receipt of treatment from Postscript360, a Bristol-based charity”—
the Minister referred to it—
“providing treatment solutions and referral pathways for people with benzodiazepine dependence. This indicates significant availability of this compound in UK markets…As of March 2020, there have been 12 flualprazolam-associated deaths in the UK recorded by regional statistical agencies...In October 2019, an unknown number of deaths were reported in Stockton-on-Tees where flualprazolam was the only psychoactive substance present.”
The report goes on:
“Norfludiazepam has been notified in the UK from a police seizure of 14 pale-blue tablets in March 2017 and one sample analysis by TICTAC”,
which the Minister referred to,
“in December 2017. Small-scale seizures of a mixture of tablets and powders have also been”
identified in several other European countries. However, no deaths related to norfludiazepam have been reported in the UK as of March 2020.
On flunitrazolam, the report goes on,
“there is limited information about doses, effects, safety and tolerability available. However, based on its structural similarity to other triazolo-benzodiazepines, it is likely that the potency of flunitrazolam is greater than of the already highly potent flunitrazepam”,
which is Rohypnol.
“As of March 2020, no deaths or other harms associated with flunitrazolam have been reported in the UK. However, the specialist benzodiazepine charity, Postscript360, have reported that clients in receipt of treatment for benzodiazepine dependency had anecdotally reported either the use or purchase of flunitrazolam.”
Adding these drugs to the class C list is important, but it must come alongside a robust preventive approach to drugs misuse.
While the three benzodiazepines relevant to this SI are of no medicinal use, it is important to mention the issue of prescribed drug dependence in the UK, as general benzodiazepines are prescribed in the UK. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs 2020 report states:
“Prescribing of benzodiazepines by General Practitioners in the UK has been discouraged and has fallen progressively in recent years. Prescription items issued in primary care in England fell from 16.3 million in 2015-16 to 14.9 million in 2018-19”.
Despite the numbers falling, that is still a very large amount. The report says that
“deaths where a benzodiazepine was implicated have increased over the past decade across the UK...consistent with an increased role of illicitly manufactured benzodiazepines. There is evidence of this in Scotland”—
which the Minister referred to—
“where ‘street’ or unlicensed benzodiazepines were involved in 85% of the 792 deaths in 2018 where a benzodiazepine was implicated, while medicinal ‘prescribed’ benzodiazepines were reported in only 30%”.
It is important that the Government strengthen withdrawal services so that those with addictions to prescribed drugs can get the support they need to manage it. The Government’s explanatory note states:
“A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors is foreseen.”
However, making these benzodiazepines controlled drugs should prompt the Government to consider the private, voluntary and public sectors, and to take preventive action to tackle the use of these drugs through advertising, educational campaigns about the dangers of drugs misuse, support for voluntary support services and investment in drug treatment services.
Since David Cameron’s Government took drug treatment services out of ring-fenced NHS funding, they are now a postcode lottery and have faced successive cuts by Government. A lack of proper drug treatment services risks driving up acquisitive crime and drug lines. The Government have introduced Project ADDER—addiction, diversion, disruption, enforcement and recovery—which we welcome, but this kind of investment is needed across the country, not just in five areas.
We welcome this statutory instrument, but I want to take this opportunity to remind the Minister of his Government’s record on tackling the problem of illegal drug use. Illegal drugs are a huge issue in this country, and the Government must do more to tackle the problem. A Home Office review concluded that drugs were
“a major driver of the national increases in serious violence over recent years”,
mainly as the crack and heroin markets were taken over by county lines gangs. Part 1 of Dame Carol Black's 2020 drugs review provided detailed analysis of the challenges around drug supply and demand, and noted:
“The illicit drugs market is big business, worth an estimated £9.4 billion a year. Around 3 million people took drugs in England and Wales last year, with around 300,000 in England taking the most harmful drugs (opiates and/or crack cocaine).
Drug deaths have reached an all-time high and the market has become much more violent”,
with the total costs of drugs to society estimated at
“over £19 billion, which is more than twice the value of the market itself.”
Most illegal drugs consumed in the UK
“are produced abroad. The supply of drugs has been shaped mostly by international forces, the activities of Organised Crime Groups and advances in technology.”
The report continues:
“The heroin and crack cocaine retail market has been overtaken by the county lines model, which is driving increased violence in the drugs market and the exploitation of young people and vulnerable drug users.”
The Government’s failure to dismantle organised criminal gangs and the supply of drugs has led to a rampant rise in illegal drug use. The National Crime Agency’s latest annual plan, for 2020-21, revealed that more than 3,000 deal lines were identified in 2019, of which 800 to 1,000 lines are estimated to be active during a given month. The Children’s Commissioner for England has estimated that 27,000 children are gang members, and modelling done by Crest identified 213,000 vulnerable children. The strongest and most dangerous drugs are becoming more accessible, and the drug networks are driving violence and child criminal exploitation.
The Government are failing to get a grip on the misuse of the most serious drugs, including class As. Class A drug use was on a downward trend between 1996 and 2011. Since then, class A drug use has increased every year, and the Home Office’s own research admitted that it was slow to notice rising levels of crack use beginning in 2013-14.
Despite drug use and violence increasing, the Government have drastically cut spending on treatment by underfunding local government budgets as well as central Government funding. The Government have not provided the necessary resources for drug treatment and recovery, which has meant that they have been unable to break the cycle of drug misuse and offending. In May this year, we passed the 50th anniversary of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Research by the Transform Drug Policy Foundation has pointed out that when that Act was first introduced by Prime Minister Heath, there were under 100 drug-related deaths a year in England and Wales; now, there are 2,883. Our country is in the middle of a drugs crisis. Legislation that says, “Using or selling these harmful drugs is a criminal offence” is really important, but we must also have a health approach from this Government, so that people understand the risks and can get the help they need to deal with addiction problems.
We all know the terrible impact that drugs can have on individuals, families and communities. Increasing enforcement of drug misuse and stamping out the organised criminal drugs gangs that drive and profit from it is incredibly important, but it is only one part of the solution. The other must be drug treatment and preventive services to properly break the cycle of drug misuse.
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Member for Croydon Central is nothing if not persistent in her desire to look backwards rather than forwards. As she knows, we have been very assertive in our approach to drugs over the past two years. We are having some success, particularly on county lines and in other areas, and she will have seen that in the last spending round we secured significant amounts of extra money for drug treatment. I am very pleased that she mentioned the ADDER projects as the progenitor: those were broadly my idea, along with Blair Gibbs, who was No. 10’s crime and justice advisor at the time. It is a model of operation that we hope in time to take to other parts of the country, but we first need to prove that we can shift those appalling numbers in those parts of the country.
As you will know, Dr Huq, we will have an entire Backbench Business debate tomorrow on exactly this subject—the Misuse of Drugs Act—so I do not propose to rehearse some of the issues that the hon. Lady has raised in her response. I will just say that I am grateful for the support of the ACMD in outlawing these benzodiazepines. It looked at 10 other compounds, but did not find evidence that substantiated their being made illegal, although they will of course be covered by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, which was passed by this House just a few years ago.
Finally, given the devastating impact of street benzos—as they are called—in Scotland in particular, I am disappointed that no representative from the Scottish National party is here today. Drug deaths in Scotland are off the scale—easily the worst in western Europe, if not the developed world. The legislative control of drugs remains an important measure in the fight against this societal evil, and I am grateful to the Committee for supporting it.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Public Procurement (international trade agreements) (amendment) regulations 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Public Procurement (International Trade Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. This statutory instrument will ensure that domestic public procurement regulations give legal effect to the UK’s international procurement obligations—specifically, those covered in the UK third party international trade agreements signed with non-EU countries that had an agreement with the EU before exit day, 31 January 2020. Therefore, when contracting authorities carry out public procurements, that could be covered by an international agreement. If so, suppliers from those countries are required to be treated no less favourably than suppliers in the UK. It also means that UK businesses will continue to benefit from access to public procurement markets overseas.
We have an agreement with the devolved Administrations for this instrument to be laid on behalf of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That will ensure legislative efficiency and consistency across the four nations.
We are implementing this change because the UK Government, following our exit from the EU, have, as far as possible, committed to providing continuity of existing trade and investment relationships with our existing international partners. We have already helped to ensure a continuation of global procurement through the World Trade Organisation’s Government procurement agreement, following the UK’s accession to the agreement as an independent member, and we have laid separate legislation to implement that. Without this instrument, the UK would not be able to implement its international procurement obligations in trade agreements with third countries. That would leave the UK Government open to legal challenge and damage our reputation as an international trading partner.
This instrument will be made using powers set out in section 2 of the Trade Act 2021. The instrument will create within existing procurement regulations a new schedule listing the international agreements signed by the UK. It will be limited to UK trade agreements with countries that had a preceding agreement with the EU before exit day. Of the agreements in effect, those with substantive procurement provisions and to be listed in the schedule are with Albania, the Andean countries, Canada, the CARIFORUM states—the Caribbean Forum of African, Caribbean and Pacific States—central America, Chile, Georgia, Israel, Japan, Kosovo, Mexico, Moldova, North Macedonia, the Republic of Korea, Serbia, Singapore, the Swiss Confederation, Ukraine and Vietnam. This instrument is uncontroversial, each of those agreements having already been scrutinised via the procedure set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
Furthermore, parliamentary reports have voluntarily been laid alongside each continuity trade agreement. They explained our approach to delivering continuity with each partner as the UK left the EU. If we have made any significant changes to the trade-related provisions of our existing agreements through entering into the new ones, we have explained those in the reports.
Further affirmative statutory instruments will need to be laid, using the powers in section 2 of the Trade Act, each time that the UK signs a new trade agreement with a third country, or any of the agreements mentioned here are updated, in order to give them legal effect. Future trade agreements with countries where there was no free trade agreement with the EU before exit day—that could include Australia and New Zealand—are not covered in the Trade Act and would require separate legislation.
I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to the Minister for her opening remarks on why we are using this measure to ensure continuity of procurement as we now trade independently of the EU.
Public procurement is so much more than just buying the best products for the best price. It is intimately connected to social value, to supporting our pandemic recovery, to international human and labour rights, to environmental standards and to delivering quality public services at home in the public interest and free from mandatory marketisation and outsourcing. As the Minister said, it is also crucial in relation to access for UK business to markets around the world.
The past year has served as a reminder of the critical importance of public procurement and of strong procurement regulations. In the face of an unprecedented global crisis, we have witnessed a global scramble for finite resources such as personal protective equipment; in their attempt to meet the sudden demand, this Government have pursued a procurement strategy that has wasted millions of pounds on poor-quality products and raised serious concerns about transparency and cronyism. It is therefore so important that we learn our lessons and ensure that public procurement is done correctly. For that reason, I recognise that this is an important statutory instrument to provide both businesses and consumers with continuity and certainty as we leave the EU, and to prevent legal challenges from being brought against us at the WTO by third countries.
I met businesses in my constituency last year in the run-up to Brexit—to leaving the EU—and many had actually begun to liquidate their businesses due to the uncertainty caused by the lack of a trade deal with the EU at that time. It is more important still, given how catastrophic the four-week delay to the ending of restrictions will be for many businesses, that we endorse and support continuity. To support businesses and help provide that all-important continuity, Labour will not oppose the motion. However, I have five questions for the Minister and I would be grateful for clarity.
First, why are the regulations only coming in now? The powers under the Trade Act 2021 have just commenced, but could the instrument have been passed before the respective trade deals were ratified, in the previous parliamentary Session? We are now five years since the referendum vote.
Secondly, in what form will the separate legislation required for trade agreements with countries that did not have an agreement in place with the EU before exit day be brought forward? Can we expect further statutory instruments or will we be given the opportunity to debate the legislation on the Floor of the House?
I and many other colleagues have been simply astonished and concerned by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process used thus far to roll over trade agreements without agreement from the House. We have felt disempowered as MPs to scrutinise important trade agreements—a point I made in this very room during debates on the Trade Bill Committee.
Given the critical importance of procurement to public life, I would hope procurement arrangements agreed with nations in the future would be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny on the Floor of the House. Only this week we have seen another major free trade agreement, with Australia, without any parliamentary scrutiny. Will a Minister be coming to the House to make a statement on that? We have learned more about that deal from the Australian Government briefing their press than from our Government telling Parliament.
Thirdly, will the Minister be taking steps to ensure that any future trade deals are rooted in the “Transforming public procurement” Green Paper? The Trade Justice Movement and a number of trade unions are quite critical of World Trade Organisation rules on public procurement because they make it harder for Governments to regulate in the democratic interest and are designed to force developing countries to hire western multinationals, potentially at the expense of domestic providers, so undermining our own aid agreements. It is therefore important that we develop a UK social partnership approach to procurement, based on the recognition and enforcement of international, regional and local labour, social and environmental standards and goals, including transparent and sustainable global supply chains and fair and transparent artificial intelligence and digital technology practices in public services. Public service workers will be central to that transformative recovery process—that will be building back better.
Fourthly, as the Minister is no doubt aware, we cannot separate international procurement and labour and human rights, particularly in a global supply chain. For instance, the Minister may have seen reports that £150 million of personal protective equipment was procured during the pandemic from Chinese firms linked to Uyghur human rights abuses. There are similar concerns about environmental standards in the supply chain.
As the UK begins to shape its procurement framework and trade policy post Brexit, can the Minister assure me that safeguarding human and labour rights in supply chains will always take priority over purely economic imperatives? Will she, for instance, consider including mechanisms such as a new corporate “failure to prevent” regulation based on human rights and due diligence for all goods and services, and incorporating joint and several liability?
Fifthly and finally, as we move forward and begin pursuing international trade agreements with countries not already trading with the EU, will the Minister tell us how our approach to procurement will diverge from EU regulations? If so, will those differences be published and made clear? Will the Minister commit to ensuring that any divergence in public policy will be subject to an impact assessment, as these regulations are not?
Labour will not oppose the draft regulations today, but I would be most grateful to the Minister for her response on the points I have made, today or in writing.
Julia Lopez
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s comments. I am glad she agrees with us on the importance of social value in procurement. She mentioned some of the challenges we faced in procuring PPE during the crisis. I set out in Westminster Hall in quite some detail some of the challenges. I was trying to be as transparent as possible about those challenges, so that we can understand the true lessons rather than go on a wild goose chase about cronyism, which, from what I understand about how things were operating, is a misplaced concern.
I agree very much that we need a better system for procurement, and we are introducing one. We have a very ambitious Green Paper, which she will have seen, and the relevant Bill was introduced in the Queen’s Speech. We have a very good free trade agreement with the EU, so I hope that her businesses are now benefiting from that.
The reason why the draft regulations are introduced today is that the provisions were covered by other legislation, but that expires at the end of the year. That is why we have introduced this statutory instrument now that the Trade Act has had Royal Assent.
Legislation and scrutiny of new trade agreements will take place on the Floor of House. That will be led by my trade colleagues rather than the Cabinet Office. We will make sure that any new procurement regime that we put forward will be compliant with WTO rules. In having our own seat at the table now, separate from the EU, we will have our own unique voice on some of the debates about public procurement. I am sure that it will be an area where we will make our voice heard.
The hon. Lady mentioned digital. We are very keen to work with states such as Singapore and Australia to advance the digital agenda, which has stalled in recent years.
She mentioned some very important issues on supply chains and social value. There is a lot we want to try to do in this area, including making sure that we are procuring with firms that are employing apprentices, taking on disabled employees and adhering to high environmental standards. The hon. Lady mentioned human rights and made a particular suggestion. I am happy to take that away and look into it if she would like to write to me in further detail.
I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Scully
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, Vol. 696, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 10 June 2021; c. 10.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully):
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra).
The correct response should have been:
Paul Scully
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 Great Britain.
Education
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Green
The national tutoring programme is reaching only one in six pupils on free school meals, and changes to the school census date mean that schools are also losing out on thousands of pounds of pupil premium funding for those students. Will the Secretary of State now come clean and publish his Department’s full financial analysis of the funding lost to schools from this pupil premium stealth cut?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady forever moans and complains about the resources—the extra resources—that we have been putting into schools. Just a short time ago, we unveiled a £14.4 billion expansion of funding into secondary schools.
[Official Report, 26 April 2021, Vol. 693, c. 4.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green).
The correct response should have been.
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady forever moans and complains about the resources—the extra resources—that we have been putting into schools. Just a short time ago, we unveiled a £14.4 billion expansion of funding into schools.
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Transport Decarbonisation Plan
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
I apologise for the late start. I am just filling in for a few minutes—I deny all responsibility for the delay. I need to remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates. I remind Members participating, physically and virtually, that they must arrive for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the entire debate. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before using them and before leaving the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall other than when you are speaking.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the transport decarbonisation plan.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, even if only for a few minutes. There is no question but that the UK has been an international leader in combating climate change, and I am proud of that record. Since 1990, we have decarbonised at the fastest rate of any G20 country, and of course we were the first of the major countries to legislate for net zero by 2050. In December 2020, we went even further and said that we would get to a 68% reduction by 2030. That is an ambitious target.
To get to that target, there is no question that we need a radical and comprehensive transport decarbonisation plan, because transport is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the UK and currently accounts for approximately 30% of total emissions. As a percentage of emissions, if we leave out the fluctuations because of coronavirus, it is going up, and is scheduled to go up further by 2035. Transport is therefore key to meeting our objectives to be net zero by 2050 and to achieve our intermediate objective by 2030.
[Caroline Nokes in the Chair]
Some 55% of transport emissions come from cars, and almost two thirds of total emissions come from cars and light vans, so I will focus my remarks on electric vehicles, but there is no question but that we need a comprehensive strategy across buses, rail, freight and aviation, and we need clear targets. It is easy to say, “Net zero by 2050, and down 68% by 2030”, but we need a clear and firm plan as to how we will get there, and we need to constantly measure our progress against that plan.
Apart from the sectors that I have mentioned, we also need a modal shift towards more walking and cycling, which will be important for the health of the nation and to meet our transport decarbonisation goals.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
As the hon. Lady rightly says, targets in themselves are no use; we need plans. I assume she agrees that any plans need to be backed by policies and proper funding to show us a pathway to net zero.
Felicity Buchan
Yes, we need policies, and, when money needs to be made available, it should be. I personally think that there are private sector solutions, but I am glad to see that with electric vehicles, which I will go on to talk about, the Government are making available £2.8 billion.
Electric vehicles will be critical because, as I said, cars account for 55% of emissions. I am glad that the Government have brought forward the date to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles to 2030. That is a huge achievement. The investment of £2.8 billion in electric vehicle technology, infrastructure and plug-in grants is hugely important. I am lucky to represent a borough, Kensington and Chelsea, that is very focused on electric vehicles. We have the highest number of electric vehicles per capita of any London borough, and probably the highest number nationally.
London is very good in not having much car usage. Only 27% of journeys are by car. Nationally, it is 68%. Clearly, rural areas will be more dependent on cars than cities such as London, but electric vehicles are important to my constituency. I hosted a seminar a few weeks ago in my constituency on the roll-out of electric vehicles. It was great to see so many of the major south Kensington institutions participating. I had Professor Richard Herrington, the Natural History Museum’s head of earth sciences, which is very important in electric vehicle batteries. I had Dr Billy Wu from Imperial College, who is one of the leaders in battery research, and Dr Rachel Boon from the Science Museum. We had a tremendous attendance from Kensington residents, and it is great to see that they are so focused on electric vehicles.
However, it was striking that the residents’ questions were repeatedly about having confidence that the electric charging infrastructure would work. There was a lot of concern about range anxiety. In my constituency, there is not much off-street parking; it is all on-street parking by the pavement. That clearly leads to challenges for electric vehicle charging. Of course, this is anecdotal, but I took away a huge willingness to embrace electric vehicle technology, but real concerns about the practicalities. If we are going to get there by 2030, we need to resolve these practicalities as quickly as possible.
I essentially have five key asks on electric vehicles. First, we need a comprehensive strategic network of electric vehicle charging points. I see this almost like the electricity national grid. I am a great free market capitalist, but I do not think in this instance that we can just leave it to the free market. We are not in the mid-19th century building railway lines randomly all over the place. We need a comprehensive network that gives people confidence, because they will not want to give up their cars that they have confidence in if they do not have confidence in the electric vehicle charging network. It needs to be Government led and top-down, as opposed to bottom-up.
Leading on from that, it is important that we focus on the customer experience of electric vehicle charging. I too often hear stories about the unreliability of chargers and the lack of interoperability between different charging points. We and the Government need to work on these issues, because confidence is critical.
I would also like the Government to mandate that all new houses, buildings and office blocks have electric vehicle charging points. I know the Government have consulted on this, but it should be standard. In the same way as, when you build a house you put in electric sockets, you should put in an electric charging point.
Moving on from the consumer element, it will be important to have more battery capacity in the UK. I feel strongly that we need more recycling of battery capacity and capability in the UK. In my discussions with Professor Herrington, there is no question that we need to extract very precious and rare metals to make electric batteries and these have to be recycled. We cannot just use up our stock of lithium and cobalt.
Finally, I would ask the Government to consider a zero emission mandate. This has worked very well in California. For those who do not know how that works, it requires manufacturers of cars to produce an increasing percentage of electric cars as part of their output. If they do not meet those percentage sales targets, they need to buy carbon offsets. I would like the Government to consider that. It has worked well in California and the increased supply of electric vehicles could achieve a number of ends.
First, while the price of electric vehicles over their lifetime is now equal to petrol and diesel cars, because the operating costs are lower, the up-front cost is still high. We are expecting price parity in 2023, but a zero emission mandate is a way to increase supply and accelerate price parity.
The second reason it could help is that I understand from leasing experts that it continues to be more expensive to lease an electric car, because leasing models look at the future value of the car in two years’ or five years’ time. As there is no developed second-hand market for electric vehicles, they put a discount on to that value. The more supply we can get, the better the secondary market for electric vehicles.
I thank all Members for participating in the debate. I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s reply. There is no question but that the transport sector is a big challenge when it comes to emissions, as the biggest emitter in the UK at the moment, but that means that it also offers the biggest opportunity.
Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, I aim to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.25 am, which leaves plenty of time. I have no plans to put you on a time limit, but please can Back Benchers recognise that four of you wish to speak.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) on bringing forward the debate. She is maybe a bit hasty in thanking Members for their contributions before she has heard me speak—she should wait with bated breath.
I was talking about the debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) last night. When we saw the debate title, we were hoping that the hon. Member for Kensington had an inside track and that the transport decarbonisation plan was going to be launched just in time for the debate. Alas, that was not to be. In many ways, the debate could be called “the lack of a transport decarbonisation plan”.
As the hon. Member for Kensington said, the UK Government are hosting COP26 and claim to be leading the way and talk of a green recovery. The reality is there are still no coherent interlinked strategies and policies to achieve net zero. Given that the transport sector is the biggest contributor of greenhouse gas, the lack of a transport decarbonisation plan is basically a dereliction of duty. Why are the UK Government so behind in the publication of the plan, which was initially promised last year? Given that transport decarbonisation is so interlinked with energy policy, which is itself interlinked with the decarbonisation of our fossil fuel heating systems, it is imperative that these policies are complementary to each other and are interlinked. They all go hand in hand.
When we focus on transport, it should of course come as no surprise that the Scottish Government lead the way, being the first to include international shipping and aviation emissions within their overall net zero target, The Scottish Government have published their rail decarbonisation strategy with an end date of 2035. Meanwhile, Network Rail have only published an interim programme with a business case for a 2050 date. Will the Minister confirm that they will get a grip of the final programme, with the suitable ambition that is needed to achieve net zero?
The Scottish Government’s rail decarbonisation plan means increased electrification and the introduction of battery or hydrogen-powered trains. Hydrogen is clearly a plan for the UK Government, and I welcome the ongoing trials of hydrogen-powered trains. However, we are still awaiting a hydrogen strategy, which will be critical if we are going to rely on hydrogen-powered trains. The Government’s 5 GW hydrogen target is, frankly, too weak. The Scottish Government have already got their own 5 GW target and hydrogen strategy in place, so will the UK Government’s eventual strategy be more ambitious? Will they set a target for green hydrogen production? Will the Minister explain how extensive a role hydrogen will play for trains in the decarbonisation process? Will the UK Government address the lack of electrification of railways, which is partly due to the previous Transport Secretary’s obsession with hybrid diesel trains?
Hydrogen is an obvious solution for heavy goods vehicles, but it is part of the mix for buses too. Again, that underlines the need for a hydrogen production strategy. Blue hydrogen with carbon capture and storage is an interim step on the way to net zero, so when will the Acorn project at Peterhead be given the go-ahead?
Aberdeen has led the way on hydrogen-powered buses, with the introduction of 15 of the world’s first hydrogen double-decker buses. The Scottish Government have invested more than £3 million in that project, but £8.3 million also came from the EU, so what will the replacement funding be for those types of schemes? The Scottish Government will have phased out the majority of fossil fuel buses by 2023, thanks to investment of £120 million in zero emission buses. More importantly, those buses are being manufactured by Alexander Dennis Ltd, making the investment circular for the economy. That is what the green recovery is all about: combining manufacturing with the net zero transition. What are the updates on the manufacturing strategy from the UK Government’s perspective in that regard?
On flying, decarbonising the aviation sector means that some radical thoughts are required. That will be sensitive, given the fragility of aviation post covid, but a proper green recovery also means supporting the aviation sector. Although talk of air passenger duty might be welcomed in some quarters, that is too blunt an instrument. What discussions has the Minister had with the Treasury on that? What does she think of the call from the citizen’s assembly to have a frequent-flyer surcharge—a policy that would affect only those who can afford to pay for frequent flying, while allowing others still to fly? Any moneys raised from such a policy could be reinvested into the decarbonisation of the aviation sector.
There are also opportunities for the production of sustainable aviation fuels, so when will the UK Government finally provide the support needed to pump-prime the private investment required to create a number of sustainable aviation fuel production plants? It makes no sense that aviation gasoline is duty-free, when domestic petrol for drivers is taxed to the hilt. That disparity should have been resolved years ago, but it will need to be addressed to incentivise decarbonisation and the switch to other aviation fuels.
On domestic electric vehicles, we heard a lot from the hon. Member for Kensington. I agree with the five goals that she set out at the end of her speech. We have heard a lot of talk about being world leading, without that being delivered. I welcome the fact that the Government are bringing forward the phase-out date for new diesel and petrol cars to 2030, but there need to be joined-up policies, properly funded, to match that ambition.
According to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the UK will need to spend at least £16.7 billion to get its public charging network ready for the mass EV market. In March, it estimated that 700 new electric charging points need to be installed every single day until 2030 to give the right market coverage for the 2030 implementation date. At the moment, installations average 42 per day, so what will the Minister do to resolve that? Will the decarbonisation plan tackle that disparity?
It will be no surprise that Scotland leads the way on the roll-out of charge points in the UK. It has 40 public charge points per 100,000 people, compared with fewer than 30 in England and fewer than 20 in Wales and Northern Ireland. That is, of course, because the Scottish Government invested directly in that. Scotland also has the shortest average distance to travel to reach a public charge point. Will the UK Government up their game and tackle that in the decarbonisation plan, which will hopefully mean more Barnett consequentials for Scotland?
Many motor manufacturers are already starting to phase out fossil fuel cars. However, the transport decarbonisation plan will need to allow for extra interventions. What assessment has the Minister made of Climate Assembly UK’s recommendations, such as a car scrappage scheme, which I have long called for, and larger grants to assist businesses and people in purchasing electric vehicles? Will the UK Government copy the Scottish Government by providing interest-free loans for individuals and businesses to purchase electric vehicles? The Scottish Government have now extended that to the second-hand market to stimulate it as well.
Another key point regarding energy as we move towards the electrification of domestic travel is grid charging. Scotland faces the highest grid charges in the whole of Europe, so if we are to have joined-up thinking for electrification of the domestic vehicle market, that means overhauling the grid charging system to allow renewables to be developed at the best locations, incorporating investment in storage such as pumped hydro storage and moving away from the nuclear obsession.
The future can be bright and green and include a revitalised manufacturing sector, but we need to see actions, not words, and clearly we need much more than a transport decarbonisation plan. We need cross-Government departmental co-ordination and leadership from the very top. Those are matters that, frankly, at the moment, are sadly lacking, but the transport decarbonisation plan would be a first step.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms Nokes. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) for bringing the debate forward at this moment. I am pleased that over the years most of us have come to accept that humans are having an impact on our environment. That said, I can understand why some people may be sceptical about the extent to which the UK can lead the global fight against climate change. After all, we contribute a mere 1% of the greenhouse gases produced globally, and naturally some may ask, “Why should we take such a lead?” That is a question that I have asked myself, but I believe that, with our standing in the world being as great as it is, we must lead rather than follow. We can set an example to our international partners on the merits and necessity of reducing emissions. However, it is local pollution—the pollution on our streets—that I want to speak about today.
The fumes that we breathe as we walk down the street are mainly from cars, yet in Doncaster, where the bus fleet is old, vast clouds of black smoke from the buses also fill the air. In recent months, I have said much about electric cars with regard to the need to introduce a zero emission vehicle mandate and increase the number of charging points. Such moves would help the speed at which we make the transition to electric vehicles and reduce emissions. However, many more individuals in urban centres mainly use buses rather than cars to get about.
As part of the Sheffield city region—now the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority—Doncaster has had to cope with second-hand buses for many years. Meanwhile, the newer buses are predominantly located in Sheffield. Apparently that is due to the topography of South Yorkshire. In speaking to stakeholders, I have been informed that it is better to give the new buses to Sheffield, where it is very hilly, and use the older buses in relatively flat Doncaster. My constituents rightly believe that this state of affairs is unfair, and I long for the day when Doncaster residents can also benefit from the clean air that results from having electric buses on the roads. For too long, Doncaster’s children, on their way to school, have had to breathe in particulates, which can cause lifelong illnesses. If we are to embark on a green industrial revolution, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to work with the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority, Doncaster Council and private enterprise to get polluting buses off my constituency’s roads.
We often hear how China is the main contributor to global carbon emissions. That is true and something that I am sure is raised by our representatives abroad with its Government. However, China is also a leader in electric transportation and buses as a whole. It is also one of the largest investors in grid renewables. Shenzhen, a city of more than 12.5 million people, has electrified its entire bus system.
I see no reason why that could not be replicated right here in the UK. After all, the UK is one of the greatest innovators in and utilisers of grid renewables. I therefore hope that, with the Government’s plan to build back better, we can move quickly to complete electrification of our public transport. Electric buses reap the same benefits as electric cars: reduced servicing, increased ease of driving, reduced noise pollution and smoother journeys.
However, if we are to roll out more electric buses, infrastructure is needed. I am talking about huge charging depots, which will inevitably require a lot of power. However, if we are truly going through with building back better, the Department for Transport must prepare for that. Furthermore, we must press forward quickly in rolling out electric buses in places such as Doncaster, as that would work well and be a great example of levelling up.
To conclude, if we are ever to end the love affair we have with our cars, we must create frequent, reliable, safe, clean and easily accessible electric buses.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) for raising this important issue. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I rise today to speak on an issue on which I feel strongly. My hon. Friends will know that much of my work in the House has focused on bringing the green revolution to left-behind areas across the United Kingdom, including Rother Valley, and that green transport has been a focus for me. In fact, I sponsored the first two debates on hydrogen and the first debate on critical minerals in the UK Parliament, and I shall speak about those topics today, as I firmly believe that they are vital in the context of our transport decarbonisation plan.
Critical minerals are incredibly important to our green energy and low-carbon transport needs. On average, each electric car uses 100 kg of copper, rare earth for the magnets, and lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite for the batteries. To meet the Prime Minister’s vision for wind power, we also need more than 26,000 tonnes of rare earths and more than 4 tonnes of copper. Importantly, seven points in the Government’s 10-point plan for the green recovery are dependent on a secure green supply of critical minerals. The UK Government must acknowledge that the construction of renewable energy technology and low-carbon electric vehicles is inextricably linked to the supply of our critical minerals. We must take action accordingly to protect our energy sector, the generation of clean power and the future transport technology for low-carbon vehicles.
The challenge to the UK is not just that rocketing demand will leave shortages, but that our suppliers of critical minerals—namely the People’s Republic of China—are unsustainable and unreliable. More than 75% of the world’s lithium-ion component manufacturers are located in China, resulting in more than 72% of lithium-ion batteries and 45% of all global electric vehicles already being produced there. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) mentioned Shenzhen and other areas in China with huge electric vehicle networks. That is a positive in some ways, but also a concern, as they are almost hoovering up the critical minerals that we need to decarbonise here in the UK and across the globe. In December 2020—only a few months ago—the Chinese legislature passed a law on export control allowing the Chinese Government to ban exports of strategic minerals and advanced technology whenever they wished, so they have a stranglehold on the supply of essential minerals.
I have been active in persistently calling on the Government to adopt a comprehensive critical minerals strategy and to collaborate with the Five Eyes and Commonwealth partners on a unified supply network. I am pleased to hear that my call has been heeded and that Ministers and Whitehall are waking up to the urgency of this policy sector. Time is of the essence, and we must move now.
Furthermore, I submitted questions to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the role of assured data in mineral supply chains and the role of the Government in the stimulus and advancement of deployment of technology, including distributed ledger technology, used in the distribution system for critical minerals. I was a bit disappointed that the Department chose to group its responses together and provide, frankly, a very short and unresponsive answer. I hope the Minister can speak to her colleagues in BEIS and get them to commit to look at the questions again, because they are essential to our future critical mineral needs.
I wish to devote the rest of my speech to hydrogen. Some great work has already been undertaken by the Government on this issue, and I have spoken a lot about it in the House. However, with COP26 coming up in the UK, we must seize the opportunity to steal a march on the competition and become a pre-eminent world leader in hydrogen technology. I would like us to go further by introducing a vehicle capital financial support mechanism that applies to vehicle types where hydrogen has the potential to significantly reduce emissions. We should also introduce a financial support mechanism per kilo of hydrogen sold. That can be achieved quickly through the liberalisation of the renewable transport fuel obligation, which has recently gone out for public consultation. Further, we hope the hydrogen strategy will enable the development of a more refined scheme, such as, potentially, contracts for difference.
In addition, we should urgently develop hydrogen train schemes and use the 4,000-strong zero emission bus scheme to buy a large number of hydrogen buses to help kickstart investment in UK-made buses, as well as hydrogen production. We must modernise the bus service operators’ grant to align with the UK’s net zero ambitions and favour zero emission fuels over and above fossil fuels. We must commit to an explicit medium-term, zero emission freight deployment programme with vehicle deployment targets, and relax and clarify the conditions for hydrogen projects to qualify for the renewable transport fuels obligation, which will support the entire production and supply chain infrastructure needed for full hydrogen mobility. Combined, those policies have the ability to accelerate progress to net zero, stimulate private investment and create jobs across the Union, all with minimal taxpayer spend.
One other small point I want to touch on in relation to the low-carbon transport strategy is the nature of our technology and the batteries. Let me talk briefly about oil, as someone who used to work for Shell in the oil industry. Many people do not know the amount of oil that goes into an electric car. It is a huge amount, mainly for cooling the batteries, because at the moment that is the best way to cool them down. As battery range increases, batteries will get hotter and will need more cooling, therefore needing more oil. We cannot get away from the fact that, even in a low-carbon future, we will still need oil in the engine. It is not burned; it is first fill, so it is sealed in the engine, but when the engine battery is recycled or destroyed, that carbon will be released.
In future strategies, the Government need to acknowledge that there is carbon that we will have to get rid of at some point, and there needs to be a true way of recycling it. They also need to realise that some of that oil will get lost and carbon will be released, so we need to invest in offsetting that carbon usage. We will never get to zero carbon—net zero, but not zero carbon. In the strategy that is hopefully coming up, we need nature-based solutions and, potentially, carbon capture and storage. That needs to be at the heart of the strategy. We cannot ignore the elephant in the room: there is oil still in electric vehicles.
I commend the Minister for the work the Government have already done on critical minerals and hydrogen. However, without further decisive steps in both sectors, we risk losing out to the rest of the world, putting our net zero, energy security and economic growth at risk. We must see the rapid publication of the transport decarbonisation plan and the hydrogen strategy, which I think we are still waiting on. Every time I raise that with the Government, they say it will come soon. I hope it is sooner rather than later. We also need the critical mineral strategy. Industry, politicians and international partners are waiting. Now is the time to rise to the challenge and set the gold standard for transport decarbonisation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I did not expect to be called quite so early, but it is a pleasure to speak, Ms Nokes. I thank the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) for setting the scene so well. Where we can, we must make changes. Many people want to change their carbon footprint, because it is the right thing to do. I do not think I have met anyone who thinks it is not the right thing to do, but we have to all agree whether we are prepared to pay the price to move from where we are to where we should be. I am not convinced that everyone is in a position where they want to or are able to pay that price. Others will make the change because their Government instruct them to do so. The legislation on the sale of petrol and diesel cars will be a case where we are following instructions.
I am excited by the opportunities for the electric vehicle market. But those who wish to jump on the train, to use a pun, and buy in early to start the change now are undoubtedly hampered by the lack of infrastructure to support it. In Northern Ireland, electric charging points are few and far between. I have had some correspondence with the Infrastructure Minister in Northern Ireland about that. I get contacted every week by constituents who want to buy or have bought diesel cars and vans, because they do not know how long they will last. Constituents also tell me that they buy an electric vehicle and set off to their destination, having checked the route to make sure there is an electric charging point. They see that there is one, but when they get there, 10 people are waiting in the queue. That is a real problem.
We need a good frequency of extra charging points. For someone who wants to buy an electric car, there is a very limited number of charging points in Northern Ireland. I wrote to the Minister, Nichola Mallon, about my constituency, and she gave me a clear response. She said that, in Northern Ireland, the
“electric vehicle public charge point network is owned, operated and maintained by the Electricity Supply Board…It is responsible for the operation, maintenance and development of its network. There are currently 320 22kWh (Fast) charge points at 160 locations and a further 17 50kWh DC (Rapid) public charge points in the North.”
I say facetiously that I think she refers to Northern Ireland, as opposed to the north part of Northern Ireland, but that is by the way. She goes on to say that the Government have
“made £20 million in grant funding available to local authorities/councils in GB-NI for 20/22”.
I know from my discussions with the Minister in this place and others who have been involved that that will provide some charge points for residents without off-street parking.
To quote the Northern Ireland Minister again:
“My Department has engaged with local councils in relation to the need for more electric vehicle charge points, including more recently with regard to the On-street residential charge Point scheme”.
Many of those who want to buy electric vehicles and electric vans need to make sure there is a charge point in their street. They need to make sure their vehicle can go the distance that they want it to go. She goes on:
“Therefore, the installation of on-street residential charge points, in urban residential areas, is essential going forward. My officials will continue to make themselves available to local councils to provide assistance, advice and guidance… ESB have advised that they plan to replace approx. 60 charge points i.e. 30 charge posts and a further 5 Rapid charge points to upgrade and improve the reliability of the existing public network.”
Nothing is as frustrating as going to the charging point and finding that it cannot be accessed or does not work for whatever reason. I declare an interest in that my son bought a hybrid car a short time ago, ultimately, probably because he thinks it is cheaper, but also because it helps him and shows his commitment to moving forward to what we all want to do.
Many of us are not yet convinced that it is possible to take that step if we do not have the charging points in place. A lot of work needs to be done and it appears that the driver of the work must be the Government from this place, going out to the regions, Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Perhaps the Minister in her summing up will give some indication or advance notice of what contacts, relationships and discussions she has had with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and in particular with the Minister responsible, Nichola Mallon—a good Minister, by the way, who works very hard.
The allocation of funding for councils should provide charging points that meet the need and allow those who want to buy a new car now to be sure that if they need to make a long journey, they can do so confidently throughout Northern Ireland without worrying that there will be a queue of 10 cars waiting to get home at the one charging point—that has happened—or whether their car charge will not get them to where they want to be and ultimately get them home as well.
I support these targets, but it is up to the Government to put the infrastructure in place quickly to enable change to take place. I look for more information about funding streams, incentives and encouragements being made available to private bodies, such as major supermarkets. I think that is one of the things that people wish to see. I am conscious that some of my constituents say to me, “It’s okay to have them at supermarkets, but we’d like to see them in the centre of town as well”. I am not saying this is wrong, but we need an equal playing pitch. They need to be in the main streets as well to attract people there, and not just at the supermarkets.
I want to make a wee plug for Green biofuels. Coincidentally, I had a meeting yesterday with some representatives and friends who took the opportunity to make me aware of some of the points. These refer mostly to London, and I know the hon. Member for Kensington will be very aware of them. They informed me that out of a bus fleet of some 9,112 vehicles, only 318 are electric or fuel cell. There are 3,773 diesel hybrids, but the principal fuel source is still diesel. There are 5,011 diesel vehicles. They also informed me that the company Green Biofuels has recently entered into partnership with Thames tugs and barges and that some of them are now running on green biofuels. The point I am making is that there are other methods of decarbonisation, and we need to be considering green biofuels as one of those. I understand that green diesel and biofuels are used in generators at Glastonbury and the Hyde Park Winter Wonderland event.
There are many things that can be done to reduce carbon and have a positive impact. I think there needs to be a commitment by train companies as well, such as on some of the freight and diesel locomotives that go from King’s Cross to the north of England. At present, trains are a major source of pollution. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health, I am aware that this issue has been brought to our attention. It is clear that we need to improve air quality and respiratory health across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Trains that sit under a main station canopy run their engines for about 30 minutes, and the amount of pollution they generate in that time, before they even pull out of the station, is very large.
I know that this is a bit last minute, so the Minister might not able to respond today, but I am quite happy to get a response further down the line. It would be very helpful for me to go back to the people I have spoken to and tell them that. There are many people out there who have good ideas, who are very committed to reducing carbon, and all of us want that to happen.
We can make a huge difference, but until the infrastructure is in place for us to do so, there will be substantially fewer people who be confident in taking that eco step now. We want to encourage them. I believe that the Government want to do that; I believe we should work together in partnership, positively and constructively. If we do, then we will achieve the goals we need for our children and our grandchildren.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I thank the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) for bringing such an important debate to the Chamber this morning.
The Government’s rhetoric on this is fantastic, with their 10-point plan and 4,000 electric buses. The UK was the first G7 country to legislate for net zero, although of course that was after Scotland had already done so. However, the Government’s actions simply do not follow the rhetoric, from the much-delayed investment in those electric buses, which I have spoken about many times in this place, through onshore wind, carbon capture and storage, rail electrification, and reductions in electric vehicle grants—without notice, I have to say—to the obscene grid charges levied on Scottish renewable projects mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown).
The Government’s track record is poor. In the last debate in this Chamber, I asked the Minister when they would publish the long-awaited transport decarbonisation plan and I was told “shortly”. However, I think “shortly” has been the answer for quite a long time now, so I hope that when the Minister sums up she can give us an actual date for the publication of that plan, because it is needed as soon as possible.
By 2023, Scotland will see the majority of fossil fuel buses removed from our roads. That is in sharp contrast to the UK’s ambition—if we can even use that word in this context—of just one tenth of fossil fuel buses. We are getting on with that now. While the UK Government have prevaricated, the equivalent of 2,720 buses are already on order in Scotland. Scotland’s plans mean not just green buses but renewed fleets around the country at a time when, post-covid, the offer to potential passengers has to step up a gear.
Buses are the unsung heroes of the public transport network. Over twice as many commuter journeys use bus versus rail, but there is no doubt —as the hon. Members hear from their own local bus companies and I hear from mine—that bus patronage is dropping and putting the future of routes at risk. Many have already gone in areas outside London, I would imagine.
Clean buses are one way to bring patronage back and show off what technology can do on our roads. We have also committed to decarbonise our rail network by 2035. As I speak, that work is ongoing with the East Kilbride to Glasgow railway line which is set to be electrified, with a subsequent boost in services to meet the growth in passenger demand. That is just the latest in the roll-out of electrification across Scotland’s railways, which has been in place for two decades. Airdrie to Bathgate, Stirling to Alloa, Larkhall and the Borders Railway have all been reopened since the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament. Just yesterday, my colleague Graeme Dey MSP, Minister for Transport, confirmed the Levenmouth line reopening in Fife will be double-tracked and electrified from day one. Communities cut off from the mainline railway network for more than five decades will now have speedy, zero emission rail travel, linking with jobs and opportunities across Fife, the Lothians and the rest of Scotland.
Over the last couple of decades, nearly all main routes in the central belt have been electrified, with plans to fill the gaps over coming years and with work to continue heading north to Perth and Dundee. Those years have seen a near continuous process of upgrading, electrification and future-proofing, at the same time as investing in rolling stock and making journeys more attractive to get people out of their cars.
This has not been a party political process. Progress has been supported across the parties at Holyrood, which is a recognition that for too long rail investment lagged behind when the sole responsibility was Westminster’s. Those roles have now been reversed, with Westminster lagging far behind Scotland when it comes to equipping our rail infrastructure for the 21st century and the challenge of decarbonisation. Over the last 20 years, Scotland’s rail network has been electrified at twice the pace of England’s rail network.
I was proud that the SNP’s manifesto at last month’s election included pledges on extending free bus travel, support for zero carbon bike travel and reducing car kilometres by 20% by the end of the decade. Of the cars remaining, we want as many as possible to be zero emission cars. That is why we have enhanced funding in Scotland for drivers switching to electric vehicles. We have enhanced home charge point funding of up to £350 over and above the Office for Zero Emission Vehicles funding. We also have interest-free car loans of up to £28,000 for new zero emission cars and up to £20,000 for used models.
There is still a significant gap between the price of regular combustion engine cars and electric cars, so as well as the various sticks that people talk of, we still need a significant carrot when we talk about electric and zero emission cars to make it easier for people to switch. It cannot just be the preserve of the well-off to switch to electric cars. I should declare at this point that I have made use of the schemes just mentioned of late. We have bought our first electric car and ditched two diesel cars in doing so.
The investment follows years and years of sustained investment in charging points and the infrastructure we need to drive demand for electric vehicles, to ensure that early adopters are not discouraged by a lack of support and, more importantly, electricity. We all know—not least, in part, because my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun has told us all—that the UK charging network, outside London at least, is lagging well behind Scotland. Further to the stats that my hon. Friend outlined, here is another: there are currently double the number of rapid charging points per head of population in Scotland compared with England. Even London’s rapid charging network is almost half of Scotland’s.
According to the excellent report, “Pain points” by DevicePilot, the plans for 2021 are not particularly encouraging and are not going to change things too much, with a new charging point planned for every 2,741 people in London. The figure for the rest of England is one for every 19,159. In the east of England, the figure goes up to 38,000 people. Where is the levelling up or the building back greener for the rest of England? It simply does not exist. I hope the decarbonisation plan, when it is eventually published, will address that.
There is huge innovation in public charging in Scotland, because there can often be difficulties in identifying sites and installing the infrastructure because of the various parties involved. Project PACE, a collaboration of both Lanarkshire local authorities, the Scottish Government, Transport Scotland and Scottish Power Energy Networks, explored the benefits of having the distribution network operator involved at all stages of the planning and delivery of charging infrastructure. It increased capacity in Lanarkshire by 360% and achieved savings of up to £60,000 per site, which aggregated over the project across Lanarkshire amounted to £3.5 million of savings. I would like to see a lot more of that, not just across Scotland but across the rest of the country, and I hope the Minister can look at that project for down here.
