House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Sarah Olney
Network Rail is still working to a timetable of installing tactile paving at all train platforms by 2029, some eight years away. Given that 35% of platforms are seriously dangerous for blind and partially sighted people, will the Minister commit to ensuring that every station has the basic safety measure of tactile paving in place by 2025?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I very much hope so. I have asked Network Rail to develop a programme to install platform edge tactile strips on every platform in Great Britain as soon as possible; I have yet to receive that programme. I will make a further announcement in the very short term.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
Sir Peter Hendy is carrying out the independent Union connectivity review, which will report later this year.
Jack Brereton
Following only two days’ notice, this week East Midlands Railway has halved the train services through Stoke-on-Trent on the Crewe-Derby-Newark line to a train only every two hours. The usual hourly service is barely acceptable, so to reduce it further is totally inadequate. Will my hon. Friend work with the Secretary of State to look urgently at what can be done to restore these vital rail services and further improve local rail in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South and all along this important cross-UK east-west rail link?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend for supporting those vital rail links. I know that he is doing a fantastic job of ensuring connectivity to his constituency; I know that he spoke to the Rail Minister about it yesterday. East Midlands Railway has introduced a new timetable, but I understand that a number of challenges arose because of a different fleet, train crew issues and sickness. This has resulted in the need to swiftly implement timetable changes, but it now needs to provide passengers with a robust and reliable service.
Simon Jupp
Confidence within the aviation industry and among passengers is at an all-time low—it is shattered. The travel industry will take longer than most industries to get back to business and will need further support to survive. Will my hon. Friend speed up the review of air passenger duty and explore extending business rates relief to regional airports to help the industry weather this terrible storm?
Rachel Maclean
I absolutely commend my hon. Friend for being a continued champion for Exeter airport in his constituency, which provides jobs and employment for many of his constituents. He will know that the airport and ground operations support scheme provides eligible commercial airports with support towards their fixed costs. In the March Budget, the Chancellor announced a six-month renewal of that scheme from April. Initial payments will be made towards the end of the summer.
My hon. Friend mentions aviation tax reform. The Treasury is currently reviewing responses and will update on timing in due course.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
To follow on from the question asked by the hon. Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp), regional airports play a critical role in connecting our regions and our Union. This month, Stobart Air collapsed, and easyJet is to close its bases at Newcastle International, London Stansted and London Southend airports; Teesside and Newquay have previously shut their doors. Without a sector-specific deal, our regional airports, the connectivity that they provide and the jobs and communities that they support are at risk. What assessment has the Department made of the long-term viability of this critical infrastructure to our nation?
Rachel Maclean
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we fully recognise and support the importance of the aviation industry to our country. That is why this Government have stood behind the sector and provided up to £7 billion, in the round, of support for jobs through the furlough scheme and support for airports and the airline industry. It is vital that we get the travel industry back on its feet, which is why we are taking a public health approach to restarting travel. The Transport Secretary will say more on that this evening.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
Building on the £29 billion invested in northern transport since 2010, this Government are delivering improved connectivity to level up the north.
Jason McCartney [V]
Does the Minister agree that we need a fully integrated transport network across the north, with smart ticketing? It is not a question of either/or; we need regular affordable bus services as well as the HS2 eastern leg, as well as Northern Powerhouse Rail, as well as electrification of TransPennine rail and as well as, finally, upgrades to the Huddersfield-Penistone-Sheffield line.
Andrew Stephenson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Better transport is central to the Government’s agenda to level up the north. The TransPennine route upgrade is already under way, our national bus strategy is being delivered and we will soon publish our integrated rail plan for the midlands and the north, ensuring that transformational rail improvements are delivered as quickly as possible.
Mr Speaker
It is just that we need the TransPennine trains to go through Chorley, not Wigan.
Miriam Cates [V]
The Penistone line in my constituency connects major Yorkshire towns and cities such as Sheffield, Barnsley and Huddersfield, as well as serving smaller communities such as Penistone and Dodworth, but with only one train per hour in each direction, it does not meet the needs of local people or businesses. I have just submitted a bid to the levelling-up fund, with my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood), to upgrade the Penistone line and improve the service, but does the Minister agree that we must invest in these secondary commuter lines in the north if we are to see the same benefits in our city regions that other parts of the country already enjoy?
Andrew Stephenson
I agree with my hon. Friend that we must improve connectivity to all our communities in the north—especially Chorley—and I welcome her commitment to improving services on the Penistone line. Bids to the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund are being assessed, and we expect to announce the outcome of that competition in the autumn.
Andy Carter
As the number of commuters travelling from Warrington gradually starts to increase again, does the Minister agree that east-west links from Warrington will really benefit from investment? Could I ask my hon. Friend to update the House on plans to extend Northern Powerhouse Rail from Manchester to Liverpool via Warrington Bank Quay, and does he agree with me that the £2 billion allocated for the Golborne spur could be better spent on helping local rail links across the north-west of England?
Andrew Stephenson
The Government remain absolutely committed to Northern Powerhouse Rail and, as ever, my hon. Friend makes a powerful case for Warrington. As he knows, decisions on the routes for NPR and consideration of the Golborne spur are matters for the integrated rail plan, so he will have to be patient just a little bit longer, but I can assure him that his representations have been heard.
Mary Robinson [V]
Connectivity is key to levelling up northern communities, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to reversing Beeching cuts and restoring rail connections to towns across the region, including through the towns funding for a new railway station in Cheadle town centre. Delivering that connectivity is about timetabling and joined-up services, as well as the rail infrastructure itself. What is the Minister doing to work with Transport for Greater Manchester and other stakeholders to ensure that an integrated service is delivered and provides the regular connections that Cheadle and other communities in the region need?
Andrew Stephenson
Through the Manchester recovery taskforce, of which Transport for Greater Manchester is a member, we are working with organisations across the rail industry to develop the service and infrastructure options that will address the congestion and reliability issues across Greater Manchester and, I hope, improve the experience of all rail passengers across the region.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
This Government have a track record of over-promising and under-delivering. We know that if the north had received the same investment as London over the last decade, it would have seen £66 billion more. For all their bluff and bluster about levelling up in the north, what do we see? Services between Newcastle and Manchester to be halved, the proposed increase in the frequency of services between Teesside, Sunderland and Newcastle scrapped, Transport for the North’s budget to be cut by 40%, and now Government sources saying that they plan to pull the plug on Northern Powerhouse Rail. Just to ensure that there is no further backtracking, will the Minister guarantee that Northern Powerhouse Rail will be delivered in full, on time and on budget?
Andrew Stephenson
Of course, the hon. Gentleman tempts me to prejudge the integrated rail plan, which I will not do, because no decisions have been taken yet. However, I am happy to confirm that we are getting on with investing in Transport for the North; we are not waiting for the integrated rail plan to be delivered. On top of the billions of pounds that we have already invested in transport across the north, just on 26 May we announced two new stations outside Leeds—White Rose and Thorpe Park—and we announced an additional £317 million for the TransPennine route upgrade. Of course, over 60% of the region is now covered with metro Mayors, with historic devolution settlements. We are getting on with investing in the north of England.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
Local authorities are responsible for ensuring active travel schemes are accessible to all. Government guidance, which includes the “Cycle Infrastructure Design” publication, reflects best practice in safety and inclusivity for disabled pedestrians, cyclists and wheelchair and Motability scooter users.
Rachael Maskell
The Government are rolling out a number of pilots for e-scooters and also supporting with funding a number of schemes to expand active travel, yet those schemes do not need to have accessible formats of travel for disabled people and older people, further excluding them from the benefits of active travel and moving around in car-free environments. Will the Minister ensure that every pilot scheme is expanded so that it is fully accessible? Will he also challenge the sector to provide Motability scooters and other forms of e-travel that are fully accessible for everyone in our communities?
Chris Heaton-Harris
It is very important that local authorities consider the impacts of e-scooters on people with disabilities and allow them to access the trials as well. E-scooters have the potential to offer additional means of transport, and we allowed seated e-scooters within the scope of the trials to enable people with certain mobility issues to use them. Our guidance told local authorities to encourage groups representing the interests of disabled people in their areas to advise people with accessibility issues on how they can best use the schemes.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
We are working with the rail industry to develop a number of recovery initiatives focused on restoring passenger confidence in rail travel.
Paul Maynard [V]
Given the importance of improving train passenger numbers once the nation has fully reopened, marketing rail travel will be crucial if only to keep the Treasury happy. What support will the Secretary of State give to community rail partnerships up and down the country, which do so much to enhance the quality of local services, not just in planting out flowerbeds and making stations more attractive but in attracting the leisure passengers that we will need to travel on all our railway lines in ever greater numbers?
Grant Shapps
As a distinguished former Rail Minister, my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that community rail is very much at the heart of the recent White Paper on rail reform. He can expect to see our commitment to rail community partnerships grow in the years to come, which will, I hope, fulfil the ambitions he set out during his time as Rail Minister.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
In addition to investing £1.7 billion in ’21-22 into local roads, the Department is working towards the creation of a common data standard for the monitoring of the road condition. That will aim to drive innovation and flexibility in monitoring local roads, which will enable local authorities to target defects in their networks more quickly.
Mark Menzies [V]
First, I thank my hon. Friend for her support and that of the Department in securing the Lytham St Annes M55 link road. After years of fighting for this project I was delighted to see work get under way on Monday. I have, however, been inundated by complaints from constituents regarding the poor quality of many of Fylde’s road surfaces, so can my hon. Friend assure me that the Government are taking the resurfacing of roads seriously and not simply filling in the cracks and covering over potholes?
Rachel Maclean
May I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend for his determined campaigning over a number of years to secure the start of work on this vital road? I am sure that his constituents will be reaping the benefits in the years to come, but he is right to say that they must be able to drive on roads that are pothole-free. That is why the Government have committed £2.5 billion through the potholes fund. The Department believes that local highway authorities should develop a risk-based approach to asset management plans; that means they need to have a long-term inspection regime and be proactively maintaining those roads to ensure that they are in good condition in the years to come.
Marco Longhi
The very light rail site in Dudley—of course, Chorley could have one as well, Mr Speaker—will be a world-class innovation centre, developing and testing prototypes, and very light rail is installed on roads with minimal disruption. Does the Minister agree that it could be a game changer for public transport for the UK, and will she join me in congratulating the team on pioneering it in the west midlands?
Rachel Maclean
I am delighted to hear about more pioneering innovations in the west midlands. That does not surprise me at all; I visited the west midlands just last week to see some of its groundbreaking work across a number of travel innovations. Of course, Mr Speaker, the west midlands leads the world—I am afraid it even leads Chorley—in these matters. I strongly congratulate all those involved in the project in Coventry and Dudley. We are always interested in building on these successes and seeing them benefit more areas in the future.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
May I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend on her recognition in the birthday honours list? My HS2 land and property review, published in November 2020, set out a number of measures to speed up the payment of compensation, and we are making rapid progress in implementing the recommendations of that review.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend has done a great job since taking over as HS2 Minister, but I am sure he will agree that there is so much evidence of appalling behaviour from HS2 in the way that it is treating individual households and businesses and its slowness to compensate even the outgoing legal costs of those who are simply trying to protect their own homes and businesses. What can he do to improve the compassion, quite frankly, as well as the efficiency of HS2?
Andrew Stephenson
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful case. HS2 Ltd can and must treat those affected by HS2 with consideration and respect. To that end, I am pleased to say that the root-and-branch review of land and property cases that I commissioned is now starting to bear fruit. I hold HS2 Ltd to direct account in a fortnightly review of the most complex cases, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for drawing my attention to several pressing constituency cases in her area.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Alongside the phase-out dates, we have pledged a £2.8 billion package of measures to support the industry and consumers to make the switch to cleaner vehicles. Discussions with my colleagues are ongoing.
Ellie Reeves [V]
The 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles is a necessary step to reach our net zero targets, but to enable mass adoption of electric vehicles, we need to fix the issues around charging points. Currently, many in service do not work—or they charge inefficiently—and they are under-provided and excessively priced in some areas. Because they are run by independent providers, there is no joined-up national infrastructure. Given that we need to roll out widespread charging points across the UK and tackle these issues, does the Secretary of State agree that the Government need to invest much more and properly regulate the sector so that it is better joined-up, more reliable and more accessible?
Grant Shapps
As a driver of an electric vehicle, I have experienced the exact issues that the hon. Lady talks about. There are too many different membership cards, and people have to use too many different forms of payment and sign up to too many sites before they can even pay for the miles that they charge. We have a plan in place, which has included taking secondary legislation action that will require all chargers providing rapid charge to allow contactless payment, which I know the hon. Lady will appreciate.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
As a fellow electric car driver, I cannot wait for those regulations to come forward.
As the Climate Change Committee made clear this morning, the Government are not delivering on the policies needed to meet their climate targets. As well as incentivising EV purchases and improving EV charging infrastructure, we need EVs to be built in Britain. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with the Business Secretary about Government support for EV manufacturing at the Ford Halewood plant, which is crucial if we are to secure the future viability of the site, and about saving jobs making vehicle components at the GKN plant in Birmingham?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady will know that the Government have pledged half a billion pounds towards creating factories to produce batteries, which is a very important part of the development of electric cars. I often hear people say that we are somehow falling behind. In fact, we had the second highest sales of electric vehicles in Europe in the first quarter of this year; one in seven cars sold now has plug-in. I cannot comment directly on the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has had about those specific plants, but I can tell the hon. Lady that discussions are ongoing in order to achieve the infrastructure delivery in this country, including the manufacturing base, which will continue to ensure that we lead Europe when it comes to electric car provision.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
The East West Railway Company will consider the 2021 consultation responses. The 2019 consultation met open and fair consultation standards.
Mohammad Yasin [V]
The 2019 East West Rail consultation and the 2020 route announcement made no mention that six tracks would be needed at Bedford Midland station or of the consequential demolition in the Poets area of my constituency. I urge the Minister to please consider the many representations on this matter from members of the public, rail groups and local councillors, and Bedford Borough Council’s SLC Rail report showing a credible four-track option that would avoid the loss of homes.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is a non-statutory consultation. It is a consultation where we really do want to listen to the opinions of people affected across the route of East West Rail, and we will most certainly take into account his representations here today.
Richard Fuller
Many of my constituents are appalled at the environmental damage that the East West Rail route will cause across Bedfordshire, and baffled that this 21st-century project will use a 19th-century fuel. Will my hon. Friend please look again at the environmental considerations that East West Rail has undertaken and bring them up to scratch?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank my hon. Friend for the pragmatic and dedicated campaign that he is running on behalf of his constituents and others on this issue. I know that he has encouraged his constituents to have their say in the recent consultation, and I thank him for that too. We are committed to decarbonising our railways, and East West Rail will continue to assess the potential environmental effects as part of the route alignment development work. An environmental impact assessment will be undertaken and an environmental statement submitted when the development consent order application is made to the Planning Inspectorate.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
The transport decarbonisation plan will set out a pathway to achieving net zero. We are delivering ambitious international COP26 campaigns, including a zero emission vehicles campaign that aims to at least double the pace of the global transition to zero emission vehicles so that all new cars and vans are zero emission by 2040 or sooner; an aviation campaign that will galvanise industry, state and civil society support for international action to reduce the climate impacts of aviation; and a maritime campaign, where we will deliver important cross-sectoral opportunities for significant emissions reductions nationally and internationally.
Peter Grant [V]
The Scottish Government have committed to cutting car use by 20% by 2030 and to providing an interest-free loan for first-time buyers of new and used electric vehicles. In contrast, the British Government are cutting the grant for electric vehicle purchases by 50%. Will the Minister explain how that 50% cut in support will help to facilitate the decarbonisation of transport?
Rachel Maclean
I remind the hon. Gentleman that his constituents in Scotland, like those across the UK, have benefited from up to £1.3 billion of support to help them transition to electric vehicles. Shall we look at the facts, Mr Speaker? The plug-in car grant, the home charge grant, the on-street chargers and the workplace chargers are all funded by the UK Government for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and those across the United Kingdom.
Mr Speaker
I do apologise for the noise. There is a helicopter somewhere overhead. I know it is Transport questions, but it is getting a bit much.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
As someone who is regularly stuck in traffic on the A13, I think no one wants to return to the levels of pollution we saw before the pandemic began, particularly as emerging evidence indicates that exposure to air pollution increases the severity of coronavirus symptoms and other respiratory conditions. That is why I am so glad to see the work done by brilliant, publicly run light rail systems such as Tyne and Wear metro and Tramlink, led by fantastic local Labour administrations. Light rail networks are an effective means of reducing congestion and pollution given that they produce next to no pollution at the point of use. What assurances will the Minister give, therefore, to support projects that incorporate light rail, tram trains, and electric and hydrogen buses such as the mass transit system proposed by the new West Yorkshire Combined Authority Mayor?
Rachel Maclean
I hope the hon. Gentleman was listening earlier when I spoke at the Dispatch Box about the support that the Government have provided for the West Midlands Combined Authority, led by the Conservative Mayor Andy Street, for light rail and a number of other transport innovations. The point is, the Government are investing in zero-carbon green transport across the whole country. We intend to build back better and greener from the pandemic, and we will create hundreds of thousands of skilled green jobs across the country as we do so.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The consensus at the Transport Committee yesterday—I include the Minister in this—was that the EV market is immature. Quite why the Government would therefore reduce support when EVs are still a lot more expensive is beyond me. The fact is, they have cut the grant by 50%. In addition to what my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) said about interest-free loans, in Scotland we have doubled the home charge grant as well. On the decarbonisation plan, last week the Minister said:
“We have done a huge amount of work on the plan…I am not satisfied with the draft because it does not meet the ambition we need in order to reach those incredibly challenging targets.”—[Official Report, 16 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 117WH.]
Quite how the DFT has done extensive work on it and yet still lacks ambition is beyond me. Will we see the plan before the summer recess—yes or no?
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
We have committed to improvements on the A27, including the sections around Worthing and Lancing. Highways England is working to identify options to go to consultation next year.
Tim Loughton
As anyone setting out for Chorley from the south coast will know, Mr Speaker, the Worthing to Lancing section of the A27 is one of the most congested roads in the whole of the south-east. In 2014, we were allocated £70 million as part of road investment strategy 1. Seven years on, with several thousand additional houses nearby and with a new IKEA attracting 2 million customer journeys a year about to open, nothing has happened. Now, apparently we have just been allocated £20 million in the Budget for delivery of something between 2025 and 2030. Could we please have a bit of levelling up for infrastructure in Sussex urgently?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this vital issue. It is of course right and critical to get the right solution for the right place. Highways England is actively working on the project and, in particular, working closely with stakeholders, because this is a very sensitive area. I hope my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that Highways England is engaging and working closely with stakeholders on detailed options for the A27. There will be a consultation on all those next year.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
The Department fully expects that Eurostar will continue to be a highly successful, profitable company carrying record numbers of passengers once international travel recovers.
Jeff Smith [V]
But the Minister knows that there has been a real threat to Eurostar’s survival, and British business leaders and the Chair of the Transport Committee have all called for our Government to be part of the solution. Eurostar is not just a vital service; it contributes to our net zero agenda. When we are in a climate crisis as well as a covid crisis, does the Minister think it is right that the Government should be giving billions in loans and guarantees to air travel and risk Eurostar going under?
Robert Courts
The Government welcome the recent announcements from the company and its shareholders and lenders regarding a new financing package. We will continue to engage with Eurostar fully to understand the company’s position, but we would expect shareholders, including the majority shareholder SNCF—the French state-owned railway—to exhaust all options fully and play their full part.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
It is for local authorities in the area to promote any further improvements to local connectivity across the River Tyne.
Chi Onwurah [V]
I would like to thank the Minister for that response, but it is not really one, is it? As well as being a great icon of north-east people, culture and engineering, the Tyne bridge is an essential part of our transport infrastructure and it is in a dire state. Hon. Members from across the region, together with local authority leaders, the North of Tyne Mayor and the police and crime commissioner, have written to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Transport in support of an £18.5 million bid to the levelling-up fund. Does the Minister agree that the Tyne bridge must be levelled up if it is going to be in a fit state to celebrate its 100th birthday in 2028 as a beautiful and functional symbol of the north?
Andrew Stephenson
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I am aware of the bid that has gone in as part of the levelling-up fund. Obviously, the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will assess the bids submitted to that fund and we expect to announce the outcome of the competition in the autumn, but the Department for Transport is also aware of a proposal for the bridge including the bid for £36 million from the major road network funding developed by Transport for the North on behalf of north-east partners. DFT officials continue to work with Newcastle City Council on the business case for that proposal.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
I am pleased to say that flexible season tickets went on sale on Monday and they will be available for use from next Monday.
James Sunderland
Back in 2018, South Western Railway undertook to conduct a review to ensure that we have earlier and later trains on the network. With many of my constituents working in the care sector, often with antisocial hours, and dependent on public transport, will my right hon. Friend agree to work with me and SWR to make the change?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of flexibility with train travel, particularly as we return post covid, which is why the flexible season tickets are very important. I would be delighted to arrange for him to meet up with the rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), to discuss the specific issue that concerns him on SWR.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
Through schemes such as the restoring your railway fund and the national bus strategy, we are determined to ensure that rural areas have the transport links they need to grow and prosper.
Mark Fletcher
I thank the Minister for that answer. Next month, I will launch a bus survey across the Bolsover constituency, because many of my villages—particularly the rural villages—have either lost services or are completely isolated, such as Hilcote. Will he commit to coming to meet some of the residents who have been most eloquent in their arguments about what this loss of services has done to their communities?
Andrew Stephenson
I am sure that my hon. Friend’s survey outputs will assist his local authority in the development of the bus service improvement plan over the coming months and help to ensure that we bus back better from covid-19. My noble Friend Baroness Vere, the Minister for roads, would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and his residents to coincide with the launch of his survey.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
The transformation of our railways has now started and passengers are already benefiting as we are investing billions in rail across the UK, including with the flexible tickets just announced.
Kevin Hollinrake
Given York’s historic connections and its strategic location, does my right hon. Friend think that it would make the perfect location for a new headquarters for our Great British Railways?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is a stunning location. I launched the Williams-Shapps rail review at the York National Railway Museum. I commend it to everybody in this House and I think he is right that York could provide a very attractive location for Great British Railways, although that matter is some way down the line yet.
Andrew Gwynne [V]
The world’s first passenger railway station is located on Liverpool Road in Manchester. As the Secretary of State knows, Greater Manchester has an objective to integrate rail stations and commuter rail services into a single joined-up public transport network alongside bus, Metrolink, walking and cycling. The best way to do that is to devolve the necessary funding and powers for rail, so can the Secretary of State reassure me that Great British Railways, in partnership with places such as Greater Manchester, will not shut down the route to securing this?
Grant Shapps
Yesterday I was at what will become Great Britain’s biggest ever railway station built in one go—Old Oak Common—so it is fantastic to hear about the railway station in the hon. Member’s constituency, which was the first ever railway station. I think it is now a museum, if I am correct. I know that he has read and studied the Williams-Shapps rail reform and will have taken particular note of page 41, which contains information about that devolution plan. I do not think it will disappoint him when it comes to bringing together those services—a matter that I was speaking to the Greater Manchester Mayor about just this week.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
Transport for London submitted a strategic outline business case for the devolution of these services in late 2019, and the Department considered the potential benefits and risks associated with the proposal to be finely balanced. We were doing further work with TfL when the pandemic struck. I have to admit that not much work has been going on since that time.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for that answer. He knows that I am firmly of the view that the transfer of Southeastern services to TfL is the best long-term means of guaranteeing passengers in my constituency the fast, frequent and high-quality metro-style rail services that they desire. As we emerge from the coronavirus crisis, what plans does his Department have to pick up and take forward the conversations that took place with TfL about the matter early last year? Will he meet me in due course to discuss the future of the Southeastern franchise in more detail?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I know his passion in this area. As I say, since the pandemic struck, the Department has had to be very much focused on keeping services running while developing our passenger-focused reform. As the Secretary of State just said, Great British Railways will be organised around regional divisions so that decisions are made closer to the places that the railways serve. The White Paper also includes a commitment for strategic partnership with TfL and other local authorities to ensure that the rail sector is working best for passengers in London. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss these matters further.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Staff safety is a priority, which is evidenced by the very significant investment that has been made.
Tonia Antoniazzi [V]
Two weeks ago, representatives from the Public and Commercial Services Union and senior management, including the permanent secretary of the Department for Transport, had reached a deal to bring an end to the ongoing industrial dispute over covid safety, but in a development unprecedented in 20 years of civil service negotiations, the Department subsequently reneged on a deal, much of which it had written, with no word of explanation. Is PCS right in believing that the deal was scuppered at the last minute after direct intervention from the Secretary of State? Will he apologise to those members of the public who now face further backlogs as a result of this unnecessary, ideological refusal to find the resolution to this dispute?
Grant Shapps
With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, the only thing that is unnecessary is for the PCS union to be continuing a strike that is purported to be about safety when, in fact, £4.2 million has been invested at the DVLA to make it covid- safe. An additional building has been rented. Air conditioning has been changed so that the air comes directly in from outside. Perspex screens have been put in place. Zones and bubbles have been created, and there is a very substantive clean regime. If this dispute is indeed about making sure that the building is covid-secure, then that has been achieved. What we need to know is why the demands then switched to demands about pay and demands about holiday, which have nothing to do with being covid-secure.
Carolyn Harris [V]
I wonder whether the Secretary of State would therefore be willing to accompany me and other colleagues who have constituents working at the DVLA to the site so that he can show us just how safe it is, because our constituents are telling us a completely different story.
Grant Shapps
It is probably important that we allow those who are experts in these things to follow through. Public Health Wales has signed this off. Swansea Council’s environmental health team has signed this off. The Health and Safety Executive has signed this off. I think we should be listening to all those health experts as they decide what should happen in a site like this and are looking at the data and facts. We can then make the decision from there. I do not think there is any further excuse for preventing vulnerable people from being able to pick up the documentation that they require from the DVLA, which is the only thing this ongoing strike is now achieving.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
The national bus strategy, which draws on £3 billion of transformational funding, sets out the Government’s vision for bus services across England, including in isolated communities, and we believe that those bus service improvement plans, delivered through enhanced partnerships and franchising arrangements, will deliver what is needed. Alongside this, we have announced 17 successful rural mobility fund bids, each receiving a share of £20 million funding to trial innovative bookable minibuses where demand is more dispersed.
Mary Kelly Foy [V]
Since 2010, 134 million miles of bus routes have been lost and bus coverage in Britain is the lowest it has been in 30 years. In villages such as Pittington and Waterhouses in my constituency, bus services are virtually non-existent. Can the Minister confirm whether the national bus strategy’s bus service improvement plan will give local authorities enough power and resources to deliver regular bus services to communities on routes that may not be commercially viable?
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Lady has put her finger on the entire purpose of the Bus Back Better strategy, which is about ensuring better, cleaner, safer and more reliable buses with simpler fares and ticketing. It is absolutely what communities such as hers and others all over the country want. The Government are supporting local authorities through funding and we have set aside £25 million to help to build the capacity and capabilities of local authorities. Every local transport authority has received £100,000 in capacity support to enable them to submit bids for the funding and get those bus services back.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Following up on the conversations earlier, I am delighted to inform the House that in the next few weeks we expect a milestone in the number of rapid chargers being available, with 3,000 different locations and 25,000 public charging points. That means more charging point locations than petrol stations in this country. As mentioned, that is on top of £2.8 billion of Government support for the transition to zero emissions, with companies such as Gridserve, BP Pulse and Shell committing to significant investment in charging infrastructure and working together to back up the fact that in this country we now have more rapid chargers per 100 miles of major road network than any other location in Europe.
Layla Moran [V]
Last week, Oxfordshire County Council, the Vale of White Horse District Council and I applied to the levelling-up fund for the snappily titled B4044 strategic cycle link between Botley and Eynsham. This project would significantly boost sustainable travel between Oxford city centre and the new housing planned around Eynsham, linking through more deprived communities. Does the Minister agree that this is exactly the kind of active travel initiative that we need more of in areas of high housing and economic growth, especially given our desire to achieve a zero-carbon Oxfordshire by 2050?
Grant Shapps
I have not seen that particular application yet, but we do know that the Government have put in a record amount of more than £2 billion of active travel funding for walking and cycling. I know that the hon. Lady will be delighted that Oxfordshire investment has now reached £355 million in different transport environments, and that is on top of the £760 million for East West Rail, so when it comes to investing in her constituency in Oxfordshire, this Conservative Government are really going for it.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) [V]
Is the Secretary of State hearing, as I am, that our airports and Border Force are getting people through arrivals more quickly and therefore more safely? Is he confident that we will be in a position to get more people who have been double-jabbed through arrivals with digitisation and the NHS app delivering proof of a double jab?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The last few weeks have seen a remarkable digital transformation in the background, which means that people coming in from green-list countries have been going to e-gates that have been updated, both physically and with software, or going to see a Border Force officer and having their passports scanned in one way or the other. That has been automatically linked back to the passenger locator form that they filled out before they left their country of departure, which tells Border Force whether they have had a pre-departure test and whether they have future tests booked. This links the whole machinery together, so yes, the automation is really starting to get into place now.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, hundreds of workers in the aviation and tourism industry held a demonstration outside Parliament urging the Government to protect their jobs and those of 1.5 million people employed in aviation and the wider supply chain. On behalf of the countless staff and trade unions I spoke to, will the Secretary of State finally deliver on the sectoral deal that his Government promised but have so far failed to deliver? When he makes an announcement later on the traffic light system, which, it should be noted, is not being made to this House, will he publish the criteria, the country-by-country assessment and the direction of travel for each country, to give travellers confidence to plan for this summer?
Grant Shapps
I find the hon. Gentleman’s policy confusing, only because, as I understand it, he has previously called for all countries to be put into the red category, meaning that there would be no travel at all. In addition, the former shadow Chancellor has said that Labour would never provide financial support to these companies, yet Labour is now saying that it wants more support to be provided and the hon. Gentleman is saying that he does not want to follow his own policy. Having a red, amber and green list enables people to see which countries are in which category, and the Joint Biosecurity Centre is publishing the data on the website to show why particular countries are in each category.
Jim McMahon
I can give you an assurance, Mr Speaker, that I have tried my hardest to get the Transport Secretary to fully understand our sectoral deal and the way we have laid it out, but I cannot help the confusion that continues to reign with this Transport Secretary.
Let us now move closer to home. We have had two questions today on the DVLA in Swansea, and the Transport Secretary did not give a convincing answer to either. It was reported last week that a deal had been reached with staff, trade unions and the Government to finally resolve the industrial dispute over health and safety failings at the DVLA in Swansea, but that it was pulled at the last minute by a Minister. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he or senior members of the Department pulled the deal, and, if so, why? He and his Department are now squarely against the loyal workforce at DVLA Swansea. What will he now do to restore trust and confidence in those fantastic workers?
Grant Shapps
The Public and Commercial Services Union continues to take industrial action, which is targeting the services and having a negative impact on some of the most vulnerable people in society. The fact of the matter is that the safety concerns have been signed off by Public Health Wales, the Health and Safety Executive, the Welsh Government and the UK Government, yet this strike continues and now is apparently not about healthcare, but about demands over money instead. Will the hon. Gentleman actually ask people to go back to their work in order to help vulnerable people in this country? That is the question and this House needs to know.
Mr Speaker
Next question, Andrew Griffith. He is not here, so let us go to Scottish National party spokesperson, Gavin Newlands.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I have lost count of the number of times I have asked this Government about their long-abandoned commitment to specific support for the aviation sector. Despite the Secretary of State’s tinkering with the traffic light system, it looks increasingly unlikely that there will be any summer season. It is clear to the dogs on the street that an aviation, travel and tourism recovery package and a targeted extension of furlough is now an imperative, so how does he plan to better support the sector and its workers, such as those who were at the travel day of action protest yesterday on College Green, as has been mentioned?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
The Department does recognise the severe impact that the covid-19 pandemic has had on regional air travel. We have supported critical routes through policies such as public service obligations and the airport and ground operations support scheme. The Government are working on a strategic framework for the sector, which will focus on building back better and ensuring a successful aviation sector for the future. What the sector will certainly be glad of is that it is this Government who are looking after its interests, not the Scottish Government, who have been accused of sacrificing the industry by the Scottish Passenger Agents’ Association.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I saw some coverage of the flexible season tickets, and it is true to say that ticketing is complex across the network, but, compared with somebody who would otherwise buy a regular ticket, somebody travelling two or three days a week will always be at least 20% better off with a flexible season ticket.[Official Report, 29 June 2021, Vol. 698, c. 6MC.]
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
Grant Shapps
I am familiar with that absolutely tragic case. Indeed, I know that my hon. Friend the Rail Minister met the partner of the deceased last week and discussed all of these matters, including the integration of audible announcements, which we consider to be very important indeed. We are speeding up the introduction of tactile pavements on railway stations and, in particular, close to the rail tracks.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Robert Courts
I know that my hon. Friend is a passionate campaigner on this issue and I completely agree that it is vital that we take action. Ultimately, it will be better technology, such as stop-start and zero-emission vehicles that will solve the issue. The UK is a global leader in the development and the manufacture of electric vehicles and we will continue to work to foster that position.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) [V]
Robert Courts
In the same session, we have managed to hear the hon. Gentleman be, first, anti-air, and now anti-road. I have just explained to the House how we will ensure that this country stays well connected, that we serve the people we represent, and that we foster technology, because it will be technology that will give us the answer to the zero-carbon emissions challenge.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that bus transport has required a huge amount of support. We have put in hundreds of millions during this pandemic. We have also launched the Bus Back Better strategy, which puts a lot of money into buses—some £3 billion. In the meantime, I will ensure that we return to this House to talk about further ways that we can support our bus sector and ensure that those essential local links that she describes are maintained.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Grant Shapps
Yes, the transport decarbonisation plan is central to our lead-in to COP26 and it is absolutely essential that we get this right and that it is ambitious enough to match the scale of the problem that we face. My hon. Friend will not have to wait long, and I think he will be impressed by the ambition.
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Grant Shapps
First, I welcome the hon. Lady to the House and to her first question at Transport questions. Secondly, may I say that in my household I have two teenagers who literally ask me the same questions every day of the week. There is a very large backlog—about 440,000—due to the pandemic. The agency has a recovery plan to increase the number of tests carried out every day. I will personally be seeing that it keeps on track with that recovery plan because, as she says, young people need to be able to take their tests and pass
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) [V]
Robert Courts
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to hauliers such as Stewart, who have literally kept the country moving over the past 18 months. My Department will continue the work started last year to engage with stakeholders, including the freight associations, to encourage the development of more safe, secure and high-quality lorry parking.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) [V]
Robert Courts
All the funding currently available to Access for All has been allocated to projects, including nearby Accrington station, with works due to be completed by 2024 at the latest. When further funding is available, any station without an accessible route into the station and to all platforms will be a potential candidate.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) [V]
Ministers are aware that E10 fuel, due to be introduced from September 2021, is not compatible with all motor vehicles, and that older vehicles in particular can suffer serious damage if they use it. What extra measures do the Government intend to take, therefore, to ensure that motorists are fully aware of these dangers, so that they do not in error fill their vehicles with the wrong fuel? Can the Minister also assure me that the information on the gov.uk website on whether a vehicle can run on E10 fuel or not is completely up to date, comprehensive and correct?
Grant Shapps
I can reassure my right hon. Friend that that website is already up to date and will be accurate. It is the case that some older vehicles and historic vehicles—the type of cars which I know he is very keen on—cannot run on E10 fuel. It will be clearly marked, and he will be pleased to hear that E5 will continue to be available, so that historic cars can continue to travel on our roads.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Business of the House
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 28 June will include:
Monday 28 June—Second Reading of the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill, followed by motion relating to the appointment of lay members to the Committee on Standards, followed by motion relating to the membership of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body.
Tuesday 29 June—Estimates day (1st allotted day). There will be debates on estimates relating to the Department for Education; and on the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Wednesday 30 June—Estimates day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate on an estimate relating to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. At 7 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Thursday 1 July—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill, followed by general debate on Windrush Day, followed by general debate on Pride Month. The subjects for these debates were recommended by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 2 July—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 5 July will include:
Monday 5 July—Remaining stages of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
Tuesday 6 July—Second Reading of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill.
Wednesday 7 July—Opposition day (4th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 8 July—General debate on fuel poverty, followed by debate on a motion relating to the implementation of the recommendations of the independent medicines and medical devices safety review. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 9 July—The House will not be sitting.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business.
It is stretching the bounds of my football knowledge to know to send Scotland commiserations and to wish Wales and England good luck, but it is heartfelt. Meanwhile, in my own game of choice and on my own patch, Gloucestershire county cricket ground welcomed the Indian and English cricket teams last week, and the women really showed just how exciting the beautiful game can be.
I thank the Leader of the House for working constructively with me on repairing the inconsistency between the independent complaints and grievance process and the parliamentary Committee on Standards for triggering recall for MPs. I hope that the Member currently suspended recognises that these changes would have applied to him. Given that his constituents cannot currently remove him, he should do the decent thing by staff, Members and the public and resign.
The Government are letting people down. They use covid as an excuse for problems that they promised to fix years ago. They cannot blame all this on the past 18 months. They have had four years since Grenfell to fix the cladding and fire safety crisis affecting millions of innocent residents, many with Tory MPs. Why are the Government letting them down? It is nearly two years since the Government announced their review on support for terminally ill people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) said last week, thousands have died since then waiting for a decision. Why are the Government letting them down?
It is nearly two years since the Prime Minister said that he already had a plan to fix social care. Since then, thousands of people have had to sell their homes to pay for care, and millions have been turned down for support. Why are the Government letting them down? It is three years since the Windrush scandal broke; yet victims still wait for compensation and some have died waiting. Why are the Government letting them down? Then there is the harm facing the world’s poorest people, with cuts to aid commitments made before the pandemic. Lives will be lost. Why are the Government letting them down?
The Government have blamed waiting times in the NHS on covid, but before the pandemic more than one in six patients were already waiting more than 18 weeks for a routine treatment. Why are the Government letting them down? Climate change has been around for a while; yet the Government are all mouth and no delivery. The Committee on Climate Change is sounding alarm bells. Why are the Government letting us all down?
The Government are letting down rape victims, with conviction rates plummeting for years before the pandemic. At Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, the Prime Minister appeared not to understand the anger of rape victims such as those who have told me of appalling delays from before the pandemic, and the anger of those of us who represent them. Ministers mention £4 million for advocates for sexual violence victims, but that is just £15 per reported rape victim per year. They refer to police officers being recruited, but they have cut more than 20,000 experienced skilled officers over the past decade.
Recruiting new police now does not help rape victims who have already waited years, unable to move on with their lives. In the final insult, the Prime Minister flipped away from the subject and back to his scripted-for-clipping punchline, referring to the Opposition as jabbering while the Government jabs—after my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) had asked about rape. Why are the Government letting rape survivors down?
Here is a list of questions for the Leader of the House. Will the Government sort out the cladding crisis once and for all, and bring that plan to estimates day next Tuesday? Will the Leader ask the Prime Minister to find his plan for social care, wherever he has mislaid it? Will the Leader ask the Home Secretary to apologise to victims of the Windrush scandal who have still not received compensation?
Will the Leader ask the Health Secretary to come to the House with a plan to give the NHS the resources that it needs? Will he ask the Chancellor to present a funded plan for the essential measures to tackle climate change? Will the Government give us a vote on aid cuts? Will the Leader ask the Cabinet to do the right thing by rape victims and support Labour’s Bill on violence against women? Will the Government stop letting people down?
Finally, Ministers are fond of pivoting to “But the vaccine!” to divert attention. I have news for them: British people are not stupid. They know when the Government are pulling a fast one. They know that it was scientists who researched the vaccine, and it is the NHS that vaccinates. British people deserve better. They deserve the best. The Government, who should be getting on with learning the lessons of the covid crisis by launching an inquiry urgently, are instead shamefully using it as cover for all the ways that they are letting the British people down.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am, as always, very grateful to the hon. Lady for her list of questions, which she was kind enough to give to the House twice—once in her long list and then in a shorter list of much the same questions.
The hon. Lady mentioned the football. I am very sorry that Scotland is no longer in. As I said last week, I had a vested interest in that, but I wish England and Wales well. Let us hope that we have a final, if this is possible—I do not know how the draw will work—between England and Wales. Then we will all be on the edge of our seat, some of us not knowing which part of our heritage to back. There was a very interesting cricket match between New Zealand and India and I congratulate New Zealand on winning the first multinational Test series to make them world Test champions.
I agree with the hon. Lady about the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts), who is currently suspended. As I have said before, I think that a Member in such a situation should resign. I would not criticise his constituents for feeling that someone who had been found guilty of something so serious was not an ideal representative.
The hon. Lady accused the Government of pulling a fast one with the vaccine. I agree—it was remarkably fast: an incredibly fast delivery and service of a vaccine that means that millions of people have now received both doses. I think that that applies to over 60% of the country and all the highest risk categories have had the opportunity to get both jabs. That is a success of the NHS—indeed, the NHS that has been properly funded by the Conservatives since we have been in office, effectively since 2010. It is a great achievement, for which the British people, in their wisdom—as the hon. Lady rightly said—will thank Her Majesty’s Government, under the inspired leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
We come to the variety of issues that the hon. Lady raised. I think she is trying to show up the Leader of the Opposition for not asking such a range of questions and sticking rigorously to one subject on Wednesdays. On building safety and cladding, £5.1 billion of taxpayers’ money has been provided to fund the cost of remediating unsafe cladding for leaseholders. The remediation works are either completed or under way on 96% of the high-risk residential buildings that were identified at the start of last year. That is important and continues to be rolled out. It is right that that is being done, and the Building Safety Bill will provide further details on how we deal with the remaining problem. A great deal of work has already been done, and not all forms of cladding and not all high-rise buildings are dangerous.
The hon. Lady referred to climate change. The Government have a most remarkable and successful record on climate change. From 1990 to 2020, there has been a 43% cut in emissions with 75% economic growth. This is the key. We are not going to be Adullamites; we are not going to be cave dwellers. We are not going to make constituents have miserable lives. We are going to improve the standard of living of the people of this country, and make the country greener, too. That is why Her Majesty’s Government is the first major economy to commit in law to net zero by 2050, with the target of cutting emissions by 2035 by 78% on their 1990 levels.
The Committee on Climate Change does not want us to eat meat. I disagree with them. I like eating meat and my constituents like eating meat, and I will not be told by fanatics not to eat meat. Let us be meat eaters. Let us support our agriculture. The Opposition always go on about the need to protect our farmers, then they join forces with the anti-meat brigade. There is a discontinuity in that approach.
As regards Windrush, 13,000 documents have been provided so far and £20 million out of £30 million of compensation has been paid. The Prime Minister apologised yesterday for the terrible situation that was created, but I thought what he said was inspiring: that we should think of Windrush as the Mayflower; as an occasion when something great happened to our nation—something really important when people came—that we should celebrate and rejoice, rather than its being something that is thought about in terms of failure.
On aid, the hon. Lady asks and I give. I do my best as Leader of the House, and on the second allotted estimates day:
“There will be a debate on an estimate relating to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.”
A vote will take place if people shout, “No.” There are votes on estimates if people want them. It is a matter for the hon. Lady and the Opposition Whips to decide whether they wish to divide the House.
The Government introduced the end-to-end rape review because of the failures that had become apparent and the need to make things better. It is worth pointing out that the Leader of the Opposition was Director of Public Prosecutions for quite a time, so one would hope that the fact that there are problems in the Crown Prosecution Service does not come as news to him. It is clear that too many victims of rape and sexual violence have been denied the justice they deserve as a result of systemic failings. That is why an action plan has been set out with clear measures for police, prosecutors and courts in order to return the volume of rape cases going through the courts to at least 2016 levels by the end of this Parliament, with steps to improve the quality of investigations, improve the culture of joint working and, for the first time, make sure that each part of the criminal justice system will be held to account through performance scorecards.
This is what the Government are doing—it is real and genuine action—and then we get the cheap point about gibbering and jabbering and drooling Opposition. That is what the Opposition do: they gibber and jabber and drool, and they do this the whole time on all sorts of subjects. The Prime Minister gave full and comprehensive answers on rape yesterday—I heard him; I was listening to him—but then he made the general point about the vacuity of Opposition. The hon. Lady sometimes manages to prove my right hon. Friend’s points.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that the town of Marlborough in my constituency has the widest high street of any town in England. This proved very helpful on Monday, when I boarded a coach at one end of the high street, which drove me down to the other end and then performed a, frankly hardly necessary, three-point turn before coming back and depositing me outside the iconic Polly Tea Rooms, where I presented the mayor with a certificate confirming Marlborough’s status as a coach-friendly town. Will he join me in congratulating the town on this and particularly Belinda Richardson, the brilliant tourism officer for the area, and join me in urging the Government to support not just international tourism, which badly needs more help and sector-specific support, but our domestic tourism industry?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Very much so. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Belinda Richardson on the work she does for tourism in Wiltshire. Dare I say it, but my general view of Wiltshire is that it is a very nice place to pass through before one gets to Somerset, but I would recommend that people take the opportunity to ask their charabancs to stop, and get out and use the tea rooms in Marlborough. It is of course on the old A4—the old coaching route through to Bath—and they can then go on to Bath, passing through my constituency into the constituency of the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who I can see is in her usual place. The city she represents is one of the most beautiful in the world.
Mr Speaker
The Perthshire One has been released. Let us go to the SNP spokesperson, Pete Wishart.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Free at last, and it is good to be back. Can I thank the Leader of the House for his support and understanding during my long confinement, and my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for standing in for me so stoutly, as he always does? Now I am back, I have of course one simple task: to secure something for the Scottish press by gently encouraging the Leader of the House to say something provocative and inflammatory about Scotland. Knowing the Leader of the House as I do, I know that he will oblige me in giving me the headline I seek.
Can I sincerely congratulate the England team on progressing to their historic place and getting beat by Germany on penalties? I also congratulate the Welsh team. It is of course a fantastic feat to get through to the last 16 again. I know the tartan army’s most unlikely new recruit will be gutted at Scotland’s departure. Apparently, he is to go to the Caledonia bar in Leicester Square, where he has left a “See You Jimmy” wig. It is known to be his because it is attached to a top hat, so I hope he will be dispatched soon to reclaim it.
Will the Leader of the House now bring forward the necessary changes to Standing Orders to rid this place once and for all of the total disaster and absolute waste of time that is English votes for English laws? This piece of uselessness has been in abeyance for over a year, and such is the impact that the quasi-English Parliament has made on this House that nobody even knows it is not in operation any more. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said that EVEL is a hindrance to the Union, so what better incentive than that to get rid of it once and for all.
Lastly—and this is where I hope the Leader of the House helps me out and obliges me—we need a debate about strengthening the Union, because the Government are simply all over the place and seemingly doing everything possible to help our cause. In one week—this week—they tried to gerrymander the franchise before ruling out once again a vote in which they seek to cheat their way to victory, while the strains of “Strong Britain, great nation” bellow out from the children of England in a gesture that is not in the least bit creepy, ominous or embarrassing, so can I thank him for all his efforts in the course of the past week? As the red wall languishes in ruins and the blue wall is breached, the SNP tartan wall stands strong, impregnable and reinforced by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is a pleasure to have the hon. Gentleman back, as he has shown with his stylish question. I am all in favour of strengthening the Union and I am glad he is too. I used to think there should be a special seat preserved invariably, as it is in law, for the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), as he is such an ornament to the Union Parliament. I am beginning to think that something similar should be done for the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), because we have missed him and his style is very welcome in this House.
The Union has been fundamental to the success of the roll-out of the vaccine and, indeed, in dealing with the pandemic, as we have benefited from the furlough payments. It has shown that as one country we are genuinely better together. I think the hon. Gentleman is a little mean, uncharacteristically, about a children’s song. He and I are both old enough to remember “There’s No One Quite Like Grandma”, which was No. 1 on the hit parade in 1980, when I was an 11-year-old. These charming, sweet-natured songs are a feature of public life which pop up every so often, and I think it should be welcomed and one should suffer the little children to come unto us, rather than being a bit miserable about it.
As regards EVEL, evil is to be opposed in favour of good as a general rule, but if we are to take the alternative spelling, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it has been suspended for the past year and nobody has noticed. There is a fundamental principle, where I share his view, of the absolute equality of every Member of this House, be they Front Bench, Back Bench, Minister, non-Minister or even the Speaker. One of the great advantages of our system of not having a special Speaker’s seat is that the Speaker is one of us, even though primus inter pares. That principle is of the greatest importance. I will be appearing before the Procedure Committee on Monday and I imagine this will be an important part of the discussion. I want to hear its views, but what was reported about my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s views is not a million miles from my own.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) [V]
May I, too, wish the Welsh team good luck on Saturday? I have a Welsh grandfather and a Welsh father, and my family will be cheering loudly. Does the Leader of the House agree that Wales desperately needs a freeport to boost jobs and investment, and that the Welsh Labour Government continue to stall, dither and delay, while opportunities to bring an economic renaissance to Wales and, I hope, to my constituency of Anglesey are squandered?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I agree with my hon. Friend that freeports are very important; the programme will be of great value to the whole UK. I am sorry that the Welsh Government, of course a socialist Government, are dragging their feet on the issue. One would have thought that they would want to encourage innovation, free trade, competition and the prosperity of the whole nation. As highlighted in our “Plan for Wales”, published in May, the Government remain committed to establishing at least one freeport in Wales as soon as possible, to attract new businesses and investment, and create jobs and opportunity in areas that need them the most. I recall that she has raised this matter with me before and I will take up her concerns with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Mr Speaker
Let us go to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Ian Mearns.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
I am very grateful to you, as always, Mr Speaker.
May I welcome the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) back to his place? He is truly, in so many different ways, top of the Scots’ pops.
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business, and I hope he will use his best endeavours to give the Backbench Business Committee as much time as he can before the summer recess. We have a range of applications and they are still coming in. Subjects we would like to try to get debates on include: giving babies the best start in life; the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on personal and household debt; the Timpson review and the effect of school exclusions; the failures in the criminal justice system highlighted by the collapse of the trial regarding the Hillsborough disaster; COP26; and progress towards the national ambition to reduce baby loss. And there are many, many more.
May I also let the Leader of the House know that I am, among other things, chair of the all-party group on parental participation in education—Parentkind. I wonder whether he will join me in welcoming this week as the first National Parent Teacher Association Week, which seeks to promote and celebrate the hugely positive impact parents can make in assisting schools in the education of their community’s children?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s request for time before the recess. I always try to do my best to facilitate Backbench Business and, indeed, Opposition days, but there is a lot of Government business as well. I note that it will be Parent Teacher Associations Week. The work done between parents and teachers to improve schools is important, and I thank him for his work on that.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I join other colleagues in saluting the work of children’s hospices, such as Little Havens in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the full resumption of face-to-face consultations with general practitioners? They have done magnificent work in challenging times. It is good that more than half of face-to-face consultations have been resumed but, judging by my constituents’ emails and letters, they really miss seeing their GP in person.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the fact that it is Children’s Hospice Week. The work that people do in children’s hospices is truly remarkable. It must be such hard work for the carers to do.
To come to my hon. Friend’s question, NHS England and NHS Improvement have regularly issued guidance on the importance of continuing to offer face-to-face appointments. All practices should offer face-to-face consultations where appropriate—I reiterate, all practices. There will be a role for telephone calls and virtual consultations, but face to face, if needed, must happen. The figures are more encouraging. In March 2021, an estimated 28.6 million appointments were booked in general practice in England, of which 15.8 million were face to face, so 55.7% of all appointments.
Mr Speaker
I will just put on the record Derian House Children’s Hospice in Chorley, which provides a high-quality service to support families.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be aware of the continued internment, persecution and torture of Chinese Muslims at the hands of the state in that country. This is not a criticism of the Foreign Secretary, because he has come to this House and made a number of statements on the situation there, but not for quite a while, and on the basis that the situation in China is not only not getting any better but certainly getting worse, from everything that we can gather, may we have a statement or even a debate before the summer recess?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, as I think it is one of the greatest seriousness. The Government have announced measures to ensure that no British organisations are complicit in human rights violations in Xinjiang, including through supply chains. Alongside 44 countries, on 22 June the UK issued a joint statement at the UN General Assembly Human Rights Council expressing deep concern at the situation in Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet. Unfortunately, the Chinese Government are behaving badly in all those areas.
The raid on Apple Daily, the independent newspaper in Hong Kong, is something we should be very concerned about, because of the guarantees that were given in the joint declaration to the people of Hong Kong. I will raise the hon. Gentleman’s point with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I cannot promise a statement, but the hon. Gentleman is right to keep the pressure up on this Government about our relations with China, which are of fundamental importance.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is among the most forthright defenders of the rights of this House and an eloquent supporter—perhaps the most eloquent supporter in this House—of the democratic principle, so when will he respond positively to the statement that you, Mr Speaker, made from your Chair at 3.30 pm on 14 June, when you instructed the Government to bring forward a vote on the breaking of our promise on the 0.7% commitment?
My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that the estimates are not the right route—the estimates have never been voted down—and, in that connection, I refer him to a speech made from that Dispatch Box on 24 July 1905 by the then Prime Minister, Arthur Balfour, which set out the position on estimates very clearly. In forthright defence of this House, will my right hon. Friend ensure that before the summer there is a vote on this terrible decision that was made by the Government, which has done such damage to our international reputation and which is leading to the avoidable death of more than 100,000 people?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The estimates are voteable. There will be a full day’s debate on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which will be an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to raise any issues that he wishes to on that occasion. There can be votes on estimates, and there have been votes on estimates. It is a perfectly reasonable parliamentary procedure to use. So the Government are facilitating the debate that my right hon. Friend asks for, but we are also following the law that he will be aware of that was passed in relation to the 0.7% commitment, which requires that a statement be laid before this House if that target is not met in a particular calendar year. The Government are following and will follow—have every intention of following—the law that was passed by Parliament; that is what Her Majesty’s Government do.
But in these financial circumstances it is absolutely right that we are reducing our overseas aid commitments. We have seen a significant decline in our national income. We have faced £407 billion being needed within this country to maintain the economy during the pandemic. We remain one of the most generous donors in the world, with a level of overseas aid higher than that which any socialist Government in this country’s history have achieved—something that they carp about now but when in office did nothing about.
So we are delivering; we have delivered, we are right to do so, and there will be a debate, because it is always the right of this House to debate the subjects that it sees fit to debate. If the Opposition want other debates they can have them on Opposition days; there have been no such Opposition day debates, so clearly the Opposition do not want to be saying to the people in Batley and Spen that they want to spend their money abroad, do they? So they are running away from it, and the Backbench Business Committee has not had a debate either, but the Government are providing one in due course.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
May I add to the shadow Leader of the House’s list of ways in which this Government are letting people down by saying that health and care workers in Wales were given a very well-deserved bonus by the Welsh Labour Government in recognition of their service and sacrifice during the pandemic, but this Government have chosen to take most of it away from those on the lowest incomes by reducing their universal credit? So may we have an opportunity to convey to Department for Work and Pensions Ministers just what a disgrace this is?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The pay rise in the NHS and the public sector generally is more generous for the lowest-paid workers, and that is obviously right, but as I was saying to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), there are limited resources and we have to be realistic about this. Our national debt has been growing at a very rapid rate because of the funding needed to pay for the pandemic, and this country—this nation—has to live within its means. I am afraid the socialists always forget that they eventually run out of other people’s money.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
In January the Foreign Secretary said that the Government intend to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act 2015; can the Leader of the House update the House as to when we might get the opportunity to debate that, and does he agree that one way in which we could strengthen the Act is by tackling inadvertent exposure to modern slavery in investment portfolios?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government are committed to introducing financial penalties for organisations that fail to meet their legal obligations under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act; that will require changes to primary legislation, which will be introduced when parliamentary time allows. In March 2021 the Government launched an online modern slavery statement registry, and we are now encouraging all organisations in the scope of the legislation to submit their statement to the registry, but in future we will mandate organisations in scope of section 54 of the Act to submit their statement to the registry as part of the planned changes to strengthen the legislation. I will of course pass on my hon. Friend’s concerns to the Home Secretary.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Leader of the House has accused the Opposition of moaning and complaining. Let us just call that opposition—and clearly he is not suggesting that a one-party state is a better system, although I sometimes wonder.
Because the Government have changed the pre-covid target for patient care volumes, many of my constituents have found it very hard to get NHS dentist treatments; they can get a check-up but they cannot get the treatment. What was a difficult situation has been made worse and lots of people go untreated. These changes have meant that many dentists are only able to offer treatment privately, which is simply unaffordable for many of my constituents. Can we have a statement from the relevant Minister on what the Government are doing to support dental practices that offer NHS services?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The job of the Opposition to oppose, but that does not always mean that such opposition is well informed or particularly enlightening. I think it is fair for the Government to point that out. For the record, no, I would not want a one-party state; I happen to think that good opposition leads to better government. If only we actually—no, I will not go into that. I would like to come to the hon. Lady’s question, because it is of fundamental importance.
I think all of us, as constituency MPs, have been in touch with our local dentistry services, which have been finding things difficult. The Government are continuing to work closely with the NHS to increase access to dental services while protecting staff and patients from covid-19 infection.
The latest published annual figures show an increase in the number of dentists delivering NHS services. Nearly 7,000 NHS dental providers in England have received over 400 million free personal protective equipment items via a dedicated PPE portal, which is helping to ensure safe treatment. We are maintaining exemptions from NHS dental charges for the most vulnerable and nearly half of all dental treatments—over 17 million—were provided free of charge in the latest year. There is obviously more to be done, but, in these very difficult circumstances, headway is being made. I will however pass the hon. Lady’s comments on to my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Canons Drive in my constituency is part of a conservation area with 300-year-old trees. There are unique examples of wellingtonia, redwood and cedar trees. Harrow Council is considering an application to remove the tree preservation orders on the trees, which would eventually lead to them being felled because insurance companies are claiming that they are causing damage to the neighbouring housing. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on protecting tree preservation orders and preventing the felling of these unique specimens that were part of the Duke of Chandos’s historical estate?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Is it not right for me to comment on individual cases, but as a general principle, trees are objects of great beauty and their antiquity tells us something. It reminds us of our nation’s history and our island’s story. It is obviously for councils to make such decisions, but damage being caused by a protected tree is not in itself a justification for felling that tree. In the first instance, my hon. Friend might want to apply for an Adjournment debate on these three particular trees.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Trussell Trust’s “State of Hunger” report has found that the pandemic has plunged people into even deeper forms of debt, with almost 95% of those referred to food banks experiencing destitution and unable to afford the essentials. May we have a statement or even a debate in Government time to consider what plan we have to prioritise and tackle this scandalous need for food in the 21st century rather than talking about more royal yachts?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I thank the hon. Gentleman for continuing to come to business questions even when he is not formally representing his party? It was a great pleasure to cross swords with him in the last few weeks.
The Government are making great efforts and have made great efforts over the last decade to help families in poverty. Since 2010, a full-time living wage employee is now £5,400 better off. Just before the pandemic in 2019-20, household income saw its strongest annual growth for nearly 20 years. Inevitably, it has been set back by the pandemic, but the uplift in universal credit has been a help. The figures on total people in poverty, children in poverty and pensioners in poverty are all very significantly improved on 2010. I accept that there is more work to be done, but the picture is not all doom and gloom.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Last Saturday morning, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici), I attended an event organised by the Grimsby and Cleethorpes Water Rats, who, along with other things, run a junior relay team who at this very moment—if all has gone to plan—are involved in a cross-channel swim. We were joined by Brenda Fisher BEM, one of Grimsby’s famous daughters, who swam the channel in 1951. Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate in Government time in which we can consider the work of such voluntary organisations that organise structured, disciplined routines for our young people and provide so much for our local communities?
Mr Rees-Mogg
First, I congratulate the Grimsby and Cleethorpes water rats on their brave and bold endeavour and Brenda Fisher on what she did 70 years ago. Of course, my hon. Friend will not be taking part personally, I believe, because it is widely known in Cleethorpes that he walks on water and therefore does not need to swim the channel. He is absolutely right to highlight the good work done by voluntary organisations and I am grateful to him for doing so at business questions.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
My constituent Alex recently received a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions with a personal independence payment review form requesting supporting evidence that is difficult to acquire under pandemic conditions due to a lack of regular GP appointments. This is not long after he received a PIP extension. According to the benefits advice service Benefits and Work, this has been a persistent issue in recent months, with many PIP claimants reporting similar problems across the UK. Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate or a statement in Government time on the execution of PIP reviews during the pandemic?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am always happy to facilitate right hon. and hon. Members’ inquiries about individual constituents, so if the hon. Lady wants to send me the details of Alex, I will ensure that they go to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The answer that I gave earlier about GP appointments applied to England, because this is obviously a devolved matter, but I reiterate that face-to-face appointments are available if needed and appointments more generally are available, so I do not think that that should be, at this stage in the pandemic, an obstacle to getting any information that is necessary. On the hon. Lady’s general point on PIP reviews, I think that DWP has worked extraordinarily well during the pandemic to make sure that people who need money have got it in a timely fashion.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) [V]
The Climate Change Committee’s annual report published today is stark. It mentions serious gaps in policy and strategy, lack of detail around key areas such as planning, decarbonisation of homes, oil and gas and even failing to produce a net zero strategy in the year that we host COP. This is a Government who are quick to promise but fail at every turn to deliver, and the longer that they delay, the more severe and irreversible the damage becomes and the more likely it is that we suffer serious drought, heatwaves and floods, with the immense impact that has on people and livelihoods. To ensure that climate action is at the heart of all policies and all Departments, will the Leader of the House agree to allowing for far more time for this Parliament to debate the report and to scrutinise and properly hold this failing Government to account?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I said earlier, I am not interested in eating less meat; I want to eat more meat and I want my constituents to be able to as well. The Government’s record since 2010 is formidable. They have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 26% between 2010 and 2019. Renewable electricity generation has more than quadrupled since 2010. The year 2019 was the cleanest on record with more than half of UK electricity coming from low-carbon technologies. As I said earlier, we have cut emissions by 43% since 1990, with 75% economic growth. We are targeting a reduction in emissions by 78% by 2035 compared with 1990 levels. We are on the right path to net zero by 2050, but we have to do this with economic growth. We are not fanatics; we are sensible and proportionate in what we are trying to do and we have been doing it with considerable success since 2010.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
Some us have noticed that the English votes for English laws provisions have been suspended and we regret that they still are, but will the Leader of the House at least commit to keeping his promise that the changes introduced to respond to the pandemic will be temporary and will be reversed, and, if he wishes to change the EVEL rules, that there will be a vote in this Parliament to do so?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Any change to EVEL Standing Orders—and it is worth bearing in mind that the EVEL Standing Orders take up slightly over 10% of all our Standing Orders. They are particularly impenetrable. The learned Clerks never struggle, but if it were not for the fact that the learned Clerks never struggle, even they might struggle with the intricacies of EVEL. But my hon. Friend is absolutely spot on: these changes could not take place without the support of the House.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) [V]
Yesterday, I met my constituent Anthony at the travel day of action. His business, like many others in the sector, has been extremely hard hit by the Government’s failure to stand up for the travel sector. He told me that we urgently need greater clarity on how countries can be added to the green list, more information on the transatlantic taskforce and a proper package of financial support. Can we have a debate in Government time on what the Government will do to save the travel industry?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I have said before, if the hon. Lady wishes to raise specific points about Anthony, her constituent, I will always try to facilitate those being taken up with the right Government Minister. The Opposition are slightly inconsistent on this, because on the one hand they complained bitterly that the border was not closed fast enough, and on the other hand, they want the travel industry to be supported. Those are two conflicting objectives. I point out that there has been very significant support for all industry, including £407 billion of taxpayers’ money. We have protected 14 million jobs and people through the furlough and self-employment schemes at a cost of £88.5 billion, and the travel industry is obviously eligible for those. Everyone wants to get back to normal—to normal travel and normal routines—but the pandemic is still raging in many parts of the world, and it has to be done in a proportionate way.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Current covid policy dictates that if a single child tests positive for coronavirus at school, the entire class is sent home and forced to isolate for 10 days. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is risk aversion gone mad and that we owe it to our children to get back to normal? Will he please raise this as a matter of urgency with No. 10 and the Department of Health and Social Care?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he was kind enough to warn me of his question and therefore I have had the opportunity to find out what the precise policy is and put it on the record. While in some cases a whole class might be required to isolate, we know that many settings are using seating plans and other means to identify close contacts and minimise the number of individuals who need to isolate, so it is not an absolute rule, but a matter of judgment. I hope people will use their judgment wisely.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Further to the question from the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), no one is taken in by the Leader of the House’s sophistry on this subject. Everybody knows that he is seeking to avoid giving the House a meaningful vote on whether it agrees with the Government’s decision temporarily to reduce the amount of aid being sent to the poorest countries in the world. There is no need for him to dilate widely on this; he used to occupy a semi-recumbent position over there and regularly criticised the Executive for exactly this kind of jiggery-pokery. Why does he not come clean with his own side and allow a proper vote—not one rolled up with all such other expenditure in the estimates, but one that would truly meet the test set for him by Mr Speaker?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I object to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Trivialising the estimates does not understand their importance. One of the fundamental things that this House does is approve the expenditure proposed by the Government. It is lost in the mists of constitutional time. It is a debate on the whole of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s budget, and it is possible to vote against it. It is a full day’s debate, but I challenge the Opposition again: if they want to debate this so much, we have given them lots of Opposition days, so why have they not used one on it? It is because they do not really want to get this message across to their voters, because it is a policy that has enormous support with the electorate. Our ultimate bosses like this policy. They back this policy and they think it is proportionate under the economic circumstances. The law set out very clearly what the requirements were with the 0.7%: if the target is not met, a statement must be laid before this House. If the hon. Gentleman does not like the law, he should have put down an amendment when the Bill was passed.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
I had expected that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would by now have come to the House to set out the balance of arguments over covid status certification and the ethics, practicality or necessity of such a project. Does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House share my view that if terminus day is to live up to its name, there will be no need for this scheme to go ahead?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I said last week, the terminus is Paddington, not Crewe. It is the end of the line, not an interchange, and that must be the key part of terminus day. Lots of evidence has been gathered in relation to covid status certificates. Final decisions have not been made, but the Government will update the House on the road map as it continues. My hon. Friend’s point on terminus is right; it is an end point, and so it should be.
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Yesterday in the news, we found out that this Government used taxpayers’ money that should have been spent on covid recovery on polling on independence. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) had a two-year battle with the Government and they are now having to release information on secret polling. This Government are also attempting to change the franchise on who can vote in an independence referendum. Then, on Friday, we had the song, “One Britain One Nation” that young people across the country are supposed to be going to sing, but in fact many Scottish schoolkids will not even be at school. I request that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) does not remove the Whip from me, but it is actually quite a catchy song, I must admit. I am sorry, but I do not actually have a question, only a request—that the Leader of the House comes to Scotland to visit my constituency of Airdrie and Shotts. I extend that invite to all Government Members, because it turns out that they are fantastic advocates for Scottish independence.
Mr Speaker
Can I just say it is business questions and it might be helpful to have a question? I think you did have one asking the Leader of the House to come and visit, so I am sure that will do fine.
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is an offer too good to refuse, Mr Speaker. I very much hope that I shall be able to visit the hon. Lady’s constituency. The work undertaken on attitudes to the Union was a reasonable thing to poll on. It is really important when developing a communication strategy to work out how it will land most effectively. There was a great deal of work to be done to communicate the messages about staying at home, working from home, wearing facemasks, and so on and so forth. I think this was completely proper and justifiable and I imagine that other Governments in similar circumstances would have done much the same.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
A couple of weeks ago, at my new constituency office in the heart of Bolsover town centre, I was delighted to launch the Bolsover high street taskforce. Along with local stakeholders, I look forward to helping to unleash Bolsover’s tourism potential and delivering a town centre that all residents can be proud of for many decades to come. With that in mind, can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of supporting businesses in our high streets and making sure that we have sustainable high streets for many decades to come?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think the knowledge that my hon. Friend will be in Bolsover high street will have the crowds flocking there for selfies and autographs, and to deliver some election literature in due course. The high streets taskforce has meant that 70 local authorities will receive targeted, in-person support as they battle against changing consumer habits, and I am delighted that Bolsover is benefiting from this. In addition, 57 local areas have been confirmed as recipients of our £830 million future high streets fund, which will support local areas to prepare long-term strategies for their high streets and town centres. Generally speaking, if MPs are in their high streets, that does encourage people to visit them, and they can do little constituency surgeries there, Mr Speaker—I am sure that happens in Chorley all the time.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
Schools spend the pupil premium on things like extra teaching staff, breakfast clubs, laptops, and tailoring support to their most disadvantaged pupils. However, due to the Government’s inexplicable decision to base pupil premium funding for the next financial year on data from October rather than using the up-to-date January figures as usual, north-east schools could lose out on up to £7.6 million for the 5,700 north-east pupils who became eligible for free school meals between October and January. The Education Secretary has ignored pleas from the North East Child Poverty Commission and others to put this right. May I urge the Leader of the House to make time for a debate in Government time on ensuring that schools in regions such as the north-east that have experienced some of worst learning loss do not lose out on even more funding?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady missed a chance to question the Secretary of State for Education, who was here on Monday. Obviously there always have to be cut-off dates to allow for figures to be run and for decisions to be made, and after those cut-off dates there will then be the next year’s figures to work on for future years. All government depends on data on particular dates, and this is not unreasonable.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
At half-past 3 last Sunday morning, police officers responded to a call about a man vandalising a bus stop in Kettering town centre. Officers were surrounded by a gang as they arrived at the scene, and an unruly mob turned on them. A 22-year-old man was arrested for attempting to kick one of the officers; a 21-year-old man was also arrested on suspicion of assault. That sort of violence against police officers going about their duty in difficult circumstances to protect the public is completely unacceptable, but sadly it is a growing problem. I know that the Government have recently increased the penalties for assaults on emergency workers, but may we have a statement from the Government that the courts will not shy away from applying those stiffer sentences when perpetrators are brought before them?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises a very serious and troubling matter. It is disgraceful that these attacks on the police should take place. As he knows, clause 2 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will increase the maximum penalty for assaulting an emergency worker from 12 months’ to two years’ imprisonment. The aim is to ensure that the law provides emergency workers with sufficient protection to enable them to carry out their duties and that the options available to the courts to sentence offenders who assault emergency workers are proportionate, reflect the seriousness of the offences committed and provide the victims with a sense that justice has been done.
Naturally, the courts are independent, but it is right that my hon. Friend raises the matter in the House so that the general public concern is taken on board across the nation. He may want to raise the issue again at Justice questions on Monday, but I will certainly pass on his concerns to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
There is a crisis in the haulage industry, with a chronic driver shortage that the Government have been warned about time and again. Martin Reid, the Scottish director of the Road Haulage Association, has said:
“For a long time, we have been running short of the numbers required for haulage drivers, so throwing Covid-19, Brexit and recent tax procedures into the mix has created a perfect storm.”
There is a very real concern that the sector will be unable to maintain integrated supply chains this summer and beyond, so can we have a debate on promoting careers in driving and on what contingency plans may be required in the short term?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman has just missed Transport questions, where he might have got a more comprehensive answer from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. [Interruption.] He was there, so he could have asked the Secretary of State.
Obviously it is important that we have the right training in place and that we have efficiency in driving tests. There is a backlog with driving tests for all motorists, and it is important that that is made up as soon as is practical.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
When my constituent Bas Breeze visited the National Memorial Arboretum, he was very disappointed that among the many monuments there was none to the territorial soldier. He rightly makes the point that these volunteers have made a huge contribution to the British Army’s efforts, particularly in the world wars. Will my right hon. Friend please secure a statement on whether that might be rectified so that their contribution can be recognised?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter, especially in the same week as Armed Forces Day. The Territorial Force, as it was in the first world war, the Territorial Army, as it was in the second world war, and the reserves, as they are today, are commemorated at the National Memorial Arboretum. Territorial Force, Territorial Army and reserve units are integral to the same regiment or corps as their regular counterparts and are therefore commemorated equally with those individual regiments and corps memorials. For example, the Royal Artillery memorial garden at the NMA commemorates all those who have served with the Royal Regiment of Artillery, be they regular, territorial, conscript or reserve; no distinction is made. If my hon. Friend wishes to raise the matter further, Defence questions are on 5 July.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Since the Conservative party came into power in 2010, per-pupil school funding has been cut by nearly 10%, more than 750 youth centres have been closed, more than 800 public libraries have been closed, more than 1,000 Sure Start children’s centres have been closed, the education maintenance allowance has been scrapped, university maintenance grants have been scrapped, tuition fees have trebled, a two-child welfare cap has been introduced and more than £34 billion has been cut from social security. It was not the phrase “white privilege” that did this; it was the Conservative party. Will the Leader of the House give Government time to discuss the real causes of working class kids—white, black and brown alike—being neglected, not the nonsense that his colleagues are spouting this week?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is worth reading paragraph 29 of the excellent report by the Education Committee. It says:
“Schools should consider whether the promotion of politically controversial terminology, including White Privilege, is consistent with their duties under the Equality Act 2010. The Department should take steps to ensure that young people are not inadvertently being inducted into political movements when what is required is balanced, age-appropriate discussion and a curriculum that equips young people to thrive in diverse and multi-cultural communities throughout their lives and work. The Department should issue clear guidance for schools and other Department-affiliated organisations receiving grants from the Department on how to deliver teaching on these complex issues in a balanced, impartial and age-appropriate way.”
The Government’s record is a remarkably successful one. We have committed more than £3 billion to education recovery. Some £1.4 billion has been announced recently, including £1 billion for tutoring and £400 million for teacher training. That is on top of a £14.4 billion three-year school funding settlement, which will see a rise of more than £840 per pupil by 2022-23, compared with 2019-20. The pupil premium will increase to more than £2.5 billion this year, which will enable schools to support pupils with extra teaching, academic support or activities such as breakfast clubs. This is a proud record. The work done by the Education Committee has been extremely helpful in highlighting the fact that those who have really been left behind have not been left behind because of racial consequences, and that they need more support. It is also worth noting that, since 2010, the number of children in absolute poverty has fallen by 100,000, so, overall, it is a way of seeing things forward and ensuring that children get the education and support that they need.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
I recently spent a sunny Saturday afternoon at Charlesworth & Chisworth Cricket Club on verification duty for a world-record attempt, as James Butterworth ran the longest-ever bowling run-up: over 5 km, going through two different parliamentary constituencies. After all that, thankfully, he did not bowl a wide. This was all done in in aid of raising funds for new practice nets for the club. With that in mind, can we have a debate on grassroots sports and support for them in this country, so that fantastic clubs such as Charlesworth & Chisworth can get the equipment they need to produce the next generation of first class test cricketers?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I believe that it is Yorkshire Tea National Cricket Week, so it is a good occasion on which to be raising this matter. The previous recordholder was Sameer Khan Yousufee, who ran two and a half miles before getting to bowl. I am a bit worried about the over rates—if they keep on bowling at that rate the dismal rates that we get in test matches will be even slower, though I do wonder quite how fast Wes Hall or Michael Holding might have bowled had their run-ups been even longer than they were. I am also quite intrigued by the commentary. How would even Henry Blofeld keep going for the quarter of an hour or so—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) heckles me to say that she is sure he would. She is probably right, but it would be quite a challenge to keep it up for all that time. It is absolutely brilliant that we should have this record. I am glad that a wide was not bowled and hope that it was not a no ball either. We should do everything we can to encourage grassroots cricket; it is part of our nation’s story, something that we can be proud of and one of our great exports to the rest of the world.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
That is the most incomprehensible answer that I have ever heard the Lord President give, but I appreciate that that is my failing, not his, in an understanding of the subject. I will now suspend the House for three minutes, so that preparations can be made for the next item of business.
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.
I am delighted to open this debate on our future membership of the trans-Pacific partnership. Five years after the British people voted to leave the European Union, we are delivering on the promise of Brexit. After taking back control of our trade policy, we have been opening up the world’s largest and fastest growing markets to the best of British exports by negotiating an unprecedented number of trade deals. We have struck deals covering 68 countries plus the EU, worth £744 billion. We have gone further and faster to champion our interests in deals with Japan and the European economic area.
This month, we are writing the biggest chapter yet of our trading story. We brought world leaders together at the G7 to promote free and fair trade. We reached agreement in principle with Australia—our first ever trade deal negotiated from scratch—and we are working to agreement in principle with New Zealand by August. We have drawn a line under the long-running 17-year Airbus-Boeing dispute. Now, the United Kingdom is making history as the first country to negotiate its accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. This group of nations covers half a billion people across 11 economies, worth £9 trillion in global GDP. On Tuesday, I presented our plans to Parliament, including our scoping analysis. We know that the richest opportunities lie in the Asia-Pacific region, where about two thirds of the middle class will be expected to be in 2030, driving an appetite for high- quality goods and services that we produce here in the UK. We can see that in the fact that our exports to the CPTPP are expected to grow by 65%, or £37 billion, over this decade. That is in addition to the static comparative benefits of the deal, which are estimated at £1.8 billion of GDP.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, may I congratulate the Secretary of State on all she does to bring about these trade deals? She will be aware of the fact that CPTPP countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan and Singapore are the largest UK partners for some 80% of UK trade. It is important to get new deals, but it is also important to build on the deals with the countries we have. Can the Secretary of State assure us that that will be part of the Government’s strategy for the future?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The CPTPP enables us to have much deeper trading relationships, particularly in areas of UK strength such as digital, data and services, where there are very strong chapters on those issues.