On e-bikes, the Scottish Government are taking up the slack with yet more interest-free loans for electric bikes, while Cycle to Work, overall a very worthy scheme, is unfortunately letting some fall through the cracks. Again, Scotland is taking the lead while the rest of the UK outside of London is stuck in the slow lane, and that should not be the case. The UK authorities and the Department for Transport should speak to their counterparts in the Scottish Government to learn from the experience and ambition there and use those lessons to up their game across the board.
The Scottish Government have also pledged to increase active travel spending up to 10% of the transport capital budget over the lifetime of this Parliament. That should be transformational spending that could revolutionise how our towns and cities function and how people can connect. We have heard much more over recent months about 20-minute communities, where Governments and communities ensure that for most people services and shopping are within 10 minutes of homes without using a car. My colleague, Tom Arthur MSP, with whom I share some of my constituency, has been appointed Minister with responsibility for that in the Scottish Government. Tom will make sure that the drive towards 20-minute communities will have decarbonisation and a net zero future at the heart of each development across the country, working with communities to make sure that our high streets and centres are places with people rather than vehicles at their heart.
Combining those measures has the potential to revitalise town centres that have been hit hard in recent years by regional shopping centres, the growth in car ownership, and most recently covid. By increasing the active travel budget, as the Scottish Government are doing, we can not only reboot our towns and neighbourhoods, but ensure a more sustainable economy on the ground. We are also boosting zero carbon travel and keeping more of our money in the local economy.
Decarbonisation is not and should not be just about tackling emissions and climate change. It should also be about making changes to our transport networks that rebalance our economy and naturally regenerate communities that for too long have suffered as carbon-based transport has dominated. Moving to net zero is also a move to greater fairness. It is the poor who are disproportionately affected by air pollution and climate change, the poor who are excluded from accessing services for want of private transport, and the poor who are disproportionately hit by poor quality or highly priced public transport.
Investing in decarbonised and sustainable transport is not just the right thing to do environmentally. It is fundamentally the right thing to do economically and socially if we are serious about social justice and building a fairer society and—dare I say it?—levelling up. Change will not come tomorrow and we will no doubt have many bumps along the way, but if we are to meet the challenges of a net zero country by the target of 2045, Scotland has to make that commitment and take those risks. I urge the Minister and the rest of the UK Government to learn from that and show the ambition that has the potential to transform the lives of people here in England for the better, too.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Ms Nokes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) on securing this important debate. She made an excellent speech and I agreed with almost everything that she said. I say “almost everything” in case there was something in it that I did not spot and will come to regret. Certainly on the key points, she was very much on the same page as the Labour Front Bench. One of the most important things that she said was that too often there are very ambitious end goals, but they are far into the future, and unless we have clear interim targets and ways of monitoring and scrutinising progress towards those targets, and a plan as to how we will get there, there is a danger that everything will get pushed into the long grass, as we have seen with the 25-year environment plan. As the Environment Bill goes through Parliament, there is a real concern that with a 25-year plan, how do we make sure that we do ambitious things in the next five years and not just put things off?
It was really interesting to hear the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), and also the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), talk about the progress that Scotland is making. There is a lot we can learn from that. The point was made about how many more EV charging points we need to get to where we need to be. I speak as an EV driver, and what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said resonated with me. I have learnt not to travel on a bank holiday because of queues at the service station. I cannot charge at home, so I rely on public charging points and have learnt to make trips in the wee small hours because I know I can get to the charging point then.
Also interesting was what the SNP spokesperson said about how this needs to be part of the planning system. Another speaker talked about new housing developments and how important it was to have charging points built in. This cannot be left to the market; it cannot be left to chance. It is something that we have to plan for.
I agree with what the hon. Members for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) said about the importance of electric buses, hydrogen, and the sourcing and manufacturing of batteries. These are real issues that we have to grapple with now. As has been said, decarbonising our transport sector is one of the most pressing challenges that we face as a nation, and we need more ambition and more action from this Government if we are to meet net zero. At the moment, whether it is the lack of a green recovery plan for our post-pandemic recovery or carbon budgets that will not be met through current policies, we are not seeing enough ambition or action from this Government. As the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, said, the rhetoric is great—we cannot disagree with that—but where is the road map? Instead, we have a Prime Minister who talks green but then flies to the G7 in Cornwall, where climate change is high on the agenda, in a private jet rather than taking the train. What kind of signal does that send to world leaders ahead of COP26?
As has been said, transport is now the largest contributor to UK emissions. There has been real progress in areas such as energy, but we have not seen similar progress on transport. There has been a decade of inaction by this Government. According to the Climate Change Committee, surface transport contributed 24% of UK emissions in 2019, with aviation accounting for 8% and shipping 3%. I am glad that the Government have now said that they will look at including international aviation and shipping emissions when measuring our carbon footprint and on the agenda for COP.
I am also glad that one speaker in this debate has withdrawn and the other speakers, if anything, came in under time, because there will be lots of time for the Minister to answer questions, and I have quite a lot of questions for her. Obviously, the first one is, “Where is the transport decarbonisation plan?” We expected it to be published last year, and then we were told throughout this year that it would be published in spring. This Sunday marks the start of the summer solstice, so unless the Minister has a very big surprise up her sleeve for us in a few minutes’ time, it looks like that is another missed deadline. The hon. Member for Rother Valley talked about his frustration at constantly being told, “Soon, soon, soon.” That is something that we have come to expect from this Government: “Soon, shortly, spring.” When are we going to see the plan? I hope that it is very soon. Could the Minister also say whether, when the plan is published, there will be an oral statement in the House to accompany it? I certainly hope that there will be, so that MPs have a chance to ask questions.
We know that we urgently need to get polluting vehicles off our roads, get more people into zero emission vehicles, and get people back on public transport once it is safe to do so. Importantly—we have not heard very much about this so far this morning—we need to get people to engage more in active travel, whether that is cycling on conventional bicycles, e-bikes or e-cargo bikes, or walking. All of that will improve air quality, help lower emissions, reduce congestion, and improve physical health. With all the focus on technological developments, sustainable fuels and so on, I hope that people-powered travel—active travel—will not be overlooked.
Unfortunately, what we have seen from the Government recently does not inspire confidence. Subsidies for EV plug-in grants have been slashed yet again, and although the Government have tried to say that that is because they want more people to benefit—that was the answer I got when I challenged the most recent cut—based on the figures we have seen from the Government, the overall pot for plug-in grants has reduced too. Leaving it to the market, as has been said by the hon. Member for Kensington and others, will not get us to where we need to be by 2030. Funding for public charging infrastructure has so far been piecemeal, to put it mildly. There are at least four different pots that councils can apply for, but lots of local councils have not had anything from the Government.
When I have asked the Government which local authorities have not had any public funding at all, I have not had an answer; what I have had is a list of councils that have had money, and I have tried to extrapolate from that how many have not. It is a very significant number. That might be because of a lack of political will on councils’ part: maybe they do not feel the need for public charging infrastructure, and assume that people can charge at home, or that it can be left to the market. It might be because they have not been successful in putting together bids, but there are really significant gaps, and that needs to be addressed. We need a strategy to ensure consistent coverage throughout the country.
We also need to deal with grid connection costs, because the private sector has told me that there is an expense to putting in public charging points, and it could take quite a long while to recoup the costs before ownership reaches critical mass. In rural areas or tourist destinations in particular, it would take a while to recoup those costs. The actual cost of connecting to the grid is the thing that really deters companies from doing so.
On funding for local councils, the £2 billion for active travel that was announced last year—in fact, it was announced several times last year—is being released far too slowly. We have had a couple of tranches but I understand that there will be no more money until the next spending review, so we have missed the crucial window to embed the positive behavioural change that we saw during the lockdowns, when people were wary of using public transport but were quite keen to take advantage of the reduced traffic on our roads to take up cycling.
I also challenge the Minister on the £27 billion that has been pledged to road building by this Government, and on the fact that the Transport Secretary overruled the advice of his own civil servants to conduct an environmental review of the policy. I hope that the transport decarbonisation plan sheds some light on how and if such carbon-intensive construction projects can be made compatible with our net zero emissions target.
Alexander Stafford
Tarmac is made of oil, so when making roads, we need to go back to offsetting some of our emissions because we will always need that oil. Does the hon. Lady think that should be part of the plan as well?
Kerry McCarthy
We need the environmental impact assessment from the Department so that we can assess the carbon footprint of road building, and look at whether more sustainable materials can be used and whether the extent of the road building programme proposed by the Government is compatible with reaching net zero, or whether other decisions need to be made.
We desperately need a comprehensive strategy to guide the Government’s approach. We do not want to see in this plan only platitudes and declarations of intent; we need clarity about how the Government intend to boost zero emission vehicle sales, speed up the transition to sustainable fuels, including for aviation and maritime, and encourage more people to use public transport, which we must ensure involves clean, greener vehicles.
We need a bold vision, linked to planning, housing and economic policy, on what role transport will play in the future, with post-pandemic adjustments to the way we live, move around, buy goods and access services—for example, the idea of the 15-minute city, which has been championed in Paris, and the role of the logistics sector. Many more people have resorted to online deliveries during the pandemic. I believe that pattern of behaviour will continue, so what is the strategy to keep heavy polluting vehicles out of urban centres wherever possible and rely on more sustainable forms of transport, whether electric vans, e-cargo bikes or other alternatives? The other day I visited Magway, a company that is looking at an underground delivery system, which it will be trialling in west London soon; that is really quite exciting stuff. Will we see ambition on that sort of thing in the plan?
I would welcome any insight from the Minister as to what concrete measures we can expect to see. Are the Government considering a zero emission vehicle mandate, as recommended by the Green Alliance and Policy Exchange, to ease the transition to 100% new zero emission vehicle sales by 2030? Are they considering a sustainable aviation fuel blending mandate to incentivise production and the adoption of stable fuels derived from waste? Will we finally see the timeframe for the production and roll-out of the 4,000 zero emission buses promised by the Government? How does the Government’s consultation on cutting air passenger duty for domestic flights square with all of this?
There is huge potential for jobs, and for the UK to lead the way in technological development. What we really want to hear from the Minister is a real strategy to get us there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) on securing this landmark debate on the forthcoming transport decarbonisation plan. I welcome the opportunity to provide an update and set out the Government’s position on all matters raised.
I warmly thank all Members who have taken part for their contributions, which displayed their extensive knowledge of this vital topic, including my hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) and the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands).
Before I move on to the main body of my remarks, I want to reassure the hon. Member for Strangford that I am shortly to meet Minister Nicola Mallon to discuss many of the matters that he raised. Northern Ireland is always close to our thoughts and we want to ensure that our transition is taking place at speed.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington started by saying, in 2019 we became the first major global economy to set a 2050 target to end our contribution to climate change and to achieve that net zero of carbon emissions. Our ambitious target to reduce our emissions by at least 68% by 2030, our nationally determined contribution under the Paris climate agreement, is among the highest in the world. It commits the UK to cutting emissions at the fastest rate of any major economy so far.
I will answer head on the question put to me by Opposition and Government Members—when are we going to publish the transport decarbonisation plan? We have done a huge amount of work on the plan, as I have said in this House many times, and we have a final draft. I am not satisfied with the draft because it does not meet the ambition we need in order to reach those incredibly challenging targets. It is my desire that, when we publish the plan, hon. Members will not be disappointed, and we will be able to ensure that we have taken into account the Climate Change Committee’s sixth carbon budget advice. I cannot give a date, I am afraid, so I cannot meet hon. Members’ challenges head on, but we are working through that at pace and intend to publish soon.
It is right at this point to counter some, though not all, of the narrative that we are not doing enough and it is all rhetoric. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Let me focus on a few highlights. We already have half a million ultra low emission vehicles registered on UK roads. That is backed by £1.3 billion of Government grants, also available in Scotland, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North updated us.
Nearly one in seven cars sold so far in 2021 has a plug. A driver is never more than 25 miles away from a rapid charge point anywhere along England’s motorways and A roads. We have 4,450 rapid charge points and 24,000 public charge points. We are providing up to £120 million for zero emission buses, adding to the £50 million already awarded to Coventry under all the all-electric bus city scheme. We will commit to spend £3 billion rolling out 4,000 zero emission buses during this Parliament. On active travel, we have committed—
Rachel Maclean
Forgive me; will the hon. Gentleman allow me to complete my speech, because I am sure I am going to answer his questions in it? I have a lot of points to cover, but I will take interventions later if he is still not satisfied.
We have committed £2 billion to active travel over five years. That is the largest amount of funding ever committed to cycling and walking by any Government.
Let me turn to electric vehicles, which were the focus of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. The key to decarbonising transport will be to roll out cleaner modes of travel that are affordable and accessible to all. I am delighted to see all the hard work she is doing in her constituency. It is by local engagement that Members of Parliament can play a vital role in ensuring that their local authorities are engaged in this. Many of these initiatives are delivered through local government funding.
I note that some local authority areas are not taking advantage of our on-street residential charge point scheme. I encourage any Member of Parliament to come to me, so I can provide them with an update about if their local authority is engaging in this, because that is how we are going to get charging points rolled out to people who do not have off-street parking. We need to move further and faster, and I fully agree with everybody who has posed that challenge to the Government.
We have an ambitious phase-out date to end the sale of all petrol and diesel cars by 2030. That is the most ambitious date of any country in the world. All new cars and vans must be zero emission at the tailpipe by 2030. We will be the fastest country to decarbonise cars and vans. There is no sign of buyer’s remorse.
Alan Brown
On that ambition of before 2030, does the Minister accept that that means that energy policy has to align with that to get the electrification? That means that Ofgem must be mandated to deliver net zero and it means an overhaul of how energy is delivered. Is she discussing that with other Ministers? Does the transport decarbonisation plan interlink on that basis?
Rachel Maclean
I am absolutely discussing that with fellow Ministers. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will be coming forward shortly with its net zero strategy, which will answer many of those issues about the electricity network.
Over 90% of EV drivers say they will not go back to petrol or diesel. I am one of them because I drive an electric car, including on bank holidays, so I experience these issues first hand. We are determined to make it as easy to charge up an electric vehicle as it currently is to fill a tank with petrol or diesel. The private sector has already installed 24,000 public charging devices, but the process is changing and accelerating all the time. In two years’ time every motorway service station will have at least six high-powered chargers, so that people can charge up in the time it takes to have a coffee.
To underpin our ambitious phase-out dates and to help achieve them, in November we committed to developing three key policy documents over the course of 2021. Those policy documents will specifically answer many of the questions that hon. Members have rightly posed to me. The first is a delivery plan that will set out key Government commitments, funding and milestones. That is for the 2030 and 2035 phase-out dates. It will deal with the question whether we will have a zero emission vehicle mandate. We are having that discussion inside Government at the moment.
We will set out an infrastructure strategy. That will set out the vision and action plan for the charging infrastructure roll-out that is needed to achieve our ambitious phase-out date successfully, and to accelerate the transition to a zero emission fleet. As part of this strategy we are working with local authorities, charge point operators and other stakeholders to ensure that our future charging infrastructure is practical, accessible, reliable and achievable, alongside outlining all the key roles and responsibilities for all actors in the EV charging sectors. It is clear that we need more charge points everywhere and this Government will set out how that will take place.
The Green Paper on our UK future CO2 emissions regulatory framework, now we are no longer a member of the European Union, will set out how we will phase out petrol and diesel cars and vans, and support those interim carbon budgets, including consulting on which vehicles exactly can be sold between 2030 and 2035.
Let me go through the key points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. On her first priority, the need to combat range anxiety, she is absolutely right and every Member has mentioned that. We need to increase not only the reality but the perception of the adequacy of the infrastructure for electric vehicles. I keep reminding people that in England they are never more than 25 miles away from the nearest charge point and we have committed, and are already investing, £1.3 billion to accelerate the roll-out of charging infrastructure in rural and urban areas across the UK.
The charge point market has evolved over the past decade. Like my hon. Friend, I am a free-market capitalist, but of course Government has a role to play, hand in hand with the private sector, which is stepping up in an incredibly impressive way. They have a growing role in charge point funding, with areas such as home charging showing signs of maturity. We need to keep working hand in hand with the private sector, so we have committed to invest £950 million in future-proofing grid capacity along the strategic road network, to prepare for 100% uptake of zero emission cars and vans. We expect to increase the number of high-powered chargers across the network by 2035 to 6,000.
We also have a £90 million local EV infrastructure fund that will support large on-street charging schemes and potentially local rapid charging hub schemes in England, as well as the £20 million already referred to, which is the on-street residential charging scheme. We are working closely with stakeholders to inform the design and delivery of the fund. We aim to launch it in spring next year. We must continue, however, as a Government—that is our responsibility—to monitor the market.
Gavin Newlands
On charge points, those plans sound fantastic and what have you, but will the Minister comment on the massive discrepancy in the numbers of planned charge points in England? In London, which already has an extensive network compared with the rest of England, this year there is one charge point for every 2,700 people, whereas in the east of England there is one for every 38,500 people. Why is there such huge discrepancy across England?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Member for his comments, but I have addressed them already with the roles that local authorities, the private sector and Government have to play. I also point him back to what I said about our delivery plan, which will, absolutely, set out how we intend to ensure that every resident of the United Kingdom, no matter where they live, has equal access to this electric and low emission revolution. We will continue to monitor the market, and where it is not delivering, it is right for central Government to step into those areas of market failure.
Members mentioned the experience of public charging. We have consulted recently on measures to improve that experience, including opening up public charge point data, improving reliability and streamlining the payment methods for drivers—they should not have to have multiple active apps and accounts on their phone. We want to increase pricing transparency. I have done a huge amount of work with charge point operators as part of that vital work. We also plan to lay legislation later this year.
We want people across the country to have the opportunity to move to being electric vehicle drivers.
Kerry McCarthy
Am I right in thinking that that would be legislation requiring charge point operators to meet certain reliability standards? Is that what the Minister is suggesting?
Rachel Maclean
Absolutely right, it is that. We already have those powers in legislation, and we intend to use them.
The vast majority of electric vehicle drivers choose to charge their cars at home overnight or, increasingly, at the workplace. We plan to support people to charge their cars at home, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington said. We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government at the moment and we have consulted on plans to introduce a requirement for every new home to have a charge point, where there is an associated parking space. We will publish our response soon. We aim to lay regulations in Parliament in 2021—this year. That will make England the first country in the world to introduce mandatory charge points in new homes, again cementing our position as the global leader in the race to net zero.
My hon. Friend spoke about R&D, and we are world-leading in the automotive manufacturing sector. We have prioritised securing investment in battery cell gigafactories. That is key to anchoring the mass manufacture of electric vehicles in the UK, safeguarding green jobs and driving emissions to net zero by 2050. We must also create a circular economy for electric vehicle batteries to maximise the economic and environmental opportunities of the transition to zero emission vehicles. That is why we support innovation, infrastructure and a regulatory environment for the UK battery recycling industry. The £318 million Faraday battery challenge is about tackling those technical challenges of reusing and recycling battery components with the aim of making them 95% recyclable by 2035—up from 10% to 50% today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley mentioned many of the critical minerals. He will have to forgive me, that topic is not my direct brief, but I assure him that a lot of the work on the Faraday battery challenge is to address such critical challenges, of which Ministers are well aware.
We must also continue to support public transport as one of the most sustainable ways around. On rail, we are building on our Williams-Shapps plan for rail to decarbonise the rail network. We have already completed 700 miles of rail electrification in England and Wales, and we will continue to electrify more of the network in the years ahead. In the past year, there has been a meteoric rise in cycling and walking, and all of our policy development is aimed at embedding that shift. As I said, we are investing £2 billion to enable half of all travel in towns and cities to be cycled or walked by 2030.
Jim Shannon
I asked the Minister earlier—if she is coming to it, that is dead on, but if she is not, perhaps she will reply to me—about how green biofuels can improve rail and public transport in the UK. Does she have a response to that? If she does not, I am happy for her to get back to me.
Rachel Maclean
We refer to that in the transport decarbonisation plan, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with a lot more detail. Synthetic fuels are an important part of our thinking on decarbonising the entire transport network.
In the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, he announced £20 million of funding for pioneering UK freight trials. The hon. Member for Bristol East rightly mentioned freight. We want to test and develop primary candidate technologies for zero emission long-haul HGVs this year, and the role of hydrogen will be crucial as we aim to decarbonise the transport sector and put UK industry and technology at its forefront. Although it is in its infancy, in the UK we have one of the largest publicly accessible hydrogen refuelling station networks in Europe.
I seek your guidance, Ms Nokes. What time does the debate end?
Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)
It ends at 10.55 am. It would be a courtesy to allow the Member in charge time to wind up.
Rachel Maclean
I will certainly do that. Thank you very much, Ms Nokes. I will bring my remarks to a close and thank everybody who has contributed.
Our transport decarbonisation plan must not just change transport to be greener; it must make transport better for everyone, because transport is what connects people to opportunity, prosperity and each other. Our resolve in tackling climate change and ending the UK’s contribution to it could not be stronger.
Felicity Buchan
I thank the Minister for that informative and ambitious update. I thank all Members, including the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople, for their contributions. I am glad to hear that the transport decarbonisation plan is in its final phase and that the Minister wants to make it more ambitious. I am looking forward to that.
I was also glad to hear that we will be introducing legislation on the reliability of chargers, because that is something that I hear a lot about anecdotally. I am glad we are making progress on mandating chargers in new homes. There is clearly a lot of legislation to come. The Minister also mentioned the consultation on vehicle sales between 2030 and 2035. I am looking forward to seeing and scrutinising all that because, as I said, this is a huge challenge but also a huge opportunity. We collectively need to get this absolutely spot on.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the transport decarbonisation plan.
Reform of the Mental Health Act: White Paper
(2 years, 10 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
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the “Reforming the Mental Health Act” White Paper.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Ms Nokes. I am grateful for this opportunity to bring to the Minister the concerns and aspirations of my constituents about the “Reforming the Mental Health Act” White Paper.
I appreciate that the consultation on the White Paper closed only recently and that the Government will be considering their response ahead of bringing forward legislation. My intention in securing this debate is to emphasise many of the concerns and priorities of my constituents on reform of the Mental Health Act 1983, to put those concerns on record and to seek assurances from the Minister that they will be addressed in the Government’s response and in forthcoming legislation. Although I draw on the experience of my constituents, I am confident that these issues apply equally to communities up and down the country.
I am grateful to Lambeth and Southwark Mind for the work it has done to engage with local residents in Lambeth and Southwark, including many with lived experience of accessing mental health services. That work has informed its submission to the consultation, which I will draw on today. I am also grateful to national Mind, for its research and analysis of the experiences of black, Asian and minority ethnic residents of mental health services.
Being sectioned is one of the most serious things that can happen to somebody experiencing a mental health problem. It involves the deprivation of liberty, removal to an institutional facility, multiple interactions with professionals, who are most likely to be strangers, and medical interventions, sometimes involving the use of chemical or physical restraint. For far too many people, the experience of being sectioned is itself an additional trauma.
That reality was brought home to me when, as a teenager, I had a regular summer job in a firm of legal aid solicitors in Liverpool who represented people at the mental health review tribunal. It was my job to open the post and, day after day, I read handwritten accounts of the pain and distress suffered by people detained due to their mental health. The overall impression from the weight of correspondence over many weeks and months was of desperation and a system that was so often not listening to the patients in its care. Reform of the Mental Health Act is long overdue. Many of the proposals for reform set out in the review chaired by Sir Simon Wessely are very welcome.
The boroughs that my constituency covers, Lambeth and Southwark, have among the highest rates of mental ill health anywhere in the country. They are also among the most diverse communities in the country, with a significant proportion of residents from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. It is therefore a top priority for me and my constituents to ensure that the forthcoming reform of the Mental Health Act delivers services that work for our diverse communities, in terms of both sustaining good mental health and delivering equitable access to services that are culturally appropriate and free from racial discrimination.
Mental health research points to a relationship between the experience of racism and mental ill health and to racial inequality within mental health services. There is ethnic disparity in the diagnosis of mental illness. For example, for every one white person diagnosed with schizophrenia, 4.7 black people and 2.4 Asian people are diagnosed with the disorder. Incidence is highest among UK residents of black Caribbean heritage, but that disparity is particular to the UK and is not replicated in the Caribbean, which points strongly to social determinants of mental ill health, including poverty, unemployment, poor housing and school exclusion.
Growing evidence, cited by Mind, suggests that discrimination and, in particular, experiences of racism, both personal and institutional, contribute to increased likelihood of developing mental health problems. Experiences of racism have been linked to an increased likelihood of developing depression, hallucinations and delusions and post-traumatic stress. Routine experiences of racism and discrimination, and the associated prolonged exposure to stress and distress, have been found to have a toxic wear-and-tear effect on the body over time.
There is also evidence of some racial discrimination within mental health services, particularly with regard to racial stereotyping and the perceived risk of violence contributing to increased rates of detention. That translates into significant racial inequalities in the use of the Mental Health Act. Black people are more likely than white people to be referred to mental health services through the criminal justice route, four times more likely to be sectioned, more likely to be detained more than once, three times more likely to be the subject of physical restraint, and eight times more likely to be given a community treatment order.
The Government’s support for the Sewell report, with its denial of institutional racism, gives rise to grave concerns among many of my constituents about whether the reforms will address racial inequality in mental health. It is absolutely vital that reform of the Mental Health Act addresses those stark and unacceptable inequalities. I hope the Minister will understand why I am anxious to emphasise this matter before the Government publish a response to the consultation.
Lambeth and Southwark Mind has identified three ways in which racial and ethnic disparity and discrimination can be addressed in mental health services. The first is greater community engagement directly with black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, working with existing, often dynamic, community structures, rather than expecting communities to engage proactively with NHS structures. Such structures can seem distant and opaque and which often reflect services that have been the source of painful experiences in the past, and in which trust is sometimes low. There are many grassroots organisations and NHS services that engage very well with communities. It is vital that best practice is understood and embedded across all services as part of those reforms.
The second is investment to support more culturally focused peer support groups and counselling as part of much wider investment in improved community care. There is concern that, although increasing the threshold for sectioning is the right thing to do, without a step change in the level of investment in community-based mental health services—specifically those that are culturally appropriate and competent—some people could experience a delay in accessing services until they are much more unwell.
Thirdly, Lambeth and Southwark Mind recommends a significant change in language to reduce stigma and improve access to mental health services. That type of change is modelled exceptionally well by organisations such as Black Thrive, whose language focuses not on the stigma of illness but on the changes that are required to keep people well and thriving. Lambeth and Southwark Mind also emphasises the need for practical changes, including the introduction of discreet mental health vehicles to transport people suffering a mental health crisis, which are more appropriate, less traumatising and less stigmatising than ambulances and police cars.
There is widespread support for the proposal to move to an opt-out system for mental health advocacy services. It is important that training and funding are put in place to ensure that advocacy services are always delivered in a culturally appropriate way. The introduction of a nominated person is a significant improvement over the current nearest relative provision, but in a consultation meeting held by Lambeth and Southwark Mind, which I attended, some of the contributors flagged concerns that there should be robust safeguards against coercion and exploitation, since it is possible for people to be subject to abuse and exploitation from non-relatives, which may result in pressure to designate them a nominated person.
Lambeth and Southwark Mind raises some questions about the lack of clarity in the White Paper on the time limit for temporary detention. As it stands, section 5 of the Act places a 72-hour time limit for an in-patient to be temporarily detained in hospital pending assessment. It is unclear whether the limit extends to out-patients in A&E. Provision of a 72-hour time limit for temporary detention in A&E reflects the horrific experience of far too many mental health patients in A&E departments across the country, due to the acute shortage of in-patient beds. Long wait times in A&E are unacceptable. They should not be enshrined in law; rather, investment should be made in services to ensure that they are available in a timely manner.
Nationally, Mind has raised particular concerns about community treatment orders, given the appalling racial disparity in their use. Black people are 10 times more likely to be put on a CTO than white people. CTOs can involve very significant coercion and intrusion, and there is no evidence that they reduce the number of black people being sectioned. The Government have committed to ensure that any reduction in the use and duration of CTOs is matched by a reduction in disparities surrounding their application, but that is not a sufficient response to the level of racial disparity in the use of CTOs, and will not help to build trust and confidence of black communities in mental health services. I urge the Minister to look again and to ensure that reforms are fit for purpose, by removing racial disparity from the use of CTOs in mental health services.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) for his work to introduce the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018 known as Seni’s law, in honour of Seni Lewis, who died while being restrained. It was passed in 2018 but has not yet been implemented. Will the Minister commit to expedite the implementation of Seni’s law, which is so important in reducing the use of restraint?
Finally, I want to raise two important issues on the reform of the Mental Health Act for children and young people. First, the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition raised important concerns about the lack of data on children and young people admitted informally to inpatient facilities. There is currently no legal requirement for advocacy for informal patients. Although the White Paper recognises the importance of extending that right to them, it also states that
“this will create an additional burden for local authorities, and advocacy providers”,
and will
“therefore be subject to future funding decisions.”
Advocacy is rightly recognised as important enough to make it a statutory requirement. It is surely therefore important enough for the Government to fund it properly. Will the Minister make a commitment today to fund advocacy services for children and young people who are admitted as mental health in-patients, whether by a formal or informal route?
Secondly, it is absolutely vital that these reforms remove the routine use of out-of-area placements and placements in private hospitals for children and young people. Out-of-area placements are distressing for young patients and their families, limit access to vital support networks, make services less transparent, and are not conducive to good outcomes. Will the Minister confirm that there is a commitment to ensure that children and young people who need to be admitted to hospital for their mental health will be able to access a bed close to home?
These reforms are vital and long overdue. They are also complex and far reaching, and it is vital that the Government get this right. Reform of the Mental Health Act must work for everyone in our diverse communities, and it must work for children and young people. Involving and engaging a wide range of community stakeholders and people with lived experience of in-patient treatment and care in developing the reforms further and in the future design of services will help to ensure that these reforms are fit for purpose.
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for bringing this debate to the House and for raising important concerns on behalf of her constituents in what was a truly constituency oriented speech. We both come from Liverpool, which is an incredibly diverse city. I recognise many of the points she raised in her speech and thank her for that.
The hon. Lady spoke about the consultation, which was wide reaching and had a huge response, including from Mind, which she spoke about. Mind has worked very closely with us throughout the development of the mental health White Paper and contributed strongly to the consultation process. It is a very important stakeholder and we work very closely with it.
The Mental Health Act exists so that people with severe mental illness who present a risk to themselves or others can be detained in hospital and treated, which, I am sure the hon. Lady will agree, is necessary at times, unfortunately. Outside the cases where we know that people are safest in hospital and require hospital treatment, no mental health treatment is better delivered in a hospital than in the community. Our goal is for people to receive community mental health treatment close to where they live and to their families and work, in order to prevent them from having to be admitted as hospital in-patients. There are times, however, when detention is, unfortunately, necessary. We are taking steps because it is time to modernise the Act so that it works better for people.
In 2018, the Government asked Professor Sir Simon Wessely to review the Mental Health Act. I thank the hon. Lady for her comments about him. We asked him to review the Act because we were concerned about the rising rates and numbers of people being detained under the Act and the racial disparities in those detention rates. Sir Simon’s independent review of the Act clearly shows that it does not always work as well as it should for patients, their families and communities. It goes too far in removing people’s autonomy and it does not give them enough control over their own care.
In response to Sir Simon’s review, in January the Government published the White Paper on reforming the Mental Health Act, setting out our proposals to make the Act work better for people. These are once-in-a-generation reforms that will give people greater control over their treatment and let them have the dignity and respect they deserve. Through these reforms, we will give patients a voice in their own care, which we know leads to better engagement in treatment. We will put care and treatment plans, and advance choice documents, into statute for the first time. I will address in a moment some of the individual points made by the hon. Lady.
Patients will be more closely involved in the development of their own care and can have confidence that if they lose capacity because of illness, their preferences on drug treatment, named next of kin and choices for the future will be properly considered. We will also make it easier—this is incredibly important—for patients to challenge decisions about their care. We are creating a new right for patients to choose a nominated person who will best look after their interests. I am sure the hon. Lady knows that, until the reform of the Act, it was still the case that if a woman was detained in hospital, it was her husband, father or next male relative who—regardless of how remote that person was to her life or experience—was nominated to make decisions on her behalf. That is one of the reasons why I personally think that this new provision is so important—it is so that that anyone can choose their nominated person, regardless of whether they are a relative, next of kin or someone in their family. That person is nominated during a time of wellness and remains the nominated person in the future. That can lead to patients having a far greater degree of control over their treatment, and a feeling of control over decisions taken on their behalf.
We are increasing patients’ access to the independent mental health tribunal to provide vital independent scrutiny of detention. The reforms also seek to address the disproportionate number of people from black and minority ethnic groups detained under the Act. Black people are currently four times more likely than white people to be detained under the Act, and 10 times more likely to be placed on a community treatment order, as mentioned by the hon. Lady. Our plans to enhance patient choice, increase scrutiny of decisions and improve a patient’s right to challenge aim to address those concerning disparities.
On the criminal justice system, our proposals include key improvements to how we manage offenders with acute mental disorders and support them to access the care they need as quickly and as early as possible. We will improve the timeliness of transfers from prisons to mental health hospitals where individuals become well when in custody—I am sure that the hon. Lady is familiar with that situation from her previous experience—so that people in the criminal justice system get the right care, in the right place, at the right time, while continuing to fulfil our duty to keep the public safe.
Finally, we want to improve how people with a learning disability and autistic people are treated under the Act. The right community services would prevent needs from escalating. In future, the Act should be used only where there is a treatable mental health condition and admission is therapeutic, close to home and for the shortest time possible. There have been far too many examples of poor practice and quality failings in in-patient care for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. Therefore, we are proposing reforms to limit the scope to detain people under the Act where their needs are due to their learning disability or autism alone. We are firmly committed to developing community based services to support people with learning disabilities and autistic people, and to reduce reliance on specialist in-patient services. We have put forward proposals to ensure that that is available. These once-in-a-generation reforms will be instrumental in bringing the Mental Health Act into the 21st century.
On the points raised by the hon. Lady, CTOs are incredibly important and we are increasing the scrutiny of when they are used—and the frequency of that scrutiny—so that they are used only when appropriate and for no longer than necessary. That has been one of the failings so far, and it needs to be addressed. They will now be monitored and kept in place for no longer than is necessary. We are taking action to address racial disparities across the use of the Mental Health Act. Those CTO disparities are, of course, happening in the communities represented by the hon. Lady.
The hon. Lady mentioned Seni’s law. We are clear that restrictive intervention and restraint should only ever be used as a last resort, when all attempts to de-escalate a situation have already been employed. The Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act, also known as Seni’s law, received Royal Assent in November 2018. The purpose of the Act is to increase the oversight and management of the use of force and acts of restraint in mental health units, so that force is only ever used as a last resort. We published the draft statutory guidance to the Act for public consultation in spring, and are committed to publishing the final guidance and commencing the Act in November.
We have made a huge amount of progress, but unfortunately, and sadly, we have been delayed by covid. The Department’s resources have all been focused on covid over the last 15 months. I met Seni’s family and the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) only a few weeks ago to discuss this. They were absolutely delighted to hear that we will make huge progress from September to November, and that by November the Act will hopefully be live. I commend them for the work and the campaigning that they have done—they are still campaigning.
The disparity in the use of force and restraint speaks to the communities that the hon. Lady represents. The Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act will be instrumental, along with reform of the Mental Health Act 1983, in improving her constituents’ mental health experiences of detention and in-patient treatment.
On the next steps, public consultation on the White Paper has ended. I note that the hon. Lady said that she would like her comments to be considered, and they will be—they have been heard and duly noted. I reassure her that the stakeholders, many of whom represent her community and interface both with the Department of Health and Social Care and with other organisations and arm’s length bodies, have been fully engaged in the White Paper for the reform of the 1983 Act and in the consultation. I stand to be corrected, but I think we have accepted 124 of Sir Simon Wessely’s 127 recommendations. We meet him regularly to look at how we can enhance and implement those recommendations.[Official Report, 17 June 2021, Vol. 697, c. 4MC.]
I want to thank and reassure the hon. Lady. I absolutely understand why we are reforming the Mental Health Act and the reason why we supported and assisted the enactment of Seni’s law. It is because we are absolutely committed to improving the experience of mental health in-patient detention for all, and especially the communities she represents. We are very aware of the fact that black men are four times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act, and we very much want to change that. That is why we have accepted so many of Sir Simon Wessely’s recommendations.
I thank you, Ms Nokes, and I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I always look forward to an opportunity to speak about mental health, particularly the reform of the Mental Health Act, which I very much look forward to championing later in the year.
Question put and agreed to.
Children and Young People’s Mental Health
(2 years, 10 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
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. The timing of debates has 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, and they are expected to remain for the entire debate. I also remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their camera on for the duration of the debate, and that they will be visible at all times, both to one another and to us in the Boothroyd Room. We would have it no other way.
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.
I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall. Members attending physically who are in the latter stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery— I think we have one or two there already—and move to the horseshoe when seats become available. Members may speak only from the horseshoe where there are microphones.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered children and young people’s mental health.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I am very grateful to be given the opportunity to lead a debate on this critical issue. Eighteen months ago in my maiden speech, I pledged that children and young people’s mental health would be an issue that I champion in this place. It is a cause for which I will fight relentlessly, because children and young people are our future. Their hopes and dreams depend upon us doing the right thing by them.
Those who are struggling with their mental health and wellbeing, whether those suffering mild anxiety to those young people attempting to take their own life, deserve the very best care and support. Yet children and young people do not have a voice in the political system and are too often overlooked. In fact, the former Children’s Commissioner, Anne Longfield, said in her final speech earlier this year that in Government there was an “institutional bias against children”—never more so than during the pandemic when, frankly, they have been an afterthought at every turn. From new born babies to schoolchildren to university students, the Government have let them down in planning and providing for their social and educational needs, and again in their announcements about children’s recovery.
Teenagers and young people in my constituency who are ambassadors for the fantastic local charity Off The Record tell me that uncertainty over exams, combined with the social isolation of being stuck at home away from their peers, worries about loved ones and now concerns about their future job prospects have all taken their toll. But this crisis in children and young people’s mental health started long before the pandemic. One reason why I made it my priority at the start of last year was because following my election, I was astounded week in, week out by the emails from parents or conversations at my surgeries, of stories of battles with child and adolescent mental health services to access treatment for children who are considering suicide, self-harming or withdrawing themselves from school. Yet they were having to wait six months or sometimes a year for treatment.
At a lower level, support in schools is patchy, with only some having access to a counsellor or mental health support team. Community-based support to intervene early can be dependent on voluntary sector provision in any given area. The pandemic has only served to highlight and exacerbate the existing lack of access and inequalities within children and young people’s mental health. In 2017, one in nine children had a diagnosable mental health condition. That rose to one in six at the height of the pandemic. The Government need to use this moment to renew their focus on mental health and overhaul the support available.
I want to focus on three elements within the system and what needs to be done: CAMHS, schools and community services. Turning first to CAMHS, referrals are at their highest ever level, with over 65,500 referrals for 0 to 18-year-olds received in March 2021. That is more than double the number in March 2020 and almost 70% higher than in March 2019. Behind the staggering numbers is a child or a younger person in turmoil, often left in limbo waiting for treatment, and a carer beside themselves with worry. From talking to NHS leaders in my area, I know that unplanned admissions for children suffering a mental health crisis are at extremely high levels with services struggling to cope.
While it must be acknowledged that the Government have increased spending in this area, resulting in the NHS slightly exceeding its 2019-20 target of community mental health support for 34% of children needing support, there is still a long way to go. Last week, a local GP said she is increasingly finding that children she refers to CAMHS are being knocked back, and she is routinely requesting schools make a supporting referral to secure therapy. When referrals succeed, the wait can seem interminable. I heard from the adoptive father of a seven-year-old who suffered significant trauma and abuse within her birth family. She was referred to treatment, the initial assessment took several months to secure, and then the family were told that there would be a year’s wait—yes, a year’s wait for a seven-year-old for an eight-session course of treatment, only if deemed necessary.
There is a postcode lottery of spending across the country. Eight local areas spend less than £40 per child on mental health services, while 21 areas spend more than £100 per child. That brings me to an important point about data and reporting, which is so important for accountability. Inconsistencies in financial reporting across clinical commission groups makes it difficult to interrogate the data to check they are meeting NHS England guidance to increase year-on-year the proportion of spending on children and young people’s mental health. This measure should be included in the mental health investment standard.
The other issue with data collection and publication is that it is impossible to judge whether different areas are meeting access targets, as the percentage of young people with a diagnosable mental health condition is only available nationally, not on a local basis. The Children’s Commissioner should not have to request this comprehensive data on waiting times and referrals every year. The Minister will know that I tabled an amendment during the passage of the NHS Funding Act 2020 to improve transparency in operational expenditure and performance at a local level. I discussed this with her ministerial colleague, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), a few months ago. He assured me that the Minister is taking this forward, and I hope she can update us on when this local data might be routinely available.
However much money is pumped into CAMHS, improving access to it is contingent on plugging big holes in the workforce. The Royal College of Psychiatrists’ 2019 workforce census found that the rate of unfilled NHS consultant psychiatrist posts in England has doubled in the last six years, with one in eight CAMHS psychiatrist posts vacant. We urgently need a proper long-term work- force strategy, adequately resourced and with an annual report to Parliament. The forthcoming heath and care Bill is the ideal opportunity to hardwire this provision.
Turning to the role of schools in tackling mental health concerns, they are key to early intervention, and step in where children do not meet the CAMHS threshold. Provision of counselling and other mental health support services in schools can be variable and dependent on already massively overstretched school budgets. Mental health support teams can fill the gap. However, the current roll-out rate is very slow. The Government are aiming to reach a fifth to a quarter of the country by 2022-23, and have recently provided more funding to accelerate the roll-out, but I urge the Minster to be more ambitious.
On children’s recovery from the pandemic, most of the education catch-up funding announced by the Government has been largely focused on academic catch-up, with little focus on emotional wellbeing and mental health support. All the research shows that it is difficult for children to learn if they are struggling with their mental wellbeing. Liberal Democrats supported YoungMinds’ call for a £178 million ring-fenced resilience fund to allow schools to provide bespoke mental health and wellbeing support packages, as appropriate to their pupils and context. So far the Government have committed just £17 million of dedicated mental health support for schools as part of the recovery. A recent Ipsos MORI poll showed that parents put increased wellbeing support at the top of their priority list as part of any education recovery plan.
Finally, I will touch on the importance of community support services. We know that half of all mental health conditions present themselves by the age of 14 and three quarters by the age of 24. That is why prevention and early intervention are so critical. We know that some children and young people do not want, or are unable, to access mental health support in schools, but community-based services can be a lifeline.
Waiting until children reach crisis point is far too late. For younger children, family-based interventions, such as those offered by Kids Matter, are an effective approach. The Purple Elephant Project in Twickenham, founded by the inspirational Jenny Haylock, who has built a team of art and play therapists, works with children and their families from a very young age. Coram is also doing some incredibly important work on boosting children’s self-esteem and resilience.
For teenagers and young adults, I warmly welcome the campaign launched by a range of children’s and young people’s mental health charities, called “Fund the Hubs”. It calls for early-support hubs, offering easy-access, drop-in support on a self-referral basis for young people up to the age of 25, who do not meet the threshold of CAMHS.
The hubs would offer a mix of clinical staff, counsellors, young workers and volunteers, providing a range of support services. Additional services could be co-located under one roof, such as sexual health services or employment advice. The hubs could be delivered in partnership with the NHS, through local authorities or working with the voluntary sector, depending on the local area. Such an approach has already been tried in Manchester, Ireland and Australia, and has been shown to relieve pressure on and deliver cost savings to the health service. I hope the Minister will look at that innovative model.
In conclusion, we owe it to our children and young people to offer them the very best start in life. As a Liberal, I am passionate that every child gets the maximum opportunity to reach their full potential. With spiralling figures of children suffering anxiety, who are self-harming or struggling with eating disorders, as well as many more who are grappling with low confidence and self-esteem, we need to use this moment as we emerge from the pandemic to hit the reset button.
I urge the Minister, who I know shares my passion on this issue, to develop a proper cross-departmental strategy to tackle this growing crisis. Let us re-envision what support looks like for children and young people. Let us break down the silos between schools, local authorities and the NHS. Let us make sure that we prevent and intervene early to stem the tide, while also investing in training the mental health workforce.
I have heard too many times, from too many parents sick with worry, that CAMHS is simply not fit for purpose. I have yet to see much evidence to disagree with them. I hope the Minister will make it her mission to fix it, and work cross-party, if she is willing. I stand ready to do so for the sake of our children and their future, and I hope my Labour counterpart will, too. Not only is it morally the right thing to do, but our country’s recovery depends on their success.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Colleagues, we have 45 minutes and nine Back-Bench speeches to fit in, so that is exactly five minutes each. Please try to keep to time, so that I will not need to impose any restrictions.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. As we know, the Timpson review was commissioned by the Secretary of State for Education in March 2018 and published in May 2019. There is no need today to go into the detail of that excellent document, which is on public record, but I will highlight some key factors.
From 1998 to 2013, there was a downward trend of school exclusions. They dropped to a rate of 0.06% for the 2012-13 school year. However, that level has increased in recent years. For example, in 2017-18, there were almost 8,000 permanent exclusions in state-funded schools across all levels, a rate of 0.1%. The reasons are multifarious, including persistent disruptive behaviour and physical assaults against pupils and adults. Most intriguingly, the exclusion rates for children with special educational needs are much higher than average. With overall permanent exclusion set at 0.1% in 2016-17, it was 0.35% over the same period—three and half times the problem. So, indeed, Houston, we have a problem.
We are not here today to admire our challenges, but to solve them, so what do we need to do? The SEND review is expected imminently, but it is a matter for DFE and DHSC. First, we need to invest in our SEN children as never before. Yes, many are disruptive, hard to handle and come with a range of issues, but what about their energy, skills and strengths? If we can harness them to best effect, just think of the rewards.
Why might that work? By getting to the root cause of the issues, providing focused intervention and allowing children to fulfil their potential in the right environment, rather simply be excluded because it is all too difficult, we can get the best out of them. By providing the right care in the right settings, we can give them the focus they need to be productive, employable, law-abiding and responsible citizens, because we have addressed the root causes.
Our prisons are sadly full of people who have made the wrong decisions or acted impulsively, because they were not diagnosed at an early age, so let’s invest in all our kids to give them the best possible chance.
I want every single local authority in the UK to comprehensively review their SEN provision, so that it becomes available in every area. In other words, every authority should provide specialist in-house provision. Specialist and dedicated settings are the way forward, and I want more dedicated schools established for SEN. Why? It is because it is not fair on the 95% of children in a class if 5% are disruptive, nor is it fair on the 5% to be constantly out on a limb, feeling the odd one out or being excluded. Let us separate the children, where we need to, but also be free to adopt hybrid models where access to the mainstream will still be beneficial. It is about a needs-must basis—individually streamlined to each child.
Why is it necessary for local authorities to do that? It is because it is the right thing to do. Our children are closer to home and enjoy the normality that they crave. It would also save on the exorbitant cost of providing taxi fares to schools a long distance away and perhaps even save the huge school fees of private education, when this should be provided in the state sector.
We must also give our teachers better training in identifying special needs and processing the education, health and care plans. I know of many families who are simply swept under the carpet, waiting for years for someone to take them seriously and for the EHCP to be authorised. This cannot be a golden ticket for the lucky few, but a rightful passport for every child to get what they need. Please, let’s speed up the EHCP process and hold headteachers and councils to account. And please don’t get me started on local councils that fail to acknowledge hidden disabilities or autism in applications for blue badges—a whole different issue.
Lastly, our child and adolescent mental health services across the UK need 20,000 volts put straight through them. For families to be waiting up to two and a half years for a consultation, it is not only immoral, it is also, frankly, inept. The irony will not have escaped anybody that a GP cannot prescribe medication for autism spectrum disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, Asperger’s or any other mental health condition without a diagnosis from CAMHS. Therein lies a vicious circle: children desperate to escape their symptoms, parents and teachers desperate for solace, GPs unable to prescribe without a diagnosis and CAMHS unable to see these children, in some cases, for up to two and a half years. It is a national disgrace, but we can now solve it.
To conclude, I commend the Timpson review. Let’s get diagnosing, treating and spending and give all our children the future that they deserve in specialist educational settings that give them the chance.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of visiting Positive Youth Foundation in my constituency. I had the best time, as videos on my social media show. It is a fantastic organisation providing young people in Coventry with a huge range of activities and opportunities. Visiting the centre, I saw the bonds that had been formed between the staff, volunteers and young people and the confidence and support that gave them. I want to begin by paying tribute to everyone at Positive Youth Foundation from its founder and CEO Rashid Bhayat to all the staff and volunteers.
As staff and volunteers made clear to me, this is an incredibly challenging time for young people, with more than half of safeguarding reports at the centre being about children’s and young people’s emotional wellbeing and mental health. The pandemic, and the new stresses, strains and isolation it has brought, has added to what was already a mental health crisis for children and young people. Before coronavirus hit, one in five young people aged between 16 and 24 suffered mental ill-health, and for school-aged children the figure was one in six. That has only got worse in the last 12 months. University students have been trapped in accommodation, away from friends and family, and have missed out on what should be the most exciting time of their lives. Almost two thirds of the people who have lost jobs during the pandemic are under 25. Schoolchildren have been missing out on vital education and have often been stuck in overcrowded homes with overstretched parents.
Things have got even worse for oppressed groups. Nearly three in four children with autism have a mental health condition, but in Coventry waiting times for autism assessments have been growing, and were doing so even before the pandemic. Working-class and LGBT+ young people, and children from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities all have greater rates of mental ill- health. What makes this not just a crisis but a scandal is the totally inadequate support for children and young people’s mental health.
More than a decade of austerity has cut away the support that was once provided, while deepening the problems that give rise to mental ill-health. Since 2011, mental health trusts have faced a real-terms cut of more than 8%. Huge cuts to school funding have put even greater pressure on budgets, forcing schools to have bigger classes while cutting mental health services. Nearly half of young people with moderate to severe mental health needs have to wait more than 18 weeks to start treatment. That is a cruel failure for children and young people. Mental health support needs the funding across the board that it deserves—for services such as NHS services and school counsellors—to guarantee that every single young person who needs support can get it when they need it.
Although funding for support is vital, the mental health crisis cannot be tackled with funding alone. It is getting worse, and more and more young people face mental ill-health. It is estimated that depression has tripled for those aged between 16 and 39. We cannot look just at the consequences; we have to look at the causes, too. Asthma, for example, is a health condition, but people do not suffer from it totally at random. If someone lives in an area of high air pollution, they are more likely to suffer from asthma. It is an individual problem, but it has social and political causes. The same is true for many mental health issues. The more stress, anxiety and trauma there is in people’s lives, the more likely they are to experience mental ill-health. For children and young people who have grown up under austerity, life is getting more stressful and less secure. That is what is driving this mental health crisis, so although funding is vital, so is building a society that nurtures people, gives them security and safety, and truly values and cherishes them.
A report presented to the United Nations in 2019 argued that the best way to tackle the global mental health crisis is to build a supportive environment, including everything from the building of good homes to secure and well-paid work. If we are to solve the mental health crisis faced by children and young people, we must build a society where basic needs are met, where young people find decent and secure employment, where housing is both affordable and liveable, where education is understood to be a right and a good in itself, and where people do not have to work every hour of the day, but instead have time to live their lives to the fullest.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) [V]
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. The issue of children and adolescent mental health is mission critical. It is the next tsunami—the challenge that will follow the covid pandemic. Now is the time not only to right historical wrongs—they are not as simple as underfunding; it is about truly looking at parity of esteem—but to look at the increasing needs that young people, and adolescents in particular, face and need to be satisfied.
We sometimes forget that mental ill-health is as much of a killer as physical ill-health. Life expectancy for those with mental health problems is usually reduced by some 10 years. Clearly, that can get worse in some areas and mildly improve in others. One of the real challenges is that it is those in deprived areas and lower-income families who suffer the most. Sir Gary, you will be aware of the huge deprivation in our rural areas, which is sadly hidden and therefore not properly addressed.
To get this right, we need properly to monitor it. We need to be clear what we mean by mental health. We need to be clear what illness means. We measure diagnosis, but there are many problems that come before it. We heard earlier from hon. Members that the time gap between someone putting themselves forward with a potential problem and diagnosis can be significant. We need to recognise that both have to be addressed.
The point that has been made about data is right. If we do not understand who is coming forward within the three systems—education, health and local government—what hope do we have of really understanding the scope of the problem? We need to collect, measure and keep consistent data across the country about diagnosis, waiting times, treatment and recovery. It is not just about what we put in to address mental health; what happens at the end of it—whether people get better—is equally important. Unless we do that, this promise of parity of esteem is never going to be delivered.
Some of the existing targets, which in my view are not adequate, are distinctly unambitious. The access target for children and young people is 35%. That seems the wrong way around—surely it should be the larger part, not the smaller part.
We must remember when we talk about youngsters that children are the most vulnerable to mental health problems, and an earlier contribution set out exactly what the statistics look like. I pay tribute to Devonshire Partnership NHS Trust in my area, which has done a fantastic job of providing support against all odds, but the numbers are growing. The eating disorder challenge is going exponentially upwards. Quarantined children are showing acute stress disorder and acute adjustment disorder.
Addressing the waiting time issue is just the start of solving the problem, but let us at least look at it and try to find a proper target to collect data for and monitor, with some sanctions if it is not met. In 2017, a four-week waiting time was piloted, but it was only a pilot and has not been rolled out across the country. We know from our own experience around the country that the actual waiting time can be significantly greater. My call today is for a national access and waiting time standard. It is much needed and would be the start of our journey towards true parity of esteem.
The pandemic has had a huge impact on youngsters. Many—up to 25%, it is estimated—are not getting the treatment that they have been given historically. We also know that the numbers have grown enormously. They will just add to the burden. Although the Government have provided support, it is not yet enough.
My ask is this. We need to look again at the health and care Bill, and at specific provision for mental health. We need to look at specific provision for how it is commissioned, and at proper measurement to deliver parity of esteem. We need national access and waiting time standards. The five year forward view for mental health has not been met; it must be. Mental health matters. Young people matter. What gets measured gets done.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. We have talked a lot about self-isolation over the past year but less about the impact of being isolated on our mental health. Many children and young people have faced the disruption, hardship and heartbreak of this pandemic largely away from their friends and school support networks.
Last week, I visited a breakfast club at a primary school in Camden, where I had some really uplifting conversations with young children. Most were absolutely delighted to be back in school, around their classmates and teachers once again. We know that the attainment gap has widened substantially during school closures, in part due to the Government’s failure to deliver laptops to disadvantaged children. Many of the children I have spoken to, however, found that their wellbeing and mental health took the biggest hit in lockdown. Most have been able to do classes on Zoom and to get on with their homework remotely, but they said that the wellbeing support which can only be delivered properly by teachers in person is what they have missed out on the most. The teachers I spoke to at the school expressed their frustration that they were not able to do more to help with mental health issues during school closures.
Children with special educational needs and disabilities have suffered particularly badly, with three quarters of parents saying that their disabled child is socially isolated and often unhappy, downhearted or tearful, and that there is a real risk that that could translate into serious long-term mental health issues without better support. That is also something I have picked up in my role as the governor of a primary school in my constituency. Remote learning also stifled the role that teachers often play in spotting problems that are emerging, intervening with assistance or, in serious cases, with referrals to other services.
The number of children and young people receiving support through the NHS for mental health difficulties halved in April and May last year, as did the number of referrals to CAMHS, compared with the previous year. Sadly, the number of current referrals does not make up that shortfall or address the worsening problems caused by the pandemic. That means that many children are still suffering in silence and without the support that they desperately need.
I heard that message loud and clear last summer when I met a group of inspiring children—the meeting was organised by Barnardo’s—who told me about the isolation and other difficulties they had faced as a result of the pandemic. They also spoke about how difficult it can be to access basic mental health assistance and how there is almost no joined-up thinking between different but related support services in some areas of the country. The reality is that young people are far too often unable to access mental health support until it is too late and they have, sadly, started to harm themselves.
It is a source of great sadness and shame that one in six young people in the UK could now have a mental health disorder, up from one in nine in 2017. We must turn that around, which requires a laser-like focus on improving access to mental health support, and giving schools and other bodies the resources to provide direct targeted help and to join up children’s services properly. The children and young people I have spoken to over the past year simply cannot afford to wait for the snail’s pace of change that this Government are overseeing in prioritising and investing in mental health support. We have to act, and we have to act now.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Sir Gary, and I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing this important discussion. This debate on young people and mental health is important to my constituents, many of whom have contacted me about it. As many other hon. Members have said, people come to explain their experiences and their difficulties in accessing services.
To provide some context, according to NHS Digital, in 2017 one in nine children was estimated to have a diagnosable mental health condition. That number has increased to one in six because of the covid-19 pandemic, but it is important to emphasise that the crisis existed before the pandemic. Research by University College London shows that in 2018-19, almost a quarter of 17-year-olds had self-harmed in the previous year and 7% had attempted suicide at some point in their lives. According to the Office for National Statistics, in 2017 suicide was the most common cause of death for boys and girls aged between five and 19. The figure for boys was 16.2% of all deaths, and for girls 13.3%. That is a sobering thought.
I have the pleasure of chairing the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention. We have been looking at this area over the past year, including hearing evidence from organisations such as YoungMinds and from young people themselves. We received evidence that many young people who self-harm still struggle to access the support that they need in an acceptable time- frame. In fact, the NHS dashboard shows that 37% of young people—just over a third—with a diagnosable mental health condition can access NHS specialist support.
Respondents to our inquiry made it clear that the single most impactful change to improve the support available to young people who self-harm would be a system shift away from the current reliance on crisis interventions and towards a preventive model of support. However, budgets for preventive interventions have markedly reduced in recent years. Demands for specialist NHS mental health services such as CAMHS and improving access to psychological therapies has therefore increased exponentially, outstripping investment and exacerbating workforce issues. This has led to longer waiting lists, higher thresholds, and refused referrals of young people who self-harm. Even before the pandemic, people who self-harmed could struggle to access the support they needed.
There are also clear inequalities when it comes to children and young people’s mental health, with higher rates of mental health problems among young women than young men, and among LGBTQ+ young people, young people with autism and young carers. There are also clear links between mental health and race, and between mental health and financial insecurity. Experiencing mental health difficulties in childhood or adolescence can have a significant impact across the life course, and can affect young people’s educational outcomes, earnings, employment and ability to maintain relationships, as well as increase their likelihood of engaging in risk- seeking behaviour.
I want to talk about early support hubs. We need a shift towards preventive community-based interventions to urgently address the wider drivers of self-harm. That is why I support the call by the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition, including YoungMinds and the Children’s Society, for the national roll-out of the early support hubs model, which would ensure that young people in every area across England can access early support for their mental health. We know that the earlier young people get support, the more effective that support will be, and the better the outcomes. Early support hubs offer easy-to-access drop-in support, on a self-referral basis, for young people who need urgent help but do not meet the threshold for children and young people’s mental health services or who have emerging mental health needs up to the age of 25. These hubs can be delivered through the NHS, in partnership with local authorities and the voluntary sector, and would offer support across areas of need. Services would include psychological therapies, employment advice, youth services and sexual health services. Finally, I stress the need for security of funding for organisations providing these services.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for having secured this incredibly important debate. We know that half of mental health illnesses develop before the age of 14, and it is therefore essential that everyone has access to mental health services from an early age. I have spoken many times in this House about the inadequacies of CAMHS provision, including unacceptably long waiting times for referrals and the incredibly high threshold for treatment. However, today, I want to focus my remarks on infant mental health.
Worryingly, reports have demonstrated that there is a baby blind spot in our mental health service when it comes to the very youngest, and while children and young people’s mental health services are aimed at those aged 0 to 19, research has shown that there is inadequate provision for our youngest children. In 2019, 42% of clinical commissioning groups in England reported that their mental health services would not take a referral for a child aged two or under. The Parent-Infant Foundation recently surveyed professionals working in children’s mental health, and found that only 9% of those surveyed believed that sufficient provision was available for infants whose mental health was at risk.
Just like us, babies and toddlers can experience stress, anxiety and trauma. This impacts on their emotional wellbeing and development, but by failing to provide infants with access to mental health support, we enable mental health problems to build up. Given that thousands of babies have been born during lockdown with limited access to health visitors, peer support, playgroups and children’s centres, it is really urgent that we tackle these issues. Early intervention can have long-lasting benefits for mental wellbeing, benefiting not only the infant, but also reducing demands on mental health services in the future if it is tackled early on.
It is clear that we need action to address this blind spot. We need to invest in the provision of infant mental health services. We must also develop a strategy to ensure that there are enough qualified professionals to deliver it, so I urge the Government to address this baby blind spot and ensure that babies are not forgotten in mental health policies, strategies and services.
More widely, I am concerned by reports that find that one in six children now have a probable mental health condition. Demand for support is rising; there was a 35% increase in referrals to children’s mental health services in 2019-20. The Children’s Commissioner has warned that the pandemic will have a profound impact on children’s mental health going forward, putting already struggling mental health services under more pressure.
It is clear that urgent action is needed to support CAMHS. The postcode lottery in service provision has only worsened during the pandemic. There is huge disparity in the length of waiting lists, in the number of children accessing treatment and in the number of children being turned away. It is not acceptable that the availability of support can be based on where someone lives. The ability to access mental health services is so important, and this needs to be addressed.
I am concerned that the current expansion of mental health services is not fast enough to meet increased demand, and the Government must urgently address this. We need full and sustainable funding to support expansion, and we need a plan to address the shortage of specialist staff in the sector. Greater emphasis needs to be put on prevention and early intervention to ease demand, with properly funded mental health support in every single school across the country. After the extremely difficult year that our children, infants and young people have had, we owe it to them to put their mental health at the top of the agenda.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing this important debate. We have a long way to go to properly respond to our growing mental health crisis, especially for young people.
Eating disorders are a serious mental health issue, affecting many thousands of young people. They are complex and potentially life-threatening. They have no single cause, and they have the highest mortality rate of all mental health disorders. Recovery from an eating disorder takes, on average, three times as long as having the disorder itself. The fact that, all too often, an eating disorder goes undiagnosed and untreated for years adds to the problem.
Access to help continues to be a postcode lottery. NHS data on eating disorders show a fourfold increase in the number of children and young people waiting for urgent care. Behind these awful statistics hide thousands of real-life tragedies, not just for the sufferers themselves, but also for the friends and relatives who watch loved ones suffering from this awful illness virtually disappear before their eyes. With face-to-face appointments not going ahead, it has been much easier for sufferers to say that they are fine and not to ask for help until they reach crisis point. Like many forms of mental illness, eating disorders thrive in isolation. Some people have described their eating disorder as the only thing they have felt able to control during lockdown.
The demand for children and young people’s community services was already rising before the pandemic, but now these services are backlogged. The news that CCGs in England would increase their funding for eating disorders by an additional £11 million to help them cope with increased referrals was extremely welcome. However, this funding is not reaching the frontlines. Research commissioned by the all-party parliamentary group on eating disorders, which I chair, and carried out by the eating disorder charity Beat, shows that CCGs in England increased their spending on children and young people’s community eating disorder services by just £1.1 million in 2019-20. Only 15% of CCGs increased their spending in line with the increase in additional funding; 21% spent less. On behalf of the APPG and Beat, I ask the Minister and the Government to hold NHS leaders to account, because they must make sure that every penny that the Government have made available goes to frontline services.
The impact of the pandemic on the mental health of disabled children and young people has been considerable. Research from the Disabled Children’s Partnership consistently shows that disabled children have been more isolated than the rest of the population. Its latest survey shows that 90% of disabled children are socially isolated, and 72% of parents said their children are
“often unhappy, downhearted or tearful.”
Disabled children are at risk of being forgotten in the national recovery from the pandemic. It is deeply disappointing that the Government’s recently announced education recovery plan provides no tailored support for disabled children to meet their complex needs. I urge the Minister to back calls for immediate dedicated catch-up funding and services for disabled children and their families. In the autumn spending review the Government must go further. They should commit to proper funding to tackle the pre-pandemic gap in disabled children’s social care services.
Childhood trauma is at the bottom of a very large number of mental illnesses. Many children take their traumatic experiences into later life and it affects their life chances in every aspect, from educational achievement and professional qualifications, to health and wellbeing, to the risk of coming into contact with the criminal justice system. We still lack a proper understanding of the effects of childhood trauma and how to prevent it. Trauma-informed services across the board, in schools, the NHS, the police and our prisons, would have a transformative impact on the whole of our society. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the prevention of adverse childhood experiences, I hope very much that we can engage with the Minister on the work we are doing in that field.
Our children’s mental health is deteriorating. We must do all we can to improve it.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for not just securing the debate but superbly setting the scene.
I want to reinforce the message that has just come so eloquently from the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) with regard to eating disorders. I saw the recent paper by Dame Til Wykes and other scientists and campaigners, supported by the Government’s national adviser, Chris Whitty. They discussed the end goals for mental health research. The first end goal was halving the number of children and young people experiencing persistent mental health problems.
Eating disorders are just one of the serious persistent problems that start early and often persist into adulthood. As the paper sets out, they are associated with extremely poor outcomes, so it is appropriate to try and stop these disorders persisting from an early age. It makes sense for the individuals and their families, but also for the NHS, in terms of reducing costs, and for the economy overall, because people can contribute so much more fully to society.
What came out of that paper is the decision that we need to implement what we know already, but also support more research to improve recovery. As the hon. Member for Bath said, we already know that eating disorders are a growing problem. Some of the statistics are startling. The NHS 2019 health survey for England found that 16% of adults aged 16 and over screened positive for a possible eating disorder. In recent years, we have seen a fourfold increase in eating disorder hospital admissions, and waiting lists are at an all-time high. Hon. Member after hon. Member is finding this in their constituency, particularly when they are approached by distressed parents.
It is estimated that one in three young people experiences an eating disorder. Because these disorders occur among so many young people, they are still sometimes viewed as almost a teenage girls’ illness—a diet, a lifestyle choice or something a person grows out of. Yet, the statistics on their severity are shocking. It is reported that eating disorders have the highest death rates among all mental health disorders, and the rate of suicide is 23 times higher in people with eating disorders, compared with the general population—one in five deaths in eating disorder patients is reported to take place because of suicide, and I pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and her all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention are doing. According to the reports that we receive as constituency MPs, these serious consequences result from eating disorders partly because of the lack of access to psychiatrists who are fully trained in eating disorders and who specialise in eating disorder treatments.
As the hon. Member for Bath said, evidence is emerging that there has been a significant rise in people with eating disorders during the covid pandemic. Those in recovery have been set back, and new eating disorders have developed among a wider range of the population. From what I hear from my constituents, there is a vicious cycle of a lack of awareness, a lack of training and a lack of research funding at the scale needed. Let me just quote the parents from one family, who said: “Tell them right now the support, the treatment and the understanding is just not out there for us.”
Concerns have also been expressed about what some people consider unhealthy messages being pushed by the Government’s obesity strategy, which is being developed at the moment. I hope that more consideration will be given to consulting organisations that represent people with eating disorders in the development of that strategy.
I want to pay tribute to Hope Virgo. Many will have heard of her campaign “Dump the Scales”, which has been calling so effectively through the media for proper investment in eating disorder treatments. Just this week, Hope told me she has received numerous letters from parents whose children have been naso-gastric-fed on general wards, with no psychological support in some health settings.
F.E.A.S.T., a global website campaign, is reporting thousands of people contacting it through Eating Disorders Support UK, and 5,000 have signed up for its 30-day support scheme. Hope Virgo is the founder of the Hearts, Minds and Genes eating disorder coalition, which is the first coalition to declare a state of emergency around eating disorder treatment, and I am pleased that it is now meeting the Department of Health and Social Care. This serious issue needs ministerial support to drive through the new programme, and I hope that pathways and support will be developed within a timescale that recognises its urgency and seriousness.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
The winding-up speeches will begin at 3.28 pm. Jim Shannon has five minutes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Sir Gary. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for setting the scene so well. She obviously has a passion for the subject. I love to engage with the debates that she is involved in, because I usually find I am on the same page, so I thank her for securing this debate.
I like quotations, and John F Kennedy had one that is appropriate for this debate. He once said:
“Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see.”
I think that sentence captures this debate. The years march on, and for those of us of a certain vintage, they march terribly quickly—at least, they seem to. But that’s the way it is. I understand these things more than ever. My mum is 89 years old. In four weeks’ time, almost to the day, she will be 90, and she is very fit in mind and body. She reads the Minister’s novels, by the way—the Minister knows that—and she finds them very enjoyable. That is the sort of mind she has, but she is the first to tell me that she does not know how young people are coping at present. Long gone are the very simple times. Our children live in an age where the world is at their fingers, which sounds great. It also means that when they are at home, in a place that should be safe from the world, the cyber-bullies are still at play, information is still at hand, and the anxieties of the world are never too far away.
I am always amazed when I look at my two oldest grandchildren—Katie, who is 12, and Mia, who is seven. They are so active and so capable on their iPads and laptops. Their grandfather, unfortunately, has not caught up with them at all. I am thankful for the wonders of the internet and all the possibility it brings, yet it also brings a world of uncertainty and fear. Information is truly available, but so too is information that is false and that could really harm, corrupt and do a great deal to the health of our young people.
During home schooling, we told our children to access school online and do more on the iPad and the computer than ever before. At the same time, young children were scared and frightened by the seismic shift in their lives because of covid, watching informational programming that was not designed for them and that caused fear and upset. We were isolating them from their support systems at school, from their friends at church and even from their neighbours. Little wonder our young ones are struggling now, fearful of this bug and not sure what that normal is any more. I am not sure what the normal is any more either—it might be what we used to have.
YoungMinds, a charity that the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and others referred to, is doing tremendous work. In its recent survey, which I quote for the record and to focus our minds, 75% of respondents agreed that they found the current lockdown harder to cope with than the previous ones, with 44% saying it was much harder, while 14% said it was easier and 11% said it was the same. Some 67% believed that the pandemic will have a long-term negative effect on their mental health. That includes young people who have been bereaved or who have undergone traumatic experiences during the pandemic, who were concerned whether friendships would recover or who were worried about the loss of education or their prospects of finding work. Some 19% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 14% disagreed, but the figures we need to focus on are the 67%, the 75% and the 44%. Some 79% of respondents agreed that their mental health would start to improve when most of the restrictions were lifted, but some expressed caution about restrictions being lifted too quickly and about the prospect of future lockdowns.
The statistics speak volumes, yet the issue is the silent, solemn children who carry burdens that their wee shoulders were never designed to carry. How heartbreaking it is to imagine that one of my precious grandchildren could be feeling that; it is a feeling felt by too many children. I know that from speaking to parents, teachers and ministers back home in Northern Ireland. The question on our lips is, what can we do?
As a grandparent, I know that Katie and Mia are old enough to understand much of this. They have perhaps observed loss and watched their parents and grandparents grieve. As a Christian—I always say this if I get the opportunity, and I know it is something that resonates with you, Sir Gary—I will be seeking that the perfect peace that comes from God descends on our young people. But as a parliamentarian, I ask my Minister and my Government to put in place funding to enhance the counselling available, to encourage schools to carry out Mental Health Day events, and to work with churches to enable them to signpost children to help. We must act, lest the message that we send to the future be nothing other than an apology for our failings.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I begin by echoing the thanks to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing this debate and for her excellent exposition of the challenges that we face. Maintaining the good health of our children and young people is a challenge, and much more so in the wake of covid-19, with all the destruction and disruption it has wreaked on young lives, plaguing children with fear and uncertainty during their formative years. Tackling that has to be a public priority, and it is for the Scottish Government. I hope the Minister will agree that it will be a public priority in England as well.
Scotland was the first nation of the UK to create the post of a dedicated Minister for mental health. It is true that young people’s mental health was a challenge even before the covid pandemic, but we all need to try to more fully understand the mental health and wellbeing impact of lockdown and school closures for children and young people, in order to be better informed about how to support them and what support can be offered as lockdown eases.
It is perhaps obvious that feelings of anxiety have developed in many young people throughout lockdown, especially for those children whose parents are key workers. We often forget that the children of key workers will undoubtedly have been worried about their parents, and perhaps other family members, being on the frontline during the pandemic. While young people are off school, their worry is likely to be magnified and exacerbated, as their key worker parents could be working longer hours than usual on the frontline, to benefit wider society.
Those living in disadvantaged communities are more likely to have had negative impacts on their mental health during lockdown, but many young people across the board have been concerned about returning to school and missing out on school, and worrying about the future. We know that lockdown has been particularly difficult for young people who face challenges with digital access, physical space or insufficient support with their home learning, and lack of contact with peers, which is particularly important for children and young people.
There is no denying the link between poverty and poor mental health, as well as poor physical health. That is as true for young people as it is for adults. Tackling inequality must be part of any long-term strategy to improve mental health. The Scottish Government have established a range of measures to reduce inequality. The real levers to tackle the ingrained inequality, of which we are all aware, are reserved to the UK Government.
Local authorities have reported increased self-harming and suicidal feelings, with an increased number of suicide attempts among care leavers. Recent studies show that 6% to 7% of young people surveyed believe that the pandemic will have a long-term negative effect on their mental health. That is pretty shocking, but I do not think the long-term mental health adverse effects are inevitable—I sincerely hope that they are not. Hope, sadly, is not enough. There has to be a determined, decisive political will to tackle this problem.
The Scottish Government’s approach is to focus on further investment in and redesign of child and adult mental health services. The mental health transition and recovery plan is supported by an additional £120 million to transform services, with a renewed focus on prevention and early intervention. The additional demand for mental health support in the wake of covid poses challenges across the UK, but they are challenges that we have to meet. There is no dressing it up; there is no getting away from it.
We know that the waiting lists for mental health support in Scotland and across the UK are simply too long. That is why the Scottish Government are redoubling their efforts to ensure that waiting lists come down, and they are working closely with health boards to that end. The Scottish Government are also working hard to ensure that schools are as equipped as they can be to support children. That is why the £20 million additional investment in the pupil equity fund, bringing it to almost £147 million, is so important for supporting children and young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.
That fund resources educational psychologists, home school link workers and mental health counsellors. In addition, the investment in raising attainment and supporting the wellbeing of pupils is complemented by a £20 million summer programme, alongside a range of other investments in youth work, outdoor learning and education in Scotland, to support schools with the resources they need to strengthen mental health support. The Scottish Government’s £262.2 million budget for mental health and autism in 2021-22 is over and above the NHS spending, and more than double the previous year. Suicide prevention spending has also been doubled.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) is correct. Psychiatrists are warning of a “tsunami of eating disorders”, thought to be a direct consequence of the isolation and feeling out of control engendered during the pandemic. The mental health pandemic that has followed so hard on the heels of the health pandemic will require ongoing determined action across the UK. The explosion of mental health challenges created by the health pandemic will take time to treat, and it will take time for those suffering to recover. As long as we have the political will to do that and give it the priority it needs, that is what matters.
The reality is that we still do not yet know the full picture of the mental health impact of covid-19. We may not know that full picture for some time to come. However, a glimmer of hope can be found in the fact that now people are more willing and able to talk openly about their mental health, which is a real culture change, even from as recently as a decade ago. That means that young people today are more likely to ask for help or talk to someone they trust if they are struggling, and that has to be welcomed.
We know that talk is not enough; we need action. The focus we now have on the importance of mental health must not be lost. Young people and children who have mental health needs require and deserve our support and we have a duty to provide it. The Scottish Government are working hard to do this, and I hope to hear that the Minister will be doing the same in her role.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It is such a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing extremely important debate and all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions.
My speech is full of stats. We have heard stats and real-life stories. We know what has been unfolding in our communities. Today, we have a choice to do something about it. The Government have a choice to do something about it. What are we going to do? We are going to make our interventions, state our cases, speak the numbers. The Government will respond and then we will go back to normal, with children attempting to throw themselves off bridges; a reality where parents have to take time off work or give up work because they are so worried about their children who are self-harming. We are going to go back to teachers who would walk over broken glass for their students, desperately telling me that they cannot get their children on to CAMHS waiting lists. Even if they are lucky enough to tick those boxes and get on a list, it is far too long until they are seen.
Today, we have the choice to do something about this. Demand for mental health support is at an all-time high, yet access to services is simply not keeping up. For over a year, Labour has warned that children’s mental health should not be forgotten in this crisis, but it is easy to blame the coronavirus pandemic for what we are seeing playing out in our communities—every single community. This issue cuts across the class and socio-economic divide. It can affect any child or young person. Prior to the pandemic, access thresholds in many places were so high that they created unacceptable waits and led to children having their referrals cancelled without treatment.
The former Children’s Commissioner outlined in her 2021 annual report that over half a million children and young children were referred to CAMHS in 2019 and 2020. Of those, approximately 3,500 either had their referral closed or were still on the waiting list by the end of the reporting period. This simply is not good enough.
The pandemic has pushed services that were once stretched to breaking point over the edge. The Minister does not need to take my word for that, but she should certainly heed the warning from the NHS mental health trust leaders surveyed in May this year. The survey, carried out by NHS Providers, found that two thirds of trust leaders said they were unable to meet demand for CAMHS. Every leader surveyed stated that demand for children’s and young people’s services is higher now compared with last year. Some 78% said they were extremely or moderately concerned about their local system’s ability to meet the level of demand over the next 12 to 18 months, and 84% of trust leaders said children were waiting longer for treatment than they were six months ago.
The Government know all these stats. The Minister knows all these stats. What is she going to do about it? Is she going to recycle yet more money in a new announcement? Is she going to spend £2.3 billion over and over again in every debate that we have, depending on exactly which mental health topic we are talking about? The NHS does an incredible job with limited resources. However, it needs the political will to close the gap, now more than ever, and workforce capacity is often cited as the biggest barrier to scaling up provision.
That has been known for some time, with not enough being done to rectify it. Failure to resolve the issue before the pandemic is now having disastrous consequences. Mental health trusts had to give money to local hospital trusts to plug gaps, leaving them with even less of the money that they needed. This, on top of 11 years of an austerity-driven agenda, means the money is simply not in the system, and anything put back into the system will simply not cut it.
Staff have been grappling with a health emergency for more than a year, under enormous pressure, resulting in the acceleration of burnout and exhaustion. They are in desperate need of a reprieve, but the mental health fallout from covid means that waiting lists continue to pile up. Without urgent action, that gap in access will only continue to grow, leaving thousands of children to fall through the cracks.
National and crisis provision are extremely important, but more must be done to ensure that support is proactive, holistic and community-led. The biggest driver of poor mental health in children is adverse childhood experiences —I can see colleagues nodding. That is a well-known fact. When I do a shift in accident and emergency, and a child comes in with mental health issues—a child I have seen multiple times in the previous year, living in mouldy housing, in multi-occupancy homes, with parents who cannot access jobs—it is no surprise to me that they are suffering with their mental health.
What will the Government do about that? In areas of deprivation, it is not uncommon for parents to resist answering calls from withheld numbers or opening letters labelled private and confidential, but that is the main way in which CAHMS appointments are communicated to parents. Many miss the appointments, despite them and local advocates having pushed for treatment for many months and even years. Those children, the poorest and the hardest hit by other Government measures, then get dropped, which unfairly creates the impression that parents simply do not care. Those same parents are often grappling with many children suffering with mental ill health as a result of their life experiences.
Advocates out there would give the shirts off their back and, as I said, walk across broken glass to get those children to appointments. A fully holistic approach would include in a child’s referral the GP and school, where necessary. In areas where mental health is less understood, or cultural or language barriers exist, many children will attend a CAMHS appointment with mum and dad after the school has referred them, but because of a lack of understanding, mum and dad cannot explain the issues that their child is facing, so no course of treatment is started and the child is taken off the list.
These are our most vulnerable children, and often the children who need our help the most. What will the Government do to make services accessible for such children and their families? The scars that children live with forever means that those with the best English and a better understanding get the treatment they need, while others fall through the cracks. Many of us serve communities where that is the case, and it is no surprise that, despite being four times more likely to have a mental health problem than their affluent peers, children from the poorest backgrounds are much less likely to access services. A more joined-up, proactive approach between education, health and local authorities is needed, with greater focus on prevention and early intervention.
Talent is everywhere, but sadly opportunity is not. That is why the Labour party announced a children’s recovery plan to ensure that children can continue to play, learn and develop in the post-covid period, no matter where they are from, or what school they go to. That programme is meant to support children and young people throughout their education, and to recognise that positive mental health and wellbeing can be pivotal for children to reach their fullest potential. By tackling food poverty in schools, guaranteeing quality mental health support for pupils and fully funding extracurricular clubs and tutoring, each child would have an equal chance to succeed.
The Government know we are facing a mental health crisis. That is not news. We have whole communities full of people who are desperate for support—parents, teachers, families, children, desperate for support. They are counting on us to use the debating time today to make real, effective change. They do not want just rhetoric—just empty words and gestures, the same old recycled announcements time and again—but an acknowledgement that the Minister has today listened: listened to the pleas from those with eating disorders; listened to those who are suicidal; listened to those unable to access CAMHS services; listened to those who have waited far too long for the help they need and deserve; and listened to people who are unable to reach their fullest potential because they have a Government that do not understand the scale of the issue.
The time for dither and delay is over. I look forward to the Government announcing some real, tangible change.
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for bringing forward this important debate. We have had a number of interactions and I know how genuinely important the issue is to her. I am aware of the meeting she had with the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar). I will give some information, but also reassure her that we are continually working on these issues. More has happened as a result of her meeting. I know she is genuinely very concerned about this issue and has been since the day she arrived in Parliament.
As the Minister, I speak to all stakeholders, trusts, organisations and just about everyone involved in the area of mental health, particularly among children and young people. It is incredibly important that we keep our language and our comments about children and young people both proportionate and responsible. There is not a mental health pandemic. I will go on to explain what I mean by that.
It is very important that we divide wellbeing from mental illness, not least because we do not want mental illness to fall by the wayside in people’s awareness and understanding of mental health, because the conversation is dominated by mental health and an overarching title that is not appropriate. Mental health is divided—it is not just a catch-all title. We have people who suffer with serious mental illness and childhood mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, psychosis and eating disorders. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on her speech; we have discussed eating disorders many times, and she is compassionate and is compelled to improve eating disorder services for children and young people in the UK. I thank her for her commitment to the issue.
It is incorrect to describe 140,000 children as having been turned away. The measurement of progress against the five-year forward target is based on two contacts with NHS services—this is an important point. Many children and young people have one session. After that, it is jointly decided to close their referral. To quote the 140,000 figure is misleading. One session is thought enough to provide them with the help they need or, more importantly, to provide pathways to their carers, parents and those who accompany them to the appointment. The expansion of Every Mind Matters, which was developed by Public Health England, to include children and young people under the age of 18 has been a huge boost. It is wrong to say—to misquote—that 140,000 children have been turned away. It is important to look at the reasons why.
I began by saying that I speak to stakeholders, trusts and others. I would like to quote from a letter a trust sent to MPs, following a debate on the issue only days ago. The trust said: “Partner organisations work incredibly closely to ensure children and young people receive the services they need.” It was referring to the narrative used by parliamentarians. It said that frontline staff had worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic and had taken the additional investment that the Government had provided to increase their workforce, and that to describe their services as failing had an impact on the morale and wellbeing of dedicated frontline staff and those who are delivering services to children and young people. It went on to say that the statements that were being made caused concern and alarm to children and young people and their families at an anxious time.
We have a responsibility in Parliament when we are talking about mental health, particularly of children and young people, to keep language proportionate. For me, talking in a debate about children throwing themselves off a bridge is completely beyond the mark and I am afraid that I think that that type of language is exactly what the trust was referring to—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) is commenting from a sedentary position. I reiterate my comments, Sir Gary. It is important that we consider the families and the people that we are representing and do not make inflammatory statements.
I have heard first hand from NHS staff that thousands of children and young people have had to adapt to the challenges of covid-19. It has been an incredibly tough year for everybody, and many children and young people have felt anxiety, apprehension and a gamut of emotions that adults also felt when faced with the unknown, sudden and rapid change to routines as well as a lack of understanding of what would happen and how life was to continue. However, many people are resilient, and many of those children and young people, who at stages reported they felt all those emotions and were included in that statistic of one in six, came through once there was a greater understanding of what was happening and how it was going to work. They were incredibly resilient, and we should be proud of those children and how they helped others too.
We take the pandemic and the mental health of children and young people extremely seriously. I work seven days a week on what this Government do, what we provide and how we assist. Although I have been criticised by the hon. Member for Tooting for talking about the investment we provide, we cannot provide services without the money for them. We cannot increase our mental health workforce if we do not provide the money to train people and to provide those services and that is exactly what we have done. I have no shame in quoting the figure of £2.3 billion a year that is going into mental health services—more than any Government has ever ploughed in, plus an additional £500 million to a mental health recovery plan for the pandemic this year, of which £79 million has gone into eating disorder services based in the community. We hope that that funding will allow around 22,500 more children and young people to access community health services.
Wera Hobhouse
The Minister has quoted the numbers for what the Government have made available. As I said, unfortunately a lot of that money has not reached the frontline. Will she make CCGs accountable and that money goes where it is meant to?
Ms Dorries
It is a constant pressure for me to ensure that. NHS England has worked incredibly hard to establish community-based services. It is important to say that the uptick in eating disorders came before the pandemic—it was spotted before it struck. We can have another debate on why we were beginning to see that rise in eating disorders, and the hon. Member for Twickenham and I have had that discussion. I am proud of how the NHS has rapidly looked at how we can deal with this exponential rise in eating disorders, because that is where our problem is.
We know exactly who has been affected by the pandemic, in terms of mental health services. We know from the referrals that have gone to our partners across the board and to local services. I am saddened to say that eating disorders are our toughest problem at the moment because of the exponential rise—over 22% over the past year.
NHS England is using that money. As I said a moment ago, having the workforce to provide services is really important, so we have accelerated the number of mental health support teams that we are putting in. The first question I asked when I took up my ministerial post was: “Can we have more mental health support teams in schools faster? Can we accelerate the long-term plan so that we get more areas covered quicker?” It took the pandemic to make that happen, but now—I have not even used my speaking notes; I have gone completely off piste—I think we have another 112 school areas covered. I will write to Members attending today to give them the figures on mental health support teams. We have managed to accelerate the programme by over a year as a result of the £500 million of funding that we put in.
Something that we can really shout about is that we have people coming forward. Mental health was never an area where people really wanted to work. I remember during my nurse training that we were given the option to take 12 weeks’ maternity or 12 weeks’ mental health, and my entire cohort took 12 weeks’ maternity. Nobody went to do the mental health training. Now—the pandemic has highlighted this—we have 100 applications for every place in university for people to train in mental health. That means mental health support teams to go into schools, deal with eating disorders and work with children and young people. When we put that kind of money in, run those kinds of courses and have the commitment to accelerate mental health workers, we do not see those results overnight, but that work is being done now to ensure we have the results. We want to ensure that people come out of universities and go into mental health support teams in schools. I have seen the work they do and how they work with children and young people.
Time has whizzed on, and I would just like to make a few points. The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) spoke about young mums and infant mental health. I am totally with her. That is why I worked so hard during the lockdowns to ensure that we kept support groups open for mums and young babies, and particularly those that give mental health support to mums. That included all sorts of groups, such as playgroups—Monkey Music is one that somebody used—where mums could meet together with their young babies. I argued for that and made the case for supporting their mental health. During the pandemic, those groups were kept open for young mums because I felt it was so important that they were supported.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
May I remind the Minister to leave one minute at least for the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson)?
Ms Dorries
I have not got time, I am so sorry. There is only one minute left.
The hon. Member for Twickenham asked about data. That data is produced on the mental health dashboard every quarter. There is work ongoing, but I will come back to her on the details of it. I do not know whether she has access to the dashboard and the data, but I will make sure she does. If the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) would like to speak to me when the debate is over, I will come back to her on the points she raised. I will sit down now to give her a chance to respond.
Munira Wilson
I thank all hon. Members who contributed in such a knowledgeable and passionate way to this debate. I hope the Minister has seen that there is cross-party support for greater support for and investment in mental health services. I recognise that the Government have put more money in, but one of the themes has been whether it is getting through to the local level and the frontline. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and I keep picking up the point about data, and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) did the same. I am grateful to hon. Members for picking up points that I was not able to cover, such as the baby blind spot, eating disorders and disabled children. There are so many issues; this is multifaceted.
The Minister talked about definitions and said that we are conflating mental health and wellbeing, but it is all part of a continuum. That is why it is so important, as part of the prevention agenda, to focus on wellbeing as much as the serious mental health concerns. That is why I was trying to cover that vast spectrum in my speech. I reiterate that I stand ready to work with the Minister.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) quoted JFK. Well, I will quote Mandela back at him:
“There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way it treats its children.”
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
European Union Settlement Scheme
(2 years, 10 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
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements— welcome to those on the screen. I also remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their camera on for the duration of the debate, and that they will be visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should either throw something at the screen or email the Westminster Hall Clerks at westminsterhallclerks@parliament.uk. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the EU Settlement Scheme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. With the 30 June deadline for applications for the EU settlement scheme fast approaching, I am pleased to have the opportunity to open this debate. I also wish to give my colleagues time to speak, and therefore I will use only some of my time today, not only to remind EU nationals living in the UK to apply for settled status if they have not already done so, but to highlight to the Minister that this scheme is already causing disruption in people’s lives and that this may be the last chance to prevent another Windrush scandal.
The EU settlement scheme was launched in March 2019 as part of the withdrawal agreement. The scheme was trailed by the Department for Exiting the European Union as the method for EU nationals to secure their rights post-Brexit, and to continue to live their lives broadly as they did under freedom of movement. The reality is that being forced to register for rights in the country they call home has caused a great deal of upset and anxiety among many of our European friends, neighbours and constituents. People have been left feeling unwanted, unwelcome, humiliated and angry due to this Government’s heavy-handed approach. For many, it has broken their sense of belonging and eroded their trust in this Government; for others, it has been the final straw, and they have left the UK altogether. This is a sorry state of affairs, considering the benefits that EU nationals bring to the UK: to our economy, our workforce, the NHS, and—most importantly—our culture.
As of the start of this month, there have been 5.6 million applications to the EU settlement scheme. The majority of those applicants, around 4.9 million, have been granted settled or pre-settled status. Settled status guarantees the right to live, work, and remain indefinitely, free of immigration controls, and is available to those who have lived in the UK for more than five years. Pre-settled status offers less definite security, giving permission for five years that will expire, with the expectation that the person will later apply for settled status. The onus for converting pre-settled status to settled status falls on the applicant. There is the potential for people to forget to reapply or to miss that reminder, and in this instance, someone could easily find themselves working illegally and have to go without income while applying to update their status. Will the Minister give consideration to a system of automatic conversion to settled status for those who are pre-settled?
Right now, there is a backlog of more than 300,000 applications still waiting to be cleared by the Home Office. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has raised concerns that if these applications are still live after the deadline, that will create a legal ambiguity for applicants. Will they be in the country unlawfully while they are waiting on this decision? Can the Minister offer clear guidance on the rights of the tens of thousands of people waiting for a decision, and give his assurances that those will not be affected after the deadline? Perhaps the Minister could allow applicants to avoid this pitfall altogether by taking the advice of the Scottish Government’s Europe Minister, Jenny Gilruth, to extend the deadline.
As of midnight on 30 June, those who have not applied to the scheme will feel the full effect of this Government’s hostile immigration system. That means that people who have lived and worked in the UK legally for years will be criminalised and potentially face a dramatic change in their rights. They will be unable to work or rent; they will be unable to receive NHS treatment free at the point of need; they will be unable to receive welfare benefits or access to other public services, such as housing; and they will be liable to criminal prosecution, detention and removal from the UK.
The Home Office has confirmed that it is aware of those people who are still due to apply to the scheme and will miss the deadline. According to the Home Office guidance, those groups include children, people with care or support needs, victims of domestic abuse, people in poverty, homeless people and rough sleepers, and, in particular, minority groups such as the Roma community. Could the Minister outline in his answers what steps are being taken to support those vulnerable people who his Department already knows will miss the deadline?
The campaign organisation the3million, which has been at the forefront of being a voice for so many people, has reported that even though the application process is still open, EU nationals are already being asked to prove their settled status in a wide range of contexts, contrary to Government guidance. Those asking them to do so include landlords, estate agents, housing agencies, employers, banks, councils, GPs, hospitals, schools, international airports, prior to their boarding a flight, and UK border staff. Those are just some of the many examples. I mention this because it is clear that the people asking for proof of status are unlikely to be specialists in the immigration field and may be unfamiliar with the settled scheme terminology, creating situations ripe for discrimination. As the Minister will be aware, the Court of Appeal ruled in December that those with pre-settled status must be treated on an equal basis with all other claimants when applying for welfare benefits, so will the Minister put it on the record that that must be the case in relation to employers, landlords and all services?
Successful applicants are not given physical proof of their status. Instead, every time someone needs to prove their status, they will have to go through a complex process, involving at least 14 steps, in order to show an online document. The Government’s implementation of covid certification allows people to show their status simply on their phone or to download and print a PDF document. Alternatively, if someone is not digitally literate, they can request a printed version. Allowing a similar physical status document would make life so much easier for those granted settled or pre-settled status. Can the Minister offer a convincing reason why that has not been built into the EU settlement scheme, and will he consider building physical documentation into the system going forward?
The Minister will be aware of the correspondence on behalf of my constituent Jenny Condie. According to her settled status documentation, she is called by her maiden name, Serraf. This is the case for many married European women whose passports list both their married and their maiden names. I understand that it is due to the Home Office taking details from the machine-readable zone of the passport. However, it may raise suspicions when the status documentation does not match any other form of identification. When I asked the Home Office how many women were issued with documentation in their maiden name, the information was not available. I am concerned that women will discover that their documentation is misleading only when they face awkward questions, delays or discrimination when trying to prove their status.
Initially, Jenny was advised by the Home Office to approach the French authorities to have her passport amended, so I am grateful to the Minister for his letter outlining that a process for changing maiden names to married names has been created at the Home Office since I first contacted him about this case. However, Jenny has been unable to have the change carried out. The Home Office requires her to send her physical passport, but she is reluctant to do so, because she is worried that she may need to travel to France if there is an emergency. Should the document get lost in the post, she would need to travel to London for a passport replacement. Those concerns will be replicated for most EU nationals in the same position. When making the application, Jenny only had to send a picture of the document. Will the Minister review the process and either make the change to married names automatic or streamline the process by accepting photographed documents?