The fact is that the likely benefits of joining the CPTPP are much greater as the economic centre of gravity shifts towards Asia and as more countries join the agreement. Joining this partnership will position us at the heart of the action in global trade. The CPTPP is exactly the kind of free trade area the UK wants to be part of: it is liberalising on tariffs and other trade barriers; it has high standards on labour and the environment; it is ambitious in digital and services; and it is tailor-made to help us to cement the UK’s status as a global hub for services, digital and advanced manufacturing. Our exporters will no longer have to pay tariffs on 99.9% of their goods, from Scotch whisky and Stoke-on-Trent ceramics to cars made in the north of England and the midlands. Our farmers will benefit from a strong appetite for beef and lamb in Asia, with CPTPP markets expected to account for a quarter of global meat demand by 2030. Our manufacturers will enjoy common standards and rules of origin, securing flexibility, reliability and lower prices on inputs.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that if British business is to invest it needs confidence, and that that confidence will come by restating our commitment to free trade by diversifying our trade offer, generating new jobs and bringing more stability to the jobs we already have?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A key benefit of the CPTPP is increased resilience. It means that our exporters will not have all their eggs in one basket. They will have options about where they send their goods. It will also mean our importers are able to rely on strong relationships in countries which follow the rules and have good standards in areas such as the environment and worker protection.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I have been crunching the numbers. If we look at our trade deficit, we see that this agreement will bring in just £300,000 a day in exports compared with the £11 million a day we are losing in our deal with the EU. Should her efforts not be put towards ensuring that the deal is comprehensive so that we can trade across the channel, in view of the carbon impact of trading across the world?
Elizabeth Truss
The logical position, if the hon. Lady does not believe in trading across the world, is that she only believes in having protectionism for the UK. The reality is that trade with the EU has bounced back. This is about positioning Britain for the future, and where the growing markets of the future are. We are expecting trade with CPTPP countries to increase by 65% by 2030. The hon. Lady is harking back to the past; we are looking at where the future opportunities are for Britain.
As the world’s second largest services exporter, we will be perfectly placed to benefit from strong provisions securing the free flow of data and easier business travel to CPTPP countries. True to the British people’s priorities, there are no strings attached to this deal that would force us to cede control over our laws, our borders or our money. Instead, the UK will join 11 fellow sovereign nations in one of the world’s largest free trading areas. This House can be proud that the UK is at the front of the queue and set to be the CPTPP’s first new member since it was established in 2018. This is a testament to the ties that we have forged with our Pacific partners and to the UK’s fierce commitment to high standards. It also shows that our independent trade policy is not just about the here and now, but about the long term. As part of the CPTPP, we can strengthen it as a bulwark against unfair trading practices. Together, we can bring home the benefits of free trade for all our people.
Our accession will have full parliamentary scrutiny. We committed to publishing our negotiating objectives, consultation response and scoping assessments at the outset of our negotiations, and we did that earlier this week. All of this will be fully scrutinised, including by the new Trade and Agriculture Commission. That puts us in a very strong position compared with comparable parliamentary democracies. Five years on from the referendum, we are demonstrating what global Britain is capable of. We are back as a major force for global trade, striking more trade deals than any other nation has been able to manage.
We have the world knocking on our door, eager to do business with Britain. That is why I am working with allies worldwide, from the United States to India and from the Gulf states to Japan, to break down barriers to trade, and we are now seizing the shimmering opportunity offered by this jewel of the Pacific, the CPTPP. Joining will do more than ever to realise our vision of global Britain as we embrace new markets while levelling up every region and nation of the UK. That is the bright future awaiting us as part of the CPTPP, and I commend these negotiations to the House.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for holding this debate. I do, however, feel obliged to point out that she has brought us here today to discuss Britain’s accession to an agreement which, as things stand, and according to the Government’s own figures, will add a maximum of 0.017% to UK GDP, yet on Monday, when the House discussed the urgent threat to the British steel industry, which is worth six times that amount to our GDP and has 34,000 jobs directly at stake, the Secretary of State could not even be bothered to turn up. Let me just say, on behalf of all the Labour MPs who spoke in that debate and the steel communities they represent, that I hope the Secretary of State was watching and that in the six days we have left before our steel safeguards expire, she will listen to reason, accept that she has been wrong, and take emergency action to keep our steel safeguards before it is too late.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly agree, on behalf of the steelworkers and steel industry in my constituency, with the point that my right hon. Friend makes. The Government are pretending that there is nothing they can do on steel safeguards, leaving our markets unprotected and undermining our whole industry. This is a real chance for the Government now, and at this point in time our UK steel industry cannot afford for it to fail.
Emily Thornberry
My hon. Friend is quite right. I recommend that the Secretary of State read the speeches of many Members in that last debate. I have to say that it reminds me of reading, in March, the Department for International Trade’s report “Global Britain, local jobs”, in which it purported to tell us how many jobs in each region and constituency were dependent on trade. It did not mention any jobs in steel or agriculture. I thought at the time that that was a mistake, but I fear that actually it looks more like a forecast.
We ought, perhaps, to turn to the CPTPP. I have three key quotes to put to the Secretary of State from esteemed figures in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, all of which I hope will illuminate what is actually going on in the accession process—certainly rather more than the Government have to date.
The Secretary of State will recognise my first quote, because it was said directly to her last July when she was discussing the CPTPP with the former Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. “The UK,” he told her,
“is going to have to identify what are its offensive interests and what are its defensive red flags…You can seek tailor-made provisions,”
but
“the other countries are going to have a…take-it-or-leave-it approach…That is a big decision for the UK.”
It is indeed a big decision, but before the negotiations have even begun, the Secretary of State has apparently conceded defeat. Indeed, reading the Government’s so-called negotiating objectives, this appears to be the only negotiation in British history in which the objective is to accept everything the other side wants as quickly as possible, with not one single demand of our own. There is not one single clause in the thousands of pages that make up the agreement where the Government will seek any exemptions or amendments to reflect Britain’s interests. That is the literal definition of being rule takers and not rule makers.
Even when the Government make a veiled reference in their document to the prospect of China joining the CPTPP, the best they can offer in response is the assertion:
“We would only ever support applicants who meet CPTPP’s high standards on rules-based free and fair trade.”
In other words, they have no opinion of their own on whether a back-door deal with China is an acceptable prospect for Britain, and no concerns at all about the Uyghurs, slave labour or genocide. All they can say instead is that China will have to obey the same trade rules as us. That weak acceptance from the Government that we cannot change the CPTPP rules is deeply worrying when it comes to protecting our NHS, our food standards and other defensive concerns.
It is also deeply frustrating when it comes to promoting the interests of British business and the adoption of British standards in the trans-Pacific region. Why are the Government not using the accession process to press for improvements to the current provisions on financial services, small businesses and mutual recognition of qualifications? Why is the Secretary of State not arguing for new chapters to cover educational exports, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, and co-operation on new technology? Why are the Government not seeking to strengthen the agreement when it comes to protection of labour rights, animal welfare and the environment? The Government are doing none of those things.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The right hon. Lady must know that the CPTPP preserves the member states’ right to regulate for themselves. Will she not accept that that is one of the attractions of these arrangements compared with the EU, which we have just left precisely to recover control of our own regulation?
Emily Thornberry
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is palpable nonsense. We can have whatever standards we want in our own country, but if we are allowing those standards to be undermined by cheap imports that are made to different standards, we are essentially saying to our producers or our farmers, “You can keep our standards and you can go out of business.” Frankly, every other country in the world negotiates trade agreements in the interests of that country, but at the moment this country seems to be negotiating trade agreements in order to prove a political point, and that political point is that Brexit works. Frankly, I think that we should be putting our country’s interests first and foremost, rather than petty point-scoring. This is very dangerous behaviour.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady give way on the petty point-scoring point?
Emily Thornberry
The hon. Gentleman is an expert at it, and I will of course give way.
Craig Williams
I defer to the right hon. Lady’s knowledge of that. May I ask her directly whether she will go further, beyond the petty point-scoring, and tell us whether the Labour party supports joining this partnership or not?
Emily Thornberry
I will of course get to that in the later part of my speech and I hope that the hon. Gentleman listens carefully.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Earlier, the Secretary of State said that people are knocking down the door to do business with Britain, but is not it time we were a bit fussier about who we let through our door, especially when it comes to genocide, forced labour, and people who want to trade with us who we should morally object to?
Emily Thornberry
My hon. Friend makes a good point that Ministers should remember a little more actively.
The Government are joining the agreement with no ambition to improve its deficiencies, no attempt to deal with its threats and no effort to make it work in Britain’s interests. The trouble is that, when someone goes into a negotiation looking as if they are willing to accept anything in the deal, they come across to the other party as if they will do anything to get it. That brings me to the second quote, by the Secretary of State’s Australian counterpart, Dan Tehan. He said of the recent negotiations:
“We’ve been very clear with the UK that… they’ll need a gold standard FTA with us if they’re going to have a realistic chance of joining the CPTPP”
because
“We have a very large say in what accession looks like”.
There it is: the man the Secretary of State threatened with an uncomfortable chair ended up holding her over a barrel.
Let us look at the consequences. As the price for UK access to the CPTPP and the 0.017% that will be added to GDP, the Secretary of State was willing to accept every single demand from Australia when it came to tariff-free, quota-free access for their cheap and cruelly produced meat.
Emily Thornberry
The Minister says, “Oh! Oh!” Does he know what mulesing is? I suggest that he finds out, then looks us in the eye and tells us whether there are cruel practices in Australia.
No wonder Dan Tehan said that the Austalian National Farmers Federation was “over the moon” when he told them about the deal he had struck, while farmers up and down Britain curse it as a betrayal. Kit Papworth is the director of a farm business in Norfolk—perhaps he is a constituent of the Secretary of State’s. He said:
“The deal is an absolute dereliction of everything that farmers have been promised… It is farmers being sold down the river once again… while agriculture… is being left… to die.”
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I thought it was surprising that we did not hear more from Secretary of State, as a former EFRA Secretary, about farming standards. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the concerns that she has so eloquently expressed make it all the more important that we have proper scrutiny of the deal and not something that just rubber-stamps it at the last minute?
Emily Thornberry
That is absolutely right. I saw an article in The Daily Telegraph this week by Jeremy Warner, which said, “It is vitally important that FTAs are pursued in a transparent and accountable manner that takes fully on board the interests, fears and concerns of domestic constituencies and affected sectors. The battle for free trade needs to be won as much at home as abroad.” That is why we need to know whether we will get a proper debate and votes in this place. The Secretary of State has said nothing about whether Parliament will get a vote either on the negotiating objectives or on a deal at the end of the day.
Marco Longhi
The shadow Secretary of State quotes articles. Does she agree with the article in the Socialist Worker that states that protectionism will not protect workers’ jobs?
Emily Thornberry
No.
Let us move on to New Zealand and Canada. Having seen what has happened with Australia, they will surely demand the same deal for their farmers as the price of support for UK accession to CPTPP. Handshake by handshake, the future of British farming will be sold.
The threat to our country’s interests lies not just in what the Secretary of State is willing to do, or in the interests that she is willing to sacrifice as the price of admission to the agreement, but in what will happen once we are in the door. That brings me to my next quote, which is typically pithy and to the point, from New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. She said that investor-state dispute settlement “is a dog”.
When she inherited the CPTPP negotiations at the last minute in 2017, the new New Zealand Prime Minister was willing to jeopardise the entire process to demand that New Zealand be exempted from the provisions on investor-state dispute settlement. She did not want the threat of lawsuits in the name of wealthy foreign corporations restricting her ability to introduce policies for the protection of consumers, workers, the environment and public health policy. For the same reason, we have had no IDS—or, rather, ISDS—[Interruption.] Well, it was a Freudian slip. That is why we have had no ISDS provisions in any of the post-Brexit trade agreements signed by the Government with 67 non-EU countries, with the European Union and with Australia. So when it comes to CPTPP, why are the Government not simply following New Zealand’s lead and demanding an exemption from the provisions on ISDS? Again, it goes back to the big decision taken by the Secretary of State that what matters most is not minimising the risks of this deal, maximising the opportunities and making it right for Britain, but simply getting it done as quickly as possible, even if that means selling out our farming industry and exposing our country to the risks of ISDS.
It is apparently okay, though, because in respect of all of those risks the Government simply assert that we have nothing to fear. We have the same assurances with respect to food safety, online harms, patent laws, procurement rules, data protection, medicine prices, intellectual property and our NHS, and that is all without mentioning the 22 suspended provisions in the agreement, which the strategy document simply ignores. We are simply told that none of those provisions will be a problem for the UK and that we should trust the Government—we should trust the Government to protect our interests, even though they cannot tell us how. Instead of exemptions, we are reliant on assertions. Instead of amendments they offer us assurances. I respectfully say to the Secretary of State that we have had enough of the Government’s assurances when it comes to negotiations on trade, the Northern Ireland protocol, non-tariff barriers with Europe, and the betrayal of our fishing industry, our farming industry and our steel industry. We have had enough of being told by them just to take their word for it and everything will turn out fine and all our interests will be protected.
The reason this matters so much is because it is this Secretary of State who stands personally accused of saying one thing to the British farming industry and another for the sake of CPTPP. If she is willing to break her promises to the farming community that she represents, why would not she do the same to the health service on which we all depend? That is why, while the Labour party remains committed to the possibilities that joining the CPTPP offers, we will continue to demand a fresh approach to the accession process, starting with proper protection for our farmers and food standards, total exemption from the provisions on ISDS, and a complete carve-out for our national health service, patient data included.
Emily Thornberry
I am about to finish so I will not give way again.
I was talking about the importance of negotiating a deal where there would be specific demands and where there would be carve-outs. All those things may take more time than the Secretary of State would like and it may be a harder negotiation than those she is used to, but none of that should matter when what we are trying to do is get what is best for Britain.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
It seems a long time since 18 July 2018, when I first announced to the House that we were beginning the public consultation phase that would inevitably lead to where we are today, so I congratulate the Secretary of State and her Ministers on getting us to this point so expeditiously, and I thank all those at the DIT who have done so much to get us into this position, particularly Crawford Falconer and John Alty, who is to stand down as permanent secretary. I wish him all the best and give him my very grateful thanks for all the work he has done.
Especially in the light of the speech by the shadow Secretary of State against international trade, it is right to say why we believe in free trade. We believe in free trade because it allows countries to use comparative advantage within an international rules-based system for the benefit of their own people and those outside their own borders. It is essential for developing countries to be able to trade their way out of poverty in the long term, and the rise of non-tariff barriers among the world’s richest countries over the past decade is a disgrace that we should hear a lot more about.
As I have said before, in Q1 of 2009, only 0.7% of all the G20’s imports were covered by restrictive measures; it is now 10.3%. That is putting an almost insurmountable barrier particularly to small and medium-sized enterprises in developing countries. We need to get a grip on that because whatever we talk about in the aid debate we are counterbalancing in the restrictions that we are putting on in the trade debate. If we want to have a morally consistent policy on development, we need to deal with both sides of the equation.
Free trade is also about consumers. I want the incomes of working families in Britain to go further. I want them to have greater choice, and for them to be given greater information about the products that they buy so that they can decide for themselves how to spend their money, not so that the Government can determine what choices they can and cannot make. It is essential that we say that, because some people even in my own party seem to have forgotten why free trade is so important.
Marco Longhi
Does my right hon. Friend agree that consumers will therefore have cheaper access to white vans and St George’s flags, which particularly our self-employed make use of in the construction industry?
Dr Fox
I cannot think what my hon. Friend is alluding to, but it is certainly true that consumers will have access to far greater choice. Look at the range of consumer goods that we have—all sorts of white goods, not just vans. Look at the quality of what we have in terms of household appliances. They are cheaper and better quality, and they have a greater technology than they would otherwise. That is what free trade means. The trouble with free trade is that its benefits are very widely spread to consumers, whereas any difficulties to producers tend to fall on very narrow sectors and are therefore used politically by the Opposition to promote their anti-trade policies.
Dr Fox
I will in a moment. Five years ago this morning, those of us who campaigned to leave the European Union were awakening on that great historic day to realise that we had won the referendum and that Britain would have a very different future. The free trade policy that it allowed us was very specific in terms of the benefits that we could have: it would allow us to shape a policy in the interests of not only the United Kingdom but free trade, in which we as a country profoundly believe, or at least used to all believe, in the political consensus in this country.
It is a freedom to shape global policy that leads to greater liberalisation in all its forms. I am glad to see the Chair of the International Trade Committee present. He has heard me say this before, so I apologise to him for repeating myself, but there is a clear hierarchy in liberalisation. The greatest liberalisation comes from multilateral global agreements, which is where we should all be going; it is the gold standard. The next level down is the level of plurilateral agreements; if we cannot get multilateral agreement, we can at least make progress towards it with those who are willing to see liberalisation take place. The next level down is the geographical grouping, where countries can come together to create a more open market. Finally, there are the bilateral free trade agreements, which, although they are easier to get, tend to produce less in terms of liberalisation. It is important that we understand that there is a hierarchy in all of that.
John Spellar
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am very supportive of trade and trade agreements. Equally, I was rather surprised by his response to the hon. Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi). Should we not be encouraging people to buy white vans made in Luton, and trying to ensure that St George’s flags are made and sold in the United Kingdom?
Dr Fox
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right that we should ensure that as much is made in the United Kingdom as possible. The point is that consumers should be free to choose what they buy with their own money. If we can manufacture goods and services in the United Kingdom of the appropriate quality, and at the appropriate price, I am quite sure that British consumers would choose to buy those, but I do not believe in restricting the choice for British consumers because we are unable in certain sectors to produce those things.
Another important element of policy outside the European Union is our ability to help rebalance the global trading economy. That is why CPTPP is so important. The CPTPP, were the United Kingdom to join it, has about the same proportion of global GDP as the European Union minus the UK. It will provide us with an ability to rebalance within that. Why does that matter? It might help us get momentum in some of the areas that matter, where we were unable to get traction inside the European Union. We might get traction on a global agreement on e-commerce, for example, or an agreement on environmentally friendly goods—the environmental goods agreement—which is barely in existence or has any life at the moment. In this era, if we cannot agree to take tariffs off solar panels or wind turbines, what can we agree at a multilateral level? Putting our energies into groupings that may drive that forward is extremely important, not just for the UK, but beyond.
The final point that I want to make is that the real advantage of CPTPP is not what proportion of GDP it adds in value; it is strategic. CPTPP is primarily, in my view, a strategic alliance, and it relates to how we think about the issue of China. China promotes its agenda of state capitalism—though “state capitalism” is an oxymoron; capitalism has to be independent of state control—but, at present, sits inside the World Trade Organisation without having made the adjustments to market mechanisms that are required for the proper functioning of members inside the organisation. The measures that we have tried have not been successful in bringing China into a more acceptable position. The WTO has been unable to cope effectively with the abuse of state subsidies. The OECD has done a lot of work studying the data available across borders and looking at measurements of production, which offer some help, but the WTO seems incapable at present of dealing with the China question.
The United States was unable to deal with the China question through tariffs. All that President Trump’s tariffs on China did was reduce the trade deficit with China, but it did not reduce America’s trade deficit overall, because when consumers did not buy Chinese goods because they were too expensive in the United States, they bought them from elsewhere. The use of tariff policy to drive global trade in a particular way only results in trade distortion and diversion, exactly as we discovered.
If we were able to join CPTPP, there would be another prize, which the Secretary of State did not mention but I am sure she believes in: the ability to attract the United States back to the partnership. The decision by the Trump Administration to leave the trans-Pacific partnership was, in my view, a completely wrong decision. If we are able to get United Kingdom membership, the United States joining CPTPP becomes a lot more attractive to Members across the parties in Congress. The UK plus the United States joining CPTPP would take us to about 40% to 43% of global GDP, which is a much better counterbalancing measure to China than anything that we have seen so far.
I am therefore 100% behind my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Trade Policy in taking this policy forward. Five years ago, we were on different sides of the debate in the European Union referendum, but there is nothing like the zeal of converts to take us forward. I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister of State—one of the finest Ministers I ever worked with—on taking this agenda forward. It is the right thing for the United Kingdom and, much more importantly, it is the right thing for global trade and to ensure that the developing world has a chance of finding a sustainable way out of poverty in the long term.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
After the spokesman for the SNP, I will come directly to the Chairman of the Select Committee. At that point, there will be a time limit of five minutes, but that will then reduce to three minutes.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
What a pleasure it is to follow the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). I feel that he overstretched himself by describing SNP Members as anti-trade, given that his Government and his party have overseen the first four months of Brexit and a 33% slump in exports to the EU from the UK. However, let me try to start on a point of agreement with the Secretary of State, who has now left her place. It is good to see the US tariffs on Scotch whisky dropped—that is welcome—but Scotch whisky should never have been put in such a position in the first place.
While any, even tiny, opportunity to make up some ground on Brexit losses should be explored, it is clear that no deal this Government can strike will make up for what Brexit has already taken away from us. It is clear that the potential positives of this proposal are minuscule and the risks are much larger. The Government’s very own figures—buried deep in the environmental notes—point to growth in their long-term forecast of just 0.08% to 0.09% of GDP over 15 years. That is scant reward for the trade-offs on control over regulations and standards required, and it is a drop in the Pacific compared with not only the lost trade for Scottish and other UK companies, but the massive increases in the cost of goods that they have incurred. The simple fact is that here we have a Government desperate to get free trade agreements for their own sake, while ignoring industry and the advice of trade experts.
Emily Thornberry
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who is making a very interesting speech. Can I just ask him to look again at page 65 of the document? He cited the figure as 0.08%, but it is much lower, because the 0.08% includes Malaysia joining, and Malaysia has made it perfectly clear that it is very much having cold feet because of the ISDS provisions.
Drew Hendry
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for that clarification, and she is indeed right. There I was being generous to the Government about the effects; I will certainly try to learn the lesson there.
The Government have ignored industry and the advice of trade experts just to prove their own self-harming political point. They were warned that the precedents of the Australia deal would inevitably lead to other countries demanding the same capitulations, but they said that that would not happen. Now the New Zealand Trade Minister is on record demanding zero-tariff access to UK markets as a result, and of course others are following. In negotiations on the CPTPP, the UK cannot decline to align on too many areas, such as ISDS, agrifoods, consumer standards and more, and still expect to become a member.
In short, if the UK joins, the consequences are very likely to be disastrous. In all of the nations of the UK, the farming unions have stressed the importance of protecting the UK’s current high food and farming standards. After a calamitous few months for the food and drink sector across the UK, almost every organisation representing Scottish agrifood interests has written to the UK Government calling on them finally to take Scottish interests into account over negotiations with the CPTPP’s Australia.
Having failed in their duty over consultation with industry, devolved Administrations and regulators, the Government have of course failed to give this Parliament a meaningful vote, so let us ask the Government: will they bring forward a meaningful vote on the CPTPP? I will give the Minister the opportunity to respond if he would like to do so.
Drew Hendry
It is a no.
What assessment has been made of the failed TTIP deal, on which the CPTPP is based? It contains a TTIP-style regulatory co-operation chapter, risking the abandonment of standards through forums that were notoriously devoid of any scrutiny. The Tories have had plenty of opportunity to enshrine current standards of consumer protections—including for agricultural produce, pesticides and animal rights, and also for digital rights, workers’ rights, environmental standards and the independence of public services such as the NHS—yet they have failed to do so at every turn. The Home Secretary herself is on record as saying that Brexit was an opportunity for widespread deregulation, and of course she was not alone. It is easy to see why the Scottish public do not trust them over the warm words they put forward.
An investor-state dispute mechanism is a key provision within the CPTPP. It allows firms to sue Governments for measures that harm their profits. This can result in very negative impacts on the environment and regulation designed to combat climate change. There is also evidence of ISDS being used to challenge health provision and labour rights. Will the Minister confirm that the UK will not agree to ISDS as part of the CPTPP? It is likely that CPTPP membership would see a rise in the amount of pesticides and antibiotics in food imports. Thousands of times the amount of carcinogens such as iprodione are allowed in produce from CPTPP members as they are in current UK equivalent foodstuffs. One hundred and nineteen pesticides currently banned in the UK are allowed for use by certain CPTPP members. How can the UK Government exclude those products and guarantee that they will never appear on our supermarket shelves if they sign up? Of course, they cannot. Malaysia, a CPTPP member, is actively manoeuvring to reverse the ban on palm oil extracts, which are notorious for causing deforestation, leading to increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
John Spellar
Can the hon. Member tell us which countries he thinks Britain can do trade deals with?
Drew Hendry
There is an entire continent in Europe that we could be doing trade with. This is the thing: we have had a 33% drop in trade with the EU in the first four months since Brexit was implemented in January, and CPTPP membership would be a literal drop in the ocean in trying to replace that trade.
As I was saying, palm oil is notorious for causing deforestation, leading to increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Will the Minister therefore confirm for the House that the UK will enforce a ban on palm oil? What climate change assessments have been made of the impacts of the deal on the UK’s climate change commitments?
Currently, 85% of the UK’s exports to CPTPP members are to Australia, Canada, Japan and Singapore, and the UK already has free trade agreements with seven of the 11 members through agreements made while the UK was a member of the EU. The only real driving force for Brexit Britain to join a trade alliance on the other side of the world is political. It is not economic. Scotland has been dragged out of the EU against its wishes and, as I have said—I will repeat it again—in the first four months of leaving that single market, UK trade exports to the EU have plummeted by 33%, trade for businesses has been hammered, and the costs of goods for industries, including distilleries, have shot up by 20%.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
My hon. Friend made the point earlier about welcoming—it would be churlish not to do so—the dropping of tariffs on Scotch whisky. He will be aware that I am the chair of the Scotch whisky all-party parliamentary group. Will he join me in calling on the Government to respond to the alcohol duty review that they have been sitting on for six months? The Scotch whisky sector will need as much support as possible to get back on its feet, so will he join me in calling on the Treasury Bench to get on with it and give the sector more support?
Drew Hendry
I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend the chair of the Scotch whisky all-party parliamentary group. The past four months have been devastating. In that same period, Scottish fishermen have been sold out, Scottish farmers have been betrayed, and powers to protect our regulations and standards—and even our NHS—have been steamrollered by this Government. The agreement does nothing to rectify that. That is why more people every day are realising that Scotland needs to be an independent country to make the right choices to protect our food and drink industry, our farmers, our crofters, our NHS and our people.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With a time limit of five minutes, I call Angus Brendan MacNeil.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Tapadh leibh, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I also thank the Secretary of State for the debate. It is good to see the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), the former Secretary of State, in his place. The International Trade Committee had many interactions with him in his old role.
Dominic Cummings was right, or at least partially right, in some of his utterances this week. In particular, he was correct when he said that politicians have been obsessed with trade deals that are not that significant when it comes to economic growth and drawing lines on maps. I am not sure what other howitzers he will be sending the way of the UK Government, but I do not think that will be the last.
When we come to trade deals, trade, the issue of Brexit and the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, the important things are numbers. When we look beyond the flowery language, we see that even the Government’s own figures show we are talking about 0.08% of GDP—that is £1.8 billion. We have to take that in the context of Brexit, which is a 4.9% damage event to the UK economy. It is like saying, “I had £4.90 and I threw it over my shoulder, and now I’m scrabbling around on the other side of the world for 8p”. That is the ratio difference we are talking about. The Australian deal is worth 2p, and an American deal would be worth 20p. A New Zealand deal might give us another penny and the Canadian deal is worth about 3p, so all in all, we have thrown away about £4.90 and are hoping to get back, with what I have talked about there, 30-odd pence.
Emily Thornberry
The points that the hon. Gentleman is making are very important, and Government Members ought to listen to them carefully. Quite a lot has been made of the statistic of a 65% increase in trade projected for this region by 2030, but on close examination of the document, is it not right that that projected increase in trade is one that Government figures show would happen irrespective of whether the UK joins the CPTPP?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The right hon. Lady makes that point in her own way, and I do not want to go into it too much given that the clock is still ticking.
The comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership is not actually as comprehensive as it seems. Only seven out of the 11 countries have actually ratified it. Malaysia, Chile, Peru and Brunei have not. When we take out their GDP contributions, the figure goes down to 0.5% of GDP, or 5p that is available from the CPTPP to recover the £4.90 that has been lost by Brexit.
That is as far as we can go with the good news. I am now going to have to give the House some bad news. This morning, Neale Richmond, the Irish TD, who is never off our screens and is a fantastic representative of Ireland, brought to my attention in a tweet that the Republic of Ireland now has, for the first time ever, a trade surplus with the UK, as UK exports to the Republic of Ireland are down 47.6%. That is £2 billion of trade gone. Remember that the UK was talking about a £1.8 billion increase from the CPTPP. With Ireland alone, the damage of Brexit has wiped out what could be gained from the CPTPP.
There may be some good news in Ireland, depending on people’s constitutional stance. North-south exports are certainly up and are making for a far more integrated economy, with a 22.4% increase in exports to Northern Ireland from the Republic and a 44.2% increase in imports to the Republic from the north. That is against the background that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) pointed out of the 33% fall in trade that has been truly damaging the economy. The Secretary of State said earlier that we were putting our eggs in one trade basket. It looks as though we do not have any eggs in any trade basket, the way it is going at the moment. Certainly, from my talks with the British Egg Industry Council and the British Poultry Council, it is very much a real-life chicken-and-egg situation as to which way this is going.
I also want to point out some privacy issues. I have had correspondence from constituents that I want to bring to the Government’s attention, and I am sure that they know what I am talking about—making sure that people’s data is actually safe and is not traded around to second, third and fourth parties in a global context.
I also want to raise the issue of patent attorneys. UK patent attorneys are a fifth of the number of patent attorneys in the European patent convention, and they do a third of the work at a value of about £746 million. Let us take that away from what is left of the CPTPP—the 0.5%, or £1.1 billion. If this damages the UK patent attorneys’ relationship with the European patent convention, it would just about negate everything from the CPTPP, and there is a very real possibility that this could happen. UK patent attorneys are flagging this up constantly. The Government should be well aware that we are now talking about not a 0.8% or a 0.5% gain from GDP, but perhaps only a 0.2% gain. So we are down to 2p after throwing away the £4.90 that I referred to earlier.
What are we left with? We have thrown away £2 billion with Ireland, and might gain a few hundred million with the CPTPP. We are risking our farming and crofting trade with Australia and much else. We have walked away from our partners next door, as my hon. Friend pointed out. It might be strategic, but what do we say to people who are losing their jobs and to the businesses that do not grow because of this economic damage? I do not think the Government have an answer. This appears to be a Government wanting to come back waving bits of paper, much like Neville Chamberlain, and shouting “Trade deals in our time”. It is not good enough for anybody who is trying to make a living up and down the nations of the current UK.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With a time limit of three minutes, I call Craig Williams.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I shall speak ever quicker, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is a great pleasure to follow the Chairman of the International Trade Committee, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil). I serve on that Committee and I look forward to scrutinising the detail of this, both in private and in public sessions, with him. It is also a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who set out his vision and made some important points, which Members on both sides of this Chamber should reflect on, about the developing world and how we can help it through trade and liberalisation. His point struck home about how hollow the international aid debate is when we do not help our partners and fellow democracies around the world on the back of trade.
It is important again to look at the strategic context for this CPTPP. I am proud to have got that out in one go, as I have been practising—the International Trade Committee helps with that. The context is a £9 trillion market. In 2030, it will represent 65% of the middle-class consumers of the world, in places where meat consumption and meat imports are going up, which is important for a rural constituency such as mine. The demand for the fifth quarter—I will not go into details about that part of the carcass, which we do not consume and do not want in this country—is over there.
I am struck by the fact that this partnership will be good for the premium products that the farmers in my constituency produce—the dairy, Welsh lamb and beef. The demand and consumption is increasing in the part of the world we are talking about, not decreasing as it is in the European markets, and that is where we need this country to be. This is where I would like Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy, who will be responding to this debate, to be focusing for our agricultural communities. It is worth again stressing the strategic context of this deal; these are the growing markets where we want to be sat around the table. This is where I want Welsh lamb to be promoted very vigorously by Her Majesty’s Government. This is where we want Scottish whisky to be promoted and sold. This is the access we want.
Craig Williams
I will discuss that with the Chairman in many debates, no doubt. However, my last 30 seconds are coming to an end, so all I will do is wish the Front-Bench team well in progressing this partnership. My Welsh farmers want access to this market. I wish him well in scrutinising it as it goes forward.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I am a strong believer in free trade—I think it is a very good idea. However, the priority has to be the terms of the deal, not just the fact of doing a deal. It is the same as in business: too often, for the advisers, the lawyers and often even the chief executives, it is doing the deal that matters, but for the business and its workers it is the terms of the deal that matter. This is also about Government managing the follow-through. Let us be clear: one reason why free trade has a bad name in this country and in the United States, but particularly here, is that it has become a free-for-all. For the British Government, we buy trains, boats, military planes, ambulances, police cars and so on from anywhere in the world. No other country behaves like that. That is about decisions of Ministers. Frankly, unless Ministers develop some backbone and start to instruct their civil servants to support British industry, trade will continue to be mired in controversy in this country.
That is a great shame, because trade has made a transformation in the lives of hundreds of million—probably billions—of people around the world, particularly in China and Asia. It has raised living standards and aspirations. Barriers to trade, financial, physical or administrative, reduce living standards, as we are finding out and as a number of colleagues have mentioned. When talking about trade, we should remember that we have a massive trade deficit with the EU, which is why it should be negotiating more realistically with us—our Ministers should not be grandstanding, and should also be negotiating realistically with the EU.
We also have to recognise that all change comes with associated costs and disruption. Look at the industrial revolution, the agricultural revolution and the corn laws in this country, which caused massive issues. We should learn the lessons of history and look at how we manage the transition, but that will require an active role for the Government; I know that is against their ideology, but it is absolutely necessary in order to deal with this fast-changing world.
Finally, there are a lot of problems all around the world with the unequal distribution of income arising from change, and particularly from the current technological revolution. The best way to deal with it is to support workers’ rights in these agreements and support trade union rights and free trade unions. Joe Biden has said that very clearly, but the message has to get through to our Government. There is a new sheriff in town in Washington, and we ought to be supporting him in backing workers’ rights around the world.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]
The UK is one of the world’s greatest centres for digital trade, a sector that is vital to the future success of our economy. We want to attract investment and talent from across the globe and open up markets to the services that British companies provide.
Data is the fuel of the digital economy, driving everything that people and businesses see and do online. We need to work towards common standards among nations in how data is gathered, stored and processed, which can give citizens certainty about the security of their personal data when they share information with businesses online, as well as when they use apps on smart devices and cloud storage systems. We know that people care about these issues: more than 90% of iPhone users who have been given the choice have opted out of allowing apps such as Facebook to access data from non-Facebook apps on their devices.
At the recent G7 summit, the Government led successful negotiations between nations to create a business tax regime that is fit for the digital world. Trade agreements can also be used to help to establish common standards for data protection and processing. Laws affecting digital regulation and data protection should be set by Parliament rather than in trade agreements, which is why I spoke against the proposal by President Trump’s Government to include in trade agreements American legislation limiting the liability of tech platforms for the content posted on their sites—a measure that would restrict our ability to legislate to improve online safety, for example. That had formed part of the US’s agreements with Canada, Japan and Mexico, but I was pleased to receive assurances from the Secretary of State that it was something that we would not accept.
The CPTPP agreement seeks not to impose new digital and data policy, but to create certainty for citizens and businesses alike about the safety of their data and the interoperability of systems. I know that the Department for International Trade has closely consulted the Information Commissioner’s Office on the CPTPP’s terms and the obligations that it creates; in the ICO’s opinion, it is compatible with UK data protection law. It has also noted that a number of CPTPP member countries have already been granted data adequacy decisions under the EU’s GDPR, including Canada, Japan and New Zealand. The CPTPP also contains provisions similar to those in the UK-Japan agreement recognising the importance of data protection to electronic commerce and committing all parties to implementing a data protection framework that takes relevant international standards into consideration.
The ICO believes that it is possible to have separate but complementary data adequacy processes with international trade agreements. In Asia-Pacific, such agreements tend towards greater reference to international data transfers and the free flow of data in agreements, particularly to address risks of data localisation. It is important, however, to properly consider and understand the implications of any provisions in trade deals that cover privacy and data protection, particularly with regard to the processing of UK citizens’ data in a third country.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The UK’s application to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership is founded mostly on its diplomatic advantages rather than on its advantages for international trade. Strengthening our ties with established and developing free market economies and liberal democracies is a positive goal in itself, and it is right that we should think about how we can leverage our international trade power to build those partnerships, but we need to balance our diplomatic interests with our economic ones.
Joining an existing economic partnership whose rules have already been developed and cannot be changed for our benefit is fraught with risk. Before accession, there should be a full consultation, debate and vote in Parliament so that every part of this country and every economic sector can review the risks and benefits and contribute to the decision. Greater scrutiny leads to better decision making. A better and more informed awareness of the risks will surely help us to better leverage any advantages.
The principal risk and, as I understand it, the reason that the Biden Administration are reluctant to sign up to the CPTPP is that the rules governing membership inhibit national Governments from pursuing their public policy objectives. That inhibition is primarily through the use of investor-state dispute settlements, which the CPTPP allows. ISDS allows private companies to sue national Governments if public policy limits their ability to make profits. ISDS has been used to challenge important environmental regulations, including water pollution controls in Germany, a ban on fracking in Canada and various regulations on mining in east Africa and South America. There is also evidence of ISDS being used to challenge health provision, labour rights and other important regulations. ISDS was used in Egypt to challenge an increase in the minimum wage. Philip Morris sued Australia for attempting to introduce plain-packaged cigarettes and Slovakia was sued for attempting to nationalise part of the health service.
The risk to the UK is clear. The need for us to take urgent action to tackle climate change has been spelled out for us once more this morning by the Climate Change Committee in its new report. This country is not on track to meet our net zero commitments without urgent further action. There is public pressure and political consensus on the need for that action and we should not put ourselves in a position where action can be undermined by carbon-emitting companies looking to make profits. There is too much at stake.
The CPTPP places obligations on members to recognise each other’s standards as equivalent. This is a huge concern for those who value the UK’s high standards of agriculture and food safety. Enabling the import of agricultural and food products into this country that do not meet our existing thresholds or welfare and quality will weaken our domestic producers.
I was going to make some observations about data, but the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) who spoke just before me covered that really well, and I merely endorse his comments.
If we were firmly focused on our diplomatic and trade interests, we would not have left the single market or the customs union. As we try to mitigate the various impacts of those Government decisions, we need to be honest about the trade-offs required from different courses of action. Are the risks of entering into this partnership worth the 0.017% uplift in GDP? The public deserves a proper scrutiny of these plans, so that we can make the best decision in the national interest.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and, as the Member of Parliament representing Ynys Môn, a rural constituency with a large farming community, I am keen to see the UK develop its trade partnerships across the globe outside of the constraints of the EU.
Recently, I held a meeting in English and in Welsh between the Minister of State for Trade Policy and local farmers here on Anglesey specifically to discuss our new trade partnerships. Questions had been raised by individual farmers, as well as local representatives of the young farmers, the National Farmers’ Union and the Farmers Union of Wales about the impact of trade deals on their business. My farmers welcomed the opportunity to discuss the CPTPP, what trade partnerships can offer them, and the opportunities to build the British brand overseas, to market our produce as being of exceptional quality and, of course, to export more British food overseas. Beef, sheep and dairy are the mainstay of many farmers here on Anglesey and the CPTPP will open up a wealth of opportunity for them across the Asian, American and Australasian continents, with potentially lucrative markets for our produce, including dairy products—in particular, cheeses to Canada and Australia, pork and poultry to Vietnam, beef to Japan, and mutton to Malaysia.
Peter Williams, one of my local sheep farmers, has extensive experience of working in the middle east, and he shared how our lamb and mutton can be differentiated to make it more attractive to that market. Our meeting highlighted the value that is placed on the quality of British produce overseas, particularly in markets where food safety is a key consumer concern. The UK’s food is safe, traceable, and audited. Our animals are well cared for, and our meat and dairy produce is handled with care.
My farmers questioned the Minister about branding for British and Welsh produce and are keen to ensure that agreements such as the CPTPP are aligned with the Government’s proposed campaign to raise awareness of brand Britain. However, they also had concerns about the potential opening of the UK market to cheaper, lower-quality imports from overseas, and the Minister was keen to reassure us on this point. When the Agriculture and Trade Bills passed through the House, the Government made a commitment to upholding our standards and not opening the floodgates to substandard products, and the Minister reiterated that commitment. The Government have already stated that animal welfare and food production standards for imports will be at least equivalent to those that we enforce in the UK. For the avoidance of doubt, this means that we will not be accepting chlorinated chicken or growth hormone-fed meats.
By protecting our high standards and highlighting all that is unique and special about UK produce, we can use agreements such as the CPTPP to support and grow our farming communities on the domestic and global stages.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
It is right that we in the UK seek to bolster our trade relationships across the world to boost our economy, create jobs, promote growth and benefit from exit from the European Union and the freedom that offers. That said, we should ensure the standards that we enjoy and value are not lessened because of such arrangements. In my constituency, I have many small family farms that spend each and every day working hard but are weighed down financially and by the time commitment needed to produce food to the highest standards.
Our farmers can truly boast of the safest food, with world-leading environmental standards, animal welfare standards and traceability from farm to fork. It would be wrong if trade deals and accession to the trans-Pacific partnership brought with them a lowering of those standards through the opening of our markets to cheaper products produced to lesser standards and with a negative impact on our environment. There is much focus now in the UK on the carbon footprint of farming. It would be terrible to impose targets on our farmers while we ship lesser product from the other side of the world.
These arguments are well rehearsed, and my colleagues and I have made them before in this House as we debated the Agriculture Bill and the Trade Bill. We need the Government to live up to their commitments that our farmers would not be sacrificed in the quest for free trade deals and that the standards we enjoy in the UK at considerable cost to our agriculture industry will not be diluted by new trade agreements. I recognise the opportunities—opportunities that a range of industries, including agriculture, wish to seize upon—but the Government must honour the commitment to farming families across the United Kingdom.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). Five years ago yesterday, I voted to leave the European Union. Newcastle-under-Lyme voted to leave the European Union, and so did the whole of Britain, so eventually we did, no thanks to some Opposition Members. It was never about retreating into an island fortress, as some people like to suggest, and it was never about retreating from free trade. In fact, as the famous Spectator cover had it, for many of us it was about getting out and then into the world.
CPTPP is the sort of organisation that British people thought they were joining in 1973 and that they voted to join in 1975: the common market, as it was back then, where countries enforced their own laws, but there was not enforced harmonisation. Unlike the EU, by joining the CPTPP—I hope we will do, and I welcome what the Secretary of State said in her speech about the progress we are making—we will retain control of our borders, our money and our laws, and we will secure the growing opportunities, including: increased trade and investment opportunities; the opportunity to diversify our trading links and our supply chains to increase our domestic security, especially in the wake of what we have seen with the pandemic and other threats around the world; and, the opportunity to turn the UK into a global hub for free trade. That is a vision I hope we can all get behind.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman is talking about free trade. I mentioned in my speech the damage to trade with neighbours in Ireland, for instance, but we used to trade very freely—with no paperwork, no hurdles and no hassle—with the 27 other member states of the European Union. How many countries across the world can we now trade with in the same way?
Aaron Bell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I think he would accept the point that I have made that exiting the EU was not about wanting to retreat from free trade. I would rather we had been able to get a better deal with the European Union, but it was not interested. A lot of the time, it seemed that the EU wanted to punish us for Brexit to put other people off from doing the same. I am afraid it was aided and abetted by Opposition Members who met the EU when we were negotiating, so I will not take any lessons from the Opposition today about negotiating this agreement.
As the Secretary of State said, some of the richest opportunities will come from the Asia-Pacific area, with £9 trillion-worth of a growing middle class for our exporters. These include exporters in Staffordshire and Newcastle-under-Lyme such as global British icons like JCB, companies in my constituency like Doulton, which sells water filters to the growing markets in developing countries, and niche smaller start-up companies like the Staffordshire Gin Company. We have heard a lot about whisky today; let us talk about gin. The Staffordshire Gin Company is already exporting to Singapore. and this trade deal will reduce its tariffs. I invite the Minister and the Secretary of State to come up with me for some quality assurance of the Staffordshire Gin Company’s products. I am sure we could have a very good session there.
But I do not just want to talk about the benefits for our exporters and our producers, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said so eloquently, free trade is a win-win, but the true benefit is to consumers. Companies and producers are not there for consumers to service; they are there to service the consumers. It should be up to people to make their own choices to have lower prices, whether the goods are supplied from Newcastle or New Zealand. That is the true prize of free trade—the true sense of comparison of markets and also the benefits for developing countries that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) spoke about. We must not lose sight of the benefits to consumers. They may be more diffuse—perhaps a few pence off the weekly shop—but that adds up in a community like Newcastle-under-Lyme. That is the real, true benefit of this. We should obviously focus on the benefits for our exporters and the potential jobs that will be supported, but whenever we talk about free trade we must not lose sight of the real reason for it, and that is to make people’s lives better—consumers both at home and abroad.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
UK membership of the CPTPP would be a significant achievement for post-Brexit trade and open up a major export market for exporters in Scotland and across the UK, presuming that it does not lead to a decline in the high standards for goods and services that we currently possess and does not undercut our industries with lower-quality goods. In 2019, UK exports of goods and services to the signatory nations of the agreement amounted to £58 billion, or 8.4% of all UK exports. In the light of the ongoing Brexit-related trade disruption, engagement with this market is especially crucial in opening up new markets and diversifying our trade.
However, it is essential not to forget some of the possible costs of entry into the agreement and to ensure that as we sign these important trade deals we do not compromise our high standards of food safety, animal welfare and environmental protection. The farming industry has been keen to emphasise that unshackled trade with countries that have lower standards on agricultural produce poses a real threat to the industry unless rules on standards are clearly enforced on imports. In February, Mark Williams, chief exec of the British Egg Industry Council, emphasised that a significant percentage of the cost of egg production in the UK comes from the high food standards expected of domestic producers via existing legislation. Without these standards being enforced on imports from countries that the UK has free trade agreements with, we could see our farmers substantially undercut by low-standard produce. Mexico, one of the signatories, is one of the world’s most significant egg producers, with some 160 million egg-layer birds kept mostly in cages, with no significant national hen welfare legislation.
Another matter the Government must consider carefully is the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. In accordance with chapter 9, section B of the agreement, the UK Government would be required to accept an ISDS arbitration mechanism. Although some signatories of the agreement have won derogations from this rule via bilateral side instruments, the UK, according to many trade experts, including the UK Trade Policy Observatory at the University of Sussex, is unlikely to be able to secure for itself such a derogation as existing members are keen to ensure compliance with existing CPTPP rules.
Due to the catastrophe of Brexit, our exporters are being denied the unfettered access to the EU’s single market that they long enjoyed. For the Scottish and UK economy to prosper, we must continue to act to secure new markets for their trade, as I know the Secretary of State has been doing. However, the Government must take on board these serious concerns about our regulatory autonomy and food standards when seeking to gain access to these markets. Our industry and environment alike depend on it.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
We live in interesting times, and I do not doubt that, whether it is in 100 or 1,000 years, historians will look back and record that these were times of great tumult—from the global financial crisis, through the unseating of a number of leaders around the world and Brexit, through to what I fear will be the next financial crisis, as inflation comes in and causes problems for bond markets, at which point we will have a great moment of decision. I believe that in that decision we will crystallise a great and long-standing crisis of political economy—how we are governed and how power is constructed so that we can deliver free trade and prosperity for all and raise the standard of living for everyone.
Whether people like it or not, the UK rejected the idea of political integration to deliver free trade within customs unions and harmonised regulations. The British public rejected it, not only in the referendum but in subsequent elections. This is where the CPTPP comes in and is so important. Yes, it is about trade, but it is about more than that; it is about strategy. It shows how we can be more prosperous, more free-trading, in a way that retains that crucial right to regulate.
I spoke for 15 minutes in a debate on 21 April, and I am very grateful to the Minister for Trade Policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), for responding. I do not propose to repeat all of what I said, but I said in particular:
“CPTPP can provide a better standard of living for people in the UK and across the original member countries. It can deliver free trade plus self-government in this great age of interventionism.”—[Official Report, 21 April 2020; Vol. 692, c. 260WH.]
That is what I am looking to the Government to deliver.
I mentioned Taiwan in my speech. I would like to see Taiwan accede to the CPTPP along with us, together with the USA. If a number of accession countries joined, we could end up creating a new free-trading platform containing over half of global GDP. That would create a great force for good in the world.
Having recently met the Taiwanese ambassador, I am inclined to suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister that he supports Taiwan’s accession to the CPTPP. Would he also look into proposals that Taiwan has made to the Government to deepen our trading and investment relations specifically? Given Taiwan’s very important semiconductor industry, it seems to me in the national interest that we should deepen and strengthen that friendship.
Finally, let us look at what a country as progressive as, presumably, any Opposition Member could wish—New Zealand—says in summarising CPTPP and the environment. One of its websites points out:
“The Environment chapter includes two key general commitments that underpin mutually supportive trade and environmental policies.”
It explains that CPTPP parties will effectively enforce their environmental laws.
As I run out of time, I recommend the website. It shows just how high-standards this agreement is.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) [V]
It is great to be the tail-end Charlie of this debate on the CPTPP. In this year of the Indo-Pacific pivot, the Government have already made huge steps forward to strengthen our partnerships across one of the world’s most exciting areas. We have a new trade deal with India, which by the way, is our second-largest investor over the last 12 months, with inward investment up 25%, and a significant knock-on impact on our jobs. There is the joint economic trade committees with Thailand and Indonesia, the agreement to have dialogue partner status with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the first ever completely new independent free trade agreement with Australia, and one coming up with New Zealand, and now agreement for the CPTPP trade negotiations to start.
Some will—and indeed have—poured scorn on the differences that each of those steps will make individually, but collectively it is very hard to dismiss the fact that the overall impact of the Indo-Pacific pivot is already considerable and the opportunities ahead even greater. The CPTPP with 11 countries is already a large market, with supply chain diversification benefits from its rules of origin, but the potential is there for more than four ASEAN members to join, and South Korea as well; and of course the biggest of all would be the US, which would bring an area of huge importance to the free-trading world.
Yes, of course, as we go forward, the Government will need to address the investor dispute resolution and agricultural concerns of this House and our constituents, but I hope that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition will not continue to peddle the myth that the NHS will somehow be auctioned to a fictional Pacific region buyer. Let us instead recognise that trade is good, that it will benefit our exporters and our consumers, that the trans-Pacific partnership is a huge step forward in our strategic direction, and that the potential is absolutely the right one for the benefit of all parts of the United Kingdom.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
If all the existing members of the CPTPP ratify the agreement, we will increase our total trade by £3.3 billion. That is quite a lot less than £9 trillion. To put it in context, that total estimate of £3.3 billion equates to about a third of our annual trade with Luxembourg, and £1.7 billion of exports is about 15% less than we export to Kazakhstan each year. Joining the trans-Pacific partnership will produce an increase in GDP over 15 years of just 0.08%, and if Malaysia maintains its refusal to ratify the agreement, as it is threatening to do, that will fall to 0.017%. In real money, that is £400 million, so I suppose the Secretary of State could cover the cost of two new royal yachts instead of one. The reason that the projected increase in trade is so small is, of course, that we already have trade deals with seven of the 11 CPTPP countries, with two more on the way with Australia and New Zealand. The truth is that the extra benefits from joining were always going to be very small. Before the Minister repeats the projected figure of a 65% increase in trade by 2030, he would do well to remember that the increase projected by his Department is regardless of whether we join the CPTPP or not.
The Secretary of State puts the CPTPP at the top of her list of priorities, but where, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) said, is the action on standing up for British industry and jobs? We have a steel industry that faces an existential threat because of her inaction. It contributes £2.1 billion directly to GDP and another £2.7 billion indirectly, as well as providing 34,000 well-paid skilled jobs in our regions and a further 42,000 jobs in supply chains. That represents a £4.8 billion contribution to the UK economy, as against a possible maximum benefit from joining CPTPP of just £1.8 billion after 15 years.
The impact on our economy and our steel communities of losing the British steel industry dwarfs the impact of joining the CPTPP, yet the Secretary of State continues to give all her priority to the latter agenda while resolutely ignoring the former and voting against Labour measures to defend the industry from total ruin. There is still nothing from the Secretary of State on the catastrophic threat to the steel industry from ending the safeguards, which run out next Wednesday. What a disgrace that the International Trade Secretary chose not to use today’s parliamentary time to introduce the emergency legislation needed to save the steel industry. Think of the 76,000 people who work in the steel industry and their families, for crying out loud!
There is a more direct connection between CPTPP and steel, so when the Minister responds to the debate, can he tell us how the Government will ensure that our membership of CPTPP is not used by China as a back-door route to dump steel on the UK market through Vietnam? What specific provisions will the UK Government negotiate—if they are going to negotiate anything—to prevent CPTPP from enabling the dumping of steel in the UK? Finally, will the Government take the action needed by next Wednesday and save our steel industry?
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
We have had a good debate, if a little short. Joining the great global partnership of CPTPP promises to unleash a wave of trade-led growth in our country, generating jobs and delivering prosperity to every part of the UK. The launch of negotiations for our accession is an important moment for Britain as an independent trading nation. It shows that, once again, major economies want to do more business with the UK and that it is possible to strike ambitious trade deals that go further than those negotiated by the EU. The CPTPP is a free trade area comprising 11 nations that account for 13% of global GDP, worth £9 trillion, with a combined population of 500 million across four continents. By welcoming the UK into its fold, the CPTPP will become even stronger, its share of GDP rising to 16% and gaining an even louder collective voice on the world stage in pursuit of its shared priorities. The strategic case for this was well made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and others as being important for the UK not just in trade but also in terms of wider strategy.
As the Secretary of State said earlier, it shifts the UK’s economic centre of gravity towards faster growing parts of the world such as Asia, where 65% of global middle-class consumers are expected to live by 2030, and the Americas, and there are great opportunities in this for UK agrifood, a point well made by my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie)—I was delighted to meet her farmers a couple of weeks ago—and for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) and the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). It is also a great opportunity for Staffordshire gin, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell).
Britain would become the first new member of CPTPP since it was established in 2018, and other significant economies such as the Philippines, Thailand, Taiwan and South Korea are looking to follow suit. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) mentioned Taiwan and he will know that I am a 30-year-long enthusiast for Taiwan; we have Joint Economic and Trade Committee talks later this year, but I am always open to better trading links with Taiwan. This is a high-standards agreement between sovereign nations—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme—and a business-focused deal that removes tariffs on 99.9% of the goods we export to CPTPP members and reduces other barriers, particularly for our vital services industry.
Turning to the content of the debate, the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), spoke for twice as long as the Secretary of State but it was all the usual doomsaying and talking the country down. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset said, she is the shadow Secretary of State against international trade. She has had three years to consider whether Labour supports this deal—three years—and she still has not made up her mind. Perhaps, however, we should not be surprised, because Labour could not make up its mind on deals with the component countries—the members. Labour abstained on Japan, is opposed to the Australia deal and against Singapore, and split three ways on the Canada deal. The right hon. Lady talked about the NHS, food safety and animal welfare; nothing in the CPTPP threatens our standards and it is clear that there will be no compromise on our standards from our manifesto.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) again went on endlessly about Brexit, as did his party colleague the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), but he and the SNP have never supported any trade deal ever so I do not think that whatever I say to him today is going to make him support it. He said that the UK had not agreed to join the investor-state dispute settlement. First, the UK has never lost an ISDS case and, secondly, I recommend having a look at the details. Labour put out a press release a few weeks ago saying that it decries the ISDS provisions in the Australia deal, but there are no ISDS provisions in the Australia trade deal. We heard a very considered contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins); he spoke in favour of the deal, and I agree with him that we would not sign up to the provisions that are included in the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement. Turning to the Lib Dems, Vince Cable was all in favour of these deals when he was in the coalition Government and the Minister for Trade, and he was actually in favour of ISDS proposals as well.
There are specific benefits for the cutting-edge sectors that are shaping the world of tomorrow such as AI, services and technology, and the deal will allow us to work closely with CPTPP members on modern digital trade rules, business travellers, slashing red tape, agrifood and more. When negotiations conclude, the UK’s accession will be subject to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 scrutiny process alongside the statutory Trade and Agriculture Commission report and I commend UK accession to CPTPP to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will now suspend the House for three minutes in order to make arrangements for the next item of business.
Backbench Business
UK Defence Spending
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered UK defence spending.
I begin by thanking the Backbench Business Committee and those colleagues who supported the application by my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for the debate. It would be remiss of me not to recognise the members of our armed forces this week. Armed Forces Day is coming up this weekend when we will think about the work they do on our behalf, but we should, as I said yesterday, think about it every single day of the year.
Yesterday’s events in the Black sea showed how fragile is the world in which we live, with the threat from Russia and developments and increasing threats in China. The domain of defence has changed in terms of, for example, cyber, space, information technology, the asymmetric threats from hostile states, and the determination of some to tear up the international rules-based order which we have come to accept since the second world war.
On 19 November, the Prime Minister announced that the defence budget would increase by £16.5 billion over the next four years. Anyone who knows me will know that, for my part, any increase in defence expenditure is welcome. The Government committed to that increase over and above the 0.5% that the Conservatives had agreed to in their election manifesto. However, the 2020 spending review funding settlement described it as an increase in defence spending of £24 billion in cash over the next four years—something that has been repeated often by the Prime Minister.
I thank the Institute for Fiscal Studies for pointing out that that is rather misleading. It believes that it would be more accurate to say that by 2024-25 the defence budget will have risen in real terms from 2019-20 by £7.5 billion. It seems that the Government have got the £24 billion figure by taking the cumulative increase each year. I do not think that helps the debate on defence expenditure, because clearly that methodology is not one that most people recognise. What clearly is the case is that, by the conventional method by which it is measured, by 2024-25 the defence budget will be £47.4 billion in real terms, which is a 7.5% increase.
Another thing that seems very strange—this was very helpfully pointed out by the House of Commons Library—is that if we look at the way the Government have profiled expenditure, we see that most of it is in the first three years, from 2020-21 to 2022-23. No doubt a general election has been pencilled in for somewhere around then, because after that it drops from 5.6% in 2022-23 to 0.4% in 2023-24 and 2024-25, so in terms of the way in which this has been explained, some of the claims that have been made should come with a health warning.
I would also point out, thanks again to the House of Commons Library, that the defence budget will still be smaller in real terms than it was in 2019. As people know, I am a little bit of an anorak about following the defence budget and reading National Audit Office reports. If we look at what happened, we see that from 2010 the defence budget dropped in real terms by £9 billion. It is worth exploring the history of the defence budget over the last 10 years as a comparison with what we have today. We all remember that in 2010 the Conservative coalition Government took office saying that the Labour party had left the defence budget with a £38 billion black hole. I tried on numerous occasions to find out where that figure came from. The only way I could get it was from the NAO’s 2009 major projects report, which said that on the equipment side there would be a gap in the defence budget of £6 billion over 10 years if the defence budget only rose by 2.7%. It then went on to say, strangely, that if there was no increase over the next 10 years it would be £36 billion. Clearly, the spin doctors in the Conservative party added an extra £2 billion for good measure.
Over the period of the last Labour Government, there was a real increase in the defence budget of 5.5%. If we want to question whether the £38 billion was just rhetoric we can, because within two years of the coalition Government coming in it had been completely wiped out. Clearly, the individuals who were Defence Secretaries then should be brought back to field the fiscal crisis we face today. However, the reality is that that covered up what the Government were actually doing, which was slashing the defence budget from 2010 onwards. For six of those 10 years, we had a reduction in the defence budget, including an actual reduction of 9.7% in 2012-13. When the Government were arguing that they were standing up for defence, they were doing exactly the opposite, slashing it throughout that period by over £8 billion, and we all know the consequences of that. We cannot start today’s debate with the idea that this is somehow new money; it is not even catch-up for what was cut throughout that period.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Was not one of the really detrimental outcomes of that that the services and the Ministry of Defence were pushing programmes to the right and therefore extending them out, adding to costs and disrupting those programmes, and that our troops then did not have the equipment that they needed?
Mr Jones
My right hon. Friend is right, and those chickens are now coming home to roost with some of those programmes. That adds cost, but the main effect was that we saw a 45,000 cut to the Army. Despite the fact that the Conservative party in opposition, when I was a Defence Minister, called for an increase in the Army and an increase in the defence budget—an increase in everything—the first thing it did in government, under the smokescreen of this fictitious £38 billion black hole, was to cut the defence budget. Now we have a situation in which the Army is going to be reduced by another 10,000. Alongside that, we had compulsory redundancies, in-year budgets cut at short notice, and ridiculous decisions taken, for example on Nimrod and Harrier, which were scrapped at a moment’s notice. That had a real effect on the capabilities of our armed forces, as my right hon. Friend has just outlined.
Then we come to the equipment plan. Again, I suggest that anyone who wants to understand the defence budget should always read the NAO reports. The NAO is very clear that the equipment plan, as outlined at the moment, is unaffordable. It has been like that for the last four years, and there is no sign that it is going to improve. According to the last report—these are the MOD’s figures, I hasten to add; I am not adding to the fiction—there is a £13 billion black hole in the current equipment plan. The security and defence review—the integrated review—was supposed to look at that. The one thing I was calling for from that, as I think a lot of people were, was some reality: “What are you going to cancel out of the budget to get it back in balance? Will you actually say what you will do?” It did not take the opportunity to do that. The other startling thing from the most recent report is that the efficiencies that were supposedly built in to make the equipment plan affordable have been completely ignored by the Ministry of Defence.
How did we get to this place? Again, we have to look at the history of what the Government have done over the last 10 years. They introduced the Levene review, which pushed the top-level budget holders back to the military and reduced control at the centre. The latest report shows that nearly a third of the accountancy positions in the top-level budgets in the RAF, Army and Royal Navy are vacant, so there is not that control. I said at the time that I thought the Levene review was misguided. It has left the centre with very little control over some of these issues.
We then had the ludicrous decision, thanks to the Liberal Democrats in the coalition Government, to delay the ordering of the Successor class for the nuclear deterrent, which has led to our existing deterrent having to be extended, at huge cost. Without the ability to look in detail at driving down some of these costs, even with the increase that has been made, I do not think that the equipment budget will be affordable. The way the MOD does its budgets needs fundamental reform.
Why does this matter at the end of the day? It matters for two reasons. First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) has just said, it leads to a situation in which the men and women of our armed forces do not have the right equipment. It is also inefficient, because it pushes things to the right, and we end up with those us who argue for more money for defence facing people who say, “Why should we give it, if you have this chaotic system?”
However, it is even worse than that. This relates to the equipment we are ordering. A very good report was written by the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) on prosperity. I am a believer. The Prime Minister thinks that now in this golden age after Brexit we should buy British—but the MOD is doing completely the opposite. It seems to buy American. Recently, we have had Wedgetail, the maritime patrol aircraft and Apache helicopters all purchased from the United States in a Government-to-Government contract.
People ask, “Why does that matter?” It does matter. First, because we are not supporting British jobs. Unlike other nations that insist on a work share, as the Indians did with their P-8s, we do nothing at all, so we are left completely wide open not just to our industrial base being denuded, but to foreign exchange fluctuations. That is of huge interest in terms of the defence budget. If we look at it as a whole, US content is 31% now—it was 10% in 2006—and we are opening ourselves up to the fluctuations of the currency markets. That is money that should be going into our frontline services, but it will not be.
No explanation has been given to me as to why we have suddenly gone down that path, and why we have not insisted that the US companies we buy from have to work in the UK. That is inexcusable, but it is a clear decision taken by the MOD that exports British jobs to the United States but also makes our defence budget very vulnerable to currency fluctuations.
John Spellar
Is it not worse than that? Whereas the United States air force wanted to buy Brimstone and was prevented by congressional pressure—they knew it was a superior product—the MOD has now dumped Brimstone and is buying Hellfire from the United States.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting speech. Is not the situation even worse? When we buy from other countries, we will never own all the intellectual knowledge that applies to that kit and that could be a disadvantage when it comes to its use.
Mr Jones
I will answer the hon. Gentleman first, because he makes a good point. When we purchased the C-130, the package came with the intellectual property, so that we could do the maintenance in the UK. With Wedgetail and the P-8, it did not, which means that they must fly back to the United States; in the case of the P-8, I think maintenance can be done at Birmingham airport by US staff but UK staff will not be allowed to do it. I cannot understand why, if we have a Prime Minister who wants to champion the best of British, we now have a Department that seems content to buy off the shelf from the United States.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley mentioned Hellfire, the latest scandal. This relates to the new missiles for the Apache helicopters. There were two competitions: the joint air-to-ground and Hellfire missiles; and the Brimstone weapon, to which he referred. Brimstone is an effective weapon which the Americans wanted to purchase, but they were stopped by Congress. So what do you think the MOD did? Did it buy British and ensure this proven technology for our Apaches? No—it has just awarded the contract for Hellfire and JAGM to the United States, which again is exporting UK jobs. The issue with JAGM, and I have raised this with the MOD, is that it is not even at the moment, I understand, fully IM—insensitive munition—compliant, unlike Brimstone.
Why is it that the Government and the MOD are content not only to export jobs, but not to hold these companies’ feet to the fire and say, “Can we at least do things here?” Can we do it? Yes, we can. The Indians did it with their P-8s. There is a lack of understanding about that.
The Prime Minister talks things up, and we have the prosperity agenda and, as I said, the great report by the right hon. Member for Ludlow, but they are not being put into practice. That needs to happen because the danger is that we get to a situation whereby our industrial base is eroded further. It has been eroded by this Government’s policy and that has got to stop.
On the threats we face, we have a problem with the equipment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley said. In 2027, we will have 17 ships—not even enough to escort the carrier. We have had dilly-dallying on procuring the fleet solid support ships for the Royal Navy, which are needed for the carrier battle group. Ships are being ordered, for example the Type 32, and no one knows what they are or what they will do. It seems that the Prime Minister has suddenly decided that the MOD should pick up the tab for—I was going to call it the royal yacht, but I understand it will not be that—the Prime Minister’s personal yacht, or whatever it will be. However, the decision has been made to spend £200 million, and it is not just the capital costs of building that ship. Where does it fit into the overall naval strategy? Who will run it and at what cost? There is a disjuncture in the way in which decisions are made.
The Government can spin their new increase how they like, but it does not make up for the cuts of the past 10 years and certainly does not fill the black hole. If we look at the next few years, capital budgets might be going up, but revenue budgets are being cut. That means wages, and terms and conditions in our armed forces will be reduced.
I cannot sum up the position any better than the National Audit Office report, which said:
“The Department faces the fundamental problem that its ambition has far exceeded available resources.”
I would say the same of the Prime Minister. His rhetoric far outweighs the abilities and resources we need to meet his ambition.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), my colleague on the Defence Committee. I am pleased to see not one, but two Defence Ministers on the Front Bench who have come to listen to our thoughts today.
The debate is particularly relevant because this is Armed Forces Week. I hope that both Ministers will join me in using it as an opportunity to recognise and celebrate what our services do for the nation. It is a chance to give thanks to all our forces for what they do in keeping our nation safe and working with allies to protect our interests and defend our values.
When we speak of the armed forces, we mean not just our regular and reserve forces, but the cadets, our veterans and, importantly, the families and loved ones who support those who wear the uniform. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
This week is important because the bond between the armed forces and society is critical. Our volunteer forces are drawn from society. If the general public are less aware of what our forces do and the role they play in keeping us safe, fewer people will step forward and consider joining the services. As we have discussed today, we are more likely to get an increase in defence spending if the nation understands the threats. People will support our call for increased spending if we take the nation with us.
It has been said many times in this Chamber that we have arguably the most professional armed forces in the world—highly trained, well equipped, extremely professional and, consequently, revered by our allies and feared by our adversaries. As a former regular soldier and now a reservist, I have no hesitation in recommending to any school leaver a career in the armed forces. To them, I say: “You will learn things about yourself you never knew, go places you never expected, and develop skills and build confidence that will help you for the rest of your life. The first time you march off the parade square, having completed your training, you will make your mum and dad so proud.” We thank all those in the armed forces who serve and continue to serve.
Today’s debate is about defence spending. I think the Government’s integrated review paints the changing threat picture very fairly. By anybody’s calculation, the world is becoming more insecure. Authoritarianism is on the rise; extremism is active not just in the middle east, but increasingly in Africa; both Russia and China are presenting fresh security challenges that we have yet to fully address; and our international organisations are less able to uphold international standards. I would argue that our threat picture, collectively, is greater than during the cold war when defence spending was at 4%, yet today it remains at just above 2%.
Quite rightly, the integrated review calls for new capabilities to counter emerging threats, particularly from cyber and space, but it is clear that without extra funding, that has come at the expense of our conventional forces. The emergence of new threats does not mean that the old ones have disappeared, yet here we are, cutting back the Army by 10,000 troops and reducing the number of tanks and armoured fighting vehicles, as well as our Typhoon and F-35 fleets and our Hercules heavy-lift aircraft.
We will also lose two Type 23 frigates. We have frigates and destroyers in the surface fleet that are global leaders in their class, but we simply do not have enough of them. Our Royal Navy is now overstretched and we need to increase its size. I certainly praise the efforts of HMS Defender in ignoring the intimidation of the Russians in the Black sea yesterday, but if we are to step forward with our allies as we should to defend and protect international waters and show a presence in the Caribbean, the Gulf, east Africa, the Mediterranean, the North sea and now the Arctic, as well as a tilt to the Indo-Pacific, as commanded in the integrated review, we will need a bigger Navy.
The Government put forward the counter-argument that we can lean on autonomous and unmanned assets. New technologies can certainly help, but they should be seen as enablers rather than as replacing manpower. We cannot replace boots on the ground.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point about leaning further into autonomous weapons. As that happens more and more, does he share my concern that we are not as far advanced on the rules surrounding their use? Do we not need greater collaboration with allied countries to set the standards and rules globally?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman is correct in the sense that we are advancing into new terrain: even when it comes to a cyber-attack, it is unclear whether or not it is an article 5 breach. We are building resilience and capabilities, but the rules-based order, international institutions and legislation have yet to keep up. That should not prevent us from making sure—as the MOD is rightly doing—that our mission is protected as we become increasingly vulnerable and ever more reliant on the movement of data.
To go back to the point about reducing our armed forces and the footprint of our manpower, the ability to seize and hold ground, separate warring factions, deliver humanitarian aid, assist civil authorities with tasks such as tackling covid-19, win over hearts and minds, restore law and order, respond to natural disasters and carry out countless other diverse tasks—that requires people. It requires professionals—it requires our soldiers, sailors and air personnel. It is wrong to reduce those numbers.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend has said. We have not fought a high-intensity war since the second world war—maybe we did in Korea—but we have operation after operation, and what we need is manpower. We have just cut it by 10,000, and I can tell hon. Members that, having commanded soldiers on the ground in peacekeeping or peacemaking, we have cut off our nose to spite our face. We require our boots on the ground. We require soldiers. I entirely endorse what my right hon. Friend has said. We are cutting our Army by 10,000 and that is a mistake.
Mr Ellwood
My right hon. and gallant Friend makes a very powerful point. I know that the Ministers on the Front Bench are conscious of this issue. One day, I would like to learn of the algorithm—what it was—that determined the cut of 9,500. Perhaps one day we will read the memoirs of the Ministers on the Front Bench and learn and be better aware.
For the moment, the cuts have another significance, because they affect our upstream engagement: our ability to strengthen our security bonds with allies and partners. I know that the Armed Forces Minister is conscious of the value of the bond that we develop with nations—Commonwealth partners and so forth—because of the professionalism of our armed forces. Being able to share ideas, training and so forth is absolutely critical. However, the integrated review fails to address the biggest strategic threat posed by China. It does not recognise how China is using its soft power—its one belt, one road programme—to gift military and telecoms equipment to countries across the world and effectively nudge us out of favoured nation status. That is happening with Commonwealth countries in Africa and the Caribbean. We lose our soft power and prosperity links.
China is ensnaring more and more countries in its sphere of influence. We are seeing a bipolar world emerge. For me, that is the face of the next cold war, and that is what we need to address. That is exactly why we should be increasing our global presence, not decreasing it or limiting our ability to increase it by reducing our numbers.
Jamie Stone
The right hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting contribution. Does he agree with the point I made in this place yesterday that reducing the Army by 10,000 people reduces the career options for young people who might join, and that that in itself could make still greater the problem of recruitment?
Mr Ellwood
Yes, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The burden placed on the existing armed forces when their numbers are reduced overstretches them. That means that the harmony guidelines will not be followed as they should be or welfare programmes adhered to. It is a valid point, particularly in the advent of global Britain. We saw, thanks to the successful G7 summit, recognition that the world is changing fast and we need to do something about it. I would argue that what we choose to do over the next few years in recalibrating, defending and reinvigorating our global order will determine what happens over the next few decades, given the rise of China. It is therefore absolutely important that our armed forces—our hard power—are able to play their role.
In that light, I encourage the MOD to continue in the spirit of what happened in the Black sea yesterday when it chose to send HMS Defender from Odessa to Georgia. I am picking up that perhaps not everybody in Whitehall was of the view that HMS Defender should have taken that path. May I congratulate the MOD on being firm with its commitment to say, “This is how we uphold the international freedom of the seas”? We must not kowtow to adversaries that choose to push forward and demand that other nations are unable to enter these seas. We thought that actually the Black sea would be pretty benign and that it would be the south China sea where things would get a little spicy. What happened yesterday has been a good warm-up. I absolutely encourage the MOD to continue in that vein and not to shy away because of any other voices in Government that might want us to take a more subservient route.
In ending—I am conscious in raising this subject that the Minister was kind in responding to my urgent question yesterday—I reiterate my request for the vaccination of our deployed troops. I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House yesterday. He made it very clear that the MOD must abide by the national standards of vaccination roll-out.
John Spellar
Why? Why can we not make an exemption and show preference for our troops who we are sending on deployment overseas, rather than just sticking to the rigid, dogmatic guidelines or strictures of the Department of Health and Social Care officials and, frankly, their hopeless Ministers?
Mr Ellwood
I partially agree with my Committee colleague. The point that is being made, though—the MOD and, indeed, the Ministers understand it—is that there is a very powerful case for giving keyworker status to our overseas deployed personnel. Quite simply, that is what we are asking Ministers to consider. They should take this issue away. They should heed the tone of yesterday’s debate, which has been echoed today. We owe those personnel a huge debt of gratitude for what they did in this country to tackle covid: driving ambulances, building the Nightingales, and running testing stations and vaccination centres. When we ask them to do their day job, we must honour the armed forces covenant. We have a duty of care. I know from my experience in Bosnia, Kuwait, and even Cyprus and Kenya: I got vaccinated again and again to protect me from the diseases that I might encounter. We have the ability to vaccinate here. Please Minister, can we make sure that that happens? Let us give our deployed troops keyworker status.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Defence Committee with the knowledgeable insight that he brings to these debates.
Defence expenditure brings with it an opportunity to extend fairness into every corner of the country. There is nothing quite like the ability to invest in manufacturers and contractors in all parts of the United Kingdom, and the Ministry of Defence should take this role and opportunity very seriously. However, it does not take it as seriously as it should. Scotland and the south-west of England have almost the same population, yet MOD statistics released in January this year show that, when compared with the south-west of England, Scotland receives only approximately one third of the MOD expenditure—one third of the spend per person and one third of the direct MOD jobs per 100,000. Actually, it is worse than that. When we add the MOD spending in Wales and Northern Ireland to Scotland’s, we still arrive at a figure that is below that of the south-west of England. I do not understand how the Government can justify a single region of England, with half the population, benefiting from receiving more MOD expenditure than three quarters of this so-called Union.
Defence expenditure can be a complex issue, and that is set out very clearly by the Public Accounts Committee, which deemed that the 2019 to 2029 equipment plan is too expensive by between an estimated £3 billion and £13 billion. Plans for efficiency remain rose-tinted and optimistic. For example, £4.7 billion of savings are assumed without the remotest indication of how they will be delivered. Of 32 of the top priority programmes,a third are at serious risk of not being delivered on time, with capabilities reaching full operational standards two years late. It is not too hard to see where the money is going: the money is going on waste, and, on that, I will touch on the Type 45.
The oldest Type 45 in service has been in service since only 2011. The order was cut from 12 to six, with the price rocketing, like a sea-skimming missile, beyond the £1 billion per ship mark. There were more than 5,000 operational defects in five years, with a bill of more than £50 million to rectify them. They were brought into service too early, with untested propulsion systems and now have to be retrofitted with different engines at a very early stage in their lifecycle, costing £160 million that could have been invested elsewhere. It is just as well that the Type 45 is an exceptional fighting warship, given its propensity to find itself stuck. The MOD has a habit of hiding behind the complexity of that extremely advanced warship, but inconveniently for the MOD it is not the highly advanced air defence, anti-ship or anti-submarine systems that are falling over; it is the ship’s basic ability to move. Royal Navy sailors deserve far better than that.
On fleet solid support, the entirety of the order should be fulfilled in domestic yards in the UK. Does the MOD believe that by offshoring large elements of the manufacturing supply chain stimulus it is somehow teaching English and Scottish yards a lesson? If so, what is that lesson? I think it might be not to trust the MOD with future workstreams. The notion that a £1.6 billion order for defence equipment could be manufactured in foreign yards to the benefit of their apprentices, supply chain and steel industry shows a Department apparently all over the place in its procurement priorities. It demonstrates that the Government, as currently set up, are blind in many cases to the value of a potential tender, and fixated rather on the price.
Mr Kevan Jones
Is it not worse than that? Everyone agrees that the Type 26 frigate will be a fantastic addition to the Royal Navy, but HMS Glasgow is taking 10 years to procure, and that is because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) suggested, of what the Government do on all such contracts: they push it to the right to fit the in-year budgets, which leads to costs. That short-termism also means that other projects cannot be funded.
Dave Doogan
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, if for no other reason than raising the Type 26, which will allow me to highlight that, despite the MOD, we at last have a tremendous ship with very significant exportability, as we have seen with our allies in Australia and Canada. All credit to BAE Systems for the outcome of what has been a less than ideal procurement process, as tends to be the way. Type 31, the steel for which will be cut shortly at Rosyth, is another tremendously exportable frigate for the Royal Navy, and will demonstrate the first-class nature of manufacturing in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, to the benefit of people working here.