In 2016, as part of the Vote Leave campaign, the current Prime Minister and the current Home Secretary issued a commitment that there would be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK; those EU citizens would automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and would be treated no less favourably than they were at present. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary respectively not only have failed to uphold that commitment on all counts, but have caused confusion, upset, anxiety and fear, and allowed the dignity of EU citizens to be trampled, through the faulty EU settlement scheme. It was evident when the scheme opened in 2019 that people would fall through the cracks; and now, two weeks before the deadline, the reality could not be clearer.
The Minister today has the opportunity to extend the deadline and avoid a Windrush-style scandal. I wish to allow time for parliamentary colleagues to speak. Therefore I will conclude here: I urge him to take this consideration very seriously.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
We now have two mini-speeches. First, we go again to Scotland with Anne McLaughlin, and then to Wera Hobhouse.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Sir Gary. I thank my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) for securing the debate, and I thank her and the Minister for allowing me to speak. I will be quick—I would like to raise just three issues.
First, I am really concerned that certain groups of EU nationals may be forgotten about in all this: the older people and children in the care system who rely on their local authority to act on their behalf and ensure that their claims for settled status are being processed. I and many of my colleagues have written to our local authorities to find out what they are doing to ensure that people in their care have applied. Most are working to ensure that that is done, but inevitably some people will fall through the gaps and lose their right to remain.
Will the Minister tell us what will happen in those cases? If the lack of status means that an EU national is unable to receive NHS treatment, benefits or access to public services, does that mean that people in our care system will be effectively thrown on to the streets? Obviously, as they are in care settings, they are by their very nature vulnerable people who need our help.
I also echo the calls of Jenny Gilruth MSP, the Scottish Government’s Minister for Culture, Europe and International Development, for the deadline to be extended. If the UK Government cannot see fit to extend the deadline for all EU nationals, they must really seriously consider extending it for those vulnerable people whom I have just mentioned.
Secondly, on the lack of physical evidence and the requirement for people to prove their status digitally, which my hon. Friend mentioned, I have been told that the system is already crumbling under the pressure, meaning that websites are crashing and people are simply unable to prove their right to live and work here. It is hardly any wonder given that there are 14 steps to go through. Why not just do what we do with everyone else and give them a piece of paper and a card that they can show to employers?
Aside from the terrible toll that it takes on individuals who are now made to feel like second-class citizens, have the UK Government seriously considered the impact that this system will have on our economy? We are already hearing about how Brexit is affecting access to labour markets for some sectors. Even arch-Brexiteer Tim Martin of Wetherspoon is now moaning that he does not have enough staff, and he is calling for a special dispensation for his industry—or maybe just his pubs. If he of all people is saying that, we know what a terrible impact Brexit must be having. If EU nationals who live and are entitled to work here are unable to prove it quickly or easily, what does that do for the availability of labour?
Finally, I will mention some EU citizens who approached me recently—they were Portuguese, but this could apply to any country. In the last year, they have been having terrible trouble getting in touch with the consulate in the UK to access the essential documentation required to apply for the settlement scheme, and indeed to travel. That appears to have a disproportionate impact on EU citizens living in Scotland. Certainly, in the case of those Portuguese citizens, there is no Portuguese consulate in Scotland; they have to travel to London or Manchester, but for a very long time no cross-border travel was allowed. That and other restrictions have put Portuguese nationals in Scotland in a challenging and stressful position.
I want the Minister to take cognisance of the fact that Portuguese people and those of other nationalities in Scotland may, because of circumstances beyond their control, have some difficulty that those in England do not. If he cannot assist with those issues, will he at least give reassurance that people who have not applied by 30 June for any of the reasons that I have mentioned will not simply be thrown out of the country? I suppose what I am really asking is this: will he do everything in his power to ensure that we do not experience another Windrush?
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) for securing this important debate, and I thank the Minister for granting me permission to take part.
EU citizens have for decades been tightly woven into the fabric of our society—they are our friends, colleagues, neighbours and families—but for many, their future in this country, which they call home, is at risk. Covid has, as we have heard, exposed and compounded the flaws in the system. One of my constituents wrote to me just this week worried that she will not have any way to prove her status in the country where she has lived for decades. Can the Minister tell my constituent what she can do to prove her status when we have heard so many stories of landlords and employers refusing digital proof? Please, the Government must allow applicants to register for physical proof of status, as we have already heard. Another constituent does not have a smartphone. She needs a scan of her passport, but the scanning centre has been closed for the past 14 months. What is my constituent meant to do?
I pay tribute to the In Limbo Project, which was co-founded by one of my constituents, for its incredible efforts. It has helped many people navigate the pitfalls of the EU settlement scheme. Let us say this again: over 320,000 EU citizens are still facing the cruel anxiety of hoping that the Home Office will grant applications before the cliff edge of the end of this month. That is just two weeks to go. I urge the Minister to extend the 30 June deadline, in line with other countries. The deadline for UK citizens in the Netherlands is 30 September. The UK must show the same understanding. The Government cannot afford to get this wrong; the human cost is far too great.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I hope Members realise that, in the short time I have, I will not be able to cover every issue that has been raised.
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) for securing the debate. Before I respond to the points that have been made, I want to emphasise at the outset that the Government are fully committed to ensuring that everybody eligible for the EU settlement scheme—EUSS for short—gets the help they need to apply and that they can apply, with extra support provided to the most vulnerable.
My message is twofold. The first is to encourage everyone who is eligible for the scheme and has not yet applied to do so by 30 June. The second part is to reflect on the huge success of the scheme so far, notwithstanding some of the doubts expressed today. By 31 May 2021, more than 5.6 million applications had been received since the scheme’s launch in March 2019. It is continuing to receive and process thousands of applications every day, including all the way through the covid-19 pandemic.
I am delighted that so far the scheme has already given assurance and secure legal status to millions of people who have chosen to make our United Kingdom their home. We are delighted that so many will do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Government for all that they have done. What discussions has the Minister had with the Northern Ireland Assembly, which will have some responsibility for raising awareness, to ensure that people in Northern Ireland can access the scheme as quickly as possible?
Kevin Foster
Only yesterday, I was in Northern Ireland talking to two of our grant-funded organisations: the South Tyrone Empowerment Programme, whose chief executive Bernadette Devlin, as people may know, is a former Member of this House; and Advice NI. We talked about the work that they have been doing. We have been directly funding adverts. We are grateful for the support we have received from the devolved Administrations, both in Northern Ireland and, as has been referred to already, in Scotland, with the Stay in Scotland campaign, which the Scottish Government have been running.
I want to make clear a couple of core elements of the scheme. We made the application process simple and straightforward, including the introduction of a digital app to confirm identity, and automated checks of Government data, reducing the need for applicants to provide evidence of residence. We also made it simple by making the criterion residence, not exercising particular free-movement rights. People did not have to prove, for example, that they were working or studying here—just residence was enough. Those familiar with the EEA free-movement regulations will know that they are more complex. We wanted to make it simple and easy, so that it lent itself to quick and simple decision making.
We looked at the EUSS to provide us with a template for how we manage immigration applications and immigration status going forward: fewer physical visits to a visa application centre, less need for physical documents or sending information to the Government that they already have, such as tax records. That enables more simplicity in getting a decision, allowing us to focus resources on supporting and helping the most vulnerable.
Given that there is still debate on the point, I want to be absolutely clear. A person who applies by 30 June 2021 deadline will have their existing rights protected, pending the outcome of the application and any subsequent appeal, if it is not successful. That is achieved by the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. That is quite firm. From 1 July, they will be able to rely on their certificate of application as proof to access the right to work or rent, when verified by the relevant Home Office checking service. In essence, that is a process similar to that for those who have been granted status. I want to make that very clear.
Similarly, the scope to make a late application based on reasonable grounds for missing the relevant deadline is indefinite. There is no set time for how long lateness can be deemed reasonable. The example I regularly use is of someone who turns 18 and applies for a job, and discovers that 10 or even 13 years ago the local authority looking after them at the time did not make the application for settled status. We consider that a reasonable ground, even though that may happen 10 or 13 years in the future if they are a young child in the care of a local authority today, or if their parents have not applied for them. The guidance states that for those under 18 at the time the deadline applied. I hope that gives reassurance on that matter.
We are working through a large number of applications, but the vast majority are cleared within less than three months. In many cases, those that have been outstanding for longer are more complex, such as those based on derivative rights that apply to non-EEA nationals as well as EEA nationals, or where there are matters of a relevant history of criminal offending or outstanding prosecutions, where the Home Office cannot proceed to decide the application until those matters have been brought to a conclusion, given that the offence involved would inevitably affect their status here in the UK.
In terms of supporting the most vulnerable, £4.5 million in grant funding was announced on 11 February for 72 organisations across our United Kingdom, who are providing invaluable support and help to vulnerable and hard-to-reach individuals in groups applying to the EU settlement scheme. That was on top of the £17 million already provided, and will ensure the continued delivery of support until at least the end of September 2021. We were keen that there would be funding and support available in the first three months of using digital identity and for those making late applications.
We are really pleased that over 310,000 individuals have been directly supported by these organisations to apply to the scheme to get the status they deserve. This includes a range of people with complex or chaotic lifestyles, and those who are not able to make an application themselves, due to their health. That is in addition to other support that is more generally available, such as the EU Settlement Resolution Centre, We Are Digital, the assisted digital service for applications, and the support available on gov.uk.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the Minister that he has until 4.35 pm, not 4.30 pm.
Kevin Foster
Thank you for the reminder, Sir Gary, which I greatly appreciate. Perhaps it is appropriate to come to the subject of children in care.
Across Government, we are looking to ensure that all eligible looked-after children and care leavers are supported to secure their status under the EUSS, through an application made by 30 June 2021; as I have touched on, we have already made it clear that if the application is not made by someone else who is responsible, then we will accept a late application.
The total number of looked-after children and care leavers eligible to apply for the EUSS, identified by a survey of 210 local government bodies UK-wide, was 3,600. As of 23 April, 2,440 applications from looked-after children and care leavers have been received, which was 67% of the total identified and an increase from 15,020—46%— back in November. We are now starting to see these applications coming through. To reassure Members, 72% of these applications have been decided, of which 1,365 resulted in a grant of settled status and 235 in a grant of pre-settled status.
I turn now to some specific points raised during the debate. It is worth touching on the issue of digital status. We are developing a border and immigration system that is digital by default. That means that over time we will increasingly replace physical and paper-based documents, some of which can be many years old, with easy-to-use, accessible online and digital services. We are building on this work based on the experience of counties like Australia, which has had fully digital systems for some time. That was highlighted by a letter from the3million to all Members of Parliament last year.
Individuals will still receive a written notification of immigration status, by email or letter, which they can retain for their own records, but they we will be given access to the digital version of their immigration status information, which can be accessed and shared at any time by the online view-and-prove service. Unlike a physical document, this cannot be lost or stolen and, it is also worth bearing in mind, it cannot be retained by someone who is seeking to exploit or abuse it. That status cannot be taken away; it is retained and it can be accessed by public services. It is not a document that someone can physically keep from someone else’s possession.
We are already seeing employers and landlords successfully using our online checking services, not least in the context of the pandemic, where performing physical checks on people’s rights to work may be a lot more difficult than it would normally have been. We are updating our guidance and communicating to ensure they are clear on the steps they should take at the end of the grace period. That will include additional safeguards for existing EEA employers and tenants who may have missed the deadline, which will include a period of time for people to make a late application to the EUSS. We genuinely believe that will provide a balance, ensuring that those who have taken up employment after the 1 July show status and their right to work. However, we will not require any employer to take retrospective checks on their staff who they have employed previously as EEA nationals, who have passed previous right-to-work checks using a passport or national identity card. We are not requiring anyone to do checks on 1 July retrospectively. There is absolutely no requirement for any employer to do that.
In terms of looking at how the system is working, as some hon. Members commented, between October 2019 and March 2021 the service had over 3.9 million views by individuals and over 330,000 views by organisations checking immigration status. Between January 2019, when the service was launched for employers, and March 2021, there were over 390,000 views by employers. A similar service to enable right-to-rent checks, which only apply in England, went live in November 2020; between then and March 2021, there have been over 6,500 views by landlords and agents on the online right to rent service. No one should be required to show status under the EUSS until after 30 June, but it can provide a convenient and useful way of proving status to a bank, landlord or employer, hence why people are already taking the opportunity to use it.
When it comes to conversion from pre-settled to settled, we will take a proactive approach of seeking to remind people when that is due. People will start to be required to convert in 2023. It would be difficult to go to an automatic conversion, given the reality that somebody may not be intending to settle in the UK, or may not have stayed in the UK having been initially granted pre-settled status. But we will look to proactively remind people. To be clear, it is a free-of-charge application and there are similar criteria for reasonable grounds for a late application to convert as well; unsurprisingly, they will be similar to the non-exhaustive guidance that we have published in relation to those making a late application at this stage, as we feel that is a reasonable and proportionate approach.
On looking at the issue of names in passports, I take on board the point that sometimes people discover what is in the machine-readable zone of their national passport when they apply for a status with the Home Office. That is not something that affects only the EUSS; it also affects wider immigration statuses. Members will appreciate why we put quite a lot of store into making sure we have secure identity and that we link people clearly to the identity status that they use to apply to the scheme. I appreciate that can produce some issues in countries where it is less easy to convert a passport so that it shows a married name rather than a maiden name than under the system we have here in the UK, but it is an important part of how our system operates that we have that security.
On having a digital system that allows people to apply from home, we are increasingly moving towards systems that will read someone’s passport rather than require them to go to an application centre to prove their status—the British nationals overseas route is a good example, where many apply from home using their BNO or their HKSAR passport to prove their identity to the Home Office. We will consider whether improvements can be made, but there is the basis of real security that we need to maintain, so that we do not have opportunities for different identities in applications being submitted.
The EU settlement scheme has been a success. It has given security and certainty to millions of people and is a genuine success of which we can be proud as a nation. I encourage all who are eligible who have not yet applied to do so as soon as possible. Support is available online, on the phone and in person through grant-funded organisations to help them apply
Question put and agreed to.
Road Connectivity: Teesside to Scotland
(2 years, 10 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
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There are also 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. We have no Members participating virtually, so I do not need to say the next bit. Members attending physically, however, should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the A68 and road connectivity from Teesside to Scotland.
Left behind, ignored, forgotten, neglected, overlooked, the rust belt—those are the synonymous phrases often used to describe the communities that make up the towns and villages for whom the A68 is their key artery. There are many different descriptions but, politically speaking, the phrase I heard most often is that Labour had taken their community and their vote for granted forever. I am sure that that is felt on the streets of the towns and villages not only of North West Durham, from Crook to Castleside, from Willington to Wearhead, but of my neighbours in Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield and Darlington.
Running from Darlington through Sedgefield to Bishop Auckland, up through my constituency, before dropping into Northumberland and over the Scottish border, the constituencies along the A68 have names synonymous with new Labour—Tony Blair, Alan Milburn, Hilary Armstrong—seats referred to as the red wall, now the blue wall. However, that is a mythical construct of political scientists and commentators. The A68 is very much real-world hardcore, a real rather than a metaphorical construction. The A68 is now the blue road.
The Prime Minister, on his visit to Sedgefield in December 2019, following the general election, understood that: the pencil hovering over the ballot paper before breaking the voting habit of generations. I want the people of the north-east to know that I will repay their trust—and trust is the key word. The Prime Minister had recognised that the trust between their previous MPs and their constituents had been broken. We can see why around the A68.
I have with me the County Durham plan of 1951—thanks to the Library of the House of Commons, which was able to source it for me from a research library. It was produced the year after my constituency of North West Durham was created. In it, my constituency had three railway lines to Consett alone, along with others to the south, and new plans for roads and bypasses, including on the A68. When I was elected, the big improvements on the A68, including the Toft Hill bypass, marked in 1951, still had not been done. Seventy years on, it still has not. Seven decades on, there are now no railway lines or stations at all in my constituency. The road improvements have not been done. Is it any surprise that people felt that trust had been broken?
In that time, we switched the rest of our railway network from coal to diesel and, increasingly, electric. Seventy years ago, Winston Churchill was Prime Minister. We had not even had the Suez crisis. The treaty of Rome was still a glint in the eye of European leaders. King George VI was on the throne. Labour have, for 70 years, taken North West Durham, much of the rest of the north-east of England, the north of England, Wales, Scotland and the midlands for granted. Only last month, in County Durham we saw Labour finally lose control of the council after 102 years. Things are changing.
I am pleased to say that, with the restoring your railway funding, I have submitted plans for enhanced cycling and walking, better disabled access and examination of options for a new public transport route between Consett and the Tyne. In the south of my constituency, alongside my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), for Darlington (Peter Gibson) and for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), backed up by Ben Houchen, the Mayor of Tees Valley, I am leading the support for the new restoring your railway bid for the Darlington and Durham dales railway line.
When I was elected, the Shotley Bridge Community Hospital, which a couple of decades ago was a maternity hospital, was going to be rebuilt with no beds—a hospital with no beds. Thanks to the campaign, I have now ensured that we will get 16 beds, which is double the number in the current facility.
I am campaigning for bus routes to Weardale and Burnhope, to bring those physical connections back to cut-off communities. I am campaigning for broadband for places such as Muggleswick and Maiden Law, so that they have the connections that will allow our businesses to compete and individuals to connect in the 21st century.
What we have not yet seen enough movement on is the A68. For the communities of Crook and Weardale to be able to make the most of the opportunities being created in Teesside—from the freeport to the excellent new jobs coming at the Treasury and other Departments—the Toft Hill bypass and the Darlington bypass need to be prioritised. At firms such as Elddis Transport, a fourth generation family firm run by Nigel Cook, whom I met recently, drivers are still having to make difficult journeys on an A68 suitable for previous generations.
For people in Castleside, it is clear that the long-term siting of a major road through the centre of their village is no longer an option. It is time for the A68 to be put on the strategic road network because it is an arterial route. It carries a far greater proportion of its traffic as heavy goods vehicles than most other roads in a similar category. It is the third route to Scotland between the M1 and the A1.
Whether it is upgrading the A1 or the east coast main line or getting the Leamside line up and running, we north MPs here today are all supportive, and are all backing each other up. The A68 is the clear next step. We want our communities to be able to thrive and for our local private sectors not to be hemmed in, so that good jobs can be created and, in turn, help fund our great public services.
Our communities are already seeing the difference Conservative MPs make. In his speech in Sedgefield, the Prime Minister said:
“Our country has now embarked on a wonderful new adventure and we are going to recover our national self-confidence… and we are going to do things differently and better.”
Seventy years on from the initial plans, it is now time to do things better. It is time to cement the foundations and the economic bonds and to enhance those community ties with a road like the A68, which is strategically so important, to help unite our Union.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. It may help if I set out the timings for this 60-minute debate. The Front-Bench speeches will take 20 minutes in total, and therefore wind-ups will begin at roughly 5.30 pm. That is better news than I indicated previously. Colleagues do not have to take their full time, but each speech can now be between seven and 10 minutes.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Gary, and to be called to speak in today’s debate, which has been so ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden). He has been a tireless campaigner for infrastructure in the north. I congratulate him on securing this important debate.
Improving connectivity in areas that have been left behind for too long must be central to our goal of levelling up. The A68 is not just a central artery of northern transport infrastructure and connectivity. While it links Darlington with Edinburgh, more than 128 miles away, it is also vital to our cultural connectivity, linking the communities of Darlington, Sedgefield, Bishop Auckland and Hexham.
At its southern tip in the heart of my constituency, the A68 provides access to the A1(M) at junction 58. Much of the northbound traffic has to snake its way through residential areas such as Cockerton and Faverdale, causing congestion and emissions. Much of the traffic could be directed on to the A1 at junction 57, if it only had a northbound entry slip road.
At the northern end of my constituency, our outer ring road is incomplete. The A1(M) and the A66, which was recently awarded long overdue upgrading, form three quarters of the ring road, but the section between Great Burdon and junction 59 of the A1(M) does not exist. Although the entirety of the route falls in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), he knows the benefits it will have for Darlington.
The missing section causes traffic to snake through residential parts of north Darlington such as Whinfield and Harrowgate Hill, causing congestion and emissions. My campaign for this long overdue piece of infrastructure is essential to the success of the County Durham economy and its connectivity, and will be key to accessing our new freeport located throughout the Tees valley. Delivering the bypass will be the last piece in our ring road jigsaw. My two key asks for road infrastructure feed into the improvements to the A68 itself and access to it.
Over the past 18 months, the Government have committed to revolutionising the north-east by giving targeted money to make the biggest impact, from £105 million being invested in Darlington’s Bank Top station to £23.3 million being invested in Darlington through the towns fund, or the delivery of “Treasury North” and a freeport on Teesside, the Government are delivering on their levelling-up agenda. However, much more is needed to equal the investment that others have so heavily benefited from and to revitalise our road network, improve connectivity, reduce emissions and deliver on our region’s full potential.
As we build back better, seeking to cut congestion and the consequent waste emissions, road improvements must be central to our recovery. The new road will cut gridlock and the nightmare that has been caused to my constituents in Darlington. I know I am not alone in wanting to cut gridlock and reduce emissions for my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) is also campaigning for her own bypass on the A68 to cut gridlock and improve road safety at Toft Hill. Likewise, my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield is campaigning for rail improvements. Collectively, along with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham, we are all campaigning for the reintroduction of services from Darlington to the Durham dales.
With the opening of the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund in March this year and the upcoming independent Union connectivity review, I look forward to working with my hon. Friends from across the region to explore the opportunities for investment that that will bring. I know, and the people of Darlington know, that the Government are serious about delivering on their ambitious levelling-up agenda, and I will continue to press the Government to deliver for the north-east.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) on securing this important debate.
Colleagues will know that I regularly appear when the matter of regional connectivity and levelling up are pertinent to the debate, so here I am. Today I want to talk about how improving the A68 and connectivity from Durham and Teesside to Scotland is important in the levelling-up agenda.
A great deal of investment in transport infrastructure is needed to realise the Government’s levelling-up agenda. I have spoken in this place before about bus, coaches and trains strategies. All of those initiatives rely on adequate physical foundations being put in place. The A68 is currently not an adequate physical foundation. As it currently exists, the A68 is a single carriageway, save for two small sections where it meets larger roads such as the A1(M) and the A69. Ultimately, if someone gets stuck behind a slow driver and there is too much traffic, bottlenecking occurs and the whole journey speed is compromised and/or dangerous risks are taken. I know that all too well, as in a previous life I regularly commuted between Durham and Edinburgh. It is dangerous, and has been for many years.
Durham County Council has simply not given the road the work that it needs to be maintained or improved. As far back as 1951, it was suggested that a bypass be installed at Toft Hill, yet no move was made to erect it and ease congestion. The A68 is not just a regional road; it is nationally significant and an artery that requires investment and managing in that context. Although the A68 serves west County Durham in the main, the whole of the county would benefit from improvements to the road. To the south of my constituency, the A68 crosses the A1 close to Aycliffe business park, which has a great many businesses. The business park is deliberately located near the A1, which is a main commuter artery to London, but also to Newcastle and Scotland. Any blockage on the A1, however, means that my constituents and their businesses are wholly reliant on the A68. As the A1 is single-carriageway further north too, its own congestion problems can easily arise.
When it comes to congestion problems, there are significant issues in Darlington, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) just outlined, relating to the transport links between the A1(M) and Teesside with traffic from the north, and, in particular, from the 10,000-job industrial estate in Newton Aycliffe and the freeport scheduled in Teesside. The Darlington northern bypass, which is in my Sedgefield constituency but would massively impact on efficient connectivity and congestion, is another critical artery that needs delivery. Businesses such as Hitachi in Newton Aycliffe need to make significant diversions to avoid Darlington, which adds both cost and carbon to everything they do.
Should the A68 be better managed, my constituents would not rely on the A1 and would have much better road links to Scotland, for both tourist and commercial journeys, making northerly business ventures faster and more reliable. That would serve to make northern towns and cities better connected. I have already put my name to three bids to improve the rail transport in and around the constituency—namely Ferryhill, Leamside and the Durham dales line, which connects Bishop and Weardale, through Darlington, on the edge of my Sedgefield constituency.
Today, I am asserting that the road infrastructure must complement any improvements in rail, because currently County Durham is very car reliant. Out of 228,000 people found to work in County Durham, only 2,000 use the train to commute. Buses are slightly better at 13,000, but the car is the main mode of transport, with 164,000 people opting to use one to get to work.
Although I would clearly like to see a shift in the number of people using the railway, and we need to drive the “Bus Back Better” plans to get road infrastructure that is fit for purpose, the fact remains that there are many cars on the road in County Durham, and they need catering for. Those who own a car are reliant on it. Those without one find leaving the local area and expanding their opportunities very difficult. To realise their potential, people and businesses in south Durham and Teesside must be able to reach Scotland in a decent journey time in order to reach new markets and customers.
Infrastructure investment is undoubtedly a key economic driver, helping both the national economy and regional and county economies attract and retain businesses and jobs. This investment has been acknowledged to be needed most critically away from London and the south-east. The Government’s industrial strategy states that the UK has a greater disparity in regional productivity than other European countries, which in turn causes disparity regionally in people’s pay, opportunities and life chances.
Nationally, it is recognised that our transport infra- structure needs to support UK business growth, not only in terms of supporting the movement of people and goods but in respect of providing more efficient means of transport and reducing journey times, which is precisely what we are discussing today. It is therefore imperative that improvements be made on these roads in the north-east as the Government deliver on their commitment to level up and improve the micro-economies and opportunities in the north of the country. Taking ownership and delivering critical arteries is fundamental, and I ask the Minister to keep this at the top of his agenda.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) and I have many things in common and many common interests, but the one that really united us from the get-go—it was not pints of lager anywhere near the Red Lion—was in fact our passion for the A68 and our joint commitment to making it the monolithic structure it should be: a proper road that is part of the strategic road network. I have been working with him since we were elected to try to make that happen, and the campaign continues. I see the Minister’s ears pricking up. I hope he has heard us, but we will continue remind him until it is done.
In a past life, before I became a Member of this place, I used to drive the A68 every day to go to work, from High Etherley, just near Toft Hill—hon. Members will hear me mention it a few times, so I thought I would get started early—right up towards Annfield Plain. Every day, I faced absolute torment trying to drive through Toft Hill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) mentioned the disaster when the A68 goes right through those residential zones, the congestion and the issues it causes for local residents and their quality of life. As a commuter, it used to add 15 to 20 minutes on to my journey time to drive a mile-long stretch. It was absolutely disastrous and something has to be done about it.
During the general election, I went out around Toft Hill and High Etherley with some surveys and asked local residents about the key concern on their mind. Universally, across the board, the issue that came back on 90% of all surveys from those who did bother to respond, was building the bypass in Toft Hill finally.
We have heard today from all three of my colleagues from the County Durham area—my hon. Friends the Members for North West Durham, for Darlington and for Sedgefield—about how the Toft Hill bypass was in and promised by the County Durham plan back in 1951. We are 70 years down the line and it has still not been delivered. It is an absolute disgrace, but I have some good news, which will come up later in this speech.
Residents told me in the survey that they wanted a bypass. The local parish council has been campaigning fiercely for a bypass for decades. My predecessor even presented a petition to this place in 2018, calling for a bypass to be built, and yet it was not done. I made building the Toft Hill bypass a key part of my general election pledges. It was one of my five pledges and I have worked on it non-stop since I was elected.
The issues for residents of Toft Hill and Etherley are vast. It is not just cars whizzing by; it is parking on both sides of the street, heavy goods vehicles and other heavy vehicles trying to get through, right next to a primary school that is just feet away from the road, with a school crossing. The congestion can be absolutely crippling. The road safety aspect cannot be understated. A few years ago, one of my constituents, as was raised by my predecessor, was sitting at home in her living room when a van came speeding down the road, ran straight into her living room and completely destroyed her property. She was out of her home for months waiting for it to rebuilt. That shows just how much of a road safety priority it is to get the Toft Hill bypass built.
The local parish council has been pushing for this for years. I have only been in post for a year and a half, but I have been non-stop nagging the Transport Secretary and basically anyone else who will listen about this bypass. In the national scheme of things, it may seem small and insignificant, but for residents of Toft Hill, High Etherley and the surrounding areas it is absolutely crucial. I have raised it with the council and the director of regeneration, Amy Harhoff, at our very first meeting. She asked me what my local priorities were and I think she expected me to talk about all sorts of job creation measures, which we got on to later, but the very first thing I raised was the Toft Hill bypass. I told her that, working with her in partnership, that was the key project I wanted to get completed in my first term as a Member of Parliament.
I raised it with the chief exec of the council, who I think is absolutely sick of hearing me utter the words “Toft Hill bypass”, but he has been fantastic in helping me to facilitate the campaign. I have also raised it with Government, the Transport Secretary, the Leader of the House, in the Chamber and privately with countless Ministers, including the Communities Secretary and the Chancellor. I really hope they are listening, because this is crucial for Toft Hill.
We had our local elections a few short months ago and I am delighted to say that, going from one Conservative and one Labour ward, we took the ward in which Toft Hill sits, with two Conservative councillors, and one of their key election pledges was getting the Toft Hill bypass built. The good news that I promised earlier is that, thanks to the incredibly hard work of Amy Harhoff and Dave Wafer at Durham County Council, and countless other officers and campaigners from Toft Hill parish council and Etherley parish council, we now have a bid that will be going in to the levelling-up fund in the next few days calling for the bypass finally to be built. We have a plan and are asking the Government for the money, so Minister, please tell me you are listening and please put a good word in for me with the powers that be.
Finally, after decades of inaction and, I am afraid to say, of Labour promising and not delivering, I hope, after 18 months in this place, to get some good news and get the Toft Hill bypass approved and delivered in my first term as an MP.
I know West Auckland residents of in my constituency are concerned about the proposed bypass. They want a bigger bypass that would go past both Toft Hill and West Auckland. We believe that was discussed in earlier plans, 20 or 30 years ago—I think before I was born. I think there are concerns that the bypass will bring new congestion into West Auckland. I want to reassure any residents of West Auckland that that will not be the case. It will be the same traffic that is already coming into the village. There will be no worsening. I certainly agree with local residents, however, that the next phase has to be completing the bypass around West Auckland. Unfortunately, given the amount of time we had for the levelling-up fund bid, the hoops we have to jump through and the amount of funding available, it is not possible at this stage.
I hope he will forgive me but I say to the Transport Secretary—I hope he is listening—that I am coming to you at the moment for the Toft Hill bypass, but as soon as the ink is dry I will be nagging you once more for the next bypass, the West Auckland bypass. I hope that local residents of West Auckland hear me loud and clear when I say that that will be my next major transport priority. Mum always said, “If you don’t ask, you don’t get,” so I figured I would throw it in early.
I am delighted that we have had this debate on the importance of the A68, and that I have had the opportunity to discuss the importance of completing the Toft Hill bypass. The levelling-up bid will be going in this week, and I hope that any Ministers present and any who happen to be reading Hansard in the middle of the night this evening will take that bid on board, and grant us the bypass for which local residents have been calling for so long.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) for having secured today’s debate and for raising some very fair concerns about the A68. Having driven up and down it several times in the past, I can certainly attest to sometimes being caught behind slow-moving vehicles. The connections between Teesside and Scotland are critical, and as a Scottish MP I am not going to comment on the details of what needs to be done by way of road improvements for the south. Those improvements would undoubtedly benefit my constituents as they travel southwards, but there are clearly others in the room far more qualified than me to discuss the details of issues in their own constituencies. However, I certainly understand the need to improve connectivity and the importance of an arterial route to boost economic growth for the south—I know most Members here would refer to it as the north, but it is the south—and to help folk get out to our marvellous country more easily.
These days, in terms of traffic flow the A68 border route plays second fiddle to the A1 in the east and the M6 and M74 in the west, but it is a central route. It remains one of the most beautiful and important routes between our nations, not least the section through my own Midlothian constituency, where it terminates—not Edinburgh but Midlothian: a wee technical point for locals. It might not be the most timely or efficient route, but it makes for a beautiful, hilly, dramatic meander through Northumberland’s forests into the historic border town of Jedburgh and up that way to our finest of counties, Midlothian. The border itself is worthy of a pit stop and picnic—that is if drivers do not take time out for a toastie at the Camien Cafe, which I understand is the last café in England, and a fine pit stop.
The A68 is, of course, a route steeped in history, passed by many a king, a queen, and a border reiver over the centuries. Portions of it follow the Roman road, Dere Street, and it takes us to the site of the largest outpost of the Roman empire north of Hadrian’s Wall, the Trimontium fort near Melrose. It was established around 80 AD, and for most of its existence it was the main forward base for the continued yet unsuccessful attempts by Rome to invade and occupy Scotland. Drivers who were lucky enough to have been on the A68 last Friday might have spotted yet another relic, with legendary Hollywood actor Harrison Ford on site making the latest “Indiana Jones” film in the shadow of the Leaderfoot viaduct.
Of course, the A68 lost much of the bustle in my part of the world when the Dalkeith bypass opened in 2008. This took custom from one of the famous coaching inns serving the route, the Old Meal Market, which had many a tale to tell of hauntings and highwayman. The A68 also lost its final run into the city of Edinburgh: it now finishes at the city bypass, the A720. Incidentally, if we are looking at other priorities for investment, that would be right at the top of my list, although that is a matter for another day and, dare I say, another Parliament.
Historical importance is one thing, but we also have to recognise the historical underspend there has been on this creaking network, particularly in the north. We are playing catch-up in so many areas, and lots of improvements are needed to cut the risk of accidents and make the A68 a much safer route for all who use it. Indeed, many of those points have already been made by other Members in this debate. The hilly parts of the route make it all the more challenging to maintain and improve, and just last year we were very lucky that there was not a major accident when thunderstorms and heavy rain caused the A68 to collapse at the Fala embankment, near the town of Pathhead in my constituency. I have huge respect for the massive effort that went in, and for the speedy and efficient repairs carried out by the engineers at BEAR Scotland, who managed to get the route back up and running in a phenomenally short period of time. Having visited the site and seen the extent of the damage after the incident, I was astonished when the timeline they had presented was actually achieved—all credit to them.
I am genuinely supportive of calls for improvements to the A68 and better connectivity with all our friends, trading partners and neighbours across the border. We are no longer supposed to be living in the dark ages of Tory-rule diktat, however, and it is important that decisions on cross-border road improvements are taken with full respect for the democratically elected Governments of each nation. For that reason, I have some difficulty with the Union connectivity review, which assesses transport connectivity between nations of the United Kingdom in a unilateral fashion.
The Scottish Government have robust evidence and the insight to make better informed decisions on transport spending and priorities in Scotland. As I mentioned, we have already had a Dalkeith bypass approved, and it did not take us 70 years to achieve that—it took devolution. The focus needs to be on projects to improve lives, boost the economy, support communities, and work towards net zero. That is how the Scottish Government are planning Scotland’s future transport infrastructure investment. They are doing so much through the second strategic transport projects review, not the Union connectivity review.
Sadly, that review was established without meaningful discussion with the devolved Administrations, and it seems like another attempt to directly encroach into areas in which funding should be devolved. Existing joint working groups of the Scottish and UK Governments, such as on the border growth deal, are far more meaningful frameworks for bilateral relationships between the two Governments. As Friday’s match will no doubt show, the rivalries between Scotland and England can be fierce, but they can also be the best of friends, and it is important that we can engage constructively when it matters. A bit of respect must be shown on both sides.
I am proud that Scotland will show solidarity with England on Friday by taking the knee against racism. Similarly, I hope that our Governments can engage meaningfully over mutually beneficial projects, such as road infrastructure connectivity, through proper channels. I offer a friendly warning to the UK Government that any attempt to undermine the Scottish Government and to claw back powers that have already been devolved will be strongly resisted and—dare I say?—they will be sent homeward to think again.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is, as always, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Gary. I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) on securing the debate. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to so many of his colleagues’ passionate pleas for investment in their constituencies, so I do not intend to speak for too long.
It is incredibly important that we improve connectivity between the UK’s regions and nations. That should be absolutely at the heart of Government policy, whether in the south-west of England, where the seat I represent is, or in the north-east. I was slightly baffled by some of what the hon. Gentleman said about the 1951 county plan. I was not quite around in those days, but I am pretty sure that there was an election that year that was won by the Conservatives, and that in the 70 years since then, as much as I wish it were not so, the Conservatives have won far more elections than Labour—they were in Government for 46 years out of 70, by my rough calculations.
The things about which the hon. Gentleman spoke—investment in roads and rail, and he mentioned a local hospital and broadband—are by and large the responsibility of national Government. They are certainly reliant on central Government funding. I am not quite sure, then, why he is pointing the finger. Well, I am sure. I know why he is pointing the finger at a Labour-led council rather than the Government, but that does not reflect the true picture of why the area has not received the investment it needs.
I do not think it very helpful to dwell on that point. We should focus more on what we have in common than on what divides us, as my very sadly missed colleague Jo Cox would have said. We all have a desire to improve transport links to reduce congestion and to improve road safety, and I hope that we also share a commitment to environmental objectives. That is not to say that the Labour party would oppose all the road provisions, but we very much want to see them within the framework of tackling air pollution and reducing carbon emissions.
We had a debate in this room this morning on the much-awaited and long-delayed transport decarbonisation plan. I made the point that the Government are committed to that huge £27 billion-worth of spending on road infrastructure but the Transport Secretary ignored the advice of his civil servants to carry out an environmental impact assessment. It is not my role to take a view on what local projects are needed. That is for locally elected representatives, and I would not want them to do that in my patch. However, I hope that we measure things against the impact on the natural environment and overall contribution to getting to net zero, because that cannot be done just by a shift to electric vehicles. We have to discourage road travel and give people alternatives, whether that is investment in rail or buses, as has been mentioned, or other means.
There is also something to be said about spending on basic road maintenance, the budget for which has been slashed. There is now a £11 billion backlog for pothole repairs. Those sorts of things really matter to people in the villages that Members have talked about. [Interruption.] I thought the Minister was leaving—when I mentioned potholes, he put on his jacket and I thought he had had enough and was off. Those things really matter to local people, as well as flagship new bypasses.
On the A68, I am not familiar with that part of the world, although I did once go for a night out at Trimdon Colliery social club in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), so I may have travelled on that road. Needless to say, it was when the then local Member of Parliament was also the Prime Minister and I was a constituency member of Labour’s national policy forum. We had a night out and I remember that lots of pies were delivered, which, being vegan, I could not eat, and then we went down the chip shop. Phil Wilson, the former MP for Sedgefield, delights in saying that the shop still talks about these strange out-of-towners and southerners descending on Trimdon Colliery chip shop, asking what the chips were cooked in. But I digress. Actually, I looked at a map and noticed that Toft Hill is very close to Barnard Castle, which is the other interesting fact I have to share about the area.
On the issue of road safety, I spoke to my Teesside colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who said that the A68 is well known for the number of blind summits on route, and the statistics show that it is one of the most dangerous A roads in Britain, with an accident rate of 2.7 for every 1 million vehicles. I would welcome the Minster setting out what can be done to tackle that issue. People do not want to be stuck in the queues that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) spoke about, but road safety is absolutely imperative.
I will conclude by saying again that we all want to see investment and levelling up, no matter where we represent. The Government could do more, however, including by making rail affordable and creating the rail connectivity that we do not have. I am sure my former colleague Andrew Burnham in Greater Manchester bends Ministers’ ears very frequently—perhaps even more often than the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. We all want to see improvements, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and to respond to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) on securing this debate on a topic that I know is very close to his heart and to those of all who have spoken today about the vital route connecting communities through County Durham, Northumbria and onwards to Scotland.
Like many, this year I will have a staycation rather than a vacation. I already have it booked in Durham and in Scotland, so I look forward to sampling for myself the A68 and the picnics and cafés in what is a very beautiful part of the world.
Dehenna Davison
Will the Minister consider a trip to Barnard Castle to view the delights that our wonderful market town has to offer?
Andrew Stephenson
I will consider such a kind invitation. I look forward to viewing the local sights and sampling the hospitality, and Barnard Castle or the A68 may be on the list.
Paul Howell
To complement that offer, the chip shop next to Trimdon Colliery, otherwise known as Deaf Hill, is also somewhere the Minister could not miss.
Andrew Stephenson
I will bear that in mind.
Some colleagues may not be aware that, while I firmly hail from the north-west of England, my family on my father’s side come very firmly from the north-east of England. My father grew up in Shildon, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison). My grandmother was from Ferryhill—
Andrew Stephenson
In my hon. Friend’s constituency. My grandfather worked as a bus driver in Darlington, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson). So I have connections and many family members living across the north-east of England. I am delighted to have listened to the speeches from my colleagues in the north-east, who represent that part of the world so well.
As has been said, the A68 is not a strategic road, and therefore decisions will be reserved to the local highways authorities it passes through. But I assure Members that the Department for Transport works constructively with all partners to ensure that our road infrastructure is fit for purpose and funded appropriately, investing in a road network that maximises economic growth and supports thriving local communities.
To that end, the Government are wholeheartedly committed to delivering on their vision of levelling up the British economy and strengthening the bonds of our Union. Improved transport connectivity is fundamental to that vision, unlocking the economic potential of the northern powerhouse, building back better following this awful pandemic, and ensuring that the north of England plays a key role in a resurgent UK economy. That is why my Department, led by the Secretary of State, who is also the Cabinet Minister responsible for the northern powerhouse, is at the forefront of making this vision a reality.
Since 2010, more than £29 billion has been invested in transport infrastructure in the north, but at the Department for Transport we want to go further and faster. Levelling up all parts of the United Kingdom is at the centre of the Government’s agenda, with a White Paper in development, led by the Prime Minister himself. Transport will be a fundamental part of that vision. While the White Paper is being developed, we are already making strides on investment and strengthening the voice of the north. Significant progress has already been made: over 60% of the north of England is now covered by metro Mayors, offering a strong voice to the people, as well as access to new funding opportunities, particularly for transport.
As part of the devolution deal for the Tees Valley Combined Authority, £126 million was secured, including local growth funds, an investment fund and local transport funding, and there is more to come. The intercity transport settlements announced in the 2020 budget will deliver £4.2 billion to mayoral city regions over the next five years, from 2022-23. That is on top of the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund, underlining our commitment to a robust UK economy firing on all cylinders and maximising economic opportunities for all parts of the country.
The levelling-up fund can be used to support projects such as the A68, so I am delighted to hear that a bid is going in, and I look forward to seeing that bid alongside what I am sure will be many other bids from across the country. That funding will help to level up the region, supporting Mayors who have the powers and the ambition to help their city regions prosper. Indeed, the Government welcome the hard work of the Mayor of Tees Valley, Ben Houchen, who has worked constructively with the Department on a range of transport initiatives, from securing the future of Teesside International airport to delivering improvements to Darlington and Middlesbrough stations and accelerating upgrades to a range of road projects. The Government look forward to receiving proposals from other local authorities in the north-east for a new devolution deal, establishing a Mayor with additional transport powers for the area.
With the right investment, the north-east of England can truly be the cornerstone of a thriving northern powerhouse. Tees Valley received £76 million from the transforming cities fund to improve intercity connectivity. The restoring your railways initiative, which was mentioned by a number of Members, has seen a new station secured for Ferryhill. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham should be commended for his work on campaigning for the opening of the Weardale line and the Consett-Tyne rail link. But we should not forget the basics, either. Over £80 million will be spent across the north-east to support highways maintenance, pothole repairs and local transport measures, through 2021-22, meaning smoother, safer and more reliable journeys for not just motorists but bus passengers and cyclists.
We should not consider the north-east of England in isolation. We want the regions to be joined up, with strong north-south connections, especially to Scotland, enabling unencumbered movement of people and goods between our nations. When we work together UK-wide, we are safer, stronger and more prosperous. Together, we are better able to tackle the big problems, from defending our borders and fighting national security threats, to delivering the furlough scheme or the world-beating vaccination roll-out.
The Government are already taking huge strides to strengthen our Union and level up every single part of the country. We are determined to build back better in a way that brings every corner of the UK closer together, making it easier to reach friends, family and businesses from different parts of the UK. I must admit, as the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) mentioned, that our close bonds of friendship with those north of the border may be tested somewhat for 90 minutes on Friday, but, whatever the result, that will not shake the Government’s commitment to strengthen the Union.
We are working to ensure that the institutions of the United Kingdom are used in a way that benefits everybody from Aberdeen to Aylesbury, from Belfast to Brecon. The independent Union connectivity review is key to realising these ambitions. I hear what the hon. Member for Midlothian says, and I can assure him that we intend to work collaboratively and in partnership with the Scottish Government to ensure that the proposals that are brought forward by Sir Peter are ones that we can all get behind and support.
While we eagerly await Sir Peter’s review, the Government are far from resting on our laurels. We are acting now to strengthen the links between England and Scotland. The borderlands growth deal will realise a new era of regeneration opportunity, as we build back better from the pandemic, bringing £452 million of fresh investment into the borderlands area, driving economic growth and strengthening cross-border links.
Making stronger links between Scotland and England a reality requires investment and delivery on the ground. Roads such as the A68 are the lifeblood of the north-east’s economy, and fundamental to getting people and goods to Scotland. That is why the Department is investing £700 million in the strategic road network in the north-east between 2020 and 2025.
I am sure that my hon. Friends from the Tees Valley will share my joy that the A19 is one of the chief recipients of the road investment in the region, with up to £70 million secured to upgrade that road. We are also improving the A69 Bridge End junction in Hexham, to reduce congestion and improve journey times and safety for all road users. The scheme will improve connectivity within the region, including some journeys that use both the A68 and the A69.
The energy we are devoting to delivering transformative transport projects now is matched by our ambitions for further improvements in the future. The Department is starting work to develop the third road investment strategy, known as RIS3, which will set Highways England’s objectives and funding for the period 2025 to 2030. RIS3 decision making will be underpinned by a strong evidence base that will be assessed over the next couple of years. We want to understand people’s priorities for the strategic road network over the RIS3 period and beyond, recognising that people will have a variety of views, whether as road users or as neighbours to the network.
Highways England has a central role to play in this evidence-gathering process. It has recently written to key stakeholders, including parliamentarians, mayors and local authorities across the country, inviting them to get involved in its work to refresh our route strategies. Route strategies assess the current performance and future pressures on every part of the strategic network, identifying the priority locations for future improvements. They are one of the principal ways for people to inform our decisions for RIS3, and I encourage colleagues here today to get involved and to reiterate the points they have all made about the significance of the A68.
In the meantime, we are getting on with improvements, such as investing in the A1. In recent years, we have extended motorway conditions along the A1 to Newcastle, so there is a continuous motorway link south, all the way through the midlands and to London, for the first time. We are extending the dual carriageway northwards to Ellingham, with work planned to start next year. A total of 13 miles of road will be upgraded between Morpeth, Felton, Alnwick and Ellingham. As we develop our next road investment strategy, we will consider the case for further work improving the road onward to Berwick-upon-Tweed.
However, our attention should not focus just on those schemes that have commanded the largest price tags. As many of my hon. Friends have done today, we must also shine a spotlight on the smaller schemes, which nevertheless are of huge importance to local communities and businesses. That is why I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, who, ever since her election, has been pressing hard for the Toft Hill bypass. As the road in question, the A68, is a local road, it is for Durham County Council to promote such a scheme. I advise her to maintain her pressure on the county council, but I will certainly look with interest at the bid that is coming in as part of the levelling-up fund and is supported by the council.
Other local schemes also need consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington talked eloquently about the Darlington northern bypass. I fully appreciate the benefits that the scheme could bring in bringing better connectivity between Newton Aycliffe and Tees Valley, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his campaigning on this issue. I know that my noble Friend Baroness Vere, the Roads Minister, would be happy to meet him, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), to discuss the scheme.