I move to the air. While final assembly of foreign-made ship blocks in the UK is patent nonsense, final assembly and component manufacture of aircraft makes much more sense. To that end, I move to the new medium lift helicopter programme to replace Puma, and so on. The competition between Leonardo with its AW149 and Airbus with its H175 means that they will not be British-designed aircraft, but they will require manufacturing in the UK. Can the Minister assure the House that the contract award need not necessarily follow traditional rotary-wing procurement routes, but will instead place a very stringent pre-qualification on maximising UK content, workforce and suppliers, together with a cast-iron commitment on apprenticeships—the type of value added over and above the asset delivery that the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) set out so clearly? To do so would allow the MOD to best deploy defence expenditure resources for the benefit of communities, as well as air service personnel and operators. That scoring of societal benefit in tenders is vital going forward. It maximises return on investments and minimises waste.
I do not have time to go into the Challenger 3 upgrade, which is not an optimistic proposition, or the royal yacht that is not a royal yacht but might be a flagship but is not a real flagship. We are still trying to figure out what exactly it will be. I will move on instead to the broader consequences of waste.
Waste in defence spending comes with a political cost that I am not much concerned with; I am far more concerned by the operational and opportunity costs of haphazard defence expenditure. The effects of that may be seen in the poverty of our defence housing. Earlier this week, the National Audit Office said that many barracks were in very poor condition. Issues with heating and hot water were the most common complaints. The NAO also highlighted a £1.5 billion backlog in repairs to military accommodation, with only 49% of people residing in that accommodation saying that they were satisfied, which is a decrease from 58% in 2015. So a really bad situation is getting even worse. The NAO found that nearly 80,000 people were occupying single living accommodation blocks either full-time or part-time, and 2,400 of those were in housing so bad that they were not even being charged rent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) tabled amendment 41 to the Armed Forces Bill, which was dealt with just yesterday, to demand that defence housing standards are at least as good as, if not better than, the relevant local housing standard, wherever the accommodation is in the UK. That will not be going forward, much to my disappointment. I do not see why our armed forces personnel should be living in accommodation that is worse than anywhere else in the surrounding community. It should not be an either/or, but if this Government could get a grip on defence procurement spending, they might find the capital required to invest in the dreadful accommodation that many of our service personnel are currently enduring. Whether it is defence expenditure or anything else, spending is about choices, and I am very clear that we are not currently making the right choices in the UK.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I have to inform the House of a correction to the result of the deferred Division held yesterday on the motion on the conference, November and Christmas Adjournments. The number of Members voting Aye was 568, not 567. The number of Members voting No remains three. There is no change to the outcome of the Division.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Oh, Madam Deputy Speaker, the disparity in that vote is almost as great as in the results when we voted to renew the nuclear deterrent—where we had very large majorities—on a cross-party basis, in agreement with that step. On a generous interpretation of the terms of this debate, and if I am not prevented by the Chair, I hope to say a little more about one aspect of the nuclear deterrent under the scope of subjects of a defence nature on which we are going to spend a considerable amount of money.
However, let me start by expressing some sympathy with Defence Ministers, because they have fought long, hard and valiantly to get a significant increase, in real terms, in the defence budget, and they have done that and deserve credit for it. The problem with which they have to contend is that, set in the context of defence expenditure over a very long period, defence still remains far too far down—way down—the scale of our national priorities.
Not for the first time, I should like to paint this picture, with the aid of a prop that I am not allowed to use but which I am, I trust, allowed to consult. It shows the falling percentage of GDP spent on defence over a very long period and the rising percentage of GDP spent on three other costly Departments: those dealing with education, health and welfare. I paint this picture just to give people the idea of the long-term trend. In the mid-1950s, an age ago, we were spending 7% of GDP on defence. In 1963, the falling graph on defence crosses over the rising graph on welfare and benefits, at 6%. We now spend six times on welfare and benefits what we spend on defence, but then of course 1963 was also a very long time ago. In the mid-1980s, which is not such a long time ago, we were still spending similar sums on education, on health and on defence. We were then investing roughly 5% of GDP in each, but now we spend two and a half times as much on education and nearly four times as much on health as we spend on defence. The mid-1980s was the last time until recently that we faced a threat from both a strongly assertive Russia and a major terrorist campaign. Then, it was Irish republicanism; now, it is Islamist fundamentalism.
I said that I wanted to talk about one area of defence spending because it had attracted attention from the references to it in the integrated review, and I see to my great pleasure that the next speaker on the list is the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I should be very surprised indeed if he did not have certain observations to make about the change in the maximum number of warheads that it is envisaged might be held in stockpile for the future nuclear deterrent.
Ever since NATO’s September 2014 Wales summit, which restated its 2% guideline for defence spending as a proportion of gross domestic product, it has become necessary tediously to repeat that that figure is a floor, not a ceiling. For example, although it is sometimes proudly proclaimed that we meet the NATO guideline, historically, as I have shown, we used to spend way above that. Even as late as the mid-1990s, half a dozen years after the fall of the Berlin wall, we were not spending 2.1% or what is now going to be 2.2% of GDP on defence; we were spending fully 3% of GDP on defence. It was the view of the previous Defence Committee, and I understand that it is still the view of the Chairman of the present Defence Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), that 3% would be a realistic and sensible target for a country with our worldwide interests to seek to hit.
Dr Lewis
I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend nodding his assent. Therefore, when we talk about the 2% guideline, we should bear in mind that it is not a ceiling nor a target; it is merely a floor or a minimum. Now we face a similar task regarding the increase in the cap on the size of our nuclear stockpile recently announced in the integrated review. That should be described as a ceiling, not a floor. In other words, it is a maximum and not a target for the number of warheads we will retain.
The integrated review states:
“In 2010 the Government stated an intent to reduce our overall nuclear warhead stockpile ceiling from not more than 225 to not more than 180 by the mid-2020s. However, in recognition of the evolving security environment, including the developing range of technological and doctrinal threats, this is no longer possible, and the UK will move to an overall nuclear weapon stockpile of no more than 260 warheads.”
Predictably, this is being denounced as a more than 40% increase in the stockpile, on the basis that increasing a total of 180 to 260 would be an uplift of 44.4%. However, the cancellation of a reduction that has not yet been completed—if indeed it ever began—means that, at most, the total might rise from the previously declared maximum of 225 to a new maximum of 260. Were those the actual present and future totals, the increase would be only about 15.5%, a perfectly reasonable increment to ensure that advances in anti-ballistic missile technology over the 40-plus years of our next generation of Trident warheads cannot undermine our policy of minimum strategic deterrence.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The right hon. Gentleman does not have to wait for the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). He knows that we disagree on this—he mentioned at the start of his speech the last vote on the nuclear deterrent, and I seem to recall that we were in agreement that there should be a vote on the nuclear deterrent. However, when the integrated review was published—he has just mentioned the change in threat and doctrines as a reason for the expansion of the new nuclear policy—it was said that this was somehow to do with things such as cyber-threats, so which computer are we aiming these nuclear weapons at? Does he agree that to say that we would use nuclear weapons in response to a cyber-attack or threat is wholly absurd?
Dr Lewis
If the hon. Gentleman, whom I regard as a friend, waits for the next part of my analysis, I hope that all will become clear. However, it is absolutely the case that nuclear weapons, as a deterrent, do not deter every sort of threat that could be ranged against us. If they did, we could abolish all the other armed forces. The truth of the matter is that they deter other weapons of mass destruction. Unless there were a development in the cyber world that could inflict destruction on a mass level comparable with a nuclear exchange, it is entirely incredible to think that nuclear weapons would be used in retaliation to an attack of that sort. I hope that satisfies him on the main point that he was making.
Minimum deterrence relies on the fact that possession of a last-resort strategic nuclear system that can be guaranteed to inflict unacceptable and unavoidable devastation in response to nuclear aggression does not require any ability to match the aggressor missile for missile or warhead for warhead. Nuclear superpowers have huge overkill capabilities that offer zero extra protection against countries with much smaller weapons of mass destruction arsenals, as long as the latter can retaliate with an unstoppable and unbearable counter-strike against any nuclear aggressor who is seeking to wipe them out. Overkill capabilities may have symbolic political value, but in the dread event of a nuclear exchange, all they can do, as was famously said, is to “make the rubble bounce”.
There may exist more up-to-date estimates, but the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s inventory totals for world nuclear stockpiles, published at the beginning of last year, are sufficiently instructive. China, France and the UK, with estimated totals of 320, 290 and 215 respectively, fall into the camp of minimum strategic nuclear deterrence. By contrast, the estimated totals of 5,800 for the United States and 6,375 for Russia go way beyond anything needed to pursue such a policy. The notion that, at some stage in the future, the United Kingdom might end up with 35 more warheads than its previously declared theoretical maximum does not change the fact that we are currently, and shall probably remain, fifth out of five in the size of the nuclear stockpiles held by the permanent member states of the UN Security Council. So why have the Government chosen to take the controversial step of cancelling the reduction in the ceiling of our warhead total from 225 to 180 and raising it to a new ceiling of 260 instead?
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
It is a shame that the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), is no longer here, but I was with him when he said that it is to cover for the fact that we are cutting the Army by 10,000 as a sweetener to the Americans. That is what it is.
Dr Lewis
Let us see if the hon. Gentleman was right in anticipating what I have to say.
In the absence, at present at any rate, of any briefing on the issue, classified or otherwise, from my parliamentary colleagues on the Defence ministerial team, here are the four possible explanations that occur to me. Explanation 1—most probably, as already stated—is that it is an insurance policy to prevent a potential aggressor from calculating that advances in anti-ballistic missile systems have reduced our retaliatory capability to a point where our response to an attack becomes bearable or even avoidable. Explanation 2—quite probably—is that it is to give more headroom for the time, in the late 2030s or early 2040s, when we are due to exchange our current stockpile of warheads for next-generation nuclear warheads, while at the same time preventing disruption of our continuous at-sea deterrent patrols. Explanation 3— possibly—is that it is to send a signal internationally that the UK is determined to keep nuclear weapons as long as other countries have them and remains committed to doing whatever is required to maintain their invulnerability. And—here it comes—explanation 4, conceivably, is that it is also tailored for a domestic audience worried about cuts in the size of the Army, in order to offer reassurance, or at least to divert some attention from those reductions.
What seems most unlikely is an intention to invest in additional warheads of the existing design. We are certainly cancelling their reduction from a theoretical maximum of 225 to one of only 180 for any or all of the four reasons listed, particularly the first explanation. Raising the maximum from 225 to 260 to provide extra headroom for the eventual transition from current warheads to their replacements is a sensible explanation, though not a conclusive one, given that the changeover is not due to happen for well over a decade.
Despite the imposition of a dedicated supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament as the Leader of the Opposition in 2015, hon. and right hon. Labour Members ensured that their party’s policy remained multilateralist. Previously, on 14 March 2007, Parliament had voted by 409 to 161 in favour of proceeding with the initial gate for renewal of the Trident submarine fleet. Even that huge majority was eclipsed on 18 July 2016, when it rose to 355 after MPs voted for the decisive main gate stage to proceed by 472 to only 117.
There is nothing in article VI of the non-proliferation treaty that requires any country already in possession of a recognised nuclear arsenal to get rid of it and to achieve a nuclear-free world prior to a state of grace when general and complete conventional disarmament—also referred to in the non-proliferation treaty, but seldom cited by those who quote it selectively—can be guaranteed. There is a very good reason for this, because if we were to abandon all nuclear weapons in an unreformed world, that would be a recipe for disaster. In a conventional war taking place in a nuclear-free world, the former nuclear powers would immediately race to reacquire the bomb. The first to succeed would then use its monopoly, as occurred in 1945. If the treaty’s vision of general and complete conventional disarmament ever becomes reality, then nuclear weapons can indeed also safely be declared redundant; but, until that day dawns, the United Kingdom is perfectly capable of changing the size of its warhead stockpile without breaching the non-proliferation treaty in order to maintain indefinitely the credibility of its strategic minimum deterrence policy.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, but I have to say, with all due respect to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), that it is deeply depressing to follow him when he seems to be contemplating with equanimity the idea of further nuclear arms and a global nuclear war. Surely this debate, of all debates, ought to be concentrating on issues of peace, issues of security and issues of hope for the future, but very little that I have heard so far offers any hope to anybody for the future other than a preparedness for more conflicts and more wars.
The Government’s White Paper on security was very interesting, and I read it with interest and care, yet I felt that it had missed the fundamental point. What is real security? Is real security the ability to kill somebody else, to destroy something else or to go to war with somebody else, or is it the ability to feed your population and to ensure that they have good healthcare and good education and breathe clean air, and that their young people can look forward to a future with some degree of hope? For many around the world, that is not a possibility and they suffer grievously. Looking at the causes of wars that have happened over recent years in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in Libya, they have all been followed by non-state actors getting more and more active and thus more and more dangerous. There are consequences to every military conflict that we involve ourselves in, and we would do well to think about that.
The Government’s proposals in all this, in a post-covid world where wealth has been transferred from the poorest to the richest at an unprecedented rate over the past year to 18 months, are to spend £24 billion more on our defence budget over the next four years and to cut our overseas aid budget from 0.7% of GDP to 0.5%. What kind of message to the world is that? It says that post-covid, recognising all these issues around the world, we are increasing expenditure on arms and preparedness for war and decreasing that which we invest in clean air, clean water, education, health, housing and all the other things that are so important in many parts of the world that are significantly poorer than we are.
The White Paper also makes real a decision that the Government have been inching towards, perhaps galloping towards, for quite a while, and that is to, as they see it, restore Britain’s global role. In the 1960s, the Labour Government led by Harold Wilson, while giving political support to the Americans in Vietnam—which I profoundly disagreed with at the time, as did many others in my party—nevertheless recognised that Britain’s role of imperial grandeur around the world had to come to an end, and so ended the east of Suez policy on deployment of the Navy and of significant numbers of troops. That was a significant, important and quite seminal moment.
This Government seem to have abandoned all those ideas and now talk grandly of a global role for this country. We should just pause and think about this for a moment. We are a country of 65 million people in one part of the world. We are not a global power. We are not an imperial power. We should not be having pretensions of being an imperial or global power but play our part in the family of nations, through the United Nations, to try to improve the lot and living standards of people all around the world.
In that context, I ask myself what we are doing sending an aircraft carrier to patrol the South China seas to encourage a build-up of military hardware between India, Australia, the United States and ourselves all around the South China sea and towards China. It seems to me that this is a recreation of the whole idea of a cold war philosophy, which will not serve us well any more than building up to further conflict with Russia by the deployment of the Navy in the Black sea. Before anybody shouts at me about human rights abuses in China, Russia or anywhere else—Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or any country you care to name—I will just say this: I would challenge any country or any leader on their human rights record if I thought they should be challenged, and I do think they should be challenged, because human rights are a universal concept, based on the universal declaration of 1948. Would it not be so much better if we put our energies into engagement with all those countries to try to ensure that the ideals of the universal declaration were actually met in a proper way and if we supported the United Nations in what it is trying to achieve?
In this post-covid world, let us recognise that we need to spend a great deal of money on healthcare around the world. The World Health Organisation frequently points out that the greatest risk to the health of us all is another novel virus that will come from goodness knows where and goodness knows what source. It will not be dealt with by military means; it will only be dealt with by healthcare and health means. When Prime Minister talks of sharing our vaccine surplus, I hope it happens. I hope he is right in doing that and I hope those vaccines get to all the people and all the countries that need them.
I want to say something more on the issues of nuclear weapons. The General Assembly of the United Nations and the vast majority of nations in the United Nations have supported the idea of a global ban on nuclear weapons. They have signed up for it. A number of countries have already ratified that particular treaty. We are in a minority of countries that does not support the principle of a global ban. We are in a very small minority of countries that, contrary to what the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) says, are, in my view, in breach of the principles of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty was set up with the idea of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and it has had some successes in that through nuclear weapons-free zones in Africa, central Asia, Latin America and others that are proposed, but it has not been so successful in persuading the declared nuclear weapons states or the non-declared, but “no nuclear weapons” states such as India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel to take part fully in the principles of the NPT.
The NPT review conference is coming up later this year. How on earth will Britain go to the NPT review conference and say, “We support the nuclear non-proliferation treaty”, while at the same time expanding our nuclear warheads from a maximum of 180 to 225 or 250—the figure is unclear from the White Paper and statements from the Ministry of Defence? Or, will we be able to say something more positive: that we will adopt a “no first use” policy, that we will not further increase the number of nuclear warheads, that we will take steps on greater mutual verification and on reducing the number of warheads and that we will seriously engage with the idea of a global ban on nuclear weapons?
Nuclear weapons usage is inconceivable and unthinkable for anyone who wants to see the world survive. Any one nuclear weapon used anywhere would cause massive and intense damage. What happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was a firework compared with the power of the current nuclear weapons held by China, Russia, France, the United States and ourselves, so we have to think about what that means.
There was an article yesterday in the i about some of the survivors of the nuclear tests on Bikini Atoll in 1954. Many died from cancers as a result of those tests, as indeed did many British nuclear test veterans as a result of being forced to observe those particular tests. Can we not instead start looking towards a future where we play our part in trying to bring about a more peaceful world? We as a country want to live in a peaceful world. The people of this country want to live in a peaceful world. The people of this country do not want to see soldiers underpaid, badly treated, suffering mental health stress when they come out of the armed forces and getting inadequate support for it, nor do they want to see the privatisation of their facilities. They are proud when our armed forces help to deal with Ebola or save people, desperate refugees, drowning in seas around the world. They are proud of that. Can we not move in a slightly different direction and start looking not just at our own defence policy and the need to diversify so much of our defence industry while protecting jobs that are so important in different parts of the country, but also recognise that when we sell arms to others, they get used? They get used by Saudi Arabia to kill people in Yemen. They were used by Israel in the recent bombing of the Gaza strip. We need to think a bit more carefully and a bit more seriously about that.
The study of history is always important: the way in which the world went from the complacency of Edwardian England to the horrors of the first world war by a series of semi-secret mutual defence treaties all around Europe and the borders of Europe; and the way in which the rise of fascism was for a long time ignored in Germany and we ended up with the holocaust and the genocide of the second world war. Let us not go back to those days. Let us instead look to a world where we are actually making our contribution to peace around the world, and our contribution to supporting people who are going through human rights abuses and oppression. I hope that our debate will consider what I started my contribution with: real security in a very difficult and very dangerous world. That, surely, is something we could all, I hope, agree with and sign up to.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) [V]
It is a great pleasure to take part in this fascinating debate and a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who made a very eloquent plea for his version of what peace looks like around the world. I would not disagree with him at all, in that I think the UK does have a big role to play in trying to establish it and maintain it. I think we may disagree on some of the particular details on how to get there, but I think the whole House could agree that that is what we are trying to do.
I have always thought that a proper commitment to defence and defence spending is an essential part of that. I have been a champion of the Government’s commitment to the 2% minimum of GDP spending on defence, but I also agree with Members who made the point that that has to be the minimum and, in fact, we could do with spending more. The fact is that we face many threats around the world. There are lots of nations with lots of nuclear weapons and designs on their neighbour’s territory. We have a role to play—absolutely not as an imperial power, but as a concerned global citizen—in trying to make sure those strategies and weapons are never used. That means we have to be part of the balance in the world that others respect.
When it comes to world security and the ability to work with partners and insert ourselves into places to help with humanitarian missions for example, many people are rightly very proud of the great role our armed forces play in disaster situations around the world. These are things we simply cannot do to the extent we do now unless we have a fully functional and capable armed forces that is able to be flexible and have the capacity to act in multiple areas at the same time. That is how we can help our partners in need, whether it is with their security or with their response. I would love to see us spending 3% of GDP on defence—maybe that is something to work on for the future.
I want to talk about a couple of ways in which our defence spending is integral to our strategy for shared prosperity, both in the UK and abroad, and about how the budget needs to be used wisely. We have heard about the problems in procurement that have existed over many years, with budgets moving to the right and being delayed, which can end up costing more. I agree that we need to focus much more on how we get the best bang for our buck out of procurement spending. Some very big procurement items are moving through the budget at the moment, such as the nuclear deterrent. How they are paid for is a massively important part of the overall picture, but we need to make sure that procurement focuses properly on prosperity for British industry and British jobs here in the UK and that it helps to develop skills and opportunities for young people and support the technologies of the future. With reference to my constituency of Yeovil, there are two critical things that illustrate that very well.
The first is the unmanned aerial vehicle programme that Leonardo has been working on in conjunction with the MOD. It is very important that that goes to the next stage, because the military very much see it as the medium to longer-term replacement for existing vertical lift programmes such as the Wildcat and the AW101 Merlin, which our commandos operate out of. However, my understanding is that the MOD does not yet have the next stage of the programme budgeted and funded. I would like Ministers to please look at that, because it is also essential to the perpetuation of engineering skills in the UK for vertical lift, which Leonardo really embodies—a key sovereign capability that we should preserve and enhance.
The second big opportunity, as the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) mentioned, is the potential identified in the integrated review for a medium-lift helicopter to be built in the UK. There is a Leonardo product called the AW149, which is an extremely capable vehicle. I must briefly correct the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan): he said that it was not a British design, but actually it was originally. The helicopter was designed in Yeovil, but as it was not being used militarily, it was given as a civil idea to the Italians, who have been making it as the AW189.
The AW149 could deliver our capability in a very cost-effective manner, because it is off-the-shelf—it is an existing civil product. It can be made very cost-effectively and can deliver a very manpower-centric type of capability. It has all of the automation suite that is so well loved on the AW101 and that makes that product such a success in search and rescue, because it gives the pilots much more ability to focus on the mission and on supporting the men under their charge without having to fly the aircraft. That makes it a very modern capability, which I believe is much better than anything else potentially on the market. Also, from an industrial point of view, it would unlock a big opportunity for foreign direct investment from the Italian parent, to invest in the UK, to really make Yeovil and Leonardo the centre of its military excellence when it comes to vertical lift. That is a real prize worth having. It can also make an important contribution to the UK’s export performance, because medium-lift helicopter requirements around the world could amount to as many as 500 aircraft of that type. That is a massive opportunity for the south-west and the entire supply chain in the south-west to participate in economic recovery and exports for the whole of the UK and really sustain the prosperity.
The hon. Member for Angus mentioned a disparity in his mind between Scotland and the south-west, but actually Leonardo is a living example of a Scotland and south-west co-operation, because Leonardo has massive operations in Edinburgh and is very proud of them, so it is an ideal example of how these slightly parochial, shall we say, interests can be bridged and are not what they might first seem.
These are crucial programmes to the sustainability of the workforce and the sovereign capability in vertical lift in the UK, and it would be a huge missed opportunity not to take advantage of that for recovery and exports. I consider that in the UK we suffer from not having direct Government involvement in export, as the US does, for example, through its foreign military sales programme. I agree with the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that companies such as Boeing have done very well out of the UK in recent years. They have just had a massive procurement of Chinook to add to the Wedgetail, the P-8 and so on. Chinook was done on a sole-source basis, so there was not a competition. Leonardo could not bid for any of that work—not even any of the maintenance.
Given that the medium-lift requirement for the MOD is for 2024 and 2025, there is a very strong case for saying that, as that is such a short timeframe, it makes eminent sense for that to be a sole-source procurement process, and for Leonardo to be chosen to work with the Government on that. Those machines will need to be in the factory in 2022 and 2023 to make the timetable, so the decision must be made pretty much immediately. I hope that Ministers will look at that.
To conclude, defence spending is admirably supported by this Government and is a key pillar of the outward-looking global Britain that we seek to build, but we need to ensure that it delivers for hard-working people at home. We need to buy British and support our industries and their world-leading products.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I know it seems like we have a lot of time for this debate, but I need colleagues to speak for about 10 minutes maximum to get everybody in without a time limit.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think the previous speech, by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh), reveals why we need to get back into this Chamber, where we could have made a few interventions on how the Government are letting down Yeovil, as they are letting down so much of the rest of the country.
I was going to start by asking what defence is for, and I was helpfully pre-empted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who talked about a study of history. A study of history would show that after the second world war NATO had to be founded, by a Labour Government and by the Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, in response to Soviet aggression and also to subversion of the countries of eastern Europe. We had to respond to that, and to subversion at home as well. In the same way, Ernest Bevin also played a prominent part in framing not just Labour policy but national policy before the second world war. Although, to his credit, George Lansbury, the Jeremy Corbyn of his time, had run a London borough, at that conference Ernest Bevin demolished the Lansbury argument for appeasement and pacifism and made it absolutely clear that authoritarianism—totalitarianism—had to be confronted, and confronted robustly.
Interestingly enough, that was emphasised very strongly only last month by President Biden in a speech at the National Memorial Day observance, which I commend to colleagues. He said very clearly that
“democracy must be defended at all costs, for democracy makes all this possible.”
He was talking about equal rights, respect and decency in the way countries treat their citizens and the way they treat other countries and their citizens. That is why we need collective defence. Rather than just talking about the League of Nations or the United Nations, important roles though the United Nations plays, we need collective defence.
Pat Moynihan, the famous American politician and diplomat, wrote a book arguing that the world is “A Dangerous Place”, the strapline of which was, “But a lot of people don’t understand that”. The world is a considerably more dangerous place now than it has been for a while. We have a revisionist China, a revanchist Russia, a subversive Iran, a terror-ridden Sahel—and those are just the main headlines. That is why we need defence, and that is why we need defence spending. A critical part of that for the United Kingdom and, indeed, the countries of western Europe is our transatlantic alliance with the United States, protecting democracy and freedom in Europe and keeping the Atlantic open as the great connecting sea lane between us. We ought to face up to that and support it.
That, of course, has consequences. Having decided that fundamental purpose, what is the structure that we put on top of it, and what role do we play in that? Are we going to play a leading and prominent role, or a very supportive but maybe less prominent role? We have to have—this is where a number of Members, including the right hon. Member for Islington North, are right—a national debate on that.
If we decide that Britain is going to play a significant and prominent role in the defence of freedom around the world, the resources have to follow—not short-changing the armed forces, not cutting the Army’s numbers, not shifting procurement requirements continuously to the right, greatly adding to the expense of each unit and gradually under-capitalising the armed forces; we need to make sure that they are properly funded. The Government talk the talk, often for political purposes—that was quite easy in the last general election against the right hon. Member for Islington North—but they must do more than that. They actually have to walk the walk and make the resources available.
Let us just have a look at the figures for spending on defence. Under the last Labour Government, in 2007-08, it increased by 6.8%. In 2008-09, which of course was a rather difficult year, as people remember, with the global financial crisis, it still increased by 0.5%. It recovered a bit in 2009-10, to plus 2.7%. Then in came the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition and, sadly, the figures were—I will just read the first years—minus 3.7% in 2010, minus 7.2% in 2011, and minus 9.7% in 2012. It went on, some years going down, some years going up slightly. That has always been the history, by the way; we remember “Options for Change” at the end of the cold war.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I greatly respect the right hon. Member for his expertise in and passion for defence matters, but he has conveniently left out the context in which we had to attack and deal with the financial mess we inherited in 2010. We cannot defend our country if we are broke. The right hon. Member talked about history and I enjoyed the beginning of his speech, but every Labour Government in history have left a mess to be cleared up.
John Spellar
Interestingly, in 2008, when the global financial crisis hit, the ratio of debt to national product was less than it was when we came to office in 1997, and in the meantime we built the schools, the hospitals and the infrastructure that the Conservative Government had lamentably failed to build.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my right hon. Friend also remember that during those years, up until the crash of 2008, the then Conservative Opposition not only argued for matching our spending targets, but called for more expenditure on defence?
John Spellar
I hope the Whips have taken note and that the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) will get a job after his intervention. By the way, what was the debt to national product ratio when we left office and what is it now? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us that, but he should not bother to interrupt at this moment to do so.
It is not just what we spend but where we spend it. We have had that argument continually in the Chamber. Why are we buying ships from Korea? Why, even when we are going to have the fleet solid support ships armed, does the Secretary of State still talk about only joining them up, not building and procuring all their equipment, here? Why are we buying so many planes from the United States? My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) pointed out to me that our dollar purchases in 2016 accounted for 10% of equipment. That has now increased to 31%. The hon. Member for Yeovil pointed out that the Yeovil factory is under threat basically because contracts have been given to Boeing, as they have for several other projects. Even when we have a superior product such as Brimstone, the Ministry of Defence cravenly gives in, keeps handing out those contracts and gets nothing in return.
As I said in the earlier debate on trade, no other country in the world behaves like that. I do not understand why Ministers do not stand up for Britain and for defence and get a grip. Otherwise, what is the point of them?
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The debate has been animated and enjoyable. It is a great pleasure to speak from the Back Benches from a position of unequivocal strength. As someone who would ordinarily have been critical of defence spending at any time over the past three decades, I admit that today I cannot be. Why? This year, the Government announced an unprecedented multi-year settlement for defence.
James Sunderland
Yes, it is. It offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to modernise our armed forces.
Throughout my 27-year career in uniform, I lost count of the times I was told that I could not do something, whether it was going on an exercise, organising adventure training, buying trucks or getting the latest equipment. I was always told by the bean counters that it could not be done. It was all doom and gloom, but now it is different. If anything, part of me wishes I were still in uniform because I believe that defence is well placed to take advantage of the excellent settlement.
Let us look at the facts. First, the deal for defence is worth an extra £24.1 billion over the next four years. It is a huge increase, unlike anything we have seen in recent history.
James Sunderland
Yes, it is. It will exceed not only the manifesto commitment—
Mr Jones
Will the hon. Gentleman not keep repeating that Front-Bench or central-party pump-out? He should look at the Library note. I explained the increase. He says he would like to be there now, but I am not sure he would get the opportunity were he a young man wanting to join the armed forces now, because there are nearly 55,000 fewer people because of the Conservative Government. The budget today is still lower than it was in 2009. Even with the increase, the £13 billion black hole in the equipment budget will not be filled. The idea of painting this rosily might get him on the Front Bench, but he should look at the facts and be independent—which he usually is on a lot of the issues.
James Sunderland
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but of course he is wrong. I will explain why—because the figures speak for themselves. Have a look at the maths! He is also wrong, because I believe that the offer right now for our armed forces is better than ever before. If I were 21 or 22 years old, I would want to do exactly the same thing that I did almost 30 years ago. I am proud of my service and of the fact that the Government support defence. So, £6.6 million has been invested in research and development, generating £25.3 billion a year for the UK economy and directly employing 133,000 people across the country. Defence spending is critical to levelling up, and we are doing it—fact.
The recent Command Paper “Defence in a Competitive Age” reflects a balanced budget. The MOD now has a fantastic opportunity to balance its red line, to get above the line—
James Sunderland
Yes, it does. The UK armed forces will become a threat-focused integrated force with a continued shift in thinking across land, sea, air, space and cyber, while also being financially sustainable for the first time in decades. If I may say so, the Conservative Government over the past 10 years have spent much of their time putting right the mess that Labour left this country in 2010.
Defence will spend £85 billion on equipment over the next four years. Shipbuilding investment will double over the life of this Parliament, rising to more than £1.7 billion a year. This will support the MOD in its commitment to grow the Royal Navy surface fleet to 24 frigates and destroyers by 2030. Admittedly, we need more, but of course we have to balance the budget as well.
Recently, too, the Procurement Minister launched the new defence and security industrial strategy, which benefits British industry to a superb degree. It is about jobs, livelihoods and, above all, export markets. The new strategy allows us to mandate UK content in all our defence contracts in a way that we could not do under the auspices of the European Union.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman is just wrong on that. Military contracts were excluded from any EU law. The only individuals who chose to put a military contract out to international tender, hiding behind the EU, were this Government, when they were arguing to put FSS out to international competition, even though they could have designated a warship, as did every other country in Europe—France, Spain, Italy and everyone else—and built it at home.
James Sunderland
Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. My clear understanding as someone who has spent time working in Defence Equipment and Support and in the MOD is that European Union legislation prevented this country from preferring UK industry. We are now not beholden to the European Union. We can place contracts with whom we want, and we are seeing it right now with our new strategy.
John Spellar
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he said something very significant—about his understanding when working at DE&S. He was saying that the culture there was to embody in their thinking the idea that they could not do it. In fact, that was totally untrue, and every other European country looked after its own industry. He has, very helpfully, exposed the deeply rotten culture inside the Ministry of Defence.
James Sunderland
My clear view is that the Ministry of Defence has the ability in law to extend contracts to whom it wants. We are no longer beholden to the European Union.
James Sunderland
Yes, we were. I rest my case.
Let us look at what we have right now. We have Lightning II.
Jack Lopresti
Does my hon. Friend agree that, now that we have left the European Union, we have a great opportunity, because we do not have to adhere to state aid rules or to European Union procurement rules, and that most defence contracts were bilateral anyway?
James Sunderland
I reiterate my previous points on this. The Opposition can make as much noise as they want from the Back Benches, but the fact is this: under the new defence industrial strategy, it is absolutely clear that the MOD can purchase equipment from whom it wants in a way that has not been possible over the past 10 to 40 years.
James Sunderland
Perhaps. But it is also about balancing the need for the right equipment against the need to make sure that we look after our nascent defence manufacturing industry. I believe that the balance is right today in a way that has not been possible before.
Mr Jones
I am not precious about this. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in terms of wanting to buy the best kit for our armed forces. May I ask him why, in all those Government-to Government contracts—on Wedgetail, on Apache and now on Brimstone—there is no work share, not even in terms of allowing ongoing maintenance for those things? Why have we just given that out and exported UK jobs to the United States, if this Government are so committed to ensuring that we have a vibrant UK defence policy?
James Sunderland
It is my clear understanding that the MOD’s responsibility is to purchase the best kit. This is about supporting our soldiers, airmen, sailors and so on. This is about a balanced decision made by the MOD, on advice from DE&S, about buying the right kit. In my humble view, we are in a new era. This is post Brexit and post EU. This is a new era where the Government have the autonomy, as never before, to make the decisions that they want to make. The post-Brexit era gives us that opportunity—that incentive—to look after British industry, which, in my view, is what we must do right now. In terms of what has gone before, that has happened. As of now, under this Government, from 2021, I am absolutely clear that our new strategy gives us the opportunity to do the right thing with the kit that we buy.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Sunderland
I am not giving way again.
Time is marching on. What have we got? We have Lightning II, an advanced fifth generation aircraft, procured to operate alongside the RAF Typhoon. We have Dreadnought, which will replace the Vanguard-class submarine. It will be the largest ever submarine operated by the Royal Navy. We have the Astute-class nuclear submarines, the largest and, again, most powerful attack submarines ever procured. We have our fantastic carriers: the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales, again, the largest and most powerful warships ever built for the Royal Navy.
We have Ajax, which, I know, has been the subject of debate in this House, but it is a purpose-built platform and, like many other state of the art protected mobility platforms, it will be the best on the market. We have Type 26 frigates, Type 31 frigates, the fleet solid support ships and so much more.
These are not vanity projects. These platforms allow us to project force, deter, fight and win. Our forces might be small in comparison with yesteryear, but they are perfectly formed, battle ready, potent and anything but cuddly. They are poised at readiness to be deployed anywhere in the world and our adversaries know that, which is why so much mischief is being caused by them in other domains, but we are ready there, too, as the review has proven.
For those in any doubt, and I address my remarks to those on the Opposition Benches, defence spending is a necessary evil to keep us safe. Today, we do face a multitude of threats in multiple domains. Some are known to us and some are not. We are living in an era of constant competition, with persistent engagement against our foes. Sub-threshold conflict pervades all around us. It is a dichotomy perhaps that, in this age of relative peace and prosperity, our future has rarely been less certain or predictable, not least in the battlegrounds of space and cyber. As a fan of the integrated review, it seems obvious to me that the proverbial golf bag of military capability will need to carry ever more clubs and that is happening under this Government. For a start, the golden thread that links hard power with soft power through worldwide free trade exports, balance of payments and creating national wealth is persuasive. We must therefore protect our ability to project force anywhere in the world by being able to call upon the additional, if needed. It is about platforms, ro-ro ferries and long-range aircraft such as the C-17 and the A400—the list goes on.
I am being urged to finish by Madam Deputy Speaker, but, before I do, I want to quickly cover a few points. Given that we now have more money to spend on defence—fact—the MOD should be placed under even greater pressure to ensure that it is spent wisely. That is about integration of British kit and integration in the UK of overseas equipment if we have to buy overseas equipment. This is about UK content in our defence contracts.
In finishing, I will raise three quick points. We have fantastic kit in the UK and I am confident in the main that our forces have what they need. I say that after three decades in the armed forces. I am also proud to serve under a supportive Government who really get defence, and we must spend responsibly and flexibly both to secure what we need for defence and to keep our British defence industry at the forefront of what we do. It is also about producing competitive exports that allow us to benefit our balance of payments, prosperity and reputation. Global Britain is here to stay.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]
I never thought I would hear the UK armed forces being called “small but perfectly formed”. I look forward to that being on a Conservative party leaflet at the next general election—I do not think it will be a vote winner.
It has been a while since we have had one of these debates and I thank two friends, the right hon. Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—one current and one former member of the Defence Committee—for securing it. As we saw from their speeches, we certainly do not agree on everything, but I know and understand where those Members are coming from and they are open to discussing and debating all sorts of ideas. That should be the goal of a liberal democracy. We need to have more of these debates and not only in Backbench Business time.
Let me begin with the recent publication of the integrated review and defence Command Paper. I do not think it is useful just to talk about defence spending as an inherent good. First, we must ensure it is being spent correctly. My friend, the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), chaired a session yesterday in which we heard from the Secretary of State, who was quite clear that those were the key documents for understanding where this political state was going. I happen to agree with the Secretary of State that there is a level of coherence within and between the documents that we have not seen in a while.
As a member of the Defence Committee, I have been lucky enough to be briefed by the Prime Minister’s foreign policy adviser, who has been responsible for synthesising the many disparate strands of foreign, defence and trade policy that we saw—no mean feat when concepts of global Britain have been so notoriously akin to nailing jelly to a wall. In achieving that feat, you are required to move on to a second-order problem: putting those abstract policy ambitions into concrete national security commitments. That is where we begin to encounter some turbulence.
There is a wonderful example of that on page 66 of the integrated review:
“Our goal:”—
the review thunders; the UK
“will be the European partner with the broadest and most integrated presence in the Indo-Pacific”.
I wish I had had the time to ask the Secretary of State about that yesterday. The consequences of that statement are potentially huge. I have one example—a current one—which makes me wonder about it.
This week, French air force Rafales, to simulate their long-range power projection capabilities, flew 40 hours in one go from France to Tahiti. That is French Polynesia, of course: that French part of the Indo-Pacific that allows that European partner to have a pretty broad, integrated and, given recent developments, sustained presence in the region. Is the UK seriously seeking to go further than that? How long has the carrier strike group tour of the Indo-Pacific been in the planning? This is the only type of thing that could replicate the French capability, and it is certainly not permanent. Do a couple of forward-deployed offshore patrol vessels equal a sustained presence, or a commercial opportunity to have them in the shop window? I am not sure. I have heard about RAF Typhoons planning to deploy into the Indo-Pacific, and the F-35B is famously the model with the shortest range.
Much as I would love to go into a longer debate on that commitment, behind my point lies a larger one: the Government are making national security commitments that are really understood only by a narrow range of policy makers in Whitehall, and not by the public at large, whose taxes will pay for them. Have we had a wider public debate about the UK Government’s commitments to the region and what the Indo-Pacific tilt means? I suspect that the up-and-coming trade negotiations will bring it to wider attention, but can any of us truly say that our constituents know what implications it will have?
This is the key point: the UK is stuck with a winner-takes-all political system where the formulation of foreign and security policy is done by the governing party. While all of us in this debate know that the commitments to the region are paper thin and likely to remain that way, the Government continue to use it as a means of pretending that we have moved on from the very concrete security challenges in our home region here in northern Europe. That is why my Scottish National party colleagues and I continue to bang the drum on multi-year defence agreements, such as the ones across Scandinavia, bringing together all parties interested in making a contribution and agreeing on general principles, and bringing debates to a wider audience so that the public can have confidence on what basis defence spending decisions are being taken, and why their hard-earned tax contributions are being spent in that way.
As we get to notions about an acceptable level of spend—something that I know my friend the right hon. Member for New Forest East has been at the forefront of—I must confess to being left a little cold. Whether we get 2%, 3% or even 8% of GDP, can we be confident that there is broad agreement on the aims and outcomes of that spending, and are we sure that the public would not rather the money be spent elsewhere? The two of course are linked.
Scottish National party MPs are here—it may come as a bit of a shock—to deliver independence for our nation, and I hope that by the time the next integrated review rolls around we will not be part of this conversation, but the affairs of the rest of the United Kingdom will never be abstract to us. It shall remain our most important security partner, so I dearly hope that it can learn to make security policy that is understood and supported by the general public who pay for it.
If we have learned one thing from the pandemic, it is that what we have previously taken for granted in security terms has been washed away. This state and so many others around the world have seen economies and national morale affected in a way that military planners could scarcely have imagined. It has finally brought the idea of the broad concept of security into the mainstream. Health spending is a national security issue. Education spending is a national security issue. Local government spending is a national security issue, and public services and cohesive societies are a national security issue and, rather inconveniently for some, I suppose—in terms of this debate at least—one that voters and taxpayers find easier to understand.
I hope that colleagues can understand that this is not some abstract, possibly peacenik nonsense. Defence spending has no automatic right to be raised just because we say that it should. The right hon. Member for New Forest East is right to characterise it in terms of priorities, and it is our job to demonstrate why defence should be further up the list. Much as I agree with my friend from the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), that the world is becoming a more dangerous place, our constituents need to understand that. I therefore hope that we have more of these debates, that they are covered more widely, and that they are used in a way that we can discuss the vital issues at hand. It is the very least that our constituents deserve.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
May I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary on his notable victory in securing the support of the Treasury for a £24 billion multi-year increase in defence expenditure? This demonstrates our commitment to safeguarding our country and working credibly with our allies at a time of, as others have said, increasing international instability. It also represents an £85 billion investment in equipment over the next four years, and that is what I will focus on.
The Government are not only honouring their manifesto pledge on defence spending but are exceeding it by £16 billion. Through the choices they have made they are using taxpayers’ money wisely to invest in the capabilities we will need for the future, and clearly every pound spent with a UK industry benefits the Exchequer by supporting local economies such as that in my constituency. According to the Royal United Services Institute, the Exchequer recovers at least 35% of the value of domestically sourced contracts, so I hugely welcome also the Government’s decision to invest in future technology; £6.6 billion will be spent on R&D over the next four years, which we need to confront the challenges of the grey zone and disinformation activities by states that are clearly hostile to the sort of society we have and the values, way of life and essential freedoms that we and our allies seek to protect. In this new age the term “military capability” takes on a more enhanced meaning, as it now embraces Britain’s cyber-domain and space activities, which is why it is great news that there will be a new agency dedicated to artificial intelligence and a new space command.
I am proud to represent and serve an area that plays a major role in the defence of our country; there are 8,000 dedicated public servants at MOD Abbey Wood; Defence Equipment and Support does a great job in ensuring that our forces have the equipment they need. My constituency is also at the heart of one of the largest aerospace clusters in Europe; defence contractors such as Airbus, BAE Systems, Boeing, MBDA, Rolls-Royce and Thales to name just a few provide highly skilled jobs in my constituency and throughout the wider south-west region and support a large number of jobs in the supply chain. At least 30,000 jobs are supported by defence spend alone in the south-west region. The MOD already spends £20 billion with industry and commerce, and defence directly or indirectly supports 207,000 jobs. This additional funding from the Government will also benefit the wider economy throughout our country.
I also welcome the Government’s defence and security industrial strategy and the certainty it will offer industry to do its share of investing in the jobs and technology of tomorrow. That will help bring into reality the Prime Minister’s ambition for the UK to be a science superpower in the 21st century. As chairman of the all-party group on sovereign defence manufacturing capability, I am pleased by the Government’s recognition in the defence and security industrial strategy that the country needs
“a sustainable defence industrial base to ensure that the UK has access to the most sensitive and operationally critical areas of capability for our national security, and that we maximise the economic potential of one of the most successful and innovative sectors of British industry.”
As co-chairman of the all-party group on apprenticeships I welcome the opportunities that this additional investment will create for our highly skilled science, technology, engineering and mathematics apprenticeships into the future. It is essential for our country and our strategic viability in the future that we bring on and inspire the next generation of scientists, engineers and technicians who will be designing and building our future capabilities. The all-party group is currently conducting an inquiry into the MOD apprenticeship programme. The MOD is the largest provider of apprenticeships in the UK; there are currently 20,000 apprentices undergoing training, and 53% of the UK’s defence companies of all sizes now provide apprenticeships, which is great.
Over the next four years we will be investing £2 billion in the Tempest programme for the next generation of combat aircraft, and jobs are already being created because of the programme. Industry is investing £800 million in the programme, which is a sign of great confidence. Some 1,800 jobs have been created so far and PwC has estimated that 5,000 jobs will be directly created by this programme and 21,000 indirectly in the wider supply chain. However, the programme is not just about aircraft; it is also about embracing the possibilities of technology and artificial intelligence, as the programme comprises both manned and future unmanned capability. The future of combat air is a bit like the old tanks versus horses moment, in that we need to choose to invest in the future and what modern technology can offer us rather than continue with outdated capability. The fact that other countries, such as Italy and Sweden, are keen to participate in the Tempest programme shows that we can forge, and are forging, new partnerships with like-minded nations and allies who want to invest in the next generation of combat air systems.
As we continue to invest and increase our investment in our own industry, we should also remember that, as other Members have said, the opportunity for exports not only supports jobs in the UK, which will deliver on the Government’s prosperity agenda, but, crucially, enables us to build partnerships with allies and friends around the world. Like many other Members, I was honoured to attend the Armed Forces Day flag raising on Monday, and it is appropriate that we should be discussing these matters today. Yesterday, we were discussing the Armed Forces Bill, and this is all taking place during Armed Forces Week. I hope that our proceedings, conversations and some of our debates will send out an important message to our armed forces and their families that we value them, and thank them for their service and sacrifice, and that we all, in all parts of this House, want to do as much we can to properly equip the men and women who serve our country.
Global Britain will mean nothing if we do not partner with our allies and friends across the world, The increasingly competitive nature, on many fronts, of the modern world looks set to and will increase. Just this week, aircraft flying from HMS Queen Elizabeth have struck targets in Iraq, as part of the ongoing campaign against Daesh, and obviously our “friends” the Russians in the region have been watching our deployments and how we undertake some of our missions. The incident in the Black sea yesterday, whatever it was, shows that the UK will continue to stand up for international law and rules. I welcome the ambition of the MOD to ensure that our armed forces spend more time working around the world, widening and deepening our relationships with our counterparts.
In conclusion, if the UK is to continue to be a reliable and credible ally, we must be ready to respond to unexpected challenges; challenges often come out of the blue and are not predicted. This is not just about personnel, but about having the tools and technology to be ready and to deal with future emergencies, challenges and crises. I commend and thank the Government for committing to invest further in the equipment and technology that we need to remain a credible force for good around the world, with all our responsibilities, and to protect the freedom and wellbeing of our people.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I think that any members of the armed forces watching this debate would be encouraged by the seriousness with which we take this issue. I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for a tour de force in laying out this whole issue. Sitting where I do and hearing the voices behind me, I am reminded of being on the school bus in the second year when the big boys who made the noise were at the back. I therefore rise to my feet with slight trepidation.
As for the contribution of the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), I do not think I have heard a more succinct definition of what defence is all about since I have been here—although my parents are no longer with us, I believe I almost hear their cheering from far away. My father served in the 14th Army and fought against a totalitarian regime, the Japanese. My mother told me she had been in the Foreign Office and it was only when certain books were published that I realised that she had worked in a large house near Milton Keynes, although she never told me anything about the work she did there. That generation understood what the defence of the realm is all about, so the right hon. Gentleman has put it very well for us today.
I want to go on record, as have others, in thanking the armed forces for their work during the pandemic. In my far-flung constituency they played their part, and it was much appreciated by local people. I talked to some of the personnel who helped out and it was so encouraging to hear that they appreciated doing something different, it had made their lives more interesting and they felt that they were helping to defeat the unseen enemy of the virus.
The point has been made again and again— I apologise for repeating myself—about buying British. If we can, we always should, because, as I said in an intervention, the intellectual knowledge—the final clever stuff, the last bits—about the piece of kit will always remain with the country or the consortium that made it. With the best will in the world, we will never be told everything about the F-35; we will never know every little bit about it. That is why we must design and build in this country if we humanly can. This is about employing people, about know-how and, at the end of the day, about getting the best, but made in Britain.
I regret that I am repeating something I said yesterday, but a further point is that this is about boots on the ground, as the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) said. Make no mistake, recruitment is beginning to be hit, and that is not what we want to happen at all. The general public are not stupid. They realise the importance of protecting ourselves, and they know that cutting the Army by 10,000 men and women is not a move in the right direction.
Bob Stewart
I should like to support my good friend’s comments. When I joined the Army, my battalion was 750-strong. When I commanded that battalion, it had 525 personnel. We now have one battalion in the Army that apparently has 170 people, yet it is still called a battalion. We must beware when people say we have a particular amount of battalions. We may have that amount of battalions, but we do not have the numbers of men and women who operated those battalions when they were properly at strength.
Jamie Stone
The right hon. and gallant Member puts it very succinctly indeed. May I take this opportunity to offer him my personal congratulations on his elevation to the Privy Council? It was looked on favourably by those in all parts of the House. Well done to the gallant Member!
I did not serve at such an august rank as the Minister, or as the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who were full colonels in Her Majesty’s Army. I served as a private soldier in the Territorial Army, and not with particular distinction—that will have to wait for another day—but it makes me realise that what the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East said about getting the support of society is absolutely true. I was doing a day job, but on a Wednesday night and at the weekend I would put on my uniform and serve the colours. The same is true of the cadets. They are appreciated and they involve wider society in the defence of the realm. As has been said, when it comes to having to pay for our defence, it makes it easier if the general public understand these important points.
What has been happening in the Black sea demonstrates that we live in a dangerous world. Anyone who thinks that other states are concerned about the good of the health of the UK should forget it. They are not. The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) will agree that, as the ice pack retreats, the high north is increasingly becoming an area of operations for the Russian fleet, which sails not very far away from the north coast of my constituency. If the events in the Black sea have demonstrated anything in these last days and hours, it is that we must take this threat absolutely seriously. To fail to do so would be a huge mistake.
I want to end with two points. First, I must go on record and thank those on the Government Front Bench for the courteous way in which they respond to my inquiries. I await a call from the Secretary of State, who is going to tell me about the Black sea at some stage today. Finally, out of courtesy to the Minister, I must apologise for leaving the debate somewhat before the end of it. That is because I have to catch a flight to a faraway place that is rather close to the Russian fleet.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con) [V]
Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the many hon. and right hon. Members in this important debate, which certainly affects a good number of us here in the south-west. As the Member for West Dorset, I should first like to renew my thanks to Her Majesty’s armed forces, and particularly the Royal Marines, who supported us at the Dorset County Hospital during the pandemic. Their support has been much valued, and we very much appreciate it.
My contribution to today’s debate is not so much about what we have spent and done previously, but about what we should be doing in the future. I have listened attentively to this debate from afar and we have talked this afternoon about many things, but we have not talked so much about the rotary sector. My hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) spoke and shared his views, but I also say that, as West Dorset neighbours Yeovil, a large number of my constituents are employed by Leonardo helicopters. With no doubt, the best return on investment for British defence spending, particularly for the rotary sector, is on British manufacturing. It supports our industries and wider communities and it secures our supply chain. For every £1 that the Government spend on Leonardo, £2.40 is generated in the UK economy through its 7,500 staff. That number includes, of course, 500 apprentices and graduates.
As I have mentioned previously, Leonardo is the only end-to-end helicopter manufacturer in the UK and its state-of-the-art AW149 is hoped to be the MOD’s new medium helicopter in the programme contained in the defence and security industrial strategy. I urge Front Benchers to please consider the work that Leonardo does and the excellent product that it offers to the defence sector and, particularly, to our armed forces here. By giving a contract to a British manufacturer, the Government will preserve and create jobs not only in Yeovil, for my constituents in West Dorset and for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil, but up and down the country and across the Union.
Defence manufacture in the UK also reaches far beyond our borders. The British armed forces are considered across the world to be an exemplary military force to be emulated. Frequently, other countries choose models for their militaries based on what the UK has bought. If the UK Government do not invest in their manufacturing capabilities by buying British-made equipment such as the AW149 helicopter, other buyers might wonder why the MOD has not put confidence in its own. Exports abroad then run the risk of reducing. Leonardo exports less than it produces for the UK, but in the context of the £2 billion that the company creates for our economy each year, a Government decision to look at foreign companies for their new medium helicopter will have ramifications across the country.
At home, Leonardo spends £200 million a year on research and development, fitting in perfectly with the Government’s plans to make the UK a global science superpower, but this speech is not about extolling just the virtues of Leonardo or even just the AW149; it is about the thousands upon thousands of jobs that are supported by UK defence manufacture in this country. Our servicemen and servicewomen are supported by thousands of engineers, apprentices, scientists and many others whose communities are, in turn, supported by the Government’s investment here in the UK. I was delighted, earlier this year, with the Government’s announcement of historic defence spending and the spending review on defence. For us in the south-west, it matters hugely. It is right that we continue to have a dynamic and modern military that is capable of keeping us all safe from even the newest of threats.
We saw during the pandemic that our armed forces play a vital role at home, as I mentioned, with service personnel supporting the testing and vaccine efforts where they were most needed, and we valued that incredibly in Dorset. We must recognise that the biggest impact of the UK’s armed forces is felt at home through communities and families who support the forces as a whole and the individuals who make it up. In order to keep those communities vibrant, and to ensure the defence of this nation, I urge Ministers, particularly the Minister for Defence Procurement and the Secretary of State, to consider and choose the AW149 to fulfil the military’s need for a new medium helicopter and to keep that production British.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
I am hugely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for securing a debate that has such enormous implications for my constituency. I declare an interest as a long-standing member and former north-west regional secretary of Unite the union.
I am immensely proud to represent a town that is home to the historic Cammell Laird shipyard. From its slipways have sailed some of the most advanced and technologically sophisticated ships ever seen in British waters, including, recently, the RSS Sir David Attenborough, which is due to make its maiden Antarctic voyage later this year. For far too long, however, British shipbuilders like Cammell Laird have been disastrously let down by procurement policies that have totally neglected to invest in jobs and skills at home, instead buying defence projects off the shelf from abroad. That is why Sir John Parker’s independent review of the national shipbuilding strategy, which was clear in its recommendation that defence vessels be open to UK-only competition, was so welcome. So too was the decision to scrap the coalition Government’s ruinous “open competition by default” policy, which saw price trump social value and left British suppliers out in the cold.
But we must go further. That is why my party is calling for a policy of “buy British by default”, which would require Ministers to prove that a defence project cannot be built at home before buying from abroad, alongside an expanded definition of good value that includes the potential benefits to British manufacturers, small and medium-sized enterprises, and the employment and training opportunities that these companies create.
This must begin with the bidding process for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s new fleet solid support ships. With the competition now open, I call on the Minister to provide a cast-iron guarantee that these vessels will be built and designed in their entirety in the UK. At the moment, the Government are allowing bidders to work with international partners as long as the ships are integrated in a UK shipyard. This simply is not good enough. As the GMB and Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions have warned, it risks leaving the lions’ share of the work to be offshored, with UK workers and companies missing out. I therefore call on the Minister to ensure that the contract is awarded to the Team UK consortium, comprising Babcock International, Rolls-Royce, BAE Systems and Cammell Laird. This would guarantee or create at least 6,500 jobs across the UK, as well as countless more along the wider supply lines, and of the £800 million spent by the Ministry of Defence, at least £250 million would be returned to the Treasury in the form of income tax, national insurance contributions and lower welfare payments. The choice is simple.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
In Armed Forces Week, it is highly appropriate to be debating funding for our brave armed forces personnel. On Monday, I was honoured to attend the flag-raising ceremony in Aylesbury organised by Buckinghamshire Council. It was an important moment to pay tribute to all those who serve, whether as regulars, reserves or cadets.
I am proud to be a member of a Conservative party that has an unequivocal commitment to defence, that recognises that it is essential to have strong, well-equipped armed forces to protect our nation and our allies, and that is investing to tackle new and emerging threats from both established and developing hostile parties. I therefore congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence on securing a substantial real-terms increase for our armed forces, with planned expenditure increasing by 4.9% in the last financial year and further increases above 5% for 2021-22 and 2022-23—although a further increase would naturally be very welcome. I do believe, however, that it is incumbent on us to bear in mind the broader fiscal pressures, particularly as we continue to deal with the profound economic shock of the pandemic. Along with Members on both sides of the House, I pay tribute to the many members of the armed forces who have contributed to the country’s tremendous effort to combat covid-19 in recent months.
My constituency is home to two Royal Air Force bases—RAF Halton and RAF High Wycombe. RAF High Wycombe is in fact in the villages of Naphill and Walters Ash, and it is home to Air Command and the new and exciting Space Command. As the MOD has made clear:
“Space, and our assured access to it, is fundamental to military operations… The threat from adversaries in this rapidly evolving operational domain is real and it is here now.”
So I am very pleased to see the investment in the establishment of a UK Space Command for defence and proud that its home is in my constituency.
RAF Halton near Wendover is one of the oldest RAF bases in the country, having been used since 1913, and was bought from a member of the Rothschild family five years later at a very competitive price. There are first world war training trenches still in situ, and the officers’ mess is in the splendid Halton House, which has featured in many films and TV dramas, ranging from “James Bond” to “The Crown”, “Poirot” and “Bridgerton”. Revenue raised from hiring out the house provides welcome additional funding to the MOD.
Today, Halton is one of the largest RAF stations, and home to approximately 2,000 personnel from all three armed forces, as well as to foreign military, contractors and civilians. It is the base where many of the Royal Air Force’s new recruits begin their careers, as the station’s primary role is to train military and civilian personnel to perform to the highest standard for military operations. Last month, I was fortunate enough to be invited as a guest for the graduation of Pearson intake. Talking to the recruits then highlighted the huge range of roles that are necessary for a successful military. One was going on to serve as a chef and another to work in cyber, an ever-increasing and pernicious threat. The pride of the men and women on the parade ground, as well as their families in the stands, was testament to what the armed forces are all about—duty, honour and service. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said that he wanted to see hope for the future. He need look no further than the brilliant recruits coming out of RAF Halton to see not just hope, but talent, commitment and profound belief in the need for the armed forces to safeguard peace.
It is not just in my constituency that I have seen such dedication to serving our nation. Over the past year, I have been lucky enough to participate in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. One of the highlights was undoubtedly visiting RAF Marham, where my uncle Gordon served as a pilot of Vulcan bombers at the height of the cold war. It was a privilege to sit in an F-35 and talk to the heroic pilots and crews who are currently taking on Daesh while on deployment on HMS Queen Elizabeth.
The F-35 programme is clearly bringing huge strategic and tactical advantage, but the Government have recognised that there is always a need to go further. This is well demonstrated in the investment of more than £2 billion in the future combat air system, which will deliver a mix of crewed, uncrewed and autonomous platforms, including swarming drones and the Tempest fighter jet. That is already creating hundreds of jobs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) has described, and this is on top of £6.6 billion going into R and D projects.
Alongside this very welcome investment in cutting-edge technology, I have been reassured to hear from Ministers before today the recognition that accommodation and facilities for our service personnel need and deserve improvement. Conditions in some bases are not always as good as they ought to be, and it is only right that attention is paid to them.
Questions have been raised about funding a new national flagship. I have to say that, for my part, I regard this as a very good and wise investment, even in terms of financial constraint. It is clear that the role of such a vessel would be to promote trade. This is surely in keeping with the recognition of a growing interdependence between defence and the protection of our economic security. As the integrated review says:
“We will play a more active part in sustaining an international order in which open societies and economies continue to flourish and the benefits of prosperity are shared through free trade and global growth… By 2030, we will be deeply engaged in the Indo-Pacific as the European partner with the broadest, most integrated presence in support of mutually-beneficial trade, shared security and values.”
The House heard earlier today about the benefits ahead of joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. For me, the prospect of the UK joining the CPTPP is an enticing prospect indeed, heralding fantastic opportunities for our exporters. Much as I enjoy a crisp sauvignon blanc from New Zealand’s Marlborough region, I want to see the award-winning sparkling wines from Daws Hill in my constituency on the shelves in Sydney, Tokyo and Santiago, not only in English Wine Week but every week of the year. I want to see Rumsey’s chocolates not only in Wendover but in Wellington and Winnipeg. A national flagship that can promote our country and our products is surely a sound investment, and, beyond that, another means to reassure countries around the world that the future lies with democratic capitalist free-trading nations, rather than dictatorial communist regimes. Such a national flagship will cost an absolutely tiny proportion of the extra £24 billion or so in the multi-year settlement for defence, and the return on that investment will accrue not just in pounds and pence, but in prestige and sheer physical presence.
Mr Kevan Jones
I would say that the hon. Gentleman is a brave individual, because I am not quite clear from where, in the very tight £13 billion black hole already in the defence procurement budget, the extra £200 million is going to be found, as well as the fact that its running costs would come out of the defence budget. Does he not also think that a better way to promote trade would be what we do already? We use our Royal Navy assets to promote Britain when they visit ports. That is being done already. We do not need an extra gin palace to do that role.
Rob Butler
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We need both. I would not agree with his description of the proposed new flagship. I am sure it will serve many types of alcohol, including, as I have suggested, the very fine sparkling wines from my own constituency, but to be serious, I genuinely believe that it will provide an added opportunity to show the kinds of products that showcase the fantastic opportunities that exist in this country.
To conclude, we live in troubling and uncertain times. Our enemies are not as obvious as they were 50 years ago. Hostile acts are not always overt or blatant. We are being prodded and provoked, whether through propaganda and disinformation or by enemy jets approaching our airspace. We have the most amazing people serving our country. Our Government are investing many billions of pounds to provide them with the equipment, training and opportunities they need. This is an unimpeachable illustration of the Conservative Government’s commitment to defend our nation and our allies; a truly global Britain confident of our place in the world.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for the debate, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and his colleagues from the Defence Committee for securing it.
I would like to concentrate my remarks on procurement and the failure to support British jobs and communities, but also to make reference to the important contribution of veterans and some of the challenges they face, particularly given that Easington, the constituency I represent, is a high recruitment area for our armed forces. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of Unite the union and have the honour of chairing the Unite parliamentary group.
Echoing the comments of my right hon. Friend, I want to point out that UK defence has undergone a decade of decline under successive Conservative Governments. Indeed, Conservative Governments in their various coalitions and manifestations have overseen a steady erosion of our armed forces’ numerical strength and capabilities, with cuts in frontline personnel since 2010 of over 45,000 and real-terms cuts of £8 billion to the defence budget over that period.
I was rather hoping that the Government had finally accepted the need for a long overdue change in defence procurement policy. I welcomed the end of the open competition by default that the coalition Government introduced in 2012, under which defence procurement was, effectively, offshored by the Conservative party at the cost of tens of thousands of UK jobs and businesses. Clearly, with a Conservative Government there is no guarantee that defence procurement will be concentrated in the United Kingdom.
As evidence to support that statement, I point out that in May the Government announced a £1.6 billion competition to acquire three new fleet solid support ships—the new Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships that carry munitions and provisions for the Royal Navy’s two new aircraft carriers. My trade union, Unite the union, has expressed concern that the Government are
“allowing bidders to work in partnership with foreign companies to create a false image of work being integrated into UK yards.”
It rightly brands that a “smoke and mirrors” deception, because
“the contract could be won by a UK-led bid but then designed and completed largely overseas”.
These are UK ships that need to be designed and built in the UK, using core UK technologies, including UK engineering skills, and UK products such as steel. The Defence Secretary and the UK Government must now show their commitment and their faith in UK workers’ skills and expertise. UK shipyards are a vital part of local economies and could play a significant role in the Government’s much-stated levelling-up agenda.
Labour would go much further and set a higher bar for defence procurement. I am delighted by my party’s decision to adopt a “British-built by default” policy, which would require Ministers to prove that military equipment could not be built in the UK before buying it off the shelf from abroad. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham some interesting, and indeed alarming, figures for the expenditure on US-procured weapons in the defence budget.
The integrated review makes it clear that threats to Britain are increasing. UK forces may be deployed further from home, yet the Government’s plan is for fewer troops, fewer ships and fewer planes over the coming years. Deeper cuts to our armed forces will limit our capacity to simultaneously deploy overseas, support our allies, including during natural disasters, and maintain strong national defences and resilience. The UK risks being out of step with the defence plans of leading NATO allies; indeed, Canada plans to increase its regular service personnel by 3,500. Labour’s commitment to international law, to universal human rights and to the multilateral treaties and organisations that uphold them is total.
I pay tribute to the invaluable contribution of the armed forces to the national covid-19 response in what has become the biggest ever domestic military operation in peacetime. I am appalled that 40% of Britons surveyed by the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association were unaware that the armed forces have supported the fight against covid, while a further 53% did not know that the armed forces had helped with the UK’s covid vaccination programme. That is no reflection on the armed forces; it is more a failing on the Government’s part to recognise and commend the armed forces’ vital contribution to the pandemic response.
Government failures go beyond military service, however. From substandard housing to mental health and social care, the Government are failing to provide our veterans and their families with the respect and support that their service should afford them. Our veterans are left alone or reliant on charities if they fall on hard times. That is quite simply unacceptable.
Because of the lack of support for veterans’ mental health, the community have taken it on themselves to help their comrades. Veterans in my constituency and the surrounding area are fortunate as we have the newly established charity, East Durham Veterans Trust, in my constituency providing practical assistance and mental health support to our veterans community. I take this opportunity to thank its founder and driving force, veteran Andy Cammiss, for establishing the charity and for the invaluable support that he, his staff and the volunteers at the East Durham Veterans Trust provide.
However, the charity has a precarious existence. It is dependent upon fundraising efforts, grants and donations from the community. I know the generosity of this House, and the Minister for the Armed Forces on the Front Bench will appreciate the gaps in support, so while he is working to fix those problems and bridge the gaps in provision, he will be pleased to know that he can make a personal donation if his staff go to justgiving.com/eastdurhamveterans. They can make a one-off donation or a regular monthly donation as they wish. In case other Members missed the address, it is justgiving.com/eastdurhamveterans. All donations, particularly considering it is Armed Forces Week, will be gratefully received.
Finally, related to the work of the East Durham Veterans Trust, I highlight an e-petition by another east Durham veteran, David McKenna, titled “Fight of Our Lives: Reform mental health support for veterans”. The petition asks the Government to:
“Offer annual mental health check-ups for three years following discharge…Create a Veterans Mental Health Scheme offering ongoing screening for conditions such as PTSD and a rapid intervention service for Veterans in distress”.
It also asks the Government to
“Require coroners to record Veterans suicide”,
which is a hidden epidemic in the community that does not get the attention it deserves. I hope the public will support the petition and help it hit the threshold to at least receive a response from Government.
In Armed Forces Week, I pay tribute to the armed forces and those who have served. We live in an increasingly dangerous world, and I hope the Government will listen to today’s debate and not repeat the mistakes of the last decade on the size of our forces, on finances and on veterans’ mental health care and support.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me. Yesterday we were debating the Armed Forces Bill, and we discussed many things. Today I want to focus specifically on the size of our forces, recruitment and their capability to respond. I make my comments in a constructive fashion, and I look to the Minister for a response to some of the points of view I will put forward on capability to respond. It is important that those are aired and spoken about today.
During the debate yesterday, we sought to firm up our treatment of the armed forces, and I would like to focus on an aspect of that: defence spending on personnel levels. It is my belief that we must address the shrinking numbers of personnel and set aside funding to build them back up. I understand the Government’s aim to build up cyber sectors, and that is right and proper, but we also need feet in boots, on boats and in the air. We need to ensure that we in the United Kingdom and our policy can respond not just here but across the world when we are called and where the demands are many.
Perhaps the largest and most controversial sleight of hand is the definition of trained strength. Up until 2016, Army manpower was judged on the basis of personnel who were trained—that is to say, they had completed phase 1 and phase 2 training. The waters have now been muddied by including phase 1 trained personnel in the total Army trained strength. As one service personnel member has said—and I say it very gently—
“This is a fudge, as it falsely inflates the numbers but hides the fact that phase 1 personnel are trained in only the very basic rudiments of soldiering.”
For example, phase 1 armoured corps and infantry soldiers are unable to deploy on their vehicles; they are not trained to use radios; they have only very basic first aid training; they can only fire a rifle, not other weapons systems; they cannot use drones; they cannot conduct cyber operations; they cannot do public duties; they cannot carry live, armed weapons to guard their own camps, and many of them will not even have driving licences, so they are unable to deploy overseas and certainly cannot deploy on operations.
I say that respectfully, because I hope that, in response, the Minister will be able to say, “Well, here’s what we’re going to do to recruit them, train them and get them to that level of capability.” Again, I ask this with respect: is it not true that those soldiers are not able to do all that many of the duties that are requested because of their capabilities and their training, and that we should not be using them in an attempt to mask—I hope that is not what it is—the scandal of chronic undermanning? Will the Minister clearly outline whether the new figure of 72,500 will be based on trade-trained personnel and confirm that it will not be fudged or adjusted?
Another area of huge concern is the availability of trained military manpower. Is it not true that as much as 15% of the trade-trained strength—that is, those who have completed phase 1 and phase 2—is unable to deploy owing to temporary and permanent medical downgrading, attendance on career courses, maternity and paternity leave, career breaks and so on? I believe that is further exacerbated by large numbers of personnel being unavailable to deploy because they are in training roles already or in full-time reserve service roles, or they are in the MOD office—civil service personnel—on loan service embedded in other countries’ military, seconded to international bodies or serving in embassies around the world. Those are things that they are doing that reduce the number of personnel capable to respond.
Jack Lopresti
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. When he mentioned the 70,000-odd regular deployable forces, he did not mention the reserve forces, which will be a major element of what we have available. Those will be in excess of 25,000. Will he work into his remarks the availability of reserve forces?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend—for he is—for his intervention. I am not quite sure that he and I will agree on the figures game. Perhaps it is one of those cases where we agree to differ. If the reserve forces were trained to the high level of capability that I hope they would be, they would be extra forces, but the point I am making about the 72,500 is that we have a level of soldiers who are not trained to the capability that they should be. That is the point that I am trying to make. It is clear to me that there are issues that need to be addressed.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we cannot simply add the reserve numbers in, because in many cases they are not formed units, they are not training with regulars, and in some cases, even among them, there are individuals who are not fit for deployment?
Jim Shannon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which—I say this very nicely—probably encapsulates the issue better. That is further exacerbated by large numbers of personnel being unavailable to deploy because they are in training roles or full-time reserve service roles. Not all those personnel are available; that is the point that I am trying to make.
If we apply the reality of those factors to the Army numbers, taking account of traditional undermanning of 7%—in layman’s terms, failing to recruit to 100% of strength—we are already, to use a snooker pun, behind the eight ball. Take out the staff supporting phase 1 and phase 2 training and any other training organisations that are on the staff assessment; take out the 15% unavailable to deploy, and the British Army regular manpower available to support a brigade-level deployment of just three years—a deployment in intensive operations for six months and every six months—is actually only about 55,000, because they are not trained to the capability that they need to be for so big a response.
I said at the start that I would make these comments in a constructive fashion, because I want the Minister to respond to the queries that we have. Those figures are worrying, and no person here can say that they are not worried by that analysis and those figures.
Given a deployed brigade current manning of about 12,000 people, it does not bode well for us being able to maintain sustained operations for any amount of time. Bear in mind the fact that the Iraq conflict ran for eight years and the Afghanistan one for 12 years, and that between 2003 and 2011 there were simultaneous operations at brigade-plus strength. We have to look at what we had in the past and what we have for the future.
Why focus on numbers? There is an old Stalinist military maxim, “Quantity has a quality of its own.” We should never disregard that thinking. It has been pointed out to me that the residents of eastern Ukraine, watching the build-up of Russian military power on their border, including their motorised nuclear motors, would draw little comfort from the language, and perhaps fanciful notions, expressed in our new integrated operating concept, such as “drive the strategic tempo”, “maximising advantage”, “creating multiple dilemmas”. We are certainly achieving this last one. Here is our multiple dilemma in this United Kingdom: we are likely to know and understand more than we have ever done in terms of intelligence and cyber, and be less able to do anything about it than ever before. That is the point I am making. If we do not have the soldiers, if we do not have feet in boots, on the boats and in the air, we have a serious problem.
In conclusion, I believe we need to spend the money and have a fully able and equipped force, fully trained. I look to our Minister and our Government today to confirm that that is where we are heading, because if we are not, we are in trouble. If we are, I hope the Minister will reassure us.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is good to have you join us in the Chair this afternoon.
It has been a good debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on securing it. He opened it and intervened several times, with the customary authority and knowledge that we have all become used to. It is good to see the Minister for the Armed Forces in his place. He is a good Minister, a conscientious Minister, but those of us in the Chamber who have been taking part in these defence spending debates for the past few years—indeed, I think you might have, Mr Deputy Speaker, before you went back into the Chair—will note that this is another such debate in which we have failed to get a Treasury Minister to come to the Dispatch Box. I am hopeful that when we inevitably have the next one, we will be able to use our collective imagination to force that to happen.
Like other hon. Members, I too, on behalf of the Scottish National party, want to put on the record our thanks to the men and women of the armed forces, particularly for the past year, as has been mentioned several times. I particularly want to thank them for the job that they have done in Glasgow, with the setting up of the NHS Louisa Jordan, but also the job that they have done in many other areas of the pandemic and beyond. As has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who is no longer with us, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), the pandemic has shown us that the debate on security and the role of the armed forces is way wider than perhaps we would have thought pre-covid. That is something that requires debate, discussion and, yes, public consent and buy-in.
It is also important—I am sure that the Minister will do this in his remarks—to refer to yesterday’s events in the Black sea. The Scottish National party stands four-square behind international law. International law, challenging and challenged though it is, is important to defend, is important to protect. In that, the crew members of HMS Defender have our support. We recognise that that is not easy, and I back the assessment of others: we understand that the Royal Navy was there not to pick a fight, but to make a point. Those are international waters and, indeed, there are no Russian waters there; they are Ukrainian sovereign waters—to reinforce that point, you will have noticed the Ukrainian national colours on my tie, Mr Deputy Speaker.
That, however, is where our consensus may start to come to an end, I am afraid. This is a debate on spending, and spending has never been the Ministry of Defence’s strongest suit, no matter how much money it may throw at the problem. Indeed, when the announcements were made when the defence Command Paper and the integrated review were published earlier this year, we welcomed many things, but let us not forget—we could be forgiven for forgetting, could we not—that that was about capital spending. Day-to-day spending has not changed, and the pay and the terms and conditions of the members of the armed forces—whom we have all praised this afternoon—have not changed. But I will come back to that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) spoke with authority and knowledge on many issues of procurement, which he knows all about, having worked in that field for many years. He correctly set out the disparity in spending not just between Scotland and the south-west of England, but in other parts of the UK as well. It is not parochial, as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) seemed to suggest, to point that out. Those are just facts that I would have thought any Unionist Member of Parliament would wish to see changed.
We also have to come to the black hole that exists in the Ministry of Defence procurement plan, which the right hon. Member for North Durham mentioned several times when he opened the debate. The multi-year defence agreements, long called for by those on the SNP Benches and others, are welcome, but there is still some way to go. All we have to look at is the National Audit Office report, which came out only this morning, and all those big projects where waste is the fashion of the day—we might almost think that money is going out of fashion in the Ministry of Defence.
The amazing thing, in all the many years of waste under Conservative or Labour Governments, is that nobody has ever lost their job over any of this stuff. Is it not fantastically amazing that hundreds of millions of pounds—into the billions—of public money can be wasted over all those years, and nobody gets so much as a demotion? What is that all about? That is where we need to see greater transparency and accountability on how the money is spent or, rather, how the money is misspent.
What do we get in return? Housing that I would not put a dangerous dog into, housing where hundreds and hundreds of complaints are about the basic things that we all take for granted—the heating does not work, the water does not run, or the hot water does not work. Those are basic repairs that, if we really valued members of the armed forces, would not go unanswered but would be fixed and invested in with a sense of urgency. Is it any wonder that the satisfaction or, rather, the dissatisfaction levels are where they are? Is it any wonder that the retention issues are what they are?
I value the work that those in the armed forces do—I believe we all value it—but the political choices being made are the wrong ones. We need to invest heavily in accommodation services, in getting the armed forces personnel good equipment and in ensuring that they are not having to go to Amazon to supplement the equipment that they have got for themselves. You understand this, Mr Deputy Speaker—I do not think that that is all that much to ask.
We then come to an issue that has been mentioned several times: fleet solid support ships. There is nothing new for me to say on this, other than to support Opposition and Government Members when they say that those ships should be made here. Let us not fall for the canard advanced by the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland)—sadly, no longer with us in the Chamber—when he said that, somehow, the European Union was the bogeyman holding us back. That is, of course, false. It was interesting that, following the many interventions from the right hon. Member for North Durham and the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), who is just scurrying back into the Chamber now, he was unable to rebut that when it was put to him.
I have to come to the issue of the cut in the size of the Army—a cut of 10,000. I will sound like a broken record here, but I make no apologies for revisiting the promises made to voters in Scotland about the size of the armed forces during the 2014 independence referendum campaign. A commitment was given to voters by this Government that 12,500 regulars would be stationed in Scotland. Even if we overlook the fact that they have never come close to that target, the Government have still not been able to tell us, given that they are now going to cut the size of the Army by 10,000, what the new footprint will eventually look like and when they will get to that point. That is before we come to the other issue of the frigate factory that was promised. Quite often, we hear Members say, “Oh, we’re building more ships and there is the frigate factory.” I rather suspect that they know that they are being slightly casual with the facts. The frigate factory that was promised was never built.