As important as these local connections are in the region, we should recognise that Tees Valley can play a real role in the global economy as well. That is why I was pleased to see Teesside announced at the Budget as one of the eight successful freeport bids in England. That will establish the region as a national hub for international trade, innovation and commerce, while regenerating our local communities. Freeports will play a significant role in boosting trade, attracting inward investment and driving productivity across the UK. That will level up communities through increased employment opportunities. That is more important than ever as we begin the recovery from the ongoing economic crisis that we have been left in by covid-19.
I am grateful to all my colleagues for today’s very insightful debate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham welcomes the updates that I have provided, which make it clear that the Department and the Government at large are committed to levelling up transport infrastructure in the north and strengthening the bonds of our Union.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Thank you, Minister. I call Richard Holden to have the final word.
Mr Holden
As every other hon. Member has said today, it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. Thank you for everything that you have done for us today.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, as bids have been made by my fellow County Durham and Darlington colleagues for a visit during your break, that you are more than welcome to pop along with me to Frosterley fish bar or Craven’s in Wolsingham. They are two of my favourites, although I have to say to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) that they do specialise in frying their stuff in beef dripping, so I do not think it would tick her box, unfortunately.
I welcome the support from the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for general transport schemes. I just hope that he still supports the schemes we are proposing after Friday—whatever happens. I would also just like to point out that there are some parts of my constituency in which we could refer to Scotland as being part of the south, because we do go quite a way north, really, on the other side of the country.
I welcome the hon. Member for Bristol East and thank her for some of the points she mentioned. I am also, obviously, grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Peter Gibson), for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) and for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), who have raised really important issues, particularly on the need for road infrastructure to be there in order for our bus infrastructure to come and to support that as well. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland raised issues about road safety and how important that is. Perhaps now we should share our second passion, aside from the A68, and go and have a pint of lager somewhere.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the A68 and road connectivity from Teesside to Scotland.
Written Statements
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Electoral Commission’s Performance Standards for Electoral Registration Officers
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
In accordance with section 9A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, I am laying before Parliament the Electoral Commission’s new performance standards for electoral registration officers.
The Electoral Administration Act 2006 gave the Electoral Commission powers to set and monitor performance standards for electoral services. Under these provisions, the commission can determine and publish standards of performance for relevant electoral officers in Great Britain.
Following a consultation, the Electoral Commission established a new set of standards which will be used by electoral registration officers and the commission throughout the year to understand and improve the performance of election registration officers, ensuring that registers are as accurate and complete as possible, enabling everyone who is eligible and wants to, to be able to vote.
I welcome the Electoral Commission’s updates to the performance standards to reflect the current environment for electoral registration officers, though more broadly, further measures are needed to strengthen electoral integrity and prevent electoral fraud—which will be delivered through the forthcoming Elections Bill. It is important that performance standards keep pace as we improve electoral registration further.
The attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-06-16/HCWS94/.
[HCWS94]
Counter-Terrorism and Security Act: Post-legislative Scrutiny
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
The Government have today submitted a memorandum to the Home Affairs Committee regarding post-legislative scrutiny of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.
The Home Office has carried out the post-legislative scrutiny, which includes an assessment of how the Act has worked in practice, and set out its findings in a Command Paper to the Committee.
The memorandum has been laid before the House as a Command Paper (CP 455) and published on gov.uk. Copies will also be available from the Vote Office.
[HCWS95]
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 and 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.
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.
Fishing Industry
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the sustainability of the fishing industry in the United Kingdom since 1 January.
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, as a responsible independent coastal state, we are committed to developing world-class sustainable fisheries management, safeguarding stocks and the environment for the long term. This is underpinned by the Fisheries Act 2020, which provides a framework for a UK-wide joint fisheries statement and fisheries management plans. We remain committed to the principle of fishing at maximum sustainable yield through the Act and to extending the number of stocks fished at MSY through negotiations with other coastal states.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, what assurances will the Minister provide to Northern Ireland’s fishermen that their share of the new or additional proportion of fishing quota secured by the UK from the EU as part of the trade and co-operation agreement will not be reduced from 2022 onwards, and that the Government will look towards restoring a share of this new quota in line with Northern Ireland’s fixed-quota allocation share, as well as protecting all those—[Inaudible.]
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement, covering the whole of the United Kingdom, provides a significant uplift in quota for UK fishers, which is estimated to be worth around £146 million for the whole UK fleet. That is equal to just over 25% of the value of the average annual EU catch from UK waters and is being phased in over five years, with the majority of that value being transferred this year. That applies to the whole of the United Kingdom.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, the sustainability of the fishing industry in the UK is of course a critical matter, as noble Lords will all agree. Does the Minister agree that the sustainability of the car industry is also crucial to the economy of our country and join me in welcoming the Prime Minister’s statement that the Government—in fact, both Houses—will do whatever is necessary to make sure that the car plant in Ellesmere Port, my home town, is sustained? Will he join me in wishing every success to the ongoing negotiations?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I certainly join the noble Lord and, no doubt, the whole House in wishing the greatest luck to our negotiators. On sustainability generally, I think the UK can say that we are world leaders. We have 372 marine protected areas, protecting nearly 40% of our waters; we have created a new £500 million Blue Planet Fund; we have been one of the most active members of the Global Ghost Gear Initiative; and, for UK waters, including our overseas territories, we now protect an area of water larger than India.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of the hardships experienced by our coastal fishermen and their families during the past couple of years. What financial and other support have the Government provided to assist those fishing businesses to invest in processing facilities, to enable them to sell direct to the public?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the UK Government are absolutely committed to investing in the seafood sector, and a range of government initiatives over several years has allowed the sector to invest in its businesses, including investment in processing and marketing equipment that supports the expansion of markets both here and abroad. We also established the domestic seafood supply scheme last year and a partnership with Seafish on the consumer-facing and highly successful Sea For Yourself campaign.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, what plans does Defra have to introduce restrictions on the fishing carried out in all our marine protected areas, with particular reference to those types of fishing which damage the ocean floor and its habitats?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, a new by-law power in the Fisheries Act 2020 allows the Marine Management Organisation to protect offshore MPAs from damaging fishing activity, and work on this has already begun. In February, it launched consultation on proposals to better manage activity in four of England’s offshore MPAs: the Canyons; Dogger Bank; Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge; and South Dorset. The aim is for by-laws for these sites to be in place this year. The MMO is developing an ambitious programme for assessing more sites and implementing more by-laws to manage fishing activity in all our offshore MPAs.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, during the passage of the then Fisheries Bill, the Government argued against Labour amendments to redistribute part of the UK’s quota from foreign-owned trawlers to smaller domestic fishers, and to introduce a national landing obligation to ensure that the proceeds of fishing activity in British waters flow through our economy. In resisting the amendment, Ministers claimed that their own initiatives were out for consultation and would then come on stream. Can the Minister update the House on these schemes?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I am not yet in a position to provide that update, but I will do my utmost to ensure that it is made available as soon as possible.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
My Lords, I grew up in Conwy, which was then a busy fishing community and is still heavily involved—tragically at times. Even this January, a fishing boat, the “Nicola Faith”, was lost with all its crew. Fishing can be a very perilous job for those involved, and we need the rescue operation—the coastguard, helicopter searches and, possibly best known, the RNLI, with 444 lifeboats around our coast. It is a legendary charity. Has the Minister had any discussions whatever with those organisations, especially the lifeboat organisation, which I am sure has suffered in fundraising because of the pandemic—anything to make sure that we keep the lifeboats and are able to support them adequately, as they are vital back-ups to our fishing fleet?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord makes an extremely valuable point. I have absolutely no doubt that the Fishing Minister, my colleague Victoria Prentis, and our representative here in this House, my newly appointed noble friend Lord Benyon, have had meetings with the lifeboat organisations and others that the noble Lord mentioned. Of course, the difficulties he describes have been heavily exacerbated by the pandemic, as in almost every sector. I was pleased that up to £23 million of emergency funding was made available during the first part of this year to support the seafood business affected by the impact of Covid-19, as well as the new and tricky import conditions.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP) [V]
My Lords, as we have now left the European Union, we all want to build the foundations for a strong and prosperous fishing industry, and this can be done only with the appropriate investment to sustain the industry right across the United Kingdom. Does the Minister agree that central funding will be required over the next number of years to sustain the industry long into the future, and can he confirm that, as a starting point, British fishing vessels will be given priority access to British fishing waters?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, British fishing vessels will of course have greatly improved access to British waters. In addition to the emergency funding that I mentioned in response to the previous question, we have delivered our manifesto commitment to maintain fisheries funding by allocating £32.7 million at the spending review to support the seafood sector. This is equivalent to the average annual amount delivered through the European maritime and fisheries fund, so our support base is not only maintained but continues to grow.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, so far the trade deal with Norway, Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands is concerned, can the Minister tell us the details of the fishing arrangements and how welcome these will be to the British fishing industry?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the recently announced trade deal with Norway does not address access to waters or exchange of fishing quotas with Norway or the Faroes; those are negotiated separately under our fisheries framework agreements. With Iceland, we have a new memorandum of understanding in place, and we are keen to co-operate with Iceland on a wide range of fisheries policy areas and share best practice—in the interest, of course, of our fishing industry.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister confirm the Scottish Government’s assessment that, far from having substantially increased opportunities, the Scottish fishing industry will in future have access to fewer of the fish it needs to be profitable, and does he accept that fishing communities will suffer as a result?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I do not believe that is the case. Catch limits, known as total allowable catches, have been set for 70 fish stocks at the EU-UK annual negotiations, and the total value of the UK-EU fishing opportunities for the UK in this year is approximately £330 million. This equates to around 160,000 tonnes. In real terms, the access we have across the whole of the United Kingdom has grown, not shrunk.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the inshore fisheries sector could do well to have an increased quota from just the sort of overseas trawlers’ quota that is now available. Will my noble friend endeavour to keep that under review, and will he ensure that the sustainability of inshore fisheries will not be threatened by the plethora of offshore wind farms to be placed in the North Sea?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I will certainly convey my noble friend’s message to my colleagues in Defra, who I am certain will be willing and able to make that commitment. In relation to the sustainability of inshore fisheries, there is undoubtedly a tension between those activities and new wind farms, but Defra colleagues are confident that those tensions can be ironed out and problems can be avoided.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Public Representatives: Online Abuse
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the fifth anniversary of the murder of Jo Cox MP, what assessment they have made of (1) the security needs of public representatives subjected to online abuse, and (2) the need for regulation to tackle such abuse.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I think that this is a very solemn day for all of us as we remember Jo Cox’s tragic murder five years ago. I am sure that the House joins me in acknowledging the courage of her sister, whatever our party affiliations, in standing as a candidate in the by-election in Jo’s former seat.
The online abuse and intimidation of public representatives is completely unacceptable. It risks deterring talented people from entering public life and has a chilling effect on democracy. We are absolutely committed to protecting public representatives’ security both online and offline. The online safety Bill will play an important part in this.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer. Given that Jo’s murder was partly fuelled by online conspiracy communications and that violent language sometimes leads to violent actions, how can the Government strengthen even the online safety Bill? We already have the Malicious Communications Act, but it seems to do little to deter bad behaviour. Will the online safety Bill be properly resourced and enforced to provide protection for public representatives both actually and online?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I hope that I can reassure the right reverend Prelate. We are absolutely clear that Ofcom, in its role as the regulator here, will be properly resourced. We are also clear that the approach in the Bill provides absolutely clarity, if it did not exist already, for social media companies and others on the expectations for how they enforce their terms and conditions, that there will be clear mechanisms for user redress and that there will be very significant enforcement powers.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, this is not just about MPs, of course. When I was a council leader—admittedly, before social media—receiving abuse and violent threats was common. One individual pursued me in the street and in the supermarket, as well as by phone, with abuse directed at family members and work colleagues, and by pinning up defamatory notices around the locality. He ended up in prison for unrelated violence. He would have relished being able to disseminate his abuse via social media. Of course, social media companies must be much more proactive in dealing with this—I hope that the online safety Bill will help with that—but does the Minister agree that the policing resources available are inadequate for the scale of the problem of dealing with fixated individuals before they escalate to violence? The Metropolitan Police’s parliamentary liaison and investigation team does a wonderful job, but where is its equivalent for local government?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government aim to make sure that people can operate in the public sphere safely at all levels, as the noble Lord rightly highlights. We expect the Bill to make a great difference to that when it becomes law. It is clear that, when the police use their existing powers, particularly under the Investigatory Powers Act, they are successful in identifying anonymous users online in particular.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as someone whose receipt of online abuse is somewhat off the scale but who feels uncomfortable with public figures playing the victim card on this. I feel even more uncomfortable with the implicit conflation of a brutal murder with a Twitter pile-on. Does the Minister agree that there is a danger in principle of confusing physical harassment, such as was horribly meted out to the BBC journalist Nick Watt, with online trolling, however unpleasant it may be? Does she note free speech activists’ concern that online abuse is being used to justify censoring lawful content? My fears about the online safety Bill outweigh any fear of harassment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to raise the unacceptable abuse that Nick Watt received the other day. I highlight that we have just published our National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists and a call for evidence is live at the moment. I encourage your Lordships to contribute to that as appropriate.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, as we remember a very brave and remarkable woman, should we not also take on board the fact that public life has been further coarsened and cheapened since her death by the indiscriminate use of social media? Should we not take steps to outlaw anonymous contributions to social media?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government are clear that abuse is unacceptable, whether anonymous or not. Our intention is to try to address that.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, all our thoughts are with the Cox family today. Does the Minister agree that what we now know makes it more and more clear that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for this House, Digital Technology and the Resurrection of Trust, should be included in the work of both the pre-legislative scrutiny committee and the final Bill committee?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As the noble Lord knows, we look forward to pre-legislative scrutiny starting. It will be up to that panel to decide what they will cover within it.
Baroness Fall (Con) [V]
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the inspirational Jo Cox as a model public servant, campaigner and mum, whose tragic murder we remember today. In a healthy, just and open democracy, our representatives should be free to speak out without fear of recrimination, whether physical or from online abuse. Sadly, we see MPs and others, particularly women, bullied out of public life. In my view, a good start in curtailing online abuse would be to end anonymity. Transparency would help to restore accountability in one stroke. Does the Minister agree? If so, what steps is she taking to deliver this?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As my noble friend knows, this is a complicated area. Anonymity provides protection for a number of groups that deserve it but can be seen as an enabler of those who choose to abuse. In the first instance, it should be for social media companies to close the gaps that so many of us feel exist between their quoted terms and conditions and our experiences online.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
I, too, pay tribute to Jo Cox, a brave woman. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fall, that anonymity online seems to encourage the worst sort of behaviour in those who wish to be abusive. There must be more that can be done to stop that. Whenever this issue is raised, the Minister tells us about the need to preserve free speech, protect those suffering from terrorism and so on, including the need to offer them some means of making their case felt. I appreciate that, but if you Google “anonymity online”, what pops up is a company that boasts “We tell nobody anything and, for £5 a month, you are guaranteed complete anonymity.” I do not believe that that is saving anybody from terrorism.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness makes her point very powerfully. I imagine that issues around anonymity will be covered by the pre-legislative scrutiny committee, and I look forward very much to its reflections.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
On the anniversary of the murder of Jo Cox MP, may her memory be for a blessing. It was an absolute disgrace to see the BBC’s Nick Watt pursued in the street as though he were an animal being hunted down. Decency and democracy demand that journalists can go about their business free from abuse, harassment and physical violence. How does the Minister plan to tackle the growing culture that makes some people think that they have an inalienable right to abuse public figures online and in person? What assessment has been made of the impact of this on the likelihood of underrepresented groups taking their place as public figures?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not aware of a formal impact assessment of the nature that the noble Baroness suggests, but I am sure she will agree with me that it can only have a deterring effect given the preponderance of abuse towards minority groups in particular.
Going back to the safety of journalists, in the action plan, which was developed together with the National Union of Journalists, the police and others, there are clear calls for training for the police so that they can respond to those issues.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, five years on from the despicable murder of Jo Cox, the values by which she lived should continue to inspire us all. During the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill, I witnessed the relentless online abuse to which some women—activists, academics and survivors of domestic abuse—who spoke out on the issue were subjected. Will the Government commit to working with politicians and public figures from all parties and from civil society in reviewing online abuse and developing strategies to counter it?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We are absolutely open to and are already working on this issue. I have met with numerous women’s groups with great expertise on this issue and we will continue to do so.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Young People: Post-pandemic Employment
Lord Rose of Monewden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Office for National Statistics’ Employment in the UK data, published on 23 March, which showed that 63 per cent of payroll jobs lost during the COVID-19 pandemic had been held by workers under the age of 25, what steps they will take to ensure that young people have access to education and training that is focussed on the skills and knowledge employers will require in the post-pandemic world.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, through the Government’s plan for jobs, we have provided unprecedented support to young people at risk of long-term unemployment, with access to the skills and training they need to progress, including through expanded traineeships, sector-based work academies and the Kickstart programme. In the longer term, we are placing employers at the heart of our skills reform, including through the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill currently being considered by your Lordships’ House.
Lord Rose of Monewden (Con) [V]
I thank the Minister for her reply. Sadly, the reality is different from the Government’s rhetoric. Employers and the Fashion Retail Academy have done what the Government have asked of them: they have worked together to design courses that will equip young people with the skills that this hard-hit retail industry needs as it adapts to the changes in the way people are shopping—changes accelerated by the Covid pandemic. Yet the Education and Skills Funding Agency seems oblivious to the need for change. It has refused point blank to help fund student places for these courses. Will the Minister please instruct the ESFA to change its out-of-date policies and join the real world?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, it goes slightly beyond my powers and remit to instruct the Education and Skills Funding Agency, but I will certainly take the noble Lord’s comments and those of his sector back to the department to have that conversation.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford [V]
My Lords, during their working lives this generation will face the full implications of not only the Covid pandemic but the fourth industrial revolution and the need to transform our economy to net zero. Young people will need to build meaningful careers, not simply survive from gig to gig. Can the Minister therefore explain where strategic thinking is happening and where policies interlock to provide the skills, employment safeguards and quality jobs, linked to national priorities, which young people will need?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, a key part of the lifetime skills guarantee supported by the lifelong loan entitlement is that people will have access to skills progression throughout their lifetimes. That can be used flexibly and to deliver those skills, we are building on the successes of apprenticeships and T-levels to ensure that high-quality qualifications meet employer-led standards and that training is directly linked to the skills they need for high-quality jobs.
Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]
My Lords, from my time at the DWP, my current work analysing data and metrics at the Legatum Institute and as chair of the Social Metrics Commission tackling the depth and persistence of poverty, it has become abundantly clear that, if you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it. The Government’s ambitious levelling-up agenda is to be applauded but, as they look to build back better, what tricks are they using to assess the success of that agenda? What targets have they set, particularly for the education, skills and training that employers will require in the post-pandemic world?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, it is our ambition to ensure that people of all ages and in every part of the country have the skills they need for a high-quality well-paid job in the post-pandemic world. I am sure noble Lords will hold the Government to account on delivering that.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, young people need impartial, independent careers education and guidance to learn what employers are looking for, what opportunities might suit their own interests and abilities, and what education and training they need to pursue them. Will the Government build on the progress made by the careers strategy that ended last year by introducing a follow-up strategy that includes extending the network of careers hubs to cover the entire country and providing extra funding to schools and colleges to employ the expert, highly qualified careers professionals they need?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord spoke passionately on this issue yesterday, as well. Both the skills White Paper and the accompanying Bill seek to build on the work of the careers strategy to deliver a high-functioning national careers system for all ages. During the pandemic the Government have provided additional funding of £32 million to support the delivery of individual careers advice for over 500,000 people. That has included funding to employ more careers advisers.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the ONS report confirms that most of the young people made redundant were in gig-economy jobs. We know that those most in need of new skills and retraining often fail to take up these opportunities if the appropriate financial support is not available. Loans do not take that trick and the current schemes are simply not working. What plans do the Government have to ensure these young people get the financial support they need to level up as the economy recovers?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, we have a wide range of support schemes in place to focus on young people, particularly those at risk of long-term unemployment. I mentioned a few of them and one of the largest is the Kickstart scheme, which will continue even as we lift the restrictions of the pandemic and support young people into high-quality supported workplaces.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Kickstart scheme that the Minister mentions excludes young people with disabilities who claim employment and support allowance, rather than universal credit. What action will the Government take to ensure that young people with disabilities are not excluded from the high-quality skills education and training that they need to get employment?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, people on employment and support allowance should receive the personalised and tailored support back into the workplace that is appropriate for the needs associated with their disability. The Government’s commitment to provide that support continues.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, has my noble friend read the report from the Economic Affairs Committee of this House on the employment consequences of Covid, in particular the recommendation that access to Kickstart should not be limited to people who have been on universal credit for six months? That effectively means that young people who have lost their jobs, who are suffering the worst effects of Covid, have to wait for as long as nine months before they have the chance of training. That cannot make sense and will be demoralising to young people. On apprenticeships, does my noble friend accept that the basic problem with providing apprenticeships is the cost? The apprenticeship levy is a complete disaster and needs reform.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I have read the work of the noble Lord’s committee and reassure him that, before accessing the Kickstart scheme, young people get other support to help them back into the workplace—for example, through work coaches provided by the DWP, the number of which we have massively expanded during the pandemic. We have had significant success in improving and reforming apprenticeships, but I know that work is ongoing to ensure that the apprenticeship levy is flexible and meets employers’ needs.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the ONS figures also show that the unemployment rate for black, Asian and minority ethnic people is more than double that for white people. Sad to say, that also applies to the failing Kickstart scheme to which the Minister referred. According to her colleague, DWP Minister Mims Davies, in a Written Answer two weeks ago, the scheme has helped only 20,000 people into work since it was launched nine months ago. The Government like to talk levelling up, so what action will they take to overhaul the Kickstart scheme, not just by widening access—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—but by beginning the drive towards equalising its impact on black, Asian and minority ethnic people, and women?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord made a number of points. The economic support provided by the Government to hard-hit sectors such as retail and hospitality has helped to protect jobs in those sectors, the workforces in which are disproportionately young, female and from ethnic minority backgrounds. The Kickstart scheme has been adapted and improved in a number of ways to improve take-up. For example, in February we removed the 30-vacancy threshold for a direct application to Kickstart. The figures I have show that there are more than 140,000 approved vacancies under the Kickstart scheme. We hope that take-up will improve as it goes on in delivery.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, has the Minister had a chance to read Kingston University’s recent Future Skills report, which surveyed 2,000 employers across all sectors? It found that the priority skills businesses will require to prosper beyond the pandemic are problem-solving skills: a mix of logical, social, creative, intuitive and analytical abilities. These are exactly the skills gained from arts and creative industries degrees, so can she explain why the Government seem so determined to drive students away from these courses, which were described by the Education Secretary himself as “dead-end”? Will the Government consider a creative and innovation skills strategy to promote creative subjects and deliver the skills that we know businesses want?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I have not read the report the noble Baroness referred to, but I absolutely agree on the value of the skills she mentioned. I reassure her that the Government support the development of skills in the arts, as well as in the sciences and technical skills, and will continue to do so.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
China: Muslims
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by Amnesty International “Like We Were Enemies in a War”: China’s Mass Internment, Torture, and Persecution of Muslims in Xinjiang, published on 11 June.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Amnesty International report is a compelling addition to the already extensive and irrefutable body of evidence about systematic human rights violations taking place in Xinjiang. The Government have taken careful note of the report and FCDO officials have already discussed the findings with Amnesty International. We will continue to engage with a wide range of NGOs and other experts to inform our further understanding of the situation on the ground in Xinjiang.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, with Amnesty’s report detailing arbitrary detention, forced indoctrination, torture, mass surveillance and crimes against humanity, along with newspaper reports from Xinjiang of the destruction of 16,000 mosques, harrowing evidence being given last week to the independent Uyghur Tribunal, whose brave witnesses and families now experience threats and intimidation, and further legislatures joining the House of Commons in declaring atrocities against the Uighurs to be a genocide, when will the United Kingdom raise this report from Amnesty at the UN Human Rights Council and seek judicial remedies? Will the Government commit to co-operating with, examining and acting on the findings of the Uyghur Tribunal, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, I have met directly with Sir Geoffrey Nice on numerous occasions and we continue to monitor the tribunal as it takes place. My understanding is that the first session has now been completed. On the independent evidence, the noble Lord might be aware that I met with some of the people who gave evidence to the tribunal last week as part of our direct engagement with members of the Uighur community. With the session of the Human Rights Council coming up we will look at this report very carefully. As I said, we have met directly with Amnesty International on its recommendations and findings.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I know that my noble friend is personally extremely concerned about and engaged with this issue, and I thank him for that. Can he tell the House when the Government plan to introduce export controls on goods associated with human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and whether they will accept recommendations made by the BEIS Select Committee to require companies operating there to convincingly evidence that supply chains do not involve forced labour?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
I thank my noble friend for her kind remarks. This is rightly an area of great concern across the House and many parts of society. As she is aware, on 12 January my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary announced our commitment to review existing export controls as they apply to China. We are also conducting a review to see whether additional goods used for internal repression and human rights violations in Xinjiang can be brought into scope. We will report back to Parliament on the outcome of the review in due course.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
What the report confirms is utterly shocking in its scale and the systematic nature of the abuses perpetuated. Of course, the question is: what can we do about it and what are the Government doing about it? Will they at least contemplate economic sanctions against mid-ranking officials, such as the governors of the areas in which the internment camps are situated?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, on sanctions specifically, we keep the whole situation under review. As the noble and right reverend Lord and your Lordships’ House will be aware, on 22 March, under the global human rights sanctions regime, we introduced asset freezes and travel bans on four senior Chinese government officials, as well as an asset freeze against the public security bureau in Xinjiang. We will continue to see the impact of these sanctions and will review future sanctions as the need arises.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, in the integrated review and elsewhere, the Government have described their policy towards China as a balance between trading and supporting human rights. How can that balance be legitimately maintained in the light of the damning conclusions of the Amnesty report?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, as I have said from the Dispatch Box before, we totally recognise the role China has to play. China remains a permanent member of the UN Security Council and its trade with the UK remains an important element. However, notwithstanding the fact that we recognise the importance of its trading relationship, we will not stand by. As we have already demonstrated, we will call out egregious abuse of human rights. We will continue to hold China to account, raise issues directly and bilaterally with China, and raise issues directly through multilateral forums such as the Human Rights Council.
Baroness Cox (CB) [V]
My Lords, what is the Minister’s response to the report of UN special rapporteurs and experts that the CCP is targeting minorities, including Falun Gong, Uighurs, Tibetans, Muslims and Christians, with forced organ harvesting? The judgment of the China tribunal, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, to which my noble friend Lord Alton has already referred, reached the same conclusion. What steps are the Government taking to stop this horrendous practice of organ harvesting, to hold the Chinese authorities to account and to ensure that no UK entities are complicit, knowingly or unwittingly, in these crimes?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
As the noble Baroness will be aware, I am fully cognisant of the suppression of freedom of religion or belief in Xinjiang and more widely in China, particularly as regards specific minorities, as the noble Baroness articulated. On organ harvesting, I have engaged directly with Sir Geoffrey Nice and, as noble Lords will be aware, have taken up the issue with the World Health Organization. We continue to monitor the situation. It remains the Government’s position that, if true, the practice of systematic state-sponsored organ harvesting would constitute a serious violation and an egregious abuse of human rights.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, the West has, sadly, very little influence over the policies of China, but we should recall the propaganda triumph that the Berlin Olympics of 1936 gave the Hitler regime, whereas the boycott of the Moscow Olympics in 1980 made them a somewhat damp squib. Could my noble friend encourage other ministries and, indeed, other countries, to look at boycotting the Winter Olympics in China next February?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, as my noble friend is aware from his own insights and experience, I cannot comment specifically on any boycott of the Olympic Games; that is very much a matter for the independent Olympic committee. But I am sure everyone will consider the situation on the ground in any decisions that they make.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has recently said that he does not want to start a new cold war with China. I fully agree with him on that point. However, there are many challenges that the world is currently facing with China, such as the lack of human rights for Uighurs and Hong Kongers as well as the instability in the South China Sea. How would the United Kingdom like to resolve these issues—or will they be ignored for the sake of trade with China?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, as I have already indicated in my previous answers, while we recognise China’s important role, including on issues such as our challenges around climate change, we will call out egregious abuse of human rights. We have done so. We have led a coalition of like-minded partners at the UN Human Rights Council and Third Committee, and we take up these abuses directly and bilaterally with China as well.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I might return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, about specific actions. Since the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill was blocked, we have not seen extensive sanctions against officials responsible for these terrible crimes, and we have not seen action on forced labour—so I once again ask the Minister the question I have repeatedly asked: when will we see the promised changes to the Modern Slavery Act introduced, including Section 54?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am fully aware of the noble Lord’s interest in this. At the moment, I cannot give him a definitive answer, but this remains a live issue on the Government’s agenda.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, Amnesty’s report on the treatment of the Uighurs is subtitled China’s mass internment, torture and persecution of Muslims in Xinjiang. Would the Minister categorise the reaction of the UK, the G7 and the world as adequate, given those words?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
I am sure the noble Baroness recognises the role the United Kingdom has played. We were the first country to lead and call out the situation in Xinjiang and we have been directly engaged on the continuing suppression of democratic freedom in Hong Kong. The Government have repeatedly led international efforts to hold China to account. The first two statements at the UN were led by the UK. I am sure that recently the noble Baroness noted, as did other noble Lords, that the G7 leaders’ communiqué on 13 June specifically called for China to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, especially in relation to Xinjiang. We will continue to work with key partners and to use all instruments at our disposal to ensure that the issue remains to the fore of people’s minds and that the human rights violations come to an end for the people of Xinjiang.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, so we now come to two First Readings.
Digital Economy Act 2017 (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a former chair of Age Scotland and current co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Ageing and Older People.
Front-loaded Child Benefit Bill [HL]
Wednesday 16th June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Front-loaded Child Benefit Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Front-loaded Child Benefit Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Business of the House
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That Standing Order 73 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with to allow motions to approve affirmative instruments laid before the House under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to be moved today, notwithstanding that no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the instruments will have been laid before the House.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I do not know whether this is the appropriate time to ask, but I will do so nevertheless. I know that the Government Chief Whip, with his usual courtesy, will be able to answer.
We all recognise the importance of getting these measures through as quickly as possible. We realise that this will have an effect on the way this House operates; no doubt the noble Lord will speak to us about that at some point. He will be aware that there is some concern about the way in which the House is dealing with the Committee and Report stages of Bills and the inability of Members who are present to intervene and to participate fully.
The Procedure Committee should look at this. It would be possible for a change in the rules of procedure to give the people present the right to intervene, whereas those not present would have to accept that it would be impossible, technically, for them to intervene. This would make Committee and Report stages much more useful and meaningful for all sides of the House.
This could be done without any difficulties as far as public health is concerned. It would not affect public health measures in any way, but it would greatly improve the way in which this House carries out its functions to scrutinise legislation—which, as the Chief Whip knows, is one of the most important matters this House deals with.
When I have sat in on Committees, I have heard a number of Members on all sides of the House ask about this. I wonder whether the Chief Whip, the usual channels and the Procedure Committee could have a look at this and see whether something could be done about it.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, obviously I am aware of the point the noble Lord has raised; it is something the Procedure Committee has looked at before. Although there are technical difficulties, I am sure it is not beyond the wit of man to come up with some kind of solution.
The regulations we are debating today, although they do not directly affect this, do affect the arrangements of this House going forward. It is unlikely that we will change the procedures. Obviously, it is not my decision—ultimately it is a decision of the House—but this will be discussed at the Procedure Committee. We are going to look at when we might be able to return to a more normal, physical House—subject to social distancing and health advice, of course. Obviously, all of that has to be taken into consideration. The current likelihood is that we will continue with our current arrangements, or thereabouts, until the Summer Recess—but that is not a guaranteed position. It has to be decided, but in my opinion that is likely.
It is acknowledged that most Members on all sides of the House take seriously the intervention stages—the amending stages—of legislation. I will report to the Senior Deputy Speaker what the noble Lord has said. When we have a meeting, we may be able to discuss that, but it is unlikely to change before we come back in September.
Payment and Electronic Money Institution Insolvency Regulations 2021
Baroness Penn
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 April and 13 May be approved.
Relevant documents: 1st and 3rd Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 June.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 16th June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 View all Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to open this debate. Today, in this House, we are opening a new chapter in this country’s proud story of protecting and promoting animal welfare. I am proud, as I hope your Lordships are, of the UK’s reputation as a nation of animal lovers. The UK introduced the world’s first animal protection law: the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822.
We have made a lot of progress in the two centuries that have followed. We improved conditions in slaughterhouses in 1875, and passed the Protection of Animals Act in 1911. We established a world-leading system for regulating scientific experiments on animals in 1986, and in 2006 the Animal Welfare Act introduced powers to protect all kept animals in England and Wales.
There has never been any question that this Government believe animals are sentient beings. We are now recognising this formally in domestic law and introducing a proportionate accountability mechanism to help reassure people that central government policy decisions take this into account. The Government’s manifesto promised that we would bring in new laws on animal sentience. Parties represented on the Benches opposite made similar pledges. This Bill is our opportunity to honour that commitment.
The Bill proposes three things. First, it provides a recognition in law that any animal with a spine—any vertebrate—is sentient. Sentience is about animals having feelings, both positive and negative, such as pain or joy. The scientific community is continually improving our knowledge of the sentience of different species. There is clear evidence that animals with a backbone—vertebrates—are sentient. The Bill gives the Secretary of State a power to extend this recognition to any invertebrate species in future; for example, if evidence of their sentience becomes clear.
Secondly, the Bill establishes a committee—the animal sentience committee—tasked with reporting on whether individual central government policy decisions have paid all due regard to their effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. The animal sentience committee will have the right to roam across all central government departmental policy decisions. This includes decisions relating to policy formulation and policy implementation. The committee’s findings will be made public and its reports will make recommendations.
Thirdly and finally, the Bill obliges the relevant Minister to respond to each report from the committee through a Written Statement to Parliament. That Statement should set out the Minister’s response to the committee’s recommendations.
Taken together, the Bill’s provisions create a targeted and proportionate mechanism for holding the Government to account on animal welfare. The animal sentience committee’s reports and the ministerial responses to them will support Parliament’s scrutiny of how central government policy decisions pay all due regard to the welfare of animals as sentient beings.
The introduction of the Bill fulfils a key manifesto commitment, as I have said, and it will further the UK’s position as a global leader on animal welfare. Now that we have left the EU, we have the opportunity to remake laws and go further to promote animal welfare. Importantly, there are no policy exemptions in this Bill. It covers vertebrate animals in all settings and in all central government policy areas. If you accept, as this Government do, that animal sentience is a matter of fact, then you must properly consider animal welfare in relevant decisions that you make. By enshrining sentience in domestic law in this way, there will be further reassurance that government policy decisions have been made, taking into account the fact that animals have feelings.
It is important to understand what the Bill is and what it is not. It is intended to embed consideration of animal welfare into the policy decision-making process. It does not change existing laws, nor does it dictate to Ministers which decisions they should ultimately make. It is for Ministers to make those calls, taking all relevant considerations into account, and for Parliament to hold them to account. The Bill is designed to support Parliament in doing so.
The committee will have the freedom to choose which policies it wants to explore and how it wishes to engage with the Government. The committee will be able to engage with government departments during the formulation of new policies. In doing so, it will be able to share its views on the ways in which animal welfare is relevant to a particular policy. This will help departments ensure that they have duly considered the relevance of animal welfare before key policy decisions are made, and avoid a formal report from the committee in which the committee comes to the view that the Government have given due regard to the welfare of animals as sentient beings. The committee can also consider how well policy decisions have considered positive improvements that could be made to animal welfare, rather than just considering whether adverse effects have been minimised.
We hope and expect that Ministers and their departments will engage constructively with the committee. My department will be able to support the committee in building productive relationships across government, helping Ministers to take welfare issues into account alongside other considerations. None the less, the committee will retain the ability, when needed, to express its opinion on the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings and the extent to which this has been taken into account. Ministers will be under an obligation in all circumstances to respond to Parliament within three months on any report of the animal welfare committee.
If there is one message that I hope the Bill gets across, it is that we have listened. We have heard the calls from this House, from the other place and from across the country, pushing for animal sentience to be enshrined in UK law. We have reflected carefully and brought to this House a robust Bill which aims to deliver clear and proportionate outcomes. The Bill provides recognition in law that animals are sentient and provides a targeted and proportionate accountability mechanism to ensure that this is taken into account in decision-making, alongside other considerations. I commend the Bill to the House.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a chair of the Royal Veterinary College and as a person owned by two sentient horses. I know that they have feelings; I would define them in the following way. They experience comfort and joy when I wait on them hand and foot and bring them haylage, and frustration when I get things wrong in a dressage competition. I welcome the legislation that has now arrived, and there is much to welcome in it. It covers all government policy areas, as the Minister said, and means that all government departments will have to consider animal welfare and sentience issues when forming policy. The Bill also applies to wildlife. The animal sentience committee created by the Bill has potential but needs to be toughened if it is to fulfil the potential for increased recognition and application of animal sentience principles across government as a whole.
What strengthening should we be looking for? Strangely, the Bill does not lay a direct duty on Ministers but on the committee, so the committee needs not a discretionary power to review government policy but a mandated duty to review all policies that fall within defined criteria of having the potential for a significant adverse effect on the welfare of animals. The Bill should also require all government departments to inform the committee when such policies are being drawn up, and positively and proactively to seek the views of the committee. What guidance will be given to other government departments to encourage them to take this responsibility seriously? Will all the guidance associated with the Bill be published during its passage in your Lordships’ House?
The committee also needs more clarity about its powers. It needs independent powers and adequate resources to fund a secretariat and to have the ability to call witnesses, commission research and have access to documents. Can the Minister tell us his plan for resources, both funding and staff? Can I also ask the Minister for clarity on the rumours that the committee might be tucked in as a sub-committee of the Animal Welfare Committee? The ASC needs a separate status. The AWC provides reactive scientific advice to Defra alone, and the new committee will proactively review government policy decisions across all departments—a very different role. The ASC must work transparently, publishing all its advice to government and having a direct role with the strong public interest in this issue. It should also demonstrate accountability by having a statutory duty to report direct to Parliament annually and the right to a formal response from the Government in Parliament. On the overall working of the committee, such strengthening would mean that the arrangements could be seen as being in the first division globally, but it would be useful to know what ideas the Minister has drawn from the best global examples of such mechanisms. I include in the best global examples the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission and the arrangements in the Netherlands and those in New Zealand.
Importantly, the Bill must include a duty on government to create and maintain an animal sentience strategy. If it does not, all the responsibility is offshored to the ASC and guidance needs to be given, by means of that strategy, on the policy issues that the ASC would primarily concentrate on, though not to the exclusion of others at the ASC’s discretion.
Lastly, the definition of “animal” should be expanded in the Bill. It currently applies to all vertebrates other than man. Ministers have indicated that the definition could be widened to include invertebrates if new evidence of sentience came forward. It appears that there is already sufficient evidence of sentience among cephalopods and decapod crustaceans, as is the case in the Scottish arrangements. When will the independent review of the subject be published, and can it be expedited so that we can include these animal groups in the Bill as it goes through both Houses? If the Minister is in any doubt about this latter point of inclusion of wider groups, I urge him to view the award-winning documentary “My Octopus Teacher”, which explores the rather bizarre and strange but nevertheless emotional relationship between a man and an octopus. I hope that he enjoys it but has a box of tissues to hand.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests with the RSPCA as set out in the register. Given that, naturally, I warmly welcome the Bill, which is in the vanguard of a whole suite of animal welfare measures to come. Many of us have sought in vain to expedite them over many years, so I am delighted by this first taster.
That said, I have some reservation about the Bill and agree with many of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Why is animal sentience not defined in the Bill? Maybe there is a good reason for this, but it is not clear to me, and if you are going to have something that is legal, it must be clearly defined. May I ask about that?
Secondly, I naturally welcome the setting up of the committee. But again, I think the terms of reference could usefully be widened. I note that it is there to look at “adverse” circumstances that might impact on animals. Why could it not be extended to beneficial ones, which would give it a more constructive remit?
I am also concerned that the Secretary of State has the power to appoint, and appoint the terms of reference for, the people on the committee. I am sure that the present Government are most anxious that these should be people of excellent experience and integrity. I remind my noble friend that not only do Ministers come and go, but so do Governments. I would like to know that this is more tightly constrained so that we still have a very effective committee in future. In the meantime, could the Government give us some indication of the kind of people they wish to see: their breadth of interests, and their ability to act independently without fear or favour and to tell the Government the truth they may not always want to hear? The capacity of that committee in terms of membership is absolutely vital, because if it does not exercise the powers it is given it is absolutely useless.
I come to the question also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, of the definition of “animal”. I believe very strongly that there is already sufficient evidence to indicate that non-vertebrates should be included in the Bill. It is not good enough that it should be there in reserve, as it were, for a Minister to take up later. I am indebted to Crustacean Compassion for a great deal of detailed evidence on the research that has already been taken out. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, noted, a report was commissioned by Defra and I wonder what has happened to it. I hope it will be published very soon and I will be extraordinarily surprised if it does not back up the research we already have. I hope then that the Bill could be amended during its passage through Parliament to allow this to happen.
I have been shocked by some of the treatment of animals such as lobsters, crabs, and squid, in the way they have been stored and very often killed. There was one horrible example of a supermarket tightly wrapping a live crab in single-use plastic—a double abomination so far as I am concerned—and lobsters are still plunged alive into boiling water. I understand that there are perfectly good stunning machines which could do this job humanely. Indeed, I want the committee to look at that to see what it could suggest for improved methods of storage of animals intended for slaughter and their actual killing.
I hope my noble friend will not tell me that we still need a lot more research. If he does, then I remind him that in the Environment Bill currently going through this House there are several principles, including the precautionary principle—which suggests that you do not need absolute certainty before you act if there is a reasonable chance that something is wrong. This is one reason I call for the Bill to be amended to include invertebrates. Indeed, several European countries already care for invertebrates. This is also true in countries across the world—in New Zealand and some of the Australian states, for example. My noble friend made much of our proud history of animal welfare. That is fine, but we are behind these countries on this and I ask him: why?
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests in conservation and wildlife organisations, as set out in the register.
It is a great privilege and pleasure to follow not only my noble friend Lady Fookes but the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, two indomitable proponents of animal welfare. Let me also welcome my noble friend Lord Benyon to the Front Bench, leading his first Bill in this House. He is by no means a debutant, having been a very eminent Defra Minister in the other place. I feel very confident that the Bill is in safe hands and look forward to working with him constructively on it. His excellent opening remarks mean that I do not have to delay this Chamber for long and there is no need to repeat what he so eloquently outlined earlier.
The Bill has been a little delayed in appearing before Parliament, but it is here now, and I believe the Government have the balance about right. As we have just heard from my noble friend Lady Fookes, this is another welcome measure that Her Majesty’s Government are introducing to the animal welfare sphere. I understand from the action plan that there is a lot more to come, which is really great news.
The notion of animal sentience is not new, and the Bill is not a radical measure. However, the creation of a committee is a sensible option to ensure that the right balance can be achieved. Of course, as we have already heard and I have some sympathy with, there will be questions around the membership of the committee, its independence and the resources given, but I do not think that needs to be a major issue.
There is also a legitimate point about whether the definition of “animal” in the Bill is wide enough. I believe there is divided opinion on whether invertebrates can be classed as sentient. Most research has focused on mammals and birds. I was relieved to hear that homo sapiens is not included because it could have caused me problems retrospectively if, in my previous career as a Whip, I had caused pain in any way to people with or without backbones. But that is best left where it is.
I was initially rather sceptical about the position of decapod crustaceans, including lobsters, crabs and crayfish, and cephalopods, including octopus, squid and cuttlefish. However, more recently I have come to the opinion that these should be included. The Government have commissioned an independent review into their sentience and, as the two noble Baronesses preceding me asked, is my noble friend the Minister able to indicate where that review has got to, and when we are likely to hear from it and hear a government response? It is certainly worthy of consideration, especially as experiments, particularly with octopus species, have shown they feel pain. This has led to a situation where cephalopods are protected from use in science and experiments, but at the same time not recognised as sentient. These are all matters for consideration in Committee. In the meantime, I look forward to this Bill receiving a well-deserved Second Reading.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his introduction and description in broad terms of how the Bill is going to work. I would like to ask for confirmation, if the Minister can give that, on two aspects: one general in relation to the working of the Bill, and the second in relation to a specific practice.
These questions arise from the importance of policy issues which have to be considered in the round with welfare of animals, on which the Minister touched. The remit of the committee is fixed by statute. It is a clearly limited remit dealing with adverse effects on the welfare of animals and recommendations in particular circumstances. The committee therefore has no power to take into account wider policy considerations, such as would have complemented or do complement Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which the United Kingdom played a major role in. Those exceptions include, but are not limited to, religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.
My question to the Minister on the wider operation of the Bill is: is it envisaged that, in the course of a report’s preparation by the committee, the Government will take into account those matters in formulating their response and placing it with Parliament? That is the general issue: how, when and in what manner will the Government take into account what one might describe as the wider picture, in addition to animal welfare, in the operation of the Act?
My second point is very specific. Bearing in mind that, as has been pointed out, Ministers and Secretaries of State come and go and that the Secretary of State has sole control over the appointment of people on the committee—we do not yet know who they will be or what their views may be—I ask the Minister for a specific confirmation, in line with many assurances that have been given in recent years. Can he confirm—this will deflate a degree of anxiety—that it remains government policy, to which the Government foresee no change, that there will be no prohibition of or restriction on Jewish religious slaughter—shechita? I am not in any sense suggesting that there is anything contrary to the welfare of animals—there is a great deal of evidence about how humane that method of killing is, but that is not the point—I am simply asking for confirmation today that the present policy will continue and that the Government see no reason why it would change in the future.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing this much-awaited Bill, the first in this Session in a package around animal welfare—an important collection of legislation. There is much to welcome, and I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it is vital that we get it right. Mahatma Gandhi acutely observed:
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
This is also a topic that the general public take much interest in.
I declare my interests: I am the director of a company that owns some farmland, and I served on the Rural Economy Committee recently and on the Farm Animal Welfare Council some time ago. On a personal level, I have and have had a number of family pets and would describe myself as a passionate animal lover.
Much has already been said about what sentience is or is not, both today and in past debates in this House. For me, the definition of animals’ sentience should include both the emotional and physical and enable them to be treated humanely. This has long been encapsulated by the five freedoms originally developed by the Farm Animal Welfare Council: freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury or disease; freedom to express normal behaviour; and freedom from fear and distress.
In government and trade terms, the important thing is that the Bill separates sentient beings from inanimate objects and ensures that adequate provisions are made to respect and treat sentient beings appropriately. Our knowledge of the sentience of different animals, birds and living creatures continues to grow, so it is important that the Bill allows future extensions of the definition to be incorporated without having to pass more primary legislation. I await with interest the Government’s review into the sentience of decapod crustaceans and cephalopods, and I welcome the ability of the secondary legislation powers in the Bill to look at this in detail.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has already mentioned the spellbinding and very moving documentary “My Octopus Teacher”—I also thoroughly recommend it if noble Lords have not seen it—where the scientist Craig Foster forms a bond with a young octopus in a South Africa kelp forest. It describes how the octopus provided a lesson on the fragility of life and humanity’s connection with nature. It shows without doubt that an octopus can form a relationship—and I too recommend a box of tissues for the end.