In the context of all of this—I thought the Chairman of the Defence Committee opened on this rather well—we need to think about where the threats of the future lie. My party does not believe in the need to raise the nuclear stockpile. We do not believe in that project at all, but where we can get some consensus is on the threats of the future. However, the debate is lacking here. I have mentioned this to the Chair of the Defence Committee and to the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and discussed it previously. As we move into artificial intelligence, crypto currencies and all this new autonomous weaponry that we will be able to deploy, where are the rules surrounding this? This goes to the heart of ensuring that, when we engage our forces or our equipment in whatever form, we do so properly and with maximum transparency, in as much as one would be able to expect. What is important is that we answer the question: who gets to write these rules? As these challenges are presented to countries such as the UK, G7 or NATO countries, they also become opportunities for those who would rather write the rules on their terms, which might not be favourable to open and liberal societies. That is where this House needs to whip itself into shape and have this discussion. I accept that all these new challenges, and perhaps new opportunities, will not go away—indeed, they will increase —so we need to have a discussion about transparency and the rules around them.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire was absolutely right when he made the point that national security is not just about the hard equipment we have or the defence budget—the pandemic has shown us exactly that. But what is crucial is that the public understand this so that, when the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee achieves the 7% of GDP target on defence spending, which he often wants—[Interruption.] Oh, 3%. He has downgraded it somewhat. If we are to achieve that, and I am not saying that I necessarily agree with him there, that needs to have not just public understanding, but public buy-in.
When I took on this role as defence spokesman for my party four years ago, a Labour colleague—I will not say who it was—said to me, “The thing you must understand is that defence will never win you any votes, but it can lose you votes if you are seen to not get it right.” We all have differing views on what getting it right means, but I have found that, when we engage the public on it, they are quite keen to have that conversation. As new threats and new challenges present themselves in different ways, if we do not have the public onside, there will be an amazing opportunity for a hostile disinformation campaign, as we saw just yesterday in the Black sea. Imagine if it happened to be about a Russian warship off the north coast of Scotland, for example, or any of the other challenges to sea and air that we often see from the Russian Federation. There is a challenge for us all to better explain the threat picture and why we do what we do—why we believe what we believe. Fundamental to all that—how we meet that threat—is the money that we spend.
We have had a good debate and I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Durham on securing it, but let us not lull ourselves into a false sense of security. There is still some way to go in keeping the public on board and in ensuring that we have good, robust rules and treaties for the new technologies and threats that we will face. I am up for that debate and I know that the Minister is, too. Let us make sure that it happens robustly.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the time for this important debate during Armed Forces Week, when we celebrate the service of the brave men and women, and all those who support them, who make our forces the very best in the world.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for leading the debate. His wealth of knowledge in this area is incredible, matched only by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar). I think everyone will agree that the House is well served by the members of the Defence Committee. We also heard strong contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) and for Easington (Grahame Morris), who spoke about the importance of the defence industry to their constituencies.
There can be no doubt that, for the Ministry of Defence, the £16.5 billion extra in defence spending that the Prime Minister announced in November would have been welcome news, especially when it was staring into the abyss of a £17.5 billion black hole in its budget. That money should be an opportunity to balance the defence budget and effect the type of change that the Ministry of Defence so badly needs in its culture. Instead, the Prime Minister announced grandiose plans in the integrated review, which included new capabilities in space and cyber, international partnerships and more collaboration between the MOD and the defence industry. Unfortunately, as always seems to be the case with the Prime Minister, he was short on the detail of how it will all be paid for. However well it plays with the headline writers, jingoism does not account for a clear and concise strategy.
The defence and security industrial strategy lacks a clear rationale about how it will be delivered without proper oversight and project management. Even the most ambitious plans will be derailed by other spending decisions. One of the aims of the DSIS is a mutually supportive, collaborative approach between the MOD and the private sector. That is a cultural shift from the adversarial approach that has characterised defence procurement in the past. It cannot happen overnight. Skilled project management and clear strategies are required to enable that transformation to take place. It is not enough for the Government to state their desired intentions. They must tell us how the plan will work and what needs to be done now to ensure that people with the correct skills are in place and that measurable progress can be made.
Corporate confidence will take time to build. Industry will not be willing to offer increasing transparency without being certain that the MOD has a coherent and deliverable plan. The aspirations of the DSIS and the integrated review are long term, but the MOD has problems right now. As I have said, the MOD’s defence equipment plan faces a funding black hole of up to £17.5 billion. The Public Accounts Committee has warned that the MOD faces additional cost pressures, estimated at more than £20 billion, to develop future defence capabilities, which are not yet included in the plan. Damningly, for the fourth year in a row, the National Audit Office deemed the defence equipment plan “unaffordable”. The Secretary of State claimed that he had personally improved affordability, but the NAO said that that assertion was based on the MOD revising its approach to assessing affordability
“rather than the result of actions to address the 10-year funding shortfall.”
Even this morning, the NAO published a report that highlights that the MOD is incapable of managing contracts to time, with delays for key defence projects of up to 254 months, and eight out of 19 major projects rated as at serious risk of failed delivery. Simply put, for the party of business, that would not be good enough in the private sector.
We cannot simply cross our fingers and hope for financial stability. These things take time and work from proper financial professionals. Yet the NAO report on the defence equipment plan says that only 41% of MOD finance staff hold a professional financial qualification. That work needs to start immediately. Ahead of the debate, I had a look at a live job advert for a commercial officer in the MOD. Strangely, even though the MOD has been told by the National Audit Office that it needs to improve the number of people with a professional financial qualification, there is still no requirement for the candidate to currently hold any financial qualifications.
On the ground, there are real concerns about delivering capability. I am sure that all Members of this House will have heard and worried about the problems with Ajax recently, which cannot be ignored. It is a long-standing issue. The Ajax vehicle has been repeatedly delayed and beset by problems. Nearly four years after the vehicle was first expected, only 14 have been delivered, at a cost of nearly £3.5 billion. Worryingly, personnel have needed medical attention after being inside them. As we heard yesterday in the Defence Committee, they cannot fire accurately on the move.
The delay on the vehicles’ delivery has left our armed forces inadequately equipped and unable to properly plan for the future. That is worsened by the cancellation of the Warrior project earlier in the year, which resulted in a larger reliance on the Ajax delivery to ensure that the Army was equipped with some modern vehicles. Our armed forces had to adapt in the light of the Warrior cancellation, and now they have been left without any new vehicles that work safely or are reliable. As it stands, the current armoured vehicle capability of the UK is perfectly summed up by the title of the Defence Committee report: “Obsolescent and outgunned”.
The cancellation of Warrior not only resulted in £430 million being spent on a vehicle that will never come to service, but has wider economic effects. We talk all the time about such figures as £430 million. They are not inconsequential sums; they will have an effect on the local economy. For example, in April this year, Lockheed Martin announced that because of that cancellation 158 jobs would be lost at the Ampthill site. The suppliers to the programme will also be hit, and the effects would have been felt in the local economy.
How can defence companies, their suppliers and small and medium-sized enterprises invest in research or apprenticeships when such uncertainty looms over them? If the MOD and the Government are going to change their mind suddenly on key equipment areas, that leaves our defence industry and our armed forces extremely vulnerable. I am not going to stand here and denigrate the DSIS. Many of the ideas are very good for an encouragement of British industry, for collaboration and for investment in research. However, judging by the MOD’s track record in the past 10 years, one cannot help thinking that those ideas are built on sand.
Some of the major components of the integrated review will take over a decade to realise, so we will require consistent and competent project management oversight. Unfortunately, there is no evidence of that now. Major capabilities are all overrunning on time and cost. Without a significant overhaul, there is no evidence that that will change. For this to work, thousands of civil servants and large numbers in industry will have to be retrained to adjust effectively to new career paths. If the integrated review is to succeed, the Government will need to demonstrate through actions, not just words, that they are able to co-ordinate inter-Department projects, support key programmes and encourage collaboration and transparency between the MOD and industry.
The easiest thing in the world for the Minister would be to dismiss all the points that have been raised today, but it is crucial that the Government get the implementation right. There is no time to wait for the plans to mystically fall in place; the work needs to start now. I say to the Minister that it is not a case of political point scoring; it is instead about the most important people in this, the men and women of our armed forces—the very people we gathered together this week to pay tribute to. Without the equipment they need and the ability to plan for what future warfare will look like, they will be unable to do what they do best: protect our great nation. We must not let them down. We must get this right; it is what we owe them for all they do for us. I welcome the more nuanced and collaborative and less adversarial approach to future contracting set out in the DSIS, but these documents include big promises and grand words and there is no detail on how they will be delivered. Publishing a plan is not the end of the story; without immediate and concrete action from the Government to lay out how progress will be made and measured, the intentions will simply remain on paper. We expect so much from our forces personnel; in return they should be able to expect only the best from us.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
What a treat it has been for the MOD to have had the opportunity to debate defence matters so many times in Armed Forces Week. Of course urgent questions are not necessarily of our choosing, but it is important that those who serve our nation have seen the matters that concern them, their careers and their families debated so keenly in this week of all weeks. I thank also the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) who I believe was assisted by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) in securing today’s debate, and I thank them, too, for their contributions. Listening to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech and his many interventions thereafter, it was almost as if my Minister’s box had become an audio book as the parliamentary questions were all read out loud. The only problem is that all his PQs will be waiting for me in my actual box when I get back to it later today. I make light of this, but as other Front-Bench spokespeople have rightly said, the forensic way in which he holds us and our Department to account makes us better, and we are grateful. [Interruption.] Well, we are being nice to each other.
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East gave us a tour de force on the importance of maintaining our nuclear deterrent. I started today at 3 am in the former bunker in Corsham, where constituents of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and many other of his countrymen were fighting their way through the mine system as part of their final exercise. The importance of that deterrent was made vividly clear to me, as was the tremendous warrior spirit of the Ulster fighter. My right hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot say which if any of the first three hypotheses he offered are the right ones for changing our stockpile, but I can absolutely confirm, as he suspected, that the fourth of his hypotheses is not the case.
The Chairman of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), eloquently paid tribute to our armed forces in his speech. Of course, it will come as no surprise to anybody in the House that Defence Ministers will always take more money for defence, but we cannot ignore the fact that the settlement that the MOD received from the Prime Minister—a multi-year settlement, which we have been asking for for many years and have now got—is a big deal. It puts the MOD finances into a place that they have not been for a long time, and while of course tough decisions remain, the reality is that for the first time the budget looks like it can be balanced and choices can be made based on military need, not because of accounting issues.
I commend to my right hon. Friend the experience of the 3rd Division, who have recently returned from the United States where they have been participating in Exercise Warfighter. The feedback from that exercise is a powerful demonstration of how the land battle is changing and has validated many of the decisions in the integrated review around trading mass in the close fight for more capability with precision deep fires.
My hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) and for West Dorset (Chris Loder) extolled the quality of helicopters made in Somerset. They will get no argument from the MP for Wells. My hon. Friends the Members for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) made fine speeches on the benefit of the generous defence settlement and extolled the virtues of the new technologies that area emerging and the requirement to employ them in our armed forces. Like so many hon. Members across the House, they also rightly championed the UK defence industry.
John Spellar
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) would have difficulty intervening because of the current arrangements. If the Minister thinks the products from Yeovil are so worthy, why are they not being bought?
James Heappey
I expect the right hon. Gentleman knows that he puts me in a tricky situation as an MP from Somerset and a Minister in the MOD. You will not be surprised to hear, Mr Deputy Speaker, that such decisions are ultimately not for me. However, we can all be clear that the options for a helicopter made in the UK are keenly in the minds of Ministers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) spoke up strongly for the Royal Air Force and the amazing transformation we have had in our combat air forces. The hon. Member for Strangford asked a number of questions seeking reassurance about the shape and size of the Army and, therefore, its resilience going forward.
At the Army board yesterday, many innovative ideas were brought forward by the Chief of the General Staff for how we can get combat personnel from the back office and into the frontline. He asked me specifically to confirm that 72,500 is for trade-trained strength, and that is indeed the case. He is absolutely right that we must get after chronic undermanning and lack of deployability. That challenge has been set to the Army. This is a moment to get those things right.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not sure whether you were in the Chamber for the joy of the speech of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I am afraid that it was remarkable only in that it stood out from the sensible and balanced contributions from everybody else who participated in the debate. Rather unsurprisingly, he was unwilling to support freedom of navigation in the south China sea or freedom of navigation in the Black sea; indeed, he was critical of the UK and our allies for seeking that. Of course, he was entirely mute on the Russian build-up of troops, combat aircraft and warships in the Black sea earlier this year. Unfortunately, his contribution was typically tone deaf in what was otherwise an excellent debate.
A number of issues have been raised, but first I want to say that the first duty of any Government is the defence of the realm and I know that Governments of all colours ensure that that is their priority. We may disagree on how it is done, but I do not doubt the motives of those who served in the Ministry of Defence before us, and those who will serve after us will always be keen to ensure that our brave armed forces have the resources that they need to do increasingly demanding jobs. However, with the constraints on resources growing, not least due to the pandemic, it is imperative that we deliver more punch for our pound and, indeed, that we become more relevant in an ever-changing battlespace. Even casual observers of defence will know that previous Governments of all colours have not necessarily always got that right. Our integrated review and the Command Paper that followed represent a radically different way of dealing with the defence budget and I welcome the opportunity to explain our thinking in more detail.
The approach is threefold. First, in the short term, it is about upping our spending. The threats to our nation are growing and they come in all shapes and sizes, ranging from a resurgent and increasingly more malign Russia to a rising China, and from global terror to the acceleration of a whole range of threats through climate change. Our adversaries are operating below the threshold of conflict and taking advantage of exponential advances in new technologies. We must invest to stay ahead of the curve. Recognition of the dangers that our nation faces prompted the Prime Minister last November to announce the biggest investment in the UK’s armed forces since the end of the cold war. In the next four years, we will inject more than £24 billion into defence. In total, we will spend in excess of £190 billion on equipment and equipment support in the next decade, including at least £6.6 billion on research and development.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East thinks that the ratio between defence spending and health spending is out of kilter—especially now that we are in the company of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. However, I know he will agree with me that the contribution the Prime Minister has made to the defence budget is none the less hugely significant and to be welcomed.
James Heappey
If the right hon. Gentleman will indulge me, I will make some progress, not least because he has intervened quite a few times in the debate already, but I will come back to him, I promise.
As I was saying, our defence spending will enable us to continue to meet our international obligations and remain a leader in NATO. Notably, we are one of 10 nations not just meeting but exceeding the alliance’s 2% target, reaffirmed at the recent Brussels summit. Separately, the International Institute for Strategic Studies places the UK fourth in the table of strongest military capabilities and defence economies, behind the USA, China, and India, but ahead of France, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia and Russia. Thanks to our boosted budget, we have been able to plug a potential black hole of some £7 billion on projected equipment spend. Some Members have already pointed out that last year’s National Audit Office report suggested the deficit could be deeper still, but that reflected the situation as it was then, not as it is now, following a multi-year settlement, new investment and the defence Command Paper. Together, those have allowed us to redress the imbalance of previous spending reviews.
That brings me to my second point. We have achieved this outcome only by taking tough choices, by refocusing defence on the threats, by honestly assessing what we can and will do, and by retiring legacy capabilities—our ageing tanks, oldest frigates and dated early-warning aircraft—to make way for new systems and approaches. I say in all honesty to colleagues across the House, as somebody who has knowingly served on operations on an outdated platform, that you take no solace from how many of them are in the MOD inventory if you know that they are out of date, you are not properly protected and they lack the lethality for the modern battle space. Coincidentally, there often appear to be the same voices criticising us for retiring legacy platforms as saying we are not doing enough to balance the books or eliminate the so-called “black hole”. You can’t have it both ways. President Eisenhower, no stranger to the military, put it well when he said there is
“one sure way to overspend. That is by overindulging sentimental attachments to outmoded military machines and concepts.”
So, yes, we have taken hard decisions, but they will enable our armed forces to make that rapid transition from mass mobilisation to information-age speed, readiness and relevance.
Those decisions will give us a force fit for the future, equipped with an advanced arsenal of capabilities across sea, land, air, space, and cyber. On the ground, our Army will be leaner but it will be more integrated, active and lethal. It will have revamped attack helicopters, brand new Boxer armoured fighting vehicles, state-of-the-art air defence, long-range precision artillery and new electronic warfare capabilities. At sea, our Royal Navy’s fleet is growing for the first time in years. It will have world-class general purpose frigates—to add to the Type 26 world-beating anti-submarine frigate—air defence destroyers, hunter-killer submarines and a new multi-role ocean surveillance capacity to safeguard our underwater cables in the north Atlantic. In the air, our RAF will benefit from updated Typhoons, brand new F-35 Lightning stealth fighters, new unmanned systems capable of striking remotely and a massive investment in next generation fighter jets and swarming drones. Meanwhile, our growing National Cyber Force will blend the cyber skills of the MOD and GCHQ to counter terror plots, disrupt hostile states or criminals, and support military operations, and our new Space Command will be able to defend our interests beyond our atmosphere.
Of course, we can have the best kit in the world but it counts for little unless we have the best people. Our military and civilian personnel have always been our finest asset and they must be looked after accordingly. That is why we are putting aside resource to help them, whether by investing around £1.5 billion in improving single living accommodation or by spending £1.4 billion over the next decade to provide wraparound childcare.
John Spellar
The Minister has kindly drawn attention to the fact that he is sitting alongside the Health Secretary, so will he take the opportunity to get him to cut through all the bureaucratic nonsense and make sure that our troops on deployment get their jabs?
James Heappey
As we heard at length when I was answering the urgent question yesterday, and as my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary said in the Select Committee meeting thereafter, when we made the case to my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary for jabs for missions that we felt could not be administered in line with age priorities, we were given them without question and we are grateful for that support. However, the judgment was made that we should not be prioritising fit, healthy young men and women in the armed forces at the expense of more elderly and vulnerable people and communities across the country. As I said many times yesterday, and as the Secretary of State said, we in the ministerial team stand behind that decision.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The challenge that the Minister is setting is that he will get things right for the people, as opposed to focusing just on the platforms. That is good. There is currently a £1.5 billion backlog of repairs in armed forces accommodation. Will he commit to a quarterly update on where that figure stands, to give a level of transparency that we do not currently have and to ensure that he delivers on the promises he is making at the Dispatch Box?
James Heappey
There is a term popular among those of us who have served in the military: volunteering a mucker for the guardroom. The Minister for Defence Procurement, my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) will, I am certain, have heard that request and he will no doubt write to the hon. Gentleman in due course to agree with him a mechanism for ensuring that progress is reported to him.
It is not enough to spend money wisely now; we must manage our money for the long term. In the past, over-ambitious and underfunded reviews led to successive years of short-term settlements, followed by short-term savings measures, funding pressures deferred and poor value for money for the taxpayer. However, by agreeing to a long-term multi-year settlement, we are redressing the balance. We are carving out space to deliver capability and drive commercial outcomes, commit investment in cash, fund transmissional activities and set a clear headmark for policy. We can at last tackle the root causes of some of the endemic and systemic problems faced by Defence, such as unwieldy procurement, and we can start to develop a sustainable plan for equipment.
Spending on defence is no different from any other large organisation. We must learn to live within our means. That is why the Department has taken the hard decisions to balance our spending plans, rationalise the estate and reduce operating costs as we modernise our equipment. That is also why we have been busy strengthening our financial capabilities. We are currently three years into a five-year programme to enhance the skills of our finance staff, improve cost forecasting and adopt a more realistic approach to risk. But our plan is not just about what we do internally. It is also about augmenting our relationship with industry.
James Sunderland
Does the Minister agree that the ability to write contracts, particularly within the MOD and the DE&S, is fundamental for giving the best possible value to our taxpayers?
James Heappey
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the training and education programme within our workforce is so important. I do not think anybody in the House would argue that, in the past, MOD contractual negotiations have not gone swimmingly.
Our defence and security industrial strategy, published in March, is the first critical step in achieving all of this. It gives our sector partners more transparency and more clarity on our requirements, and provides for a more co-operative approach. Meanwhile, we will be bringing out a refreshed shipbuilding strategy to supercharge the sector. We are making sure that shipbuilding investment will double over the life of this Parliament to more than £1.7 billion a year. Our spending reforms are signalling that we are ready to create the jobs and skills that will help to level up our country, and ready to build on the talents of different areas—frigates in Scotland, satellites in Belfast, armoured vehicles in Wales and aircraft production in the north of England—to strengthen our Union.
In a competitive age, it is vital that we get our defence spending right. Failure to do this in years gone by has often cost our country dear, but we have upped our spending, transformed our approach and put in place a plan for the long term. We have aligned our resources and our ambition, and by giving our great men and women the tools they need to succeed, we are helping them to focus on what they do best: safeguarding our shores and advancing our interests throughout the world.
This week as we celebrate Armed Forces Week and look forward to Armed Forces Day, the Royal Navy has three capital ships at sea: HMS Prince of Wales in the Atlantic; HMS Albion returning from the Baltic; and HMS Queen Elizabeth in the Mediterranean. The Royal Navy is forward present in the south Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Caribbean, and our submariners are maintaining the continuous at-sea deterrent beneath our oceans. The Army is part of NATO in Estonia and Ukraine, fighting violent extremism in Mali, Somalia, Nigeria and Ghana, and doing the same against Daesh in Iraq and against the Taliban, as well as keeping the Falklands secure. Our Air Force has our quick reaction alert pilots at high readiness to protect UK airspace, while Typhoon pilots in Cyprus participate in Operation Shader. As well as that, we have more Typhoon pilots in Romania on Op Biloxi and, of course, those on board the carrier with F-35.
Dr Lewis
I do not wish to inject a depressing note into proceedings, but the Minister mentioned the Taliban in Afghanistan. There are many of us who are very concerned about the announcement of a specific end date without a clear military support plan for the Government for which our troops have sacrificed so much. It does not sit well with the objectives that we set ourselves all those years ago in intervening in Afghanistan. I wonder whether he can say anything about that.
James Heappey
That could be the subject of an entire Backbench Business debate and I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you are keen to move the business on. I will say two things in response to my right hon. Friend’s point. First, he gives me an opportunity to mark the enormous sacrifice of all British service personnel who have served in Afghanistan since 2003. They have done amazing things in an extraordinarily challenging country, and I know from my own experience soldiering there just how grim the grimmest days of that campaign were. He also rightly makes the point that Afghanistan has reached a crossroads. I stand by the argument that I made during the statement on our withdrawal from Afghanistan three or four weeks ago. I believe that it has forced a moment of political decision making in Afghanistan that would not otherwise have come, and I think it is right that the international community has done that, but we all, of course, share his concerns about what the future of the country might hold.
Yesterday, I had a number of opportunities to meet reservists who have been serving in the civil service throughout the last year. People have been involved in certifying vaccines and as part of distributing it around our country. To think that people have been doing that as their day job and then still finding time to serve in our armed forces at the weekend is the most amazing demonstration of just what wonderful people our reservists are. This morning, in the dead of night, in the land beneath Corsham in Wiltshire, I saw— in this case, men of Ulster, but they were representative of all our armed forces who are hugely professional—do the most incredible and amazing things in pitch black.
Being the Minister for the Armed Forces, is, in my view, the best job in Government. It is an honour to associate myself with these extraordinary people, especially as a veteran. I wish them all a happy Armed Forces Day and thank them for their service.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Had the Minister not told us that he had started the day at 3 am, I do not think any of us would have known. I call Kevan Jones for a two-minute wind-up.
Mr Kevan Jones
We have had 16 contributions from Back-Bench Members and I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) that it has been a good debate. The debated was entitled “UK Defence Spending”, but we have had a wide-ranging debate. I was going to say that it was well informed but, on occasions, it was possibly not that well informed—with the contribution from the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland)—but we have also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar), who made the case for why defence is important, giving the historical context of that and the part that my party has played in it. We heard the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) making the case for and against the nuclear deterrent, like two former cold war warriors. Both argued passionately and the House is better informed for them both making the points that they did.
One of the main themes that has come out of today’s debate is that all of us who are interested and passionate about defence just need to keep making the case for defence and why it is important. We also heard from many Members the important role of defence in their constituencies and the role that our armed forces personnel have played in the covid pandemic. There was very brave support from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) for the Prime Minister’s new gin palace. We will wait to see where that ends up. My hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) and the hon. Members for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), for West Dorset (Chris Loder) and for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) spoke about the importance of UK defence to local economies. It is important that we get this right for the sake of prosperity and spend the money in this country. Instead of the current policy of “buy American first”, we should adopt one of “buy British first”.
Finally, points about the contribution of our people were made eloquently by the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), and argued articulately by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Defence is about the big issues that we have discussed today, but at the end of the day it is down to the people who serve selflessly on our behalf to ensure that we sleep safe in our beds at night.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered UK defence spending.
Use of Patient Data
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
In winding up the last debate, the Minister for the Armed Forces referred to volunteering a mucker for the guardroom. I hope that my entire speech does not sound like that to the Secretary of State; it is not intended to.
Every couple of years, Whitehall, like an overexcited teenager expecting a new mobile phone, becomes fixated with data. Most recently, it has been about the power of big data mining, and I am sure that that is not just because of the influence of Mr Dominic Cummings. The Department of Health and Social Care wants to open our GP medical records—55 million datasets or thereabouts—to pharmaceutical companies, universities and researchers.
Managed properly, that data could transform, innovate and help to overcome the great challenges of our time, such as cancer, dementia and diabetes. Those are proper and worthwhile ambitions in the national interest, and I have little doubt that that was the Government’s aim, but that data is incredibly personal, full of facts that might harm or embarrass the patient if they were leaked or misused. Psychiatric conditions, history of drug or alcohol abuse, sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy terminations—the list is extensive. Revealing that data may not be embarrassing for everyone, but it could be life-destroying for someone.
Unfortunately, in keeping with the Department’s long history of IT failures, the roll-out of the programme has been something of a shambles. The Government have failed to explain exactly how they will use the data, have failed to say who will use it and—most importantly—have failed to say how they will safeguard this treasure trove of information. They describe the data as “pseudonymised” because it is impossible to fully anonymise medical records, a fact that is well understood by experts in the field.
Even pseudonymised, anyone can be identified if someone tries hard enough. Take Tony Blair, who was widely known to have developed a heart condition, supraventricular tachycardia, in October 2003. He was first admitted to Stoke Mandeville and then rushed to Hammersmith. One year later, in September 2004, he visited Hammersmith again for a corrective operation. Even the name of the cardiologist is in the public record. A competent researcher would make very short work of finding such individual records in a mass database. That cannot be for the public good. Moreover, the Government seem to intend to keep hold of the keys to unlock the entire system and identify an individual if the state feels the need to do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate; I have been inundated with the same concerns from many of my constituents. Does he agree that a system that allows a diversion from the court-appointed warrant to collect information is a dangerous precedent in terms of judicial due process? We must ensure that anyone who opts out is completely opted out, as is promised.
Mr Davis
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point and will elaborate on it as I make progress. As presented, the plan is to collect the data first and think about the problems second, but the information is too important and the Department’s record of failed IT is too great for it to be trusted with carte blanche over our privacy.
There is also the so-called honeypot problem. Data gathered centrally inevitably attracts actors with more nefarious intentions. The bigger the database, the greater the incentive to hack it. If the Pentagon, US Department of Defence and even Microsoft have been hacked by successful cyber-attacks, what chance does our NHS have?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. As we are coming towards 5 o’clock, I will just go through the following technical process.
Mr Davis
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take it you do not want me to start from the beginning again. That might test people’s patience a little.
As I was saying, if the giants of data security can be hacked, what chance the NHS? Big databases and big systems are intrinsically vulnerable. In 2017, a ransomware attack brought parts of the NHS to its knees. Trusts were forced to turn away patients, ambulances were diverted and 20,000 operations were cancelled. That highlights significant problems the Government have not yet had time to address. Despite those problems, the Government have been determined to press ahead with their data plans regardless. They undertook no widespread consultation, provided no easy opt-out, and showed no particular willingness to listen as would be proper with such an important move. The public were given little over a month to opt out of a data grab that few knew existed. The plan was described by the British Medical Association as “a complete failure” and “completely inadequate”.
The Government’s riding roughshod over our privacy was halted only when a coalition of organisations, including digital rights campaign group Foxglove, the Doctors’ Association UK, the National Pensioners Convention and myself, challenged the legality of the state’s actions. Our letter before legal action and threat of injunction forced a delay of two months. That is a welcome pause, but it has not resolved the issue.
Earlier this week, the Secretary of State published a data strategy that raised the possibility of using health data to improve care, something I know is close to his heart, but plans for securing and handling our data were consigned to a single paragraph—almost an afterthought. If the Government do not take corrective action to address our concerns, there will inevitably be a full judicial review. I have no doubt that, without clear action to both protect privacy and give patients control of their own data, the Government will find themselves on the losing side of any legal case.
Today, I hope and believe the Government will have the courtesy to listen. Indeed, if I may, I will thank the Secretary of State for being here personally today. It is very unusual for a Secretary of State to take the time to be here—he must be the busiest man in the Government—and address the issue today. That he has done so is, I think, a compliment to him.
A comprehensive health database undoubtedly has the potential to revolutionise patient treatment and save hundreds of thousands of lives. However, this data grab is not the correct approach. There are much better, safer and more effective ways to do this in the national interest. No system is ever going to be 100% safe, but it must be as safe as possible. We must find the proper balance between privacy and progress, research and restrictions, individual rights and academic insights. That also means controlling the companies we allow into our health system. Patient trust is vital to our NHS, so foreign tech companies such as Palantir, with their history of supporting mass surveillance, assisting in drone strikes, immigration raids and predictive policing, must not be placed at the heart of our NHS. We should not be giving away our most sensitive medical information lightly under the guise of research to huge companies whose focus is profits over people.
Of course, this was not Whitehall’s first attempt at a medical data grab. The failed care.data programme was the most notorious attempt to invade our privacy. Launched in 2013, NHS Digital’s project aimed to extract data from GP surgeries into a central database and sell the information to third parties for profit. NHS Digital claimed the data was going to be anonymised, not realising that that was actually impossible. The Cabinet Office described the disaster as having
“major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable.”
The project was ended in July 2016, wasting £8 million before it was scrapped.
However, care.data was just one example. I am afraid the Department has a long and problematic history with IT. Before care.data the NHS national programme for IT was launched by Labour in 2003. It sought to link more than 30,000 GPs to nearly 300 hospitals with a centralised medical records system for 50 million patients. The initial budget of £2.3 billion—note billion, not million—ballooned to £20 billion, which had to be written off when the programme collapsed in 2011. My old Committee, the Public Accounts Committee described the failed programme as one of the
“worst and most expensive contracting fiascos”
ever.
The possibilities to make research more productive, quicker and more secure are goals worth pursuing. There is no doubt that we all agree on the aims, but the path to progress must be agreed on, and there is clear concern among the public, GPs and professional bodies about this new data system.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman not only for giving way, but for leading today’s very important debate. It has been a really difficult year both for clinicians and for the public. The public understand the importance of research and planning, but they need confidence that their data—often about very intimate health needs—is secure. Given the need to maintain the special relationship between the clinician and patient, does he agree that the insufficiency of the current processes will damage that relationship, and therefore that we need a complete rethink about how data is collected and then used appropriately?
Mr Davis
I do absolutely agree. I think there is a common interest, frankly, between everybody in this House, including those on the Front Bench. The worst thing that can happen to this is a failure of trust. The failure of public trust in the care.data system saw some 2 million people opt out, and that is not what we want to see here, but we could easily exceed that figure with this programme now.
A lack of trust will undermine the usefulness of the dataset the Government hope to collect. The Guardian reported this month:
“All 36 doctors’ surgeries in Tower Hamlets…have already agreed to withhold the data”
had the collection gone ahead on 1 July as was planned. Other parts of the country are seeing more than 10% of patients withdraw their data via their GP surgery, and that is with little to no public awareness campaign. Much of this would have been avoided had the Government trusted Parliament and the public with a detailed and carefully thought-through plan. As the BMA noted:
“Rushing through such fundamental changes to confidential healthcare data, losing the confidence of the public and the profession, will severely undermine the programme and threaten any potential benefits it can bring”.
It is entirely correct.
Despite the errors so far, this proposal need not necessarily be consigned to the ash heap of NHS history. There are ways of safely achieving the vast majority of what the Government want. The programme OpenSAFELY is a new analytics platform, principally authored by Dr Ben Goldacre, Liam Smeeth and Seb Bacon, that was created during the pandemic to provide urgent data insights, so I know the Health Secretary will be very familiar with it. Working with 58 million NHS records distributed across a range of databases—not centralised, but on a range of databases—their software maintains health data within the secure systems it was already stored on. It is not transported outside the existing servers and it does not create a central honeypot target.
The programme sees the data, but the researcher does not. Furthermore, all activity involving the data is logged for independent review. The way it works is that the researcher sets up the experiment, and the programme returns the results, such as a hypothesis test, a regression analysis or an associational graph. At no point does the researcher need to see the raw patient data; they simply see the outcome of their own experiment. This is very important because the biggest risk with any new data system is losing control of data dissemination. Once it is out, like Pandora’s box, you cannot close the lid.
OpenSAFELY gets us 80% to 90% of the way to the Government’s objectives. Operated under rigorous access controls, it could give the vast majority of the research benefit with very little risk to the security of the data. Therefore, this is a viable approach providing there is a properly thought-through opt-out system for patients. This approach, so far, has been severely lacking: where are the texts, the emails and the letters to the patients that should have been there at the beginning? On the “Today” programme earlier this week, the Health Secretary indicated that he was now willing to contact every patient. That is very welcome. I hope he is now writing to every single patient involved in this proposed database and informing them properly. That information should be in easy-to-understand English or other community language, not technical jargon. Everything in the letter must be easily verifiable: clear facts for clear choices. The letter should have the approval of the relevant civil organisations that campaign on privacy and medical data issues to give the letter credibility. Unlike the disastrous scenes of only a few weeks ago, this will mean that patients should be able to opt out through their choice of a physical form with a pre-paid return, an easily accessible form online, or a simple notification of their GP. As well as the physical letter, a reminder should be sent to them shortly before their data is accessed, which, again, should give the patient a clear way to change their mind and opt out. The overall aim must be to give patients more control, more security and more trust in the process, and that requires very high levels of transparency.
However, my understanding is that the Government want to go further than the 80% or 90% that we could do absolutely safely. They want to allow, I think, partial downloads of datasets by researchers, albeit under trusted research environment conditions. They may even go further and wish to train AIs in this area, or allow outside third-party companies to do so. In my view, that is a bridge too far. One of the country’s leading professors of software security told me only this week that it is difficult to ensure that some designs of AI will not retain details of individual data. The simple fact is that at the moment AI is, effectively, a digital technology with analogue oversight. Other researchers argue for other reasons that they need to have more direct access to the data. Again, as I understand it, the Government’s response is downloading partial samples of these databases under the control of technology that will track the researcher’s every click, keystroke and action, and take screenshots of what their computer shows at any point in time. I am afraid that I am unpersuaded of the security of that approach. Downloading any of these databases, even partially, strikes me as being a serious risk.
The stark fact is that whether it be data downloads, AI or other concerns that we are not yet aware of, there are significant ethical and risk implications. If the Government want to go beyond what is demonstrably safe and secure, an opt-out system is not sufficient. In this scenario, a database would only be viable as an opt-in system, with volunteers, if you like: people who have decided they are happy that their data is used in a system that is perhaps not perfectly secure. The risk is too great to work on the presumption of consent that an opt-out system has. The Government must make these risks of exposure and privacy absolutely clear to those willing to donate their data. It is obvious that an opt-in system will be significantly constrained by a much smaller data sample, but that is the only way we should countenance such risks. My strong recommendation to the Secretary of State is that the Government pursue the first stage properly with a closed technology like OpenSAFELY that can provide proper security, proper access for researchers, and proper reassurance to the public.
There is no doubt that this is a complex issue. However, it would be a dereliction of our duty if this House did not hold the Government to account on what could have been, and could still be, a colossal failure. Whether it intended it or not, the Department of Health has given us the impression that it did not take the privacy and security of our personal health records sufficiently seriously. This is extremely damaging to the Government’s cause, which I have no doubt is well-meaning. The Department needs to explain to the House how it will address the legitimate concerns and safeguard this most sensitive of personal data. Only by properly respecting the privacy of the citizen, and by obtaining freely given informed consent, can the Department deliver on its prime purpose, which must be enhancing the health of the nation—something that I know is absolutely close to the Secretary of State’s heart.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
I have come to the House today to answer this debate because of the importance of the subject matter and the importance of getting this right. I recognise and acknowledge the chequered history that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) described, and I see that chequered history as one of the reasons that the NHS does not yet have the modern data architecture that it needs. Previous attempts—both the national programme for IT and care.data—have failed, so people have shied away from tackling this problem in a modern, secure and agile way.
I have come to demonstrate and to argue that there is no contradiction between high-quality security and privacy of the data held in a health system and the use of that data to save lives, because in a well-structured, well thought through system, both are enhanced. I profoundly believe that. I think that my right hon. Friend does too, and I agree with him when he says that we agree on aims; the key is the path. I agree with him, too, that the proper use of data has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives if we use it as safely as possible but also allow for the insights in the data to be discovered in order to promote better healthcare, better discoveries and the better operation of the NHS.
If someone did not believe that before, they could not have failed to be persuaded by it if they have looked at the experience of the last 18 months. We discovered that an old, cheap drug, dexamethasone, helped to reduce the likelihood of someone dying if they ended up in hospital with covid, and as a result it has saved around a million lives across the globe. We discovered that in the NHS because of the data that we have and because of a well-structured, high-quality data architecture project to find out which drugs worked.
We know that the NHS will operate better if different parts of it can compare their performance better. We also know that patients want their data to be used better, because the frustration expressed to me so frequently by patients who are asked over and over “Who are you and what’s wrong with you?”, when that data should be available to the clinicians who need to see it, is palpable. And we know that the clinicians in the NHS want high-quality use of data so that they do not waste so much time on outdated IT and can treat the people in their care better. All these things matter, and they will save lives.
The current GP data service, GPES—the general practice extraction service—is over 10 years old, and it needs to be replaced. The project that my right hon. Friend referred to, GP data for planning and research, is there to unlock the intrinsic benefits of this data, but that must be done in a way that maintains the highest possible standards of security. The goals of this, and the outcomes when we get it right—I say when, not if—are that it will reduce the bureaucracy and workload for GPs, it will strengthen privacy and security, and it will replace around 300 separate data collections with one single collection.
If I may take my right hon. Friend back to 2018, I piloted through this House the Data Protection Act 2018, in which we brought the GDPR into UK law and strengthened provisions for data security. You may remember that, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you may have received a few emails about it at the time from companies asking whether you were still happy for them to hold your data. You could have replied, “No.” In fact, I came off quite a few lists I was no longer interested in receiving emails from because I was reminded that I was still on them and that I could opt out. I think the time has come for a similar approach—an update—to the way we think about health data in this country that puts security and privacy at its heart and, in so doing, unlocks the insights in that data and allows us to hold the trust of the citizens we serve.
The way I think about that is this. Current law considers that citizens do not control their health data, but the NHS does. For instance, GP data is controlled by GPs. However, the approach we should take is that citizens are in charge of their data. It is our data. The details of my bunion are a matter for me, and me primarily. I will not have anyone in the NHS tell me whether I can or cannot disclose the details of my bunion—it is going fine, thank you very much for asking. It matters to me, even though it is a completely uncontroversial health condition, but, as my right hon. Friend set out, for many people their health data is incredibly sensitive and it is vital that it is kept safe.
On the question at hand, the programme—GP data for planning and research—will be underpinned by the highest standards of safety and security. Like my right hon. Friend, I am a huge fan of the progress and advances we have seen in trusted research environments. Those are the safe and secure places for bringing together data, where researchers can access the data or, more accurately, the insights in the data while maintaining the highest standards of privacy.
I, too, am an enormous fan of Dr Ben Goldacre and his team. The OpenSAFELY project has shown the benefits that TREs can bring, because they allow us to support urgent research and to find the insights in the data while protecting privacy. During the pandemic, the project was absolutely fundamental to our response. In fact, it existed before the pandemic, but really came into its own during the pandemic. For instance, it was the first project to find underlying risk factors for covid-19. OpenSAFELY was the first project around the world to find statistically and significantly that obesity makes it more likely that someone will die of covid. That was an important fact, discovered through this project and without disclosing anybody’s body mass index in doing so. That is therefore the approach that we will take.
I can tell my right hon. Friend and the House that I have heard people’s concerns about using dissemination of pseudonymised data. We will not use that approach in the new GPDPR. The new system will instead use trusted research environments. All data in the system will only ever be accessible through a TRE. This means that the data will always be protected in the secure environment. Individual data will never be visible to the researcher, and we will know, and will publish, who has run what query or used which bit of data. The question was asked: who has access to what data, and who knows about it? The answer is that we should all know about it and that people should have access in a trusted way, but to be able to find insights in the data, not people’s individual personalised data itself.
I hope that that will help to build trust. It will mean a different way of operating for data researchers, but I disagree with my right hon Friend that it will allow us only to get 80% or 90% of the research benefit. A well structured TRE allows us to find more insight from the data, not least because the data could be better curated, and therefore more people can spend more time finding the insights in the data, rather than curating it over and over again. The dangers that come with the dissemination of pseudonymised data are removed.
It will take some time to move over to the new system, hence I have delayed its introduction, but we have also made that delay to ensure that more people can hear about it. That is the other reason that I came to the House today: I want people to be engaged in the project. People are engaged in their health like never before, and in their health data like never before, in part because of the pandemic. If we think about the NHS app, which is no doubt in everyone’s pocket—it is certainly in mine—if we think about the covid app, which has been downloaded 25 million times, we have never seen people more interested in their health data. We have never seen a greater connection, and we should use that to make sure that consent, when it is given, is given fully and properly.
I can assure the House we have an extremely high benchmark for who can access data. We have put in place a rigorous and independent approvals process, and audits are carried out to make sure the data is only being used for legitimate purposes. We will make sure that the right data can be accessed by the right people at the right time, but only by the right people at the right time. Both sides of that—that it can be accessed by people who need to see it, but only by the people who need to see it—are critical to getting this right.
On the question of the giving of that consent, it is crucial that we ensure that there is enough knowledge and understanding of these changes, that people are brought into the process, and that people know they have an opt-out. The research is clear: the majority of people are keen to allow their data to be used to help to save other people’s lives, but they want to know they have an opt-out and are reassured if they have one, even if they stay opted in, because they know then that it is based on their consent.
This important programme will have an opt-out system. We are strengthening the opt-out system already, and we will take the time to work with those who are enthusiastic about using data properly, with those who ensure that questions of privacy and security are put to the fore, with the public and, of course, with clinicians to make sure that we strengthen this programme further in terms of its security and privacy, yes, but also in terms of the outcomes we can get from the data, so that we can find new treatments to help save lives.
This is an important programme. The use of data in the NHS will have a huge impact on the future of health and care in this country, and we want to take people with us on this mission. We have developed this policy together with doctors, patients and experts in data and privacy, and more than 200 prominent scientific and medical researchers have endorsed a statement of support for this mission, but we have decided to take some extra time to consult further and to be even more ambitious about what we want to deliver, with a new implementation date of 1 September.
One of the central lessons of the pandemic is that data makes a difference, so let us keep working to take this programme forward, learning the lessons of the crisis, so that we can build back better and use data to save lives.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
And the Secretary of State’s bunion.
Question put and agreed to.
Financial Markets and insolvency (Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, may I remind Members that we have moved to one metre-plus social distancing in general Committees, in line with the Chamber and Westminster Hall. Members should continue to sit only in places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee except when speaking and unless Members are exempt.
Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could send any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Markets and Insolvency (Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Roberston.
As the Committee will be aware, prior to the end of the transition period, the Treasury introduced more than 65 statutory instruments under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was a significant programme of legislation. These SIs covered all the essential legislative changes that needed to be in law to ensure we had an effective and coherent financial services regulatory regime at the end of the transition period. This SI amends a transitional regime created in an earlier financial services EU Exit instrument, to ensure that the transitional regime continues to provide continuity for UK firms, as was originally intended.
The original SI, which this instrument amends, onshored the insolvency-related protections that are provided to systems under the EU settlement finality directive—or SFD. These systems are financial market infrastructure such as central counterparties, central securities depositories and payment systems, which provide essential services and functions relied upon by the financial services sector. Prior to the end of the transition period, if an EEA-based system was designated under the SFD, it received specific protections from insolvency laws across all EEA states and the UK. This meant that, where a designated system had received funds or securities from a system user—for example, a UK bank—then those funds or securities could not be clawed back in the event of the UK bank being subject to insolvency proceedings. In treating transactions made through a designated system as final and irreversible, this framework ensured that these vital elements of the financial plumbing were not at risk where individual members were in insolvency procedures.
Without these protections set out in legislation, there would be an increased burden on members of these systems, given that they would have to provide further assurance that, in the event of insolvency, payments they had made to a system could not be reversed. This could result in increased costs or even loss of access to providers of financial market services who need to use these systems in the EEA.
In the SI that we are amending today, a UK framework was established to allow any non-UK system to apply to the Bank of England for designation, so that it could receive settlement finality protections under UK law. It also established a temporary designation regime to provide UK insolvency protections for a period of three years to existing designated EEA systems that intended to apply for permanent designation under the UK’s framework. The purpose of temporary designation is to allow time for applications to be processed by the Bank of England, while ensuring continuity of access for UK firms to relevant EEA systems.
However, there is a requirement for EEA systems in the transitional regime to submit an application by 30 June 2021—next Wednesday—otherwise they will immediately lose the protections provided for in the regime. This instrument amends the consequences of failing to apply by this deadline. Instead of immediately losing settlement finality protections under the temporary designation regime, EEA systems will retain protections for an additional two years. This ensures that UK firms which are using those EEA systems have sufficient time to put mitigants in place should access to those systems be impacted.
The Treasury has worked closely with the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority to prepare this instrument. We have also engaged extensively with the financial services industry on the instrument to which this SI relates. I should also note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has reported on this SI as an instrument of interest. We have answered all questions pertaining to that, and the SI passed through the Lords a few weeks ago.
In conclusion, this SI is necessary to provide certainty for UK firms, and I commend these regulations to the Committee this morning.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Thank you for your chairmanship this morning, Mr Robertson. I have a feeling of déjà vu—in fact, Mr Robertson, it might be déjà vu all over again: not only have we been in this movie before, but we might be in it again in the future. But if I have a feeling of déjà vu, it must be nothing compared with the Minister’s. He has spent a large part of the last couple of years taking through these statutory instruments. He mentioned that there were 65 from the Treasury; I do not know what proportion of those he took through—a large proportion, I would guess. A lot of that was the rolling over of particular European regimes. Now he is back doing that again.
As the Minister said, the regulations are about protecting assets in mid-transaction from being clawed back in the event of an insolvency, increasing confidence in the financial system and contributing to its stability. Such fire breaks in clearing and transactions are an established part of the system. They are important because they are designed to stop an insolvency in one company from leading to a chain reaction right through other parts of the system. That much is uncontroversial.
The original form of the regulations was to offer protection for up to six months after the end of the transition period to firms that were part of the EEA processes; as the Minister said, the timetable runs out next Wednesday. But not all firms have completed the transfer to a new system, so we have this further extension for a two-year period. I appreciate why the Minister has gone for two years: he does not want to be doing this every six months, and there is some rationale in that.
Brexit was sold as being an end to red tape—nobody said it would be replaced with all this red, white and blue tape that we are debating today. I am not just talking about this instrument. Yesterday, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was in a room somewhere along this corridor doing exactly the same thing to the extension process for customs safety and procedures—that was supposed to be for six months and is now having to be rolled over again. It will not be just these two financial instruments; there will be others too. This is the legislative process that keeps on giving—the rollover of the rollover, but no EuroMillions prize at the end.
I do not know whether you were listening to the news this morning, Mr Robertson. There was a report about long covid, which is defined as people having symptoms for 12 weeks or more after they have been diagnosed. What we are dealing with here is long Brexit: the legislative process that never ends of extensions to transition measures, where British regulations were supposed to be replacing the ones that we were leaving.
On the substance, I should say that of course we are not going to oppose something designed to contribute to financial stability and avoid the kind of financial chain reaction that can come with an insolvency in one part of the system. But the broader point is about how long the process is going to go on. I cannot predict the Minister’s future and personally I wish him well, but it is certainly within realistic possibility that a different Economic Secretary to the Treasury and Opposition spokesperson will be standing here in two years’ time debating the rollover to the rollover to the rollover.
We do not oppose the substance of the regulations, but we are casting a wry eye over the process of legislative long Brexit.
John Glen
As ever, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I do not think he raised any substantive points and do not want to detain the Committee with a wider political discussion. All I would say is that the Government’s view is that this instrument is necessary to ensure that the transitional regime for the settlement finality protection of EEA systems continues to provide that continuity for UK firms. About 37 systems are in play, and we anticipate that the vast majority will have made applications by next week. I will continue to do whatever is necessary to protect the integrity of the system. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Nineteeth sitting)
Thursday 24th June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 24 June 2021 - (24 Jun 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind Members, as always, to switch their phones to silent, and that Mr Speaker does not permit coffee or other drinks or food in Committee. Members should observe social distancing. Following a decision of the House of Commons Commission on Monday, we may now sit a little closer—one metre apart —but it is important to continue observing social distancing measures. Members should wear face coverings in Committee unless they are speaking or exempt. Please pass your notes to Hansard or email them to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Today we will consider further new clauses to the Bill and complete the remaining Committee proceedings by the deadline of 5 pm, as set out in the Order of the House of 16 March and the Order of the Committee on 18 May. New clauses that have been grouped with amendments to the Bill will not be debated again, but when we reach a new clause that has been debated, a member of the Committee may indicate that they wish to move the clause formally and divide the Committee. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. I remind Members who wish to press a grouped new clause to a Division that they should indicate their intention when speaking to the clause.
New Clause 27
Voyeurism: breastfeeding
‘(1) Section 67A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Voyeurism: additional offences) is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After subsection (2), insert—
“(2A) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A records an image of another person (B) while B is breastfeeding;
(b) A does so with the intention that A or another person (C) will look at the image for purpose mentioned in subsection (3), and
(c) A does so—
(i) without B’s consent, and
(ii) without reasonably believing that B consents.”’—(Alex Cunningham.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Good morning, Mr McCabe. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for perhaps the last time on this Committee. New clause 27 would ban taking photos or film footage of someone who is breastfeeding, without their consent. I, for one, was extremely surprised when I found out that our criminal law does not make sufficient provision for that. I am tremendously grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), who brought this to my attention following an awful incident in his constituency, for his invaluable work campaigning on the issue since then. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who has taken up the matter with characteristic enthusiasm and tenacity. The House is extremely fortunate to have MPs of such calibre campaigning on such vital issues.
I also put on the record our sincere thanks to Julia Cooper, the Manchester, Withington constituent whose case I just referred to, for beginning the campaign to let women breastfeed in peace. Julia has led an impressive campaign, and I hope the Committee will answer with unequivocal support. As of this morning, her campaign petition has more than 26,500 signatures. To illustrate the issue, I will share some of Julia’s testimony about the distressing incident that she was subjected to. She said:
“I visited a park…with my baby for a walk with another mum. At the end of the walk we sat on a bench outside a café and fed our babies.
As I was breastfeeding, I noticed a man staring. He then attached a long-range zoom lens to his camera and began taking photos of me. I quickly turned with my baby to face away from him.
After the feed, I asked the man if he had taken my photograph, which he confirmed…I asked him to delete the photos and he refused, saying it was his right to take photos of people in a public space.
I am absolutely disgusted that this man has gone home with images of me and my baby on his camera, and it’s completely legal. As I said, I feel violated and discouraged from feeding my baby outside the house again.
I reported the incident to Greater Manchester Police, but the man I spoke to at the control room informed me, after having to come off the phone and check with colleagues, that indeed there is no law protecting breastfeeding women from unwanted photography in public.
I understand that women who breastfeed are protected by the Equality Act 2010 in public places like parks, as well as private businesses such as shops and restaurants. But only against discrimination.”
It is clear to me that there is a massive void in the rights and protections of breastfeeding women in public spaces. I find Julia’s case disturbing and upsetting, and I am sure that the Ministers share my feelings. Pregnant Then Screwed also took evidence about this issue from their supporters, and I will share one more case study that shows that the law is simply not strong enough to provide breastfeeding women with the protection they need. The woman I quote says that
“this happened to me with my second when she was a month or so old. Took her for a walk in the carrier…but she wouldn’t calm down. I stopped at a park bench to see if a bit of breastfeeding would work.
I never felt fearful of doing this with my first. A guy walked up to the bench, less than a metre away (during the pandemic) and just started taking photographs of me.
I told him to stop, to which he said he was a ‘photographer from Italy’. I then said I didn’t care if he was a photographer, he can’t take photos without asking permission and asked him to delete them. He then walked off.
I finished feeding my baby and then started to walk home…This is what I reported to the police and unfortunately it isn’t a crime. They were sympathetic and just sorry they couldn’t do much else.”
Both women had gone to the police, who were sympathetic and wanted to help but could not do so because of the current limits in the law. The new clause builds on the Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019, which this House passed three years ago in response to concerns about upskirting. The Act created the criminal offence of upskirting, and offenders now face up to two years in jail and being placed on the sex offenders register for taking a picture of a person’s clothing without their knowing, with the intention of viewing their genitals or buttocks.
The law was supported by Parliament on the basis that it banned a degrading practice, with the intention of deterring perpetrators, better protecting victims and bringing more offenders to justice. As the law specifies, the location of the body where the Act applies is below the waist, which means that taking a photograph or video footage of a woman breastfeeding without her consent is not currently illegal. By amending the list of prohibited acts under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to include breastfeeding, we can send the same message that taking photographs or videos of this nature without a person’s consent is wrong.
There are many issues at play here, including the protection of women from harassment in public spaces, but there is another reason why this is so important. Breastfeeding has short and long-term health benefits for both mother and child. It is estimated that if all UK infants were exclusively breastfed, the number hospitalised with diarrhoea would be halved, and the number hospitalised with a respiratory infection would drop by a quarter. Mothers who do not breastfeed have an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancers. It is because of those benefits to mothers and babies that the current UK policy is to promote exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of an infant’s life, yet the UK has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in Europe.
An analysis of global breastfeeding prevalence found that in the UK only 34% of babies receive some breast milk at six months compared with 49% in the US and 71% in Norway. In 2017, Public Health Research carried out research into why the UK’s breastfeeding rates are so low. It found that breastfeeding in public is something that mums are concerned about. The mothers polled are most likely to say that they would feel embarrassed breastfeeding in the presence of people they do not know. Indeed, 63% responded as such; 59% feel the same about their partner’s family; and 49% felt that way about siblings and wider family members.
A poll carried out by “Woman’s Hour” in 2019 found that three in 10 women who formula-fed their baby said that they would like to have breastfed, but felt embarrassed to do so in public. New mothers have more than enough on their plate as it is. They should not have to feel anxious about feeding their child in a public space. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health recommended back in 2017 that the Department of Health and Social Care introduce legislation to support and protect breastfeeding infants and their mothers in public places.
The public are in favour of the measure, too. A YouGov survey of more than 5,000 UK adults conducted last month found that 75% of respondents agreed that taking photos of women breastfeeding without their consent should be made illegal. The amendment has wide support across all groups who support new and breastfeeding mothers, including the National Childbirth Trust, Pregnant Then Screwed, the Breastfeeding Support Network, and Mumsnet. I hope that today the Government can show their support as well so that we can protect breastfeeding women from such disturbing and intrusive acts, and together we can finally put an end to it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I welcome the opportunity to debate this unacceptable, creepy and disgusting behaviour in Committee. I pay tribute to Ms Cooper and to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, who asked me a question on this very subject in the last Government Equalities Office oral questions. I also pay tribute to the many women who have shared their stories in recent months, including those who have responded to our survey to shape the violence against women and girls strategy and to tell us about their experiences.
All the facts that the hon. Gentleman has cited about the health reasons for breastfeeding are very apparent and obvious. The reasons why mums and babies benefit from breastfeeding are well established. In what can often feel like a very busy, hectic and sometimes even—dare I say it?—harried time with a newborn, breastfeeding provides a moment of tenderness, of love, and of innocence. To have a stranger defile that moment by trying to take photographs or video it—that is not something that would occur to most decent, right-thinking people. I very much understand why this new clause has been tabled, and I want to support the mothers and the women who are facing this.
There might well be offences that could cover this behaviour, but I fully accept that from the descriptions the hon. Gentleman has given, those offences are not clear to either to the public or the police. The Government do not shy away from tackling the use of the internet and imagery as forms of criminal behaviour. We already introduced the offence of revenge pornography in 2015, and during proceedings on the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, we listened to victims of threats to use revenge porn and we acted in that legislation to extend the offence to include threats to disclose private sexual images with an intent to cause distress. Of course, the upcoming Online Safety Bill will set the framework for companies and the duty of care on tech companies in relation to members of the public.
However, we absolutely agree that it is right to ask whether the law has kept up to date with the emergence of the internet. That is why we have asked the Law Commission to review the law around the taking, making and sharing of intimate images without consent, to see where there are gaps, and to get the Commission’s advice on how people can be protected from such behaviour. That review looks at the question of voyeurism offences and non-consensual photography in public places, including the issue of images taken of breastfeeding. On 27 February this year, the Commission published a consultation paper on its review, which ended in May, and I understand that it is due to publish its final set of recommendations in the spring of next year.
We await the results of the Law Commission’s report. We want to wait for the results of that report, because it is foreseeable that the Commission’s work will include a body of recommendations knitting together the various types of offending behaviour that it has identified, and suggesting how the law should be redrafted or improved to tackle such offences. As such, I am in the position of asking the Committee—and, I suspect, later on, the House —to bear with us while we await the results of that report.
I understand the anger and frustration, and the fear that some women feel about breastfeeding in public in these circumstances. Given the Committee’s approval of the Law Commission’s work, however, it would be inconsistent, to put it mildly, of me not to say that it is best for us to wait for that work, so we can get a programme of recommendations from it about the overall use of such intimate images on the internet, and how the criminal law should address the issue.
Alex Cunningham
I appreciate the conciliatory tone of the Minister’s response. I understand what she is saying, but when we debate new clauses and amendments, the Government constantly refer to yet another commission review and say that we must recognise that there are gaps in the law, and we find that we have to wait, wait and wait again. She says that we still await the final set of recommendations, so it could be well into next year before we get any sort of finality. It could be even after that before any action is taken to deal with this offence. Despite the Minister’s conciliatory tone, I feel that in order to protect women now, it would be good to press the matter to a vote.
The Chair
I have had no indication that any member of the Committee wishes to move new clause 30. If that is correct, we now come to new clause 31.
New Clause 31
Maximum sentence for publishing the identity of a sexual offences complainant
‘(1) Section 5 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), leave out “and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale”.
(3) After subsection (1), insert the following subsection—
“(1A) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both, or
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.”’—(Alex Cunningham.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As the law currently stands, complainants of sexual offences are granted lifelong anonymity by way of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. Section 1 of the Act prohibits the publication of any information in any place that could lead members of the public to identify a complainant of a sexual offence. Section 5 makes a breach of the prohibition a criminal offence, the maximum sentence for which is a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. In some cases, identifying a complainant could result in an offender being prosecuted for contempt of court, but in many situations, the facts of the case will not allow that course of action to be taken.
What that means in practice, as the law currently stands, is that someone who reveals online the identity of a complainant will more often than not receive only a simple fine. I hope that the Minister will agree with me that that seems to be a wholly inadequate sentencing power for a crime that can do so much irreparable psychological damage to victims of sexual offences.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling the new clause, because I have dealt with survivors to whom this has happened and I think that the law needs to catch up with where we are, in that social media and the digital world are accessed much more now than they ever were before. The new clause makes complete sense in trying to bring the two back in line.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend is, of course, correct: technology is moving so quickly, and so many different things happen in so many different ways. People can even get pictures on their watches these days and talk to their family back home. The fact that that sort of technology exists can be exploited for all the wrong reasons as well. It is important that we act in this space.
During Justice questions last month, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) raised the case of Phillip Leece to illustrate just how horrific a crime this can be. For members of the Committee who may not have heard the question asked by the shadow Secretary of State for Justice in the Chamber, I will quote what he said:
“In 2019…Leece viciously raped a woman on her way home from a night out; she was 26 and soon to be married. Adding insult to injury, he published the name of his victim online”
and made disparaging remarks about her appearance, claiming that she was
“too fat and disgusting to rape.”—[Official Report, 18 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 522.]
For naming and humiliating his victim online, he received a pathetic and insulting fine of only £120. That in no way reflects the enormous trauma that his action caused the young girl he raped.
During Leece’s trial, his victim read out her impact statement to the court and spoke of the devastating impact that the attack and her subsequent naming had on her. She was once a happy young woman looking forward to getting married, but those events caused her to suffer severe psychological harm, which led to suicide attempts and incidents of self-harm. In her own words, she explained how her naming online changed the way she lived:
“The post made me feel incredibly insecure and sad for the days and weeks afterwards.
It increased my anxiety about leaving the house and it got to the point that I wouldn’t even go into the back garden whilst letting the dog out. I imagined that he would know where I lived and would be able to find me.
The post also led to me eating more and gaining even more weight…with the thought that the bigger I am, the less likely this will happen to me again.”
I am sure that all members of the Committee, regardless of political affiliation, will share my view that a fine in no way reflects the severity of Leece’s actions. I appreciate the Lord Chancellor’s sharing this view. In response to the shadow Justice Secretary’s question about Leece, the Lord Chancellor indicated that he was going to act in this area. Specifically, he said that the Government were
“already making preparations to see what can be done to improve and strengthen the law in this area, because, make no mistake, the naming of victims of sexual abuse—and other types of offending as well where anonymity is an essential part of the process—is not just wrong, it is criminal and we will do whatever it takes to help stamp it out.”—[Official Report, 18 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 523.]
That view is shared wholeheartedly by the Opposition, and that is why we tabled new clause 31. It is another of those small but significant steps that we are asking the Government to take now, rather than waiting. It is clear to us that the current provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 are simply no longer fit for purpose in the modern world. It is perhaps telling that the last time Parliament reviewed that Act was more than two decades ago, in 1999. I am sure that all of us would accept that since 1999 the world has changed a great deal—that was illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. Online publishing and social media mean that things written on the internet attract an audience far greater than they would have in 1999. Furthermore, things published on the internet have much greater longevity and potential exposure. For those reasons, we need an urgent review of how the Act is functioning.
New clause 31 is a simple amendment: it would give judges the power to sentence offenders who name complainants of sexual offences to a custodial sentence of up to two years. That would bring this sentence in line with the sentence for contempt of court. Given that the Lord Chancellor has previously expressed sympathy for reforming this area, we look forward to the Minister’s support for the new clause.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.
I thank the shadow Minister for raising this extremely important issue. The case he mentioned of Phillip Leece and his victim was truly terrible, and the impact on the victim was clearly appalling. As the shadow Minister said, the Lord Chancellor, in answering an oral question a short while ago, expressed the Government’s support for the principles enshrined in the new clause. We think that more needs to be done—we agree with the shadow Minister on that.
However, we would like to make sure that we do this in a thoughtful way, covering all the potentially related offences. The new clause, as drafted, covers the particular offences under the auspices of the 1992 Act. We take the view that some other prohibitions on naming victims and other restrictions would benefit from similarly enhanced penalties. Specifically, the new clause would not cover anonymity for victims of female genital mutilation, nor victims of forced marriage, who we think are equally deserving of protection and support, as I am sure Opposition Members would agree. In addition, other automatic protections apply to participants in youth court proceedings—defendants as well as victims—and discretionary protections can be imposed or handed down by the court to protect the identity of witnesses.
Besides the cases covered by the new clause, there are these other examples—female genital mutilation, forced marriage, youth proceedings and witness protection—that require action. This is an area, as the Lord Chancellor signalled, where the Government want to act in the near future by coming up with proposals that cover all these things. I know there is frustration: we have a Bill before Parliament, so why not do something now? However, other Bills are coming forward in the remainder of this Session that could be used as vehicles to legislate on this. It may be that the Lord Chancellor will say more about that before Report, because it is being worked on actively at the moment.
Alex Cunningham
Is the Minister giving a commitment that this particular offence will be covered by some form of legislation from the Government in this Session?
Chris Philp
I am coming close to saying that. I am saying that this is something that the Government are currently looking at. The Government accept the need to act on this, as the Lord Chancellor said, and on those other offences as well. I do not want to say too much before we are in a position to do so properly, but there are intentions to put in place a process to properly review these offences, on an expedited basis, with the intention of legislation then following. That is where the Government are coming from on this. I hope that it will be possible to say more on Report.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that he is probably coming as close as he can—within his pay grade—to making that commitment?
Chris Philp
I thank my right hon. Friend for reminding the Committee and me exactly where I sit in the hierarchy of Government. As a former senior Minister himself, he will know that my authority is limited in these circumstances, and indeed in all circumstances. I hope I have given a pretty clear indication, so far as I am able to, of where the Government will come out on this. We essentially accept the point, but change needs to be done properly, and we need to catch the other offences as well. I hope that gives the Committee a clear sense of where we are on this.
Alex Cunningham
I do not know what my pay grade is. I do not think I get paid, do I? The Minister talked about the principle of all this, but we get to a point where we have to leave principles behind and take some action. I assure him that I am also approaching the matter in a thoughtful way, with the support of my hon. Friends and of victims. We would not have tabled the new clause if we did not feel so very strongly about it.
Chris Philp
I appreciate the shadow Minister’s point, but the truth is we will not have had the chance to deal properly with all the other offences by Report, which is in just a week and a half, on 5 July. I wish I could, as he puts it, strike a deal, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby rather cruelly pointed out, I do not have the authority to commit the Government here. I hope I have given a very clear indication of our intention. We will not get all these details worked out in the next week and a half, but we will get this sorted out together.
Alex Cunningham
I am sorry to make the Minister uncomfortable about his pay grade, but we need to move forward with this and there is an opportunity to do so. The Minister says that it is only a week and a half until Report, but this new clause has been on the amendment paper for many weeks, and we have been planning for this Committee for many months. I think there has been sufficient time for the Government to do the right thing here, and I intend to push the matter to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause places a requirement on the Secretary of State to collect and publish annual data on child sex offences, child exploitation offences and modern slavery offences. Data collection is vital to ensure appropriate policy responses, and that is even more important when it comes to crime. Publishing transparent crime statistics is key to understanding how the criminal justice system is working and whether victims are getting the justice they deserve.
New clause 38 asks the Government to collect and publish, by police force area, annual data on the number of child sexual offences, child sexual exploitation offences and modern slavery offences committed against children aged under 18 in England and Wales. There is a data blind spot when it comes to tracking a reported crime through to sentencing. Because of the way data is collected, this proves especially difficult for 16 and 17-year-olds against whom sexual offences are committed. I know that the Government are committed to tackling child abuse and exploitation in all its forms. The new clause would help in that fight, by filling in the blanks and allowing us to have an informed discussion on what needs to improve to ensure that victims get their day in court and criminals are brought to justice.
Despite older teenagers in particular being at high risk of sexual offences, due to the way that the data is collected they are often not included in the reported numbers on child sexual abuse. The tackling child sexual abuse strategy states:
“Over 83,000 child sexual abuse offences…were recorded by police in the year ending March 2020, an increase of approximately 267% since 2013… Due to the way this data is collected, and different sexual offences defined, these figures do not capture certain sexual offences committed against 16 and 17-year-olds, such as rape, as well as sexual assault committed against children over the age of 13.”
The Children’s Society’s analysis of the data shows that those two categories are the biggest groups of sexual offences reported to the police, which therefore indicates that the true scale of recorded sexual offences against children is very likely to be much higher. Collecting information is key to showing the true scale of sexual offences and to showing where the cliff edges are in the victim’s journey through the criminal justice system.
The Children’s Society previously found that
“54,000 sexual offences against children under the age of 18 were recorded by 43 police forces in England and Wales between 1 October 2015 and 31 September 2016.”
However, it stated that
“Only around 16% of offences reported where the investigation was completed resulted in charges, summons, community resolution or cautions against the perpetrator… For offences that did not result in action against the perpetrator the most common reason was evidential difficulties”.
Let us take the example of Margaret, aged 16. Throughout her life, Margaret had many interventions from children’s services. Margaret disclosed to family that she was raped and was a witness to another person being sexually assaulted. She disclosed that she was scared of reporting the offence, but did so with her family’s support. Long delays, a change of police staff and her mobile phone being taken for 10 months meant that Margaret eventually stopped supporting the police investigation. The case did not progress to prosecution and the young person remains at risk of sexual abuse.
We need to learn from these cases. New clause 38 would give us a clearer understanding of how many reported crimes against children drop out before a defendant is charged. That would enable us to make improvements in criminal justice. What we know is that a shockingly low number of crimes reported result in a successful conviction.
The Office for National Statistics reported in 2020 that there were more than 12,000 crimes flagged as sexual exploitation, but fewer than 2,000 child sexual exploitation charges were brought against perpetrators. There are several different crime datasets published each year, but none follows a reported crime right through to sentencing. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service must have the right tools to prosecute perpetrators, and that is where robust and transparent data collection comes in. Proper data collection will also enable local areas to plan appropriate safeguarding responses for all children under the age of 18 who are at risk of sexual offences or modern slavery offences in their area.
Figures from the ONS have shown that children are more likely than the general population to be victims of sexual offences, with young people aged between 15 and 19 accounting for nearly a quarter—23%—of all rape offences. I hope the Government will acknowledge the importance of better data collection in their response and will commit to providing the information on an annual basis, so that we can review the effectiveness of the current disruption tools, criminal offences and attrition rates for child sexual abuse and exploitation. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Victoria Atkins
The Government recognise the importance of collecting data to inform policy and operational decisions and to see the effect of those decisions. I want to take this opportunity to reassure the Committee that there are already robust mechanisms in place across Government, the police and the criminal justice system for gathering, recording and publishing data. Through the Office for National Statistics, the Government routinely publish data for child sexual abuse crimes committed against children aged under 16 years old. Data for children aged between 16 and 18 is recorded differently, as there are no specific crime codes for this age group. In 2019, however, the ONS carried out analysis of sexual offences perpetrated against 16 and 17-year-olds and published its findings as part of the England and Wales crime survey. Offences relating to child sexual exploitation will be recorded using a variety of crime codes, including those for child sexual abuse and those relating to trafficking. As such, there are no specific crime codes for CSE, and police forces are required to flag child sexual exploitation offences when providing data to the Home Office.
Modern slavery offences committed against children are recorded and published by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Ministry of Justice. The Crown Prosecution Service maintains a central record of the number of offences for which a prosecution commenced, including offences charged under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. All modern slavery offences committed against children are identified through the child abuse monitoring flag, and the Crown Prosecution Service definition of child abuse covers any case where the victim was under 18 years of age at the time of the offence. Through the ONS, the Home Office already publishes both the number of recorded crimes and the number of persons charged under part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Alongside that, the Ministry of Justice already facilitates the collection and publication of data on the number of persons prosecuted, the number of persons sentenced and the length of sentences.
Sarah Champion
The Minister will not be surprised that I investigate the data quite routinely, and there are two problems that she might be able to address. First, when the ONS data come out, they tend to be a big lump —the data are not broken down into specifics. Secondly, she is talking about the data collected on charging, prosecuting and outcomes, but what we are arguing for is the need to look at the number of reported crimes.
Victoria Atkins
I will take those points away, because it is incredibly complicated, as the hon. Lady’s speech and, I suspect, my speech have demonstrated. We do not routinely publish data on the number of child victims by age, as the police record the data on offences rather than on the victims who have experienced them. I suspect that this is the nub of the hon. Lady’s point. I am told that the reason for that is that an offence may come to the attention of the police, but there might not be a specific intended or identifiable victim attached to it. Additionally, the same child may be the victim of multiple offences—indeed, we know that to be the case with gang exploitation—so we have used data gathered through the crime survey in order to try to inform our understanding of the number of victims and their ages.
The Home Office also publishes data on potential child victims of modern slavery who have been referred through the national referral mechanism, which is the framework for identifying and supporting victims of modern slavery. Of course, that stands apart from the criminal justice system. Someone may be referred to the NRM but might not participate or have a part to play in the criminal justice system. There are a great many data sets, but I take the hon. Lady’s point about the identification of child victims. We will see what more we can do.
Sarah Champion
I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 43
Offence of interference with access to or provision of abortion services
“(1) A person who is within a buffer zone and who interferes with any person’s decision to access, provide, or facilitate the provision of abortion services in that buffer zone is guilty of an offence.
(2) A ‘buffer zone’ means an area with a boundary which is 150 metres from any part of an abortion clinic or any access point to any building that contains an abortion clinic.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)—
‘interferes with’ means—
(a) seeks to influence; or
(b) persistently, continuously or repeatedly occupies; or
(c) impedes or threatens; or
(d) intimidates or harasses; or
(e) advises or persuades, attempts to advise or persuade, or otherwise expresses opinion; or
(f) informs or attempts to inform about abortion services by any means, including, without limitation, graphic, physical, verbal or written means; or
(g) sketches, photographs, records, stores, broadcasts, or transmits images, audio, likenesses or personal data of any person without express consent.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—
(a) in the first instance—
(i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or
(ii) to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or
(iii) to both; and
(b) on further instances—
(i) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or to a fine, or to both; or
(ii) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine, or to both.”.—(Sarah Champion.)
This new clause would introduce areas around abortion clinics and hospitals (buffer zones) where interference with, and intimidation or harassment of, women accessing or people providing abortion services would be an offence.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am proud to speak to this clause, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and supported by more than 35 MPs from across the House.
As we come to the end of Committee stage, a significant portion of our debate has focused on the safety of women in public spaces, and I am grateful for that. We can all recognise, to a greater or lesser degree, that existing public order legislation does not provide the necessary framework to address women’s fear and concerns in public spaces.
This new clause raises a discrete problem—harassment outside abortion clinics. The issue has been raised in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton for several years, with great support from other Members on both sides of the House. As hon. Members will see on the amendment paper, the new clause has cross -party support from Members from five different parties.
Although my hon. Friend was driven to raise this issue by harassment in her own constituency, this is not a local issue. Figures from the Department of Health and Social Care and abortion providers indicate that in 2019 more than 100,000 women—or more than half of everyone who has an abortion—had to attend a hospital or abortion clinic that had been targeted by anti-abortion groups.
I want to make it clear that this new clause is not about abortion. A woman’s legal right to end a pregnancy is supported by the House and by the public and has been in statute since 1967. It is, however, about the ability of a woman to exercise this legal right without the fear of harassment or intimidation. Therefore, this new clause has a narrow purpose to introduce buffer zones 150 metres around abortion clinics, where certain activities designated as pressuring women about their decision to access abortion are banned.
Currently, around the country, anti-abortion groups engage in activity at the clinic gate seeking to deter or prevent women from accessing abortion care. This takes many forms, including the display of graphic images of dismembered foetuses, large marches that gather outside the clinic, filming women and staff members, following women down the street, sprinkling sites with holy water and handing out leaflets that tell women, falsely, that abortion causes breast cancer, suicidal intentions and can lead to child abuse. Recently, groups have been handing out advertisements for dangerous and unproven medication to reverse an abortion. This activity has been an almost permanent fixture outside several clinics for years. Abortion providers such as the British Pregnancy Advisory Service have collected thousands of accounts from women they have treated about the activities outside clinics and the impact it has had on them. In the past year alone, even during lockdown, this harassment has continued.
One woman, in Liverpool, reported in February:
“She told me that I should let God decide—that it will torture me for the rest of my life and don’t let them do it. She told me her daughter couldn’t have kids and I’m wrong for killing a baby…that I’ll have no luck in the future if I kill a baby.”
Another woman, in Bournemouth, said in December 2020:
“My partner was waiting in the car and he had one woman staring at him and walking around his car whilst showing him a cross. Both my children (both under 4) were in the car waiting with my partner…I felt uncomfortable walking out of the clinic knowing they were there.”
The mother of a patient in Bournemouth just last week said:
“The protester was stood by the entrance with a banner. My daughter is autistic and this procedure is stressful and traumatic—and when she realised they were outside it caused her to have a panic attack”.
Doctors and nurses are not immune to harassment, either. In Brighton in October 2020, one reported:
“There was a man in the entrance lobby—my colleague didn’t know what to do. He wouldn’t leave. He asked us if this was a place where ‘you kill babies’, if I ‘agreed with murdering babies’, and whether I was ‘happy to murder foetuses’.”
This is not a protest—the groups involved in this activity are very clear that they are not seeking to change lawmakers’ minds or amend the abortion legislation. Instead, they seek direct access to individual women who have no choice but to approach them as they access legal and essential healthcare. It is, quite simply, targeted harassment.
The solution is simple and has been used successfully across Canada, Australia and parts of the USA. We need to protect women seeking confidential medical care by making it clear that it is unacceptable to accost a woman at a clinic gate, harass her and lie to her about medical procedures.
We must also recognise that much of the legislation has been thoroughly inadequate at addressing the problem. I am sure the Minister will wish to mention that. The only law that has ever been successful in solving the problem at clinic levels is public space protection orders, which enable a council to create its own local buffer zone, but only three counties across the country have them in place, leaving more than 90% of affected clinics with nothing to protect them. That creates a postcode lottery of protection from harassment, and that is just not good enough. We need a national solution to this national problem. I hope the Minister will consider the impact of this activity on women, and I hope she will recognise that, despite the existing law, it has continued unabated for years.
Victoria Atkins
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for setting out the case for this new clause, tabled by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton. As she rightly identifies, it is supported by parliamentarians from across the House. I approach this issue with the respect that such a widespread array of support deserves.
We have looked into this issue and kept it under very close review over the past few years, and I will set out in a moment some of the steps we have taken. I want to be very clear that I have sympathy for what the new clause seeks to achieve, in that harassment and intimidation of women who are seeking medical care is completely unacceptable.
The hon. Member for Rotherham is right to emphasise that this new clause is confined to a very narrow basis. We are not debating the provision of abortion services; we are talking about the public order element surrounding clinics and hospitals. For the benefit of colleagues and others who may be watching this debate closely, given that we are looking purely at a public order issue, on a very narrow basis, my Whips have concluded that this is not a matter of conscience, so the matter is whipped. It is in a different category from the wider issue of abortion, about which Members have many varied and strongly held opinions. We confine ourselves to the public order element of what the new clause is trying to achieve.
We keep this matter under very close review. As the hon. Lady knows, it is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 to display images or words that may cause harassment, alarm or distress. The police have certain powers under that Act if the purpose of the assembly is to intimidate others into doing or not doing an act. Clause 55 of this Bill strengthens those powers and enables the police to place any necessary conditions on such assemblies.
The power that has found resonance with local authorities and has been upheld by the Court of Appeal recently is the power under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to implement public space protection orders to create buffer zones around abortion clinics or hospitals, when they are satisfied on reasonable grounds that protests are having an unreasonable and persistent detrimental effect on the quality of life of people in the area. Three local authorities have imposed such orders around particular clinics. Indeed, I am led to believe that Ealing, which imposed the first such order, very recently renewed it following its expiration.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister for recognising that this is harassment rather than protest. Does she share my frustration that more councils are not using public detention orders?
Victoria Atkins
I will come to the figures in a moment because they will, I hope, help the Committee understand the approach that the Government are taking.
In the protests, or demonstrations—or however one wants to describe them—there can be a range of activities, and the hon. Lady has, understandably, focused on some of the most upsetting forms of activity. There are more peaceful ways of protesting, however, and I do not think it would be right for me to pretend that every single protest has the ability to harass and alarm in the way in which she has said some protests do. The advantage of PSPOs is that they are very local. They are brought by local authorities in the circumstances of their area, and the conditions imposed will reflect the conditions of the protests faced outside service providers.
Mr Goodwill
I was going to make a similar point to that made by the hon. Member for Rotherham. Is it not the case that many local authorities find the process complex and expensive? Will the Minister consider providing a toolbox or other assistance to local authorities to enable them to do this in a way that does not put them outside their comfort zones in the areas in which they have been working?
Victoria Atkins
Very much so. Indeed, that has been part of our work with the review. We conducted the first review in 2018 and, to put this in context—I will read the figures out because I want to make sure they are correct—of the 406 clinics and hospitals identified as providing those services, providers told us that only 36 had stated that they experience any protest activity.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to state publicly that I very much support the new clause. On the point that the Minister has just made, in my local area abortion services can be accessed in the large hospital. There is no protest there because it is a large hospital with loads of people coming and going for other things, but in areas with stand-alone abortion clinics, we all know where they are, and people are known to stand outside. Although I understand the point about things being different in different areas, when people are standing outside, holding something and not saying anything, it is still enormously judgmental, scary and upsetting, even though what those people are doing perhaps does not look to the police to be as intimidating as it is. I am sure that some turn away because they cannot face going past that.
Victoria Atkins
I accept that, and of course, women can be in a distressed state when they are approaching clinics. They may be in turmoil and may have questions about what they are about to do—they may well have doubts. I am sympathetic to the idea that not every protest has to display the sorts of posters that the hon. Member for Rotherham has described to unsettle or upset women accessing those services.
I have a second set of figures. The figures are important because we as a Government have to look at proportionate responses. The first set of figures came out of the 2018 review. Since then, to come to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, we have again asked service providers for their views and whether there has been an increase or decrease in activity. The figure I have been provided with is that 35 out of the 142 registered clinics are currently or have recently been affected by protest activities. Five hospitals have been affected. That compares with 32 clinics and four hospitals being affected in 2018.
I am told, incidentally, that one of the clinics that had been reviewed in 2018 has since closed down, so that may explain that difference. I give the figures because that is why we are concerned that a blanket ban across all of the service providers may not be proportionate, given that the majority of clinics and the overwhelming majority of hospitals that provide these services do not appear to have been affected by protest activity thus far. That is why we believe that a localised approach of PSPOs, with councils using the orders, is the way forward.
We have also looked very carefully at whether there is work we can do to help councils understand the powers that they have under the orders. Again, we believe that the law is in a good place at the moment, but we very much keep this under review.
Mr Goodwill
I thank the Minister for those assurances. Would it also be the case that where an abortion clinic is in a general hospital, the measure could unintentionally prevent people from protesting against the closure of a ward or a service, or trade unionists protesting about a particular aspect of their employment rights?
Victoria Atkins
My right hon. Friend raises an important point. That is why we have looked so carefully at the universality of the measures put forward by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton and why we believe that PSPOs, which are targeted and have been upheld by the Court of Appeal, seem to be the most effective way of managing these very difficult circumstances outside particular service providers.
I appreciate that this may be corrected before Report, but we are also concerned that proposed subsection (3) of the new clause potentially includes medical practitioners and others providing advice on abortion services within the confines of the buffer zone—in other words, within the clinic. Nobody—but nobody—would want that to be an unintended consequence of the new clause. My right hon. Friend has alighted on another unintended consequence—that other forms of protest may be caught by the new clause.
We very much understand the motivations behind the new clause and the work that parliamentarians have been conducting over recent years in order to shed light on this issue, but the Government do not feel able to support new clause 43.
Sarah Champion
I hear what the Minister says. I am still very concerned that, by the Minister’s own figures, we are looking at a quarter of clinics being targeted. I am very concerned about the postcode lottery. Would the Minister be open to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton working with her civil servants to try to come back with a more appropriate wording for Report?
Victoria Atkins
In fairness—I am sure the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton will back me up on this—we have been working. I do listen. I have meetings with colleagues from across the House—both those who support the intentions of the new clause and those who do not. We must acknowledge that there are colleagues and members of the public who want to defend their right to make their feelings and their views known in front of these service providers. I am very happy to meet colleagues representing the range of opinions on this issue. I have met the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton several times and am very happy to meet other colleagues, whichever side of the debate they may stand on.
Sarah Champion
With those reassurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Tom Pursglove.)
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Twentieth sitting)
Thursday 24th June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 24 June 2021 - (24 Jun 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
All the previous requests from Mr Speaker remain the same.
New Clause 44
Duty on health service bodies to have due regard to police covenant principles
“(1) In exercising in relation to England a relevant healthcare function, a person or body specified in subsection (2) must have due regard to—
(a) the obligations of and sacrifices made by members of the police workforce,
(b) the principle that it is desirable to remove any disadvantage for members or former members of the police workforce arising from their membership or former membership, and (c) the principle that special provision for members or former members of the police workforce may be justified by the effects on such people of membership, or former membership, of that workforce.
(2) The specified persons and bodies are—
(a) the National Health Service Commissioning Board;
(b) a clinical commissioning group;
(c) a National Health Service trust in England;
(d) an NHS foundation trust.”.—(Sarah Jones.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 46—Offence of assaulting etc. health and social care or transport worker—
‘(1) It is an offence for a person to assault, threaten or abuse another person—
(a) who works in health, social care or transport, and,
(b) who is engaged, at the time, in such work.
(2) No offence is committed under subsection (1) unless the person who assaults, threatens or abuses knows or ought to know that the other person—
(a) works in health, social care or transport, and;
(b) is engaged, at the time, in such work.
(3) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, a fine, or both.
(4) Evidence from a single source is sufficient to establish, for the purposes of this section—
(a) whether a person works in health, social care or transport, and
(b) whether the person is engaged, at the time, in such work.
(5) The offence under subsection (1) of threatening or abusing a person who works in health, social care or transport (A) is committed by a person (B) only if B—
(a) behaves in a threatening or abusive manner towards A, and
(b) intends by the behaviour to cause A or any other person fear or alarm or is reckless as to whether the behaviour would cause such fear or alarm.
(6) Subsection (5) applies to—
(a) behaviour of any kind including, in particular, things said or otherwise communicated as well as things done,
(b) behaviour consisting of—
(i) a single act, or
(ii) a course of conduct.
(7) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument define “health”, “social care” and “transport” for the purposes of this section.
(8) For the purposes of deciding whether a person works in health, social care or transport, it is irrelevant whether or not the person receives payment for the work.’.
New clause 62—Assault due to enforcement of statutory age restriction—
‘(1) This section applies to an offence of common assault that is committed against a worker acting in the exercise of enforcing a statutory age restriction.
(2) This section applies where it is—
(a) specified in the complaint that the offence occurred because of the worker’s enforcing a statutory age restriction, and
(b) proved that the offence so occurred because of the enforcement of a statutory age restriction.
(3) A person guilty of an offence to which this section applies is liable on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine, or to both.
(4) In consequence of subsections (1) to (3), in section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (which provides for common assault to be summary offences punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months)—
(a) insert—
“(3) Subsection (1) is subject to section [Assault due to enforcement of statutory age restriction] of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (which makes provision for increased sentencing powers for offences of common assault committed against a worker acting in the exercise of enforcing statutory age restrictions).”
(5) In this section—
“enforcement”, in relation to a statutory age restriction, includes—
(a) seeking information as to a person’s age,
(b) considering information as to a person’s age,
(c) refusing to sell or supply goods or services,
for the purposes of complying with the restriction (and “enforcing” is to be construed accordingly), “statutory age restriction” means a provision in an enactment making it an offence to sell or supply goods or services to a person under an age specified in that or another enactment.
(6) This section applies only in relation to offences committed on or after the day it comes into force.’.
Sarah Jones
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I rise to speak to new clauses 45, 46 and 62. New clause 45 would introduce a new penalty for assaults on retail workers, with a 12-month maximum. This issue has been debated in the House on many occasions, and the Minister was in Westminster Hall talking about it only a couple of weeks ago, so we know that there is cross-party support for these measures. New clause 45 replicates the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021 in introducing a new penalty for a range of behaviours against retail workers and includes provision for an aggravation when this occurs during the enforcement of statutory age restriction. It is a comprehensive new clause that defines this behaviour, retail worker, work and premises. New clause 62 would introduce a specific new offence with a specified penalty for assaults committed as a direct result of workers enforcing statutory age restrictions.
I thank the Co-operative party, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the British Retail Consortium, the Association of Convenience Stores, Tesco and others for their brilliant campaigning, in many cases over a number of years, to achieve greater protection for shop workers. They have been a huge help with this Bill. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), who has campaigned tirelessly for greater protections for retail workers since he was elected, most recently through his Assaults on Retail Workers (Offences) Bill. On behalf of the Opposition, I also thank our shop workers, who have made such an extraordinary contribution throughout this pandemic.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Has my hon. Friend heard, as I have in my constituency, that assaults and threats towards shop workers have actually worsened during the pandemic? They were at quite a bad level before, but things are worse as a consequence of the pandemic. Perhaps more thought therefore needs to be given by this House to this kind of provision.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will shortly cite figures that bear out the suggestion that assaults have increased during this period. We saw a raft of assaults during periods in which provision of certain foods was scarce, and when people objected to being asked to wear masks. During covid, we have all come to recognise the importance of shop workers in a way that we perhaps did not previously, although we should have done.
As I have said previously in Committee, Labour welcomes the new clauses that will increase the maximum sentence for assaulting an emergency worker from 12 months to two years. However, the Government’s decision not to include additional protections for shop workers represents a failure to listen to voices from the frontline and to recognise the exponential rise in abuse of retail staff over recent years. Retail workers kept our country fed, clothed and kept us going. However, many faced unacceptable attacks while working to keep us safe, from being spat at or punched to verbal abuse and intimidation. Such attacks should be met with swift and meaningful punishment, and yet the Government have decided not to introduce additional protections at this point. We ask them to think again.
In 2020, we saw a spike in abuse, threats and violence against retail workers. The BRC annual retail crime survey, which was released at the end of May, showed that violence and abuse against shop workers continued to grow to 455 incidents every day, representing a 7% increase on the previous year. ACS’s 2021 crime report shows that greater action is needed to tackle violence against shop workers. An estimated 40,000 violent incidents took place in the convenience sector over the past year, with approximately 19% resulting in injury.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I support my hon. Friend’s powerful speech. I am unsure whether she has the gender breakdown for those figures, but in my experience it is predominantly women who work at the front of these shops and convenience stores, and attacks are often unpleasant and misogynistic. Anything in legislation that could prevent that sort of abuse would be welcome.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I do not have those figures here, but we know that more women than men are in such positions, so I imagine that that breakdown would bear out what she says. She is right that we should do everything we can to stop such attacks.
More than 1.2 million incidents of verbal abuse were recorded over the past year, with 89% of store colleagues experiencing verbal abuse. Two of the top triggers of violence are colleagues having to enforce age restriction sales policies or refusing to serve intoxicated customers. USDAW’s coronavirus survey, which was based on 4,928 responses, shows that since 14 March 2020, 62.2% of retail workers were verbally abused, 29% were threatened and 4% were assaulted. Last year, research conducted by USDAW found that 88% of retail workers experienced verbal abuse—in almost two thirds of cases, it was from a customer—and 300,000 out of a 3 million-strong workforce were assaulted. Only 6% of those incidents resulted in a prosecution and a quarter of cases go unreported altogether. It is therefore vital to introduce new penalties to protect shop workers, deter offenders, break the cycle of abuse and deliver justice to victims. Abuse should not be part of someone’s day job. Nobody should be treated with disrespect, spat at, bitten, grabbed, sexually harassed or discriminated against at work.
I am pleased that Tesco recently got behind the campaign to protect retail workers and that it supports these new clauses. A constituent who works at the local Tesco branch in Croydon recently emailed to talk about her experience: “I’ve lost count of the times I have been verbally abused and threatened while working. I am forever looking over my shoulder. It is a way of life where customers verbally abuse, threaten and attack staff, and it is not right. This affects people in different ways, mentally and physically, and they’re expected to just carry on, which they have to do, because it is their livelihood. This is not acceptable.”
As part of USDAW’s survey of violence, threats and abuse against shop workers, respondents had the opportunity to feed back their experiences. These are some of the voices from the frontline:
“I had never cried in work until the first week of the lockdown. I received constant abuse from nearly every customer during one shift when the rules were changed so that we couldn't accept returns. I finally broke when one woman refused to leave the store and insulted me and berated me for not doing the return. The following day a man was very aggressive towards me for the same reason and I could visibly see him twitching in a way that suggested he was about to become violent. My job has become emotionally draining and it is really starting to affect my mental health.”
“Verbal and physical abuse from customers, it’s not nice, we are only trying to enforce social distancing but customers are using the trip to the shops as a day out and putting the staff at risk, then we return to our families in fear and panic because of the small minded stupidity.”
“I have been verbally abused by customers. Pushed by a customer. Been told to shut up and ‘F-off’ when mentioning limitations or the one way system.”
“I have taken abuse when having to remove items from the customer because they wish to purchase more than the permitted number of restricted items.”
“Customer using verbal abuse towards me, and being racist towards me.”
“Constant verbal abuse/swearing. Customers spitting, coughing and sneezing towards us on purpose.”
“I have been spat at, pushed and treated as if I wasn’t there.”
“We have been threatened with violence and have had to make police reports about members of the public threatening to ‘bash our faces in’ when we leave the store after our shifts. We are regularly subjected to verbal abuse, usually surrounding low/zero stock and restrictions on certain products.”
We will all have had cases such as these in our constituencies. I had a case in which a customer pulled a knife on a shop worker, because the shop worker would not sell them alcohol when they were clearly intoxicated. In some cases, people are very seriously assaulted as well.
Sarah Champion
In lots of my local shops, there is just one person in the shop on their own; I wonder whether that has also been my hon. Friend’s experience. I am not sure whether that is because the shop is owner-owned or because it is the victim of cut costs, but it is very worrying.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was talking this week with some of the larger organisations, and they made exactly that point: the very small convenience stores are often in the most trouble, because there will be only one person working there. A lot of supermarkets have put in place all kinds of support—walkie-talkies, cameras and security on the door—that provides some element of security, but a small convenience shop cannot meet those costs, and it is those individuals who are most at risk.
In the recent Westminster Hall debate that I referred to, the Minister referred to the Home Affairs Committee’s survey, which also asked retail workers if they had experienced violence and abuse. Some 12,667 people responded, and that shows just how widespread the problem is. The survey found that 87% of respondents had reported incidents to their employer, but in 45% of those cases, no further action was taken. Half of respondents reported incidents to the police, but only 12% of those incidents led to an arrest. A third of respondents did not report incidents to their employer because they believed that nothing would be done, or that it was just part of the job. Respondents felt that better security at retail premises and more severe punishments for offenders would help to prevent incidents in the future.
The Minister talked about that survey in his speech, and he said it was “terrible” that so many workers felt it was just part of the job. We have the Minister saying it is terrible; we have Labour saying that it is terrible; and we have the big supermarkets, business CEOs, unions, the Home Affairs Committee, the British Retail Consortium and the Association of Convenience Stores saying that it is terrible, so now is the opportunity to do something about it.
The Minister may well repeat the argument that he made in the Westminster Hall debate, namely that the updated sentencing guidelines—they provide a welcome list of aggravating factors to be considered in the case of attacks on those who are providing a service to the public—are enough. We do not believe that they are, and we think the Government should go further. The argument that protections for public service workers are already enshrined in law does not suffice: if the Minister looks at the data on how many people do not report attacks and abuse because they think nothing will be done, and at the tiny percentage of prosecutions, the facts bear that out. Sentencing guidelines are important, but if the number of prosecutions remains so low, clearly something is not working.
Our new clauses are ready and have been rehearsed in previous legislation. We know that we have a lot of cross-party support. Members across the House are calling on the Government to look again and do something stronger, including Government Members, such as the hon. Members for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) and for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) and the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), SNP Members, Lib Dem Members and, of course, many Labour Members.
In response to a recent written question on this subject, the Minister said that the Government would
“continue to keep the matter under review and listen to the debate on this matter.”
Well, we have had many debates and I know that he has listened, so I hope that today he can provide a more supportive response to these new clauses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
I thank the shadow Minister, my constituency neighbour, for introducing these new clauses. I join her in paying tribute to the retail workers and others who have kept our country going over the past 12 to 18 months, often in difficult circumstances. I know that we are all very grateful for what they and others have done. I have a great deal of sympathy for retail workers. My first regular paid job was in Sainsbury’s at West Wickham, which the shadow Minister will know is a short distance from the boundary of her constituency.
We take the issue seriously and, as the shadow Minister said, we had a Westminster Hall debate on this topic three or four weeks ago, when a number of Members described various forms of abuse and assault that their constituents had suffered. Most of the assaults given as examples would have been charged not as common assault with a maximum sentence of six months, but as a more serious form of assault—for example, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which carries a maximum sentence not of a year, as per the new clause, but of five years. Indeed, in more serious cases involving knives and so on where people are convicted of grievous bodily harm with intent to commit grievous bodily harm, the maximum sentence is not a year, as per the new clause, but life.
There are a number of criminal offences on the statute book that cater for the serious offences described graphically in that Westminster Hall debate. In such cases, a charge should be laid and a higher sentence—higher even than that contemplated by the new clause—could and should be given.
There is also the question of whether current law adequately recognises retail workers and other public workers when a sentence is being passed. The law already recognises that such people are to be treated somewhat differently if the victim is, for example, working in a shop, and the sentencing guidelines, which the shadow Minister mentioned and which were updated a few weeks ago, make it clear that if there are aggravating factors the sentence passed will be longer than it otherwise would be. The fourth aggravating factor on the list is an
“offence committed against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public”.
That would obviously include retail workers, transport workers and others.
Not only do we have offences on the statute book already—many of which have much longer maximum sentences than the maximum called for by the new clause, such as five years for actual bodily harm—but the fact that the victim was providing a service to the public already represents an aggravating factor that leads to a longer sentence.
On particular things that have happened during covid, the case of Belly Mujinga, which the shadow Minister mentioned, occurred at Victoria station. I think Belly Mujinga worked for Southern Railway, which is the company that serves our two constituencies. The new Sentencing Council guidelines published a few weeks ago incorporated some revisions, which I think help. There is a new aggravating factor of deliberate spitting or coughing. A new factor—
“Intention to cause fear of serious harm, including disease transmission”—
increases culpability, which increases the sentence.
Therefore, if that person’s action—this would apply to a case such as that of Belly Mujinga—included such an intention, that is taken to increase the culpability of the offender. Those changes were made to the sentencing guidelines a few weeks ago, so we have offences on the statute book with long maximums such as five years, or life for GBH with intent. We have aggravating factors that apply in respect of retail workers, and indeed other people serving the public. We have new sentencing guidelines, which speak to things such as spitting and causing fear of serious harm in relation to transmissible diseases.
Is there a problem? Yes, there is, but I do not think that it is with the sentences; it is with the reporting and the prosecutions. Shockingly, in a survey prepared for the Home Affairs Committee that I think the shadow Minister has seen—I referred to it in our Westminster Hall debate—of the 8,742 shop workers responding who had been victims of this sort of crime, only 53% reported the offence to the police. Half the victims did not even report it, so we need to do a lot more to make sure that victims report this crime.
Sarah Jones
The Minister is making the arguments that I thought he would. They are perfectly reasonable, but I come back to him on the point that one of the problems is the tiny proportion of prosecutions and another is the huge increase in assaults against all these groups of people. He makes the point that a lot of people do not report these crimes, but Parliament and the Government could send a strong message, as the Government did with war memorials: they said that they were not necessarily expecting lots of prosecutions, but they wanted to send a strong message to the public about the importance of memorials.
For Parliament to send a strong message would be a really powerful way of encouraging shop workers to report these crimes. Although sentencing guidance is important, I do not think that the public know about it or would be able to tell us that it was changed a few weeks ago, whereas making it clear that this is something we want to set out in law would send a message to all those people who do not report these crimes. It might help.
Chris Philp
I think the sentencing guidelines are important. Addressing coughing, spitting and causing fear of infectious disease transmission is important, as is the recognition that public sector workers and people providing a service to the public get in the sentencing guidelines. The shadow Minister says that they are not important; I think they are, because they are what the judge looks at, day in, day out, when deciding what sentence to hand down.
When it comes to getting more incidents reported, investigated and then prosecuted, we first need to look at why people are not reporting them. Again, the survey sheds light—3,444 people replied to this question. The top reason for not reporting the offence, cited by more than a third of respondents, was
“I did not believe the employer would do anything about it”.
Shockingly, the second was
“I believed it was just part of the job”,
which of course it is not; the third was
“I considered the incident too minor”;
and the fourth was
“I did not believe the police would do anything about it”.
Clearly there is a perception issue around this crime that we need to sort out. The Minister for Crime and Policing is leading a taskforce designed, first, to get employers to better support their employees when it happens. Although 87% of people—almost all—tell their employer, only 53% report it to the police. I infer by subtracting one number from the other that in 34% of cases, employers who know about the crime are not supporting their employees to report it to the police. Employers need to do more. To be honest, I think that the police will be doing more in this area as well, guided and encouraged by the taskforce that the Minister for Crime and Policing is running. We have the laws and we have the aggravating factors, but we need more reporting and more investigation, and there is a taskforce dedicated to doing that.
Let me make a couple of specific comments on new clause 45—the retail worker clause—and new clause 46, which would add health and social care workers and transport workers, who of course are very important but are also protected under the Sentencing Council guidelines because they are both in the public sector and providing a service to the public. Even taken together, the two new clauses arguably have some omissions. For example, teachers—who I would say deserve no less protection than the other groups—are not mentioned at all; nor are people who serve their communities doing refuse collection or work in parks. All kinds of other workers who serve the public or work in the public sector, and who are equally deserving of protection, are not mentioned in the new clauses, but all those people are rightly covered by the Sentencing Council guidelines.
There is more work to do, which the taskforce is doing. We need retail employers to support their staff much more, and we need the taskforce to do its work of increasing reporting and prosecutions, but the offences are on the statute book already, with maximum sentences of five years —or even life, for GBH with intent. The aggravating factors are there, so let us get these crimes reported and get them prosecuted. That is how we will protect retail workers.
Sarah Jones
The arguments about under-reporting make our case for us. People would be much more likely to report these things if they knew that a specific sentence had been identified, and if they knew that Parliament and the law were on their side. I think that would make a huge difference to the reporting.
I am grateful that the Minister acknowledges that there is more work to be done in this space. I know about the taskforce that the policing Minister is undertaking, and he is right to say that employers need to do more. I stress, however, that it is not often that employers and trade unions are absolutely as one, but on this issue they are absolutely agreed that something is needed. They are the ones with experience of life on the ground in shops and retail spaces, and this is what they are calling for. I will not press the new clause to a vote now, but I am sure we will want to return to it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
New clauses 46 to 55 have already been debated, so we now come to new clause 56. I understand that Siobhain Baillie wishes to speak to new clause 56.
New Clause 56
Maximum sentences for causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to suffer serious injury or death
‘(1) Section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 is amended as follows—
(a) in subsection (7), for “a term not exceeding 14 years” substitute “life”, and
(b) in subsection (8), for “10” substitute “14”.
(2) Schedule 19 of the Sentencing Act 2020 is amended by the insertion of the following after paragraph 20—
“Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004
20A An offence to which section 5(7) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 applies.”’ —(Siobhan Baillie.)
This new clause seeks to increase sentencing levels under section 5 of the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004 (causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to suffer serious injury or death) by raising the death offence to life imprisonment, and the “serious injury” offence to 14 years.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 56, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), centres on the experiences of a young boy called Tony. It would amend section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, raising the sentence for the death offence to life imprisonment, and that for serious injury to 14 years.
Young Tony Hudgell is an inspirational young man from Kings Hill in Kent. His loving adoptive parents, Paula and Mark, have campaigned tirelessly against child cruelty alongside providing Tony with a safe, secure home. At around 41 days old, Tony, as a tiny baby, did not have a safe, secure home. He was abused so severely by his biological parents that he was left with eight separate fractures to his tiny body. He suffered from septicaemia, and he had an extended period of excruciating pain before he was taken to hospital. At hospital, Tony required multi-organ support in intensive care, and he suffered respiratory distress. His injuries were so bad that baby Tony had to have both of his legs amputated.
Take a moment to imagine that the only life that baby Tony knew was one of pain and torture from the people who should have loved him most. During sentencing, His Honour Judge Statman said that he had thought long and hard about the manner in which Parliament had provided for the maximum sentence in such cases, and while he would not be allowed to go behind Parliament’s enactments, he could not envisage a worse case than Tony’s.
That level of cruelty is, thankfully, rare, and I am of the view that we should not legislate, amend or fiddle in this place unless there is a clear need to do so. Rare or not, however, the British public rightly expect our judiciary to have extensive powers to deal justly with perpetrators of such devastating harm to babies, children or vulnerable adults. I respectfully contend that the current maximum sentence of 10 years does not adequately reflect the gravity of cases at the upper end of seriousness.
All victims of section 5 offences will be vulnerable, which increases the seriousness of those offences. It is my assessment that a section 5 offence is in some respects more stringent than unlawful act manslaughter. That leads to inconsistencies, because section 5 requires there to be a serious risk of physical harm. In this Bill, we are also considering, in clause 65(2), raising the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving from 14 years’ imprisonment to life imprisonment. There is no requirement that the driver appreciated that their driving was dangerous, giving rise to a risk of serious injury.
Similarly, the serious injury offence can involve lifelong harm inflicted over many weeks and months. Despite the infliction of injury not being intentional, the level of culpability remains extremely high, given that the defendant’s relationship to the victim is typically as a parent or other position of responsibility. I therefore ask Ministers to consider the anomaly in the current sentencing scheme, in that the section 5 offence—the death offence—has a maximum sentence that is out of step with similar offences. Over the past decade or so, Parliament and the courts have appreciated the increased seriousness in cases involving deaths, and sentences handed out by the courts have reflected that.
The section 5 offence is listed in schedule 18 to the sentencing code for the purposes of the dangerousness regime, enabling an extended determinate sentence to be imposed. The need for additional licence periods and conditions in the most serious cases is therefore already recognised. An increase in the maximum sentence for the death offence would be in keeping with that trend. Similarly, the serious injury offence can involve lifelong harm inflicted over many weeks and months. Despite the infliction of the injury not being intentional, the level of culpability remains extremely high. A 10-year maximum sentence is not reflective of the seriousness of the offence.
I conclude by referring back to the brave heroes behind this request. Tony and his adoptive parents, Paula and Mark, have fought hard, and Tony is living a good, healthy life. I really look forward to hearing from the Ministers and other members of the Committee, if they choose to comment.
Sarah Champion
I thank the hon. Member for Stroud for moving the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling. The hon. Member for Stroud has done the legal bit, and I am going to do the emotional, child abuse bit.
I think all hon. Members know who Tony is, because he is on BBC Breakfast a lot. He is a little lad. I do not know how old he is now—probably about eight. His legs are amputated, but he has been doing a walk around his local park every day to raise money for the NHS. I did not realise until very recently that he was the Tony this law is named after. It was only when I saw him and his adoptive parents on BBC Breakfast making the argument for this that I thought, “This is an obvious legal change that clearly needs to be made.”
Under current law, 10 years is the maximum sentence that judges can impose when someone has been convicted of child cruelty, causing harm or allowing a child to die or suffer serious physical harm. It is just madness! Someone who is guilty of intentionally causing grievous bodily harm to an adult can face a life sentence in the most severe cases, so I do not know why this cap of 10 years is in place. Surely, for offences that result in severe physical harm to children and lifelong harm, which will be much longer than lifelong harm to an adult, courts ought to be able to impose the sentence that they think is most fitting.
The proposed change to the law follows the tireless campaigning by the adoptive parents of Tony Hudgell. As the hon. Lady said about the injuries inflicted on Tony, it is truly unimaginable that someone could consciously do that. A change in the law would give the judges the discretion they need to pass longer sentences, including in the most horrific cases such as Tony’s. We are thankfully talking about a relatively small number of cases. In the past five years, there were an average of 68 child deaths a year caused by assault or undetermined intent. Child homicides are most commonly caused by a parent or step-parent. Children under the age of one are the most likely group to be killed by another person.
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children analysis of police data from across the UK shows that there were 23,529 child cruelty or neglect offences recorded by the police in 2019-20. Although there are significant variations among regions and nations, it is extremely concerning that the police-recorded child cruelty and neglect offences have risen by 53% in the past three years. I am perversely curious to see the data that comes out of this past year, because anecdotally I understand, from my police force and from what we are reading, that the levels of child abuse have escalated under lockdown. That should not come as a surprise, but it is deeply chilling to all of us.
The latest ONS figures available for England and Wales are from 2018: 500 offenders were sentenced for offences of cruelty and neglect of a child; 114 of those offenders received an intermediate custodial sentence; and 220 received a suspended sentence.
Over the past year, the NSPCC has seen the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on physical abuse, as I mentioned. Calls to its helpline surged through the pandemic to record numbers. Tony’s case represents the most severe form of physical abuse. However, while extreme, it is not an isolated example. There have been a number of court cases and serious case reviews containing disturbing details of how children have been severely physically abused, often over a prolonged period. Alongside that, it is important that we see wider changes, including greater public awareness, so that adults can spot the signs of abuse and reach out if they have concerns about a child, and additional resources for local authorities, so that early intervention services and children’s social care can respond effectively when they think a child is at risk.
Cuts to funding and the rising demand for support has meant that local authorities are allocating greater proportions of their spending to late intervention services, while investment in early intervention is in many cases just not there. Early intervention is my personal crusade because, surely, prevention at the earliest possible time is what we all ought to strive for. We need to see a child-focused justice system that does not exacerbate the trauma that young victims and witnesses have already experienced. Positive experience of the justice system can help them move forward, but negative experience can be damaging and, for some children, retraumatising.
We need increased capacity and investment in the criminal justice system, so that policy and procedures may progress cases efficiently and delays may be reduced. Children need to have access to specialist assistance measures in court, such as assistance from a registered intermediary who can support a young victim or witness in giving evidence. Therapeutic support for children who have been experiencing abuse and neglect needs to be universal and easily accessible. That is vital to enable children to process the trauma that they have experienced, to begin to heal and to move forward.
I understand and know that the ability to impose a stronger sentence is not the panacea, but it is really important that at the very least, child abuse is on a parity with adult abuse in terms of sentencing. I hope that the Ministers will support the new clause and, by doing so, show their dedication to tackling child abuse and to proportionate sentencing for that horrendous crime.
Chris Philp
The case of Tony Hudgell is truly heart-breaking. The abuse that he suffered at the hands of his birth parents is shocking beyond expression. In fact, I met his adopted mother, Paula, only a few months ago. We discussed the case and what happened at some length. It is something that I have become personally acquainted with not so long ago.
It is worth making it clear that where it is possible to prove who specifically inflicted the abuse, these offences do not need to be charged and instead the more usual offences can be charged, such as grievous bodily harm with intent, which carries a maximum sentence of life. The problem that arises in cases like Tony Hudgell’s is where it is not possible to prove specifically who it was who carried out the offence. He had two birth parents and it could have been either of them.
As I understand it from that case, there was no way that the court, the prosecution or the police could prove which of the two birth parents it was. That means they could not be charged with the regular offence—such as GBH with intent—that would have carried a life sentence. Instead, therefore, they fell back on the other offence, which we are debating now: causing or allowing, in which it cannot be proved that someone actually did it, but we can say they allowed it. If people cause or allow the death of a child or vulnerable adult, the maximum penalty is 14 years or, in the case of causing or allowing serious physical harm to a child or vulnerable person, a maximum of 10 years. That was the offence charged in the Hudgell case.
I have been informed that we have conducted a review of charges under the clause, and my understanding is that the only instance where the judge went all the way up to the maximum of 10 years was in that case. It is clear from the sentencing remarks that the judge would have gone further, but I think it is the only case where the judge has gone to the maximum.
Even though the case is the only one, it is so appalling, and I have discussed it with the Lord Chancellor, who will look at it again. It is a delicate area of law to pick through because it cannot be proved that it was the particular person who has been convicted—it could have been one of two—and it therefore requires a bit of thought.
Chris Philp
I am not Lord Chancellor, though.
We might separate the “cause” part from the “allow” part because “cause” and “allow” are somewhat different.
Maria Eagle
If we separated “cause” and “allow”, would we not be in the same position of not being able to prove which of the parents did the deed?
Chris Philp
The “allow” part could conceivably apply to both where there are two parents. It can probably be established that they must have been aware of the abuse because they must have noticed the kind of abuse we are talking about, but it cannot necessarily be proved that they did it or even that they caused it. Currently, it is “cause or allow” in the same offence, with the same maximum penalty. One could make a case that the “cause” bit is more serious than the “allow” bit, so they might have different maximum sentences. I have a commitment from the Lord Chancellor that I can relay to the Committee.
Maria Eagle
I am going to be pedantic now, but if the offences are separated yet the cause cannot be proved, the charge will have to be on the “allow” bit, which is the lower level of offence.
Chris Philp
Yes. We could have different maximum penalties for each of those, and even the lower one could be higher than the current penalty, so we could still make progress from where we are today.
I have a commitment from the Lord Chancellor that he will look at this in broadly the way that I described, also looking at the 1933 Act.
Sarah Champion
I am listening intently to the Minister. Is it his assumption that the Lord Chancellor will look at this before Report?
Chris Philp
Honestly, I would not have thought so. That is only a week and a half away, but I will pass that representation on. I know hon. Members want to hear at an early stage, such as Report.
Sarah Champion
It is only so that we do not lose the legislative opportunity.
Chris Philp
I understand. I will convey the hon. Lady’s point. As I have said two or three times previously, there are several other Bills in this Session that might be suitable for reform. This is not a “one chance and it is gone” situation. My main purpose in speaking today was, first, to pay tribute to Tony’s adoptive parents and to Tony for his bravery, having suffered such appalling abuse, but also to tell the Committee that the Lord Chancellor is actively and seriously considering this important area.
Siobhan Baillie
We will follow the matter through, but in view of the Minister’s comments and the Lord Chancellor’s commitment, I shall not press this to a vote today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
New clauses 57 to 59 have already been debated.
New Clause 60
Time limits for prosecutions for common assault in domestic abuse cases
‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of section 39 insert—
“(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, summary proceedings for an offence of common assault or battery involving domestic abuse may be brought within a period of six months from the date on which a report of the offence was made to the police.
(4) No such proceedings shall be brought by virtue of this section more than two years after the commission of the offence.
(5) For the purposes of this section “domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”’—(Alex Cunningham.)
This new clause seeks to extend the existing six month time limit for common assault in cases of domestic abuse.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 61—Discretion to bring proceedings in a case of common assault involving domestic abuse—
‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of section 39 insert—
“(3) Any limitation of time on the bringing of proceedings in a case of common assault or battery involving domestic abuse shall not apply if, in the opinion of the court, it is in the interests of justice for proceedings to be brought.
(4) For the purposes of this section “domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”’
This new clause seeks to give magistrates discretion to extend the reporting period beyond six months in cases where someone hasn’t reported it sooner due to domestic abuse.
Alex Cunningham
New clauses 60 and 61 were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), whom I commend for her considered and forensic work on this issue. Our consideration of the matter is particularly timely, as the national lockdowns of the past year have seen an associated increase in domestic abuse. The crime survey for England and Wales showed that 1.6 million women and 757,000 men had experienced domestic abuse between March 2019 and March 2020, with a 7% growth in police-recorded domestic abuse crimes. The national domestic abuse hotline saw a 65% increase in calls during the first lockdown last year. Research by Women’s Aid discovered that one in seven victims currently enduring abuse at the hands of their partners said that it had got worse in the wake of the pandemic. It has been called an epidemic within the pandemic, and the time is ripe to improve the criminal justice response to these awful offences.
Women experiencing domestic abuse often delay reporting incidents of common assault to the police. Sometimes that is because they feel traumatised or unsafe immediately after the incident. Sometimes it may be because they have an ongoing relationship with the perpetrator. Sometimes it might just be because they are dealing with the traumatic and logistical challenges of fleeing the abuse. Because of the six-month time limit on charging summary common assault offences, by the time that many women have the courage to come forward and are ready to speak to the police, they are told that the charging time limit has passed and that there are no further opportunities for them to seek justice against their perpetrator.
Even when women do report within the six-month time limit—say, three or four months after the incident—their cases can be timed out because the police, for whatever reason, do not complete their investigation within the time remaining. As a result, many victims are left feeling unsafe and unprotected from their perpetrators, who might continue to harass, stalk and terrorise these women for a long time to come.
New clause 60 would address this issue by changing the time limit for common assault prosecutions in domestic abuse cases, so that it was six months from the time of reporting rather than six months from the time of the offence. It would provide that charges still needed to be brought within two years of the offence. That would give survivors of domestic abuse longer to report to the police, but it would also retain a time limit to ensure that there was a safeguard against cases being dragged out.
New clause 61 would address the same issue, but take a different approach by introducing discretion for magistrates to extend the six-month time limit in cases in which someone has not come forward to report an assault, because of domestic abuse. Taken together, the new clauses would extend the window in which victims can access justice safely, while ensuring that the police conducted common assault investigations expeditiously. Both new clauses have the support of Refuge, Women’s Aid, the Centre for Women’s Justice and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. I look forward to the Minister’s considered remarks on both approaches later in our debate.
To illustrate the importance of reform in this area, I will share some testimony from a victim of these deplorable crimes that has been shared by Women’s Aid, because it is important that we listen to the voices of women who are calling for this change. This woman said:
“I am a victim of domestic abuse. I was in a violent relationship that ended late last year when I decided to leave. I have 4 accounts of physical assault which were sent to the CPS with evidence by the police.
I had a phone call from my police officer explaining that the CPS have come back and said that they are charging my abuser with only 2 counts of assault, as the other 2 accounts of assault are outside of the 6-month prosecution limit…It took strength and courage for me to come forward and now I’m being dismissed.”
I will finish with a quote from my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, who puts it so well:
“Too many domestic abuse cases are currently not prosecuted because they are timed out by a six-month limit on common assault prosecutions. But unlike with other crimes, in domestic abuse cases, there are obvious and serious reasons why victims may take more time to report the abuse to the police, especially where there is an ongoing abusive relationship. This means many women who do find the courage to come forward and report these incidents are being badly let down because time has run out and the perpetrator is never charged. That can leave victims feeling more vulnerable than ever, while the perpetrators go on to commit more crimes.”
My right hon. Friend says that if the Government are serious about tackling violence against women and girls, they have to tackle this injustice. She is exactly right. We have heard much from the Government, throughout these Bill Committee proceedings, about how seriously they take tackling violence against women and girls, so I hope that they listen seriously to these calls for change and accept these new clauses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I can be brief in responding. I have met the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford to discuss a particular case in her constituency that appeared, on the face of it, to fall within the circumstances that she is trying to address through these new clauses. I take very seriously the concerns of the right hon. Member and, indeed, those of Refuge and Women’s Aid, and I am pleased to tell the Committee that we are looking into this issue very carefully.
The Committee will appreciate that we need to measure the problem and understand the scale of it before we can put measures before the House, or indeed in our domestic abuse strategy. On the basis that we are looking into this issue seriously and gathering the data—on the understanding that this is an active piece of work by the Government—I understand that the hon. Gentleman might be minded not to push the new clause to a vote on this occasion.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister is correct: I do not intend to push this new clause to a vote at this stage. However, my right hon. Friend might well choose to push it to a vote later in the process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 63
Offence of requiring or accepting sexual relations as a condition of accommodation
“(1) It is an offence for a person (A) to require or accept from a person (B) sexual relations as a condition of access to or retention of accommodation or related services or transactions.
(2) For the purposes of this section, A is—
(a) a provider of accommodation,
(b) an employee of a provider of accommodation,
(c) an agent of a provider of accommodation, or
(d) a contractor of a provider of accommodation.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a maximum of 7 years.”—(Alex Cunningham.)
This new clause would create an offence of requiring or accepting sexual relations as a condition of accommodation, sometimes known as “sex for rent”. This would be punishable on indictment with a prison term of a maximum of 7 years.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 64—Offence of arranging or facilitating the requirement or acceptance of sexual relations as a condition of accommodation—
“(1) It is an offence for a person, who may be a publisher, to arrange or facilitate an offence under section [offence of requiring or accepting sexual relations as a condition of accommodation].
(2) A person commits an offence if they intend to arrange or know that their actions would facilitate an offence under section [offence of requiring or accepting sexual relations as a condition of accommodation].
(3) A publisher commits an offence if they—
(a) know they are arranging or facilitating an offence under section [offence of requiring or accepting sexual relations as a condition of accommodation]; or
(b) reasonably should know their actions would enable the arrangement of or facilitate an offence under section [offence of requiring or accepting sexual relations as a condition of accommodation]; or
(c) were informed that their actions had enabled the arrangement of or facilitated an offence under section [offence of requiring or accepting sexual relations as a condition of accommodation], and they failed to take remedial action within a reasonable time.
(4) A person found guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine of £50,000.”
This new clause is contingent on NC63. It creates an offence of arranging or facilitating an offence of requiring or accepting sexual relations as a condition of accommodation. This is intended to capture, for example, publishers or hosts of advertisements for such arrangements. The penalty for this offence would be a fine of £50,000.
Alex Cunningham
Before I speak to these clauses, I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) on his tireless work in bringing attention to the terrible crime of sex for rent, as well as on his work on the topic of criminal child exploitation, which I will come to in due course. As my hon. Friend wrote to the Lord Chancellor back in January, the Opposition believe that people must be able to live in a safe home, free from the risk of exploitation, yet today many vulnerable young people in particular are being coerced into engaging in sex simply to keep a roof over their head. They are forced into the horrific situation of giving sex for rent, something that, to most, is unthinkable, yet this is by no means rare or unusual. Research by the housing charity Shelter estimates that 30,000 young women have been propositioned with sex-for-rent offers since the beginning of the pandemic. Meanwhile, investigations by the Daily Mail have found lists of sex-for-rent advertisements on the website Craigslist, with telephone numbers of landlords included.
While offering sex for rent is technically incitement to prostitution and a crime under section 52 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, at present the legal framework requires the victim to self-define as a prostitute in order to secure a conviction. Not only is this morally wrong, it acts as a clear disincentive to victims of this repugnant crime coming forward to the police. It is little wonder, therefore, that despite up to 30,000 people being propositioned with sex-for-rent offers during the pandemic alone, only a handful of charges have ever been brought against offenders using existing legislation. Despite repeated warnings from campaigners and the Opposition, the Government have done little to halt the sex-for-rent phenomenon. In particular, they have failed to create a new specific offence of sex for rent. That is why the Opposition have tabled new clause 63, which would create a new specific offence of requiring or accepting sexual relations as a condition of accommodation.
Sarah Champion
I fully support the arguments that my hon. Friend is making and the new clauses that he has tabled. They lead into arguments that I have been making myself, in that I do not think one ought to be able to buy consent, and that is fundamentally what is happening in this situation.
Alex Cunningham
That is exactly the point. If people have actually undertaken that sexual relationship with a landlord, apparently, they are seen to have been doing so willingly, which most certainly should not be the case.
Unlike section 52 of the Sexual Offences Act, new clause 63 would not require a victim of sex for rent to self-identify as a prostitute in order to secure a conviction. Put simply, it would allow victims of this horrendous crime to come forward without any fear of retribution or damage to their reputation. Similarly, it would give the police the powers they need to pursue a prosecution.
Sarah Jones
Does my hon. Friend accept that some wider societal issues are pushing people into this situation? I had a constituent who had no recourse to public funds who had a child. She was working all the hours that she could for a cleaning company, but she was not earning enough, so she was renting somewhere with that very low pay, and the landlord asked her for sex in order to pay the rent. She chose not to do that and ended up literally street homeless, because she had no recourse to public funds. In the end, the council intervened, and she got housing, but she was in a very difficult position. The idea that she, in that situation, would have consent is not right.
Alex Cunningham
No one should ever be placed in that situation. My hon. Friend and I were both members of the shadow housing team when we discussed the housing crisis that faces many people, especially young people. No one should ever be in that situation. Perhaps a whole-society approach is required. If we did not have a problem with housing, perhaps young people such as my hon. Friend’s constituent would not find themselves in that sort of situation.
This offence would also extend to those who facilitate sex for rent directly—for example, by driving so-called tenants to and from their accommodation or by disguising sex for rent arrangements. Put simply, if it were not for those who actively promote or facilitate acts of sex for rent, the problem would not be a fraction of the size it is today. I hope the Minister will support new clause 64 and act today.
Victoria Atkins
I think that everyone who has heard about the work of the campaign of the hon. Member for Hove, as set out by the shadow Minister, will have deep worries and concerns about this appalling practice, and we welcome the work that the hon. Member is doing to raise awareness of it.
We are unequivocal that so-called sex for rent has no place in our society. We know that it often involves the exploitation of vulnerable people. Rape, sexual violence and sexual exploitation are devastating crimes, and we are determined to bring offenders to justice. There are existing offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that may be used to prosecute this practice, including the section 52 offence of causing or inciting prostitution for gain and the section 53 offence of controlling prostitution for gain. Both offences carry a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister cites a prostitution law, but these people are not prostitutes. Surely she accepts that.
Victoria Atkins
I understand that point. I am carefully examining the wording, and the section 52 offence applies when an identified victim has been caused to engage in prostitution or has been incited to do so, regardless of whether prostitution takes place. I understand the concerns of the victims, who we are so worried about, and that the wording of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 can cause a further layer of distress in someone who is seeking help or who wants to report an offence, but there is a very fine distinction. I appreciate that I am probably indulging in the law of semantics, but it is a very delicate balance. Of course, we must emphasise that if someone finds the courage to report such a crime to the police, they will benefit from the anonymity provisions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. We must support victims in the court process when they are following through with such difficult allegations, in order to bring them to the attention of the police and to investigate and prosecute.
Sarah Champion
I understand the point that the Minister is making, but there is so much stigma around the word “prostitution” that I cannot see a situation where many young women would willingly come through, knowing that that would be associated with them for the rest of their lives. That is why the new clause is so powerful, because it clearly puts the onus on the man—it is almost always a man—as an exploiter, whereas the woman is the victim. That is why the new clause is so important.
Victoria Atkins
I understand that. Indeed, I seem to recall a Westminster Hall debate a couple of years ago in which the hon. Lady admonished me for my use of the phrase “sex work”, when in fairness I had been using both “prostitution” and “sex work” throughout the debate. It is very important to be sensitive to the terminology used and what it can mean to different people, and I understand that.
Under section 52, it would be illegal to advertise a product or service that incited prostitution for gain, and the promise of provision of accommodation in return for sexual services may be covered by this offence, depending on the specific services.
Sarah Champion
If it is acceptable, I want to put on record my thanks to the Minister, because from that point forward, when I raised the issue in that debate, she has always used the terms “sex worker” and “prostitute”, as have her civil servants. Although the two are sometimes interconnected, they are two very separate things. I know that has been of huge benefit to the sector, so I thank the Minister.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I am sure the Minister will be aware that, in many cases, this is not a deal that the tenant would have at the outset. It is when they fall behind with the rent that a proposition is made to them, so it is a choice between eviction or succumbing to this situation. In that case, the woman is in a very pressurised situation.
Victoria Atkins
Very much so. Of course, there can be additional pressures, even to those my right hon. Friend has described—for example, if the victim is worrying about housing themselves and their children. We understand, and have great sympathy with, the motivation behind the new clauses.
In 2019, the Crown Prosecution Service amended its guidance on prostitution and the exploitation of prostitution to include specific reference to the potential availability of charges under the section 52 and section 53 offences where there is evidence to support the existence of sex for rent arrangements. I am advised that there is a case in the criminal justice system at the moment in which sex for rent allegations are being prosecuted under those sections. Of course, I will not comment further, because it is sub judice, but the outcome of that case will help to improve our understanding of the effectiveness or otherwise of the legislation as it is at the moment.
We are looking at understanding the barriers to pursuing such cases. We have heard evidence that this practice may be widespread; the hon. Member for Stockton North referred to the Shelter survey, which extrapolated that there may be up to 30,000 victims of this type of coercion. However, the problem is that those numbers are not reflected in reports to the police. As with so many hidden crimes, domestic abuse being but one example, cases are often not reported to the police, so there is a bit of a chicken and egg situation: if the crimes are not reported, the police of course cannot investigate them, and prosecutions cannot be brought. Again, like many other hidden crimes, there is an element of raising awareness and enabling people to seek advice and help and to report crimes to the police so that they can then be protected through the criminal justice system and the offenders can be brought to justice.
We are conscious of the role of online services as well. Under our new legislation that is coming forward—the Online Safety Bill—tech companies will for the first time have a legal duty to prevent criminal activity on their services. The new legislation will apply to services that host user-generated content or enable users to interact online. This will cover a broad range of services that could be used to facilitate sex for rent, including online marketplaces, classified ads sites and social media services. Services in the scope of the new legislation will have to put in place systems and processes to limit the spread of illegal content and to swiftly remove any illegal content that may harm individuals when those services become aware of it. We also need to make sure that online advertising regulation is fit for purpose. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is considering tougher regulation on online advertising and will consult on this issue later this year.
We await the result of the case that is in the criminal justice system at the moment. I encourage anyone who is able, and who has the wherewithal, to report instances such as this to the police so that they can be investigated. I assure the Committee that we will examine this issue as part of our work on the violence against women and girls strategy. We are very aware of the vulnerabilities that people may find themselves in, as set out so eloquently by hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby. If constituents write to hon. Members, please encourage them to report their cases to the police if they are able to, so that those cases can be investigated and brought to justice.
I therefore very much hope that the hon. Member for Stockton North feels able to withdraw his new clause.
Alex Cunningham
I welcome the Government’s work in this area. The fact that the number of prosecutions, and even of reports, is not reflected in the numbers reported through the likes of Shelter is a tragedy in many ways. Perhaps the Government should think about what they can actually do to encourage more people to come forward and report these offences.
I do not want to be insensitive about this in any way at all, but it would appear from what the Minister said—she did not spell it out as explicitly as I am going to—that the letter of the law would apply the word “prostitute” to a person who has provided sex for rent. I would be very happy to be corrected about that, but that is the whole implication: if the person has to identify as a prostitute under the law in order for the prosecution to take place, she is being called a prostitute. That is where the tremendous barrier exists to people coming forward. Is there a reason for that?
Victoria Atkins
To clarify, looking at section 52 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in particular, I would not want a victim who is going into a police station to report this offence to be under the impression—this is what I was trying to address—that she has to sit there and declare, “I am a prostitute.” That is absolutely not what is required. Section 52 states:
“A person commits an offence if… he intentionally causes or incites another person to become a prostitute”.
As I say, it is semantics, and there is a wafer-thin cigarette paper between us, but I would not want vulnerable people to think that they have to go into a police station and declare themselves to be that, because, of course, they are victims of a crime.
Alex Cunningham
I appreciate that clarification, but the fact remains that the prosecution requires that word to be used in the system. For me, that means that we need a newly defined clause in this area, so I am going to press new clause 63 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 67—Crossing a significant age threshold between commission of offence and sentence—
“The Sentencing Act 2020 is amended by the insertion after section 58 of the following—
‘Chapter 1A
Crossing a significant age threshold between commission of offence and sentence
58A Crossing a significant age threshold between commission of offence and sentence
Where because of the age of the offender there is a difference between the sentence which may be imposed at the date of conviction and the sentence which could have been imposed on the date on which the offence was committed, a court may only pass a more severe sentence than the maximum that the court could have imposed at the time the offence was committed if there are exceptional reasons to do so.’”
This new clause is intended to put into law the advice at para 6.3 of the Sentencing Guideline on sentencing children and young people regarding sentencing when a significant age threshold is passed between the date of conviction and the date of the offence.
Alex Cunningham
This is an issue that I am personally very passionate about, so I am pleased to speak to these new clauses. The Minister will remember our long exchanges on maturity and young people during our debates last year on the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021. My sincere thanks go to Just For Kids Law for the vital work that it does supporting the legal rights and entitlements of children and young people and for its informed and extremely helpful input on these new clauses. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove for the energetic campaigning that he did in this area, standing up for young people in our justice system.
New clauses 66 and 67 address the issue of unjust outcomes for young people who commit offences while they are still children but, because of delays that are not within their control, are not convicted and sentenced until they have turned 18 and so are legally adults. Each year, approximately 2,500 children offend as children but turn 18 prior to conviction. Turning 18 prior to plea or conviction is likely to impact around one in 10 children who are cautioned or sentenced, so we are talking about a significant number of youth cases.
New clause 66 would mean that the reduced rehabilitation period provided for by section 5(2) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 applied to all those who committed an offence while under the age of 18, instead of only those who were convicted of an offence when under 18. This would provide a consistent approach to childhood offending by ensuring that the same rehabilitation period was applied to all those who committed an offence while under the age of 18, including those who turned 18 prior to conviction or sentence, instead of only those who were convicted of an offence when under 18.
Sarah Champion
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, because the courts are clogged up, such examples are likely to become more and more pronounced in the coming months and years?
Alex Cunningham
Indeed, yes. I know that the Government are working hard to clear the backlog, but the fact remains that the backlog is considerable, and it will impact on young people in the system. As a direct result of those problems, many young people will turn 18 before they have their trial and their case heard.
Our idea would mean that children who committed offences as children received a child’s spending period, which is a principle with which I would have thought all members of the Committee could agree. The criminal records system for children in England and Wales is already highly punitive compared with such systems in other countries. The Opposition are enthusiastically supportive of the Government’s direction of travel on criminal records, as shown with respect to our consideration of clause 163. None the less, as I said then and say again now, there is room to go further.
As Just for Kids Law notes, rehabilitation periods for those who turn 18 will generally remain more than double those for under 18s. For example, following custodial sentences of more than one year and up to four years, rehabilitation will be four years for those convicted over the age of 18, compared with two years for those convicted under 18, and that is regardless of the age of the person on the date the offence was committed. We know, and have discussed previously in Committee, the serious impact that disclosure of a criminal record can have on an individual’s access to employment, which in turn can have consequential impact on the individual’s ability to move on to a crime-free life.
That issue is especially pertinent to very young adults. In an excellent submission to the Committee, the Transition to Adulthood Alliance said:
“In young adulthood, there is a crucial window of opportunity where a pro-social identity and desistance from crime can be cultivated. The ‘plasticity’ of their brains means that it is a particularly good time for learning, personal growth and the development of pro-social identity… However, by virtue of their stage of development, young adults can quickly become disillusioned and disengaged from professionals if support is not forthcoming, appropriate or timely.”
It concludes:
“Young adults’ experiences of the justice system are therefore of utmost importance in determining their capacity to build a crime-free future, develop their potential, and contribute to society.”
The Transition to Adulthood Alliance is referring to young adults as those aged up to their mid-20s, and it bases its case on an irrefutable and growing body of evidence that the brain is not fully formed until at least the mid-20s, which means that young adults typically have more psychosocial similarities to children than to older adults in their reasoning and decision-making.
I have said throughout our consideration in Committee that the Bill does not do enough to recognise those maturity issues, but the injustice created by the Government’s lack of consideration of the issue of maturity is felt most keenly here—when we treat a child of 17 years and 364 days as a child, but treat the same person completely differently when only a day more has passed. Surely our intention is to support youth offenders to rebuild their lives far from patterns of offending, yet imposing longer rehabilitation periods on some child offenders—those unfortunate enough to have been convicted after they turned 18 because of some delay in court listing or a police investigative delay—will make it harder for them to do so, and indeed may even contribute further to their disengagement and disillusionment with the system.
I would be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that is something the Government could consider addressing. We are enthusiastic about the direction of travel on criminal records, and I hope that this proposal might be something he feels his Department could include in its ongoing work on criminal records reform.
Let me turn to new clause 67, which would put in law the advice at paragraph 6.3 of the guidelines on sentencing children and young people, which states:
“When any significant age threshold is passed it will rarely be appropriate that a more severe sentence than the maximum that the court could have imposed at the time the offence was committed should be imposed.”
That principle already has cross-party support, as well as wide support in the sector among lawyers and academics alike.
I recognise the great work that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) has done on the issue and acknowledge the wealth of professional experience and wisdom that he brings to it. If a child is convicted but turns 18 prior to sentence, they are entitled to receive a youth sentence. If they turn 18 before conviction, the youth court may retain sentence if crossing the age threshold would occur during proceedings, but if they turn 18 before proceedings start, they can no longer receive youth sentences even if they committed the offence as a child.
Just for Kids Law has pointed out what that means:
“Only adult disposals will be available to the court, despite the defendant being sentenced for offences committed as a child. As a result, they become subject to the purposes of adult sentences which include deterrence, punishment of the offender and protection of the public. This is a significant shift from the purposes of child sentences, which have the prevention of reoffending as the principal aim, and the welfare of the child as a central consideration.”
Surely sentences are meant to reflect the criminality of the offence, which is determined by the circumstances of that offence, not the random date on which the case was finalised.
I have mentioned this matter time and again—it needs to be addressed—but the overwhelming backlog of court cases further exacerbates such injustices. According to Crest Advisory, Ministry of Justice figures published this week show that at the end of March the number of outstanding cases in magistrates courts was 396,419—21% higher than in March 2020. Outstanding cases in Crown court at the end of March were up 45% and at their highest since records have been compiled in such a way, with 59,532 cases still not completed.
It is particularly relevant to our discussion that timeliness has got much worse. It is taking far longer for cases to be resolved. In magistrates court, at the start of this year the average period from an offence being committed to a case being completed was 200 days—nearly seven months. Even at the start of 2020 it took 175 days. In Crown court it is even worse, and the median period for a case to go from offence to completion is 363 days—almost a year. That is a long time in which a child may turn 18. That would be no fault of their own, but it would be the fault of the Government with respect to tackling the backlog. Turning 18 during that time has significant impact on the outcome of children’s cases: they are prosecuted in adult courts, so the opportunity to benefit from the youth justice system is lost.
Does the Minister think that the aims of the youth justice system—preventing reoffending and protecting the welfare of children—should expire because of his backlog? He and I have butted heads over the backlog many times, and he often points towards the impact that covid has had on the justice system. I agree that that has been significant, although there were serious issues before the pandemic. Does he think the aims of the youth justice system should be allowed to expire because of the pandemic? Is that a reasonable justification for denying children who later move officially into adulthood the benefits of the youth justice system? I hope he agrees that it is not and that he will support the aim of the new clause, which would provide a consistent approach to childhood offending and ensure that those who turned 18 between the offence being committed and sentencing were not subject to more severe sentences than the maximum the court could have imposed when the offence was committed, unless there were exceptional reasons to do so.
Sarah Champion
Does my hon. Friend agree that the point of our justice system is to be seen to be acting without fear or favour in a fair way, and that for a child this would not be considered fair?
Alex Cunningham
Exactly that. I am sure that young people will be confused by a system in which, all of a sudden, they find themselves appearing in adult court instead of youth court, particularly if they have previous convictions. They will be bamboozled by it all and frightened by the process.
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has been clear:
“Child justice systems should also extend protection to children who were below the age of 18 at the time of the commission of the offence but who turn 18 during the trial or sentencing process.”
Children who offend as children should feel the benefit of the youth justice system and should be afforded access to the same sentencing framework. That would give those children a better opportunity to be diverted from a cycle of reoffending and help them to rebuild their lives, which is something I am sure every member of the Committee thinks is worth aspiring to. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Chris Philp
I am conscious of time, so I will try to respond concisely. On new clause 67, when the offender has crossed a significant age threshold such as the age of 18 between committing the offence and being convicted and sentenced, the sentencing guidelines already say that the sentence that should be adopted as a starting point is that which would have applied at the time of the offence—that is to say, when the offender was younger.
Courts already have a duty under section 59 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to have regard to sentencing guidelines in those cases unless that would be clearly contrary to the interests of justice. The new clause would not make any material difference to the way the system operates because of the sentencing guidelines currently in force.
On the more general points about maturity and how people take until the age of 25 to mature, as the shadow Minister said, we have debated the issue many times—in particular, almost exactly a year ago during the passage of the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021. Pre-sentencing reports, which are prepared, take into account, and judges then take into account on sentencing, the maturity of the defendant when they are being sentenced.
The shadow Minister made some points about court backlogs, which I am going to address only briefly. Obviously, court backlogs have developed as a consequence of coronavirus, which is the case across the world. Huge extra resources—more than half a billion pounds—have been put into reducing those outstanding case loads, which in the magistrates court are falling consistently, as they have been for quite some time. Of the excess case load caused by coronavirus, about half has been eliminated already. Every week that goes by, the outstanding case load drops by—the last time I checked—about 2,000 cases.
On the Crown court, we have nightingale courts. There are no limitations on sitting days, and I believe the corner has been turned. Looking forward to a time when social distancing is eased in the very near future, I expect the courts will be running even more cases.
As the shadow Minister generously recognised, the Bill significantly reduces rehabilitation periods for children and for adults, which I think we welcome across the Committee. On the starting point, or the rehabilitation point, the regime that applies is calculated from the point of conviction, rather than the point of offence.
Alex Cunningham
Regardless of the duty on the court to which the Minister refers, it remains a fact that children are receiving sentences under the adult regime. There is no two ways about that. What concerns me most is the rehabilitation period. A child who commits an offence as a 17-year-old who does not appear in court until he is 18 can end up with a rehabilitation period of four years, which takes him to his early 20s. All that time, if he is applying for a job or with respect to other activities, he must declare that. That is a real concern for me.
I am not going to push the new clauses to the vote at this time, but the Government need to do much more thinking in this area and start treating children as children. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 69
Poaching of game
“(1) The Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 2(1), after “committing” insert “or has committed”.
(3) In section 4(1)—
(a) after “section thirty” insert “or section thirty two”, and
(b) at end insert “or any animal, vehicle, or other article belonging to him, or in his possession or under his control at the relevant time.”
(4) In section 4(2), after “gun” in lines 2 and 4 insert “, animal,”.
(5) In section 4, at end insert—
“(6) The court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under either the Night Poaching Act 1828 or the Game Act 1831 may order the offender to reimburse any expenses incurred by the police in connection with the keeping of any animal seized in connection with the offence.”
(6) In section 4A(1)—
(a) in line 1, after “under” insert “section one or section 9 of the Night Poaching Act 1828 or”,
(b) after “thirty” insert “or section thirty two”, and
(c) omit “as one of five or more persons liable under that section.””.—(Mr Goodwill.)
This new clause is intended to broaden the powers available to the police and the courts for dealing with illegal hare coursers, measures include providing for forfeiture of animals on conviction and permitting the recovery of expenses incurred by the police in housing a seized animal.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 70—
“Game Act 1831 penalties—
“(1) The Game Act 1831 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 30 (trespassing in search or pursuit of game)—
(a) for “level 3” substitute “level 5”, and
(b) delete “and if any persons to the number of five or more together shall commit any trespass, by entering or being in the daytime upon any land in search or pursuit of game, or woodcocks, snipes, or conies, each of such persons shall, on conviction thereof before a justice of the peace, forfeit and pay such sum of money, not exceeding [level 4] on the standard scale] as to the said justice shall seem meet.””.
This new clause would remove any cap on the amount of the fine, and remove the requirement for a minimum of 5 persons.
Mr Goodwill
The new clauses would strengthen the powers of the police and the courts to tackle the thorny and persistent problem of illegal hare coursing. Hare coursing is a form of poaching whereby offenders trespass on private land in pursuit of hares with dogs, but that is not simply about taking one for the pot. Rather, it involves high-stakes illegal gambling, as dogs are pitted against each other in a test of their ability to chase, catch and kill hares.
Coursing contrasts with traditional poaching—I have a picture in my mind of Claude Greengrass in “Heartbeat”, which was filmed in my constituency—in that the carcases of the dead hares are cast aside as waste and often left to rot in the field after the kill. Offenders destroy gates and fences to gain access to the land, and tear up newly sown crops as they follow the chase in their vehicles. The hare coursing season, for want of a better word, runs from August to March, between the harvest being cleared from the fields and the new crops getting out of the ground. Coursing is normally, but not exclusively, undertaken on areas of flat arable land, and often filmed from a vehicle and livestreamed across the internet. Large amounts of money are illegally bet on the outcome of the chase and ultimately, and almost inevitably, the kill.
The dogs involved in the sport are highly prized by their owners due to their ability to win large amounts of money. Police have the power to seize dogs at the scene of the incident, but cannot reclaim the cost of looking after them from the offender if a conviction is secured. There can be a number of months between the seizing of a dog at the time of the offence and the trial, imposing severe pressure on the budgets of police forces. As a result, many forces do not seize the dogs at first investigation, but it is impossible for courts to issue a forfeiture order if the animal is not already in custody.
New clause 69 would strengthen the ability of the police to seize dogs, as it would enable the investigating police force to be reimbursed for the cost of kennelling confiscated dogs pending trial. That would sweep away the budgetary burden on police forces and empower officers to remove dogs from fields, which ultimately means removing the tools of the trade from hare coursers.
A broad coalition of organisations has come together to support those legislative changes, including the Country Land and Business Association, the National Farmers Union and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—three organisations of which I am a member—as well as the Countryside Alliance, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Kennel Club.
The changes are also supported by officers working on the police’s national approach to hare coursing, which is known as Operation Galileo. Police have begun to investigate the links between hare coursing and organised crime. In September 2018, Thomas Jaffray was jailed for 13 years and four months after being found guilty of conspiracy to supply cocaine, amphetamine and cannabis, and a conspiracy to launder the proceeds of crime. Jaffray was regularly involved in hare coursing in Lincolnshire and other parts of the country.
The leader of Operation Galileo, Chief Inspector Phil Vickers, has said that
“rural communities rightly expect us to use all of the tools at our disposal to tackle offending, and by developing our understanding of the criminal links, we can do just that.”
However, occasions on which there is betting activity are not the only problem. The participants see coursing as a sport in which they need regularly to train their dogs, and the Country Land and Business Association estimates that tens of thousands of hares are slaughtered each year in illegal hare coursing, with members reporting multiple incidents each week with up to 10, and sometimes as many as 20, hares being killed by dogs on each visit.
This year’s National Farmers Union rural crime survey found that 41% of farm businesses had experienced hare coursing during 2020. I should point out that neither of my new clauses attempts to interfere with the Hunting Act 2004, which the Government have a manifesto commitment not to amend.
New clause 70 makes proposals in relation to the fine that could be imposed when an individual was convicted of hare coursing offences. Fines imposed under section 30 of the Game Act 1831 are set at level 3, which means that there is a cap of £1,000. Evidence collected by the CLA refers to hare coursing convictions spanning 15 years and lists 175 separate convictions, 75% of which were brought under the 1831 Act. The CPS specifically recommends the use of that Act for hare coursing offences. Sentencing data from the same 15 years show that fines amount to just a couple of hundred pounds, even for repeat offenders. In essence, that amounts to the cost of a day out for those individuals in pursuit of their so-called sport.
The new clause would increase the financial risk attached to the practice of hare coursing better to reflect the anguish and damage caused by those offenders, against the backdrop of the large financial reward they collect for, in essence, getting away with it or, at the very least, getting off lightly.
It would be remiss of me to conclude without highlighting the fear and anguish that hangs over farmers and landowners who are regularly targeted by hare coursers. These offenders are highly unsavoury individuals who often have a string of other offences to their name and who, if challenged, can become abusive, aggressive and threatening. Farmers and landowners live in constant fear of retribution if action is taken against the coursers. Physical threats are being made to farmers and straw stacks are vulnerable to arson attacks.
Hare coursing is a blight on our rural communities and an abuse of our precious wildlife. Men are running amok around the countryside without fear of penalty as police officers are poorly equipped with the legislative tools to match the contempt of these offenders. These new clauses offer an opportunity to equip our police officers and courts with the powers they need to tackle the problem head on and send a strong message that hare coursing will no longer be tolerated.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister that this is a problem recognised by the Government and that they intend to take action. It may well be that more measures could be taken. Indeed, I am sure that the Minister is aware that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who was fortunate in the private Member’s Bill ballot, has published the short title of his Bill, which seems to address this issue. I hope for reassurances from the Minister that will obviate the need to divide on this issue.
Sarah Champion
I fully support everything the right hon. Gentleman has said. This is not sport, but chasing down a wild animal to rip it apart for money. I am opposed to that, as I am to other blood sports. It is not done by local people, but people who come from all over the country in an organised manner. They do enormous damage to the land, and threaten and intimidate local people who expose their actions.
I agree that the fines for this brutish behaviour are far too small. These new clauses would put much better protections and sanctions in place. I also agree that if the police had the resources to take the dogs, that would be a much better threat to those people, because without the dogs they are unable to keep going with this so-called sport. Also, the dog is worth much more to them than the threat of the fine.
Victoria Atkins
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby for bringing these new clauses before the Committee. I address the Committee as a Minister, but if hon. Members would indulge me for a moment, I will speak as a constituency MP. My right hon. Friend mentioned Chief Inspector Phil Vickers, who is my chief inspector. I am a Lincolnshire MP and my constituency suffers terribly from the crime of hare coursing.
These can be terrifying crimes for the farmers and landowners on whose land they are committed, because if a farmer or someone working on the farm dares to challenge those people, they can, in most cases, find out where they live. I have had instances where farmers have been worried about their family’s safety and their own safety at home, because of the fear that, in going out in the middle of the night and challenging the hare coursers, they will alert the criminals to where they live or the vicinity of where they live.
These are serious crimes that can have a huge impact on the landscape, and hares within our constituencies as well. They are the most beautiful creatures. Watching one gambolling along across a field as dawn is rising can be a very beautiful view in our countryside, yet these people come fully equipped with huge lights and, often, stolen vehicles. Money is bet on the ways in which the hare will turn, or which dog will prevail, which is truly unpleasant.
Mr Goodwill
I am pleased to hear what the Minister has said and I am satisfied that the Government take this issue seriously—not just because of the words that I have heard her say now, but also because I was contacted by the office of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who has asked me for a meeting on the strength of the new clauses. It makes a nice change for Cabinet Ministers to ask Back Benchers to meet them to discuss issues. I am optimistic that action will be taken and hope that tabling the two new clauses has done precisely that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 71
Child criminal exploitation (No.2)
“(1) A person (A) commits the offence of child criminal exploitation if—
(a) A intentionally takes advantage of an imbalance of power over another person (B) to coerce, control, manipulate or deceive B into committing a criminal offence,
(b) A is aged 18 or over, and
(c) B is under 18.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a maximum of 14 years.”—(Alex Cunningham.)
This new clause would define and create an offence of child criminal exploitation with a maximum prison term on conviction on indictment of 14 years.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 72—Internal concealment of banned substances—
“(1) A person (A) commits the offence of internal concealment of banned substances if—
(a) A inserts packages of banned substances into the body of another person (B), with or without B’s consent, or
(b) A intentionally takes advantage of an imbalance of power over B to coerce, control, manipulate or deceive B into inserting packages of banned substances into B’s own body,
with the purpose of concealing the transport of those banned substances.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a maximum of 10 years.”
This new clause would create an offence of internal concealment of banned substances, meaning inserting packages of banned substances into the body of another person, or coercing another to insert banned substances into their own body, for the purpose of concealing the transport of those banned substances. This would be punishable on indictment with a prison term of a maximum of 10 years.
Alex Cunningham
Child criminal exploitation—the grooming and forcing of children to commit criminal acts by adults—is an emerging and fast-growing phenomenon. I have terrible problems saying the word “phenomenon”. Maybe I should have a drink—I assure you it is water, Mr McCabe.
Child criminal exploitation is often present in, but is not limited to, county lines activity. According to analysis by Labour of national referral mechanism statistics, up to 3,000 children are known to be criminally exploited every year, yet the real number is likely to be significantly higher, given that these figures are based only on the children known to services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said in her speech on new clause 17, the Children’s Commissioner estimates that at least 27,000 children are at high risk of gang exploitation. That is a truly horrifying figure.
Under the law as it currently stands, the only way to prosecute child criminal exploitation is through subsidiary offences—for example, possession with intent to supply—or under modern slavery legislation. The problem is that modern slavery legislation is poorly suited to the specific nature of child criminal exploitation. As written answers to parliamentary questions submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove show, only a handful of modern slavery orders are handed out each year. We also know that between 2019 and 2020 only 30 charges were flagged as child abuse under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. We need a specific, singular offence of child criminal exploitation with a maximum tariff that acts as a real deterrent to those who exploit vulnerable children in this way. That is what new clause 71 seeks to do.
Under the new clause, an adult would commit an offence if he or she intentionally took advantage of an imbalance of power over a child in order to coerce, control, manipulate or deceive the child into committing a criminal offence. Any person found guilty of this offence would be liable to imprisonment for up to 14 years, in keeping with the maximum sentences applicable for causing or inciting the sexual exploitation of a child. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said during our sixth Committee sitting, all too frequently it is the children who have been exploited who end up taking the rap, rather than being recognised for what they are—victims.
It is hardly surprising that in 2019-20 1,400 children were first-time entrants in the youth justice system due to drug offences and around 2,000 were first-time entrants due to weapons offences. Both crimes are heavily associated with child criminal exploitation, which raises the question: how many children are currently in custody as a direct consequence of being exploited by an adult? It would be interesting to know just how many children are in custody, so does the Minister have any information on that? As my hon. Friend has said, they are not criminals, but victims—in other words, children who have been exploited by adults to commit crime. And we can repeat that sentence time and again.
While the child victims of this horrendous crime languish in jail, their future prospects almost certainly ruined, the failings of the criminal justice system mean that the real criminals go untouched. We have raised this issue in previous speeches, particularly in relation to young people carrying knives or drugs, the latter on behalf of a controlling adult who is part of an organised criminal gang.
By creating a new specific offence of child criminal exploitation, we would allow for direct action to crack down on the gang leaders who are currently committing their crimes with total impunity. The Minister must recognise that the current law is not working. It is letting down child victims of horrendous crimes, while letting gang members off the hook.
The Government must take far more radical action to combat this crime. Creating a legal framework specific to child criminal exploitation is key to that. The Government say they take child criminal exploitation seriously, but now it is time for them to show it, so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on new clause 71.
I will now speak, relatively briefly, about new clause 72. Once more, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove for tabling new clause 72, and I wish him well in his new post as shadow Schools Minister—a job I would have quite fancied myself. New clause 72 would create a new criminal offence of plugging, or the placing of banned substances into the body of another person, or coercing another to insert banned substances into their own body, for the purpose of transporting and concealing them.
As we heard from Iryna Pona of the Children’s Society during our evidence session on 23 May:
“Plugging is when young people are exploited by criminal groups to deliver drugs across the country and—sometimes—they are delivering those drugs inserted in cavities in their bodies.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 23 May 2021; c. 127.]
Plugging has been specifically recognised by the National Crime Agency as a particularly malicious form of child criminal exploitation perpetrated across county lines. For the children who are exploited to carry drugs in this way, the experience they suffer is simply horrendous. Naturally, it is also a great risk to their health and could even cause their death.
As is the case with child criminal exploitation, there is currently no specific area of law that criminalises those who exploit children to carry drugs in this way. Likewise, they cannot be prosecuted under existing sexual offences legislation, due to a lack of sexual intent. Again, we are left with a gap in legislation, which categorically fails victims of this horrendous crime, many of whom will be children, while letting the real criminals—dangerous criminals—off the hook.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central asked the witness from the Children’s Society whether they thought there would be a benefit in trying to define plugging in terms of a specific criminal offence, the answer was instantaneous: yes.
Once again, as with child criminal exploitation, the Opposition are pleased to give the Government a chance to come up with the goods. New clause 72 would create a new and specific offence to criminalise the act of placing drugs into a person’s body for the purposes of trafficking them or coercing a person to do it themselves. Those found guilty of this new offence could expect to serve a custodial sentence of up to 10 years’ imprisonment.