I am pleased that the Bill covers all animals, including wildlife, but, clearly, consideration has to be proportionate. Balancing welfare and health issues, such as in the case of infestations of rats or mice in one’s home, can be a difficult dilemma; similarly where rabbits or other animals are stealing food crops or vegetables or where deer need to be culled for their own benefit. However, I would always argue that every being should be treated as compassionately as possible, whatever the circumstances.
As I mentioned, I did several terms of office on the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which was rolled into what is now the Animal Welfare Committee, with an expanded role to advise the Government on not only farmed animals but companion animals and kept wild animals. I wonder how the setting up of the animal sentience committee will affect the work of the AWC: will it not sometimes replicate its work, and what happens if they do not agree?
Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can explain the thinking behind this newly formed animal sentience committee and how it will work in a complementary manner with the AWC and co-ordinate with other such committees, such as the Animal Wellness and Welfare Committee, which cover similar remits. Of course, the effectiveness of the ASC will largely be dependent on its make-up and how it works in practice. I agree that it should comprise independent members, with an appropriate range of expertise, experience and perspectives. It also important that it includes someone not professionally involved, and lays a report before Parliament each year.
The Government have promised us more detail in guidance; will my noble friend the Minister undertake to have a draft of that guidance published so that we can consider it alongside the Committee stage of the Bill? I am sure that this guidance will clarify many issues, including the following ones. How will the committee cope with monitoring existing policies in addition to the new ones? What resources will it be given? How will it be ensured that the committee looks across all departments? Will Ministers have a duty to notify the ASC of areas of policy formation? Will its remit extend to advising the trade and agriculture commission? Does the Minister expect the ASC to comment on the merits of a decision being made or to make recommendations for improvements during the policy formation process?
Charles Darwin once said:
“The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man.”
I welcome the Bill and the opportunities that it affords.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, we have waited some time for this Bill. I have here my speech on the EU withdrawal Bill, in which the Government tried to dump animal sentience. Many of us tried to bring it back into the Bill. I suggested then that the reason that they were dumping this and other aspects of EU law, which they had promised to bring over in its entirety, was that they wanted to use Brexit as an excuse to dump a whole set of existing EU rules that promoted social justice and environmental protections—how prescient of me.
We all know that the EU’s animal sentience protocol changed the way that animals were treated across the continent. Some 20 years ago, Britain used its presidency of the EU to ensure that animals were treated as sentient beings and not just as agricultural goods. Future legislation had to take account of animal well-being: Ministers had to pay full regard. The Government scraped a 13-vote majority on the amendment tabled in the other place by Caroline Lucas MP because the Minister at the time, Michael Gove, told the House that the animal sentience protocol was already UK law. There was a huge backlash on social media from people correcting that statement. Of course, the Government then promised to put something in another Bill—they have tried various times and it has always been totally inadequate.
The Minister said that this was a robust Bill. It is not. He also said things like, “it is targeted and proportionate”. It is not proportionate. He also said that the Bill honours the Government’s commitments. No, it absolutely does not. It worries me that the Government make so many promises and then fail to deliver. That is very poor government.
This Bill is the Government pretending to do something about animal sentience, because they know that the general public really care. It is a PR exercise, and it will not prove adequate for the situation we face. Essentially, the Government are hiving off their responsibility on animals to a committee. Sometimes, having a committee of experts is not a bad thing, because, of course, Ministers cannot be up on every single issue, but that committee has to be listened to. On the climate change statutory instrument that some of us debated yesterday, a Minister explained all the reasons why the Government were simply ignoring the Committee on Climate Change. It had made a recommendation and the Government went against it, because they said they had their own judgment. Instead of stopping using carbon credits to make up for domestic failures to reduce CO2, which the Committee on Climate Change had suggested was the only way forward, the Government wimped out of serious action on the climate emergency and signed up to spew an extra 500 million tonnes of carbon into our damaged and delicate atmosphere. In a way, this Bill is doing the same thing. That incident proves the inherent, intentional weakness of such advisory committees. No matter how well-meaning, how well resourced or how hard-working the committee is, the Government can simply ignore it and do their own thing. Just as they did with climate change and carbon credits, they can do with animal welfare and animal sentience.
There is a lot that needs to be improved in this Bill, but it almost feels like wasted effort, because I know that the whole premise of the Bill is designed to make it completely ineffective. This is reflected in the Long Title, which seems designed to frame the scope of the Bill so tightly around the animal sentience committee that it would not be possible to table amendments that were not focused on the committee. This will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to place any serious duties on the Government beyond those in the Bill, which in practice will be little more than listing the reasons why they are ignoring the committee.
Of course, cephalopods and decapod crustaceans should be included in the definition of sentient animals. After four years of waiting, and many Members of your Lordships’ House urging that there should not be a gap—but there has been—the Government have finally published a Bill that, if one graded it, would get an F for fail. It is a disaster waiting to happen.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register and my position in the Countryside Alliance.
In 1789, the great philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, said of animals that
“the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?”
In truth, Parliament has answered that question for two centuries by passing a canon of animal welfare laws. We have always accepted that animals can suffer, that they are sentient—indeed, I would argue that the question of sentience is a simple matter of fact: vertebrates clearly are sentient, and that is recognised in the body of laws we have already passed.
However, there is a question about whether simply adding “sentience” to the law as an expression, as this Bill does, will advance animal welfare legislation or treating animals in the way that is intended. We need to consider a number of questions as we examine the Bill.
The first is to distinguish clearly between animal rights and animal welfare. I submit that every one of us is subscribed to the principles of animal welfare: that we should treat animals humanely, compassionately and properly. The idea that animals have rights which are in some way akin to human rights is much more problematic, and obviously so. Most of us—not all—who agree and feel strongly that animals must be treated properly and humanely, also eat animals and probably support their use in scientific research. The distinction between animal rights and animal welfare is important when it comes to considering the difference between wild and domestic animals. It is obvious, for instance, that a domestic animal under our control deserves to be watered and fed properly, and if we do not do that we break the law and rightly can be held responsible for such cruel treatment, but with a wild animal, even if it is on land that a farmer owns, that farmer can have no responsibility for feeding and watering it—it is not under his control. It is only when wild animals are brought under domestic control or the control of individuals that they deserve the protection of the law. Instantly, we see that the doctrine of animal rights is unhelpful in guiding us as to how we should treat animals.
Secondly, we need to advance the protection of animals on the basis of principle and evidence and ensure that we can as far as possible detach what is often powerful emotion from the debate. The exercise of emotion in any aspect of lawmaking can lead to bad law—parliamentarians doing things because, in the worst case, they think it is popular or they are driven by their own sentiment. We have to be more careful and forensic than that because there are competing interests to be balanced. This Chamber above all chambers needs to exercise the cool reason that is sometimes absent from the consideration of the elected Chamber, driven as it is by more populist urges—I say that having been a Member of the other place for 15 years.
Thirdly, the principle must be right that Ministers make decisions and do not subcontract them to unelected bodies, even where they are appointed by those Ministers. It is one thing for Ministers to be guided; it is another to passport decisions to bodies that cannot properly be held to account for them. It is an irony that the Bill introducing this principle—albeit constrained by a committee—is being brought forward just as the Government are seeking to constrain judicial review precisely because of their concern that it is interfering with ministerial responsibility. Ministerial responsibility for decisions matters because Ministers are accountable to Parliament and Parliament is in turn accountable to the people, while unelected committees are not. We have surely just understood the importance of that. The dangers were perfectly illustrated by the misleading campaign against the decision initially not to import the decision on sentience from the EU.
We have had animal welfare laws in our country for 200 years, since the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act was introduced. Our animal welfare standards go far beyond the minimums set by the EU. I respectfully disagree entirely with the proposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that, somehow, animal welfare in this country was advanced by our subscription to the EU and the principle of sentience that it introduced. That is simply not the case. We need to remember that the principles of sentience are not in dispute. That we should treat animals properly is not in dispute. But what matters is that Ministers and Parliament should ultimately decide, and that we should not find ourselves subcontracting decisions to bodies that are accountable neither to us nor to the public but can be pressured by outside interests.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as president of the Horse Trust, president of the Countryside Alliance, a member of the RSPCA and a farmer. I admit that I probably spend more time in the company of animals than I do with your Lordships.
If this Bill proceeds in its present form, I have a strong premonition that future Governments will look back on it and ask, “Why on earth did we do this?” As the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, has just indicated, for 200 years animal sentience has been accepted by all—or all other than complete nutters—and the result has been animal welfare legislation enacted on that basis. I have no objection at all to it being explicitly stated in legislation or to future legislation being animal-proofed, although I hope that it would work better than rural-proofing—but it is strictly unnecessary. What I am not clear about is why it is being done in the way in which it has.
Like the first Bill, which Michael Gove, the then Environment Minister, wisely withdrew, it is likely to benefit lawyers, at the taxpayers’ expense, and to be a bureaucratic nightmare with no limit to its remit, unlike the EU animal sentience provision, no provision for adequate funding for such wide scope, and a real danger of a committee composition dictated by animal rights pressure groups. Why do the Government not simply insert their animal sentience clause by a simple amendment of the Animal Welfare Act? If they want a committee to look at legislation, they already have one in the Animal Welfare Committee, whose remit could easily be expanded, as it has been in the past.
Gesture politics, which I fear is some little part of the motivation of this Bill, to enable the Government to say to the electorate, “This is what we did for animals”, is sadly not just a waste of parliamentary time when real animal welfare proposals just cannot get time but, as history has shown, often does little or nothing for the animals directly affected. I will give two short examples. The first is fairly recent: the Wild Animals in Circuses Act, which is proudly trumpeted by the present Secretary of State as being one of the party’s animal welfare achievements, actually worsened the position of the only animals involved. As I recall, there were under 20 of them, and no new licences were going to be granted in any event; they were not lions or tigers, as you might imagine, but a few zebra, an African cow and several others that I think I remember were some kind of llama. All had been born in captivity, licensed and regularly inspected, and it was agreed that all were superbly looked after and much loved by their owners, with whom they travelled in state of the art horseboxes to prearranged extensive grazing at sites. They did not perform degrading tricks; they were, effectively, pets. That Act forced their owners to leave them behind when they travelled to perform. There was no animal welfare gain to them or any other animal, and a good routine of care and affection was destroyed.
My party spent more than 200 hours of parliamentary time on the Hunting Act, which brought no benefit at all to the fox population—quite the contrary. A method of control that was selective, with a closed breeding season, and left no wounded, was replaced with snaring and night shooting with none of those features, which killed and wounded far more. So was it good electorally for Labour? I suspect that that is part of the Government’s motivation behind this Bill. If so, Labour should have won general election after general election after all that effort—and the result we know. Of 100 rural seats that Labour held under Tony Blair, only 17 remain now.
Yet under successive Governments, nothing has been done about the elephant in the room—and I am sorry to say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that I do not agree. In this country, every year, 40 million farm animals are slaughtered without pre-stunning. The expert view is that many of them suffer unnecessarily. We are not world leaders here: other countries in Europe and around the world have stopped this practice and more are doing so. I pay special tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who will speak later, and to those working with him, who are looking at ways of pre-stunning that are acceptable to the religious communities for whom it is important. I also pay tribute to the Muslim community, which is working with them, and I hope the Jewish community will follow. There are ways in which religious sensitivities and stopping unnecessary suffering at slaughter can be combined. So I ask the Minister for a commitment that there will be real and urgent progress on this, because that would be a real advance in animal welfare, and not just a gesture.
We rightly call ourselves a nation of animal lovers and we feel strongly about animal suffering, but the Government need to recognise that the majority of people own no animal, and those who do in the main have a cat or dog which they regard as a member of the family. For most, the experience of farm animals or wild animals is drawn largely from television, and it is too often sentimental, anthropomorphic and presented by animal rights activists. That is their template for expressing their views about what they feel is right or wrong in the treatment of animals. Yet too often, some who would say that they were the greatest of animal lovers do not recognise that, by keeping a lone rabbit in a small cage or a dog with deformed facial features because it looks more appealing, or leaving one alone in a small flat with inadequate exercise, they are themselves denying a much-loved pet its natural needs.
The Government have to be alerted to the dangers of campaigns with apparent public support that is often uninformed or misinformed, and to distinguish real animal welfare measures from the priorities of some of the vocal and well-funded animal rights groups. If there is to be a committee, as others have said, it must be independent and also be composed of qualified experts from the field of animal welfare and animal behaviour—not pressure groups or popular TV presenters—and it must make its findings on the basis of evidence and science, not emotion.
The Minister has come to this Bill at a late stage. I ask him to look very carefully at what has been said today. It is not an uncontroversial Bill, and there must be better ways of putting animal sentience on the statute book without the dangers that are clear for all to see here.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I agree with almost everything that the noble Baroness has just said, and it is a pleasure to follow her. I have to say that, in more than 35 years in both Houses, I have never seen a more badly drafted Bill—which has left me wondering what on earth its purpose is. It is a most extraordinary Bill. It purports to set up a committee, but the Government do not need primary legislation to set up a committee—we already have the Animal Welfare Committee. It purports to enshrine the concept of sentience in law, but we already have the concept of sentience—although, as my noble friend Lady Fookes points out, it fails to define what it means by sentience. To me, sentience means ability to feel pain—but some of the advocates of the Bill are talking about emotions and discussing animals in anthropomorphic terms.
The Bill has six clauses—it looks simple—but listening to the speeches of noble Lords who are perhaps less sympathetic to the Bill, as well as those who are enthusiastic about it, we have already heard about how many holes there are in this legislation and how it fails to deal with a number of important points. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed to the EU legislation that governed us and was introduced in the Lisbon treaty. For the first time in my life, I am actually going to praise the EU. I spent my life arguing that we were unable to decide our own affairs and that the EU came along with legislation and we gold-plated it. Well, the EU legislation said:
“In formulating … the Union’s agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions … of the EU countries relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”
There are no horrors there for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The scope and nature of that legislation was clear, in a way that this Bill is not.
There is no threat here to religious rites, or to my fly-fishing either. This Bill goes much further. There is no definition of animal sentience and, in answer to the question from my noble friend Lady Fookes about why there is no definition, it is because it is very difficult to define, so the Government have not done it. However, as so many people have pointed out, we all know what animal sentience means, and we have had it for more than 200 years. As my noble friend the Minister said, in this country we have a proud record; we had legislation concerned with animal welfare before we had legislation concerned with child welfare.
There are no terms of reference for the committee in this legislation. This very week, our Constitution Committee has complained about this Government’s continuing use of Henry VIII clauses and secondary legislation, and about not providing guidance to that legislation. Yet this is another Bill which blithely says that, if there is a change in the view about animals which do not have spines, we can—by secondary legislation—extend the committee’s work to include that. There is no reference to what kind of evidence would be required or scientific input made. Why is it necessary for this to be given as a secondary power? If there is an issue, and the evidence for it, the Government would presumably amend the welfare Act in the normal way.
The scope of the Bill is extraordinary. It says:
“When any government policy is being or has been formulated or implemented”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that there should be a duty on each department to tell this committee if there is a policy being formulated so that it can opine. How many people is the committee going to have working for it, if every single initiative going on in government which affects animals has got to be reported to it and it has to opine on it? What does it do? It produces a report, like this House does with its Select Committees, and the Government have to respond within three months. In this House, the rule is, I think, eight weeks, but some have been waiting more than a year for a response from the Government. Sometimes, the Government’s responses indicate that the recommendations have not, perhaps, been considered as seriously as they might. I do not see what the purpose of the Bill is and how it will change anything, except to create a lot of division and anger where they are not necessary or required.
There is nothing in the Bill to say how the committee is going to be staffed and resourced; it is going to be hugely expensive. My own committee, the Economic Affairs Committee, was not very keen on HS2. I cannot imagine how considering animal welfare issues would have impacted on large projects such as that, given that, as my noble friend Lord Herbert pointed out, there is no distinction being made between wild animals and those which are subject to the care and responsibility of individuals. It seems to me that the nature of the committee and its recommendations are wide open to judicial review if Ministers do not take those recommendations on board. Nothing in the Bill gives me any comfort on that.
We have an Animal Welfare Committee. If we want to have a sub-committee to consider sentience, it should be a sub-committee of the Animal Welfare Committee. If it is to cover all government departments, whose department is responsible? In his opening remarks, my noble friend said that it would be his department, so he is going to be operating across the whole of the Government. If I were him, I would hope for a change in the reshuffle, rather than deal with all that. For once I can agree, with enthusiasm, with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who said that the Bill feels like a piece of virtue signalling and PR which has got nothing whatever to do with ensuring that our animals are properly cared for.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Forsyth, even if it is, I am afraid, going from the sublime to the ridiculous. As your Lordships know, the intention of the Bill is to form a committee to make Her Majesty’s Government aware of the impact of their actions on the animal kingdom. I fear that the Bill, as drafted, is so broad—as my noble friend Lord Forsyth pointed out—that there is a danger that, with a little imagination, anyone wishing to act in a vexatious manner could use its good intentions to stray into unintended areas and clog up government business in ways that no one has yet thought of. As the Bill is presently drafted, the committee may be able to review matters retrospectively, which I would suggest is another recipe for disaster.
So far as I can see, there is no restriction on anyone initiating a request for a report by the committee. While it will be up to a Minister whether or not to accept a report, there is huge scope for deliberately trying to place Ministers in awkward or embarrassing situations. I suggest that the Minister looks at amending the Bill to give the committee a well-defined remit, so that it can focus on the laudable aims for which it was set up and not get distracted. I further suggest that the process for initiating an investigation is clearly set out. I am concerned that, if the Bill is not more precise, Her Majesty’s Government might find that their ability to carry out their business was severely hampered. It would be interesting to hear the Government’s view on whether a decision by a Minister, or government department, not to accept a report from the committee could be subject to a judicial review.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, this Bill is unsatisfactory on at least four grounds: it is unnecessary; it duplicates existing protections; it is retrospective; and it is filled with uncertainty.
There is already in existence the Animal Welfare Committee, which is an expert committee of Defra. Its job is:
“To provide independent, authoritative, impartial and timely advice, to Defra … on the welfare of farmed animals, including farmed animals on agricultural land, at market, in transit and at the place of killing … on any other matters that might be considered necessary to improve standards of animal welfare”.
It also gives advice to Defra
“on the welfare of companion animals and wild animals kept by people”,
and
“independent scientific support and advice … on the protection of animals at the time of killing”.
The Animal Welfare Committee had its remit extended to the welfare of all animals in 2019, without the need for a statute. Quite how this committee and the one proposed in the Bill will work together is unclear. We do not know what the composition of the committee will be, or whether it will be independent as well as containing sufficient expertise. It needs to be free of lobbyists. How will it or the Government consult or interact with the public?
It is not proven that a new law would improve animal welfare, but the risks in it are considerable. It was suggested that withdrawal from Europe necessitated new legislation, but let it not be argued that this country will somehow be lagging behind. Farm animal abuses are widespread in the European Union, with pigtail docking, long-distance transport and slaughterhouse practices all areas of immediate concern. Intensive farms in Europe are particularly problematic, as revealed by the European Court of Auditors, with economic interests often trumping welfare rules. The European animal welfare law in the Lisbon treaty, although it now seems pretty ineffective in protecting animals in Europe, was on paper more balanced than the remit of the committee in the Bill. Article 13 of the treaty says that animal welfare should be balanced against customs relating to
“religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”
whereas there is no such balance in the Bill.
The public interest in the use of animals is also absent. We need to use animals in medical research. Animal testing was vital in our successful development of vaccines against Covid-19. Studies in mice, ferrets and primates showed that the vaccines were likely to work, and other animal tests showed that the finished products were safe. Animals were also used in the basic biological research that allowed this approach in the first place. It would be tragic if the animal rights lobby got in the way of this vital progress in research, by putting animal welfare ahead of human life. Yet the committee proposed by the Bill might be so hijacked, or there might be an unwarranted attack on country sports. This is because the committee might choose to report on a policy which, in its view, has had an adverse effect on animal welfare in the past.
Despite the requirement in European law on balance, the European Court of Justice upheld last year a Belgian ban on Jewish and Muslim practices of slaughter without stunning. The argument that stunning is less injurious than non-stunning does not hold water. We should not apply double standards. The Food Standards Agency survey of 2017 estimated that hundreds of millions of animals were killed without effective stunning; gassing, in particular, causes great distress to animals killed that way. The European Food Safety Authority reported that 180 million chickens and other poultry were killed in the most recent count using insufficient electric charge. Time does not permit for the recounting of other horrors—the breaking of rabbits’ necks or the fish starved and suffocated. We even mistreat our pets, breeding them to a lifetime of ill health and depriving them of their natural habitats. If the committee were to do any good, it should concern itself with making sure that slaughter methods are carried out as they should be and that existing welfare standards are enforced.
Fish are not included in the Bill, but there is certainly a case for including crustaceans, which have been shown to react to pain and yet are killed by being broken to pieces alive or boiled alive—a fate too horrific for me ever to want to touch one. My point is that we should not see ourselves as a nation uniquely kind to animals. Nor should we apply double standards—on which note I refer to the fact that kosher killing is carried out with the utmost attention to care and science. I follow my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton in noting that, in the past, the Government have committed not to ban traditional Jewish slaughter methods. Will the Minister now repeat that commitment?
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the debate on the Bill, which I hope will bring about further improvements in animal welfare standards that are much needed.
I spent 15 years on the animal welfare parliamentary intergroup in Brussels, for 10 of which I was vice-president. Over the years, we saw much greater awareness by the majority of countries that ill treatment of and cruelty towards both domestic pets and farm animals, for example, would no longer be tolerated by members of the public. It was clear that good animal husbandry produced the quality products that most people desired. I must say that, here in the UK, contrary to what has been said by some noble Lords, we do in fact set some of the highest standards throughout the world. I must also comment on what was said by some noble Lords about the EU that, while the EU has pretty strict laws in place, it certainly does not enforce them. So many countries across the European Union do not comply with even the minimum standards that have been laid down for many years.
In any event, this is not just about domestic animals; we must also look at the cruelty that is takes place in zoos and circuses and at wildlife trafficking, because this has become far more prevalent. I was very pleased to host an exhibition in the European Parliament for Born Free a few years ago, where the phenomenal Virginia McKenna launched the agenda to raise the issue of endangered species. The fact that we now have so much support from great influential figures, such as Prince William, is starting to make a difference.
I, like other noble Lords, have seen probably some of the worst footage of animal cruelty, such as horses being transported across Europe and beaten with steel bars in the slaughterhouses in Italy—with those really great EU standards, of course—or, also in Europe, practices such as bullfighting, the Pamplona run and the Toro Jubilo, where fireworks are tied to the horns of bulls. They are set on fire and, basically, the bulls panic and run all over the place; it is absolutely appalling. There are also the hunting dogs hanged from trees and left to starve when they have finished with their hunting for the season. And these are all just on this sophisticated continent.
On the issue of slaughter, some European countries have insisted on stunning for both halal and kosher slaughter. If other European countries can do that, I see no reason at all why it should not take place in the United Kingdom. It is something to work towards. But if we look further afield and at what is happening in other countries, perhaps where we have influence when we are talking about trade deals, we can see bear bile, dogs being skinned and cooked alive, as well as tiger farms in China—purely for medicinal use—and bears kept in cages, dancing for tourists along with elephants across Asia. So it goes on.
However, if I am anything, I am an optimist. On a positive note, many young people are now campaigning on these issues, so there is hope. But it is no use bringing in new legislation unless we are prepared to enforce it. The terms of reference for the committee must allow it to make decisions that will be acted on and rules that can be enforced. As a new Member in this House, I take noble Lords’ point that we need to make sure that there is clarity on how the committee is formulated and that the Government do not become bogged down in different departments where there is a contradiction over what should happen. That will not help anyone. If things can be put into the right context, they will improve with this Bill, which I fully support. I hope and believe that there will be then be progress for the future.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill and hope that it gets its Second Reading this afternoon. I welcome, too, the Minister’s clear outline of the purposes of the Bill; I have no doubt that the Bill is in safe hands in the Minister’s custody, given his long and distinguished service as a Defra Minister in the other place. It is good to see him here in this House.
There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of people in all four countries of the United Kingdom will welcome the Government bringing forward legislation to safeguard animal welfare by recognising animal sentience in law. A recent petition calling for an animal sentience law easily received over 100,000 signatures and was debated last year in the House of Commons.
Noble Lords will recall the debate on Article 13 of the European Union treaty and the fact that, following Brexit, these provisions no longer apply directly. I am pleased, like other noble Lords, that we are now taking steps to fill the gap and make legislative provision for animal sentience. However, it is important, in respecting the devolved settlements, of course, to have consistency across the United Kingdom and that the provisions we are looking at today are also looked at carefully by the devolved Administration in each of the countries that have devolved powers.
In Northern Ireland, the Welfare of Animals Act 2011 includes a number of provisions to prevent harm to, and promote the welfare of, animals, but legislation there does not include explicit reference to animal sentience. The Welsh Government have made it clear that they fully agree that animals are sentient beings with the capacity for positive and negative experiences, such as distress or pleasure. However, while recent legislation was introduced in Wales in relation to wild animals in circuses, there has been no overarching legislation in this area. In Scotland, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission recently made a statement on animal sentience, which described how animal sentience and animal welfare are defined and interpreted in Scotland. So, while I welcome this legislation this afternoon, it is clear that the devolved Administrations have not yet moved in this area and explicitly referenced animal sentience in their provisions. The Prime Minister’s office stated, on 11 May, in background briefing notes on the Queen’s Speech, that the Government would
“work closely with the devolved administrations to discuss these policies.”
I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on how those discussions are proceeding with each of the devolved Governments to ensure a consistent approach.
I want to touch briefly on a number of clauses in the Bill. I am pleased that the legislation will apply to wildlife and across all government policy areas and departments. But I share the concerns of a number of animal welfare charities that Clause 5 is too narrowly defined and that the current definition of an animal as “any vertebrate” needs to be expanded. That is unnecessarily narrow. I accept there is provision, as has been mentioned, for delegated legislation to expand the definition. But I am not sure, first, why there is any need to delay and, secondly, why it should be a matter for such legislation rather than being included in the primary legislation.
Central to this Bill is the creation of the animal sentience committee. It will be given much of the responsibility for ensuring that the duty to animals is effectively discharged, and it needs to be properly resourced and empowered to be able to help and, if necessary, effectively challenge Ministers on fulfilling their duties. There needs to be more detail about how the committee will work and its powers, and that will be examined in Committee. One area that has been highlighted already is that the Bill creates a discretionary duty for the committee to review whether a government policy has had appropriate regard for the welfare of animals. I agree that the committee should be given a clear, mandatory duty to review policies both prospectively and retrospectively. A number of groups have suggested that there needs to be a mechanism to require Ministers to inform the committee when a policy within its scope has been developed, to keep it advised. I know concerns have been raised about where this might lead and about the burden of work, but I think that is a wise and sensible move, with common sense and proportionality. Of course the committee needs to be transparent, open and fully accountable to Parliament, but its independence and autonomy are important if it is to do the work that needs to be done. Of course, people will support it in that function.
I warmly welcome the progress on this issue, and I look forward to further stages when the Bill can be examined in detail and, I hope, improved and strengthened.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a neighbour and, I flatter myself, a friend of the Minister. I have observed him in his natural habitat, and I know him to be a countryman of deep passion and knowledge, whose excitement when he happens on a rare beetle or some such is utterly infectious. None the less, I listened in vain in his opening statement for any rationale.
The first question we should ask of any legislation is: to what problem is this Bill a solution? When I say “we”, I particularly mean we in this House. I may be misunderstanding this—I have only been here a short while—but anyone who has done A-level politics will tell you that this is a revising Chamber. It is precisely here to ensure that legislation is proportionate to an identified problem—not to tabloid headlines; to an off-the-cuff pledge made at the Dispatch Box in another place to get a Minister out of a temporary problem; or indeed to a social media campaign based on a misapprehension. To what problem is this Bill a solution?
The Minister, in his opening remarks, listed the extensive animal welfare legislation we have, going back to mid-Victorian times. My noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs trumped him and pushed that back to the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act from 200 years ago. That plethora of extensive and powerful animal welfare legislation has in common that it is sensitive: it distinguishes between different situations and categories; it distinguishes between wild fauna and pets; it distinguishes between livestock and vermin; it distinguishes between endangered species and pests.
I think all of us agree—if any noble Lords disagree, I have yet to hear from them—on sentience being a reality. We do not need a Bill to tell us something that is uncontentious. I was very struck by some experiments in 2019 on tiny, darting, blue fish called cleaner wrasse, which exist in reefs. They passed the most basic cognition test by recognising themselves in a mirror. You place a blob on the forehead of one of these fish—Labroides dimidiatus they are called—and they respond.
This is a level that human toddlers get to at around 18 months. I experimented on my own with this one day. They suddenly go from laughing at the baby with the dot in the glass to realising it is them. That moment, at least as far as I can tell, goes hand in hand with lots of other developmental movement. They suddenly become self-aware. And they become, by the way, able to make moral choices. For the first time, you are conscious that they sometimes know they are being naughty, which until that moment they have been unaware of. The Abrahamic religions make exactly that link: the moment of the fall in the Judaeo-Christian tradition comes from self-knowledge. It comes when Adam and Eve eat the fruit:
“And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.”
That is the moment they become capable of making moral choices.
I do not think any of us is going to argue that animals make moral choices—sentient and conscious or not. When, to pluck a recent example, a good friend of mine in the other place had a dog that chased some deer, it was not the dog that was put on trial. I think we would all agree that it would be bizarre for the dog to be put on trial, because a dog is not a reasoning creature. When a dog is punished, it is not in the hope of contrition; it is not because we are hoping to persuade the dog that it has made wrong moral choices. What we mean by “training”, when we train an animal, is that we induce different desires, not that we inculcate an ethical sense. As the great philosopher and the first economist Adam Smith put it:
“'Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair … exchange of one bone for another with another dog.”
It is possible to acknowledge sentience and consciousness without making an animal a legal person with rights. That is precisely why I do not want sensitive moral issues of this kind contracted out to a committee. We may have all sorts of criteria in our animal protection. They may be to do with how we grade the animal; they may be to do with the purposes to which it is being put. Lord Macaulay observed:
“The Puritan hated bearbaiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators.”
Well, fair enough. But we have banned bear-baiting in this country on those grounds—I would be surprised if any of your Lordships wanted to bring it back—but we make a different argument about, say, horseracing. It may well be that horseracing causes distress to the horse. It is probably a fair bet that a foal’s idea of a good life, if it could express it, would not involve having a bit placed in its mouth and being ridden around by a whip-wielding ape. But we, none the less, are able to draw that distinction, and that is why we need to have these issues debated properly and sensitively, coming up from the people and not being handed down by organs of the administrative state.
I suspect that, as the father of animal rights, the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, puts it, our circles of morality will continue to expand. It may well be in our lifetime that all sorts of things we now regard as quite normal are looked back on very differently. It may be that in the future we will ban horseracing, zoos, the treatment of pets or the passion of my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean—fly-fishing. It may be that we will wonder why it was ever acceptable to drag a fish into a chamber of poisonous vapours with a hook lodged in its throat. I do not know, but I do know that those decisions should not be contracted out to a standing apparat. If we are not prepared, here and in another place, to take responsibility for decisions of this kind, what the blithering flip are we here for?
Lord Sarfraz (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest with several not-for-profit organisations working on animal welfare, as set out in the register. I welcome the Bill: it gives a voice to animals, which have no ability to speak. In 50 years’ time, historians will look back in shock that we have 70 billion animals in factory farms to feed 7.8 billion humans. Animals have no voice, but consumers are speaking loud and clear. Last year, consumers globally spent over $20 billion on plant-based alternatives to meat and dairy. In the UK, demand for these products has more than doubled in the past five years. I wonder whether noble Lords have tasted an Impossible Burger or sausages by Beyond Meat. They are delicious plant-based alternatives to meat. The global meat-free sector alone will be in excess of $85 billion by 2030, and grew 25% last year alone.
The food sector is a lifeline of our economy, providing jobs for one in seven people, but it is also causing damage. Even before the pandemic, poor diet was responsible for one in seven UK deaths. Transforming our food system is a once-in-a-lifetime health, environmental and economic opportunity. The food tech revolution is the next global agricultural revolution, with enormous benefits for biodiversity, land use and climate change. We can make our country the global hub for food tech. More than $3 billion was invested last year in alternative protein companies, and about 17% of that was in the UK and Europe. We must, of course, support our livestock farmers in the UK, many of whom farm sustainably and treat their animals very well, but we also want our entrepreneurs to be at the forefront of this new and exciting market.
The Canadian Government have announced a plant protein supercluster. The Singapore Government have approved cell-cultured meat. The Israeli Government are providing non-dilutive funding to food tech start-ups. The US Senate just approved significant spending on food tech R&D.
This Bill is the moment for us to tell our entrepreneurs, loud and clear, that just as we are leading global R&D in clean technology and life sciences, we will support them in leading the world in food technology. I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, asks what the purpose of the Bill is. We all know what the purpose of the Bill is: it is to advance the agenda of people who believe in the existence of animal rights and to embed them at the heart of government, bossing everybody about. It is a bad Bill, not simply for that reason, but more importantly, as I will explore in a moment, because it changes the moral basis on which we have habitually treated animals well in this country. I will come back to that in a moment, because I am going to leave to others—some who have already spoken—comments on the practical difficulties of putting this Bill into effect and the problems it is likely to give rise to. I always thought that it was the responsibility of this Parliament to hold Ministers to account, but we are now to have a committee roaming around Whitehall doing the job for us, it seems.
The clause that strikes me as most extravagant, however, is the one that gives the Secretary of State the unfettered power to declare, should he wish, that an earthworm is a sentient being. This is a power greater than that given by God to Adam in the Garden of Eden, which, as I recall, was restricted to the power to naming animals. Here, we are giving the Secretary of State the power to reclassify them almost without check.
I come back to my point about the moral basis on which we treat animals well. I have always loved this quotation from Lord Keynes:
“Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”
Of course, I do not mean to refer in any sense to my noble friend on the Front Bench in that regard, but the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, put his finger on who the academic scribbler is. I well remember, in my first year as an undergraduate, walking past Blackwell’s and seeing prominently displayed in the front window a copy of Professor Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation. He had, in 1975, as a young man, undergone a sort of convulsive conversion to vegetarianism, and this was his attempt to work out some rationale for what he was doing.
There were three points, essentially. First, people are not better or superior to animals. Secondly, what we have in common is that we sit on a spectrum of sentience. This puts us on the same level as the animals. The third point, as indicated by my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs, was a sort of crude utilitarianism which makes no distinction between humans and animals. Now, 45 years on, this book has spread throughout the world and become a text for all those who wish to promote the rights of animals. The logical consequence is that we are driven in the direction of veganism and the consumption solely of non-sentient plants.
I could not have asked for a more convenient introduction, in that sense, to what I was about to say, than the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, who, with consummate commercial skill, pointed us entirely in the direction of that veganism—and not only veganism but behaviour which respects and prevents harm to any sentient creature. That goes well beyond what we eat, as other noble Lords have said.
That is all okay: if Members of the House of Lords want to drive the country, without asking, in the direction of veganism, which we are told is hugely popular, although I do not know where the evidence for that comes from, on such a basis, and on the basis of some movie I have not yet seen about an improbable friendship between a scientist and an octopus—I am sure it is a tearjerker—that is absolutely fine. The House of Lords is free to do that, but what worries me is that we have cited here in the House a whole swathe of humanitarian legislation going back 200 years protecting animals. Contrary to what Singer and those people would say about the abolition of the distinction between humans and animals, all that legislation has been based on our moral obligations as human beings, rational and endowed with conscience. It is why it is called humanitarian legislation. It is not based on some assumed rights of animals.
All that—not the legislation but the moral basis for the legislation—is now to be swept away by a Government embedding at the heart of our legislation the notion of sentience as the driver of how we should treat animals. The whole moral basis is being changed and replaced by this calculus of sentience. This is a very bad step. It reduces our obligations as people to something that will be the subject of endless judicial review and footling arguments about rules and laws, whether ganglions are the same as brains, and whatever else might come up in the course of these discussions.
I am really very concerned about the Bill. It does nothing at all good for animals, but it does a great disservice to the moral foundation of our society.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh.
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome this Bill as I have always believed that animals are sentient beings and that they feel emotions and experience pains. I was brought up in east Africa in a house with a large garden. We had a dog, cats, chickens, ducks and rabbits, and we became very fond of them and got to know them. I noticed that they had emotions and felt pain, and I shall give one example. When my mother died, I was very upset and the cat we had at that time would not stop mewing and wanted to sit on my lap. I feel that the Bill is necessary, as we need to ensure that we look after their well-being and care for all animals, whether they are pets, on a farm or in the wild.
The Bill will apply to vertebrates other than homo sapiens, but the Secretary of State may by regulation include invertebrates of any description. I agree with what has been stated.
With regard to animals which produce something we consume or use, I feel that by caring for them, we will have better milk, meat, eggs, leather, wool, et cetera. The intention of the Bill is to ensure that all animals continue to have adequate recognitions and protections now that we have left the European Union. This must be ensured by appropriate domestic legislation. We were previously subject to Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which stated that
“administrative provisions and customs of the Member States”
must respect the
“religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage”
of their citizens.
I ask your Lordships to note the words “religious rites”.
I am a practising Muslim and I eat halal meat. There are nearly 1.9 billion Muslims in the world and over 3.4 million Muslims in the UK, and we make up over 5% of the British population. A number of Muslims, including me, will eat only halal meat, and their beliefs need to be respected. Animal welfare is very important in Islam. The Holy Koran and Hadith state that we must recognise animals as being sentient, and we are provided with guidance regarding how to care for, handle and farm them. In addition, we are told how they should be slaughtered for food. Islam forbids mistreatment of animals and their welfare is enshrined in Muslim beliefs. The Prophet Muhammad—peace be upon him—said:
“A good deed done to an animal is like a good deed done to a human being, while an act of cruelty to an animal is as bad as cruelty to a human being.”
Islam permits slaughter of animals for food but dictates that such slaughter must be exercised humanely.
There has never been conclusive scientific evidence to suggest that religious slaughter is less humane than conventional methods. In halal slaughter, the animal ceases to feel pain due to the brain immediately being starved of oxygenated blood. For the first few seconds after the incision is made, the animal does not feel any pain. This is followed by a few seconds of deep unconsciousness as a large quantity of blood is drained from the body. Thereafter, EEG readings indicate no pain at all.
I have spoken previously in your Lordships’ House about halal slaughter, and had discussions with then Defra Minister and corresponded with David Cameron, the then Prime Minister. Will the terms of reference of the committee to be appointed under the Bill include looking at the religious practices of halal and shechita? If this is to happen, I suggest that a person or persons who have a very good knowledge of these practices should be appointed. This will enable the matter to be looked into comprehensively and thoroughly. Furthermore, I suggest that the committee holds full consultations with the communities and appropriate organisations to take account of the feelings of the people. I add that I would like to see the committee being independent.
I ask my noble friend the Minister to comment on the points I have raised, particularly those relating to religious slaughter. Leaders and members of the Muslim community have approached me to speak on the Bill today and raised the points which I have made.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who is next on the speakers’ list, has withdrawn. I call the noble Lord, Lord Trees.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, this is a significant Bill, which, in general, I support. It can have good consequences but it could also have unintended consequences. I declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare. I thank the Minister and the Bill team, as well as Mike Radford, reader in animal welfare at the University of Aberdeen, for useful and helpful discussions.
In the UK we have a deservedly proud history of protecting animal welfare, from 1822 to the present, as the noble Lords, Lord Herbert, Lord Forsyth, and several other noble Lords mentioned. All that legislation implied recognition of animal sentience without specific reference to it.
Animal sentience was incorporated into Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU by virtue of the Lisbon treaty of 2009. That article requires member state Governments to have full regard to animal welfare in formulating and implementing policy, as animals are sentient beings. Article 13 differs from the Bill in that it defines a limited number of policy areas to which it applies, whereas, as has been mentioned, the Bill applies to all government policy. Moreover, Article 13 significantly exempted
“religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage”,
as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and other noble Lords mentioned. Thus, the Bill is very wide-ranging, covering all policy without exception, and it also implicitly includes wild animals. In placing obligations on government, the Bill will complement our excellent Animal Welfare Act, which places obligations on individual keepers of animals.
There were earlier attempts to enshrine the principle of Article 13 into UK law during the Brexit process, both in the other place and in this House, and the Government introduced their own Bill in 2017. This was scrutinised by the EFRA Committee in the other place, which received legal opinion that highlighted the serious risk of endless judicial review, partly related to the ambiguity of the meaning of “sentience”.
This Bill does not define sentience. Defra has commissioned a report from LSE Enterprise on this issue—which is germane to this debate but which, regrettably, is not yet available. Definitions of sentience range from
“having the power of perception by the senses”
to
“the quality of being able to experience feelings”.
The Global Animal Law Project says:
“Sentience shall be understood to mean the capacity to have feelings, including pain and pleasure, and implies a level of conscious awareness.”
Clearly, most life forms have the ability to sense most harmful stimuli and, if they are mobile, to avoid them.
Undoubtedly, as scientific evidence is accumulated, it is likely that certain invertebrates will be added to the coverage of this legislation. Since octopuses and related species are already provided protection within the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, it would be consistent to add cephalopods, as Clause 5(2) provides. There are also credible calls for decapod crustaceans to be included, on which the LSE Enterprise report may comment. With further research, even more animals might be argued to be sentient, which raises the question: where in the hierarchy of the animal kingdom does sentience end?
I raise this as something that will need to be considered at some time, although the Bill quite rightly leaves it to the Secretary of State and hence Parliament to make regulations and to determine which animals to include in the Act. I can foresee that as the frontier of evidence shifts, the Secretary of State may be called upon to choose between scientific evidence and broader policy considerations.
The current Bill will create an animal sentience committee to survey government policy, which may report to the Secretary of State if it feels that the commitment with regard to animal welfare is not honoured. Clause 2(1) says that it “may produce a report”, thus the extent of scrutiny is not clear. I note that the committee will be empowered to publish its report in whatever way it wishes and that the Secretary of State must lay a response to the report before Parliament, thereby ensuring political accountability. I welcome both measures, but there is much important detail about the committee currently lacking in the Bill.
If we are to have an animal sentience committee, in my opinion it is important that that committee is independent and quite separate from the current Animal Welfare Committee—as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said—since it will be a statutory committee, whereas the Animal Welfare Committee is advisory. I suggest that it is also important that the sentience committee is adequately resourced for its huge task and that its membership is appropriate and balanced. I support the idea of adopting some parliamentary process to ratify the membership; for example, as well as scientific expertise in animal welfare, veterinary science and biology, it could include appropriate expertise in policy and impact assessment.
I recognise that the issue of sentience is a huge populist impetus and has become totemic, and I understand the Government’s desire to introduce this. With a measured, pragmatic and balanced approach—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, among others, mentioned—this Bill could be a force for good with respect to animal welfare. But there are concerns in my mind about unintended consequences, which other noble Lords have raised. I feel that we cannot ignore them, but I hope that they do not materialise.
Finally, there is much detail lacking about the committee’s role—on resourcing, its obligations, its composition, its powers and powers of inquiry, and, perhaps most important of all, its powers of sanction if its recommendations are ignored. When and how will more detail on these important operational questions be provided?
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who obviously has a brilliant academic record. I declare my interests as in the register.
Like the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth, Lord Hannan and Lord Howard of Rising, my first reaction was to ask whether we actually need this Bill. Is there a particular problem that the Bill is essential to address? Is there a gap in our animal welfare legislation at the moment? Is there a gap in the protection given to animals? Should our legislation be upgraded and made more effective? Those questions certainly need answering.
The Minister—incidentally, I welcome the debut of the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, as the lead Minister on a Bill in the House—certainly put the case very strongly; no one anywhere in government has more knowledge of the countryside and animal welfare issues than him. He pointed out that, back as far as 1822, Parliament brought in the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act, which was followed by the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835. It required another 64 years to elapse before legislation was brought in to give similar protections to children. That shows just how strongly Parliament over the years has taken the subject of animal welfare.
Built around and upon the foundations of those two Acts are the numerous welfare and cruelty Bills that have subsequently been brought in. So we have an incredibly high standard of animal welfare legislation in this country. We have high standards for farm animals, protections for pets, and very strict controls on cruelty against wild animals. We also have very tight control on animal experiments. All in all, we are a beacon across the world for top-class animal welfare legislation. There have also been many examples of the successful prosecution of the tiny minority of people in this country who abuse animals; the courts have been consistently tough. Furthermore, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned, all this legislation recognises the fact that animals suffer pain—otherwise why would you have legislation? Of course animal sentience is very much at the heart of our laws.
I come back to the question of whether we need this legislation; in particular, do we need a new animal sentience committee? As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, we already have the Animal Welfare Committee, formerly the Farm Animal Welfare Council. It has an excellent reputation. It backs up its work with high-class scientific advice, it is extremely cost effective and it is well established. I urge noble Lords to look again at whether we need a brand-new committee. Would it not be easier to expand the existing committee—as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean—and widen its remit to cover all animals?
As the Minister pointed out, as the Bill stands at the moment, the committee will have the task of roaming across the whole of government. It will have to be well resourced, and it will have to have a lot of staff. What will its relationship to the AWC be? Will it work alongside it? Will it complement it? Which will be the more senior committee of the two? The Minister needs to look at that very hard. Perhaps this Bill could be altered slightly, to widen the scope and powers of the existing, outstanding committee. We would save a lot of time—by not setting up a brand-new committee—if we did that.
I want to look quickly at the Bill’s provenance because, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, it all stems from Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty. That article refers to animals as “sentient beings” and makes it clear that, in stated areas of policy, member states must
“pay full regard to the welfare … of animals”.
However, it is restricted in scope to certain key areas. As a number of noble Lords pointed out, it also includes a requirement to balance animal welfare with
“customs … relating … to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”
In other words, there is an absolutely crucial counterbalance to allow for particular traditions and aspects of religious heritage—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, made this point very succinctly.
I personally support halal and kosher killing, and I would like to see CCTV in slaughterhouses. But what would happen if, for example, the committee decided to wage a campaign against these two particular types of slaughterhouse? What would happen if, traditionally, all angling was to catch fish for the pot—to eat? We all know that probably 98% of angling now is catch and release. What would happen if the committee decided to ignore this regional, cultural country pursuit, which is pursued by many tens of thousands of people, and launched a campaign against it? There is no counterbalance in the law that will set up this committee to prevent it doing that. The worry is not about what might happen with this Minister but about what might happen with future Governments, when there is no counterbalance to protect the interests of many tens, even hundreds, of thousands of people in this country.
The Minister said that, now we have left the EU, we can introduce legislation to go further than EU regulations. I was under the impression that our post-Brexit ambition was to reduce layers of bureaucracy, and make the UK more streamlined and our laws more user-friendly. In my humble opinion, we are gold-plating EU regulations. I quote the noble Lord, Lord Moore, who put it very well:
“The ground is being laid for exactly the expansion of bureaucratic … power that Brexit was supposed to counter”.
I have always subscribed to this dictum from Lord Falkland: unless it is vital to legislate, it is vital not to legislate.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill would enshrine the recognition of the sentience of vertebrate animals in domestic law. It would also establish an animal sentience committee that would report on whether government policy-making considers that animals are sentient beings capable of feeling emotions and experiencing pain.