By creating a specific offence, we could introduce a significant deterrent to gang leaders and extend the time spent in prison by those convicted of child criminal exploitation. I look forward to receiving the Minister’s support.
Victoria Atkins
I am conscious that we have already touched on some of these issues in the debate on new clause 17, which I will try not to repeat. Child criminal exploitation is a heinous form of abuse, and the Government are determined to tackle it. The exploitation, degradation and assault of a young person to conceal drugs internally for transportation, known as plugging, is immoral and unlawful and, again, the Government condemn it.
We are taking action to target those who seek to exploit vulnerable children through county lines operations. Earlier this year, we announced £148 million of investment to tackle drugs misuse and supply, along with county lines activity. That includes £40 million of investment dedicated to tackling drugs supply and county lines activities, and represents a surge in our activity against those ruthless gangs. That will allow us to expand and build on the results of our existing county lines programme, through which we have set up the National County Lines Co-ordination Centre to improve the intelligence picture and co-ordinate the national law-enforcement response, which includes protecting those young people who are abused and exploited.
Turning to the question of creating a specific offence of child criminal exploitation, we have discussed this issue carefully with law enforcement and others and, on balance, we are of the view that existing legislation is sufficient to address the exploitation of young people for criminal purposes. In particular, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 provides for the offences of slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour, as well as human trafficking for all types exploitation. For child victims, it is sufficient to show that they have been chosen for exploitation because of their youth. There is no requirement to prove force, threats or deception, which may, in particular circumstances, be difficult to prove. A range of civil orders are available to law enforcement partners to respond to county lines and child criminal exploitation, including modern slavery and trafficking prevention orders, and modern slavery and trafficking risk orders.
To promote good use of those orders, the NCLCC has established a dedicated orders team to identify children and the perpetrators who exploit them, and to help forces with the application of such orders; to disseminate guidance and deliver training to local forces to upskill local force understanding; and to work with regional leads to improve best practice in gathering data on the use of orders in a county lines context. We are also committed to improving local safeguarding arrangements.
With the Department for Education, we commissioned Liverpool John Moores University to examine the effectiveness of multi-agency safeguarding partnerships in dealing with young people who are at risk or who are involved in serious violence and county lines. It has reported, and we are considering its recommendations. In addition, we have funded dedicated support for those who are at risk and who are involved in county lines. Between June 2020 and June this year, that work was carried out by the St Giles Trust, which worked with 170 young people to help them leave exploitation and exit gangs and other forms of coercion.
We continue to fund the Missing People SafeCall service, which is a national confidential helpline for young people, families and carers who are concerned about county lines exploitation, and we are funding the Children’s Society Prevention programme, which works to tackle and prevent child criminal exploitation as well as other forms of abuse and exploitation. We are therefore committed to tackling child criminal exploitation and bringing the perpetrators to justice, but we do not, on balance, believe that a specific offence would change the way in which young people are supported. Our efforts focus on improving the practical response to such criminality. We keep the legislative framework in connection with child criminal exploitation under review, and of course we will consider any additional evidence that supports the view that additional legislation is required as it arises.
Alex Cunningham
I agree with the Minister that a lot of work has to be done with support, safeguarding and everything else, but the income of local authorities has been devastated in recent years and the ability to provide the range of services required is somewhat compromised. That makes such situations all the more difficult for young people.
The Minister talked about the Modern Slavery Act, and so did I. Although it is a relatively young piece of legislation, it has rarely been used. I am not aware of any prosecutions whatever to do with the issues I have raised today—
Victoria Atkins
I will not cite cases, but I believe the first prosecution was in Cardiff Crown court, involving a county lines gang who originated in the south-east. I do not recall the details, but I would not want the Committee to think that it had not been used. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman said that he was “not aware” that it had been.
Alex Cunningham
I was referring specifically to the child exploitation element and the plugging offence. I am aware of no specific prosecution on those things. For me, it is a matter of child protection—of adult protection as well, in some cases—and we feel strongly about both the new clauses. We intend to press both new clauses to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
During previous consideration, I raised with the Minister the effects in Wales of some provisions in the Bill. She assured me that those matters are reserved, and that is indeed correct. However, the justice system is just that—a system—and the consequential effects of some of these provisions inevitably extend to matters that are the responsibility of the Senedd in Cardiff and the Labour Government. What those detailed effects might be, one can only surmise at present, but given the substantial interweaving between the implementation of the provisions in the Bill and those matters under the Senedd’s authority, one can only suspect that they will be substantial and significant. Hence we have tabled this new clause, which would require the Secretary of State to issue an assessment of the impact of the Bill on devolved policy and services in Wales within six months of its passing and to issue such an assessment for any further changes in relation to regulations under the Bill within one month of making them.
For the benefit of Committee members who may not be wholly conversant with the intricacies of Welsh devolution, let me explain that the Senedd has policy responsibility, and the power to legislate, in respect of large parts of public provision relevant to this Bill—for instance, health and, importantly for us here today, mental health; local government including, significantly, social services and housing; education up to and including higher education; equalities; the Welsh language; and economic policy in respect of training and employment. The Senedd also funds about half the costs of policing in Wales.
Then there are the policy implications. Wales has a higher rate of imprisonment than England—in fact, we have the highest rate of imprisonment in western Europe. The Welsh Labour Government have a framework to reduce that number. This Bill will lead to higher numbers in jail, one supposes. Wales has a higher rate of imprisoning black and minority ethnic people than England, and the Senedd has a race equality plan. The provisions of this Bill, particularly in relation to stop and search and on bladed weapons, are likely to lead to an increase in the imprisonment of young black men, which will be at odds with the Senedd plan. The Assembly, as it was then, has taken a “wellbeing approach” to many aspects of social provision. The Bill obviously has a more forthright law-and-order stance and thereby is inconsistent with Welsh public policy.
Furthermore, implementing policy requires human resources and costs money. For example, an increase in the number of people in prison would most likely lead to an increased demand for mental health services inside Welsh prisons from without—the local health board. HMP Berwyn at Wrecsam springs to mind. It is the largest prison in the UK and the second largest in Europe. It accommodates many prisoners from outside the health board area and, indeed, from England—people who would not normally use its services. The health board might well be reimbursed for the monetary cost of providing those services, but we all know of course that mental health services are chronically short not just of money but of staff. This could be a substantial burden on the local health board, but we will not know beforehand; there is to be no impact assessment.
An increase in the number subsequently released would have implications for the demand for housing, education, training and jobs. I could go on, but I think the Committee will have already seen how the system in its entirety might be affected. After all, it is a system.
The consequences for the implementation of Senedd policy is not my only concern. The Senedd is a legislature—it passes law—so the question of the effect of the Bill, if enacted, when there is a divergence between the law at either end of the M4 also arises. For example, will the Secretary of State then seek to direct devolved services or at least to influence them, perhaps without the consent of Welsh Ministers? I have to say that this would be entirely unacceptable. Indeed, it would be directly contrary to the clear will of the people of Wales, as expressed in the referenda on the powers of the Assembly, as it was then, most recently in 2011 under the former Conservative Government.
The Minister might say that there are agreements in place between the Ministry of Justice and the Welsh Government to account for divergence, such as the memorandum of understanding in 2013, upon which a concordat in 2018 was produced to establish a framework for co-operation, and that might be sufficient. When I asked the Minister about the memorandum in the context of the development of this Bill, it was unclear, to me at least, whether the concordat processes were followed—not least, whether they were followed effectively—because her response was that she would write further to the relevant Welsh Minister, Jane Hutt, following my question. Clearly, there was a process in place that perhaps has not been completed.
The Committee may not be aware of the work of the recent commission on justice in Wales, under the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. The report concluded that
“the concordat does not really address the problems or provide a sustainable or long-term solution to the effect of separating justice from other devolved fields.”
That was Lord Thomas’s conclusion. Although justice is not devolved to Wales at present, this apparently clear split is, I think, an oversimplification, for both the Senedd and the Welsh Government, as I said earlier, have introduced legislation and policies leading to a divergence in law and practice in Wales as compared with England.
This is, in fact, recognised in the Welsh law-making processes. Section 110A of the Government of Wales Act 2006, as inserted by section 11 of the Wales Act 2017, requires that new devolved Welsh legislation must be accompanied by a “justice impact assessment” to explain how it impacts on the reserved justice system in Wales. Therefore, what happens in Wales is subject to an impact assessment. However, there is no reciprocal requirement on the UK Government or Parliament to report on the impact that changes to the reserved England and Wales justice system will have on devolved services in Wales, and, as I said earlier, those might be quite profound.
For all these reasons, I believe that the proposals in my new clause are required, and I am glad to have this opportunity to propose it, with the valued support of Labour and SNP colleagues. For me, the long-term practical solution is to devolve justice. Northern Ireland and Scotland now have their own jurisdictions, as I believe will Wales, eventually, but that is perhaps in the long term. In the meantime, quite frankly, it is just not good enough to say that matters in the Bill are reserved, and leave it at that.
Victoria Atkins
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us an insight into the complexities and the balances that are a part of the devolution settlement for Wales. I imagine that the Committee’s SNP Member, the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, if he were here, would say the same about the Scottish devolution arrangements.
It may assist the Committee if I set out the provisions of the Bill that, in the view of the UK Government, relate in part to devolved matters in Wales and, as such, engage the legislative consent process. There are three such provisions. The first are those in chapter 1 of part 2 relating to the serious violence duty, so far as those provisions confer reserved functions on devolved Welsh authorities. The hon. Member for Arfon posed a question about the memorandum in that regard. I am able to help the Committee with the news that we are continuing to discuss with the Welsh Government the direction-making power in clause 17 relating to the duty.
Hywel Williams
I thank the Minister for that response, and I am grateful for the news that there are continuing discussions with the Welsh Government even at this rather late stage in the consideration of the Bill.
Obviously, we have a fundamental disagreement. I would hold that the context in Wales is sufficiently different to require a specific assessment. That context is not only the fact that policy may diverge, but the fact that there is specifically Welsh legislation that may impact the provision. However, at this point I am content to withdraw the new clause and possibly bring it back at some other time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 75
Automatic exemption from jury service for those who are pregnant, breastfeeding or on parental leave
‘(1) The Juries Act 1974 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 9, after subsection (2B), insert—
“(2C) Without prejudice to subsection (2) above, the appropriate officer shall excuse a person from attending in pursuance of a summons if—
(a) that person is pregnant,
(b) that person is breastfeeding, or
(c) that person is on parental leave.”’—(Alex Cunningham.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Motherhood has featured well in our deliberations today, and we are going to turn to it again, but first I want to pay tribute to all mothers. I am going to be a bit cheeky here and pay particular tribute to my own mother, who will be 88 in five weeks’ time, and to my dad, who will be 90 a few weeks later and who still looks after her in their own home—just a little indulgence there.
New clause 75 would provide an automatic exemption from jury service for those who are on maternity leave, breastfeeding, or pregnant. The Opposition have tabled it because the Government have yet to take the action called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), who has been leading an important campaign on this topic in recent months. The issue is that there is no default exception from jury service for mothers of newborn babies who are still breastfeeding, and this can cause serious difficulties for the mother. I do not need to go into the proven benefits of breastfeeding because—perhaps unusually, given the general content of the Bill—I have already rehearsed those arguments in my speech on new clause 27.
Jury service is an important civic duty that we should all engage in, as I am sure every member of the Committee agrees—indeed, in our debate on clause 164 we all recognised the importance of extending possible engagement with jury service to more citizens. However, that cannot be done at any expense, and certainly not at the expense of the wellbeing and health of newborn babies and of mothers.
My hon. Friend shared a case in which an expectant mother deferred her jury service because it coincided with her due date. That much was fine, as the initial deferral went through, but her postponed jury service then fell within the first six months of her son’s life, during which she was exclusively breastfeeding him about every two hours. As my hon. Friend explained in her letter to the Lord Chancellor:
“The Court she has been asked to attend—York Crown Court—does not offer child-minding facilities. This creates a number of problems. As she cannot defer a second time and despite appealing the decision she is being forced to attend jury service even though it will compromise her ability to breastfeed her son during the first six months of his life. If there are no child-minding facilities, she cannot be with her son to breastfeed him unless she is allowed to bring him into the courtroom which clearly presents its own difficulties. Even if there are child-minding services made available at the Court, she will have to leave once every 2 hours to breastfeed her son.”
The Minister’s response to the case was:
“Your letter refers to your constituent making an application for a second deferral but does not mention whether she applied for an excusal. The gov.uk website provides examples of possible reasons for excusal but there is no exhaustive list. Though I cannot say that an application for excusal would have been granted in this case, potential jurors must have a good reason for applying which could include exclusively breastfeeding a child. Each application is considered on its own merit and if not granted in the first instance, there is a route of appeal whereby a judge would consider the application, either by considering the information available or arranging a short hearing to speak to the potential juror in person to discuss their reasons.”
Imagine someone undergoing postpartum recovery and caring for a newborn—up at all hours of the day and night, with all their days filled with responding to the needs of their new baby. Is it really appropriate that the Government should expect them to trawl though the Government website and go through an application process that may then be denied and need to be appealed by attending the court to speak to the judge? As my hon. Friend noted in her follow-up letter, absence of an exemption means that a new mother has to
“deal with the effort and stress of navigating a bureaucratic process to secure exemption when she should have been free to solely focus on her pregnancy and new-born.”
That is illustrated by the case of Zoe Stacey, with which I know the Minister is familiar. Zoe was called for jury service in May, while she was breastfeeding her then two-month-old child. Her application for an excusal was rejected, so she had to appeal the decision. All the while, she was breastfeeding her newborn after weeks of painful medical problems, as well as having to look after her other son, who is in pre-school four mornings a week. Surely Ministers recognise that this is a hugely stressful time for anyone, and it was made all the more difficult by the fact that Zoe had little family support nearby. In the end, she did receive an excusal, but she should not have had to go through such a stressful bureaucratic nightmare to get it.
My hon. Friend knows of more cases, some of which she shared in her correspondence with the Minister. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), wrote to her earlier this week, informing her that the guidance has been reviewed and that some amendments have been made, including the addition of “new parent” as an explicit reason for possible deferrals or excusals and a change to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service’s internal guidance so that it states explicitly that excusal applications on the grounds of caring responsibilities are to be considered sympathetically.
While my hon. Friend and I both appreciate that the Government are making an effort to address the problem, they are not going quite far enough. Why do excusal applications on the grounds of caring responsibilities need to be considered sympathetically? Why cannot it simply be that an excusal is guaranteed to be always granted in the case of a new parent when they ask for it? That does not remove the option of attending or deferring jury service if that is what the pregnant mother or new parent chooses; it simply ensures that any new parent has the automatic right to exercise an exemption if they wish to. I understand that the Government would not want to remove the choice to serve or defer from pregnant women and new parents, but they do not have to do that in order to provide a guaranteed exemption for all who want one. I hope that the Minister can see where we are coming from, and accept the amendment today.
Chris Philp
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for raising this issue. The Government do support the principle behind the amendment. New parents, including those breastfeeding or women who are pregnant, should be able to serve on a jury at a time that is suitable for them. As the shadow Minister has said, we are aware of some of these cases that we have corresponded about in recent months and, as a consequence, have already updated the guidance that Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service uses to ask that a more accommodating and sympathetic approach is taken to somebody who responds to a jury summons by saying that they are pregnant, breastfeeding, or have very significant caring responsibilities in the way that he has described. Where that happens, a deferral is always considered in the first instance.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the application process. Clearly, the summoning bureau will not necessarily know who is pregnant or who is looking after a child, so it is inevitable that there will always be some kind of application process; that cannot be avoided. The thing is that it is done in a way that is sympathetic. As I have said, that guidance has been changed already. We have also updated www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk to make it clear that these are all legitimate reasons for requesting a deferral. I hope that a combination of that publicity on www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk and the work on updating the internal guidance in response to some of the cases that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have raised addresses the underlying issue. We still think that a case-by-case consideration is appropriate rather than a blanket provision such as this, which perhaps does not capture all of the circumstances that may arise. Allowing discretion to continue is the best way of handling this, but the sentiment—the direction of travel—is exactly the same as that of the hon. Gentleman.
There are, in the way in which this new clause is drafted, some idiosyncrasies. For example, on a technical point, the hon. Gentleman refers to parental leave, but there are other forms of leave that do not count as parental leave. Maternity leave and adoption leave, for example, are considered as a different form of leave. I am sure that this was inadvertent, but, as drafted, some of those groups that one would wish to include have been unfortunately omitted. We are on the same page as the Opposition on this, but the change in the guidance and the publications on www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk address the issues that have been raised.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister had an over-complicated response to what I thought was a relatively simple and straightforward matter. He talked about supporting the principle and he talked about sentiment. Surely, we could save the time, expense and, of course, the anguish around this process. Of course, there will have to be some communication between the person called for jury service and the court, but that could be very simple: “Dear court usher, or whoever you are, I am currently pregnant, or currently breastfeeding, please may I have the exception that is granted under Labour’s excellent amendment to this particular Bill.” It is very straightforward, and I cannot understand for the life of me why the Government cannot just say that if somebody in such a situation does not want to do jury service, they should not have to do it. For that reason, I shall press the matter to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Short title and chapter Extent of repeal Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c. 69) Sections 33 to 36 Street Offences Act 1959 (c. 57) The whole Act Sexual Offences Act 1967 (c. 60) Section 6 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c. 16) Section 46 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) Sections 51A to 56 Policing and Crime Act 2009 (c. 26) Section 14 and 16 to 19”.
New clause 77—Commercial sexual exploitation by a third party—
“(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person (C) assists, facilitates, controls, or incites, by any means, another person (B) to engage in sexual activity with another person (A) in exchange for payment, anywhere in the world; and
(b) the circumstances are that—
(i) the person (C) knows or ought to know that the other person (B) is engaging in sexual activity for payment; and
(ii) the person (C) assists, facilitates, controls, or incites the other person (B) to engage in sexual activity with another person (A) with the intention of receiving payment.
(c) Subsection (1) of this section is to be construed in accordance with section [Commercial sexual exploitation].
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.”
This new clause criminalises pimping.
New clause 78—Advertising—
“(1) A person commits an offence if the person causes or allows to be displayed or published, including digitally, any advertisement in respect of activity prohibited by sections [Commercial sexual exploitation] and [Commercial sexual exploitation by a third party] of this Act.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.”
This new clause criminalises those who benefit from the advertising of sexual services. This includes ‘pimping websites’.
New clause 79—Extra-territoriality—
“(1) A person who is a UK national commits an offence under sections [Commercial sexual exploitation] to [Advertising] of this Act regardless of where the offence takes place.
(2) A person who is not a UK national commits an offence—
(a) under sections [Commercial sexual exploitation] to [Advertising] of this Act if any part of the offence takes place in the UK, and
(b) under section [Advertising] of this Act if any person in the UK pays money to any other person as a result or through the advertisement published or displayed.”
This new clause allows criminal prosecutions for acts contravening the relevant sections whether they occur within or outside the United Kingdom.
New clause 80—Immunity of victims—
“(1) A person (B), by reason of their involvement as a victim of an offence under sections [Commercial sexual exploitation] to [Advertising] of this Act by another person (A) does not commit an offence by doing anything which (apart from this paragraph) would amount to—
(a) aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring the commission of an offence under sections [Commercial sexual exploitation] to [Advertising] of this Act by the other person (A);
(b) conspiring with the other person (A) to commit an offence under sections [Commercial sexual exploitation] to [Advertising] of this Act; or
(c) an offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (encouraging or assisting offences) in relation to the commission of an offence under sections [Commercial sexual exploitation] to [Advertising]of this Act by the other person (A); or
(d) an offence under section [Advertising] of this Act.
(2) In this section it is immaterial whether the other person has been convicted of an offence.”
This new clause ensures that those subject to commercial sexual exploitation do not find themselves criminalised by having ‘assisted’ the person buying sexual services.
New clause 81—Power of Secretary of State to disregard convictions or cautions—
“Section 92 of the Protection from Freedoms Act 2012 is replaced as follows.
‘92 Power of Secretary of State to disregard convictions or cautions
(1) A person who has been convicted of, or cautioned for, an offence under—
(a) section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (buggery),
(b) section 13 of that Act (gross indecency between men), or
(c) section 61 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 or section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 (corresponding earlier offences),
may apply to the Secretary of State for the conviction or caution
to become a disregarded conviction or caution.
(2) A person who has been convicted of, or cautioned for, an offence under section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959, may apply to the Secretary of State for the conviction or caution to become a disregarded conviction or caution.
(3) A conviction or caution becomes a disregarded conviction or caution when conditions A and B are met.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), condition A is that the Secretary of State decides that it appears that—
(a) the other person involved in the conduct constituting the offence consented to it and was aged 16 or over, and
(b) any such conduct now would not be an offence under section 71 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual activity in a public lavatory).
(5) For the purposes of subsection (2), condition A is that the Secretary of State decides that it appears that any such conduct now would not be an offence under sections [Commercial sexual exploitation] and [Commercial sexual exploitation by a third party] of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2021.
(6) Condition B is that—
(a) the Secretary of State has given notice of the decision to the applicant under section 94(4)(b), and
(b) the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the notice was given has ended.
(7) Sections 95 to 98 explain the effect of a conviction or caution becoming a disregarded conviction or caution.’”
This new clause permits those who as a result of exploitation have convictions for soliciting, to have their conviction disregarded.
New clause 82—Repeals—
“The enactments specified in the following Table are repealed to the extent specified in column 2 of the Table.
Sarah Champion
The new clauses were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). Their purpose is to stop commercial sexual exploitation by ending impunity for exploiters and supporting, rather than sanctioning, victims and survivors. First, they would criminalise those who pay for sexual activity with others. Secondly, they would decriminalise those who are subject to commercial sexual exploitation. Thirdly, they would criminalise those who intend to profit from and/or advertise the commercial sexual exploitation of others. In sum, they would break the business model of sex trafficking, which leads in most cases to the prostitution of people.
Organised commercial sexual exploitation is taking place on an industrial scale in England and Wales. Evidence obtained by the all-party parliamentary group on prostitution and the global sex trade, which I previously chaired, revealed that the UK sex trade is dominated by organised crime. Criminal gangs exploit predominantly non-UK national women, advertising on pimping websites such as Vivastreet and Adultwork, and move these women around the networks of so-called pop-up brothels and hotel rooms to be raped by paying punters. Available evidence suggests that Romanian women are heavily represented among the women exploited in brothels across Britain. Over a period of two years, Leicestershire police visited 156 brothels, encountering 421 women, 86% of whom were from Romania. Northumbria police visited 81 brothels over two years, and of the 259 women they encountered in the brothels, 75% were Romanian.
The suffering inflicted on the minds and bodies of women in these brothels by man after man after man after man can scarcely be imagined. One woman trafficked to the UK said:
“To begin with [the offenders] were my friends but, as soon as we came to England, they started to physically abuse me. He beat me many times because I was not earning him enough money…Even though the clients did not physically abuse me, I felt abused because I was forced to have sex with them even when I did not want to do so. Sometimes that was painful. After a while, I felt disgusted by what I was doing and I wanted to stop but [he] wanted more money and he forced me to continue.”
Sex trafficking gangs are ruthlessly exploiting women in our constituencies for one reason only: money. The disturbing reality is that, today, England and Wales are attractive destinations for sex traffickers. Perpetrators face low risks for high profits. Why are the profits so high and the risks so low? Because we have unfettered demand from men who pay for sex, and in doing so fund these criminal gangs; and we have lucrative pimping websites on which traffickers can quickly and easily advertise their victims to sex buyers across the country. Shockingly, these pimping websites are legal.
Alongside this impunity for online pimps and punters, perversely, the women they sexually exploit can themselves face criminal sanctions for soliciting, making it harder for them to seek help and rebuild their lives, as we discussed. Our laws are hindering, rather than helping, the fight against sex trafficking; they need to be strengthened now. To break the business model of sex trafficking, we have to deter demand, end impunity for online pimping, and support, not sanction, the victims and survivors. The new clauses would do just that. They would bring our laws in line with those of France, Israel, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Sweden, Norway and Iceland. All of those countries have criminalised paying for sex and decriminalised victims of sexual exploitation, in order to put pimps and traffickers out of business. It is high time that England and Wales joined that list. I look forward to what the Minister has to say about these new clauses.
Victoria Atkins
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for putting the case for new clauses 76 to 82 on behalf of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, who in the last Parliament had a ten-minute rule Bill on the issue.
The Government’s long-standing policy towards sex work and prostitution has been focused on tackling the harm and exploitation that can be associated with prostitution, as well as ensuring that those wishing to exit sex work are appropriately supported. These six new clauses seek to make significant changes to the legislative regime governing prostitution and sex work. In summary, they would impose what is known as the sex buyer law, or Nordic model, which would criminalise the buying but not the selling of sexual services, the profiting by third parties from sexual services and the advertising of sexual services.
Under English and Welsh law currently, the buying and selling of sexual services are not necessarily unlawful in themselves. In other jurisdictions where the buying of sex has been criminalised, such as France, Northern Ireland and Sweden, there has been no conclusive evidence to show that the criminalisation of the demand for sex has either led to a significant decrease in the demand for sexual services or improved the conditions in which sex workers operate. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that criminalising the purchasing of sexual services worsens the conditions in which prostitutes and sex workers operate. It may change the profile of buyers of sexual services, distilling the demand down only to those willing to break the law to purchase such acts and forcing prostitutes and sex workers to engage in forms of prostitution associated with higher levels of harm. In the absence of unequivocal evidence, the Government have therefore maintained their line that we are focusing on trying to exit people and trying to reduce the harm and exploitation that they face.
Sarah Champion
The argument that the Minister makes assumes the ability to give informed consent by the people in prostitution. I have no problem whatsoever with people who are choosing to prostitute themselves. What I have an issue with is sex trafficking and the number of people—and I know that the Minister is very aware of this—who are forced into this situation. I see no better approach than to remove the financial reward for these people, to enable those who actually want to prostitute themselves to go ahead.
Victoria Atkins
I very much accept the hon. Lady’s point about the coercive aspect of trafficking—forcing people into prostitution and sex work. It is a huge part of our work to tackle modern slavery and sex trafficking. We have covered this ground already, albeit on a slightly different subject. Section 52 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes it an offence to cause or incite another person to engage in prostitution for one’s personal gain or the gain of a third party. Section 53 also creates an offence relating to one’s personal gain or the gain of a third party, and under section 53A it is a strict liability offence to pay for the services of a prostitute subjected to force, coercion, deception or exploitation. All of those offences are captured by the definition of exploitation in section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, by virtue of which human trafficking with a view to committing the aforementioned offences carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
The other new clauses in the group stand or fall with new clauses 76 and 77. I will not address them, because I know an important matter is to be debated after this and I am mindful of time. We are taking action to tackle harmful activity online—that is a very important point in this subject area. With the Online Safety Bill, which I have already addressed several times in Committee, the imposition of a legal duty on certain online services providers to tackle criminal activity on their services will apply to a range of instances covered by this topic. The tech companies and services that are in scope will have to put in place systems and processes to limit the spread of illegal content and to remove it swiftly.
On the wider work of the violence against women and girls strategy, prostitution and sex work have been raised in many of the responses that we have received, and we very much intend to address actions on that to reduce the risks for women working in prostitution and sex work. As always, I would very much welcome the hon. Lady’s ideas and suggestions on these aims, and I am very happy to work with her and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North on addressing some of those harms, which we are all determined the prevent.
Sarah Champion
I am happy to withdraw the clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
New clauses 77 to 82 have already been debated, so we come now to new clause 83.
New Clause 83
Concealing a body
“(1) A person (‘D’) is guilty of an offence if—
(a) D conceals the deceased body of another person, and
(b) D intends to obstruct a coronial investigation, or
(c) D conceals a death to facilitate another criminal offence.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), the circumstances in which a coronial investigation is required are set out in section 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), concealment of a homicide will be conclusive evidence of an intent to obstruct a coronial investigation.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.
(5) The common law offence of obstructing the coroner is abolished.”—(Bambos Charalambous.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 84—Desecration of a corpse—
“(1) A person (‘D’) is guilty of an offence if—
(a) D acts with severe disrespect to a corpse, and
(b) D knows that, or is reckless as to whether, their acts are ones of severe disrespect.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), whether an act is one of severe disrespect will be judged according to the standard of the reasonable person.
(3) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section if—
(a) they had a reasonable excuse for their acts,
(b) the act would otherwise be criminal under section 1 of the Human Tissue Act 2004,
(c) the act is also a criminal offence under section 70 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (‘Sexual penetration of a corpse’),
(d) a person, prior to their death, has given consent for the acts to be done to their deceased body, notwithstanding that they involve severe disrespect to the corpse.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.
(5) The common law offence of preventing a lawful and decent burial is abolished.”
Bambos Charalambous
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. There can be few things worse than learning of the murder of a close relative. There is then the trauma of the trial and the detail that is raked over to ensure a conviction. In certain cases, the never-ending turmoil of not having a body to lay to rest is an unimaginable form of emotional torture.
The tireless work of Marie McCourt ensured that Parliament passed Helen’s law in March 2020. The body of Helen McCourt, Marie’s daughter, who was murdered in 1988, has never been found. Her killer never disclosed the whereabouts of her body. Marie’s campaigning successfully changed the law so that parole boards must now take into account whether killers have refused to co-operate in the recovery of their victims’ remains.
Anomalies in the law remain when a body is never found, however, and they must be addressed. That is why the two new clauses would create two new offences: that of concealing a body and another relating to the desecration of a corpse. New clause 83 would replace the common law offence of obstructing a coroner with the offence of concealing a body. New clause 84 would replace the common law offence of preventing burial, which has its origins in ecclesiastical law, with the new offence of desecration of a corpse. That would also address gaps in the law and capture a range of intentional acts of severe disrespect, including the mutilation of a corpse, the drawing of lewd images on a deceased body, and non-penetrative sexual acts performed involving a corpse.
In 2017 the Law Commission acknowledged:
“The law governing how we dispose of the bodies of our loved ones…is unfit for modern needs.”
The current law is haphazard in how it is applied to deal with the serious wrong of behaving with gross disrespect towards deceased bodies. The existing common law charges of preventing a lawful and decent burial, hiding a corpse and obstructing a coroner have been rarely used.
When Helen McCourt was murdered in 1988, murder trials without a body were exceptionally rare. Sadly, today they are common because, as forensic detective methods have become more sophisticated, killers are resorting to ever more desperate measures to hide evidence of their crimes. In 2019 the Home Office confirmed that since 2007-08 there have been 50 homicides—convictions for murder and manslaughter—without a body. One can only try to imagine the huge extra distress this causes victims’ families, and as the law stands the killer will receive no further punishment for the additional horrific crimes committed after the initial homicide. The distress to the affected families will only continue to rise without a change in the law. If offenders knew that they would face charges relating to non-disclosure and desecration as well as for the homicide offence itself, they may think twice about committing the offence and maintaining silence about it.
Chris Philp
I thank the shadow Minister for his speech and for introducing this new clause so eloquently. He mentioned the tragic case of Helen McCourt, which I am sure is on our minds as we debate this new clause. Along with the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), I have met her mother Marie McCourt, who has campaigned tirelessly on this issue for many years, which led ultimately to the passage, as the shadow Minister said, of Helen’s law a few months ago. It was a privilege to take it through the House of Commons as the Bill Minister.
The Government once again are very sympathetic to the sentiments and the intention behind these new clauses, and I would like to look briefly at new clauses 83 and 84, which combined seek to repeal and replace two common law offences, as the shadow Minister has said. New clause 83 would repeal the common law offence of obstructing a coroner, replacing it with a statutory offence, while new clause 84 seeks to repeal the common law offence of preventing lawful burial.
It is worth just saying that, as with many common law offences, they are quite wide-ranging measures in their scope and cover potentially quite a wide range of behaviour. One of the risks we run when we seek to codify the common law—as we sometimes, or indeed often, do—is that we may inadvertently narrow the scope of the existing common law provisions. Of course, we will also be reducing the maximum sentence, because as common law offences these offences currently have a maximum sentence of life whereas by creating a statutory offence, as these new clauses seek to do, there would be a specified much lower maximum sentence.
It is worth saying that the common law—as, too, the non-common law—does cover the question of concealing a body in various ways. In circumstances where an offender is responsible for a homicide, the fact that they concealed or mutilated the body is already taken, not as a point of common law but as a point of sentencing guidelines, as a clear aggravating factor at sentencing. Therefore, on conviction the sentence will be increased, reflecting the fact that the sort of behaviour the shadow Minister has described has occurred. Where the concealment of a body is part of a course of action that includes the killing, the sentence for murder would again include that as an aggravating factor in deciding the starting point for the sentence. If we have a separate offence, the danger, of course, is that the offences may be served concurrently, so we may not have someone in prison for any longer, whereas if it is an aggravating factor for the main offence, we may well get a longer sentence. We need to be mindful of those technical reasons that might inadvertently have the opposite effect to that intended.
It is also the case, of course, that once someone is convicted of an offence of this kind—this includes refusing to disclose the location of the body—we have legislated via Helen’s law, as the shadow Minister said, that the Parole Board is now obliged as a question of statute to consider the non-disclosure of the whereabouts of the body when making release decisions. That was previously in parole guidelines but is now statutory, which also sends a message to the Parole Board about how strongly Parliament feels about this. Non-disclosure could also lead to a later release point. All those points are important to bear in mind.
On new clause 84, which seeks to deal with the desecration of a body, the meaning of acting with severe disrespect to a corpse could, under the new clause as drafted, include several circumstances such as mutilation, hiding or concealment, unlawful burial or cremation, or otherwise preventing the lawful burial of a body. It could also mean taking photographs of bodies where it is inappropriate or unnecessary to do so. The Government completely understand the thinking behind the new clause, because, of course, the bodies of those who have passed away should be treated with dignity and respect.
A number of existing criminal offences can already be used, such as preventing lawful burial and decent burial, as well as perverting the course of justice if the activities are designed to prevent justice from being done. Those are common law offences with a maximum penalty of life, as I said. There are also statutory offences such as disposing of a child’s body to conceal a pregnancy or burning a body other than in a crematorium, as well as offences that can apply in some circumstances, such as misconduct in public office if such a person—that could even include a police officer—is in public office.
The desecration of a body is likely to be connected to another offence. Therefore, as with the previous new clause, an act of desecration is likely to be an aggravating factor in sentencing the other offence, which might be murder or manslaughter, resulting in a more severe penalty. Again, we come to the question of concurrency: if a separate offence is created, the two sentences might run concurrently, whereas if instead the act aggravates the main offence, there may be a longer sentence. Those points are worth making.
The intention of the new clauses may be to ensure that people who commit such acts would spend longer in prison, and we obviously sympathise with that, but it is possible that, for the reasons I have mentioned, they would not achieve that effect. Such matters can be reflected either through the existing common law offence or as an aggravation to the principal offence. We now have Helen’s law regulating release from custody where that happens.
The Government recognise the campaigning done by Marie McCourt, and I know that the Lord Chancellor has met her as well as the hon. Member for St Helens North. The Lord Chancellor has met her a number of times and I have met her as well. We want to continue discussing these issues with Marie and her family and to think about whether there is anything else we can do to ensure that the awful circumstances we are discussing are fully reflected beyond even what I have already described. We are receptive to ideas in this area and are happy to talk about them and think about what else can be done, but, for the reasons about the precise way in which the new clauses are crafted, we do not think they would take the law as it stands any further forward. However, we are happy to work with Marie, the hon. Member for St Helens North, shadow Ministers and others to see if there are other things that we can do.
Bambos Charalambous
On the basis of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
I do not know how hon. Members have managed it, but new clause 84 has already been debated, so we come to the final question.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Victoria Atkins
It is customary at this stage to mark the end our deliberations in Committee by reflecting on the ups and downs, the agreements and disagreements and the range of subjects on which we have deliberated. Our debate on the police covenant at the beginning of the Committee’s deliberations feels like a long time ago. I am pleased that the Bill and no fewer than 84 new clauses have had the benefit of rigorous scrutiny by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee over the past few weeks.
I thank in particular you, Mr McCabe, for your stylish chairmanship of the Committee as well as your co-Chair, Sir Charles, who was equally stylish and equally good at keeping us all in good order. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, for sharing the privilege, the pleasure and the workload of our Committee with me. I thank the Opposition Front Benchers—the hon. Members for Croydon Central, for Stockton North and for Enfield, Southgate—for their constructive and at times lively approach to the matters that we have debated, but that is all absolutely in the role of this Committee and what this process is supposed to do in this place.
I would, of course, get into lots of trouble if I did not thank the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby. If Chairs keep us in order, Whips whip us in to make sure that we remain in good order. I give my sincere thanks to him because it is a very difficult job at times and one that does not get much praise.
I thank the Clerks for herding us in the right direction when we needed to be so herded, and the Hansard writers, whose ability to keep note of what we are saying never fails to amaze me. I thank the officials and the lawyers from the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Transport. A huge amount of work goes on behind the scenes to help Ministers to prepare for a Bill Committee, and it is very much thanks to them that we are able to do so.
That flows inevitably to my very sincere thanks to the Bill manager for the Home Office, Charles Goldie, and the Bill manager for the MOJ, Katie Dougal—I hope I pronounced that correctly. They help Ministers to swim serenely above the water while they are working terribly hard underneath, so I thank them very much for their hard work and effort.
Thanks also to our private offices, who help Ministers to turn up at Committee on time. Finally, of course, thanks to the members of the Committee. I know that, for some Members, this was their first Bill Committee—I hope that we have not put them off for life—but they have all contributed in their own way and have played a vital role in scrutinising this important piece of legislation so that it is ready for the House’s wider scrutiny on Report in a week and a half’s time. Thank you all.
Alex Cunningham
The very fact that we are within three minutes of the reporting time for this Bill justifies my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate fighting for all the time that the Committee has had to deliberate. I thank you, Mr McCabe, and Sir Charles for chairing our weeks of deliberations with skill and good humour.
I thank the Government Members who made a contribution and even those who were able just to crack on with their correspondence, and Ministers for listening and making us some promises that I am sure they will keep. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, recognised very early on that a 16-year-old is not an adult in any circumstances whatsoever, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Croydon South, very kindly said that he would act as an advocate for Opposition Members who might be having problems engaging with other Government Ministers.
My thanks also go to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central for sharing the Front-Bench role with me and for championing our position on shopworkers and protests. I thank all the other Opposition Members who did a grand job holding the Government to account on everything else—from violence against women and girls, to pet theft. I thank the many organisations, too numerous to mention, that championed their causes and helped us to champion ours, too. Without them the challenge to the Government would have been all the poorer. I thank the Committee Clerks for their professionalism and their patience and, of course, our friends in the Hansard service.
Finally, I thank our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, who will now hang up his whip and get into his new role on a full-time basis, as I understand it. I thank him especially because I really did need him daily to tell me, “It’s okay, Alex, we will get through the business. We will get to the end. We will get all the new clauses dealt with—rest assured.” So, thank you to him.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
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
backbench business
(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
White Working-class Pupils
(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
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates. I remind Members participating, physically and virtually, that they must arrive for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the entire debate.
I 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. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks at westminsterhallclerks@ parliament.uk. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
We begin with a Select Committee statement. Robert Halfon will speak on the publication of the first report of Session 2021-22 from the Education Committee, “The forgotten: how White working-class pupils have been let down, and how to change it”, HC 85, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members as they appear on the call list to ask questions on the subject of the statement, and call Robert Halfon to respond to those in turn. Questions should be brief. I call the Chair of the Education Committee, Robert Halfon.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Rees. May I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for providing me with this opportunity? I express special thanks to the Committee Officers for all their hard work on the report, and thank in particular my parliamentary colleagues on the Committee for all their amendments, which have strengthened the report.
Our Committee is dedicated to championing left-behind groups. We have looked at exclusions and children with special educational needs, and are currently undertaking two inquiries, on prison education and children in care. This is why we decided to examine the decades-long neglect of disadvantaged white pupils: the large number of disadvantaged white pupils who underachieve in education remains a significant obstacle to closing the overall attainment gap.
Our Committee is fully aware that other groups experience disadvantage and discrimination in education and deserve support. We understand the justified anger that people feel about racism, prejudice and discrimination. Of course it is vital that we work together as a country to address those issues. All disadvantaged groups struggle, but the picture for white British children eligible for free school meals is particularly bleak.
In 2019, just 53% of FSM-eligible white British children met the expected standard of development in early years. In the same year, just 17.7% of FSM-eligible white British pupils achieved a strong pass in English and maths at GCSE level. FSM-eligible white British pupils have one of the lowest rates of participation in higher education, with just 16% of that group going to university by the age of 19 in 2019. At every stage in the education system, disadvantaged white pupils on free school meals underperformed compared with most other ethnic groups.
There are many reasons for that gap existing and there will be no simple fix. Its existence is not due to any ethnic trait—a person’s ethnicity bears no relation to their natural ability or potential—nor is this solely an issue of poverty, as so many seem quick to assert. Children from ethnic minorities are more likely to experience poverty, yet many of them consistently outperform their similarly disadvantaged white British peers.
During our inquiry, we heard about many factors that may combine to put disadvantaged white pupils at a particular disadvantage. Those include these key areas: persistent and multi-generational disadvantage; place-based factors, including regional economics and under-investment; family experience of education; a lack of social capital; disengagement from the curriculum; and a failure to address their low participation in higher education. No one could deny that children from other ethnic backgrounds experience those challenges, which are often compounded by racism. However, we believe that white working-class families may be afflicted by a greater accumulation of those problems, which puts these children at a grave disadvantage when it comes to learning. Many of the solutions to the issues that we heard about—for example, the importance of high-quality early years support and ensuring that all pupils have excellent teachers—are likely to benefit all children from low-income families.
However, the evidence that our inquiry received also pointed to two key areas that we think are central to understanding the relative underperformance of disadvantaged white pupils: place-based disparity and cultural factors. To tackle them, the Department for Education must acknowledge the extent of the problem and recognise that its approach is not working. What is needed now is a tailored approach with targeted actions.
First, funding and support must be tailor-made at local level to level up educational opportunity. To do that, we need a better understanding of disadvantage and better tools to tackle it. We need data that pinpoints barriers and areas that need more support, so that we can always get extra help to the pupils, schools and neighbourhoods that need it most. The Department must also consider reforming funding mechanisms such as the pupil premium with weighting for long-term disadvantage and better accountability measures to ensure that funding is always spent on the most disadvantaged.
Secondly, disadvantaged white families must have access to strong early years support and family hubs to support parental engagement and tackle multi-generational disadvantage. The Department should set out a bold vision for every town to have a family hub, using existing community assets where appropriate. Those should offer integrated services, build trusted relationships with families, and work closely with schools to provide support for a child’s educational journey.
We also heard that disadvantaged white families may struggle with low levels of adult education, which makes it more challenging for those parents to help their children in school. To support disadvantaged white parents who want to improve their own level of education in order to help their children, the report calls for a community learning centre in every town and for a skills tax credit to incentivise employers to train their staff.
Thirdly, we must ensure the value of vocational training and apprenticeship options, while boosting access to higher education. That does not mean introducing a two-tier system, with practical subjects a second-rate alternative for children perceived to be less able. The Department must reform accountability measures by reforming the EBacc, with a curriculum that includes academic subjects and at least one technical, creative or vocational course in key stage 4.
We need a better approach to widening participation in higher education for disadvantaged white pupils. They deserve to know about all their options on leaving school, including higher education. The Office for Students found in 2019 that around £800 million is spent by universities on improving access and outreach. That money should be sent upstream in pupils’ educational journeys, teaching them about the opportunities of higher education, and spent on encouraging and supporting degree apprenticeships. We call on the Office for Students to do more to encourage providers to treat disadvantaged white pupils as a priority, given that they have such low rates of participation in higher education.
Fourthly, all students must have access to the very best teachers, as good teaching is one of the most powerful levers in achieving improved outcomes. We should have teaching degree apprenticeships, just as we have nursing degree apprenticeships and policing degree apprenticeships, and more investment in local teacher training centres to help to get good teachers to the pupils who need them most.
Fifthly, we have to learn to stop pitting one group against another, and find a better, less divisive way to talk about racial disparities in this country. The notion of white privilege can be hugely damaging in creating the perception that the disadvantaged do not need support. However, it has, worryingly, gained credence and exposure in recent months, although it remains a meaningless concept to the young boy or girl growing up in an area without opportunities from one generation to the next. They feel anything but privileged.
It is time to end the neglect and muddled thinking that have characterised the past few decades when it comes to helping and supporting the white working class. The disadvantaged in this country face an unacceptable attainment gap, which the covid-19 pandemic will only have worsened. By finally facing up to the problems faced by such a large group in society and doing something about it, the Government can really bring about a step change in efforts to close the chasm and ensure that everyone, whatever their background, has the chance to climb the education ladder of opportunity.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
Before we move to questions, I remind Members that we are going to have a hard stop at 1.50 pm. I call Christian Wakeford.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Thank you, Ms Rees. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for securing the statement on behalf of the Committee, of which I am a proud member. Although many people would like to focus on the areas of division in discussions about white privilege, will my right hon. Friend highlight some of the positive recommendations on vocational education and apprenticeships for deprived areas, such as Radcliffe in my constituency, with particular focus on issues such as compliance with the Baker clause in relation to inspections?
Robert Halfon
I thank my hon. Friend for all his hard work on the report. I am proud to have him as a colleague on the Committee. He is absolutely right to point to the work that we have done on the report in supporting more degree apprenticeships; ensuring that universities encourage degree apprenticeships; asking for a teaching degree apprenticeship so we get more teachers, particularly in disadvantaged areas; looking at the curriculum; and introducing design and technology as part of the English Baccalaureate.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Baker clause. It is vital that schools enforce the Baker clause and ensure that children are taught about apprenticeships and skills as proper career options. We say in the report that if that is not done properly, schools should get an unsatisfactory rating from Ofsted. That has to be done. In the House of Lords, Lord Baker himself is introducing to the Government’s Skills and Post-16 Education Bill an amendment proposing that there should be a statutory element to enforcing the clause. I hope that some of our recommendations will be taken up by the Government.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
We know that ethnicity, gender, class and economic opportunity all play a part in pupil attainment—to varying degrees in different schools and in different parts of the country—but may I put it to the Chair of the Select Committee that we know what works in tackling inequality? As a former schools Minister with responsibility for the London Challenge, I know that the performance of children in London schools, including the poorest pupils and those on free school meals, improved dramatically under the scheme. Of course, it was scrapped by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in 2011. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be better for him to focus on policies like that, rather than making simplistic and divisive comments in his report.
Robert Halfon
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. If she reads through the report, she will see that we discuss concepts such as the London Challenge. The London Challenge was very successful, and I am glad that London schools are now some of the best in the country. The problem is that investment has been thrown at the cities and policy reform developed for them, but often the towns have been left behind. We have a significant section in the report, which I mentioned in my opening remarks: funding should be tailor-made. We need to reform the pupil premium and ensure that the funding goes to the neighbourhoods and areas that need it most, particularly in towns where disadvantaged white communities may live.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to have played a part in this report and I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee on putting it together in the way that he has.
I have been slightly surprised to see comments made by certain Opposition colleagues that this is all to do with austerity and that it is all to do with poverty in a general sense. If that were the case, surely all disadvantaged groups would be impacted in exactly the same way. A key issue here is the disparity when it comes to a certain disadvantaged group of pupils performing a lot less well than other groups.
Why does the Chair of the Committee, on which I sit, believe it is the case that, even when the facts are there in front of us, some people seem determined to ignore them? Is it wilful ignorance, or is it a sense that they believe that this group is less deserving of attention and support than other disadvantaged groups?
Robert Halfon
I thank my hon. Friend. He is another active and hard-working member of the Committee, and he did a lot of work on proposing important amendments to our report. He makes a very important point. Sadly, people read what they want to read. The section on white privilege is just a few pages of a report of 90-odd pages.
Lord Blunkett, a respected former Education Secretary and a senior Labour figure, said that our Committee is “entirely right” to highlight the “decades of neglect” of white working-class kids in schools:
“The report is about neglect, it is about aspiration whatever your race and ethnicity and background.”
And this is absolutely relevant to the point made:
“I just think we have got to stop these knee jerk reactions and examine the reality.”
Sadly, there have been a lot of knee-jerk reactions to our report, and people have not read it from cover to cover. I hope the debate on the statement gives people an opportunity to look at the report again.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) [V]
I welcome the report and congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Committee on investigating the issue of the underachievement of so many white working-class children. Does he agree that it is vital that we encourage and help those pupils; that we need to recruit talented and inspirational teachers; that we must present role models to the children; and that we must get parents and families who have experienced poverty and disadvantage more engaged in their children’s education?
Robert Halfon
My right hon. Friend has been a champion of white working-class communities since he became a Member of the House of Commons. He is absolutely right. Two core elements of our report are about that issue. We have suggested not only that teachers should be given financial incentives and bursaries to go to disadvantaged areas, but that we should introduce teaching degree apprenticeships. We have nursing and policing degree apprenticeships, and we should encourage more teachers. We have a recruitment issue anyway. We should set up local training providers in areas of disadvantage and encourage teachers to be in those areas.
On parental engagement, the report includes evidence from Reach Academy Feltham, which has an incredible parental engagement programme and which works on parents who have been disengaged from the education system from generation to generation. It has had tremendous success, and we suggest not only that the Government should put family hubs in every town, but that they should work on and develop parental engagement programmes just as Reach Academy Feltham does.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
A key finding of the Education Committee is that the use of terms such as “white privilege” might have contributed to the neglect of white working-class pupils. What utter nonsense. White privilege is not about kids from poor white working-class backgrounds not being disadvantaged; it is just that their disadvantage is not based on the colour of their skin. The crux of the issue is that continual cuts and lack of Government funding for the likes of free school meals leave all kids from poor backgrounds perennially pushed out.
I usually have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Gentleman and his Select Committee, but does he feel a sense of shame or guilt for having facilitated such a finding, which itself drew on a much discredited report from the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities to try to inflame the Tory culture wars, gain newspaper headlines and further stoke divisions and tensions within communities?
Robert Halfon
I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, who is a remarkable MP, but I completely disagree with what he has said. Let me make it clear: the problem is that the use of terminology such as “white privilege”, which keeps spreading, is wrong-headed for three reasons. It implies a collective guilt when individuals should be responsible for acts of racism. It portrays white working-class disadvantaged communities as white privileged. It is factually incorrect, as those from almost every other ethnic group who are on free school meals do much better than their white working-class counterparts who are on free school meals.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the funding issue. I have campaigned for more funding. A previous Committee report asked for a long-term plan and more funding. I had an article in The Sun newspaper two weeks ago calling for more funding from the Chancellor. The crucial point is this: everyone is under the same funding regime, so why is it that almost every other ethnic group under the same funding regime that he talks about performs better than white working-class boys and girls on free school meals?
Again, I quote the former Education Secretary, Lord Blunkett, a man I hugely admire, and a very respected Labour party figure:
“To put it bluntly, the last thing that young people facing disadvantage need to hear is anything about ‘white privilege’. Hope, support, guidance and, above all, adult role models are what all of them need—wherever they are from.”
If the hon. Gentleman does not want to listen to me or look at the report in its entirety, I suggest he listen to what David Blunkett has to say—
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
Order. The sitting is suspended until 2.5 pm.
Covid-19: Community Response
(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
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must 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 to one another and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks 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.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of the community in responding to the covid-19 outbreak.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I start by thanking so many Members from across parties who were kind enough to support the application for this debate to the Backbench Business Committee. It is wonderful to see so many here in person and online.
I called for the debate to give Members a fantastic opportunity to formally recognise the unprecedented and undoubtedly life-saving support that local community groups and their members have provided to those most vulnerable and in need during the covid-19 pandemic. I know I speak for so many when I say thank you to each and every person who has sacrificed in service of their neighbour and their community over these difficult and traumatic months. They are absolutely the unsung heroes of the pandemic, and their dedication and sacrifice, exemplified by the late Captain Sir Tom Moore and all his fundraising efforts, are an absolute inspiration to us all.
If anything positive at all can be taken from this pandemic, it is that it has shone a light on the strength of community spirit that has emerged through the local groups and individuals who have delivered support to those most in need. We would do well in the House to hold their sacrifice at the forefront of our minds as we look towards creating a brighter future out of the pandemic. I want to celebrate the work of several support networks in my constituency whose care and support for those in need over the past 16 months cannot be overstated: the East Kilbride Covid-19 Network, which includes organisations such as Share Alike; our local food bank, Loaves and Fishes; Moncreiff Parish Church; the East Kilbride Community Food Bank; Older & Active; and VASLAN, or Volunteer Action South Lanarkshire. The East Kilbride Covid-19 Network has provided hundreds of thousands of meals over the course of the pandemic and has packed and distributed thousands of toiletry parcels and hundreds of mental health and special birthday packs.
I also pay particular tribute to Denis Curran MBE and his wonderful wife Cathie, who recently announced that they are retiring from their roles at the heart of the Loaves and Fishes food bank in East Kilbride after nearly 30 years of dedicated service. I submitted early-day motion 113 celebrating their service to the local community through Loaves and Fishes and urge hon. Members to consider signing it. We owe it to Denis and Cathie, and all those we pay tribute to today, to ensure that future generations grow up without the need for food banks, an area of support that has grown exponentially during the pandemic.
I also celebrate the work of Avondale community support group, which as part of Working Together for Avondale has been working with Strathaven and Glassford Community Council, Sandford and Upper Avondale Community Council, Strathaven Business Association, Strathaven Evangelical Church, Outreach Community Church, Avondale LEAP, Glassford Community Group, Strathaven Foodbank, Avondale Young Farmers and Sandford Giving Tree.
The Avondale community support group has put together a series of mindfulness sessions, which is quite unique, with local business Mind Marvels, has founded four peer support groups, and also ran an online family fun day earlier this month. It put together 200 craft kits for summer holidays in partnership with Creative Strathaven, and has worked with local restaurant Taal Cuisine and with Ann Davidson Butchers to provide food vouchers and food parcels, and with Climate Action Strathaven, which has kindly offered its hub as the food parcel outlet.
I also want to mention the work of the Blackwood and Kirkmuirhill Resilience Group and its support for the local area, through the establishment of an emergency call centre and distribution team, which has been travelling throughout Blackwood and Kirkmuirhill to provide emergency support and supplies to those most in need throughout the pandemic.
The Blackwood and Kirkmuirhill Resilience Group, run by the wonderful local lady Lesley Speedie, who has been in constant touch with me, has based its response on community recovery, community spaces and climate action challenges. It has also put on numerous events throughout the pandemic, including a children’s “Kindness Rocks” campaign, where young children painted rocks in the local community to brighten up local spaces. It has delivered spring flowers to isolated residents from Allison’s Flowers and ordered fish teas for elderly residents —I would have liked one of those myself, but I did not get one. The much-attended virtual online bingo has been a huge success. The group also organised a Santa parade at Christmas for all in the community to enjoy.
I must pay special tribute to South Lanarkshire Council’s community engagement team, in particular Heather Robertson and Brian Borland, who have gone so far beyond their official remits to help to facilitate, co-ordinate and empower the abundance of good will and generosity that has poured out of our local community.
It is vital for us to remember that many of the community groups in our constituencies would not have been able to do all that they could without vital financial support from our local businesses and community funds. With that in mind, I would like to thank Banks Renewables, Falck Renewables, the Sandford and Upper Avondale Community Council, Kirkmuirhill Second Chance Shop and our local Co-op, for all the financial support they have provided throughout the pandemic for our wonderful local efforts.
I also want to thank the Trust Jack Foundation in Stonehouse, which has supported young people’s mental health recovery—that is going to be so vital as we move ahead in the coming months—and NHS Lanarkshire psychological services, led by Dr Gary Tanner, with innovative online psychology programmes led by Professor Jim White. They have ensured that mental health and wellbeing have been prioritised in my constituency throughout the pandemic.
Many of the unsung heroes of the pandemic have worked tirelessly behind the scenes to ensure that daily lives continue to function. In that, I include pharmacies across the constituency and the UK, which provide a vital medicine supply, food and grocery stores, and factories and all their essential staff, as well as our local high streets, including the corporates who were so good locally and regularly kept in touch with me to provide special deliveries for the most vulnerable. I include bus and train drivers—all of those in public transport companies who kept going through the pandemic, ensuring that essential staff in our NHS and social care could travel safely to work and turned up for their roles, day in, day out, despite their own concerns about the pandemic.
I thank the essential council staff who provided care, support and maintenance of our local communities, and those emergency frontline staff of the police—including Police Scotland—the fire brigade, paramedics and the emergency response units. All of these services are vital, but many have perhaps gone less recognised than others. Not today. We salute their fortitude and dedication to our lives and our safety.
An amazing group has taken off in East Kilbride during the pandemic: East Kilbride Community Litter Pickers, led by the inspirational Alice Alves. Her motto and mine is “Take pride in East Kilbride”. There are now thousands of litter pickers across my constituency who work every week to clean up our town and local landscape, making such a difference to our outlook, taking pride in our area, our villages and our town, and showing that we care about our environment.
I thank the local schools who have helped—Our Lady of Lourdes, Calderglen High and Duncanrig Secondary, my own former school. They have been engaging in this work, and the Boys’ Brigade has also been collecting litter across the area as part of the Duke of Edinburgh Awards. They are making a vast difference, helping with positivity and inspiring our way ahead.
I want to draw Members’ and the Minister’s attention to some national initiatives. The Forest of Memories project aims to create a network of memorial forests across the UK in memory of all those who have lost their lives as a result of the pandemic. It has been supported by national bodies such as the National Trust and the Woodland Trust, and by charities such as Mind, Shelter and Marie Curie.
Sustainable forest can allow families to remember their loved ones in an environmentally sustainable way, surrounded by the beauty of nature. It is vital that we give our constituents every opportunity to take time and space to reflect and grieve, in the light of the loss and trauma that they have experienced over the last 16 months. As a supporter of the Forest of Memories and the primary sponsor of its early-day motion, and as we turn our minds to the legacy of the pandemic, I can think of no better tribute, and I commend its work to the Minister. We must look towards sustainable places of reflection, and demonstrate leadership through COP26 and across our Commonwealth. The legacy must pay tribute to the lives we have sadly lost, but also pay respect to our planet.
Finally, I draw Members’ attention to the Thank You Day celebrations, due to take place across the UK on Sunday 4 July. The initiative behind Thank You Day was started by just 13 volunteers, and it is now supported by hundreds of organisations, from the Scouts and the Guides, to Rotary, the Royal Voluntary Service and the NHS. This year, they have teamed up with Keep Britain Tidy to organise community litter-picks across the UK, as well as tartan tea parties, lunches and cheers for volunteer moments. I urge Members to look into how they might celebrate that occasion in their constituencies for those who have given so much to serve others.
I thank everyone who has come together to make a difference to the lives of the most vulnerable. We could not have come this far without them, and they make us strong in our will to get past this pandemic and build back better. I look forward to the contributions of Members of all parties today, and to learn about the amazing work that has taken place in their constituencies. The resilience of our scientists, our health and social care services and all those on the frontline has made a crucial difference to our lives. We thank them from the bottom of our hearts and are proud to represent them in this House of Commons.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I intend to start the winding-up speeches at 3.03 pm at the latest, so I am imposing a formal time limit of four minutes on Back-Bench speakers.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing this debate. She has done the House an enormous favour by giving us the opportunity to thank our community champions for all that they do. As Members of Parliament, we know how much it means when people actually say thank you to us. This is a great opportunity to celebrate and say thank you.
I find increasingly that if you want a job doing, ask a busy person, and the community champions are all very busy. Local charities, community groups and individuals were vital for helping vulnerable individuals before the pandemic, but they have been especially brilliant throughout it. Many selfless volunteers in Southend have given up their time to assist those who cannot help themselves. This debate is so well judged.
Southend is fortunate to have plenty of wonderful charities that help a broad range of individuals and groups. The Music Man Project, set up by the brilliant David Stanley, would have been going to Broadway were it not for the pandemic. David Stanley is inspirational and has helped people with learning disabilities realise their full potential. It has played at the London Palladium and the Royal Albert Hall, and now it is going to go across to America.
I was pleased to support Trust Links’ new online wellbeing service, which adapted how it support individuals with mental health and wellbeing issues. I met Matt King, the chief executive, and I hope it can resume its services, which help 1,500 people every year with therapeutic gardening programmes, counselling, work programmes and mental health and wellbeing coaches.
Local charities that help rough sleepers have been extremely busy during the pandemic. I have been working closely with HARP—the Homeless Action Resource Project—and Off the Streets. Homeless people have been able to get into shelters and receive the coronavirus vaccine. I supported HARP’s “Everyone In” campaign to ensure that the progress made during the first lockdown was successfully continued to keep rough sleepers safe. I have seen the effects of homelessness first hand when visiting night shelters and during on-street visits. I urge the Government to support the charities helping rough sleepers as restrictions are hopefully easing.
I know colleagues will agree with me that our magnificent carers deserve recognition for the vital work that they have been doing. It was Carers Week earlier this month, and I was pleased to support Southend Carers and all those unpaid carers, to let them know how much they are valued. The contribution they made to families in Southend show a level of commitment and selflessness that is rare.
The week is Children’s Hospice Week. In July, Havens Hospices will be launching their Hares About Town project to bring communities together to raise awareness of the mental health problems children are facing and to raise money for the charity. I look forward to this project and wish them the best of luck.
Elderly people often need assistance with shopping deliveries and other day-to-day tasks that have been made more difficult during the pandemic. It was heart-warming to see the Southend Scouts and the Royal British Legion use their resources and time to assist those who could not go out food shopping or needed help collecting medicine. There are so many charitable organisations in Southend that have a passion for helping others.
Carla Cressy founded the Endometriosis Foundation, with which I have worked closely as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis. It has done wonderful work. Similarly, Kelly Swain and Natasha Ralph have launched National Online Wellbeing Services’ “N.O.W’s the time for change” campaign, aimed at providing health-based and therapeutic coaching to improve emotional and mental health for children, young people, adults and families. It focuses on early intervention and coaching to overcome life’s challenges.
It is not just charities that have been champions in our communities. People have come to rely on the many places of worship that have done a magnificent job. With the weather thankfully improving, more people have been using the beaches. Southend Lifeboat and the Chalkwell Lifeguards have been very busy keeping people safe. I recently met the Chalkwell Lifeguards to present them with new emergency equipment, which will help save more lives. They do a wonderful job.
Southend emergency fund has given almost £200,000 to help local Southend charities and individuals to provide food, heating, personal protective equipment and mental health support to develop strategies to cope with life after coronavirus.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing the debate and for allowing us all the opportunity to highlight the role of community in tackling the covid-19 pandemic.
In my constituency of Upper Bann, I have been blown away by the support of local community groups with clubs, churches and other bodies, such as the Orange Institution, in meeting the challenges posed by covid-19. It is no exaggeration to say that without the volunteering spirit of so many, more lives would have been lost, loneliness and the consequences of isolation would have been more prevalent, and families facing unexpected struggles would have been left helpless.
Faced with the unprecedented need and facing so many unknowns, and balanced against the risk of increased exposure to covid-19, it was inspiring to watch so many stand with neighbour or stranger to help them through this challenging time. In Upper Bann, our food banks faced unprecedented demand, but never left anyone without supplies. Food parcels were distributed by Orange lodges, churches, sports clubs and community groups. Volunteers checked in by phone with elderly neighbours and we had groups such as Warrior Scrubs making much needed PPE for our local healthcare heroes on the frontline. There are literally hundreds of people in my constituency alone who deserve our recognition, and therefore I will desist from singling out any particular group, save to say our thanks and praise for what they have done and continue to do.
What must recognise the vital role of community and ensure that we provide this sector, in all its manifestations, with the support it needs to thrive. This needs to be though financial support, but also through support for volunteer recruitment and development. We also want to promote the benefits of community participation among our younger generations.
I am proud of the role played by young people in my constituency throughout the covid-19 pandemic, but I would love to see it as the start of a movement towards young people getting involved in community groups and driving their priorities forward. We are making steady progress on the road to normality, but let the journey of community activism continue when we get to freedom day, because we have much to do to recover from the trauma brought about by covid-19. I thank all the volunteers in Upper Bann.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing such an important debate. I am delighted to have the opportunity to spend a few minutes paying tribute to the community organisations and volunteers in Crewe and Nantwich who played—and continue to play—an enormously important role in helping us respond to the challenges of covid.
There is no way for me to recognise all the positive work done by so many different groups and people, but I thank each and every one of them. I will mention a few of the groups and individuals who enabled others to contribute, including Liz Parkin and members of the Nantwich Buddies team; Councillor Janet Clowes and members of her Wybunbury Viral Kindness team; Philip Garcia, Connie Davis, Helen Mollart and others, who are part of the Haslington Support Group; Nadiah McKeown and her team of 40 volunteers in the Community Isolation Help Group for the Wistaston, Crewe and Nantwich Facebook group—in fact, this year the local charity Motherwell recognised Nadiah as an inspiring woman for her fantastic work leading the group; and the fantastic group of volunteers, such as Chris, Emma, Christina, Paul and Nicola, who were supported by office. There are too many to mention, as I said.
I also want to mention the many volunteers supporting charities such as the Wishing Well, Hopes and Beams, St Paul’s Centre, Nantwich food bank, the YMCA and the Salvation Army. Collectively, they helped people stay in their homes, helped get medicines and helped pharmacy queues. They helped support lonely and isolated people. There was an enormous range of tasks that they engaged with. I had the pleasure of meeting Jean Fuller and husband-and-wife volunteers Geraldine and Ernie during a visit to the Wishing Well charity during Volunteers Week earlier this month. They exemplify community spirit—the idea that to give one’s time to help others is special, important and enriching.
If there is one thing that we can do positively as a result of the pandemic, it is to try to capitalise on that community spirit, on the many people who were new to volunteering, and on the new friendships and the new organisations that were built to respond to the pandemic. I am already seeing such groups grow and sustain beyond the work of responding to the pandemic. For example, the Haslington Support Group, like many of the groups I have mentioned, did not exist before the pandemic. As well as still helping people with collecting medicines and getting to appointments, the group recently created a poppy trail throughout the village and has just announced that it will be creating a scarecrow trail as well.
We all have a responsibility to each other. That is what it means to be part of a community, and I remain in awe of those individuals who are willing to do so much to try to fulfil that responsibility. If every person could give just an hour of their time once a month to volunteer in the community, as those people do, our communities—in fact, our entire country—would be so much better for it. I look forward to the proposals coming from the Department on the volunteering strategy for the coming year. If we can get behind people and grow what is positive as we come out of the pandemic, it will really create sustained improvements for all our constituents and our communities.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing such an important debate.
The last few months have been very difficult for so many different people, though I have nothing but pride for the way in which the people of my Ealing, Southall constituency have stepped up. Our community has responded with tremendous generosity and solidarity with those who have suffered greatly. Tragically, the poorest households and most vulnerable in our society have borne the worst effects of the pandemic, with rising levels of food bank use and social isolation.
I am so proud of the truly inspirational community and faith groups in my constituency who have played their part in supporting people during their time of need. They have handed out thousands of food parcels, and provided helpful advice and emotional support to the most vulnerable and to key workers in the constituency. In particular, I thank all the gurdwaras, all the Hindu temples, all the mosques and all the churches, along with the Indian Workers’ Association Southall, the Southall Lions, and many local restaurants such as Kulcha International, TKC, Saravana Bhawan and many, many more. Most importantly, I thank the Hope for Southall Street Homeless charity, which has worked closely with homeless people.
All places of worship have stepped up during this crisis, not only to feed the needy but to deliver medicine and host vaccination events. Their great work has helped the NHS to reach even wider groups of people with its highly successful vaccination programme, and to further safeguard public health. For their incredible work in protecting and improving our local environment, I wholeheartedly commend the Litter Action Group for Ealing Residents—LAGER Can—for their noble effort in cleaning our green and urban spaces. I am incredibly proud and inspired by their efforts to clean up our community during their Great Big Southall Clean-up fortnight, during which they were able to clean up every street in Southall—an astonishing feat.
I am incredibly grateful for the personal sacrifices of members of those groups, and want to let them know that their contribution to the common good has not gone unnoticed. I know I speak for everyone locally when I thank them for what they have done—the donations they have made and the time they have given up to help us all. Some of these groups were recognised for their outstanding contribution to our community with the great honour of a Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service, though their good works are deserving of so much more. The Government must commit more funds to the voluntary sector, and to local government, to ensure that these groups can sustainably continue and expand on their excellent work in our communities.
These groups, religious institutions and businesses have shown their commitment to shared strength and community co-operation. The coronavirus crisis has ultimately shown nothing but the best of our communities, the strength of our society, and the will of people to overcome any and all forms of adversity. I thank them for their efforts, and pledge to do all I can to ensure they can survive and flourish in the future.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on having secured this important debate.
I often talk about Peterborough being a special place—a caring city—and I talk regularly about being proud of Peterborough. It has become almost a personal catchphrase, but nothing makes me prouder of Peterborough than the way in which the community has responded during the covid-19 crisis. I would like to publicly thank a lot of the people who have worked with me—worked tirelessly—to support people during this effort.
Cocoa Fowler from the charity Food for Nought has supported teams across the city, delivering food to food banks. Hotelier Colin Wilson has been hailed as a hero by his wife for supporting his community during the covid-19 lockdown by cooking over 200 free meals a week—his local MP agrees with Mrs Wilson. Zoe Wareham, a nurse at Peterborough City Hospital, had to leave her children with their grandparents because they were particularly at risk of infection, but the hours she put in to support people were an inspiration. My friend Zillur Hussain, the chief executive officer of the Zi Foundation, has been honoured for his services to the community in Peterborough during covid-19. Along with his business partner Chavdar Zhelev, they provided thousands of free meals to the vulnerable and the deserving. He was honoured with an MBE, and again, he receives my public thanks. Ishfaq Hussain led efforts to provide meals to rough sleepers and, along with the charities Children of Adam, Unite 4 Humanity and the Garden House, ensured that rough sleepers were fed and housed during the outbreak. I also thank Atiq Rehman, Shezad Yousaf and Steven Pettican, who are good people in part motivated by their faith.
Takeaways and restaurants in Peterborough have been absolutely brilliant at offering free meals to the deserving, and my Peterborough’s Favourite Takeaway contest was a way to thank them for their efforts. Rony Choudhury of the Bombay Brasserie, Zeeshan Manzoor and the teams at Big Mouth and Five Lads, Touqeer Tariq of Rizq Peri Peri Grill, Becky and Emma at Flavour takeaway in Chadburn, the gang at Netherton Fisheries and countless others all deserve mentions, as do Jacki Wood, the landlady of The Bull pub in Newborough, for her efforts supporting the village, and Wendy Sayer of the Newborough coronavirus support group.
Peterborough is home to a number of community food banks. All organisers and volunteers merit thanks. I volunteered at the Millfield community fridge and was looked after by Carol Knight, and supported the efforts of Christine Nice at the Westwood community café and Erin Tierney at the Thorney and Eye food bank. Last but not least, Stevie Wiley and Richard Bastow of the Coronaheroes Facebook group led me to dress up as Father Christmas, handing out presents to children. They have been a real inspiration in Peterborough.
It is a special place, Peterborough, with the Sikh community, the Hindu community, the Nepalese community, five big mosques, churches across the city, the East Timorese community and Petr Torak from COMPAS, which provides support to the Czech, Slovak and Roma communities. They have all been absolutely marvellous during this campaign, as have the Peterborough Litter Wombles, the new organisation that supports litter picking and so on. Family Voice is another superb charity.
It is not difficult to say that Peterborough is a very diverse constituency with people from all sorts of communities. We come from different faiths, cultures and communities; we are different shapes and sizes and even speak different languages. But we came together as one city, and that is why I am proud of Peterborough, why it is such a special place and why all these people deserve a specific mention.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. Let me begin by thanking the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for securing this important debate.
There is no doubt that the covid crisis has been immensely challenging for people across the country. Devastatingly, just when they needed support most, the vulnerable in our society were let down by a Government intent on securing the country’s finances above protecting and supporting its people. Where the Government failed, the local community stepped up. Today’s debate presents an important opportunity to bring attention to the critical work of community groups up and down the country. In my own constituency of Manchester Gorton, which has some of the highest rates of poverty in the country, community groups became a lifeline to those who needed it most.
I have been left in awe at the selflessness, kindness, and compassion of the people in Manchester Gorton. Over the past year and a half, I have had the pleasure of visiting initiatives such as Cracking Good Food, Qadria Jilania Islamic Centre and Urdu Global, where teams of volunteers and local councillors have worked tirelessly to provide hot meals to those in need. Food banks across Manchester including Fallowfield and Withington food bank, Work for Smile Longsight and Smile Aid, with the help of the Rafay Mussarat Foundation, have worked long hours to ensure there is always food available to those struggling to make ends meet. And when the virus trapped many people in their homes, volunteers at The Place at Platt Lane and Ardwick and Longsight mutual aid group delivered food parcels to those forced to shield or self-isolate.
That incredible community spirit has extended beyond providing food. Initiatives such as Levenshulme Inspire’s virtual community drop-in has allowed neighbours to stay connected and even strike up new friendships. Such work has been invaluable as we as a society have struggled with increasing loneliness and worsening mental health. Although this new digitally connected world has allowed many people to stay in touch with friends, family and loved ones, for older people in our society with limited digital skills or connectivity this time has been even more isolating. Once again, in Manchester Gorton community groups rose to the challenge. The Myriad Foundation and Northmoor community centre have ensured older people can access the technology they need to connect with their loved ones.
Let me also take this opportunity to thank all the faith groups for the wonderful work that they have been doing. I am talking about all the mosques, the churches, the Levenshulme Jain centre, the Medina mosque and, in Whalley Range, our gurdwara and the Hindu temple. All have done incredible work in helping people. The wonderful community in Manchester, Gorton have ensured that “isolating” does not mean “isolated”, and I could not be prouder of them.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing this important and timely debate. It has been a real pleasure to hear the stories that we have heard so far about the way all our various communities have pulled together in the face of the pandemic that we have been going through, and to take a moment to celebrate the contribution of the many unsung heroes in our communities.
I will highlight just a few examples of the good work that has been carried out in the communities across my constituency of Gordon. Derek Davidson and the community council in Danestone, in the north of Aberdeen, have contributed a lot to their local community by keeping up local morale and spirits with the fairy doors and the welly wall and by organising litter picks and keeping the planters made by the gentlemen at the local men’s shed planted and brightening up the community in what has otherwise been a pretty dark time for us all.
Moving out towards Insch, in the countryside, the Rev. Dr Kay Gauld of the Insch-Leslie-Premnay-Oyne Church of Scotland and her team, Diane and Debbie, established a resilience group in the town of Insch, supporting people who were in isolation and who were shielding. They also set up a community larder, which continues to offer support, gathering—according to need —everything from firewood to clothes, bread to tinned goods, and even meals if there was a need to help out in that way.
In Ellon, the local Baptist church made its whole building available to the local food bank, which is run by the Trussell Trust and which normally operates out of a much smaller part of that building. Every square inch of the building was needed to cope with the generosity of the community in terms of the donations that were made and to accommodate the support in other aspects that was received.
In the time remaining to me, I would especially like to draw attention to what happened in the town of Huntly and how it pulled together in a particularly adverse set of circumstances earlier this year. On 2 February, the town experienced a complete failure of the gas network—a total shutdown. That left approximately 4,500 people without gas overnight, in temperatures of minus 6°. As if that was not enough, exactly the same thing happened just a month later, again leaving residents without gas overnight, that time in temperatures of minus 5°.
It was testament to the success of the multi-agency response that the prolonged losses of supply did not have more serious consequences, but what really shone through was how, without being asked, local organisations, agencies and individuals stepped up to the plate in order to assist each other in any way they could, whether that was by highlighting those in the community who were especially vulnerable or simply by taking any practical measures that they could to ensure the safety and comfort of others. It included local Facebook pages helping to share information and the local Neep & Okra Kitchen—a locally sourced food project and community business—giving away free food. So many people—too many to mention in the time available—stepped up to look after each other.
Often, it is in the worst circumstances that we find the best of ourselves. We hope that with more and more people each day being double-jabbed, an end to this situation might be in sight; and hopefully we have discovered not so much a sense of community as a renewed sense of community—the understanding that we are each of us part of something much greater and much bigger than ourselves and that our greatest calling in life is to be in the service of others. That is a sense of purpose that can serve us incredibly well in the weeks, months and years ahead as we all seek to build back better in our communities and beyond.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I, too, thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for calling today’s debate.
The communities of York flow with generosity. Time and resources have poured out of people’s hearts to see injustice challenged, inequality quashed and people helped and supported in their time of need. From the unseen acts of kindness through to its highly developed and superbly led voluntary sector, the community effort has been the glue that has held our city together. Rehearsed in our response to flooding in York, we were adept at pulling together in a crisis and acting on values that are deep-rooted in our city’s history of social pioneers, Quaker heritage and progressive values. Literally thousands of people reached out: some to their neighbours, some to organisations, and some supporting community hubs to distribute food and pharmaceuticals. Others set up mutual aid groups and found a new calling to meet need.
My research into York’s pandemic response showed a community-led determination that no one should be left behind or go without. But as the weeks have turned to months, and with the ending of furlough drawing others back to work, one thing is clear: the sustained and enduring fallout from the pandemic continues. Need deepens, job losses grow and, for the isolated and lonely, the silence echoes ever louder. York is renowned as a volunteering city. According to Onward’s UK social fabric index, York scores extremely highly on all its indices. We love to be generous; we love to be kind.
Tragically, we had the first cases of covid in the UK, so we have already lived with the pandemic for 18 months. We are now ready to move on, but this time ensuring that no one is left behind. Although some are trying to go back 18 months, Labour will not. We want to go forward and focus on our community; build a greener, cleaner and more welcoming city with social projects to improve our environment; create a fully accessible and inclusive city; build a family-friendly city so that local people reap the benefits of living in such an incredible place; invest in jobs that are well paid and secure; invest in our new volunteers centre, a place of reciprocity, giving and gaining; and, as this last year has shown, create inclusive communities, building the homes that local people want to live in and the social infrastructure so that communities can thrive.
The past year’s community response has laid the foundations. Last spring, John and Julie McGall put out a table with some food on and invited others to share. Now they feed more than 100 people a day and make 1,000 deliveries a week. They have supported the homeless and those with no recourse to public funds, and found help for those experiencing domestic violence and comfort for those alone. Now a highly sophisticated operation, they serve our city every single day. People can expect to be bowled over by their gracious hearts and kindness.
Supper collective restaurants pooled their skills to turn out 12,000 meals for those in need. I know from constituents how much that has meant. Phone calls from Age UK, Tang Hall Big Local and many other places turned painful, empty days of isolation into moments where people felt the warmth of others and need was met. Bubble buddies went on walks with people, improving the health and wellbeing of their new-found friends.
A sector that has given so much and that must play a critical role in social recovery has received little support. The Government must now focus on supporting and sustaining an inspirational society that has been so transformative. My local community in York—the churches, the community groups and the individuals—have given us so much hope for our future. It is an honour to serve them.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
May I remind Members participating virtually to keep their cameras on at all times, please? I call Taiwo Owatemi.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees. I thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for securing this important debate.
This is a perfect opportunity to celebrate our community champions—individuals who go above and beyond to support their neighbourhood during this most difficult of times. I am proud that my constituency of Coventry North West is blessed to have so many people who fit that description. I could fill my time simply with a roll-call of names, but instead I will try to be selective and choose a handful who most embody the spirit of togetherness that binds great communities together in times of adversity.
With food poverty a serious issue in our city, Clare Allington-Dixon and her team at Urban Goodies have stepped forward to provide hot meals and food packages throughout the pandemic. Their community enterprise combines the best traditions of charity with a determination to make a lasting difference by teaching cooking skills that blend together all of the fantastic cultural influences that make Coventry special. Their work has given many hope in dark days over the last 18 months.
Others of our community champions have focused on imaginative ways of combating the isolation and loneliness that lockdown has created. Summer of Sunflowers, an initiative that started on the border between my constituency and the next, brings people together through the simple shared experience of growing flowers in their front garden. I have to mention two people in particular. Mark Halpin has put energy and effort into making this idea a success, and I am not the only person delighted to see how Summer of Sunflowers is spreading across our neighbourhoods and schools, encouraging neighbours to work together to turn our streets golden.
Likewise, Katie O’Sullivan’s fantastic artwork on the side of O’Toole’s Cafe has created a centre of community interest in recent weeks. In giving her time to the community, Katie has created a brand-new landmark for Coventry, one I am proud to have in my constituency. The buzz around Summer of Sunflowers has allowed communities to start socialising once more, in a responsible and covid-secure way.
I also pay tribute to Langar Aid for not only helping Coventry’s homeless community but going as far as Dover in Kent to provide meals to lorry drivers who were stranded there due to covid restrictions.
Coventry is blessed with many organisations supporting the most vulnerable in our community, and I would like to thank Hugh McNeill at Coventry food bank, which celebrated its 10th anniversary this month, for all its hard work over the past decade. I am proud to have had the opportunity to volunteer and support it with food bank deliveries.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the faith groups for their incredible work in supporting the local community by distributing food and pharmaceuticals and ensuring the success of Coventry’s vaccination scheme. I am grateful to all the gurdwaras, mosques, churches and faith institutions. In addition, the volunteers at Lawrence Saunders Baptist Church and St Oswald’s have done an incredible job in providing wraparound support for families during this difficult time through their food bank, debt relief and job club services.
I also thank Jac Danielle, Robin Synnott and all the fantastic volunteer litter pickers for keeping our streets and parks clean. They have played an incredible role in bringing pride to our local area and showing that we value our environment.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention the remarkable women who have been selected as the 14 modern-day Godivas, representing our city as community champions as we celebrate Coventry being the city of culture this year.
I could go on listing individuals, but for the sake of time I will close by giving thanks to everyone who has gone the extra mile to help our city weather the storms of the past year and a half. They are the glue in our neighbourhoods that binds us together, and I am incredibly grateful to each and every one of them for all they have done over the past 18 months.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for securing this debate.
Have we ever seen a better example of the strength of community spirit than that shown during this pandemic? The community response to this unprecedented situation was simply incredible. In my own constituency of the City of Durham, Fram School, Belmont School, Durham rotary club and many others sprang into action to make and donate PPE to frontline workers. While some were donating PPE, the Capital Indian restaurant generously donated curries to keep NHS staff at the University Hospital of North Durham well fed on their shifts. While lockdown has often kept us apart, that has not stopped youth groups such as Cheesy Waffles and Durham Area Youth, which have continued to deliver fantastic services for children and young people, both online and in person. They are both incredible projects.
Then there are the community groups and organisations that recognised the need to support families throughout the pandemic. I have seen for myself the incredible work of Gilesgate and Belmont Wellbeing Project, which has supported people in a variety of ways over the past year, including through its food bank.
I never cease to be amazed by the graft and drive of the colourful character and Ludworth legend that is Dave Woods, who along with the community association volunteers, Tesco community champion Joanne Reay and Councillor Lucy Hovvels, worked tirelessly to keep community spirits up with food deliveries and hot food services.
Conservative Members present will be glad to learn of the generosity of the Durham branch of the National Education Union, which has been a constant source of support in the community. It gifted presents to 344 children in Durham last Christmas, donated key equipment to schools, ran online extracurricular sessions and so much more. It has been truly amazing, and it would serve the Tories well to remember that before they continue to scapegoat unions and school staff.
We cannot ignore the fact that groups have often had to step up because of Government failure. That the Brandon community runs the food bank at Brandon Primary School is brilliant, but it should not need to in 21st century Britain. When the Government disgracefully decided that feeding hungry children was not a priority for them, businesses and organisations decided that it was a priority. Hospitality businesses such as the Drunken Duck and community organisations such as the Brandon Carrside Youth and Community Project and One Step at a Time selflessly provided free lunches during the holidays. Durham Women’s football club ignored the fact that it could not take gate receipts last season, and instead asked its fans to watch online and donate the cost of a ticket to the End Child Food Poverty campaign, which raised thousands to feed children in Durham.
Those services should not rely on the generosity of society, because it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that no one lives in food poverty or any kind of poverty. Fortunately, in Durham we had a Labour council for most of the pandemic, whose support was noted to be among the best in the country. I hope the new Lib Dem-Conservative coalition is equally committed.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the work of the City of Durham Labour party, which made a series of donations to food banks and community organisations across the constituency over the past year, putting people before politics. I have shared those examples to give credit and thanks to the unsung heroes of Durham. They reaffirm my belief in the strength of community. We can say once and for all that Mrs Thatcher was wrong: there is such thing as society.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for securing this debate. I always enjoy the debates that she brings forward. She and I are often on the same side and say the same things.
I want to put on the record my thanks to the people of my constituency. The unity and dedication that they have shown through the course of this pandemic have been truly admirable and inspirational. The past 15 months have not been easy for anyone, but people have been brought together. That is what I have noticed. I see the good coming out of all the badness and hurt that there has been in the past year.
I have a love for my country, and its history makes it even more unique, because the term “community” was not often used in a positive light during the height of the troubles. There was little sense of community across the great divide, and at times we had a justified fear of going out of our way to help others who were different from us. We were a much-divided nation, and that continued for years, but things have changed. In a way, covid made that happen to our advantage.
I believe that the constant efforts of the people of Northern Ireland, and particularly those in my constituency of Strangford, have been tremendous throughout the pandemic in addressing that fear and creating that togetherness when we had to be apart. Some 79,000 people were furloughed in Northern Ireland and 62,000 lived off self-employment schemes. The need within the communities was very clear, and the people came together in the best way they could. We may be apart, but you are not alone—that is the statement that I want to make in my contribution.
I want to put on the record my thanks to local residents groups—the Eastend Residents Association, in particular, which has delivered 165 food parcels, the Scrabo Residents Association, the Westwinds Development Association in Newtownards and the Glenn Association. They devoted themselves in their local areas to elderly residents who have to self-isolate or are at high risk. My colleague Councillor Billy Walker, who represents Killyleagh, Crossgar, Saintfield and part of Ballynahinch in the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, paid out of his own pocket for butchers’ meat parcels for elderly residents in his area of Killyleagh. It was a really massive contribution. We cannot take away from these people whose generosity was incredible. The list goes on.
Ards Elim Church sent a team out in full personal protective equipment with home-baked goods for elderly and ill. The Eastend Residents Association had a localised leaflet drop with emergency contact numbers. We must not forget the work of our local schools either. Tor Bank School in Dundonald undertook work for local pupils whose parents worked full time or did not have sustainable childcare for their special needs because of the coronavirus. People came together.
Community carers and district nurses have also earned our utmost respect. They went to multiple houses of the vulnerable daily in full PPE. We can never really acknowledge or understand just how great their contribution was, not just for the community but because of the danger in which they put themselves.
I hope that the last year has brought us closer together as friends and neighbours. If there is a lesson we can all learn, it is not to take things for granted. As restrictions lift, we must not forget about those who are suffering. I thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow for leading this debate on this topic, which we have all thought about a lot. I am always proud to represent Strangford, but when I consider the grit, determination, love and empathy shown by people in my constituency, and in everybody’s constituencies, I am humbled and I honour them in this place.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I offer huge thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for giving us the opportunity to thank the incredible people in our constituencies who went above and beyond the call of duty during the main lockdown.
I remember a family member telling me that lockdown had brought out the worst in people, and it saddened me because, by virtue of our jobs, we are able to see how it brought out the best in so many. We were not sheltered from the negative impacts. Apart from experiencing some of them personally and in our families, as constituency MPs we were fully aware of the despair and sometimes desperation felt by the people who were most affected. For me, any low moods that were induced were offset by the incredible people I am about to tell hon. Members about.
I hope it is not just me, but normally when I make a speech I feel the ever-present pressure to be inspiring, but not this time. The material I am working with and the people of Glasgow North East are inspiring enough. The pressure today is not to forget to name anyone. I could not possibly give a comprehensive list of everyone I would like to thank, because that would take up the entire 90 minutes allocated to this debate. Instead, I have decided to tell hon. Members about the organisations I was involved with during the main lockdown. I acknowledge that there were many more, and if anyone listening would like some recognition for a group I do not mention, please get in touch and I will publish an early-day motion in their honour. I appreciate that makes me sound like a radio DJ taking requests, but it is worth noting.
I hoped to have time—although I do not think I will—to comment on some of the people we have heard about today. I would normally do that when summing up, but I am sure other hon. Members will forgive me if I prioritise Glasgow North East champions. It has been really good to hear about everybody, across the whole of the UK.
To my mind, there are three categories of people who fit the term “champion”. First, there are those who carried on doing their regular paid job in very difficult circumstances: healthcare workers, emergency workers, communications workers, shop workers, journalists, public transport workers and, yes, teams working for MPs and MSPs. They did not have any reduction in income but there were massive change to their daily lives and they were working in unsettling, if not downright scary, environments in order to keep our essential services going. They provided such reassurance to us that the world was not completely falling apart and I know we are all very grateful to them.
I pay tribute to those workers forced against Government guidance to go into work, when they could have worked at home. I have talked about that before and I will talk about it again. I thank them for bearing with us while we try to fight their corner.
Secondly, there are those whose jobs changed completely, such as housing officers, who suddenly had to organise, stock and manage food deliveries, or youth workers, who had to find creative ways of keeping in touch with young people when they could not meet in person.
Thirdly, there are those who volunteered. It was not their job and nobody was paying them, but they just got up and said, “What does my community need?” and got on with it. I am certain many of them thought it would be for just a day or so, maybe a week, and it turned into more of a full-time job without pay. Others thought it would be for maybe three weeks, and then the weeks turned into months and then a year, but they carried on, I will not say for no reward, but certainly for no financial reward.
Turning to the community champions in Glasgow North East, all of these groups and people did much more than I will be able to talk about in the time I have, but I want to name them and put my personal thanks as their MP on the record.
In March last year, I started to host a weekly Zoom meeting of all the groups working to support people in the Springburn area and another weekly meeting of everyone in the Milton and Lambhill areas. Today, both those groups still meet regularly and I want to list the members of each group. In Springburn, we had NG Homes, a local housing association. I want to make particular mention of Margaret Fraser, who leads the community outreach for NG Homes and tires me out just by watching her. She never stops. There is no way she can do everything in the hours she is employed for, and her imagination knows no bounds. If there was anything I could not find for a constituent, she had it, or she could access it.
Overnight, the Brunswick youth centre spent all of its reserves on food and became a full-time food delivery service. Not only that, they would turn whole streets into bingo halls, which was pretty crazy, but it was so much fun. New Rhythms for Glasgow was one of the groups that worked creatively with young people, and also worked creatively under the restrictions we had with people experiencing addiction. Glasgow Girls Club developed software that allowed groups to easily get up-to-date information about what help was available in this terrible time. Sisco does incredible work with addicts in prison and—so importantly—addicts leaving prison. Imagine leaving prison during lockdown, but Sisco was there for them, every minute of every day, and its workers just put so much energy into it.
I only had to tell Glasgow North baby food bank about a baby whose family needed food, milk, clothes or nappies, and its workers were on their way to support them. Colston Wellpark Parish Church provided food and advice several days a week, and support for the other groups as well. Tron St. Mary’s Church delivered fish and chips to older people on Fridays—they never let me go to that, for some reason—and held numerous online events, none of which could top their weekly get-together of the Cannae Sing choir. Just for the record, they can sing, but they cannot sing on Zoom—trying to sing with a group of people on Zoom was one of the funniest experiences I had last year. North Glasgow Community Food Initiative is about not just providing food, but helping people to eat healthily. It offers so many different things, with online cooking classes being just one of them. I also thank the Salvation Army, Afghan United, Bangla Centre, Stronger Together Enterprise and North Glasgow Integration Network.
If I may, I would like to say a bit more about a couple of organisations. Springburn Community Council, Springburn Parish Church and Spirit of Springburn are three organisations that work together, and many people were involved in working day in, day out to shop for and deliver food and prescriptions to people who either had no money or simply could not leave the house. The one person who is part of each of those three organisations, who has been working full time throughout the past year for not a single penny while also contending with family bereavement, is Helen Carroll. She spearheaded the entire operation and is now leading Spirit of Springburn, set out to regenerate her local area, and I pay particular tribute to her.
African Challenge Scotland provided food that African families could not easily access during lockdown because it was not widely available from supermarket deliveries or food banks. I accompanied them on a few trips and watched how tirelessly they worked, led by the indomitable Ronier Deumeni. It is not members of this group in particular that I am talking about, but Springburn Youth Forum held online quizzes, and had the nerve to beat my team one night. They are still doing wellness packs for young people. The Milton group includes Lambhill Stables, North United Communities, LoveMilton, Healthy North Glasgow, Milton Community Council, Milton Food Hub, Colston Milton Parish Church, North Glasgow Community Food Initiative, and the Ashgill Recreation Centre in Milton.
If have time—I have two minutes left—so will name just a few more, starting with Royston Youth Action, Spire View and Copperworks housing associations, St Paul’s Youth Forum, Everlasting Arms food bank in Dennistoun, Carntyne and Riddrie Credit Union, and FARE. Citizens Advice has been incredible. Lifelink is an organisation providing a counselling lifeline for people who felt that they really were struggling to go on. I also thank the Green Deal Action Group in Balornock and Barmulloch, Achieve More! Scotland, Susan Wilson at Reidvale community allotments, Possobilities in Possilpark, Possilpark Young Peoples Futures, Thriving Places Ruchill and Possilpark, Partick Thistle football club, and councillors, MPs and MSPs from across the political spectrum who recognised how important it was to just make sure that people survived and that we put our political differences aside.
Something that grew from the pandemic was the Scottish Pantry Network, of which I am now a board member. It was dreamt up by Glasgow councillor Mandy Morgan, and I need to mention it because it is a great solution to food poverty and food waste, and introduces that element of dignity. We now have seven of them, and not just in Glasgow. Basically, the idea is that food that would otherwise go to waste but is still fresh is taken there. People go along, pay £2.50 and get £15-worth of food in a nice shop and a nice environment. They can get meat, fish, fresh fruit and vegetables. It takes away that sense of it being “the poor shop”. It is not a food bank—people are paying. People go whether they need to save money or whether they want to save the environment. It adds an element of dignity.
I have tried to mention those I worked with during lockdown. I have mentioned a couple of others, but I do not want to miss anybody out—I know there were others, and I am very happy to hear about them. As the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) said, these people are the glue of our neighbourhoods. If they are keeping our neighbourhoods together, I as their MP want to know about it.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) [V]
I pay special thanks to the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for calling such an important debate, where we can thank and honour those who have provided exceptional services to our nation, especially in the last year when, due to covid, their efforts were taken to new heights.
We live in an era where clickbait stories and internet trolls sometimes overshadow the true community spirit of our nation, but in the darkest of days, when businesses were closing their shutters, workers leaving their workplaces not knowing if they would return, families suddenly shutting their doors to their friends and relatives in a single moment, not knowing what would come next or whether they would ever get an opportunity to say their last goodbyes, at that moment our nation witnessed the best of being British and the true image of modern Britain.
People from every community, those of faith and no faith, from all four nations of the United Kingdom, stood up to play their part and support our nation in our time of need, with their kindness and generosity. Our brave NHS staff stepped up to the pedestal, working long hours to provide the care and vital support needed, including for the Prime Minister when he was infected with covid-19.
In those moments, there was no debate about whether someone was a foreign doctor or a refugee nurse. They were our doctors, our nurses and our frontline staff, delivering care to more than 100,000 people taking their final breaths and to hundreds of thousands who they saved with their care.
In those moments, when most of our economy was shutting down, we witnessed the hard work of frontline workers—shopkeepers, supermarket workers, delivery drivers, police officers, taxi drivers and so many more—who continued to carry on with their work, despite being in high-risk jobs. If it was not for them, the pandemic in those early days could have been so much worse.
Millions across the UK felt the true community spirit that I felt here in my community, with communities coming together. Those who had never volunteered became volunteers. Those who had left the NHS were signing their names to enlist once more, to play their part. In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), they are the glue that binds us together.
Despite the challenges that covid-19 was bringing to churches, mosques and community centres—to everywhere across the nation—we now find cathedrals or churches in almost every city or town that are vaccine centres. People of the Christian faith opened their hearts and responded to covid-19 relief efforts from day one.
In London, the famous Lord’s cricket ground handed over the bat to the Jewish community of St John’s Wood synagogue, which will now house the vaccine centre. In Slough, one of the largest Sikh gurdwaras in the UK, Guru Maneyo Granth Gurdwara, responded by providing more than 1 million meals across every borough in London to all those in need. Hindu communities responded in various ways, including the volunteers from Swaminarayan Sanstha, who rallied to launch a nationwide programme to support communities during the pandemic. Various UK Hindu temples, including the Neasden temple, were illuminated in blue every Thursday as a mark of respect and gratitude for the tireless and selfless NHS workers.
I saw at first hand the efforts put in by Muslim communities, not only in my home city and constituency of Bradford, but in all the efforts documented in the covid-19 report of the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims—from mosques becoming emergency morgues and hospitals, to local Muslim shopkeepers in Scotland leading the way by providing emergency relief. In fact, when those such as the Moonlight Trust in Batley started their voluntary work, they thought, like many of us, that covid-19 would be here for the short term. As covid prolonged, so too did their efforts.
The charity sector, which has always been the backbone of providing support to the vulnerable and needy, had an even bigger task on its hands, and despite its finances being in a vulnerable state, it delivered. Our brave Army personnel were always ready to protect our borders, provided strategic and hands-on support for the NHS, and were involved in building the Nightingale hospitals and delivering the vaccines. They did what they do best: worked to protect our nation and its people.
While our institutions played their part, including local councils that had to restructure essential services, there were individual heroes who we will never forget, many of whom were themselves grieving the personal loss of loved ones to covid. Many of them were from minority communities, which were impacted disproportionately by covid-19. When the Government dithered over providing free school meals, it was the business community across the country that stepped in.
Captain Sir Tom Moore began walking 100 lengths of his garden in aid of NHS Charities Together, with the goal of raising £1,000 by his 100th birthday. On the morning of his 100th birthday, the total raised by his work had passed £30 million, and by the time the campaign closed at the end of that day, it had increased to more than £32.79 million. While Captain Sir Tom Moore may not be with us any longer, his efforts have surely made his family and friends, and our nation, proud. He will forever be remembered.
Similarly, Dabirul Choudhury, another 100-year-old, walked lengths while fasting in the month of Ramadan, and raised £150,000. Susan Rees, an advanced nurse practitioner from Johnstone in Pembrokeshire, Wales, recently received a British Empire Medal. After semi-retiring from her full-time role in infection prevention in 2018, she returned to work for three days a week as soon as covid was on the rise. In Belfast, Michael Oliver McBride, the chief medical officer for Northern Ireland, worked tirelessly during the pandemic.
I am sorry, but even if I stood here literally all day, I would still not be able to mention the efforts of everybody in our communities during this period, so please forgive me. On behalf of the Labour party, I put on the record our thanks and our pride to each and every person who played their part, be it through volunteering or fundraising, to support our nation during this pandemic. You are all our country’s heroes.
In closing, I say this to those who want to create culture wars, to pitch community against community and to target minorities, making them feel like they do not belong in the UK: reflect and think again. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) said, there is such thing as society. As the chief executive of the Ramadan Tent Project, Omar Salha, tweeted this afternoon:
“The force of separation and division is strong, but the force and power of our community spirit...is most definitely stronger.”
If I am asked, “What is the British spirit?”, I say that it is what we saw in this pandemic, whether it is the Muslim doctors who were sadly the first to die from covid-19 on the frontline or the Sikh volunteers delivering langar; the black train driver in London or the white taxi driver in Devon; the church providing PPE or the synagogue setting up a vaccine centre; the European supermarket worker or the refugee delivery driver; the doctor, the nurse, the care worker or the cleaner. This is modern Britain: diverse, inclusive and all playing our part to protect our country, our NHS and our people. This is modern Britain.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
Minister, we must end by 3.35 pm. Would you mind leaving a few minutes at the end so that Dr Lisa Cameron can wind up?
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees, I think for the first time.
I extend the thanks of everybody here today to the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for securing this hugely important debate. This afternoon, we have seen the best of this House and heard about the best of Britain. We are all grateful to her for the chance to put on the record our thanks to so many remarkable people right across the country. Today’s debate has given us the chance to talk about community champions and the incredible work they have done during their remarkable response to covid-19. I am very proud, and I am sure all Members have been proud, to stand here today and thank them, recognise their work and put it on the record that they were the backbone of our response to covid-19.
Even in the most difficult times for our country and the globe, we have seen the best in people and the best in our communities. Even in the midst of great loss, suffering and hardship, communities have come together to support each other with great bravery, spirit and love. Whether it was as part of community groups, charities or faith groups, or as individuals reaching out to each other and their neighbours, it is the strength of character of the people in our towns, villages and cities that has got us through this incredible period.
We have heard so many inspirational stories this afternoon, and there are so many unsung heroes, as the hon. Lady said. I will mention a few of them, starting by thanking the Blackwood and Kirkmuirhill Resilience Group, and Lesley, who has clearly done so much work to deliver flowers, to order in those fish teas, which I am extremely jealous about, and to organise the online bingo—that sounds absolutely incredible. We are equally grateful to the East Kilbride litter pickers and Alice. It is fantastic to hear about the passion and pride that they have shown for keeping the community clean over the last year and a half. I cannot begin to say how grateful we all are.
We have heard some incredible stories about how groups have utilised online technology to support people with their mental health, including the incredible work done by Trust Links over the last year. We heard about the work by those in the Nantwich Buddies support group and what they do collecting medicines and providing support, and it is incredible to hear that they are starting the poppy trail and a scarecrow trail. I cannot wait to visit and see that. It sounds absolutely incredible, and I thank them for the work that they are doing.
We have heard that Peterborough is the caring city. I have heard that said many times before, but today we really saw that through the examples, including Food for Nought and the Norfolk community fridge. A really important point was made about those who volunteer to give up their time for childcare to ensure that key workers can still get to work and support the health service and our key services. We have heard the same about Manchester, Gorton, where community groups run online virtual drop-ins to support mental health, and my huge thanks go to them, too.
We have heard about the Insch resilience group in Scotland and the excellent work that it does. I thought that the story we heard about the community in Huntly, who had a gas outage on 2 February and another a month later, and were experiencing temperatures of minus 5° but all came together to support each other and vulnerable people through local food groups and share information online, was really fantastic.
We have heard about the spirit and determination in York to ensure that nobody is ever left behind, about the focus on community, and about the work done by Age UK to reach out so many of the constituents of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I am pleased to hear about the volunteer centre and how beneficial it will be.
We have heard how in Durham, the rotary club has been supporting people with PPE, and we have heard about the work of Cheesy Waffles to support young people. My thanks go to them.
We have heard about Clare Allington-Dixon and her team in Coventry North East. They have been teaching cooking skills to people during the pandemic. What a fantastic way to support the community, by encouraging people to make better use of their food through such a difficult time. We have heard about the Summer of Sunflowers and the work that Matt is doing spreading literal growth right across the community and the country.
The SNP Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), spoke passionately. She was nervous that she would sound like a community DJ taking requests, but she did not, I can assure her. She sounded like a passionate representative of her community and her country, talking about the types of community groups that have contributed so much, including housing officers, youth workers, the volunteers who were giving back so much that they almost became full-time workers, Margaret and what she was doing, the Brunswick youth centre and the parish church in Springburn. We are really grateful to them for everything that they have done.
I also want to say something about rough sleeping. We have heard so much about the incredible work in Southend to support people in the Everybody In scheme, the street homeless charity in Ealing that has done such incredible work, and the Garden House in Peterborough, which has contributed so much. Looking at the Government’s response to the pandemic, we see that one of the most important pieces of work carried out was to support rough sleepers, and the work that has not been praised enough as part of that is the volunteers’ response. Volunteers were out there, night after night, day after day, supporting rough sleepers who, in some cases, had for years been nervous about engaging with the council or with volunteers. The volunteers really stepped up and supported people during that time, meaning that by May 2020, 15,000 people had been supported into accommodation and were receiving help and support, often for the first time in years. That was, of course, an important part of the national Government response, but I think it shows the alignment with volunteers and how that can really deliver the best for our society.
We saw the same with shielding, as we have heard. Volunteers helped shielding individuals by delivering food, providing support and just phoning them up to make sure that they were okay. Although the Government work is hugely important, the most remarkable response to the pandemic was surely on the ground, as we have heard. It was the willingness of individuals to step up and go the extra mile, be it for friends, neighbours or simply anybody in need, regardless of whether they had met before. It was truly heart-warming, and the scale of the volunteer response was unprecedented. As we have heard, more than 12 million people across the UK delivered support during this pandemic, which is incredible to behold.
We also saw how almost 2 million people delivered support and services as NHS volunteer responders, completing millions of tasks and supporting 171,000 people at risk from covid. My thanks go to them as well. In addition to the volunteer response through the formal channels that we and communities have helped to organise, we saw a huge growth in informal volunteering—people stepping up to help others when they saw need, whether through collecting shopping, walking dogs, gardening or checking in on neighbours. You name it, someone in this country volunteered and did it over the past year and a half.
Throughout our country, we saw communities rapidly mobilising to help local people, especially those who were particularly at risk or who were hit the hardest by isolation. That shone through, certainly in my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament. We saw more than 2.5 million people volunteer with 4,000 mutual aid groups. That is a unique grassroots movement, the likes of which we have never seen before.
We have seen communities in all corners of our country demonstrate their resourcefulness and adaptability by working on their individually unique strengths. Despite the daily challenges and difficulties for so many people during such an incredibly difficult part of our country’s history, many people took their first steps into volunteering. Many new volunteers got involved for the first time—over 4.5 million people.
Although many millions of people were mobilised and joined volunteering for the first time, we should take a moment to recognise the people who normally volunteer and do so much but who were constrained because they were shielding during the pandemic. Many such people found new and innovative ways to support others throughout the last year, be it through getting to grips with technology or just phoning up people and keeping in contact in ways that they had not done before. I can imagine how it felt for people not to be able to be involved or offer support in the way that they wanted, but that adaptability has shown real resilience. The national effort saw volunteers spring up from less traditional places in some respects, and I pay tribute to everybody who did so much.
We have the chance to thank communities, organisations and individuals for what they have done, and to thank people who have volunteered in any way over the past 18 months. I want to put on the record and promote the Prime Minister’s Points of Light awards, which recognise all the work that has been done by those at the forefront of the response to the pandemic. The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) talked about Captain Sir Tom Moore. Who can forget the incredible and inspirational example that he set the rest of us in this country?
We have heard a lot about faith groups. I extend my thanks to our faith communities for what they have done during this pandemic, including Moncrieff parish church, Colston parish church and the others that we have heard about. Faith groups have risen to the challenge by providing services in a way they have not done before and offering solace, comfort, advice and support through a multitude of different support services. We have seen examples of groups from all faiths delivering food and supporting people who were shielding. I really believe that faith communities have been a linchpin for many people by providing pastoral care and support networks, especially for older and more vulnerable people, and even continuing some forms of informal education for people who did not have access to the same external services during the last year or so. Yes, faith communities were already undertaking much of that work, but it increased in scale, passion and determination. We all put our thanks to them on the record.
The hon. Member for Bradford West talked about the role of volunteers in the vaccination programme. I join her in thanking all volunteers for the work that they are doing, and I ask for their kindness and forgiveness to just keep going. They are helping us—our whole country—to light the way towards the better days that are now within our grasp. We need everyone’s support to signpost communities to verified sources of important information about the vaccines, and we must continue to reinforce positive messages.
I also put on the record my thanks to civil society. The Voluntary and Community Sector Emergencies Partnership, made up of over 200 community organisations, has supported the covid response, helping to map unmet need and improve emergency response through new data platforms. The response really has been incredible. We have provided clear support with £750 million for charities, social enterprises and the voluntary sector, ensuring that civil organisations, including those at risk of financial hardship, continue the incredible work they did before and throughout the pandemic. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has provided £23 million of funding to 60 councils and the voluntary sector to expand their work and to support those most at risk from covid.
I want to leave the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow some time to wind up the debate, so I thank all hon. Members here today and, on the Government’s behalf, everyone who has done so much in every corner of our country. Volunteering is a vital part of our national identity, and that has only increased over the past year. I agree with the hon. Lady who said that when we start to build back better we will be holding the sacrifice that others have made over the past year and a half at the forefront of our minds.
Dr Cameron
I thank all Members who have taken part today. It has been extraordinary to hear about the efforts that have gone into supporting communities across everyone’s constituencies. As others have said, we cannot mention everybody today because so many people have contributed, but we can thank them all, and we have put our thanks on the record today.
I thank all elected Members of Parliament, because what has shone through today’s debate is how intrinsically well everyone knows their communities and how everyone has worked hard to galvanise the frontline effort across all parties. MPs, MSPs up in Scotland, Members of the Welsh Parliament and those in Northern Ireland have all been working tremendously hard to ensure that they support volunteers and those working on the frontline. I must say that I did not really know much about what MPs did before I became one myself, but I now know a bit more about the hard work that goes on. Elected Members really have stepped up to the plate.
We will need many more resources going forward to continue to support volunteers in communities, so I am pleased that the Minister said that thought will be given to finance and support. We still have some way to go, but we can have hope, given all the work and motivation that communities have brought to the effort so far, that we will come out the other end of this, perhaps with stronger communities. I thank everybody.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the role of the community in responding to the covid-19 outbreak.
Covid-19: Support for Aviation, Tourism and Travel Industries
(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
Dr Rupa Huq (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 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. A couple of people have trains and planes to catch, appropriately, and they have negotiated with me. That is okay because the timing of this one did change.
I remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their camera on for the duration of debates in Westminster Hall. There is one exception; we know who you are. That has been okayed by me, at the discretion of the Chair. Members will be visible at all times, both to one another and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks at westminsterhallclerks@parliament.uk. I think everyone got something that said what to do about email.
Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall. I think we are sorted, and everyone is sitting in the right place with a tick on it.
Members who are not on the call list but wish to intervene—do we have anyone of that description? No, that is not necessary. In that case, I call Henry Smith to move the motion.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for the aviation, tourism and travel industries in response to the covid-19 pandemic.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair for this important debate, Dr Huq, as we seek to recover from the covid-19 pandemic, and I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister in his place. I will be interested to hear his comments.
Aviation, travel and tourism were among the first sectors to face the negative effects of the covid-19 pandemic, which were almost immediate, and unfortunately, owing to the nature of those industries and the restrictions still in place, they will be among the slowest to recover fully. In normal times before the pandemic, more than 1.5 million people were employed in those sectors. Sadly, many of them have lost their job over the past 15 months or so. About 50% of people in the sector are still on furlough, which finishes at the end of September, and I fear that if travel, aviation and tourism cannot pick up meaningfully over the summer months, many of them will also unfortunately lose their job.
This is devastating for aviation communities such as mine in the Gatwick area. An assessment of unemployment from February 2020 to February 2021 showed an increase of 115% across the nation, but for the top 20 aviation communities the increase was 147%. I do not think we have yet seen the worst of the situation.
Do not mistake this for some parochial plea for support for these sectors because aviation and international connectivity are essential for the UK economy. In normal times, outbound travel accounts for a contribution of about £37 billion to our economy, and inbound travel accounts for £28 billion. That travel has not been able to operate meaningfully for a year and a half, and the impact has been significant. If we were able to operate in a more meaningful way this summer, it would make a contribution to the UK economy of an estimated £19 billion—quite significant.
The title of the debate refers to support for the travel and aviation sectors. The best way to support them is to allow them to meaningfully and safely operate. If that cannot happen, I am afraid the bill for unemployment benefits this coming autumn and winter will be a significant burden to the taxpayer. Many companies and employers in the sector will be coming to the Government asking for bailouts. Far better that we let the industry recover and make money for the UK Exchequer, whose bills are already significant, than cost it some more.
I pay tribute to the Government for the world-leading vaccination programme over the past six months. We were told just before Christmas that if we had a successful vaccination programme, that would allow us our liberty and enable us to get back to much more normal life. Yesterday, we hit the target of 60%-plus of people across the country who have been doubly jabbed with covid-19 vaccines. I fear that we are squandering the vaccine dividend that we were told would allow us far greater freedoms once again.
We are, quite simply, at a competitive disadvantage. Many countries in the EU and the world are allowing a far greater number of countries to be travelled to, particularly for those who have received full covid-19 vaccinations. This is not just about two weeks on the beach in a sunny environment, nice though that is. It is about global Britain and us being a trading nation. For every day that there is not meaning transatlantic travel between the UK and the US, an estimated £32 billion is lost to the British economy.
I welcome and support the Government’s traffic light system for international travel. It is absolutely right that for parts of the world where cases of covid-19 are still unfortunately far too high, we must protect ourselves against that and new variants. I support those quarantine arrangements, but for countries that have had a similar vaccination roll-out success and similar or lower infection rates than the UK, we need to have a much more pragmatic regime for amber and green list countries.
I welcome the fact that the Government are reportedly looking at requiring those who are fully vaccinated and travelling from amber countries only to test, rather than to quarantine at home. That would be very positive, but I think we need to go further. We need to expand the green list of countries—I welcome reports that it will be announced later today that Malta and the Balearic Islands will be added to that list—but the list needs to be far wider than that.
The cost and complexity of covid-19 testing for international passengers is a major disincentive for people to travel. For a family of four, it really becomes prohibitive. It is ridiculous that many tests are more expensive than the flight itself. Perhaps more rapid antigen testing for lower risk countries would be appropriate, particularly if we are also dealing with people who are fully vaccinated. If there is a positive test, they can have a PCR test to back that up. It is interesting that, of those who have been tested who have been able to travel, less than 1% have proved positive in that test.
This is about people’s jobs and livelihoods. It is not just about going on holiday. Airports are likely to lose a further £2.6 billion if we do not see meaningful opening up. We are losing about £60 million in exports throughout this period because we do not have people able to visit this country and spend their money here.
Finally—I want to make sure that as many colleagues as possible can take part today and I am grateful to hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the country and across the House for contributing to this important debate today— I want to comment on where respect for the restrictions is beginning to seriously break down. We hear that Wembley will be three quarters full for the Euros final, because an exception will be made for VIP guests from UEFA to come to London. I do not mind Wembley being near capacity. I welcome that easing of restrictions, but what is not right is to have one rule for VIPs and another for everybody else. When parents cannot go to school sports days, VIPs should not be able to come to Wembley.
The answer is to open up in a realistic and pragmatic way, to save jobs and recover our economy from the devastating effects of covid-19. The best way to support the travel, aviation and tourism sectors is to allow them to operate, save those jobs and make money for our economy, rather than them being yet another burden on every taxpayer for years to come.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Given the popularity of the debate, the three Front-Bench spokespeople and the new finish time of 5.25 pm, I reckon that if everyone sticks to within four minutes, everyone gets in and Henry Smith has time for concluding remarks. I call Ben Bradshaw.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Thank you very much indeed, Dr Huq. Many of us here attended yesterday’s day of action for the travel industry. Fine people from all over Britain were there. They do not want a handout. They want to get back to work and they were united in one thing: a feeling of total abandonment by this Government and, I am afraid to say, by my party and all the Opposition parties in this House. In 26 years as a Member of Parliament, I cannot remember an instance like this, when the leadership of all the political parties have been more or less in the same position on a policy, and on one that has no basis in the evidence any more.
We hear the Government say constantly that their decisions are based on the data and public health is a priority, but, as the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) has already pointed out, that is now clearly belied by the facts. The seven-day covid rate in the UK is as of yesterday 97 per 100,000. In Greece, it is 31— much lower on the islands. In Italy, it is 13—one seventh of the UK rate. In Germany, it is eight—less than a tenth of the rate here in the UK. Yet people arriving from or coming back from those countries to here, all with a negative PCR test, still have to quarantine for 10 days. It makes more sense in health terms to quarantine someone travelling from Ealing to Exeter than someone travelling from Italy, Germany or Malta to the UK.
We had further proof this week when the Government published Public Health England’s findings on the testing of arrivals from amber list countries and all arrivals between 20 May and 9 June. Those results show that the proportion of positive tests on people arriving from amber list countries was 0.4%, compared with a level of 2.7% of the tests carried out on people living here in the same period. That means that someone coming from an amber list country is one seventh less likely to have covid than someone moving around the United Kingdom. Also, not a single variant of concern was found on any passenger returning from amber or green list countries.
If the Government were really basing their decisions on data and public health, there would already be more countries on the green list and there would be a significant expansion of that list today—and not only places such as Malta, Madeira or the Balearics, as briefed by someone in Government for today’s newspapers, but Italy, Germany, Finland, the Greek and several Caribbean islands, and many other countries currently on the amber list that all now enjoy a fraction of Britain’s covid rates. If the Government do not do this, we will know their decisions have nothing to do with the data or public health, and everything to do with politics and control.
We have seen that in the UEFA decision. It is completely outrageous for the Prime Minister to grant an exemption to our quarantine rules for thousands of bigwigs from European football when he is actively preventing ordinary British families from seeing loved ones abroad or from simply having a holiday, destroying thousands more jobs in an industry already on its knees in the process.
I am beginning to think that the Prime Minister does not want British people travelling abroad this summer because they will see how life in other countries got back to normal and that those countries are freer than us, despite our much-vaunted vaccine dividend. Many of our European neighbours have been free to travel since Easter, and now Americans can too. From next week, every EU citizen will be able to travel freely—with a vaccine, a negative test or proof of infection—using the green card system, and Americans are already flocking back to their favourite destinations in Europe, although of course not to here. Our Government are only just now talking about the possibility of a vaccine passport— allowing people to travel without quarantining if they have a vaccine. We are less free than our neighbours, we are less free than Americans and we are less free than we were last summer, in spite of being the most vaccinated country in Europe after Malta.
Even with this high level of vaccination and immunity, if we are to remain closed for fear of an as yet unknown new variant, we will never unlock. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), the shadow Defence Secretary, told Sky yesterday that we need to restart travel again as soon as possible, and he warned that Britain is getting left behind. He was absolutely right. I hope that signals a change in in my own party’s policy. Regardless of that, the Government, who are responsible for this, need to do the right thing, let the British people travel safely again and throw the thousands and thousands of fantastic people who work in our transport and travel sectors a desperately needed lifeline. Let them get back to work before it is too late.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), who has done so much to champion the plight of Gatwick and the wider Sussex community, and my friend the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), a fellow Transport Committee member, who speaks for me as well as himself. The remarkable point is that our calls are on all our Front Benches—we are all, cross-party, disappointed with all the Front-Bench positions. We do not feel that we are being led to a better place for our constituents and those who want to go abroad to see their loved ones and retain some life.
I have received emails not only from constituents but from people across the country who are crying out for some form of help to allow them to get back to their lives. I will read a few, if you do not mind, Dr Huq. Anna Wozniak is a cardiac physiologist at Doncaster Royal Infirmary. She has worked hard through the pandemic. She cannot afford to meet her boyfriend in America anywhere and meet the cost of testing, nor to take time off work to quarantine. Erin Cork from London has not seen her boyfriend, who lives in New York, for 467 days. Imagine that.
Missed life events have come through as well. Giulia Molteni is a dual UK-Italian national. She is 35 weeks pregnant with her first child. Her double-vaccinated Italian parents have not seen her while she has been pregnant, and she feels that she needs her mother’s support. Her parents want to come to the UK, but it is a huge financial commitment, and they are concerned that Italy could be added to the red list, as hotel quarantine costs are out of the question. One of our own in the travel sector, Louise Gardiner, works as a ground staff member at Heathrow. She had her son Rowan in May 2020 and he has met his Californian father only four times. He has never met his paternal grandparents. Louise was supposed to move to the US to be with her partner, but due to the pandemic her earnings have been lost, so she no longer qualifies as a sponsor.
I could go on and on with all the emails that I have received, but this is not just about holidays, as people sometimes say—although what is wrong with going on holiday? People’s lives are being ruined. Their mental health is being put at risk because of a ridiculous and restrictive policy that appears to have no basis when we look at the data. Let us look at what has happened with the traffic light system and travellers returning to the UK. Analysis of the latest figures from NHS Test and Trace found that only 89 of 23,465 passengers who travelled to the UK from amber list destinations between May and June tested positive for coronavirus—a rate of 0.4%. There are 167 countries on the amber list, and there were no positive cases from 151 of those.
If the Government look at the data, it surely demonstrates that going abroad is safe when we consider the amount of covid on these shores. It has positive benefits not just for people, but for our international trade and our economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley has stated, it is worth billions to the economy. What will actually pay for our NHS and our vaccination programme? International travel and international trade.
I will be particularly interested to hear the Labour Front-Bench spokesman’s speech and whether he will talk about why the sector needs aid and a specific sector-based deal. He might be better placed to call for his own leader and shadow Home Secretary not to ditch the amber list and move all those countries to red, because that will just put more and more people on the scrapheap when it comes to their jobs.
Dr Huq, I have taken my four minutes, but I could go on for four hours. I am absolutely sick and tired on behalf of all the people who want to get their lives back safely and travel abroad, and the workforce I met yesterday, who care so passionately and are so positive about their sector and their customers. Let us give them their opportunities back, take a bit of a risk, cash in on the vaccine dividend, and allow people to travel internationally again.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
Thank you for your leniency, Dr Huq, in permitting me to leave a little earlier. I commend the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for securing this debate on a very pressing matter facing many constituents and businesses across the United Kingdom.
Yesterday, I joined representatives of the Association of Northern Ireland Travel Agents, local pilots, cabin crew, ferry workers and hoteliers at a protest at Stormont, as part of the national Unite day of action to highlight to the devolved institution at Stormont the need for support for the sector and to demand a restart to international travel. It has now been over a year of devastation for jobs, family incomes and the future of the sector. Many have already lost their jobs. In my constituency, just three weeks ago, Thompson Aero announced 180 job losses, one quarter of the workforce, in a devastating blow to the local economy. Each of those jobs is someone’s livelihood—the means to pay their mortgage, feed and clothe their family and to secure their future.
Although the support provided by the Government to the sector has been welcomed over the past year, I know from a conversation I had with the industry yesterday that what it really desires more than anything is an indicative date of hope—a date for when international travel will be allowed once more. That will be the kickstart that the industry requires for the businesses to make money, generate cash flow, and support the jobs of tens of thousands of people once again. We have to get to that point soon because businesses are at breaking point right now. With no clarity and constant knock-backs, their sustainability becomes more difficult day by day. We need to do this safely and sustainably, as stop-start will only cause more problems for the industry. I believe we can do this now, and I urge the Transport Secretary and the global travel taskforce to provide this pathway.
The vaccine roll-out is our passport to restart travel. It is proven that the vaccine is of huge benefit to people, and therefore we need to go forward and get travel opened up again. We also need clarity around travel. A lot of constituents are confused by the mixed messaging, and this is also inhibiting travel. Now is the time to act, before it is too late for jobs and much-valued local businesses.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, and thank you for your leniency in letting me leave slightly early this afternoon.
I am grateful to be called in this important debate, not least because, like most hon. Members here, I joined the lobby yesterday and met constituents who had travelled to Westminster. I wanted to show my support for the travel industry in these challenging times. It was a lobby that highlighted yet again that the UK travel industry has had to deal with extremely tough impediments, more than most industries, and needs our support.
Today’s debate comes in the midst of what is still an incredibly challenging time for businesses and workers in the travel and tourism industry. Analysis from ABTA—The Travel Association estimates that 195,000 people working in the travel industry have either lost their job or are at risk of losing their job due to the crisis. Considering that the sector employs around 526,000 people across the UK in normal times, we are looking at the livelihoods more than a third of the people in the industry being wiped out.
I will focus my remarks on smaller travel businesses, which feel forgotten and are staring into the unknown. Office for National Statistics figures show that revenue for travel agents and tour operators have been down 86% to 90% each month since February 2020, with no specific sector support forthcoming from the Government and limited access to more general grant support measures. ABTA estimates that around 60% of SME travel agents will not have the cash to survive for more than three months, based on current trading conditions and the Government support that is available at the moment.
Last week, I visited Karen Marin Reyes and the team at La Vida Travel in Newport East. La Vida Travel is an award-winning business with a loyal local following and a reputation for very good customer service. Karen, who was here in Westminster yesterday for ABTA’s day of action, spoke to me about the difficult outlook her business and the sector faces, and echoed all the calls for sector-specific financial support for the travel industry, which remains busy but is struggling to make money in the face of very low new bookings and cancellations.
Companies such as La Vida Travel were not able to shut their doors when the pandemic came; they were busy helping their customers, including processing many cancellations and rebookings. Like all hon. Members, having helped constituents abroad to get home during the first months of the pandemic, I do not underestimate how stressful that is for clients and the staff helping them, or the sheer amount of work involved. These businesses were also having to foot the bill for transaction charges from credit cards, debit cards and banks, which are not refunded to the travel agent. I would like the Minister to look at that specific point, because they are carrying that loss themselves.
Travellers typically book six months ahead, so there are long delays in receiving payments made for bookings, which are only received a few months before the date of travel. These companies do not see the money for many months. For bookings that are being made now for next summer, the travel agent will receive payment in the spring at the earliest. Because of lack of confidence, many travellers are unwilling to pay in full for holidays next year because of the uncertainty. I note the comments made by other Members about the need for consistency in travel advice. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) made a strong contribution about that; we need confidence in the Government’s system.
The knock-on effect of all these factors is a shortage in cash flow that is especially pronounced for smaller travel businesses, especially as they make their money to survive through the winter in the summer. They need more help with the loans that they are due to pay back, because many just do not have the money at the moment to start making payments.
We need the Government to step up and do better. As others have said, it is not just about holidays; it is about people’s jobs and livelihoods.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on securing this debate. He was spot on with his remarks about Wembley, much as I want us to win that match on Tuesday, and I also agree with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), the Chairman of the Transport Select Committee. We do have an airport in Southend, which is very popular; I always have to balance that with the complaints about damage to the environment and night flights, but I am very proud of it.
I want to concentrate briefly on the tourism sector. A major aspect of the tourism industry is that it is seasonal, and Southend is a coastal town where the local economy thrives in the summer. With the extension of restrictions, many businesses in the tourism and hospitality industries will continue to suffer despite the recent warm weather. The Government have undoubtedly provided generous financial support packages, but many limited company directors and businesses in my constituency have frankly been left to fend for themselves. I ask the Government to implement a robust recovery strategy in the travel and tourism industry as we return to some sort of normality.
I have spoken to concerned business owners in my constituency who rely on tourists to eat in their restaurants, drink in their pubs and stay at their hotels. Grants were welcomed by many of my constituents, but they did not cover the fixed costs of operating small businesses, and those businesses do not, unfortunately, have the reserves to survive much longer. Many of them are running at a loss. The Government should provide further support in the form of extending the reduced rate of VAT and the business rate relief.
However, it is not just the hospitality industry that relies on the influx of tourists: it is the leisure and entertainment industries as well. Being a popular seaside town, Southend would normally attract plenty of tourists to our wonderful summer festivals and theatres, for example. Southend carnival has been cancelled this year, and the Leigh regatta, the Leigh Folk festival and the Village Green festival have all been postponed, which damages the local economy. I say again that, when coronavirus lockdown measures come to an end and restrictions are fully lifted, the Government should provide support to local authorities to help them cope with the influx of people to tourist hotspots such as Southend.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Qatar, I have seen how helpful Qatar Airways has been to our country during the pandemic, transporting over 100,000 people safely back to the United Kingdom, and I say a big thank you to them. Qatar Airways is heavily suffering, and that country is on the red list despite having relatively few coronavirus cases compared with other countries, and despite a high proportion of its population having been vaccinated.
In conclusion, there are so many reasons why Southend should become a city next year. We are a cultural hub with a plethora of charming local boutique shops and brilliant stores, and if it is not being greedy, I think we should be the city of culture as well. Southend attracts many visitors each year to our beaches, our theatres, and the world-famous Southend pier. Tourism is a major part of our diverse economy in Southend, and while it will play a part in gaining us city status, the individuals and businesses who comprise the industry need urgent governmental support to recover from the pandemic.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
It would not be a David Amess speech without a plea for city status.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, and a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West—in the new city of Southend—(Sir David Amess). I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for the work he has done to champion this issue. Like him, I have a great interest in aviation because of the close proximity of Manchester airport to my constituency: obviously in his case, it is Gatwick. Around 3,500 people living in my constituency work at that airport, not just as pilots and cabin crew but in all the ancillary services—the catering services and engineering services—that generate business and provide employment for people who live in my constituency. It is those people who I am speaking for today.
Actually, I have already spoken quite a few times in the House on this matter, because it is an incredibly important issue for our economy. This is a critical sector, not just for my constituency of Warrington South but for all of our regional economies. It is really interesting that Members from every part of the United Kingdom have attended the debate, demonstrating the critical issue that we are all facing.
In Parliament Square yesterday, the pilots, cabin crew, travel agents, catering staff and all those in the wider supply chain, who are desperate for the industry to make some progress, had some incredibly compelling messages. More than 1.5 million people are employed in the aviation, travel and tourism sectors, and the cabbies are really feeling it as well. I cannot say how many times I have got into a taxi in London and the first thing the driver has talked about is the lack of tourists in the city and how it is impacting on their livelihoods. Sadly, many of the people working in the sector have already lost their jobs, and so many are still on furlough. We know that the aviation and travel sectors make their money during the summer in order to survive through the winter.
As furlough comes to an end in September, we need to look carefully at how we extend the support for the sector if travel is not possible, so that it can generate income through the winter months. The lost summer, which I fear it will be, will cost our economy somewhere around £19 billion. I mentioned earlier my relationship with Manchester airport, and we have rightly heard lots about airports. Manchester airport is the engine room for the northern powerhouse, and we need to do everything we can to support it and get it back up and running.
I want to spend my remaining time by talking about some of the microbusinesses in my community that really rely on the sector. I listened to the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) talk about travel agents in her constituency, I am hearing about exactly the same issue from travel agents in my constituency. Adrian Harper, who owns a travel agency in Lymm, talked to me last week about consumer confidence being shattered. As we heard earlier, the sector has gone through massive structural change and disruption through the arrival of global competitors such as Expedia, which has changed the nature of the business. It has not just damaged the business in the short term; it has made a massive change. The clientele—predominantly now a base of older people—need to be able to plan for the future, and they have no certainty about what will happen in the months and years ahead. These are not people who want to jet off to Ibiza with a week’s notice; they are planning six to 12 months ahead, and sometimes years in advance, for worldwide cruises and trips to see family on the other side of the world. One of the key issues that the sector faces is that, due to low consumer confidence, people are booking, cancelling, rebooking and everything else in between. That is impacting significantly on the cash flow and income of small businesses.
I am looking forward to the announcements due to be made later this evening by the Secretary of State for Transport. I very much hope that we will see some advances in terms of the green list, and I look forward to giving the industry the chance to get back on its feet.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for securing this important debate. As we know, the past 15 months have scarred many of our once-thriving and great industries, which have been struck down by the consequences of a devastating pandemic, but the aviation, tourism and travel industries have been especially hard hit.
Despite bringing in £22 billion to the UK economy in a normal year and sustaining thousands of jobs, including in my Slough constituency, the Government seem to have left the industry largely to fend for itself, even though restrictions have reduced international travel by 97%. Coronavirus measures have undoubtedly saved lives and protected the NHS, but they have not come with the levels of financial support required. Some 50% of all aviation staff are still on furlough. UK airlines have announced over 30,000 job cuts, and a further 1.5 million jobs are still at risk. That is without taking into account the supply chain and supporting businesses that rely on the aviation and tourism sectors.
Given my Slough constituency’s proximity to Heathrow airport, I know all too well the impact that the situation has had on our community. My inbox has been full of correspondence from airline workers, ground staff, taxi drivers, travel agents, retail workers and others who have been left behind despite working in the industry for decades. Behind each of the numbers, there is a lifelong career, a family being supported and a passion being fulfilled. Real people are involved here, and they have been continually let down by Government through no fault of their own, which is why Government should step in. Restrictions must come with measured and tailored support. The Labour party has been clear about that all along in discussions with unions, airlines and airports. Political squabbles will not help those who have lost their jobs, but assured and sensible action from Government will.
It is clear what is needed: a bail-out package for aviation on the conditions that a clear climate plan is in place and that companies have set out terms to protect workers and their rights. Rather than delivering that and ensuring that struggling industries flourish post pandemic, the Government have taken their usual approach of confusion and backtracking, with bluster over the amber list, being too late to put countries on the red list and providing little clarity for passengers.
The mess we have seen over the last few weeks on the quarantine policy epitomises that, so why have the Government not reviewed the policy and outlined options for robust testing in airports to safely minimise the need for 14-day quarantine periods? Why have they left passengers, including my own Slough constituents, to pay thousands for quarantine hotels without sufficient access to drinking water and good-quality food? Why did Ministers not prevent, from the outset, the mixing of passengers from green list countries with those from covid hotspots? Why is it one rule for elites who have the ear of Government, and another rule for hard-working Brits? The whole thing is chaotic.
Like all here today, I want to see a thriving and greener aviation sector in a post-pandemic Britain. If we are to achieve that, we must ensure that adequate support is available now, because this shambles has gone on for long enough.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. Today, I feel a sense of déjà vu. On Monday this week, I spoke in the House about the future of the steel industry and the devastating effect that the loss of jobs in that industry can have on communities such as mine in Cynon Valley. Here I am, three days later, speaking about the aviation industry, and again I must highlight the same problems facing my constituents.
I have said this before, but I cannot say it often enough for some Government Members to grasp what it really means. Unemployment, poverty, worrying about their family’s future, worrying about keeping a roof over their head and worrying about whether to heat or eat—these are realities for far too many people in areas such as mine. Those are areas that this Government talk about levelling up, in a sham and a shambles of an attempt to address the underlying problems caused by a total lack of investment or an industrial strategy to take people such as my constituents into a greener, more secure and more prosperous future.
Like steel, aerospace is a vital manufacturing industry for the Welsh economy. In Wales, it generates £1.47 billion in GVA. The threat to GE Aviation in Nantgarw in south Wales, which employs workers from my constituency, is significant, and it arises because of the lack of an industrial strategy from this Government and the dominance of their belief in a free market economy. In 2020, 540 redundancies were made, and more job losses are on the horizon. There is no question in my mind but that aerospace needs a strategic, sector-specific support package, and I fully support Unite’s industrial strategy, “Fighting for the Future of UK Manufacturing”, which was published this time last year. The answers and the way forward are there.
In GE Aviation, we have here in south Wales a skilled and relatively well-paid workforce, and the loss of those jobs will have a huge knock-on effect on the local economy. One of my constituents, Ross Williams, who is an aviation worker and a trade union official, said:
“We’ve lost almost half of the workforce at GE aviation Wales, and almost half the workers from Cynon Valley…We fear that without sector specific support either by way of a furlough extension or other government funding…jobs within it are under massive threat. We as a Trade Union feel that once these jobs and the specific skills sets within them are lost they will be gone forever. We are desperate to maintain these highly skilled engineers, these well paid jobs”.
The answers are there—read Unite’s document and invest in upskilling and reskilling our workforce.
We know from the pandemic how vital and helpful a sound British manufacturing industry is when repurposed to meet new challenges. We must build local, buy British—positive public procurement—stop offering contracts to the lowest bidders, involve the workers, through their trade unions, in decision making and look at new models of ownership of these industries. The free market economy is not the answer to our economic woes. We cannot build the economy on job losses and site closures. We need Government investment for a just and well-resourced transition to a green industrial revolution to tackle climate change. The will is there to make these changes. The skills and the workers are there. Their trade unions are there. Where are this Government?
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter). My thanks go to the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for leading this important debate and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for his work on this issue.
There is no doubt that the coronavirus pandemic has had a severe impact on the aviation sector. It has already caused a huge number of job losses in my own constituency and throughout the country. To add insult to injury, we have seen bad employers in the sector resorting to outrageous fire-and-rehire practices—essentially, using a pandemic to disgracefully diminish the terms and conditions of their hard-working staff during the most stressful of times. There is no doubt that the situation for the aviation and tourism industries is complex. They are some of the only industries where the easing and tightening of restrictions are not wholly determined by the UK Government; they are also reliant on decisions taken in other nations.
The Secretary of State for Transport said that the traffic light system was based on infections, vaccination, variants, testing and quality of data and that he would publish the detail. He still has not done so. Does this Minister agree with me that there needs to be transparency over the traffic light system, and the criteria used, to enable the industry to plan?
I am pleased that positive noises are now coming out of Government regarding the likelihood of restrictions ending on 19 July, but there is no guarantee that restrictions on inbound travel will not be extended beyond that date. The airline and ferry industries are the only industries in this very specific situation when it comes to easing restrictions arising out of the pandemic.
I commend this industry for its flexibility during this crisis, but the ongoing complexities and uncertainties mean that there must be a tailored support package. The industry cannot survive much longer with frequent and unplanned stops and starts. Does the Minister agree with me that the aviation and tourism sectors must be given a bespoke job protection scheme beyond the current proposed end of the coronavirus job retention scheme? A bespoke financial support package would allow the industry to engage in proactive recovery planning. It would offer a sense of security for employees against further stop-and-go travel restrictions that may occur in the future.
Skills retention is key for the stability of the sector, but we are already seeing a skills leakage from the industry to sectors that have managed to recover faster. A new starter in the aviation industry will need to go through a complex process of training, qualifications, checking and certification. The time between recruitment and the first day at work is usually a matter of several weeks. A medium-term extension of the furlough scheme is therefore necessary to protect the skills that the sector will need in the future.
A recent report by Syndex UK—a report commissioned by Unite the union—stated that the support required for the industry as a whole would be a maximum of £1.4 billion for 18 months, based on the assumption that an average of 40% of the employees are eligible for furlough during the whole period. The support package would begin to pay for itself in the long term, as it would aid a faster recovery. In addition, we can easily measure the recovery by looking at passenger numbers. That means that the duration of the support could be tied to the return of demand and therefore it could fall away when the industry recovers.
I hope that the Minister will consider these ideas, because, as I am sure he will agree, the aviation and tourism industries are critical to both the UK economy and our national interest.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
We can all agree that of all the sectors affected by the pandemic, aviation, travel and tourism have been hit particularly hard. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has indicated that the aviation sector has been the hardest hit of the entire economy, with hundreds of thousands of jobs lost or under threat. The latest data also shows that travel agencies and tour operators suffered an 89% decline in output in the first year of lockdown, when severe restrictions were imposed across the travel industry.
If the traffic light regulations continue to have the impact that they are having, more support will be desperately needed. We need to retain the existing furlough scheme and self-employed income support for businesses operating in aviation and international travel, without tapering, for a minimum additional six months, with future reviews built in. Also needed is the creation of a new sector-specific recovery grant regime for travel agents, tour operators and travel management companies that rely on international travel for their revenues. Travel agency businesses receive all their income through commission paid close to their clients’ departure dates. Given the cautious restart of travel, they need additional financial support to help them through the coming months. The issue of travel agents carrying the cost of refunding card payments was raised earlier in the debate, and I raised it specifically with the Chancellor last April. It has still not been addressed.
International travel is extremely important to our tourism and hospitality sectors, but we also know that it is important to reduce the risk of importing new cases and new variants of the virus. Indeed, the new delta variant entered Scotland while Scottish restrictions were at their highest levels because the UK Government would not engage with concerns expressed by the Scottish Government. They were too slow to act. That could have undone all the hard work and sacrifice that populations across the UK have made to help beat the virus. That is not good enough.
We need to reinstate a four-nation decision-making approach to international travel, which was suspended by the UK Government as the Scottish Government urged more action. It must be recognised that the aviation industry faces one of the longest periods of recovery, given the impact of covid-19 on route networks. The French and German Governments have given more than twice the financial support for every aviation and aerospace job than the UK Government have.
The Minister will be keen to tell us about the support that his Government have already provided, but there is no escaping the fact that the French and German Governments have provided double the support that those jobs have had in the UK. Clearly, those Governments are backing their travel industries now to help provide a driving force in the economic recovery of their countries. I urge the Minister to do all in his power to provide further support to these sectors at this challenging time.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
The penultimate Back-Bench speaker is another Scot, but in the Boothroyd Room this time. I call Neale Hanvey.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
Thank you, Dr Huq; it is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) not just for securing this debate but for his tenacity and championing of this cause from the very start. That really should be recognised. I also thank the Minister before he even gets to his feet. Our meetings have not been as productive as I would have liked, but despite that he has been available and he has listened. Like others, I urge him to listen to the gaps. It is the gaps that we are concerned about today and the gaps that urgently need the support.
As the Minister will know, my constituency of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath is very close to Edinburgh airport. Constituents of mine include pilots, cabin crew, ground crew and those who work in the general airport environment. I also have constituents who are travel agents, and they are the group I am currently most concerned about.
In ordinary times, outbound travel is worth more than £37 billion a year to the UK economy. It supports the employment of more than half a million people across the UK and plays a crucial role in sustaining our leisure and business activity. ABTA’s collective membership puts people on planes, ships and trains—outbound, inbound and domestically—across leisure and travel. It is fundamental to our regional connectivity, opportunity and prosperity. The aggregate turnover is £40 billion in normal times and that supplies over £6 billion to the UK Treasury.
Those businesses know that recovery will be slow. The travel sector has been hardest hit, with bookings down by 90% and in some cases more. A 2021 survey of ABTA members found that 57% of small and medium-sized enterprise travel agents did not believe they had the cash to survive more than six months, based on current conditions and available Government support. Strikingly, 87% of SME travel agents believed they would fail within a year.
I am not complaining about this only to the UK Government; I am raising the issue across these islands. The Scottish Government recently said that travel agents have had support. They have had support in Scotland and down here, but it is not enough, it is not tailored and it does not recognise their unique needs. That is the fundamental issue. It must be really hard for business people who have invested their lives in building a thriving travel business to hear of an underspend by the Scottish Government of more than £450 million when they desperately need that help now.
This is about a joined-up approach. It is about coming together and recognising where the gaps are, and, most importantly, recognising the fundamental role that travel agents play in the industry. The airlines have had staff on furlough and been bailed out, and the public have either been on furlough or been allowed to continue to work and enjoy an income, but the travel agents are the ones who have moved bookings, taken the cancellations and kept open the pipeline of supply for the recovery we all hope for.
All of us—Government, tour operators and airlines—should be bending over backwards to ensure that travel agents get the support they desperately need, because they will secure and supply business as we move forward.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
With Heathrow in my constituency, naturally I am worried about what is happening in both aviation and tourism. The number of people claiming unemployment benefit in my constituency has risen by more than 220% in the first year of the pandemic, so there is an urgent need for action.
I will make four brief points. First, I agree with the criticisms of the Government’s list system made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). The system is confusing and ineffective, and it needs reform based on the data we now have, but whatever system we use, it needs to be properly resourced. Also, there has been a lack of sufficient staffing support for border control at Heathrow. That has put existing staff under intense pressure, and even put their health at risk.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) raised the issue of the quarantine system resulting at times in the abysmal treatment of families who have been forced to quarantine at great expense. On arrival at Heathrow, they have been crowded on to buses, often unsafely, and they often find that the booking for their original accommodation has been cancelled. When placed in accommodation, they are provided, exactly as my hon. Friend said, with inedible, inadequate or unsuitable food.
Secondly, my constituents—the workers in those sectors—want to get back to work and to get back to earning a decent living, but they know that doing so safely will take time. They are not unrealistic about that, so it is critical that the Government recognise the fact that some sectors will need continuing support. As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) said, precipitously ending the furlough scheme and the financial support being provided now will force many of my constituents into either losing their job or having their wages cut even further. The Government need to provide some certainty and reassurance to the companies and the workers in those sectors that there will be continuing support to get them through the remainder of the pandemic.
My third point, regrettably, is that the appalling practice of fire and rehire, which has taken hold in our economy, started initially on any scale at Heathrow. Thanks to Unite, we fought off the worst aspects of the first wave of that attack on my constituents, but that does not mean that the threat has gone away. Other companies are persisting in what is effectively workplace bullying. That is why we need urgent legislation to ban the practice, not the mealy-mouthed, broken-promise approach that we have seen from the Government so far.
My fourth point is that, as we come through the current crisis brought on by the pandemic, we need to recognise that we must face up to the next crisis, which is the existential threat of climate change. The Climate Change Committee today criticised the Government for setting wonderful targets with no means to deliver them, and that is exactly the situation in aviation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) said, we need a sustainable aviation strategy, and we need it fast. It should be based on a clear, just transition programme so that communities such as mine are given resources to develop a local economic strategy that will ensure we benefit from the environmentally sustainable aviation sector and have access to skilled and well-paid jobs in other developing sectors of the economy. We need that urgently, if not tomorrow.
Finally, as a west London MP, I want to say this: let us end the ludicrous nonsense that building a third runway will in any way comply with our climate change duties.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
We had a similar debate in the Chamber less than two weeks ago, but the situation facing the aviation sector, and indeed much of the wider travel industry, is so stark and immediate that we could debate the issue of support every week. The hon. Gentleman, who represents Gatwick airport in much the same way as I represent Glasgow airport, has campaigned hard on this issue, and I commend him for it.
One third of the 6,000 on-campus jobs at Glasgow airport have gone, and countless more have gone in off-campus support services and supply chain companies. Perhaps the most important thing to note is that those thousands of local jobs have gone while there is a furlough scheme in place, such is the cash burden and the grave outlook for the sector. I do not want to begin to imagine how many more jobs will go in September if the furlough scheme is not extended in that industry at least.
We are looking at a calamity for thousands of families across Renfrewshire, and perhaps hundreds of thousands around the UK. That would be an economic catastrophe, both locally and nationally. I very much echo the comments that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made about fire and rehire. It needs to go now.
Amid all this doom and gloom, there is a sector trying to remain positive and plan for a brighter future. It includes Loganair, based in my constituency at Glasgow airport, which has announced that its new GreenSkies programme will include a £1 charge on every ticket to invest in schemes aimed at tackling climate change and to remove the same amount of carbon from the environment as is generated by its aircraft. It is also beginning trials in Orkney of aircraft powered by hydrogen and renewable electricity. It has committed to being fully carbon neutral by 2040. That, of course, follows Glasgow airport becoming the first to introduce electric bus fleets to its operations, and achieving carbon neutrality for emissions under its direct control in 2020.
Ambitious plans for net zero are not only the preserve of Glasgow. I am not parochial—well, not on this occasion. I spoke to Bristol airport recently, which proudly told me of the ambitious plans on contributing to making the industry and the country at large net zero. That is all excellent stuff. It is very welcome and, indeed, necessary, but the reality is that if the sector survives, much of it will be so indebted or reduced in scope and capacity that the capital required to make such investments simply will not exist. That is clearly me done with the positivity, Dr Huq.
I said to the Secretary of State this morning during Transport questions that I have lost count of the number of times I have brought up support for the aviation sector since the start of the pandemic, either before or after the Government promised to do just that. I have since had the opportunity to check and the answer is 34. I have brought this up 34 times with the Government and had the same bluff and bluster response, including that the industry has had access to various routes for loan funding. That has resulted in our airline industry having a higher debt ratio than much of its international competition, where support has been largely through non-repayable grants, which in the USA totalled over £23 billion, in Germany nearly £8 billion, in France £6.5 billion and in the Netherlands £3.2 billion.
In November, the Government finally announced limited business rates support for the sector, seven months after the Scottish Government had announced a similar scheme in Scotland. I say similar, Dr Huq, but in Scotland the scheme is uncapped and extends to airlines based there as well. Moreover, this moratorium has been extended by a full year by the Scottish Government, while the UK Government’s limited and capped version will continue for only six months. Given the situation the sector faces, this is clearly unsustainable. In his summing up, I hope the Minister will confirm that an extension is being considered. If so, will the caps and limitations be removed?
We finally have an agreed four-nations approach to border health to manage the risk of importation of new cases and variants from international travel, in the form of the traffic light system. Under the previous arrangements, the delta variant entered Scotland because the UK Government would not engage with the Scottish Government’s concerns, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) has already mentioned.
The level of risk earlier in year was such that all UK Governments were advised that all direct arrivals should enter managed-isolation hotels. Scotland did so, but only red list arrivals had to do so in England. Moreover, the UK Government refused to help identify passengers in England travelling on to Scotland, so that they could also be required to enter quarantine hotels. The significant delay, perhaps for political reasons, in announcing that India would go on to the red list was far too long and we can see the direct results of that in our record case numbers in recent days.
Any system, traffic lights or otherwise, needs to be dynamic, requiring rapid decision making on emerging risks that are identified by the Joint Biosecurity Centre. The Scottish Government are keen to stick to a four-nations approach, but if Scottish Ministers feel they need to, they will make the decisions that are right to protect Scotland. Fundamentally, we absolutely understand the importance of international travel to the tourism and hospitality sector, not least for jobs in my constituency.
In terms of the wider tourism and hospitality sector, which is equally important to the Scottish economy, UKHospitality is clear: while the Scottish Government are providing firms with breathing space on business rates, the UK Government are just kicking the can down the road. The Scottish Government’s extension of 100% hospitality rates relief is for a year, which is far longer than the three months offered in England, with a discount for a further six months.
In fact, retail, tourism, hospitality, aviation and newspaper businesses in Scotland will pay no rates during 2021-22 at all. Kate Nicholls, the chief executive at UKHospitality, told the Treasury Committee earlier this month:
“In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, 100% business rates holidays have been given to hospitality for a full year. It gives those businesses breathing space to avoid having to make the tough decision between paying taxes and paying people. In England we do not have that luxury. We will have to pay our taxes from day one.”
One of the cogs of the Scottish tourism sector is the coach industry, which is worth an estimated £400 million and supports around 4,000 jobs. Around 80% of the coach industry’s income is derived from tourism. The Scottish Government have a coach operators fund to support the sector, but the UK Government have no such scheme.
In written evidence to the Transport Committee, Kevin Mayne of Maynes Coaches said that the help and understanding of the Scottish Government towards coaching has been well received by the industry. Moreover, the then Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism, Fergus Ewing, told the Scottish Parliament in January that Westminster “declined” his calls to provide support for the coach industry across the UK. He said:
“That is why we are going ahead with the Scottish scheme to compensate coach operators, which are an essential and quality part of the tourism offering in Scotland.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 21 January 2021; c. 32.]
Mr Mayne provided the following in evidence:
“Mr Ewing’s description of coaching as ‘essential’ contrasts with controversial comments made by Transport Minister Baroness Vere at the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK Bus and Coach Conference on 12 January.
She told delegates that the UK government regards home-to-school and rail replacement services as essential, but that other coaching activity is seen as ‘non-essential.’ That created a ‘very difficult’ situation for them when deciding whether to offer a UK-wide support package for coaches.”
Will the Minister commit to comprehensive support for the English coaching sector?
It is regrettable that the Conservatives remain committed to imposing a September cliff-edge on the tourism sector by ending the 5% VAT rate. In particular, extending the relief is critical for those who operate on a seasonal basis, a significant amount of whom are in Scotland, especially given that summer lasts for about a week. Kate Nicholls of UKHospitality said in the same Treasury Committee meeting:
“The single biggest thing that the Government have done to help the sector through this crisis, which has helped to support and sustain jobs through the crisis, has been to introduce a lower rate of VAT for tourism services”.
Can the Minister confirm that an extension is being actively considered?
I will conclude by bringing my remarks back to where I started: aviation. I said earlier that I had raised the issue 34 times—it is now 35 times. This morning, I asked the Secretary of State directly if he was going to introduce an aviation, travel and tourism recovery package to support the sector and its workers, such as those protesting on College Green yesterday. He could not jump out of the way quick enough, even though he was sat before the Dispatch Box at the time. Instead, the Minister, whom I very much respect, had to take the hit and repeat all the various stats about support. Although that support is welcome as far as it goes, we will see the demise of the sector if it is not improved. I ask the Minister again: are the Government actively considering an aviation, travel and tourism recovery package or, at the very least, some further support for the sector?
As I have said previously in this place, the UK started the pandemic with the world’s third-largest aviation sector. With about one third of the workforce already gone, it will certainly not be the third largest coming out of the pandemic, and there is a real risk that we will never regain such a lofty position without some dynamic and urgent action from this Government, who still seem unable to understand the importance of aviation to connectivity and the wider economy. Their time is running out.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. To the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), with whom I have been a fellow traveller for a number of years on the matters of aviation and the Chagos islanders, I say well done for securing the debate.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and I have just had a private discussion about the people of Scotland and Greater Manchester giving peace a chance. The First Minister should perhaps have picked up the phone to Mayor Andy Burnham before she made a decision to ban people from Bolton, which has a smaller covid outbreak than Dundee. I think we can do better than that. We are not going to burn the First Minister in effigy—that betrays human dignity—but we are thinking of donning the woad and marching north as a conurbation.
It was heartening to see the whole industry come together to lobby. As has been mentioned, yesterday on College Green, hundreds spoke up for travel, airlines, airports and travel agents. Unions, cabin crew, and colleagues from all parties united to highlight the dire situation of the UK’s aviation, travel and tourism industries. The hon. Member for Crawley robbed from my speech when he spoke in his articulate way about the worth of those industries not just to our constituencies but, as the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) pointed out, to the wider economies around airports in particular.
That is why I really want to push the Government on what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said about the sector-specific deal. The Chancellor promised way back at the beginning of the pandemic that he would deliver a sector-specific package for the aviation industry, and we are still waiting. The Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) assured the House that a tourism recovery plan was on the way and would be announced by the end of spring. Well, solstice was on Monday, and according to my rusty Latin, it means “when the sun stands still”. The only things standing still at the moment are our travel, tourism and aviation industries.
There has been much debate about the traffic light system, which I know has been challenged by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). I should point out that there have been great speeches from Members from both sides of the Chamber, and I wish I could name them all in the time I have available. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, there is a real human cost. We in this House have lost friends. I have lost Lord Jimmy Gordon of Strathblane, who was a mate of mine. I lost an aunt to covid the other week. A councillor where I live has just come out of hospital after being in ICU. I have not seen my friends and family in the west of Ireland for nearly two years. There is a real human cost to this disease, and the hon. Gentleman was right to mention it.
On the traffic light system, the Government have to get going so that we capitalise on the immunisation dividend that hon. Members have mentioned, but maybe that is a discussion for another day. We are talking about getting confidence back in our industry, not lurching from false start to false start. Her Majesty’s official Opposition are thinking of setting up a taskforce to look at the number of taskforces that the Department for Transport has set up in the past 12 months that have been ineffectual.
Nobody is arguing in favour of unrestricted travel, but given the success and advanced state of our vaccination programme, thanks to the wonderful NHS, it may now be time for the Government to follow their own recommendations, which were announced in the global travel taskforce. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), how can we as a nation be more restricted now than we were 12 months ago when we did not have a vaccine? The rationale and data must be published, and the methodology shared of how the decisions are made to place a country on the red, amber or green list.
I say directly to the Minister that the Manchester Airports Group should not be having to launch legal challenges against the Government in order to get transparency on the traffic light system. We will listen at what the Government say tonight, but we will see in a couple of weeks what the courts say.
We have a pandemic. We are not attacking the Government, but we are highlighting their inadequacies. This stop-start nature is ruining the confidence of this industry. As we approach the summer, the Prime Minister has been saying it is not going to be a full season. That immediately knocks millions more pounds off these important industries.
We have said time and again that we support the furlough scheme. I agree with Members who have said that we will highlight unscrupulous employers who have attacked workers’ pay and conditions during this time. That is not British and it is unpatriotic every time, and we will call it out.