This is a government Bill. It was announced as part of the Queen’s Speech on 11 May 2021. It had its First Reading in your Lordships’ House on 13 May and is due to have its Second Reading in your Lordships’ House on 16 June 2021.
There is a growing consensus among scientists and policymakers that animals are sentient beings capable of feeling emotions and experiencing pain. The Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare states:
“There is scientific evidence for sentience in all vertebrates and at least some invertebrates.”
Despite a few points of contention, calls have increased for the recognition of animal sentience in UK domestic law. In December 2017, the Government ran a consultation on its draft animal welfare Bill; 80% of respondents requested that sentience be explicitly defined in UK law.
The principle of animal sentience governing animals in the UK was previously provided for at a European level, specifically in Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Article 13 provides that member states should pay full regard to the welfare requirement of animals when formulating policies. It is not explicitly in the treaty, but the EU has stated that animals are
“capable of feeling pleasure and pain”.
Article 13 states:
“In formulating and implementing the Union’s agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals”.
However, following our withdrawal from the EU, these provisions are no longer applicable in the UK. Charities and campaigning organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the British Veterinary Association, have raised concerns about this gap. They have called for domestic legislation that includes a definition of sentience that encapsulates an animal’s capacity to have feelings, including pain and pleasure, and which implies a level of conscious awareness.
Does the Minister agree that in the future—perhaps a long time in the future—we will ultimately all become vegetarians?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased and proud to take part in this debate. I warmly welcome the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill and the Government introducing new laws to recognise that animals are sentient beings. It will protect all animals, including farm animals, tackle puppy smuggling, make keeping primates as pets illegal and ban the import of hunting trophies.
The Government promise to review the use of cages for egg-laying hens and narrow metal crates for farrowing pigs, but surely there is a demonstrable case for banning cages for laying hens given that they are crammed in, barely able to move, and banning the very narrow metal crates for farrowing pigs. However, I note with regret that some other European countries still carry out the standard practice of docking pigs’ tails.
I cannot emphasise enough the importance of establishing clear labelling of meat for all our customers, particularly imported meat. But the big question many are asking is: are we to ban the sale of foie gras and end the cruel practice of force-feeding ducks and geese with large amounts of food? I hope all these points can be addressed when my noble friend the Minister responds.
We are all animal lovers, and this Bill will establish welcome new measures and help to build even higher standards of welfare and good farming practices. It is a new beginning. As we know only too well, animals not only show immense loyalty and devotion but know pleasure and pain.
In the past few months, as I walked my dogs and experienced nature, seeing hares racing across the fields, I have come to know how much we value our wildlife. So I am very pleased that new laws are to be established to crack down on illegal hare coursing, but I would like us not just to restrict the use of glue traps but to ban them outright.
I welcome the fact that the practice of clipping dogs’ ears and cropping or docking their tails is illegal here, but the Bill will put a stop to anyone bringing such pets into the UK and to unscrupulous criminal gangs abusing pet travel rules for their gain. It will also raise the age at which puppies can come to the UK from 15 weeks to six months and prevent them being taken away from their mothers at a very young age. There are also restrictions on the importing of pregnant dogs, which I have spoken about before.
The Bill will improve the lives of farm livestock, halt the export of live animals for fattening and slaughter, and improve transportation measures so that live animals do not have to endure excessively long journeys, which I particularly welcome as EU rules prevented any changes. I would also be interested to know how long journeys will be monitored, and how surveillance and record-keeping will be monitored at all abattoirs.
We cannot continue to ignore the way we treat our animals. This sentience Bill will, of course, not solve any animal welfare problems by itself, but it is a start, and we will be the first country in the world to pass animal welfare laws.
Finally, I am pleased that the Government support increasing the maximum custodial sentences for animal cruelty offences from six months to five years, so that courts will have clear guidelines when determining sentences, making the UK’s sanctions the toughest in Europe, and recognising animals as sentient beings. I look forward to further reforms to the Bill later in the year.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am content with the Bill, the gist of its purpose and the role that the proposed committee will play in the debate about animal welfare, a topic about which everyone has an opinion. I begin by declaring an interest, for I am a livestock farmer in Cumbria. I personally do little shooting and in the old days used occasionally to go out with the fell packs. I am also a patron of the Livestock Auctioneers’ Association and president of the National Sheep Association.
While I fear that there always are abuses, real farmers care about their stock and take pride in it and the way it is looked after. I also do not believe that animals have rights. Rather, we as humans have obligations towards them that should and must be legally enforced. This is a widely recognised legal phenomenon and an entirely sensible approach to these matters.
I was a Member of the European Parliament when embedding the concept of animal sentience in EU law was discussed. At that time I was very unsure whether this was the right direction of travel, but I have become satisfied that it is.
Contrary to what some seem to say, animal sentience has been understood for quite a long time. After all, Homer understood it. You have only to read the 17th- book of the Odyssey: returning in disguise after a 20-year absence, Odysseus is recognised only by his faithful old dog Argos.
In this instance as in so many others, and as is so often the case, for our national policies to be sensible they have to sail between Scylla and Charybdis—the Scylla of treating animals as mere chattels, and the Charybdis of anthropomorphism. Walt Disney has done this issue no favour; “Bambi” is a confidence trick. Equally, in this context, Beatrix Potter has quite a lot to answer for. Although it will come as no surprise to your Lordships, and although I never knew her, those of my Cumbrian friends and neighbours who did, tell me that she was a very practical, down-to-earth hill farmer whose attitude towards her own animals bore little relation to her fictional creatures.
I welcome the committee, but it is not a substitute for either government or Parliament. I assume its purpose is to help public debate on this topic, as part of a wider political process. Both Parliament and the Government have never been backward about ignoring committees, and I do not anticipate that that is going to change. The impact of this committee will depend on its tone and modus operandi. It has to base its thinking on expertise, not partisanship, its approach and composition on independence of thought and action, and its conclusions on intelligence and wisdom. These aspects must be central to its activities and will determine its seriousness, or lack of it, and hence its influence and ability to be a force for good. Whether that happens depends on what it does and the conclusions it reaches which, I hasten to add in conclusion, is not necessarily the same as agreeing with me.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow my noble friend and contribute to this debate. I declare my interests, as on the register. In particular, I am a member of the rural affairs group of the Church of England and an associate fellow of the British Veterinary Association. I am also a former Member of the European Parliament and had the privilege to chair the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place.
I approach this from much the same viewpoint as my noble friend Lord Inglewood. There is a voice in this debate that has not been properly heard, so far—that of the producer, farmer or carer of livestock. I pay tribute to and recognise the role of farmers in rearing livestock. They not only practise good husbandry but realise that, if they stress the animal, either just before slaughter or at any time in its production, they will simply not achieve the value for that animal that they believe they deserve. I hope that my noble friend from the Front Bench confirms that their voices will be heard in the passage of this Bill.
It is not just their responsibility to see to the welfare and good husbandry of animals in their care as, over the last 30 years, they have faced real challenges with animal health and disease. We have had a challenge almost every 10 years, with BSE, foot and mouth, and most recently a fraud, but it could so easily have been a safety or health issue, in horsegate. I hope my noble friend and the Government pay tribute to the role of farmers and producers, in this regard.
I express a personal reservation, having looked at some of the contributions to the Government’s consultation on aspects of the animal welfare reforms they seek, especially on the extra provisions we are going to impose on the movement of animals at home and for export. We are going to accept animals that have been transported over much greater distances, such as in Australia, which are not practices that we condone. I will come on to that in a moment.
On the Bill before us today, I cannot argue with anything that was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, or by my noble friend Lord Forsyth and others. The Government have to convince us of the need for this Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, we have to be careful that this is not seen as “gesture politics”.
On the composition of the committee, I am struggling to understand why it cannot be formed as part of, or a sub-committee of, the Animal Welfare Committee, as other noble Lords have argued this afternoon. It is also very light on what the composition of the committee will be. Who will sit on it? Will there be a veterinary surgeon? I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, did not make that case. Will there be somebody with a background in animal husbandry, production or animal slaughter to give a verdict on some of the proposals in the reports? What resources will be made available to the committee? Who will staff it and how independent of the Government will it be? Crucially, how long will each appointment to the committee be, who will chair it and how many members will there be?
As my noble friend Lady Hodgson said, the relationship between this and other committees is crucial, in particular with the Trade and Agriculture Commission and the Animal Health and Welfare Board. From my reading of the Bill and Explanatory Notes, there is going to be some overlap. What will the status of the reports be, how transparent will their drafting be and how open will their consultations be? Will the Government be forced to accept the recommendations in those reports?
How will the Government seek to ensure that my noble friend and the department have this cross-departmental responsibility? I am slightly alarmed that we are giving them yet another cross-departmental responsibility, when they have woefully failed to implement the rural-proofing policy. My noble friend has a letter from me on his desk; I realise that he is new and I welcome him to his new position, but I hope that he replies soon. Why, for example, have we not had rural proofing across departments, as a precursor to what the Government expect to do with their cross-departmental responsibilities under this Bill? I ask what their role will be in extending this to other jurisdictions and place on record my belief that, as others have noted, this should reflect the contents of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the scope of Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty.
To conclude, it would be unacceptable if we were to take this opportunity to clobber our producers with yet more animal welfare and environmental provisions, when it looks likely that we will accept meat and other produce from jurisdictions such as Australia, which have practices such as hormone-produced beef and allow their animals to be transported for slaughter over distances that we would not condone in this country.
Viscount Ridley (Con) [V]
My Lords, animal sentience is a fact, not a principle, let alone a policy. We have recognised this in law for a very long time. The entirety of animal welfare legislation assumes animal sentience and, rightly, that it is a thing of degree rather than kind. One of the effects of doing research in evolutionary biology is that you come to realise that there are no real differences of kind in the animal kingdom, only differences of degree.
One after another, the fortresses of assumption about what makes human beings special have fallen to the forces of science. Copernicus told us we were not at the centre of the solar system. Darwin told us we were just another animal. Crick told us we use the same genetic code as an amoeba. Ryan Gregory pointed out that an onion cell has six times as much DNA as a human’s. Even as recently as 1999, serious scientists were still saying that human beings would prove to have a bunch of unique genes to build the special human brain. It turns out that we have not only the same number of genes as a mouse but the same genes as a mouse; it is just that we turn them on and off in a different order. Dogs dream, parrots use language, octopuses reason, dolphins have a theory of mind and chimpanzees use tools. You cannot draw a line through the animal kingdom and say that on one side lies consciousness, let alone sentience, and on the other nothing. There is a gradation.
The Government’s 2018 consultation defined an animal as follows:
“an organism endowed with life, sensation and voluntary motion”.
That includes bacteria, incidentally, so it is not a very good definition of an animal. As it includes the word “sensation”, by definition it means that all animals, including parasitic roundworms and jellyfish, are sentient to some degree. In practice, we do draw lines and do not find slopes to be slippery. We swat mosquitoes and poison rats. I presume that, as a result of this Bill, we will not all eventually be ordered by a committee on animal sentience to become orthodox Jains, who sweep the pavement as they walk the street lest they step on an ant.
The sentient animals that concern me in relation to the Bill are the living, sensing, voluntarily moving creatures called bureaucrats. The Bill does little or nothing to change the way we treat animals, but it does create a wonderful feeding opportunity for Homo bureaucratius to do what it is best at: to build a nest and raise a lot of workers.
Over recent centuries, human society has increasingly improved its concern for animal welfare, in parallel with its growing concern for human welfare. We have stopped badger baiting, cockfighting, fox tossing and the popular medieval pastime of nailing a cat to a tree and competing to try and kill it with your head while not getting badly scratched on the face. We did not have a committee telling us to stop these things; we do not need a committee to do that. My late sister, Rose Paterson, did not need a government committee to tell her to improve horse welfare in the Grand National as chairman of Aintree Racecourse; she did it anyway. As my noble friend Lord Hannan said, we will continue to add to the list of things we disapprove of, but we do not need a committee to tell us to do so.
What this committee will inevitably do, because that is what this species of sentient being always does, is try to grow its budget by giving itself enough work to ensure that it can complain that it is underfunded. I predict that the committee will not stick to its task of commenting only on the process by which government has reached a decision. Indeed, in a helpful briefing note the Countryside Alliance says that this process of demanding a bigger budget has effectively already begun. It says:
“Given that the Committee’s remit covers the entirety of government policy, from formulation to implementation, the Committee will need huge resources. It should be looking, not just at wildlife management and farming practices and the Defra brief, but also policy areas such as planning, trade, and even procurement of medicines for the NHS. There is seemingly no limit.”
I predict that it will be a nearly impossible task to prevent this budget-maximising, empire-building, remit-expanding, mission-creeping process—which is in the nature of all committees, in the same way that it is in the nature of all wasps to build nests—and to avoid the committee ruling on whether, say, the building of a housing estate should be stopped to prevent avoidable suffering by a newt. My question to my noble friend the Minister is simple: how does he propose to achieve this nearly impossible task?
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I first declare an interest in farming in that my family farms, but I am handing everything over.
I find this Bill woolly. Much is left to the discretion of the Minister and the Executive. I have heard it described as a paving Bill and an entry point; more legislation may follow. I am sure we will get lots of assurances from the Front Bench, but we should remember that no ministerial Statement or Government can bind the successor Governments and Parliaments that follow, so we have to be very careful; we need things to be in the Bill.
Several speakers have spoken about the Bill as being useful for protecting farm animals, but we already regulate farming in great detail—I am sure we will regulate more for things we have missed—so I presume this committee will look at wild animals. I very much like the points made just now by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, about what other things it could cross over into and mess up, when we are trying to look at the bigger pictures. If we try to make animals the pure and total focus of everything, we need to realise that we are only another animal on the planet.
One of the things that really worries me is that the composition of the committee is very open to manipulation—several speakers have mentioned this. There is nothing there about long-term balance and ensuring that it stays balanced.
Another thing that worries me is this definition of sentience. Again, I was very interested by the noble Viscount’s points about that, because there is a huge danger of anthropomorphism. Most creatures, if not all, have an autonomous nervous response to stimuli. This does not require thought, so should we really be inferring sentience from it? Or does sentience require reasoning, and in that case to what level? I do not think we go as far as the ethics, which was spoken about before.
The other thing is about pleasure and the question of whether animals enjoy working; this concerns the closing down of the circuses and things like that. I know from my personal experience that animals do enjoy doing things and working—there is no doubt about it—but some people think it is demeaning and do not like that, because they anthropomorphise what they are doing.
I just hope that this committee will understand the difficulty of balancing biodiversity. One of the biggest problems we have with a lot of things, particularly with single-issue pressure groups, is that the solution to the overpopulation of a particular animal species is to relocate it. Sometimes that just messes up somewhere else—or it may mess up the animal; it may be totally unproductive. We say, “Oh, we don’t want to hurt these animals”, which at the moment are destroying this environment that they may require for their own survival, so we relocate them over there—but that may not be any good for the animals, and they may die anyway as a result.
Another problem comes with the overprotection of certain species. I have noticed this particularly with some of the hunting species, such as badgers. There is huge overpopulation of badgers at the moment. Badgers eat hedgehogs. Why do we have a diminishing hedgehog population? No one thinks about this. They blame all sorts of things but not the badgers, one of the few creatures that can open them up and eat the things. The other thing is bumble bees. Quite a lot of species of bumble bee nest in the ground in small nests. It is just like a bar of chocolate for a badger; they love them. A bumble bee is very different from worker bees that live in hives and go out all over the place.
The trouble is that a lot of people who live in towns have perhaps done a brief course on the environment at Durham University, borrowed a pair of welly boots for a farm walk or whatever and then become experts on the environment. I do not think they really understand the breadth of things you need to understand.
Just for amusement I was thinking about anthropomorphism. I was amused by the “Lobster Quadrille” by Lewis Carroll, and I think we are going in that direction:
“‘Will you walk a little faster?’ said a whiting to a snail,
‘There’s a porpoise close behind us, and he’s treading on my tail.
See how eagerly the lobsters and the turtles all advance!
They are waiting on the shingle—will you come and join the dance?”
The way we are going, I think they are about to join our human dance.
I was amused by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. I was going to suggest that maybe bear baiting has been replaced with politician and celebrity baiting. I think that is the new sport—and maybe toff baiting as well, since I seem to be counted among those by some people.
The main thing is that I agree with those who doubt the Bill’s utility. I am not sure we should waste a huge amount of time on it—but I think we will have to, to make sure it does not become dangerous.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I have heard a large number of quite excellent speeches—some funny, some learned—and I cannot possibly emulate them. I shall try not to repeat verbatim what has been said, although it can be quite difficult when you come in at a late stage on a Bill.
We are of course a nation of animal lovers, and I include myself in that. Quite rightly, people who are cruel to animals are prosecuted, be it for cats nailed to trees—we heard about that recently from the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley—or set on fire, which they have been, or hedgehogs used as footballs. I see
“tougher sentences for animal cruelty”
in our manifesto, and I applaud that if it gives magistrates the opportunity to sentence cruel yobs appropriately.
We have heard about farming standards. Our farming welfare standards are in the news today, because they are so high, because of the Australian free trade agreement. It is agreed that they are excellent, and we should be proud of that.
Are animals sentient beings? They probably are—I certainly think so—but they are not the same. For instance, my dog will run out into the middle of the road and stand looking at a car driving straight at it, much to my annoyance and fear. It does not have the same reactions as we have; we should realise that. Do they feel pain? Of course they feel pain. Is it different from ours? I think it probably is, but we owe it to all animals, wild and domestic, to treat them well—but that is a very subjective judgment. For instance, do animals at a slaughterhouse exhibit fear? I have been to slaughterhouses; they do. So should we ban the killing of animals for meat? Should we ban the shooting of wild birds or deer for eating? My answer is no. We should treat animals well in life and we owe them a clean and swift death if we are going to eat them.
I declare an interest as a farmer. My farming partner dislikes sending lambs and especially young cattle to market. I understand that. Indeed, he sells his calves only to other farmers, mostly for breeding. James Cromwell, who noble Peers will know as the actor who played the farmer in “Babe”, which I thought was an excellent film—I watched it probably 20 times with my children when they were younger—apparently became a vegan after the film because it was so anthropomorphic.
We already have high standards and laws on animal cruelty, so why do we need the Bill? It is very flimsy. There is nothing to it really, as one Minister told me, so why are we having it? We are told that it is very popular with people and that animal welfare was the second-most important issue in the minds of voters in the 2019 election after Brexit. Well, do they vote on these issues or on wider and more important issues facing the country? I was elected to the House of Commons five times and I think I still know how people think. Most people vote on rather more important issues.
Most people have feelings for animals, but there is a small lobby of activists who rarely vote Conservative—or, indeed, Labour—pushing an animal rights agenda. They are not mainstream. They represent only themselves. The Peta—People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—website says “End Speciesism” and has a picture of a rat with:
“We also feel pain, love, joy, and fear.”
Love? Rats will eat their own young, as noble Lords will know, and I do not think that shows love. Peta also wants us to go vegan, to not have milk in our coffee—a treat—and it says that eating meat, cheese et cetera is an addiction similar to drugs. The Animal Liberation Front, of course, is notorious for its violent action. I could go on. But are rats sentient? Yes. Are squirrels, which are destroying the woods that we are all trying to encourage, sentient? Yes. Are the magpies that kill fledglings sentient? Well, yes, of course, as are the foxes that kill hens—but what about the hens and the fledglings that get killed by magpies?
I will not dwell on the fact that if we did not have farm animals for our benefit, they would not exist and our countryside would look totally different. It would be mostly arable or wasteland. So this Bill seems to me to be driven by a minority agenda pushing animal rights. What amendments does my noble friend envisage under Clause 5(2) and (3) to regulations made by SI. What good will come of this animal sentience committee? What relationship will it have with the Animal Welfare Committee? Who will be on the committee? Will he pledge not to appoint members of Wild Justice or Peta? To coin a phrase, cui bono? The Explanatory Notes blithely say:
“The Bill will require some public expenditure.”
How much?
Finally, the Bill has been described by one of my noble friend’s fellow Ministers as a paving measure. What does that mean? We have heard today ominous calls for the Bill to be strengthened. Like my noble friend Lord Bellingham, I have always believed that we should legislate as little as possible and only when it is necessary. The gentleman in Whitehall does not know best, and individuals should be allowed to get on with their lives without interference, in so far as that does not adversely impact on other people or wider society—and that includes animal cruelty. We pass laws to ensure that that does not happen. I fear that the Bill is a superfluous measure and a very un-Conservative measure, and I look to the Minister to allay my fears that this is not some thin end of the wedge softening-up of our legislation to pursue a bogus animal rights agenda.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I propose to speak in favour of electric dog-training collars and against non-stun halal and kosher slaughter, both of which could fall under the influence of the proposed new committee.
Starting with the collars, I should mention that I have worked with spaniels and pointers since the age of 11 and now have four German pointers over which we shoot rather few grouse on Rannoch moor. The years before the arrival of the electric collar bring many unhappy memories of dogs chasing deer and hares and being savagely beaten by my father and various keepers on their eventual return—only to do it all again at the next opportunity. But the modern training collar has changed all that and I cannot help noticing that those who wish to make them illegal do not seem to know much about how they work but are instead guided by a well-meaning intention to prevent dogs suffering pain.
I have looked at the sites of the four main organisations which wish to ban them—the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross and the RSPCA—and none of them mentions the process by which these collars do their job. They emit three levels of signal from three different buttons. The first button induces a simple beep from the dog’s collar. If that does not work, the next button produces a stronger buzzing noise. Only when that does not stop the dog doing what it is doing do you press the impulse or shock button. It is, of course, essential that the dial on the shock button is set at the lowest level necessary to stop the dog chasing whatever it is chasing, barking at a passer-by or running on to a road and endangering its own life and the traffic.
For my energetic German pointers, which are smooth-haired, the shock dial, which goes from one to nine, does not have to be set above four. For larger and more rough-haired dogs, the dial should be set at higher figure—but always only at the minimum required to have the desired effect. My experience of using these collars is that my dogs generally do not need to be given more than one shock in their lives. Thereafter, they stop whatever they are doing wrong on the beep and come straight back to me, wagging their tails. Of course, other breeds may be less sensitive, but not much.
In all this, we must not forget that most of our dogs are descended from wolves or wild dogs of some kind. The wolf or wild dog still lurks in them, however charming and lovable they may be by the fireside. We must also not forget the huge comfort which dogs bring to millions of people. So my view is that these training collars should be encouraged, especially for dogs which are going for a walk or run off the lead in the countryside. A dog killing a sheep or a deer brings much pain to its quarry, even if it is a fairly natural process, and the minimal pain felt from a training collar, perhaps only once in a dog’s life, seems to me to be a pretty good deal.
Finally on dog collars, it is worth wondering why no one seems to want to ban electric livestock fences, which can produce an electric shock some 3,000 times stronger than a dog training collar. I suppose the Government may be too afraid of the NFU to contemplate banning them.
And so, finally, to non-stun halal and kosher slaughter. I wonder whether the Government can explain why they are even vaguely thinking of banning electric dog collars through this new committee while tolerating the colossal suffering inflicted by these practices. Figures from the Foods Standards Agency tell us that in 2018 some 3.1 million sheep had their throats cut without being pre-stunned—one-quarter of all sheep killed—and 22,000 cattle suffered the same fate. Of course I understand that the Government and our elected politicians generally may be too frightened of the Muslim and Jewish vote to tackle this practice head-on and simply ban it. But, if that is so, why do they not require all meat sold in this country to say on its wrapping whether it comes from a pre-stunned animal? After all, cigarette packets are required by law to tell the purchaser that smoking damages your health, so why not the same for meat?
I understand that some schools and hospitals now serve nothing but halal and kosher meat, because it is so vociferously demanded by their relevant Muslim and Jewish patients. This is very unfair to our Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists, who are forbidden to eat halal or kosher meat, and it is also unfair to the rest of us who do not want effectively to be forced to eat it or go without. So I suggest that the Government re-examine their priorities in this matter, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply on these two points. Before he leaves the Chamber, I should add that I welcome him to his new position today—but I do not envy it.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I regret that my noble friend the Minister has been landed with this as his first Bill back as a Defra Minister. I exonerate him of having any of his fingerprints on this piece of legislation that we must consider.
When the Government did not roll forward Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty—which had at least some balance in it—I was interested in what they would do when they introduced their own legislation. My noble friend started his speech by saying this was a new chapter. It is not a new chapter. Virtually every noble Lord has mentioned 200 years of legislation; this is just another part of the process that has been going on for some time. You do not actually need primary legislation to set up a committee, unless it will do something constructive, has a remit and is defined, and all that has been discussed by Parliament.
As so many noble Lords have said, the credibility of the committee will depend on who sits on it, what evidence it takes and how independent it is, but we know absolutely none of the answers to those questions. We are talking about a committee that can be appointed, sacked, disbanded or enlarged; we have no idea what the heck the Government are talking about. It is absolutely key that we tighten that up in Committee.
I hope that my noble friend paid particular attention to the speech of my noble friend Lady Foster of Oxton. She reminded us that there are many laws in Europe, but very few of them are implemented and no country takes them very seriously. My noble friend Lady Redfern mentioned the problems of farrowing pens, tail docking of pigs and hen cages. However, this committee the Government have set up—this wonderful thing that will cross all government departments—will take evidence and give advice to the Foreign Office and the Department for International Trade. My noble friend Lady McIntosh must not worry too much; I have no doubt that the committee will say that we will not be allowed to trade with Europe because it has the wrong farrowing pens and bird cages and that the beef from Australia is poorly produced compared to here. What will be the effect of this committee on our foreign and trade policy? I hope my noble friend has thought that through.
My noble friend Lord Herbert is right that we must not confuse animal rights with animal welfare. We are all pro-animal welfare, but animal rights are a very different and much more subtle thing to get right. Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that the report that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, reminded the House about has been commissioned by Defra and that the Committee stage will be deferred until that report has been received and we have read it? It is pointless to take us through Committee when we are waiting for a report that will give us a definition. That abuses this House. I hope my noble friend will be very firm with his department on that.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, mentioned the rural proofing committee. We had some hopes that rural proofing would be done properly. A committee was set up; its first report was fairly diabolical and gave us no confidence that the committee, which also crosses all government departments, would make any headway at all. The counterargument to everything I have just said is that I do not need to worry at all about this committee because it will go the same way as the rural proofing committee and the Government will ignore everything it suggests.
My noble friend Lord Bellingham quoted my noble friend Lord Moore. I will quote him too: the consequence of this Bill
“will surely be an ever-greater resort to the courts, with pressure groups using committee reports as their weapons of ‘lawfare’. The committee could become a Trojan horse for extremism—and the Trojan horse, let us remember, was not a sentient animal, but a collection of sentient human beings using animal disguise to effect capture”—
the sort of people my noble friend Lord Ridley was talking about.
There is potential good from this committee, but also an awful lot of gesture politics. I fear that the Government will find it too difficult and be blackmailed into implementing some extremist reports from the committee unless we know more about it and have greater control over what it does in future.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and to take part in this wide-ranging debate. I thank the Minister for his briefing and his introduction to this short but extremely important Bill, which ensures that animal sentience remains enshrined in law following our exit from the EU.
The recognition of animal sentience is not in dispute, as it has long been established that animals are sentient beings. Like us, they are capable of feeling pain, hunger, distress, pleasure and a sense of well-being and safety. All policies involving animals should take this into account. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, spoke eloquently on these aspects of sentience.
There is some discussion whether the categories covered in this Bill should be extended to include not only vertebrates but invertebrates, and there is provision in the Bill for this. We have heard the case for cephalopods, or octopi and squid, and decapod crustaceans—crabs and lobsters. As we are debating this inclusion so early in the passage of the Bill, it seems sensible for this to be included in it and not left to be dealt with later under statutory instruments. Can the Minister say whether the Secretary of State is open to such an amendment at this stage?
It is vital that the animal sentience committee, or ASC, can operate with sufficient resources and authority to make a real difference. Many of your Lordships have referred to this. A proper budget and secretariat will ensure that the ASC operates to public expectations. The financial support for this committee should not be an afterthought in either Defra or the Treasury’s financial planning—it should be central. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, referred to this.
Like others, I have received several briefings from animal welfare organisations, raising concerns about not only the membership of the ASC but its funding and the weight attached to its work across all government departments. While I am concerned about these issues, I am also anxious that the work of the committee and its ultimate aims should not get bogged down in judicial review. It is important to produce a Bill that is fit for purpose but does not provide loopholes which would end up in JR.
The ASC membership should, of course, contain relevant expertise. I received one briefing from a conglomerate/confederation of 51 animal charities and lobbies; it will clearly be difficult for the Government to please everybody in the membership of this committee. What is its size likely to be? The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, also asked questions around this. Clearly, the larger it is, the more cumbersome it will become and the longer it will take for it to complete its work on various pieces of legislation and policy, but it must be large enough to have sufficient representation from experts across a number of fields. Business interests will need to be included; we are already seeing concern over the free trade deal with Australia around the welfare of animals raised there very differently to how animals are raised in the UK. Essential membership should include representation from experts in wild, domestic and farm animals, as well as those that live in the sea.
I turn briefly to tenure. How long will the term of office be for the chair and members of the ASC, once appointed by the Secretary of State? Given the number of interested charities and organisations involved in animal welfare, a healthy turnover of representatives may provide reassurance.
The essentials to inspire confidence in the ASC’s deliberations and outcomes will not necessarily come from the number of representatives, nor just who or which organisations are represented on the committee. Instead, confidence will come from ensuring a wide range of expertise among the membership. It will come from complete transparency around the recruitment process and in all the workings of the committee.
The ASC will need to be accountable for its work to Parliament. This is especially important as it will cover policy across all government departments outside Defra. The ASC will need autonomy and independence, reporting on a yearly basis to Parliament, giving the Secretary of State three months to respond. Part of the reporting process should involve impact assessments of the various policies on the animals concerned.
Other Peers have referred to the need for an animal welfare strategy. This appears to be an essential part of the ASC’s work, and its absence perhaps an oversight. Can the Minister give reasons why there is no mention of such a strategy?
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, has raised the instances in the Bill where “may” is included. This seems to me a rather weak term which could easily be ignored. There are likely to be amendments in Committee to strength the legal provisions of the Bill. This should ensure that, as a suite of Bills under the Action Plan for Animal Welfare, the Animal Sentience Bill plays its full part in protecting animals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, suggested that the Bill is a publicity exercise. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that this is not the case: that the Bill will have legal status and make a difference.
The animal welfare plan makes it clear that there are very different categories of animals and that, therefore, different strategies are needed for dealing with their welfare. For instance, the duty to a farmed deer would be different from the duty to a wild deer. Both are the same species and sentient, but their lifestyles are very different. Flexibility in dealing with all animals will be key. The noble Lord, Lord Herbert, attempted to make this point when speaking on animal rights.
The Government will need to create clear duties and powers for the ASC to ensure that all relevant polices are considered. The avoidance of harm to animals is important, but so is the enhancement of the lives of animals. This aspect should be part of the remit of the ASC, as well as being proactive in its research and work, not just reactive. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, referred to this.
I do not subscribe to the view that the ASC should be a sub-committee of the current Animal Welfare Committee. It should be a stand-alone committee in order to have proper influence. I do, however, agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, on the wild animals in circuses Bill, which was a Bill to deal with just 22 specific animals, all bred in captivity.
I welcome the Bill and have learnt much from the debate this afternoon, which I have thoroughly enjoyed, especially the speech from the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. I declare myself a complete addict as described by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan. However, I look forward to the Minister’s response and to working with others during Committee on this important Bill, which I do not believe is about bossing Parliament about.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important Bill, and I thank all those who have spoken in the debate today. We have had a number of interesting and strong views expressed.
Since leaving the European Union, we no longer have legislation that recognises animals as sentient beings, so we strongly welcome the Bill and the opportunities that it provides. The formal legal recognition of animal sentience sends a clear message that we are committed as a country to protecting the welfare of animals, but for this to be meaningful, any commitment on paper must be followed up in practice.
We have already heard that the Bill is vague in many respects, so the challenge for this House is to make sure the Bill delivers on what it is promising. As we have heard, it has been a long time coming. Other noble Lords have spoken about the delays, which go back to November 2017, when the Government rejected a proposal to carry the Lisbon treaty into post-Brexit policy. But this issue has had immense public interest, with consultation and amendments in both Houses—I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for his role in this. There was previously a widely-criticised draft government Bill—if the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would like to see a badly drafted Bill, I recommend that he takes a look at it—and a number of false starts along the way.
That is why it is now vital that we grasp the opportunity before us to ensure that this legislation leaves the House a better Bill than when it arrived. We believe that some aspects are particularly welcome: that the Bill covers all departments and that, by implication, it covers wild animals as well as those under the control of man, as wild animals should also be protected from harm by man.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, referred to Dr Mike Radford of the University of Aberdeen, and I wanted to mention what he said, because he expressed clearly one of our key concerns. In commenting on the Bill, he said:
“there’s the potential – but, as presently drafted, no certainty – for Ministers to be held effectively to account”.
It is that certainty that we will be looking for through debates on and amendments to the Bill. A number of noble Lords have raised concerns that we on this side of the House share: for example, my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes, Lady Jones and Lady Bakewell.
The Government say that the Bill improves on the Lisbon treaty, and it does create an animal sentience committee and requires the Government to respond to it, which creates additional accountability. But it does not place a direct duty on Ministers, entrusting instead much of the responsibility for outcomes to the committee. If this Bill is to be effective in holding Ministers to account, we need to ensure that the animal sentience committee has teeth and not just symbolic value. The UK Centre for Animal Law has called the Bill “a job part done”, raising concerns about its proposed design. We have heard of the huge lack of detail and ambiguity on its membership, resourcing, independence, and accountability.
I ask the Minister, as others have done today: who will serve on the committee? How often will it publish reports?
Sentience is the capacity to have positive or negative experiences. The Minister said earlier that the Government have “all due regard” to an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings, but can and should the committee reports also recommend policy that brings about positive impacts on animals as well as addressing negative impacts? How will the duty of the Secretary of State to issue a response provide the kind of governmental engagement with animal welfare concerns that is necessary?
We have heard that the Bill currently provides for Ministers to have to respond to a report within three months with a written statement. Do we feel that this is enough? Will this make a difference, or will it mean that a Minister can simply note what the committee has said and change nothing?
We will be seeking guarantees that the Government will consult on membership; that there will be an open, transparent recruitment process; that wide-ranging expertise will be ensured; and that the committee will have genuine independence and not be incorporated as a sub-committee of the Animal Welfare Committee, as we believe this could potentially damage its ability to hold the Government to account. How will the Government ensure and protect the independence of the committee so that it can fulfil its role?
There should be provision in the Bill for proper resourcing for the scale of the task. Looking at the scale of task, there is a need for the committee to have a clear mandate and duty to look at all relevant policies.
It is paramount that the committee can look at policy right across Government. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said that the Bill currently creates only a discretionary duty for the animal sentience committee to review whether a government policy has had appropriate regard to the welfare of sentient animals. There should be a mandate with a clear duty for a review of all policies that fall within defined criteria. Will there be a duty on government departments to co-operate with and share necessary information the committee? Is there a mechanism for departments to flag relevant policy developments?
The Better Deal for Animals Coalition is calling for the Secretary of State to create a cross-Whitehall animal sentience strategy, which would include plans for what upcoming policy is then within the scope of the ASC. This additional duty would also require the Secretary of State to report annually in person to Parliament to allow full scrutiny and an evaluation of the effectiveness and impact of the ASC.
To truly improve animal welfare, there needs to be prospective, not just retrospective, consideration of policies. The Bill allows for the ASC to produce a report on policy that “is being” or “has been” formulated or implemented, but, if we consider policy during formulation, the committee’s recommendations can be effected and policy can be improved. Can the Minister confirm that this is being looked at as a potential in future? Will the committee be able to look at the enforcement of existing animal welfare legislation? Where it falls short, can the committee report on what action the Government should take to enhance its impact and strengthen existing weaknesses?
I will look at the scope of the Bill, particularly Clause 5, as other Members have. It defines “animal” as
“any vertebrate other than homo sapiens.”
We have heard about the independent review that Defra has commissioned into whether there is evidence that decapod crustaceans and cephalopods are sentient. As other Members have already asked, when will this report be available?
As noble Lords have said, there is already ample evidence to show that these animals are sentient, so we believe that the definition of “animal” should be expanded and included in the Bill. As we know, this expanded definition was agreed upon by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission earlier this year. Furthermore, notable animal welfare organisations, such as the British Veterinary Association and the RSPCA, also recognise the sentience of decapod crustaceans and cephalopods and fully support their inclusion. Will the Government expand the definition to include these particular animals?
Animal welfare is a global concern, and ensuring the health and welfare of sentient animals is important as a marker of social progress. We welcome the Bill but urge the Minister to take serious note of our concerns and those expressed by others. We look forward to working with your Lordships’ House to make the much-needed improvements.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am very grateful to your Lordships for insightful and constructive contributions to today’s debate. I start by agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on a number of points. First, this is a matter of great public interest, and the passage of the Bill through both Houses will be followed closely not just by organisations but by the wider public. I thank the noble Baroness for her tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for his work on the preparation of the Bill, rightly pointing out that he has raised important points, some of which I hope to address now.
Many noble Lords raised issues about the scope of the Bill and what it will seek to do. The Government are trying to sail a path between creating something that is meaningful and effective and keeping Parliament as the deciding force on this, not the courts. A number of noble Lords have quite rightly raised the concerns, which I shared when I came to this brief, about the risk of judicial review—I will come on to that in a minute.
Noble Lords have taken me further back than the 200 years of animal rights legislation that I spoke about in my opening remarks. We have heard about Homer’s Odyssey and Copernicus, but it is undoubtedly a fact that we have been living with the concept of sentience written into European legislation, and it was in our manifesto to transpose it. There was, I concur, a rather bumpy attempt to do it, and we have now brought forward something that is much more workable and relevant.
This debate has left me with a strong sense of optimism. There is a great deal of unity in purpose and belief that, as a species, we owe a duty of care to the animal kingdom. We largely agree that animals are capable of thinking and feeling and that this fact should be recognised in law. Even if our views might vary as to the finer details of how this should be achieved, we should keep this fundamental principle at the top of our minds.
I apologise if I do not get to everyone’s points; I will write to those that I miss. I will do this in no particular order. My noble friend Lord Robathan is concerned about whether the animal sentience committee will differ from the current Animal Welfare Committee. The current committee advises Defra and the Governments of Wales and Scotland about particular animal welfare issues that have been remitted to it. Ministers are not required by law to respond to the points made in the expert advisory reports published by the Animal Welfare Committee. Its existence and role have no statutory duty, while the animal sentience committee will be a creature of statute.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, asked about the resources, as did a number of other noble Lords. The Bill establishes the committee to consider how central government policies take account of animal sentience, and this will require it to be properly resourced. I am very happy to have more of that teased out in Committee, but at this stage we fully accept that this a point on which people are legitimately concerned, and we are determined that this committee shall work. We will produce a committee that has the necessary means to do this. However, if we fix resources, we put a limit, in effect, on what it can do. It is better to work this out as it starts to go about its business and we can gain an accurate understanding of the nature of its ambition, and then our resources will reflect its needs.
My noble friend Lady Fookes is concerned about the recommendations on improvements to animal welfare and why the Bill talks only about “adverse” effects. The committee’s role will encourage policymakers to think about the positive improvements that they can make to animal welfare—not just minimising adverse effects. Its reports may include recommendations to that effect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and my noble friend Lady Hodgson asked about the guidance for the committee. There will be guidance, and we expect to consult on this. We do not want to direct the committee’s priorities and the work that it does because its members are the experts and we want them to decide what issues they should look at.
In addition, there are some very clever Ministers—I do not put myself among them—and officials, but very few of them are experts in this field. To the noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Ridley, who asked why this is necessary, I say that there is a long history of expert committees advising government, and we should not be afraid of that. What matters is what Ministers do with that advice. The committee will opine on issues, but of course Ministers will take a much broader view.
It is dangerous to use examples, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and others have raised the issue of religious slaughter. The committee may decide a particular point on this, but a Minister will have to take into account the wider considerations of cultural and religious organisations and form a view in accordance with that. The same can be applied to farm animals: as my noble friend Lord Robathan said, taking an animal to slaughter is not a pleasant experience for it, to say the least. However, there is a wider issue with regard to producing meat and the benefit that that brings to our environment and people in this country.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth is concerned about fishing. I have received interesting letters concerning the future and the rights and wrongs of fishing, and I share his enthusiasm for that sport. The way we harvest wild fish to eat is highly regulated, and we want to make sure that the British public have access to good quantities of healthy, sustainably produced fish. If the committee were to make a recommendation on how our trawlers operate and how wild fish are caught, or indeed, how my noble friend fishes on a river, the Minister would have to look at the wider implications.
I say to noble Lords who are concerned about other matters that there are plenty of opportunities in this House and the other place to bring in legislation, whether on dog collars, farm animals or whatever. This Bill has no effect on the democratic ability of Governments and Members of this legislature to bring legislation forward. What it does do is provide expert advice to Ministers in order to take forward a greater understanding of the measures needed to get better legislation. There has been much criticism in this debate of the standard of legislation that has come before us in other forms. This is an attempt to ensure that we are thinking about something that Governments ought to think about.
My noble friend Lord Herbert raised the issue of sentimentality, and a number of noble Lords have talked about anthropomorphising animals. A considerable amount of blame was laid at the door of Disney. We are not trying to sentimentalise here or create something that will take the debate on animals into a place it need not and should not go. We are recognising sentience in domestic law to provide reassurance that central government policy decisions have been made with all due regard to the fact that animals can experience feelings both positive and negative, such as joy and pain.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, talked about the jurisdiction of this matter, an issue rightly raised by a number of noble Lords. This committee will look at the reserved matters that all legislation covers, and devolved matters will be left to devolved Governments. For example, an activity undertaken by the Ministry of Defence would be a reserved matter; the decision of the committee would reflect the whole United Kingdom. It cannot talk about legislation in Northern Ireland reflecting devolved matters, and I think that is an understanding devolved Governments have accepted and taken forward.
My noble friend Lord Howard raised an important point about judicial review. I want to come back to this because it is really important. The EFRA Select Committee, in its criticism of the original attempt to legislate on this matter, was right and pointed out that it did expose risks. The purpose of the report will be to set out the committee’s own views on the question of whether, or to what extent, the Government are having, or have had, all due regard to the way the policy under review might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. However, responsibility for policy decisions remains with Ministers, who must come to their own conclusions about how different relevant considerations should be weighed up and what weight should be given to them. The Government’s response to a report from the committee will help explain to Parliament why the Government may have legitimately reached a different conclusion to the committee.
Alternatively, if the Government intend to review the policy decision in light of the committee’s views, they can say so. If the Government’s response is found to be wanting, it might be possible for someone to establish sufficient grounds to bring a judicial review, but we believe that in this situation the grounds on which that judicial review might be brought forward would present, irrespective of the committee’s report. This is really important, and I urge all Members of this House who may be thinking about bringing forward amendments to consider that we want to keep the control of these issues in this House and not in the courts.
My noble friend Lady Deech made a point about experiments. The Government have no plans to change the regulatory system for the use of animals in science. The use of animals in scientific research remains a vital tool in improving our understanding of how biological systems work, both in health and disease. She is entirely right to pay tribute to the work done on bringing forward the vaccine, which we are all benefiting from.
A number of noble Lords, including the Opposition spokesman and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, wanted to know more about who the members of the animal sentience committee will be. The standard public appointment rules will apply to appointments to the committee; we intend to run a fair and open recruitment process and achieve a diversity of talent and experience that will be the key asset of the committee. I refer noble Lords to the Governance Code on Public Appointments. I am not going to go into detail now, or at any stage in this process, about what the membership of the committee should precisely contain. However, we do think there should be a broad group of experts, undoubtedly involving academia and veterinary expertise, and a number of others. My noble friend Lady McIntosh talked about farmers and I entirely agree with what she said. I hope all those involved in the raising of animals, be it on farms or in other settings, will feel that they are represented—not necessarily on the committee, but in that their views are represented.
I will finish by addressing the concerns expressed by my noble friends Lord Hannan and Lord Bellingham about the rationale of the Bill. Nowhere in UK law is the concept of animal sentience—their capacity to have feelings and a level of conscious awareness—recognised. This Bill recognises that fundamental principle and provides a statutory basis for the welfare needs of sentient animals to be properly reflected in all government policy-making, in a reasonable and proportionate way—I emphasise “reasonable” and “proportionate”—and it is vital that, throughout the process of this Bill, we recognise that.
I am very grateful to noble Lords for a thoroughly interesting and useful debate, as a curtain-raiser for this legislation. I look forward to seeing it in Committee, with your Lordships’ support, and to debating some of these points in more detail. I commend this Bill to the House and beg to move.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps and Other Provisions) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Regulations laid before the House on 15 June be approved.
Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, we are making excellent progress along the spring 2021 road map, and we now have one of the most open economies and societies in this part of the world. But we all want to see restrictions lifted even further, and on that I am optimistic. However, we know we cannot be complacent. As the Prime Minister set out in his address to the nation on Monday, we do need to hold at step 3 of the road map for just a little longer. This is vital. The very latest scientific data and evidence show us that we must proceed with the utmost caution. By pausing at step 3, we are seeking to protect the progress we have made on infection rates and the vaccine rollout, and to make absolutely certain that we are on a stable footing before we go further.
Unfortunately, the prevalence of the highly transmittable vaccine escapee delta variant has shifted our assessment of the risks. It is now the dominant variant across England, accounting for 90% of cases, and it is set to spread around the world. Its R number is estimated to be 60% to 80% higher than the previously most widespread alpha variant. The overall R number in England has increased and is now between 1.2 and 1.4, meaning that we are in the age of doubling times. We need to be in an age of halving times. Early evidence suggests an increased risk of hospitalisations with the delta variant compared with the alpha. This pause will bring us more time in the race between the vaccine and the virus. It will ensure that we as a nation are equipped as well as we can be to take on the virus and the delta variant.
Can I say a word about the vaccine? Increasing the number of second jabs is absolutely crucial. The data that we have at the moment suggests that the vaccines are less effective against symptomatic disease cause by the delta variant, but that protection increases after two doses. Two doses of the vaccine has now been shown to be highly effective in reducing hospitalisation from the delta variant, with the latest PHE data suggesting that this could be 96% for the Pfizer vaccine and 92% for the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine after the second dose.
In this time, while we pause step 3, we will deliver many more first and second vaccine doses. There are currently 1.2 million over-50s and 4.3 million over-40s who have had their first jab but have not had their second. By 19 July all those over 50 and the clinically extremely vulnerable who have had their first doses by mid-May will have had their second dose—or will have been offered it. Second doses for all over-40s will be accelerated by reducing the dosing interval from 12 weeks to eight weeks. All over-40s who received a first dose by mid-May will be offered a second dose by 19 July. All adults aged 18 and over will be offered a first dose by 19 July, two weeks earlier than planned.
I am confident that we can hit those targets, not least because our vaccination programme has made great progress. A network of vaccination sites continues to operate brilliantly across the UK; there are now more than 1,990 vaccination sites in England, with more coming on line in the days and weeks ahead. Thanks to the tremendous efforts of all those involved, more than 41.8 million people in the UK have received their first dose and 30.2 million their second. From today, all adults over 21 can book their first dose.
Vaccine supplies are robust and delivering to forecast. For the Pfizer vaccine, we expect supply in June to be 30% more than in May, and July’s will be 80% more than in June. Supplies should be sustained at this level in August. So I thank everyone involved in the vaccination programme for their continued efforts to maintain this tremendous progress over the weeks ahead.
I would like to anticipate a couple of the questions that may arise in the debate ahead, and I will start with borders. A number of noble Lords have asked why, if the delta variant has changed our assessment so much, we did not act sooner, protect our borders more quickly and prevent the variant entering the country. I would say that we did act quickly to reduce the importation of the delta variant; we took the decision to add India to the red list immediately upon being advised that this lineage of variant was potentially higher risk than any other variants under investigation, and several days before the delta was considered a variant of concern. We acted quickly and with caution. The contribution of variants to the surge in cases in India was at that time unclear. We added India to the red list on 23 April, with arrivals having to quarantine for 10 days in a hotel. Before India was red listed, everyone had to quarantine on arrival for 10 days, take a pre-departure test and two further tests on days 2 and 8 of quarantine.
The decision to add and remove countries from the red list is made by Ministers, informed by the latest scientific data and public health advice from a world-leading range of experts. As with all our coronavirus measures, we keep the red list under constant review, and our priority remains to protect the health of the UK public. However, this does not change the fact that this virus is a formidable enemy and needs to be tackled on many fronts. Border measures are important, but that does not mean that we can be complacent elsewhere. We have learned that Covid likes to take advantage of complacency, which is one reason why we each need to take individual responsibility for tackling the virus. We all need to follow the public health advice to protect the progress that we have made.
I will now move on to a topic that I know many noble Lords are interested in: singing. We are aware that singing can increase the risk of Covid-19 transmission through the spread of aerosol droplets. It is particularly dangerous indoors, where the particles can build up and, as with any activity, the cumulative effect of aerosol transmission means that the more people are involved, the higher the risk of transmission. The guidance mirrors our approach elsewhere to be more cautious indoors than outdoors and to be mindful of the impact that our actions have on other people.
Finally, can I say a word about adult social care vaccination? An extensive six-week consultation on making the vaccine a condition of employment for care home staff concluded on 26 May. It saw a fantastic level of engagement; we see a clear public health rationale for driving vaccination uptake in care homes.
So I am confident that we will be in a stronger position by 19 July. This pause at step 3 will help us reduce the number of hospitalisations and deaths and will protect the NHS. I commend these regulations to the House.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Robathan
To leave out all the words after “that” and insert “this House declines to approve the Regulations laid before the House on 15 June because (1) the measures are disproportionate, and (2) no impact assessment has been prepared for them.”
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, we are told it is “one last heave”, “a teeny bit longer”, “just a little longer” and “we only rely on the data, not the dates”. “Freedom day”, which was meant to be next Monday, has now been replaced by “terminus day”, 19 July. I hope we all believe in freedom. It is no business of the Government to tell us whether we can, for instance, hug people. They can advise perhaps, but not order us. People should be free to make their own decisions and their own assessment of risk.
We have been told since this started 15 months ago so many contradictory things. I shall start at the beginning: “Stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives”. I understand—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—that 1% of hospital patients are now in for Covid-related issues. Are the hospitals overwhelmed? Is the NHS protected? It is not like Italy last March. On “save lives”, according to the Times, yesterday there were three Covid deaths. The average number of daily deaths over the past four weeks has been in single figures. We know that more than 75% of deaths are among the over-80s; we know that underlying health conditions—obesity, diabetes, respiratory problems or infections—are normally contributory factors to fatalities. The Prime Minister said that the extension to these regulations would save “thousands of lives”. I am not sure that is right.
This is a very serious and unpleasant virus that is killing people, but it is not the Black Death, the Great Plague or the Spanish flu. I ask every Peer in the Chamber or listening how many people they know—not know of, but know: friends or family—who have died of Covid. Most people will say none. I know two. One was an 89 year-old relation with severe dementia in a care home—where, by the way, he caught the virus; the second was a charming, really nice 55 year-old who had been working in the Commons tea room ever since I got there, Julia Clifford. It was a tragic death and I am so sorry. She had leukaemia, for which she was being successfully treated by the NHS with chemotherapy. Her immune system was damaged, and she caught the virus in hospital.
Other advice included, “It’s pointless to wear face masks”—we were told that until August last year. I can see some wisdom in wearing them, but we are now told that droplets of breath escape from the sides—I really do not know, but I deprecate the litter they have brought. We were told “wash your hands”—very good hygiene—and “clean surfaces”. Now a study shows—I do not know whether it is true—that one in 10,000 cases are contracted from surfaces, and many fewer than 10,000 cases were reported yesterday. Can my noble friend tell me whether that study is correct?
The Government say that “we are following the data”, but we are not; we are being spooked by the possibilities of risk. The only huge success story is vaccinations. I congratulate the Government, all those involved, Kate Bingham—who was criticised by some members of the Opposition for being, first, successful and, secondly, married to a Conservative Minister—and the Minister, Nadhim Zahawi. Is it not the case that 95% of vulnerable people—those most at risk of death or severe consequences—have now been vaccinated? So who are we protecting and from what risk?
If I might digress, mandatory testing for travellers is a completely pointless racket and hugely expensive. I went to Lisbon a couple of weeks ago. I had three tests to go on a long weekend. Two were in the UK. There was a special deal; the price was reduced by 50% to £120, but while I was away it went down to £86, so that is a huge profit for the company. As two vaccinated people, we paid a total of about £450 for tests.
We are literally mortgaging our children’s future. They will be paying off the national debt for decades. We are deliberately harming our country; this is deliberate self-harm. Even Tony Blair, with whom I disagree about most things, says that some 6 million jobs may be lost offshore, and the data shows me that this is unnecessary. Airlines, the travel industry, hospitality—all are hugely harmed. Hotels, pubs and restaurants have closed and will never open again. The impact on education and our children’s development is horrendous, and what is it for? The data says that there was an average of fewer than 10 deaths daily post the vaccination success, but in the summer something like 1,300 people die daily in the UK, and there is an average of some 1,700 deaths each day over the year.
It gives me no pleasure to move this fatal amendment to the Motion, but I fear that the Government’s policy is foolish and harmful, and I know a great many people agree with me. The Government admit that they do not know the impact. I shall quote from page 4 of the regulations:
“No impact assessment has been prepared for these Regulations.”
The front page says that this is a
“serious and imminent threat to public health”.
Is it really, if the vulnerable have all been vaccinated? Is it proportionate to close businesses and put people out of work for very little? To repeat my noble friend Lord Hannan in the last debate, to what problem is this SI the answer? We need to live with the virus, as the Chancellor and, I think, the Prime Minister have said, and we need to live with risk. Parliament is responsible for legislation, especially of course the House of Commons, rather than here. We are being asked, as parliamentarians, to suspend our critical faculties. This measure does not deserve to be nodded through. It impacts adversely on too many lives and on our country’s future. I shall, with regret, divide the House today, in the hope that many who agree with me will wish to be counted.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
First, I thank the Minister for his briefing this morning, which I found extremely interesting and useful. I thought at first that I had strayed into a private seminar with the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the Minister, but after half an hour other people managed to get in. Having said that, the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, were very pertinent and well answered by the Minister and his officials. I also watched the debate in the other place this afternoon, so there are obviously a lot of outstanding issues.
I support these regulations with a heavy heart. I accept a lot of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said about the impact on our economy. I want to ask, for instance, about compulsory vaccination for care home staff. Does that extend to care staff who go round various houses on the same day? If it does, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that their civil liberties are protected, that they get financial support and that the vacancy rate for care staff, which is already over 100,000, is actually tackled?
One point that came up frequently is the need to get rid of sloganising. We do not want “freedom day” or “terminus day”; we want facts and proportionality, in the way that the Minister is very good at. This sloganising does not help—it builds unrealistic expectations and diverts us from the detail.
Finally, there is an extraordinary thing about this fatal amendment. If I had read this letter from the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister was Keir Starmer and I was then moved to table a fatal amendment, questioning my Prime Minister when he said:
“By being cautious now we have a chance in the next four weeks to save many thousands of lives by vaccinating millions more people”,
it would be a very serious thing to try to kill off that statement. So, what is it about the Prime Minister that the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, does not think is to be trusted? I very much hope that the House will turn this down. It is not just an opportunity for a debate; this is a matter of life and death.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, here we are again, discussing emergency regulations because of incompetence and lack of speed by government. It is appalling that the Government did not take the correct decision to put India on the red travel list in early April, at the same time as Bangladesh. Yesterday, the Minister said that I should stand in his shoes about that decision. I note that, time after time, both the noble Lord and the Secretary of State gave the reason for Bangladesh but not India going on the red list as the positivity rate.
The data that I am about to read were on the Minister’s desk when the decision was made. In the two weeks leading up to Bangladesh going on the list, its positivity rate—based on the Government’s own test and trace data—was 3.7%. India’s positivity rate was 5.1%. You do not have to be a genius to work out that India’s positivity rate was higher than Bangladesh’s. Can the Minister explain why, when India had a higher positivity rate than Bangladesh, based on the Government’s own test and trace data, Bangladesh was put on the red list and India was not.
That catastrophic mistake by government meant that, rather than just under 40 seeded cases of the delta variant being in the UK on 2 April, it went up to nearly 1,000 seeded cases by the time that India was put on the red list. Public health research shows that, if India had been put on the red list at the same time as Bangladesh, it would have given four to seven weeks’ grace before we started hitting the surge levels of the delta variant that we are seeing now. That would have meant that everybody over 40 could have received a second dose—in four weeks—or everyone over 30—in seven weeks—and all adults would have had a single dose of the vaccine. The Government were driven by a date: a date for the Prime Minister to visit India to look for a trade deal. A consequence of Ministers not following the data is that trade in this country is now suppressed for four weeks. This is a disgraceful abdication of following the data and keeping our country safe. The country deserves far better than this. It is clear that the Minister and the Government made the wrong call.
We will have to live with the virus as it becomes endemic, and take measures to support this. One area where change is required is self-isolation. Evidence is overwhelming that the biggest impediment to people self-isolating, or even taking a test, is practical support and financial security for the whole period of isolation. We do not need pilots to re-prove this; action from the Government is required now. A self-isolation system that gives individuals both the practical and financial support to isolate for the full period will be essential to minimise future local lockdowns. Despite repeated requests from these Benches to pay people their full wages, the Government will still not do so. They need to address this now and not continue to ignore the data.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, if anyone had told me when we first debated Covid controls that we would still be in lockdown over a year later despite, first, only 1% of hospital beds being filled by Covid patients, and, secondly, that vaccines that are between 92% and 96% effective had been given to over half the UK adult population, including the vast proportion of those most at risk, I would not have believed them. This creeping government control of daily life, aided by all opposition parties, in a country which used to be free, is depressing. There is always an excuse for new controls: pressure on the NHS; risks from new variants; long Covid. Will this ever end? Most importantly, what could be any different in four weeks’ time?
The extension is yet again a fait accompli, but I will make two points. First, it is extraordinary that cost-benefit is still neglected. Every week of continued lockdown is costing billions. We are crippling our economy, which is still well below last year’s levels. Debt is building up on a scale not seen since World War II. Inflation is taking off. Some 5 million are on NHS waiting lists, which will lead to unnecessary deaths. It is difficult to see your GP and visits to patients and old people’s homes are restricted, causing unhappiness. University students have had their academic careers affected and mental health problems have increased. The streets are blighted by old masks and the internet by Covid scams. There is almost no overseas travel. Furlough schemes are still running and being phased out too slowly, stopping the labour market working properly. Bars, fruit farms and even the NHS are short of staff, but billions are being spent on furlough, adding to the eye-watering £70 billion cost which the Minister mentioned yesterday.
There is an extraordinary, time-consuming bureaucratisation of life: costly social distancing; paperwork in every pub; a huge amount of time in every respectable company devoted to observing the rules. Now there are rafts of costly cancellations as well—for example, of cricket tickets, to declare a personal interest. My noble friend has always been resistant to cost-benefit analysis, which I find surprising given his esteemed business background. Is this being looked at in a broad way for the future management of pandemics?
My second point is about the misuse of emergency powers. Has the Minister read the blistering report by the Constitution Committee? I hope that that powerful paper leads to some necessary, even if tardy, reflection in government circles. When I worked in government, we took pride in helping Parliament to scrutinise, cost and help Ministers come to the right conclusions. I think that such an approach might lead to greater success.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, public health is more important than it has ever been, apart from during the Black Death and the Spanish flu. We now have a variant that is more serious than the original coronavirus. The delta variant is relentless and sweeping across the UK. It is attacking young people who have not been vaccinated and are at risk of getting long Covid. It has also put some people who have not been vaccinated in hospital. A young student at school in Gloucestershire told me that the class above his had got the virus, and the class and teacher were isolating. Young people do not want to be spreaders. When can they be vaccinated? Is the problem that there is a shortage of the Pfizer vaccine?
I hope that the Government will think again about senior schoolchildren wearing masks. There is confusion about mask wearing. At the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, people were told that masks were not necessary. Prevention is better than cure. I send my heartfelt condolences to all the families whose loved ones did not make it. It is a very difficult matter to have to continue with restrictions, but with the rise in infections again, I think that it is the right thing to do.
I am concerned that there are staff working in hospitals, in care homes and visiting people in their own home who have not been vaccinated and do not want to be. They could be putting patients and their colleagues at risk. Perhaps, they should not work in contact with people. Local authorities are given enforcement powers. How are these going to be enforced?
Having read the information for health protection, I am not clear on the outcomes before 19 July 2021. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House clearly about air travel, weddings and funerals. How many people are allowed at these functions?
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, many of you will remember going past Westminster station last week to see a crowd of people shouting about freedom—young, intelligent people, many of them properly educated, not wearing masks, crowded together in a mass. Indeed, those of your Lordships who travel on the Northern line, as I have done today and all this last week, will have seen numerous young people not wearing masks, as there is no enforcement of that. They are a risk to other people, young and old. Nothing is being done about it because it is not being enforced. There is nobody on the Tube to enforce it.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, with great interest, as I always do. His wide and extensive knowledge of medicine and science does not need to be explained to the House, nor indeed his undoubted expertise in statistics. That is admirable. Indeed, I have listened to him with great interest in this Chamber and on the Long Table from time to time. I also recognise that he will very much understand the issue of human ethics. As a distinguished soldier, he will remember the paramount issue for all people, including soldiers: we try at all times, above all, to protect human life.
Therefore, it is important for us to consider that this is a very difficult situation. As a practising soldier, the noble Lord will know the difficult choices that are made in order to protect life. I suggest to him that, although extensive, his knowledge is not likely to be as extensive as that of those expert advisers giving advice to the Prime Minister. I have no doubt at all that the Government have made very many mistakes, but we are not here to discuss those mistakes. They are undoubtedly riding high on the output of vaccines. They have been very lucky, and we are glad that they have been lucky because we could been very unlucky, whichever Government had been in power.
The fact is that the Government have succeeded, and it is really important, at this moment of national tension, when people are still not fully prepared to accept what is necessary to regulate us, that people respect what the Government are doing. To challenge the Government at this moment is a shocking risk. It is an ethical risk to do that because these people will be damaging lives. We see those people in the streets and I will see them on the Tube when I go home tonight. Even if I told them to wear a mask, they would be abusive at the very least and I would possibly do it at my own risk.
We have to recognise that there is a need for us to be supportive, not to undermine Parliament and this instrument. To do so would bring this measure into disrepute and bring more distrust and concern. What the Government need to do is to communicate better. I do not say to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, that that is easy, as he knows that very well, but the communication we have all done has not been good enough. We need to find a way somehow to encourage those young people to think about their responsibilities to their parents, grandparents and other people in our community.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support the postponement of the easing of restrictions and reject the fatal amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, as daily cases have now jumped to 9,000. We need more time to continue the vaccination programme before it will be somewhat safer to ease restrictions.
However, people are still suffering economically, so can the Minister say whether the furlough scheme will be extended, as well as the ban on domestic evictions, now that the Government have extended the ban on commercial evictions? Can he also tell us about the border restriction system? New variants will arise wherever large amounts of virus circulate and some may be resistant to the current vaccines. Have the Government learned from their disastrous mistake in not red-listing India three weeks earlier, when the information indicated they should? Have the criteria been adapted to prevent such a mistake happening again?
Clearly, Covid will continue to circulate in the UK for a long time after we ease restrictions, so an effective test, trace and isolate system is as important as ever. The weak link is the isolation system. An internal Whitehall assessment, seen yesterday by the media, of the financial support for those who need to isolate gave the system a low to medium effectiveness rating. Barriers and disincentives exist, particularly for those on low incomes or in precarious work, so more needs to be done.
Every time my noble friends and I have raised this over the past 15 months, the Minister has referred to the £500 grant, ignoring the fact that it is not available for most people who apply for it because they believe they really need it. I heard yesterday about a pilot scheme for increasing this support. We do not need more pilot schemes; we need immediate action. We will be living with this virus for a long time and, if nothing is done to improve isolation rates, the restrictions that the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, so abhors will have to be reintroduced in the winter.
One thing that should be done straightaway is to increase sick pay. The current sick pay rates are not enough for a mouse to live on. No wonder people go into work coughing, spluttering and spreading germs of all sorts—they cannot afford to stay at home. In the end, encouraging people to stay at home could increase the country’s productivity by reducing the number of fellow workers catching transmissible infections. We need a culture change on that.
However, coughs and colds are by the by. We have not yet conquered Covid-19. The Government must use these extra few weeks well, not just to vaccinate more people but to transform the isolation rate for the better. Can the Minister therefore tell us how the Government plan to achieve this?
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, as the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary have said repeatedly, we ultimately will have to learn to live with Covid. This means accepting that a tiny proportion of those who are immune, either because they are young and healthy or because they are have been vaccinated, will none the less succumb to Covid in future, which will continue to circulate as the flu and other viruses do.
We have already offered the vaccine to all those who are particularly susceptible through age and health condition. That accounts for 99% of potential deaths. Some 30 million of those people have had both jabs and are as safe as they ever will be; 12 million have had the first jab so are already partly protected. We are told that the only reason for extending the regulations is to give those people time to have the second jab. Surely it would be possible to say to those 12 million people, “If you want to achieve the maximum level of protection, you should, during the remaining 10 weeks, make sure that you behave very cautiously in who you mix with and obey more restrictions than the Government are imposing upon you.”
Of the remainder, a few have chosen not to be vaccinated. That is their right and their risk. They should not be able to hold the rest of us to ransom. The young and the fit face a tiny risk of fatality commensurate with other risks with which they also live and, I am told by officials, commensurate with the tiny risk of blood clots from the AstraZeneca jab. I can see no reason to extend the controls beyond 21 June. The only reason given was this business about allowing the people who have had one jab to have their second. Surely that should be left to their personal responsibility.
During the seminar this morning to which the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, referred, I was told that there is an additional reason: many of the 30 million people who have had two jabs could be infected asymptomatically and spread the virus. But who could they spread it to? The answer is: only people who are already vaccinated or are too young to be at serious risk. By definition, therefore, there is no reason for these regulations. I shall oppose them and possibly even vote against them via the fatal amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I have no problem with the step approach that the Government have taken. For the country psychologically, it has been a very good thing that there has been a plan, even if that plan has had to be modified. Restrictions have been a necessity even if they can be fine-tuned. I do not support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Robathan.
The problems lie in other areas, including how quickly the Government react. We cannot afford to make another mistake like we did in letting the delta variant into the country, which is the very reason for the four -week delay. I ask the Minister the same question I asked in the helpful meeting earlier today so that it can be put on the record: how carefully are the Government watching other countries? In Vietnam, for instance, where there may be a different strain of the virus, cases are rising quickly. That country is currently on the amber list.
The Minister will appreciate that, for the arts, hospitality and night-time sectors, this delay in progressing the road map will be devastating. The live events organisation LIVE estimates that 5,000 events will be cancelled and over £0.5 billion in revenue will be lost. It is essential more than ever that a government-backed insurance scheme should be put in place for both music events and indeed for commercial theatre.
I ask the Government to provide much greater transparency over the results of their Events Research Programme, whose results should be published in full. If findings can support full reopening of similar settings as in the pilot events, we need to know this as quickly as possible. Thousands of jobs and livelihoods are at stake. Despite what the Minister said earlier, I ask the Government to look again at the restrictions on amateur choirs and the most recent scientific evidence supporting some lifting of the current restrictions, such as the Costello PERFORM study, which, somewhat ironically, allowed some opening up of professional settings in the autumn. But the many amateur choirs up and down the country are not hobbies; they are organised creative activities, often led by professionals, and should be treated as such.
Although the Government are signalling that they want to wind financial support down, we should not forget that many freelancers continue to fall through the gaps in support. Some 40% of musicians have still received no financial support. Many of the 1.3 million PAYE freelancers who have received no support now for well over a year work in the creative sector, many also in digital technologies and many in small businesses. There are two things here. There is the misery these freelancers have been going through, which anyone who attended the last Gaps in Support APPG meeting will be very well aware of. But there is also the effect this is having on the industries themselves. Highly skilled workers are being forced out of their jobs and some are leaving the country, including coders. These industries, which should be at the forefront of recovery, deserve protecting and the Government should look at this again.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this debate today and declare my music festival interest as stated in the register.
Can my noble friend tell your Lordships’ House what the Government are doing to correct the appallingly low take-up of vaccinations in some areas of London such as Tower Hamlets, where only 24% of adults have had a single dose and only 49% both doses? Indeed, in London as a whole, 20% fewer adults have had either one or two doses compared with the country at large.
Along with millions of other citizens, I could understand the logic of the Government’s original decision to introduce lockdown measures to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed, in spite of the successful rushed construction of the Nightingale hospitals, which much reduced the likelihood of that happening. There was and is a balance between protecting people from serious illness and death from the disease and avoiding serious damage to the economy and peoples’ livelihoods. Whether or not the Government have always got that balance right since the onset of the pandemic, I sincerely think that the decision to extend further restrictions is not justified, and I will support my noble friend Lord Robathan if he should decide to divide the House. I do not believe there is any real possibility of the NHS being overwhelmed by this new spike in the Indian, or delta, variant.
The information presented at the Downing Street press conference was selective and misleading. It purported to show that hospitalisations are now rising following the surge in infections. However, examination of the data on the number of patients in hospital as opposed to the number of admissions to hospital gives a rather different picture. The number of in-patients with Covid is flatlining, because most of those admitted to hospital are not seriously ill and are discharged after a much shorter period than was the case in previous waves. Is it not now unreasonable to argue that the NHS is anywhere near being at risk of being overwhelmed?
The damage to the economy and particularly to the entertainment and creative sectors is now more serious. The Government have helped many businesses survive until now, through various schemes including the Culture Recovery Fund. However, there are many among those whose survival they have assisted that are now between a rock and a very hard place. For example, music festivals scheduled for dates after 21 June but before 19 July have no alternative now but to cancel. Those scheduled for later dates must make a judgment as to whether to go ahead without insurance—a substantial risk, as they have to incur irrecoverable expenses to make necessary preparations. Can my noble friend tell the House if the Government will, at last, put in place a suitable insurance scheme, which is so desperately needed? On that point, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, I reluctantly support this extension for the reasons my noble friend the Minister has given. Personally, I would have taken the risk since, although the number of cases is rising, deaths are not. There is no danger of the NHS being overwhelmed and, in any case, I always thought the NHS was there to save us, not the other way round.
But I am afraid the Government had to do this or else they would have been accused of not following the scientific advice and we would have yet more rent-a-quote professors from SAGE, NERVTAG or whatever these groups are called popping up in the media, spouting about catastrophe. Like my right honourable friend Michael Gove, I am heartily sick of scientists now. From even the first press conference way back last March, as soon as Vallance or Whitty sat down, the media—both TV and press—produced a professor from SAGE who contradicted them and said it was too slow or too fast, or few would die or half a million would die. Will my noble friend not insist on collective responsibility from these advisory organisations and sack those who do not accept it? They are frightening the public unnecessarily with their one-off, individualistic views.
I must congratulate the Government again on their masterful handling of the vaccination programme. The NHS gets the credit for sticking needles in arms, but there would be no needles or vaccinations to stick in arms if the PM had not given Kate Bingham the instruction to save lives, and she pulled together a fantastic private enterprise team to do just that. Then we had the brilliant decision of the Secretary of State for Health to tell Oxford to go with AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca deserves our everlasting praise and thanks.
Look at the top 20 countries in the world for percentage of population vaccinated; nine of them are the United Kingdom and our overseas territories. Look at the countries that have done the most injections overall; we are in the top three. Therefore, in terms of population vaccinated and sheer numbers, we are the first in the world and I congratulate my noble friend and all Ministers on that magnificent achievement.
I was pleased to read today that the Government will make it compulsory for care home staff to be vaccinated—and about time too—but what about NHS staff? It is utterly unacceptable for there to be refuseniks among NHS staff. That should be a gross misconduct offence, leading to a final written warning and dismissal. Why should patients who have followed the rules and had their vaccinations be put at risk going into an NHS hospital and brushing shoulders with staff who refuse to be vaccinated?
Finally, I hope the whole country will not be stuck in lockdown again because some areas or groups of people refuse to be vaccinated. If people in London or Bolton do not want vaccinations, tough luck on them, but the rest of the country should not suffer because of their stupidity. They should be at the end of the queue for hospital treatment, behind people who have had their vaccinations but require other essential medical care.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I refer to the register of interests to the extent that any are relevant to this debate. I know that many were disappointed when the Prime Minister announced on Monday evening that he would not be lifting all the coronavirus restrictions next week but instead leaving them in place until at least 19 July. I do not demur from that decision, as it is important that the Government look at the data and the vaccination figures to help them decide. Given the speed at which the delta variant spreads and the achievement with vaccinations, it was a wise step. Clearly, as much notice in advance would have helped, so perhaps this can be borne in mind, as many businesses need more than a week’s notice to gear up to open.
I will speak on two aspects. The first is that many of the Government’s protections were due to expire in June. Given this delay, can these now be extended until 19 July—for example, business rates relief—particularly since businesses will not be getting the income from trade?
The second is how we can increase the take-up of vaccines. In my daughter’s central London borough, Kensington and Chelsea, the take-up of vaccines is merely 48%, compared with a national average of 78%. What more can the Government do to increase take-up, as it affects more than just the individual concerned?
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, yesterday, in a perhaps intemperate intervention, I expressed frustration over the Government’s vaccine manufacturing strategy. However, the Minister’s response—characteristically frank and generous—left me both alarmed and even more concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said that
“we make hardly any vaccine at all. It is not for us as a nation to manufacture the vaccine. Where we have contributed is, first, through the science—particularly the AstraZeneca vaccine—and, secondly, through global leadership.”—[Official Report, 15/6/21; col. 1785.]
I profoundly disagree with this strategy.
In February last year I challenged the policy on mask supply, and I now challenge the strategy on vaccine supply. I am using this SI as a peg on which to hang my case. WHO stats indicate vaccination rates of less than 5% across much of the globe. The world is becoming increasingly reliant on China, with its hugely expanding export programme, for vaccine supplies.
India, with a vaccination rate of perhaps 6%, is struggling to deal with its own Covid crisis. Covishield, under licence from AstraZeneca, Covaxin, under licence from Bharat Biotech, and potentially Sputnik are all needed to deal with the Indian crisis—there are a third of a million deaths already, and Indian vaccines are now subject to an indefinite export ban.
Therein lies the problem. Diverse vaccine ingredient supply arrangements cannot be relied on at a time when world demand is soaring. We need to ramp up our own ingredient and wider vaccine production capacity. The current vaccine shortages are an alarm call. A policy based on fortress Britain scouring the world in the future for precious ingredient supplies has huge implications for foreign policy, stability both at home and abroad, and the third world.
The answer is for the UK to change course and follow a more adventurous strategy. We should lead the world in vaccine supply with a manifold, substantial increase in full-spectrum-of-ingredients vaccine production capacity, here at home. We would win the respect of the world if we were to follow that course.
We need to listen to Gordon Brown when he stated last weekend:
“At least 11bn vaccine doses are needed to guarantee all countries the same levels of anti-Covid protection as the west. Without that … the disease will continue to spread, mutate”.
I hope we are all listening to those very wise words.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the best news of today is the letter from the Lord Speaker indicating that we will go back to normal on 6 September, debates will take place on the Floor of this House and we will not vote from our beds in the south of France.
I associate myself to a large degree with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I will not oppose the Government today for two main reasons. First, the vaccine programme has been an outstanding, unmitigated success, and we must all be grateful for that.
Secondly, on a more personal note, I have been badgering my noble friend on the Front Bench month after month for the announcement that he gave this evening about care workers in care homes and compulsory vaccination. Of course my noble friend Lord Blencathra is right about the NHS, but I implore the Minister to speed the process up. We really must make sure that the most vulnerable are not at risk from those who cater for their most intimate needs.
I also say to my noble friend, who has tried to be helpful, but was not actually terribly helpful on the singing issue—and I associate myself very much with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and my noble friend Lord Trenchard—that there has been a devastating impact on the creative music industry.
Throughout this period, there has been a lack of clarity and consistency in the messages that have come from on high. I attribute this to the fact that Parliament has not been as respected as it should have been. It was, frankly, a disgrace that the Prime Minister made his announcement to Daphne from Dewsbury in the press corps on Monday evening, when he should have been taking questions from the Member of Parliament for Dewsbury instead.
It really is crucial that we have a Government who respect Parliament. The great thing about 6 September is that after then, they will be more answerable to Parliament. We will be able to intervene on Ministers. We will be able to hold them properly to account. That is essential, because we have lost a lot during this pandemic, and the greatest loss of all could prove to be an erosion of parliamentary sovereignty. We must always make sure that we are here in great numbers from September, debating in this Chamber and in our committees and holding the Government properly to account, so that as we continue to battle this scourge—and we will—we defeat it.
Lord Lansley (Con) [V]
My Lords, speaking from Cambridgeshire, like my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Blencathra I intend to support the Government’s regulations, but I do so with significant reservations. When we discussed the previous iteration of these regulations, I think my noble friend the Minister and I agreed that the time was fast approaching when we should move from legislation and enforcement to guidance. I think that moment is now very close.
Why have the Government decided to defer the date from 21 June? Looking at the four tests, it seems to me that they can have taken the decision only on the fourth; that is, if noble Lords recall, whether variants of concern have “fundamentally changed” their risk assessment. I do not think the data supports a fundamental change in the risk assessment, but Ministers quite understandably do not yet know why, for example, a Public Health Scotland study found that hospitalisations were at twice the levels of the alpha variant. I think they want to know why this is the case.
The observation from my noble friend the Minister that 1.2 million people over 50 or clinically extremely vulnerable have yet to receive their second vaccine dose is relevant but, at 175,000 second doses a day at present, there is no reason why in the week ahead—or a fortnight at most—those requiring a second dose who are most at risk should not all receive it.
This fortnight is about finding out whether the delta variant is a variant of concern or a variant of high consequence. It has not been designated as such by the WHO, the CDC or anyone else yet. It would be so designated only if it substantially reduced the effectiveness of vaccines against it. I do not think that has yet been proven, and I hope that Ministers will look at the data literally daily and, if it is obvious that the vaccine doses are effective against the delta variant, intervene and lift the remaining legal restrictions while keeping in place so many of the social distancing and other precautionary measures we should all take as matters of individual responsibility.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I join in the thanks for the Minister’s briefings to Peers, which are helpful in the ever-changing landscape of the Covid pandemic. These Benches are pleased that we are debating these two SIs prior to them being enacted. We warned weeks ago that renewal was almost inevitable given the way that the delta variant had seeded so quickly and case numbers were increasing steeply, as they still are.
It is obvious that the delta variant is much more transmissible than the previous dominant variants. PHE has said today that the variant may have an R number as high as seven without measures. It is clear that we are at the start of a further major surge in infection and to do anything other than renew these regulations now would be a major mistake. This time last year, when the first lockdown restrictions were lifted, the daily case rate was below 1,000. Two weeks ago, it had crept up to more than 3,000. Today’s rate is a shocking 9,000. The delta variant is spreading fast, hospital admissions are increasing and in the north-west ITU beds have also increased, so my first question to the Minister is: if in two to three weeks’ time the data shows that restrictions need to continue, will he guarantee that further renewal of these SIs will be before they are brought into effect and before we go into recess?
This afternoon, it has been announced that business evictions will now be stayed until March next year. That is something, but on its own it is not enough. Why are residential evictions proceeding? For those struggling to find alternative housing, this is a real crisis. I am afraid it also sums up this Government’s attitude. They will help business tenants, but not individuals who are likely to end up homeless. Can the Minister explain why other government support for people and businesses is not being extended? The furlough scheme rates are about to reduce on 1 July and it will be abolished in September, despite hospitality not being able to open up fully, the creative sector still not being able to work and all workers still being advised to work from home if at all possible. Other support for businesses also remains firmly locked on the “freedom day” of 21 June, which is now clearly anything but.
I echo the points made by my noble friend Lord Scriven on the Government’s delay in putting India on the red list. There is only one reason why we are having to extend these regulations: the Prime Minister’s trip to India.
The Speaker of the House of Commons made it plain on Monday that the Prime Minister and his Government should not make announcements to the press first, yet today our papers are full of news that Ministers plan legislation to force social care home staff to have vaccinations. When will this be announced in Parliament? Given that the leaks seem to cover a lot that was not part of the original consultation, will the Minister answer the following questions? Will the scheme cover just care home staff? There are mutters about the wider social sector, so will it include supported living staff, staff in sheltered accommodation and staff at residential boarding schools for pupils with medical or learning disabilities? If not, what are the differences?
What will the Government do to assist the sector? Many small care providers took legal advice about whether, if they could not redeploy unvaccinated staff elsewhere, they would be liable to be sued by any staff who are sacked on Government orders. Only the Government can help to answer that. What will be the effect of this proposal on the social care workforce? Care providers are currently reporting that staff are leaving to go to work in the hospitality sector, where substantial pay increases are being offered as restrictions are lifted. Agriculture is also short of workers and is reported to be offering £20 an hour, which social care just cannot match. Will all agency staff have to be vaccinated too? What is the timescale to introduce this?
I support the call of my noble friend Lady Walmsley for proper funding for those who have to self-isolate. From these Benches, we continue to ask repeatedly for wages to be paid and, as a last resort, sick pay to be increased to a sensible level. That will increase the numbers of people self-isolating.
Overall, the proposed measures are sensible and continue part of the process of enabling local, rapid response on the ground, run by directors of public health, local authorities and local resilience forums, without the need to constantly return to central government. This process needs to include more powers over protective measures to be taken in schools, so that locally they do not need to ask the DfE for permission. With the delta variant growing in schools, rapid action needs to be taken.
To the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, I say that the tripling of cases in a fortnight, and hospitals in surge areas seeing an increase in patients—even if not as severe—are preventing our NHS from being able to tackle the backlog of urgent cases, including cancer and other serious and life-changing illnesses. I have known three people who have died of Covid—but, much more worryingly, a young family friend in her 30s has been diagnosed with terminal cancer, which was missed because of a missed smear test last year. We have to have an NHS that can operate and look after the whole population and is not just trying to catch up with Covid.
One thing is evident: with the delta variant, we are going to have to learn to live with Covid and its restrictions, whether on mask wearing or ventilation inside. At times like this, we must continue the current arrangements in some form while the variant can be seen to be working its way round to those who are still vulnerable. If we do not manage these restrictions well, we will find ourselves back in a much more stringent lockdown, which not one of us wants. We must continue to take these precautions to keep ourselves safe. We must continue to test, trace and isolate to keep everyone safe. That is why, from these Benches, we cannot support the fatal Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Robathan.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, as we discussed yesterday when we took the Statement about the delay in actioning the road map, the Prime Minister is responsible for the position we are in. He was too slow to protect the country’s borders and too indecisive to take tough decisions. This left the country exposed and allowed a new variant from overseas to take hold. The Minister waxed lyrical yesterday about how much work is being done to keep our borders safe, but the truth is that his Government failed to protect us. Because the British people did their bit by supporting the vaccine programme and getting vaccinated, in effect our Prime Minister is squandering our vaccine. That is the danger of what has happened.
I do not intend to repeat the questions I asked yesterday about why and how the delta variant arrived and thrived in the UK, because other noble Lords have asked them already. We on these Benches understand that cases and hospitalisations are rising and the delta variant is more transmissible; we therefore understand why these regulations are necessary. Even with the current restrictions in place, the daily total of positive tests is rising: the seven-day rolling average is over 7,000 new cases a day. Cases are doubling every seven to 14 days and the delta variant is dominant in the UK.
Although hospitalisations remain low, they are now rising—particularly in the north-west, but other regions are beginning to follow. Early public health data from England and Scotland points to an increased risk of hospitalisation from the delta variant, with the likelihood of hospitalisation 2.3 times higher than for those infected by the alpha variant. So we support these regulations and will be voting against the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Robathan.
I would like to turn to weddings; let us look at something joyful. These regulations leave thousands of couples, businesses and employees with uncertainty that could and should have been avoided. Under the regulations, the 30-person cap on wedding ceremonies and receptions has been removed. Speeches, cake cutting and the newlyweds’ first dance are permitted—but cash donations, dancing outdoors and hymn singing in church are advised against. Indoor dancing on dancefloors, standing drinks receptions and buffets remain banned.
This Government are of course fond of tiers and traffic-light lists but do not seem to have learned anything from the previous confusion that they have sown by issuing advice that contradicts the letter of the law. Indeed, the amber list of wedding activities that are merely advised against but not explicitly banned will surely be viewed by many as a legal loophole, just as holidaymakers travelled to and from amber-listed countries, despite being advised not to do so.
The banned list is less confusing, but it is unclear who is responsible for ensuring that the rules are enforced: is it the happy couple or the venue? Will the DJ be expected to cut the music if someone starts to sway in time to the beat? What happens if these rules are broken? Many noble Lords flagged up this inconsistency yesterday.
Having said that, the ratio of cases to hospitalisations remains the key uncertainty. Keeping restrictions in place allows more data to be gathered on the delta variant before fully unlocking, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and several others have said.
As the Minister said, vaccination is the key over the next four weeks. Does he believe that we have the vaccine supplies needed to vaccinate everyone to the timetable that he has set out, and what steps will he be taking to increase the speed of vaccinations over the coming weeks? Cases of the delta variant have been found in this country for two months, and yet, in some areas, surge testing and vaccination are yet to be implemented. Does the Minister believe that it is the failure to introduce mitigating measures early that has led to the delay to the easing of lockdown restrictions we are discussing today? We learned from the media today that there may be a shortage of the Pfizer vaccine. Is this the case, and what effect will that have on the drive to vaccinate young people in England?
Why, when we are 15 months into the pandemic, have the Government failed to take meaningful action to help businesses, schools and leisure facilities improve ventilation, when this is an airborne virus? I suggest to the Minister that we need a ventilation strategy.
The issue around care homes has been covered—but when is this likely to happen? This is a significant change and not an uncomplicated one. Will there be time for a proper debate in Parliament before it is implemented?
Leading on from that, I hope that, in a month’s time, we will be in a different place from now. I also hope that this is the last time that the House will have to discuss regulations that have such far-reaching consequences for our citizens without proper accountability and due process. I accept that this is a few days before the regulations are implemented. Surely, it is time to stop using emergency powers for matters that are clearly not actually an emergency and of which we have prior notice.
Yesterday, the Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove said that he thought partial working from home would become permanent for some people as restrictions were lifted. The Minister needs to confirm how that will happen and whether guidance will stay in place for the long haul as part of a raft of measures being considered by the Government for life after Covid? For example, there have been reports that Perspex screens are ineffective in sufficiently stopping transmission of the disease, despite businesses having invested in them. I would like to know that the ones we sit behind in our Committee Room are indeed safe.
Finally, we on these Benches yet again do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robathan. My noble friends Lady Donaghy and Lord Winston raised pertinent questions of ethics and judgment. We will vote against his amendment to the Motion if he calls a Division.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, this delay comes with huge regret—no one likes to see step 4 delayed in this way. I start by acknowledging that it will have an impact on many people’s lives. We have talked a lot in this Chamber about singing. I do not think that it is necessarily the biggest impact, but it is iconic and important. I am disappointed that I have not been able to satisfy my noble friend with my comments on it. I have the guidance on singing here, and I make it clear that the Government are not banning singing or dancing. We know that people want to get back to normal activities, but they need to acknowledge that singing and dancing can increase the risk of catching and passing on the virus. We know that singing is risky; that is proven. Covid can spread from person to person through small droplets in aerosols, and singing increases the risk of transmission through these. It is particularly dangerous indoors.
I return to the question of singing because I want to convey a sense of the science basis on which we have made these decisions and because of the importance we put on individual responsibility. We advise on amateur singers, sports matches, bars and restaurants and audience participation—I should be glad to share with the House a copy of this advice—we allow outdoor singing for amateur singers, audience participation and at sports matches, and professional choirs and singers are permitted to rehearse and perform in any number. That is a way of trying to say that a huge amount of consideration has gone into the practical impact of this advice and these guidelines, and where we have made tough decisions, it has been done with consideration.
I can give some good news to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. BEIS estimates that there will be 50,000 weddings in the four weeks from 21 June. To give the Chamber a sense of scale, assuming an average reception size of 50 people, that means that 2.5 million people will be able to go to a wedding this summer, and I know that that will be a huge relief to many of them.
I shall take a moment, a long moment, to address my noble friend Lord Lilley’s point seriously, because it is an important one. I agree with him wholeheartedly that we will learn to live with Covid, with some people catching the disease and, sadly, a very small number of them succumbing to it. The nation will need to commit to public health measures to fight new variants and outbreaks, as we have done through history. But let me address his strongly held view that we are today ready to unlock.
Yes, the vaccine programme is going well—and I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that the supplies are in place to commit to the programme as advertised—but the supply is still limited only to the supplies we have booked, so we need another month to offer it to everyone. Despite the effect of the vaccine on infection, transmission, serious disease and death, to which my noble friend referred in his very persuasive speech, infection rates are rising, and they are rising dramatically. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, put the statistics extremely well. The doubling rate in many LAs is just six days. The infection rate in schools is bubbling up. Outbreaks in social care are becoming regular.
We have been here before. To give your Lordships a specific example, in a city such as London, which has a relatively young population, there is a huge reservoir of potential novel, unvaccinated people, so we are just not quite out of this yet. Even if the vaccine does prevent severe disease, I remind noble Lords that there are more than a million—nearer 2 million—people who are immunosuppressed for one reason or another and for whom the vaccine does not offer a way out at all.
I also remind my noble friend Lord Lilley that if the infection were to be rife, even if the consequences were not disease and severe illness, it would not be consequence-free. We do not know the incidence of long Covid, but we do know that many of the people who have long Covid are completely asymptomatic, and we know that high rates of infection increase the conditions of mutation. That is what happened in Kent, to very grave effect, in September. So I say to my noble friend that I think this delay is necessary; it is right.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that red-listing is not decided by some simple algorithmic relationship to infection rates. Red-listing is used principally to keep out variants of concern. During the period that he talked about, we were understandably focused on the South African variant, and it was the South African variant that was rife in Pakistan and Bangladesh and that led us to red-list those two countries. We did not have a copy of delta. We did not have the necessary sequencing data. The WHO had not attributed it as being a VOC. Let us look at what actually happened. The delta variant became a variant of concern on 7 May 2021. By this point, India had already been on the UK red list for a full two weeks.
I absolutely sympathise with the difficulties faced by individuals, families and businesses which my noble friend Lord Robathan reflected on. On his specific point, which was also raised by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, an impact assessment was not published for this instrument because it is a temporary measure extending the steps regulations for only a short period. But I completely understand their point, and I reassure them both that in making these decisions, we continually assess the economic and societal impact of restrictions, balancing these with risks to public health.
On my noble friend’s substantive point, I am always grateful for the challenge he brings. Over the last 18 months, he has expressed his scepticism. He is sceptical about the effectiveness of lockdowns. On both 9 October and 12 November, he questioned whether additional restrictions in Leicester were having any impact at all, yet we know that lockdowns work. In Leicester, we managed to reduce the daily incidence rate from 135 cases per 100,000 on 28 June to 25.3 cases per 100,000 on 3 September.
My noble friend is sceptical about the accuracy of tests. On 6 October, he claimed that a high proportion of tests bring back false positives, yet after 193 million Covid tests, we know that this is not true. Independent confirmatory testing of positive samples indicates a test specificity that exceeds 99.3%, meaning that the false positive rate is less than 1%.
My noble friend has been sceptical about the rate of deaths from Covid here in the UK, and he is sceptical that the Covid death rate is a cause for concern. On 24 July last year, he questioned whether the death rate was really that bad. On 23 September, he told us that the death rate is still
“only between 1% and 2% of the average daily death rate in this country.”—[Official Report, 23/9/20; col. 1889.]
My noble friend is sceptical that the NHS capacity has ever been at risk. On 29 July last year, he said that hospitals were “not particularly full” and that they had not been “swamped”.
My noble friend is sceptical that world leaders are right to consider and worry about this pandemic so much. In May 2020, he said:
“According to the figures, perhaps 316,000 deaths around the world so far have been linked to CV-19. This is awful—every one is tragic—but it is not callous to point out that some 60 million people will die anyway around the world this year.”—[Official Report, 18/5/20; col. 949.]
My noble friend is sceptical about the Government’s whole response to the pandemic. I remember that he told the House:
“A huge number of people, including me, are concerned that we will overreact—although the Minister has said that we will not—and cause panic in the country, where panic should not be seen.”—[Official Report, 3/3/20; col. 521.]
He said that in March 2020, and I did not agree with him then. With 128,000 deaths in the UK and around 4 million deaths around the world, with a million people in the UK reporting long Covid symptoms, and with the rise of this nasty, highly transmissible, vaccine-evading new variant which seems set to spread around the world, I do not agree with him now.
I do not believe in doing nothing in the face of the evidence. I do not believe in leaving the elderly and vulnerable to fend for themselves or hoping that the virus will somehow blow itself out. I do not expect the economy to rock and roll even as the death toll rises and public confidence collapses. We are prepared to take tough decisions to save lives, protect the NHS and get us out of this awful pandemic, and we will continue to do so. For that reason, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, by his last rant my noble friend Lord Bethell really knows how not to get me to withdraw an amendment. I point out that, yes 127,000 people have died from or with Covid, at the same time as somewhere between 700,000 and 800,000 people have died altogether. Of those 127,000 people—and they are all tragic—three-quarters have been over 80. I am older than him—let me tell him: mortality is on the horizon.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winston, very much for the advice on military tactics. I always thought it was about judgment, risks and balancing risks. I agree with Clemenceau who said that war is too important to be left to the generals. In this case, this crisis is too important to be left to Neil Ferguson and his risk-averse colleagues. We are asked to suspend our critical faculties and called to make a judgment as parliamentarians on the evidence. I am sceptical, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said.
It is the responsibility of the other place to determine this policy, notwithstanding what has not been good treatment by the Prime Minister. I have found this debate and the feel of this House rather disappointing and pusillanimous. As far as possible, I have taken the mood of the House; it is pretty difficult at the moment. I am very happy to go over the top at any time to certain defeat, to continue the military analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, but on this occasion—notwithstanding the support of various colleagues who have urged me to force a Division—I can see that certain defeat is going to be rather overwhelming, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps and Other Provisions) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Regulations laid before the House on 17 May be approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 7 June. Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.