We have consistently called for a sectoral deal. As is illustrated in this debate, politicians are urging the Government to intervene. Ministers have to intervene. The dither and delay cannot go on. We have to either get a summer season or introduce a package. The Government’s modus operandi is to put the situation back on the industry, whether it be travel agents or the cruise industry, which takes 2 million passengers a year from UK shores and adds billions to our economy, or whether it is passengers in amber list countries, making it up as they go along—“It is your responsibility for you to be safe.” The Government need to tell us and give confidence and certainty to the industry. That is what it is crying out for.
The delay in opening up on 21 June was a hammer blow to the industry and a potential final blow to many who are struggling. The message that we should go with from here today is that we are very proud of our world-class aviation industry, which is the third biggest on the planet—one that we want to be greener, cleaner and more efficient—with world-leading technologies and well-unionised jobs across the sector. Millions are employed by it. We have a world-class cruise industry that takes people across the planet and around our shores. We have a world-class travel industry, second to none. This is what is going to regenerate our economy, give pride back to our nation and get the country back on its feet. We need certainty. We do not need any more dither and delay.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr Huq. I thank the House for all of the excellent speeches that we have heard—all of them impassioned, well informed and constructive. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for securing this important debate. He is the voice of Gatwick and is consistently eloquent in his advocacy. He is consistently constructive. He has put the case with real passion and clarity today, and not just for his constituents, but for the travel, tourism and aviation sector in a much broader sense, highlighting the global importance of the sector. I thank him for so doing.
The House should be under no illusions: the Government recognise and deeply value the critical importance of international travel. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley said that it is not just about two weeks in the sun, although as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who chairs the Transport Committee, said there is nothing wrong with that—and he is right, partly because of the enjoyment that it brings people and partly because what lies behind those two weeks in the sun are people’s jobs. It is about the industries and the sector in a much broader sense.
We have heard much, understandably, from many right hon. and hon. Members on the impact on jobs in their constituencies. I hope they will forgive me if I only mention them by name, given the very limited time I have. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and for Slough (Mr Dhesi) all mentioned the impact of this crisis on their constituents with real passion and clarity. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) talked about the wider ecosystem and those who support the wider sector.
It is about jobs, of course, but it is also about much more. Travel, aviation and tourism also connect families that have been kept apart. It is about people’s lives. Travel underpins the economy in every possible way, but it is also central to the way we see ourselves as a nation: outward-looking, global, a trading nation. The desire to explore is in the British DNA. That is perhaps why so many Members are here today. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle gave a vivid description of the personal costs of the pandemic. That is why it is essential that the steps that we take now lay the groundwork for a sustainable return to international travel in the future and build upon our successful vaccination programme.
I will say a word or two about our approach at the outset. The Secretary of State confirmed on 7 May that non-essential international travel could resume on 17 May; that is when the “stay in the UK” regulation was lifted, allowing international travel to recommence under the new traffic light system. This system cautiously balances the reopening of international travel while at the same time managing the risk posed by imported variants. That is the basis of the traffic light system.
I heard the comments from hon. Members, and I heard the speech from the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for whom I have the greatest respect. However, when I hear Labour Members call for the amber list to be scrapped, which is precisely the thing that will harm the travel sector even more at the moment, and I set that alongside the reported comment that the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) gave from the shadow Transport Secretary yesterday, who said that we should open up travel, if I have understood it correctly—
Robert Courts
The shadow Defence Secretary; I am grateful to him for correcting me. That is the confused position of Labour: simultaneously calling for the travel sector to be opened up while at the same time arguing to scrap the amber list, which would damage the sector. I hope Labour Members will forgive me for saying that they are not in any position to give lessons to the Government about how to manage this when their party’s position is changing by the day.
Robert Courts
The right hon. Member for Exeter gave a reported comment from someone. Provided that is the case, Labour’s position is changing by the day.
In any event, the Joint Biosecurity Centre produces risk assessments of countries and territories for the traffic light system, so it is data-driven. Sometimes difficult decisions have to be made, which are guided by the information given by the JBC and then made by Ministers. A summary of that is published on the website, alongside the wider public health factors that we have to take into account.
The right hon. Member for Exeter made a powerful speech. I entirely share his passion for international travel and I have the greatest respect for him. I know he will understand that, at a time like this, the Government have to take difficult decisions. We are in the early stages of a return to international travel, and as the data allow, we will look to open up international travel as it is safe to do so, but it must be safe, it must be sustainable and it must be robust. We have to accept that travel may not be quite the same this year. I say that because it is so important that we do not throw away the hard-won steps we have taken.
Thanks to the sacrifices of the British people, we have been able to get to the stage that we are at now. I accept that the approach is cautious, because it is meant to be robust. These have been difficult times, but none of us wants to go backwards, for the reason that the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East said at the beginning of his speech, when he reminded us of the cost of covid.
Mr Bradshaw
I hope the Minister will go on to say something about the expansion of the green list and what will happen with covid passports. Can he explain why the Governments of other countries—Germany, those in the rest of the Europe, and America—who have just as much concern for the health of their people, are ahead of us on international travel, when we are more highly vaccinated? Where is the vaccine dividend that the Government promised? We are getting left behind comparable countries, in spite of our vaccination levels. How does the Minister explain that?
Robert Courts
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point. Every country is approaching this issue in a slightly different way, and it is not as straightforward as simply comparing the way one country manages it with the way another does. We are doing something that is cautious, because we are seeking to protect the vaccine dividend to which he rightly draws attention. He asked me to talk about the green list. I know he understands that I cannot foreshadow any announcements that might take place later today, either on that or on the point of vaccination. We of course recognise the strong strategic rationale and the success of the vaccination programme, and we are working to consider the role of vaccinations in shaping a different set of health and testing measures for inbound travel. We will be able to set out our position on that in due course.
I stress that the measures that are set out at present, and what is seen by right hon. and hon. Members in the traffic light system at present, are not set in stone. We are working towards a future travel system that can co-exist with an endemic covid-19. As such, and as recommended in the global travel taskforce report, the Government’s approach will be assessed on 28 June, 31 July and 1 October to ensure that the measures and approach that we have in place are adequate. Of course, as Members will realise, the first such review is imminent. I know Members have a real hunger for further information, and we will set out our position in due course.
The Government recognise that there is plenty more to do. The tourism recovery plan has recently been published—I would have very much liked to speak about it in a bit more detail, but I am conscious that the time is rapidly running out. The Government are developing a forward-looking strategic framework for aviation, which will explore key issues such as workforce, skills, regional connectivity, noise, innovation, regulation and consumer issues, alongside climate change and decarbonisation.
I am sorry that I need to sit down to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley time to sum up at the end, but I will finish by quoting him. He said that the best way to support travel and aviation is to enable them to operate. The Government and I fundamentally agree with him on that, and we are working hard to turn those words and aspirations into reality. There are no two ways about it: the pandemic has brought dark times on the country. Thanks to the success of the vaccination programme, however, the light is growing.
Henry Smith
I thank the right hon. Members for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my hon. Friends the Members for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and for Warrington South (Andy Carter), and the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Slough (Mr Dhesi), for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) and for Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands)—he has had to fly back to Scotland and cannot be present.
I also thank my hon. Friend the aviation Minister. I know he understands the importance of getting the sector back up and running. Even though he cannot say so, I know he shares many of our frustrations. The message I want to leave is that we cannot operate as an economy, be it international travel or anything else, on a zero-covid strategy. The coronavirus will probably be with us for the rest of our lives. We will probably have to have a rolling vaccination programme for the foreseeable future. We will have to learn to live with it. We cannot afford for it to dominate our lives for much longer. Otherwise, the impact that it will have on employment and general prosperity—mental health has been mentioned as well—will be severe. There is a special case for the sector to have furlough extended beyond September, because of the fact that, unlike most other parts of the economy, it seems, sadly, that it will not be able to open in a meaningful way.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their eloquence and erudite comments, many of which, if not all of them, I very much agree with.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for the aviation, tourism and travel industries in response to the covid-19 pandemic.
Written Statements
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
FCDO Services Ministerial Targets 2021-22
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
My noble Friend the Minister for South Asia and the Commonwealth, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, has made the following written ministerial statement:
FCDO Services operates as a trading fund of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). I have set the following ambitious performance targets for 2021-2022:
An in-year surplus in excess of 0.0% before interest, tax and dividend;
Achievement of the return on capital employed (ROCE) of at least 6.5% (weighted average);
A productivity ratio of at least 82%, measuring actual billable hours versus available billable hours;
An in-year customer satisfaction rating average at least of 82%;
An average Civil Service People Survey "Your Say” score for ‘Employee Engagement’ of at least 61%; and
An average Civil Service People Survey “Your Say” score for “My Manager” of at least 65%.
FCDO Services will report to Parliament on its success against these targets through its annual report and accounts for 2021-22.
FCDO Services is a trading fund of the FCDO. It provides a range of integrated, secure services worldwide to the FCDO and other UK Government Departments, supporting the delivery of Government agendas. Services include protective security, estates and construction, cloud computing, communications and monitoring, logistics, translation and interpreting. This is combined with a portfolio of global maintenance work. FCDO Services also manages the UK National Authority for Counter Eavesdropping (UK NACE), helping protect UK assets from physical, electronic and cyber-attack.
[HCWS118]
Public Service Pensions: Cost Control Mechanism and Discount Rate Methodology
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
The Government have today published two consultations relating to public service pensions. These consultations seek views on two important aspects of the framework governing public service pension schemes: proposed reforms to the cost control mechanism and the methodology used to set the discount rate used at valuations of unfunded public service pension schemes.
One of the proposed reforms to the cost control mechanism could mean that the discount rate used at valuations of unfunded public service schemes to set employer contribution rates may also become relevant to the outcome of the cost control mechanism in the future. These consultations are therefore being published in parallel to ensure that respondents are fully informed of any potential interactions and to allow them to consider their responses across both areas of the public service pension framework.
The cost control mechanism
The first consultation document published today is titled “Public Service Pensions: Proposal to Reform the Cost Control Mechanism”.
Following recommendations from the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission in 2011, the cost control mechanism was introduced into the valuation process for public service pension schemes in the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 following consultation with member representatives. It was designed to ensure a fair balance of risk regarding the cost of providing defined benefit (DB) public service pensions between members and the taxpayer.
In September 2018, the Government announced they would ask the Government Actuary to conduct a review of the mechanism amidst concerns that it was not operating in line with its original objectives, which are:
To protect taxpayers from unforeseen costs
To maintain the value of pension schemes to the members
To provide stability and certainty to benefit levels—the mechanism should only be triggered by “extraordinary, unpredictable events”.
The Government Actuary’s final report, which sets out his findings and recommendations, was published on 15 June. The Government have considered this report and are now consulting on reforms they propose to make to the mechanism to ensure it operates as intended. All of the Government’s proposed changes are recommendations by the Government Actuary.
The consultation will last for eight weeks and close on 19 August. The consultation document can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/public-'>https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/public- service-pensions-cost-control-mechanism-consultation.
The discount rate methodology
The second consultation is titled “Public Service Pensions: Consultation on the discount rate methodology”.
“SCAPE” (superannuation contributions adjusted for past experience) is the name of the process for setting employer contribution rates at valuations of unfunded public service pension schemes. The “SCAPE discount rate” is the discount rate used as part of this process. It is used to express the pension promises being built up in a scheme as a present-day cost and is set by HM Treasury following a prescribed methodology.
The Government previously consulted on the methodology used to set the SCAPE discount rate in 2010. In response to that consultation, they announced that the SCAPE discount rate methodology would be based on expected long-term GDP growth.
In response to the 2010 consultation, the Government expressed an intention to review the SCAPE discount rate methodology every 10 years. This consultation meets that intention and seeks views on the most appropriate methodology for setting the SCAPE discount rate going forward.
The consultation will last for eight weeks and close on 19 August. The consultation document can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/public-'>https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/public- service-pensions-consultation-on-the-discount-rate-methodology.
[HCWS117]
Exercises in the Black Sea
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
On Wednesday 23 June 2021, HMS Defender (a Type 45 destroyer), left the Ukrainian port of Odessa en route to the Georgian port of Batumi in the Black sea. HMS Defender conducted innocent passage through Ukrainian territorial waters via a direct route using a traffic separation scheme (TSS), as is the right of the United Kingdom (and all nations) under international maritime law. This TSS is governed by the International Maritime Organisation and is designed to assist vessels in safely transiting congested waterways. The United Kingdom does not recognise any Russian claim to these waters, nor do we recognise the assertion from the Russian Ministry of Defence that HMS Defender was in violation of the UN convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS).
At 0950 BST, HMS Defender entered the TSS, inside Ukrainian territorial waters. At 1000 BST, a Russian coastguard vessel warned that Russian units would shortly commence a live fire gunnery exercise. At 1008 BST, HMS Defender noted gunnery astern and out of range of her position. This posed no danger to HMS Defender. During her transit, HMS Defender was overflown by Russian combat aircraft at varying heights, the lowest of which was approximately 500 feet. These aircraft posed no immediate threat to HMS Defender, but some of these manoeuvres were neither safe nor professional. HMS Defender responded by VHF radio to the Russian units on several occasions and was, at all times, courteous and professional.
HMS Defender maintained a safe course throughout her innocent passage, on one occasion manoeuvring to avoid a hazard presented by a Russian coastguard vessel before re-assuming her intended course. HMS Defender completed the passage safely and in accordance with her intended route, departed Ukrainian territorial waters at 1026 BST. At no point were warning shots fired at HMS Defender, nor bombs dropped in her path as has been asserted by the Russian authorities.
Later on Wednesday 23 June 2021, the United Kingdom’s defence attaché was invited to a meeting in the Russian Ministry of Defence at which he received a note verbale. This will be considered and addressed in due course.
Under Article 19 of UNCLOS, HMS Defender had the right to exercise innocent passage through Ukrainian territorial waters in the manner she did without giving any notice of her intention to do so. This is a right the United Kingdom affords to Russia and other states in the context of the UK’s territorial waters, including the Dover TSS in the English channel.
The Royal Navy, as well as other NATO and partner nations, have enjoyed a routine maritime presence in the Black sea for many years. At the time of this interaction, there were both Dutch and US warships operating elsewhere within the Black sea. The Royal Navy’s presence is about co-operating with our partners and allies to advance regional security, stability and freedom of navigation.
HMS Defender continues with her planned deployment and programme of visits. The Royal Navy will always uphold international law and will not accept unlawful interference with innocent passage.
[HCWS122]
UK MINUSMA Deployment
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
I would like to update the House on my previous statement (HCWS622), announcing the start of the UK’s long-range reconnaissance group (LRRG) deployment to the United Nations multidimensional integrated stabilisation mission in Mali, MINUSMA.
The UK’s first rotation to MINUSMA, led by the Light Dragoons, began in December 2020 and I am pleased to report that they have now completed their handover to their successors, following a successful six-month deployment.
Our troops have so far delivered on their objectives—to contribute to improving the UN mission’s performance and to help reduce the spread of insecurity across Mali and the wider Sahel.
Our forces have engaged with Malian communities who had never before met UN forces to understand their needs and concerns. They have gathered intelligence to support mission planning and improve overall mission performance, including the protection of civilians. They also led MINUSMA’s first cordon and search operation for some time, seizing weapons and equipment hidden by terrorists threatening local communities, and demonstrating how UK personnel can make an innovative and effective contribution to the mission.
Their high performance and professionalism have been acknowledged by international partners on the ground, and the UN Force Commander.
The Light Dragoon-led task group has been replaced by a contingent led by the 2nd Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment, with personnel drawn from The Queen’s Dragoon Guards and other units from across the armed forces.
I congratulate our returning troops on completion of a successful tour in a challenging and dangerous environment, and I am confident that the second rotation is well placed to build on the solid foundations laid by those preceding them. The new UK task group will be under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Will Meddings, of the Royal Anglian Regiment, and will continue to form a crucial component of the mission and force, working alongside over 60 other nations.
Despite the successes of our armed forces, we are conscious that the ongoing situation in Mali remains complex and needs a whole of Government approach to achieve our desired results. The coup in Mali last month reinforces the important role the international community plays in supporting stability in the country. The UK remains committed to the transition process towards democratic, constitutional rule in Mali. We will also maintain a close relationship with our allies, ensuring our activity aligns with planned adjustments to France’s footprint in the Sahel.
Our peacekeeping deployment to Mali is part of a broader HMG contribution seeking to help tackle the root causes of conflict. This includes a number of UK-funded programmes across Mali that intend to not only improve the lives of the civilian population, but also complement the tasks conducted by our armed forces. Programmes include helping communities resolve conflicts over land and resources; supporting women in taking a stronger role in conflict resolution; and helping civilian and military actors to better co-ordinate work.
While I am pleased to report that the troops in our first rotation will arrive home safe and well, we remain clear that this mission does not come without risk to those deployed. We regularly assess risks and will continue to make adjustments to ensure our forces can conduct operations safely.
Lessons identified from our first rotation will be applied to future MINUSMA deployments. We will also continue to draw on insight provided by the LRRG to support our efforts within the UN in New York to drive policy reform. They will feed into a review of our future commitment at the end of the year.
As outlined in the integrated review, the UK deployment to MINUSMA is a clear demonstration of this Government’s commitment to play a leading international role in multilateralism, collective security and conflict resolution. I am pleased to report on the successes of this first rotation, and will provide further updates to the House as the deployment progresses.
[HCWS121]
News UK Undertakings: Application for Release in Full
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
On 1 February 2021, News UK submitted an application to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport requesting that I release in full the undertakings that were accepted by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), in 2019, to replace conditions put in place by the then Secretary of State for Trade, the right hon. John Biffin MP, in 1981.
News UK has submitted that the changes in the newspaper industry and the challenges posed by the covid-19 pandemic mean that the undertakings are no longer necessary.
They note that the undertakings place them at a competitive disadvantage to other newspapers, and that the release is necessary to allow the continued provision of quality news by The Times and The Sunday Times.
Copies of the invitation to comment and the application documents will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The deadline for comments is 5 pm on 15 July. This application will be considered in a quasi-judicial manner through a fair and transparent process.
If, after considering the responses, I am minded to release, or vary the undertakings, there will be a further consultation on my decision as required by legislation.
[HCWS120]
Landscapes Review: Government Response
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
In May 2018, DEFRA commissioned Julian Glover and an independent panel to consider how we might improve the management of our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONBs).
Their report, the landscapes review, was published in September 2019. It set out a series of recommendations, including that more should be done to support nature’s recovery in these landscapes; that the status of AONBs should be strengthened; that there was a need to bring the family of protected landscapes closer together with more strategic oversight and greater opportunities for career progression; and that more funding should support public access to protected landscapes.
The Government agree that more funding should be directed towards making space for nature and supporting nature’s recovery in our protected landscapes. Since the review was published, we have been supporting important projects in our protected landscapes through our nature for climate fund and green recovery challenge fund. Our future local nature recovery scheme, part of the future agriculture policy, will also support the objective of nature’s recovery in our protected landscapes and beyond. I have also asked Natural England to prepare proposals for the possible designation of additional national nature reserves, where there is landowner support, and to consider how nature’s recovery within such designations might be supported financially through our new landscape recovery scheme (also part of our future agriculture policy).
The Government also agree that we should do more to support public access to protected landscapes. Today, I am announcing the new farming in protected landscapes programme, which will provide additional investment to allow farmers and other land managers to work in partnership with our national park authorities and AONB teams to improve public access, and deliver bigger and better outcomes for the environment, for people and for places.
Natural England also will be taking forward the Government’s commitment to designate additional protected landscapes and is currently considering the designation of four new areas.
Yorkshire Wolds AONB
Cheshire Sandstone Ridge AONB
An extension to the Surrey Hills AONB
An extension to the Chilterns AONB
This work will contribute to the Government’s commitment of protecting 30% of our land by 2030, and boosting biodiversity, while taking forward the review’s recommendation to designate more areas of the country for their natural beauty.
Each of our protected landscapes has its own identity, and many of their functions require local accountability. However, we are also considering how their structures might be changed so that we can bring the family of protected landscapes closer together, and ensure there is more strategic direction nationally, while retaining their local functions. We will also be exploring opportunities to increase private investment, particularly by diversifying funding sources to include emerging markets in natural capital and other commercial opportunities. We are also considering options to strengthen the status and support given to areas of outstanding natural beauty and the recommendation to possibly change their name. The Government will be working closely with our partners over the coming months including local authorities and national park authorities, to address the review’s recommendations in full and consult on draft proposals later this year.
[HCWS119]
High Fat, Sugar and Salt Advertising Consultation Response
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
Today, I am pleased to announce that the Government are publishing the consultation response to both the 2019 and 2020 consultations. This outlines the final UK-wide policy on restricting high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) advertising, which we intend to legislate for in the upcoming Health and Care Bill.
Covid-19 has brought the dangers of obesity into sharp focus and highlighted that as a country we need to address the risks obesity presents. The Prime Minister has been clear that helping the nation get fitter and healthier must be a national priority and will make us more resilient to diseases in the future.
In 2018 the Government set the ambition to halve childhood obesity by 2030 and help adults reach a healthier weight. As part of a suite of measures to meet this ambition, is it important that we reduce children’s exposure to advertising for products high in fat, sugar and salt on TV and online. We want to ensure that the media our children engage with mostly promotes a healthy diet. Evidence suggests that exposure to HFSS advertising can affect what and when children eat, shaping children’s food preferences from a young age. Over time, excess consumption can lead to children becoming overweight or obese, all of which puts their future health at risk; already one in three children leaving primary school are overweight or living with obesity.
In July 2020, as part of the tackling obesity’ strategy, the Government announced their intention to implement a 9 pm watershed on TV for advertising high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS). This followed on from a consultation held by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and DHSC in 2019. The Government also announced they wanted to go further online and from November to December 2020 held a public consultation on introducing a total HFSS restriction online.
Shaping the marketing to our children
We will be introducing a 9 pm watershed on TV and UK on-demand programme services (ODPS) alongside a restriction of paid-for advertising online.
The product categories in scope of the restriction have been revised since consultation to focus on those that are of most concern to childhood obesity. The healthiest products within a specific category can still be advertised and products such as butter, olive oil and condiments are out of scope. This is consistent with the approach used for the promotion restrictions on volume and location which is also part of the strategy.
The online restriction is limited to paid-for advertising and will not apply to “owned media”—those spaces online where full editorial control and ownership applies, such as a brand’s own blog, website or social media page.
The policy will have a number of exemptions to balance health benefits and impacts on business. These are as follows:
Brand advertising (online and 9 pm watershed): Provided there are no identifiable HFSS products, food and drink brands can continue to advertise. This is to ensure that brands are not pigeonholed as synonymous with HFSS products and have the freedom to reformulate and move towards offering healthier products.
Small medium enterprises (SME) (online and 9 pm watershed): Businesses with 249 employees or fewer, that pay to advertise HFSS products that they manufacture and/or sell, will be exempt from the HFSS restrictions and can continue to advertise.
Audio (online only): As the impact and levels of child exposure to HFSS advertising on audio- only media (e.g. podcasts, online only radio) remain unclear, these forms of media are not subject to restrictions.
Business to business (online only): Businesses can continue to promote their products or services to other businesses, which we hope will prevent unintended consequences of impeding business activity where commerce is not with the purpose of encouraging children’s consumption of HFSS food or drink.
Transactional content (online only): To ensure that online content for the purpose of facilitating transactions involved in buying and selling products can continue and that consumers have enough information at the point of sale/purchase.
The enforcement approach will mirror current frameworks with broadcasters and ODPS under UK jurisdiction being liable for breaches of the watershed and advertisers being liable online. Ofcom will also be appointed as the appropriate regulatory authority for these restrictions and will be able to appoint a day-to-day regulator to carry out frontline regulation. The Government expect the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to fulfil this role.
Obesity is a complex issue that will not be solved by one policy alone. This is why our strategy includes a suite of measures such as expanding weight management services and restricting promotions of HFSS products.
This is the latest measure to support individuals to improve their health and thereby reduce pressure on the NHS. I welcome Members’ support and their views on how we can support the nation to get healthier and achieve our ambition of halving childhood obesity by 2030.
[HCWS123]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the Magnitsky-style sanctions issued under the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I warmly thank all those noble Lords taking part in today’s debate.
The passage into law of the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020, usually referred to as the Magnitsky Act, was welcomed by all parties. It was a bold affirmation of the values that we hold in common with other democracies that have enacted similar legislation. At a time of intensified geopolitical contest between democracy and authoritarianism, the Magnitsky Act underlines our readiness to sanction powerful figures in authoritarian regimes who abuse state power in pursuit of personal enrichment.
However, the credibility of such sanctions depends crucially on our willingness to apply them without fear or favour, whenever and wherever gross abuses of state power occur. If Magnitsky sanctions were perceived beyond our shores as penalties that we confined to Russian oligarchs, Chinese intelligence officers and Burmese generals, they would soon lose their power to deter unacceptable behaviours in the wider world. So I should like to take the opportunity today to draw noble Lords’ attention to an example of where our failure to contemplate imposing Magnitsky sanctions could render us vulnerable to the charge of double standards. The case that I will describe, on which I have corresponded with Ministers for eight years, arises not from a hostile state but from one with which this country enjoys cordial relations: Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, which I have visited many times.
Mr Ryan Cornelius is a British national. He has had his assets seized in state-enabled corruption. He has been tortured and imprisoned after a grossly flawed legal process. Ryan is a British businessman. In Saudi Arabia, he built the largest precision tunnelling company in the Middle East from scratch. From Bahrain, where he settled in the late 1990s, he went on to launch a range of ambitious construction ventures across the region. One of them, undertaken with several partners, was a major residential and leisure complex in a prime location in Dubai called the Plantation.
When the global financial crisis struck in late 2007, the investment company that was funding most of Ryan’s ventures told him that its line of credit from the Dubai Islamic Bank had been called in abruptly. The investment company was able to negotiate a restructuring agreement to repay its loan, which totalled some $500 million, over three years. However, the Dubai Islamic Bank made it a condition of signing that Ryan should stand as a guarantor of the agreement and pledge his business and personal assets as collateral. Ryan had little choice but to agree, but in any case his assets were comfortably worth more than the loan. The Plantation alone had recently been valued at over $1 billion by two leading international assessors.
Shortly after the agreement was signed, Dubai Islamic Bank’s chairman was removed and replaced by the man who remains its chairman today, Mr Mohammed al-Shaibani. Mr Shaibani is also chief executive of the ruler’s court, a position that gives him direct oversight of every arm of government, including the security police and the financial audit department. Mr Shaibani is also chairman of Nakheel, Dubai’s largest property developer.
In May 2008, the repayment of the loan was proceeding ahead of schedule when Ryan was arrested at Dubai airport. He had a hood placed over his head, his hands were bound with zip ties and he was taken to a windowless room at Dubai police headquarters. After a hostile interrogation, he was given a statement in Arabic that he could not read, and told that if he signed it then he would be free to return to Bahrain. Instead, he was taken to a cell and held in solitary confinement for over six weeks.
Ryan’s partners were also arrested and held in solitary confinement. While he was there and unable to communicate with the outside world, Dubai Islamic Bank served 15 days’ notice of foreclosure and then took possession of the Plantation. Over the following months, his other businesses were either seized or forced into liquidation, and over the following years his personal assets were seized one by one, including, finally, his London home, leaving his wife and family homeless.
Ryan and his fellow defendants were held for two years before being brought to trial for fraud and money laundering. No translator was provided, and Ryan was unable to follow proceedings, but the judge announced at the end of the trial that he was unable to convict the defendants on the basis of the evidence presented. Ryan was not released, although by then he had been held for longer than the maximum sentence he would have received for a fraud conviction. A second trial was held in front of a new judge with different charges.
The prosecutor now charged that the unpaid balance of Dubai Islamic Bank’s loan amounted to theft from the state: a charge which required the bank to be reclassified as a state entity. The collateral that it had seized, including the Plantation, was dismissed as worthless. The new judge duly convicted Ryan and the other defendants and sentenced them to 10 years in prison. The judge also ordered them to pay $500 million to Dubai Islamic Bank and an additional fine of $500 million. Dubai Islamic Bank’s published accounts show no trace of the loss alleged by the prosecution. In a letter to the Central Bank of the UAE, in September 2008, Dubai Islamic Bank confirmed that the seized collateral exceeded the value of its loan.
The seizure of the Plantation, the imprisonment and the imposition of unrepayable financial sanctions is a typical criminal corporate raid, which cloaks thuggery in a veneer of judicial process to seize assets and force the victim into a hopeless position. State officials were the initiators, enablers and beneficiaries of the raid. This was corruption of the highest order.
Ryan served his 10 years in full, denied the statutory 25% reduction for good behaviour. But instead of being released in 2018, he and his former business partner were taken without notice to a judge’s office and informed that Dubai Islamic Bank had asked for their sentence to be extended by a further 20 years. It did so under a law which was enacted after their imprisonment and well after the alleged offence. That additional sentence of 20 years offends every basic principle of the rule of law. That sentence is itself unlawful and an affront to justice.
Ryan sought to appeal the new sentence but was told that he did not have the right to issue power of attorney to a lawyer. He decided to represent himself. On the day scheduled for the appeal hearing, Ryan was told that his name was not on the passenger list for the prison bus to the court. The judge then dismissed his appeal on the grounds that Ryan had not bothered to attend.
Ryan is now 67 years old. He will be 85 when his new sentence is complete. Two years ago, he tested positive for tuberculosis after a prisoner in an adjacent cell collapsed with the disease. It took 18 months before the prison authorities allowed him to receive medication. Ryan’s health has deteriorated alarmingly. A recently released fellow inmate testifies that he is kept in freezing conditions, with no bedding and subject to constant sleep deprivation. These conditions are cruel, degrading and inhuman; they amount to torture.
The powerful man keeping him in prison is no stranger to this country. In his High Court judgment of December 2019, Sir Andrew McFarlane found that Mohammed Al Shaibani had been present when the ruler’s daughter, Princess Shamsa, was abducted from the streets of Cambridge, drugged and taken to France against her will. Princess Latifa, another daughter whose bid for freedom ended in recapture, provided detailed audio testimony to a human rights organisation that she was threatened and coerced by Mohammed Shaibani on numerous occasions to make false statements to the British courts.
The extent of Shaibani’s personal determination to keep Ryan in captivity was made brutally clear by his response to a ruling by the Bahrain courts last year. Dubai Islamic Bank had launched civil proceedings in Bahrain against Ryan and his former business partner a year after their arrest to seize any residual assets there. The trial dragged on for 11 years, involved the appointment of numerous court experts and culminated in the Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution. The verdict by a panel of three judges found last year that Ryan and his ex-partner owed no money to Dubai Islamic Bank and that collateral and payments made to the bank exceeded their loan by over $70 million. The chamber’s website states that its judgments are final and unappealable. It is clear from private testimony that Mohammed Shaibani intervened personally with the Bahrain authorities following publication of the verdict. Four months later, after a brief hearing, a judgment deemed unappealable was reversed.
Mr Shaibani has numerous other victims beyond Ryan, including his former business partner, and there are doubtless numerous Shaibanis in many jurisdictions. Failure to act on our part will confirm to them that they can continue to destroy lives, as Ryan’s has been destroyed, with impunity. This will only make life more hazardous for the British nationals on whose efforts overseas this country’s future prosperity depends.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on his initiative and on raising that rather alarming case. Perhaps it is a little early after one year, but it is surely right to review the operation of the regulations. I shall make three brief points in my three minutes.
First, I would welcome comment from the Government on the effectiveness of consultation between allies and the exchanges of information relating to the listing of individuals, on the extent to which the Government are prepared to listen to non-governmental organisations with expertise in this area, and on whether they are satisfied with the transparency of proceedings. Clearly, there is merit in examining, after one year, what is happening; there is merit, too, in yet again congratulating Bill Browder on the remarkable campaigns that he has led in the US, in Canada, in the Baltic countries and in the European Union and other international organisations —I am glad that Bill is on our side. I accept that lists need not be identical, but there is surely merit in co-ordination.
Secondly, I am puzzled by the fact that no serious Iranian officials have been listed. Surely there is a strong case for listing, for example, the individual responsible for shooting down the Ukrainian airliner or the individuals responsible for putting down the demonstrations in Iran in 2019. Is this for prudential reasons? Perhaps that is the only explanation that can be given for the Government’s approach to the Dubai individual mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
My third observation is this: what does “effectiveness” mean in this context? How can it be measured, for example, in respect of individuals? In most cases, asset freezes and visa bans would not impact directly on the individuals who were responsible for torture. I think, for example, of the case of Sergei Magnitsky himself; one is concerned with listing not the individuals who carried out the torture in prison but those individuals further up the chain who were responsible for his treatment. It is unlikely that the small fry would have assets in the UK or would want to visit the UK. In my judgment, it is important to pass a clear message that these people are not welcome in the UK and other friendly countries and cannot salt their money away in our financial institutions.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, none of us has much time to say a great deal, but since I suspect that we are largely in agreement, across all parties and none, that the Magnitsky sanctions—in this jurisdiction now wrapped up in the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations—are a good thing, that may not matter.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on drawing the case that he mentioned to our attention and on opening this debate so powerfully. It is important that the United Kingdom, no matter what our internal political differences and economic troubles may be, must never avoid imposing sanctions on individuals and Governments on grounds of mere expedience. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, was right to mention Iran and the other matters that he drew to our attention.
I accept that any British Government’s foreign policy, which guides our Ministers, diplomats and international negotiators and thus affects the conduct of diplomacy, will need to anticipate and react to events outside our control. Whereas the conduct of government may be different in different countries, the need to abide by acceptable standards of conduct that do not ignore the rule of law or internationally accepted human rights cannot be compromised, must always be respected and is a universal requirement.
The torture of political prisoners in large, powerful countries, for example, needs to be responded to just as much as torture carried out in economically and militarily weak countries. The fact that we do or could sell more goods or services to a large country than a small one, while a superficially attractive reason and justifiable as realistic and nationally self-interested, to say and do nothing about the appalling behaviour of a large country’s leaders is, in the end, counterproductive and as morally acceptable as it would have been 200 years ago to prolong the slave trade.
Human rights abusers tend to be kleptocrats who thrive on the pain, suffering and stolen assets of the less powerful or politically inconvenient. If they use their ill-gotten gains and the laundered proceeds of crime to fill bank accounts or buy property here, we should recover those assets, tell the world that we have done so and return them to the victims of those crimes.
With these regulations, we now have the means to deter human rights abuses; it is Parliament’s job to ensure that this and any successor Government have the will to do so. I congratulate the Government on what they have done so far, but there is, in my view, a great deal more yet to do.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
Like all noble Lords and everyone concerned to do something about human rights violations and corruption, I strongly support the Magnitsky-style sanctions. Rather than simply condemning wrongdoing with words, they bring home to perpetrators the consequence of their actions. They also have the advantage that a whole population does not have to suffer, and they allow for the necessary political relationships to continue, even with odious regimes. But how effective have these sanctions been? This is why the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is so welcome.
I recognise that the legislation on these sanctions is relatively recent and that sanctions take some time to really have an effect, but I very much hope that the Minister will be able to provide some indication of their effectiveness. It is difficult to find out from other sources what their impact has been and whether they are indeed having any real effect. Obviously, we hope that, first, those guilty of human rights abuses or gross corruption will desist from any more criminal activity. We also hope that such sanctions will prove a deterrent to other potential abusers of rights or those engaged in corrupt financial practices. These are the real goals; indeed, they are the justifying purpose of such sanctions in the first place.
I recognise that answering the question of the effectiveness of sanctions in relation to those two purposes is obviously very difficult. However, it may be that the Minister is able at least to indicate how the sanctions are working in practice: has the freezing of bank accounts, for example, been effective in the sense that it has been done in a way that has stopped the person finding a way of transferring much of the money out of the account just before it was closed? Criminals have an army of people trying to find a way around any legislation that hampers their activities. Regarding the refusal of travel visas, I wonder how many people listed for sanctions have tried to enter the UK and have been turned back or have applied for visas and been refused them.
I believe that particular attention needs to be paid to tax havens, where so much laundered money ends up. Those in such havens are only too anxious not to disturb the status quo from which so much money is made. It would be good to know how co-operative tax havens have been in the implementation of the sanctions.
Similarly, in relation to Saudi Arabia and those responsible for the death of Jamal Khashoggi, we cannot expect much co-operation from the Governments of Russia, Myanmar and North Korea, but we have a right to expect full co-operation with an important trading partner like Saudi Arabia. Is this forthcoming?
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I too agree that there are occasions when these Magnitsky sanctions may be the best available option to us. However, the increased use of such sanctions is a worrying sign that the organs of international arbitration such as the UN or the ICJ may be losing their effectiveness. These were the very institutions established in response to the tit-for-tat foreign policy that defined the 19th and early 20th centuries, with all their resulting catastrophes.
Our Government are a big advocate of the concept of “Global Britain”, an ambiguous phrase that sometimes means leading as a force for good in the world but at other times is simply a declaration that Britain is open for international business. My concern is that these conflicting visions of global Britain are sometimes mutually exclusive, and that when dealing with human rights abuses there may be a tendency to take the route of least domestic economic disruption.
Magnitsky can even play into this tendency, allowing us to feel that we have acted morally without incurring any costs and often failing to improve the situation. For example, I am not aware of any evidence that the sanctions placed on Chinese officials linked to Uighur human rights abuses have improved the situation in Xinjiang province. Our annual £80 billion total trade with China remains undisrupted. Harsher sanctions were placed on Belarus for the forced landing of a flight and subsequent arrest of a journalist—compared to China’s systematic programme of sterilisation, detention and re-education of the Muslim Uighurs. It is not insignificant that Belarus accounts for less than 0.1% of UK trade, compared to 6.8% for China. Is it not time for the Government to be honest and admit that the pursuit of global trade and investment opportunities can sometimes clash with their obligation to protect human rights? In other words, when it comes to global Britain, the Government cannot have their cake and eat it too.
Magnitsky sanctions will remain a useful tool, but I believe that they should be used selectively. If they are to be really effective, we need to work with allies continually, monitoring the effectiveness of these sanctions and ensuring that they are both based on transparent and objective criteria and applied absolutely thoroughly, not simply when it suits our economic interests. At the same time, the Government must do all they can to reboot the ICJ and support international law, backed up by all sanctions available to us.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for securing this helpful debate.
I accept that this human rights sanctions regime marks a major positive step in our ability to identify and punish human rights violators. Along with the more powerful US Global Magnitsky Act, it amounts to an ability to cut off those targeted from two of the most important financial systems in the world. Dominic Raab rightly described it as having the potential to prevent human rights violators from being
“able to launder … blood money in this country”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/7/20; col. 663.]
It is the role of your Lordships’ House continually to remind the Government of this potential and to point out where, against that ambition, more needs to be done.
I agree with the advocacy of other noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury, who argue that obvious human rights violators from Xinjiang, Myanmar and Belarus, for example, should be added to the list of those punished by these sanctions. Otherwise, human rights violators will be able to launder blood money in this country.
However, my main point is that these measures are less effective than they could be in respect of those targeted by them already. They were announced on 6 July 2020. Within days, parliamentarians and anti-corruption campaigners, drawing on research by openDemocracy, were warning that their full potential would be impeded by known and unaddressed deficiencies in the existing anti-money laundering regulations on which they rely.
Data from openDemocracy revealed that the UK’s AML systems were insufficient to prevent financial crime in the UK, and have enabled around 400,000 companies to evade declaring their “persons of significant control” and thus concealing their ownership structures. Those involved in illicit activities can structure their companies to take advantage of the 25% PSC ownership threshold to avoid declaring their interest at all. At the same time, others rely on a reported lack of enforcement of the requirement to disclose their PSCs.
So, while the Magnitsky laws are a useful power in the fight against human rights abuses, if the system that supports them allows beneficial owners to maintain their anonymity, the sanctions in many cases will be of no effect. An upgrade of the UK’s AML regime to ensure transparency and to prevent those engaged in illicit activities from exploiting this weakness in the UK’s system is required and long overdue.
I am aware that a review of anti-money laundering legislation is being carried out as part of the Economic Crime Plan 2019-2022. Specifically, actions 42, 43 and 44 of the plan are about transparency of ownership. To what extent will those actions address these specific criticisms? My sense is that they will not. Was this a deliberate omission, and if so, are the Government content to allow the problems identified to persist?
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for securing this important debate and for raising the shocking case that he outlined. I also pay tribute to Sergei Magnitsky, who was murdered in a squalid Russian prison cell 12 years ago. He was a brave and incorruptible accountant and lawyer who was targeted and eventually killed because he exposed a huge tax fraud involving senior Russian government officials. He had been hired on behalf of the human rights campaigner William—or Bill—Browder, to whom I pay tribute for leading a campaign that has resulted in Magnitsky legislation being passed in countries around the world.
There is no doubt that London is one of the main destinations for money looted in Russia and elsewhere. According to a 2016 report by the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, £100 billion is laundered through the UK’s banks each year. Four years ago, I introduced in the Commons a Bill to introduce Magnitsky sanctions in the UK, and I am very pleased that the Government, led by the Foreign Secretary on this issue, have taken action since. However, today I will raise two shocking incidents.
The first is Lukashenko bringing down a passenger plane to kidnap a leading opposition journalist, Roman Protasevich, and the second is the poisoning and arrest of Alexei Navalny in Russia. Both of these incidents caused shock and outrage when they happened and everybody demanded some type of reaction, but here we are, months later, and the shock and outrage has diminished to indifference. In looking at what we could do, it has become clear to me and many others that Magnitsky sanctions are a tool that work but only when they are applied to the right people. In the cases of both Lukashenko and Putin, Magnitsky sanctions need to be applied to those who have provided financial support to these regimes. Before he returned to Russia, Alexei Navalny published a list of people he thought should be sanctioned if anything were to happen to him, and I ask the Minister today to set out what assessment the Government have made of that.
The Belarusian opposition have also made it very clear that a group of financiers should likewise be sanctioned for their involvement and support for the regime. The opposition has named Mikhail Gutseriev as one of the regime’s key financiers, yet he has not been sanctioned by the UK despite the fact that he is on the EU sanctions list, and the European Union is usually much more timid than we are in these situations. This omission is also a huge missed opportunity because Gutseriev has significant property holdings here in the UK. Can the Minister set out today what assessment the Government have made of the case for sanctioning him?
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the principle of Magnitsky sanctions but have concerns about the implementation. Why? First, we need to remember the vast difference between war crimes and human rights. The European Convention on Human Rights, upon which the British Human Rights Act is based, is wholly inappropriate for application in combat and battlefield conditions. The law that should operate in such circumstances is the law of armed conflict, otherwise known as international humanitarian law.
Secondly, on the evidence, I listened with care to the noble Lord introducing the debate today, and it was a classic case of reliable evidence from known sources over a long time. However, that is not always the case. My understanding of the basic tenet of criminal law—I am not a lawyer—is that you have to know the identity of your accuser, the explicit detail of the evidence and the source of that evidence. That was relayed today, but that has not always been the case.
Thirdly, on imposing sanctions, I looked at some research work that has been done—there is a fair amount of it. The indication is that somewhere between 5% and, at the most, 30% of sanctions result in a desired change, so they have to be seen as a tool of last resort, one to be used when all other tools in the diplomatic toolbox have proved ineffective. I question whether sanctions should ever be used against democracies. Moreover, they are far more likely to affect ordinary citizens than any leader or any other individual being targeted. At a time when we in this country are talking about global Britain and look forward to forging new partnerships in the backdrop of Brexit, we should not rely on sanctions as a tool.
Finally, we should make sure that our own stable is clean. Three years ago, I read the report—and I have it here—from the UK Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee, published in June 2018, entitled Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition: 2001-2010. Frankly, I am shocked and appalled that my country should not only condone torture and extensive mistreatment of prisoners but actually in certain cases instigate it. To me as a senior politician with 47 years in Parliament, whatever the threats may be, such practices are totally unacceptable.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, which has advocated strongly for the use of targeted sanctions in appropriate cases. A key piece of our work in recent years has been the administration of a programme on media freedom around the world. It is supported by UNESCO, was led into existence by the United Kingdom and Canada, and now has 47 countries pledged in support. Last year, we produced a report on targeted sanctions, and I recommend it to all noble Lords; it is available through the International Bar Association website. The report is from a high-level panel of lawyers from around the world, chaired by our own former President of the Supreme Court, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger. The report is a product of their work, but it was drafted and the key work was done by Amal Clooney, a distinguished international lawyer.
There are a number of things that I would suggest we have to urge on our Government at this point in time, to strengthen and make more effective a regime that was brought into existence by the UK. Our Government should ensure that sanctions should be applied to non-state actors, including companies. States should ensure that sanctions can be applied to secondary participants; that is part of the Magnitsky regime. But it has to be recognised that some people can be complicit in abuses, even if they are not the direct abusers or those who ordered the abuse; those who are complicit can often be the funders, financiers, and people who do business with people like Lukashenko in Belarus. It defies my understanding why someone like Mr Gutseriev, who lives in Belgravia and is a sort of expat Russian who supports the Belarus regime financially and whose son does business with Lukashenko’s son, is not on our list—he should be on our list, as he is on the European Union’s list for targeted sanctions.
The third thing that I would urge on the Government in reviewing their use of sanctions is that it should be able to be applied to our own nationals. Some people acquire passports and are here, but they are complicit and involved in terrible abuses of human rights internationally.
States should provide a role for an expert committee—that was one of the recommendations that we made. There should be an expert committee independent of the executive branch of government in determining targets for sanctions—it could include retired judges. It is important that there is more transparency and that we can understand what the criteria are for the targeted sanctions.
We would also advise that a co-ordination committee should be established between key partners such as the United States, Canada and the European Union. Quite often, we seem to be targeting different people. For example, Carrie Lam is not being targeted by us—and look what has just happened in Hong Kong—yet she is targeted by the United States.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I remind the noble Baroness of the speaking limit: she is already half a minute over.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
Yes, I am just going to draw to a close.
We must be concerned about what happens to journalists, and we should be prepared to sanction those who are interfering with media freedom, which is happening in too many parts of the world, where they close down the internet or go after editors and journalists. Our country should make a commitment to protecting them through targeted sanctions.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for leading this debate, because the Magnitsky sanctions are an incredibly important tool for democracies, and the story he told about Ryan is heartbreaking. I do hope that Mohammed Shaibani faces penalties of some sort at some point. The penalties are a deterrent but, for the deterrent to work, they must be applied without fear or favour. That is where I think the sanctions perhaps fall down. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans was absolutely right to say that sanctions have shortcomings, but they are a tool that we can use to show just how much we care about human rights and issues of democracy.
The issue that I should like to raise with the Minister is that of how Hong Kong has abused the pro-democracy newspaper, the last one existing, Apple Daily. The Government froze its assets and it has had to close. It was interesting that the people of Hong Kong massively supported the newspaper. It normally prints 80,000 copies; on the day that it closed, it had to print 1 million to keep up with demand. That is how much the people of Hong Kong wanted it to survive.
The Government closed it because, they said, it had gone against the national security Act. It came into force in 2020, but the Government said that it had printed some stories back in 2019 which were illegal. When the Government brought in the national security Act, they said that it would not be retrospective, but here, apparently, it is. I would argue that the Government have committed an illegal act, and it is time for sanctions against Hong Kong.
What plans do the Government have to start implementing sanctions more widely, including over Hong Kong? What are the problems with placing such sanctions on every human rights abuser? I really do not want to hear that it is politics, because that is not a good answer. What is the process? How quickly can the Government impose sanctions after a human rights abuser has been identified? Quite honestly, if we do not make a stand in some of these cases, we look out of step with our allies and other democracies. It is time that we were a little braver about this and actually believed in democracy.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Why have London-based companies not been prosecuted for aiding and abetting corruption by former South African President Zuma and his corrupt business cronies the Gupta brothers, Ajay, Atul and Rajesh? Why have UK and US sanctions against the Gupta brothers and Salim Essa not yet yielded results? I first asked the Chancellor in September 2017 to take action, so why have HSBC, Standard Chartered and Baroda—all global banks based in London and functioning under UK laws and regulations—still not been prosecuted for facilitating gigantic money laundering by the Zuma family and the Gupta brothers?
As Paul Holden from Shadow World Investigations demonstrated to the commission of inquiry into state capture under Deputy Chief Justice Zondo, millions went via British banks and into the vast laundromat operated by Altaf Khanani, now under investigation by the US for laundering money for global drug cartels and terrorist groups. A recent University of Stellenbosch study indicates that South Africa lost 1.5 trillion rand—£750 million—in the five years between 2014 and 2019 in looting and money laundering, which, for a relatively small economy emerging from decades of apartheid, is a massive cross to bear.
The Gupta family are reported to be either in Dubai, where they appear to reside, or in India, where they often visit. The Dubai financial district styles itself as a 1960s/1970s-type Swiss-bank-secrecy jurisdiction, so why do the UK and US Governments tolerate such blatant money laundering by the Dubai authorities, supposedly allies? Further, it appears that the UAE does not extradite its own citizens. It may well be that the Gupta brothers and their family have attained UAE citizenship, either by buying property or by some similar mechanism. The South African authorities have secured an extradition treaty with Dubai and the UAE but are now struggling to get the Dubai authorities to comply with the spirit of it.
Why does India not extradite the Gupta brothers, given that the South African authorities have now put two of the brothers and their wives on the Interpol list? While one of the brothers, Ajay, is still said to be an Indian citizen, the second brother, Atul, took South African citizenship and presumably gave up his Indian citizenship in the process. Why have the Indian authorities been invisible in dealing with the money laundering at the Bank of Baroda branch in Johannesburg, and why they have not taken strong regulatory action to demonstrate to all Indian banks that they will not tolerate such lax money laundering standards by their banks in their overseas operations? And why has Hong Kong not taken action over the many Gupta money laundering transactions that went through it?
While the US and the UK have listed the Gupta family assets and are able to freeze them if deposited in US or UK banks, will the Minister ensure that this listing applies to assets held in non-US or non-UK banks in the UAE or India, or to arresting any members of the Gupta family were they to be on US or UK territory? I have written today to the Chancellor requesting action and urged that he meet South Africa’s Finance Minister to progress all this.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations have full support across the House, as we have heard today, and I add my tribute to the work of Bill Browder. However, in the debate on those regulations when we were considering them, I warned that the powers alone are not enough and that:
“They must be used correctly, be applied to the correct individuals and form part of a wider foreign policy that stands for human rights”,—[Official Report, 29/7/20; col. 329.]
a point emphasised by the right reverend Prelate. I too welcome the recent announcement of sanctions on those responsible for the continued suppression of democracy and human rights in Belarus, and I welcome the fact that the EU, the US and Canada are imposing their own sanctions in parallel.
However, why have we been slow to mirror the sanctions of the US in relation to China? Here I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Kennedy, whom China has attempted to silence but she continues to stand up for human rights. There is overwhelming evidence of human rights violations taking place in Xinjiang, yet the Government have not been prepared to extend sanctions to all those responsible. Labour called on the Government to apply sanctions to the Myanmar military following the brutal human rights violations in September 2020, yet there was no action until after the February 2021 coup. Time and again, the Government have been too slow to act and not nearly comprehensive enough in the application of sanctions, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in his introduction. Are we going to see further sanctions applied to Xinjiang officials? Why were sanctions against Myanmar officials delayed for so long?
There must be a broader strategy to stand up for human rights whenever they are under threat, and that means more than sanctions. For a start, the Government must strengthen the Modern Slavery Act and clamp down on reporting loopholes. I have raised this issue with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, on numerous occasions. The Foreign Secretary announced these changes nearly six months ago, and one would have hoped to have seen them by now. Can the Minister tell us today when the long-promised amendments to the Modern Slavery Act will be introduced? We need to ensure that the Government take action against hostile business owners so that they no longer have an escape route from the reporting mechanisms of the Modern Slavery Act.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling this debate and all noble Lords for their insightful contributions. I will try to address all the points raised, but if I cannot I will write to noble Lords and place copies in the Library.
On 6 July 2020, the Government established the global human rights sanctions regime by laying regulations in Parliament under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. This sanctions regime gave the UK a powerful new tool to hold to account those involved in serious human rights violations or abuses. The regime is not intended to target individual countries, but allows for sanctions to be imposed on individuals and entities involved in serious human rights violations or abuses around the world.
The global human rights sanctions regime reinforces the UK’s role as a force for good and defender of the rules-based international system. It complements and enhances the UK’s global leadership of the promotion and protection of human rights around the world. It also enable the Government to use asset freezes and travel bans against those involved in serious human rights violations and abuses. The measures can also be applied to those who facilitate, incite, promote or support perpetrators of human rights violations or abuses. This includes those who profit or benefit from the violations or abuses. The human rights included within scope of the regime are: the right to life; the right to not be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and the right to be free from slavery, nor be held in servitude, nor be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
Since we launched our global human rights sanctions just under a year ago, we have designated nearly 80 people. This includes designations for those involved in some of the most notorious human rights violations in recent years mentioned by noble Lords, including in Belarus, Myanmar, China, Russia and North Korea. The designations that we have put in place demonstrate that the UK will use these sanctions to stand up for human rights, including in support of the rights of those from minority groups.
On 22 March, the Foreign Secretary sanctioned four Chinese Government officials, and the public security bureau of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corporation, for their role in the serious human rights violations that have taken place—and persist—against Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang, as mentioned by noble Lords. These measures were taken alongside the US, Canada and the EU, sending the clearest possible signal that the international community is united in its condemnation of China’s human rights violations in Xinjiang and on the need for Beijing to end its discriminatory and oppressive practices in the region.
Just this Monday, the UK, along with the EU, US and Canada, imposed sanctions against individuals from across the Belarusian regime, in response to the detention of Roman Protasevich and Sofia Sapega, following the unlawful diversion of the Ryanair flight last month, and for the continued suppression of democracy and human rights in Belarus. Although these designations were imposed under our Belarus regime rather than our global human rights regime, noble Lords will see that protecting human rights is a central issue in these new sanctions.
We are debating the effectiveness of the global human rights regime. As mentioned by noble Lords—including the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth—this regime came into action last July, so it is less than a year old. One must bear in mind that sanctions are a long-term policy tool, and their full impacts and effects become clear only with time.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, spoke of the wider policy approach, but this is part of a wider policy approach and will be most effective in conjunction with other policy interventions, and with the support of our international partners—as mentioned by other noble Lords, our partners in the US, Canada and the EU. I note that Australia is also looking at Magnitsky regulations as we speak.
That said, our global human rights sanctions regime has drawn attention to some of the most critical situations in the world. It has established a deterrent to those who might commit human rights violations and abuses. It has helped to build a coalition of key allies—which is really important—calling for improvements in human rights around the world. It has focused attention on China’s policies in Xinjiang and raised a reputational cost for those looking to benefit from China’s activities there. It has also sent a strong message in response to events in Belarus. These signals will be heard not just by those immediately designated but by perpetrators and victims of human rights violations and abuses around the world.
It is also important to regularly review our sanctions to ensure that they are still fit for purpose. As required by Section 30 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, the Government will report annually to Parliament on all sanctions regulations and whether the regulations remain appropriate for the purposes stated within. In addition, as raised by other noble Lords, we will conduct periodic reviews of autonomous sanctions designations every three years under the sanctions Act.
I will come to the questions raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised issues relating to Ryan Cornelius, and I know that the noble Lord has had a number of meetings with responsible Ministers from the other place. As noble Lords will be aware, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office continues to be in contact with Mr Ryan Cornelius and his family to provide consular assistance. Consular officials have raised Mr Cornelius’s health concerns with the local authority and continue to ensure that he receives appropriate medical treatment.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, was asking about how we make decisions on who to sanction. All decisions must be taken in accordance with the designation criteria set out in the regulations. We have published a policy note setting out factors likely to be relevant to designation decisions. We also, as the noble Lord asked, consult with NGOs. We have published an information note aimed at NGOs and civil society organisations to support dialogue with the Government. As set out in the information note for NGOs, we need the following information. What is the activity that justifies the application of sanctions? Who is the person? How and to what extent is the person involved in that activity?
The noble Lord, Lord Austin, raised the issue of Navalny and Belarus and was asking why we have not sanctioned those involved in Navalny’s detention. We have called on Russia to fully declare its Novichok programme to the OPCW and to conduct a thorough investigation into Mr Navalny’s poisoners. The UK applied sanctions last October to six individuals and an entity involved in his poisoning. We continue to work with our international partners to hold Russia to account, and we will continue to consider designations guided by the purpose of the regime and based on the evidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, brought up the subject of economic crime. Her Majesty’s Government are committed to combating illicit finance. We have strengthened our response through the landmark plan published in July 2019, which brought together government, law enforcement and the private sector to deliver a whole-system response to economic crime. A key pillar is the money laundering regulations of 2017, which regulate and supervise all businesses most at risk of enabling money laundering—including financial institutions.
The noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Browne of Ladyton, asked how Her Majesty’s Government will monitor and evaluate sanctions regimes. Her Majesty’s Government will report to Parliament annually, as I said earlier, and as required by Section 30 and 32 of the sanctions Act. We will report annually to Parliament on all sanctions regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Austin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, mentioned two individuals: Mr Gutseriev and Mr Oleksin. We have already imposed over 100 designations in response to the fraudulent elections and subsequent human rights violations in Belarus. We will continue to keep all evidence and potential listings under review guided by the objectives of the UK sanctions regime. However, it is not appropriate at the moment to speculate on who may be designated, as to do so could reduce the impact of those designations.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, brought up the subject of the Gupta family and South Africa. As he is very much aware, Ajay, Atul and Rajesh Gupta and their associate, Salim Essa, were at the heart of a long-running process of corruption in South Africa, which caused significant damage to its economy. We sanctioned these individuals under the global anti-corruption sanctions regime. While the imposition of sanctions is at the discretion of the Secretary of State, Her Majesty’s Government cannot advise operationally independent agencies on which cases to take on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, mentioned the media—I will have to go through this quite quickly. We launched a media freedom campaign in November 2018 and, as part of the campaign, the FCO helped to launch the Media Freedom Coalition and the Global Media Defence Fund.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the high-level panel of legal experts. The sanctions regime meets a number of the recommendations set out in their report, including the ability to respond to serious human rights abuses and violations globally. It can apply to non-state actors, including companies, and to secondary participants; it is not limited to officials.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, brought up the subject of Hong Kong. The Government have taken clear and decisive actions in extending our existing arms embargo on mainland China to include Hong Kong, suspending the extradition treaty with Hong Kong and creating a new visa route for British nationals (overseas). We have raised this matter with our international partners at the UN Human Rights Council and at the recent G7 summit. We will continue to engage and co-ordinate actions with our international partners as befits our historic commitment to the people of Hong Kong.
I have not answered all questions, but I will write to noble Lords on those that I have not answered.
To ensure our sanctions have maximum effect in the future, when setting out new sanctions we are likely to consider cases where we can co-operate and co-ordinate with our international partners and where our action is most likely to have a positive impact on the underlying situation. This is because, in practice, targeted sanctions are most effective when they are backed by co-ordinated, collective action.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 3.35 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Flood Plains: Housing Development
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of building major new housing developments on functional flood plains in the context of climate change; and whether they intend to amend planning law accordingly.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to have secured this debate, which is very timely given the Environment Bill currently before the House and the planning Bill due imminently. I look forward to all contributions from noble Lords, not least my noble friend the Minister who will respond from the Front Bench. I am very aware that these issues relate to dual responsibility, not just to the Ministry of Housing but to Defra. My noble friend will be as aware as I am of the impact that floods have had across North Yorkshire and the whole region on many occasions. I refer to my interests in the register and note that I am co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Water Group and vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities.
The Library prepared a note today setting out why this is such an issue. Some 5.2 million properties are at risk of flooding, and there is a fear that that may double. The definition of a functional flood plain is
“land which would naturally flood with an annual probability of 1 in 20 or greater, or land that is designed to flood in an extreme flood.”
The Environment Agency has stated that
“as of 31 March 2019, 121,000 residential properties were in areas at high-risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, and 458,000 were in medium-risk areas. 239,000 residential properties were in areas at risk of flooding from surface water, with a further 395,000 at medium-risk.”
I have been campaigning on these issues for a number of years. They include such issues as ending the automatic right to connect water supply to major new developments, building more appropriate housing, ending the practice of building on functional flood plains, using more natural flood defences such as the Slowing the Flow at Pickering pilot project—which is a brilliant example of land use management in the interests of protecting communities downstream from flooding—and using SUDS and other sustainable drainage to prevent sewage spills into existing developments. Implementing other conclusions from the Pitt review of 2007 and giving water companies the status of statutory consultees on planning applications for major new housing developments would also help. There is a role for building regulations to make houses more resilient to floods and ending the combined sewer overflows.
The floods of 2007 brought substantial damage to Pickering and other parts of North Yorkshire, and the new phenomenon of surface water flooding. It is not generally understood that it is impossible to obtain insurance for houses built after 2009. Developers are meant to build houses that are not subject to flooding; if the houses then flood, the householders are ineligible for insurance. I hope that my noble friend will commit to keeping this under review and holding the developers to account.
I hope that my noble friend can also explain the obsession with building executive-style housing of three, four and five-bedroom houses, when there is an obvious need for starter homes of one or two bedrooms, which are equally in demand for those starting a career or employment and those facing retirement. I am thinking in particular of the farmers who will be invited to take retirement through the environmental land management schemes in the Agriculture Act; there is nowhere for them to go. This is an acute problem for tenant farmers and the whole rental and owner-occupier market.
Will my noble friend undertake to liaise with the Minister at Defra as regards catchment management control as the best way of tackling flood management and identifying areas prone to flooding? There are many bodies with a role to play; I am looking at the drainage boards, local authorities, farmers, landowners, district councils and others. I pay tribute to the work of drainage boards in this regard in low-lying rural areas and welcome the fact that the Environment Bill looks to create new ones and permit possible future expansion of internal drainage boards where appropriate.
I would like to highlight the importance of regular maintenance and routine management of river systems across a catchment and the damage caused where none is done. I make a plea to my noble friend and his counterparts in Defra for increased revenue spending to bolster resources with the use of properly skilled, experienced engineers. This would keep rivers, surface water systems, gullies, SUDS, insulation flows, and so on, clear of debris and would reduce the flood risk.
The environmental land management schemes have a role to play under the provisions of the Agriculture Act in rewarding farmers for public good, of which flood prevention and flood alleviation will be crucial: for example, by storing water temporarily to prevent communities downstream from flooding. However, as my noble friend may be aware, there is a problem with the Reservoirs Act possibly thwarting this. In that vein, I welcome the recent report on reservoir safety, published by Defra in March and drafted by Professor Balmforth, which focuses on the need for a better system of risk assessment of reservoirs rather than simply categorising them by size.
I draw my noble friend’s attention to the conclusions of the Pitt review which to date, as of June 2021, have not been adopted. In particular, recommendation 10 calls for
“The automatic right to connect surface water drainage of new developments to the sewerage system”
to be removed, or at least to amend that right to connect to a public sewer, making it conditional on meeting requirements in design, construction and the guidance code for adoption. We should also oblige local authorities and other highway agencies to seek to prevent, in maintaining, upgrading or building new infrastructure, untreated run-off from roads and other open surfaces from being discharged into water courses, such as was used successfully in the US Clean Water Act, to ensure a more sustainable management of surface water. That is the most unacceptable form of combined sewer overflow, which could be prevented.
Recommendation 20 of the Pitt review asked that
“The Government should resolve the issue of which organisations should be responsible for the ownership and maintenance of sustainable drainage systems.”
That is a particular problem for retrofit. Going forward, I accept that SUDS have a crucial role to play, but the question of who is responsible for them and maintaining them after construction is key to their success. Recommendation 21 says:
“Defra should work with Ofwat and the water industry to explore how appropriate risk-based standards for public sewerage systems can be achieved”—
for example, through a greater use of SUDS and more natural flood defences such as “slow the flow” schemes.
I will end with some questions to my noble friend and recall some of the recommendations of the report that I was involved with, Bricks & Water. Basically, we called for extra funding to be provided to local planning authorities to ensure that new development is located in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and to pursue enforcement action against developers who do not comply with planning conditions.
Given the uptake of property flood resilience measures and continued development within the flood plain, will the Government either extend the Flood Re scheme to cover residential buildings constructed after 1 January 2009 or put an alternative scheme in place? Further to Defra’s recent consultation on the amendments to the Flood Re scheme, will the Government extend this remit to offer discounted insurance premiums to home owners who have installed property flood resilience measures and provide funds for home owners to build back better after a flood?
I have further questions in conclusion for my noble friend. Can he provide further detail on the process of planning policies and processes for managing flood risk, which may need to be strengthened, and how he intends that they will reduce flood risks? Will the Government commit to further strengthening planning policy to prevent new development in areas of high flood risk, such as functional flood plains? Will the Government commit to consultation on inclusion of property flood resilience measures within building regulations as part of the ongoing review?
It is not just North Yorkshire, Pickering and the Vale of York as well as the whole region of Yorkshire that has suffered these substantial floods; it is also the case with Gloucestershire, Lincolnshire and other parts of the country. Therefore, I end with a call to my noble friend and the Government that, based on the experience of floods that we have seen in successive years, we should build appropriate houses in appropriate places and end the practice of building inappropriate houses in inappropriate places. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate these issues, and I look forward to other comments in the course of the afternoon.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on getting this debate and on showing her expertise and knowledge in this field. In particular, I commend her report Bricks & Water, which raises many of these issues.
This Session of Parliament has seen rather a contradictory approach by the Government in this area. On the one hand, we have the Environment Bill and the associated preparations for climate change in COP 26, along with a general recognition of the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change. On the other hand, we have a planning reform Bill that is likely to dilute or omit protections and adaptations that are needed due to man’s intervention and climate change.
We know that substantial numbers of houses are prone to flooding and that extreme events such as massive storms and sea surges will be far more frequent. We know that surface flooding and the breakdowns in drainage and sewerage systems are already with us. However, we are still not taking the measures needed, and the problem is becoming worse. We need to ensure that developers and the construction industry do not add to the problem and that local authorities do not see building on flood plains or flood-prone areas as an easy way in which to meet their affordable housing quotas or to provide up-market riverside dwellings to raise the tone of the neighbourhood.
Frankly, we need an absolute ban on building on category 3 land, at the very least. At present, the only brake on such developments beyond the individual planning processes is the role of the Environment Agency, which has responsibility not only for mapping the flood risk but for general guidance on developments in flood-prone areas—and of course, that is where you find the experts on total flood systems and river systems management, as the noble Baroness indicated. Of course, it is a statutory consultee in such planning proposals, but, frankly, that does not work.
I was a member of the board of the Environment Agency when we were explicitly given these new roles. I remember saying at the time that we were accepting responsibility without power—the privilege of muggins through the ages. I am afraid that that anxiety has been borne out: the Environment Agency has not had the resources to examine anything like all planning proposals, even the large ones. When it does comment or object and call for modifications to developers’ proposals, it can be totally ignored by the local authorities and even by the Planning Inspectorate. The Environment Agency combines expertise in this field with understanding of river and flood responses, yet it has no real power.
I suggest that, on the one hand, the presumption of any proposals for building at least on category 3 flood plains should be absolutely prohibited, and the Environment Agency should have the power to enforce that—or, alternatively, given the Bill that is before us, we could place a duty on the office for environmental protection that there should be no new developments on land that is most subject to flooding and, if necessary, the OEP could overrule the planning system, the Environment Agency and any other public body, if new developments are being given the nod. That is a possible role for the OEP, which would make it effective in this adaptation field.
I have a number of questions for the Minister to answer now or in writing. How many planning decisions in England over the past five years have involved building on flood plains, particularly in category 3 areas? On how many of them had Environment Agency advice been given as a statutory consultee, and to how many did the agency object or put in significant modifications? How many have actually gone ahead?
To go back to what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked, how many of Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendations remain unenacted? In more immediate terms, will the Minister and his colleagues in MHCLG insert a new clause in the planning Bill to ban absolutely all building on flood plains or at least in category 3 areas?
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to take part in this debate instigated by my noble friend Lady McIntosh. In case my noble friend the Minister thinks this is a Yorkshire issue, I underline again that while my experience is also Yorkshire-based, the problems of flooding affect, have affected and will affect in future upwards of 5 million properties, homes and livelihoods. The effect both economically and traumatically on individuals, families and businesses is both terrible and long-lasting.
Climate change presents great challenges, and all the preparations and changes to planning laws that we might be contemplating now have to reflect a worst-case scenario over the next 50 to 100 years. Too often we legislate for the short term without fully appreciating the likely extent of the problems that we face in the medium or long term.
Flooding has of course been with us in the past. I remember the floods that affected Ripon and other parts of Yorkshire in 2007, as my noble friend said, when the Skell, Ure and Laver rivers, which all meet there, overflowed and a large number of properties were flooded. More recently, there has been a propensity of flooding in York and parts of Leeds. In the case of Ripon, the 2007 events led to a £14 million scheme that gave some protection to properties. In reaction to those events, there was also determination to make changes to architecture, providing improvements to vulnerable buildings so that they could meet any future threats.
It is on resilience to flooding that I wish to concentrate my remarks. The excellent report from the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, under the chairmanship of my good friend Neil Parish, called inter alia for a more clearly defined flood resilience objective, or PFR. This includes the construction of flood defences but also deals with the pressing issue of the nature of the construction of properties that have received planning permission on flood plains, where the risk of flooding is small but possible in the lifetime of the buildings.
In other parts of the world where flooding is a threat, there are clear requirements that any construction must be undertaken in a way that minimises the effects of flood-water. We need the same approach here. Flood doors, airbrick covers and non-return valves should be part of regulations; underground tanks for excess water or houses on stilts should be part of the architects’ thinking; and sharing knowledge and experience should be more encouraged.
The Select Committee report underlines that few PFR measures have been introduced. The Environment Agency suggested in 2019 that over 200,000 residential properties should have resilience measures added, but currently only 500 properties a year are being enhanced. The insurance companies are keen to see this as well, and in some cases where flooding has occurred are offering sums to ensure that PFR is applied to properties on top of flood-related losses.
What about the future? Local planning authorities are caught between a rock and a hard place—or a potentially flooded place. They are being pressed to approve more and more applications for development, including on functional flood plains, and they feel the pressure all the time. This means that Environment Agency advice on flood mitigation can be overridden by planning authorities. That must be reversed. The agency should be able to veto developments unless they have proper flood mitigation in place. Although the current building regulations have been brought up to date to ensure certain standards of insulation, safety and convenience, they must be amended to include flood protection measures for new properties. I can sense no resistance to such changes from anyone.
We must try to ensure that, where the risks of flooding are new and presenting themselves for the first time, the insurance industry responds positively to small and medium-sized enterprises that might not be able to mitigate their losses or be eligible for government assistance. The Flood Re scheme to smooth residential property insurance cover is of help, but we all know of the distress caused by flooding and its long-term effects, which can never be fully compensated.
I conclude my remarks by again paying tribute to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. The flood defence scheme to which she referred in Pickering itself was cleverly designed to slow the flow of flood-water through the headwaters on Pickering Beck. It was promoted and supported by my noble friend with great enthusiasm and energy. An equal display of enthusiasm and energy by the Government in their flooding and planning policies would be most welcome to us all. Naturally, we expect nothing less of our noble friend the Minister.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, my friend from the other side of the Chamber. I support what she and the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Kirkhope, said. Quite honestly, it is ridiculous that anybody builds on flood plains. I could understand it if we were skilled at building on stilts, an idea alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and skilled at accessing places on water, but building the sort of houses we build on flood plains is madness.
We all know that flooding is becoming increasingly severe and is expected to get worse and worse as climate change worsens. The Climate Change Committee warned just last week that the climate is changing,
“as studies into extreme weather events show that human-induced climate change has increased the likelihood of some observed UK precipitation extreme events linked to significant flooding impacts.”
That basically means there will be more flash floods as rain hits us harder and faster than we are used to, so we are likely to see more flooding. The Environment Agency has estimated that the number of houses built on flood-risk areas will double to 1 million homes in the next 50 years, and I think that will be a gross underestimation unless the Government change something quickly.
One argument the Secretary of State for Housing, Robert Jenrick, put forward for building all these new homes was that it would help young people on to the housing ladder. I do not know how many young people can afford a house in the south-east of England, but I suspect not very many. Of course, developers do not care. They get the money for the houses regardless; they just want to build as many homes as they possibly can as quickly and as cheaply as they can.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, talked about starter homes, community land trusts and affordable homes. These are options we must look into and be more serious about. For some reason, although the Government talk about them and set up ways to have them, they never seem to happen. We cannot solve Britain’s housing crisis—it is not just in Yorkshire but is a national crisis—by building shoddy homes in dangerous places, which is what this is. We need high-quality, safe, energy-efficient homes situated in ecologically sound places. That means that they stay dry. If the Government live up to their stated environmental ambitions or have the slightest bit of common sense, the way forward is obvious: we simply do not build on flood plains.
This should not even be a debate. I hope the Minister will state the obvious today— that will not happen—but I fear we will get some woolly answer about consultations and things happening in due course. It is a national problem that we cannot fix once these houses are built, because they will not be safe, dry or good to live in and, as several noble Lords have already said, it will be impossible to insure them. Once again, the Government are building for failure, and I do not understand why any Government would do that.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
I congratulate my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, not only on securing this debate but on her very good introductory speech on this matter. I refer to my interests as set out in the register, particularly those relating to wildlife and conservation: I am on the advisory board of River Action and chairman of the Essex Climate Action Commission.
My noble friend and other noble Lords have raised many pertinent points with which I would agree. Flooding obviously causes misery, as well as expense. As we have heard, particularly from my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, the matter of insurance is a real problem for many people. I also emphasise that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb: the idea of building on a flood plain would, to most people, seem a complete no-brainer. Why would you want to do that when there is that risk, particularly when you do not have to? However, as has been said, local authorities and others are under pressure to find new areas for homes.
We have heard how my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering worked very hard regarding the flooding measures. There are also natural flood reduction measures that can be considered, but they are not the only answer.
I mentioned that I am chair of the Essex Climate Action Commission; we have been looking at how many existing houses are already potentially at risk of flooding due to climate change, not least because of the rising sea level. That is something else that must be borne in mind.
I want to give some thoughts to my noble friend the Minister that might be worth looking into. The Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, of which I have been a member for a long time, has produced a useful piece of work called A Blue Recovery. One of the many things in that is how new wetland cities have been created—particularly in China, but there is no reason why we should not look at that here. We can think back to the garden cities that were created quite a few decades ago now. I think the idea of wetland cities might be very appealing. We might be able to do flood reduction, and it could be a nice place to live. To go back the idea of just putting up a lot of houses—never mind the affordability, which is a crucial matter—I have found that, once people have got into those alleged “starter homes”, a lot of them want to move out of those estates as quickly as possible. If, instead, you created a whole new town or city based around waterways and wetlands, it would be good for biodiversity, flood prevention and, critically, carbon capture.
I just say: please, we must not build on flood plains, but let us also think of other innovative ideas that might help.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, on this important topic. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on securing this important debate and for outlining comprehensively the case for addressing housing developments on functional flood plains in the context of climate change and the whole role of planning in relation to that.
I recall that, under the then chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the EFRA Select Committee in the other place, of which I was a member, had an inquiry on this specific issue and took evidence in relation to Flood Re and sustainable drainage schemes. Particular reference was made by the noble Baroness, as chair, of the whole area of non-implementation of the Pitt review, which was shortly after 2012. It is interesting to note that these issues are still pertinent. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, had submitted an amendment to the Environment Bill which urges the Secretary of State to make provision by way of regulations to approve and promote sustainable drainage systems and natural flood defences.
The Government, by way of strengthening the Environment Bill, should ensure that proper and adequate controls are put in place so that effective mitigation measures ensure that major new housing developments are fully protected and episodes of flooding are avoided. It is worth noting that we are now experiencing warmer, wetter summers and warmer winters—undoubtedly the result of climate change. Heavy rainfall with large amounts of surface water has already caused problems for housing estates constructed on functional flood plains.
I realise that this issue is devolved to the devolved Administrations, but I would like to give an example from my former constituency where I reside. From a Northern Ireland perspective, last summer we experienced very heavy rainfall in Newcastle, which is at the foothills of the Mourne mountains where the rivers flow directly into the Irish Sea. This is a coastal town and the dwellers experienced much inundation of water. Some have now lived in other properties for a considerable time while waiting for their houses to be renovated and improved or while waiting on the necessary insurance. Because of that heavy rainfall, rivers flowing into the Irish Sea burst their banks and have overcome roads, footpaths and houses, causing considerable damage and distress.
My colleague, the Minister for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland, has accelerated a flood alleviation scheme, on which work has already started. Previous flood alleviation schemes in this town, which were initially successful, simply displaced water, which resulted in last year’s flooding episode. It is important to ensure that the latest scheme is resilient and resistant to the displacement of water to other locations. Therefore, the National Planning Policy Framework is key. It states that:
“Where development is necessary … the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.”
It is important that housing, both private and social, is provided where there is a clear need as long as it meets environmental standards and is resistant to flooding waters. That is why construction on flood plains should be opposed unless there is a specific need, and then it should be carefully circumscribed by planning regulations. Sustainable drainage schemes should be availed of. Like other noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I ask when the PLP review will be fully implemented, and when will a planning Bill be published that will deal with these particular issues?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for giving us the opportunity yet again to raise our concerns about concreting over natural flood plains. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA. I am currently working on the Environment Bill, where both water management and recycling are high on the agenda. My speech is largely recycled from previous contributions.
The truth is that your Lordships continue to make very valid and cogent points about the dangers of building on flood plains, but the Government continue to ignore this. Many years ago, a developer put in an application on the Somerset levels. This was rejected by the local district council, but the developer appealed. The then Secretary of State overruled the district council and allowed the development. This was before the catastrophic floods of 2014, when the Somerset levels were on every TV news bulletin.
Ministers and opposition spokespeople visited in their droves and royalty came, complete with wellies—although, to be honest, they really needed waders. They came to look at the plight of those whose homes had been flooded—a miserable experience. Some of those flooded were in new houses, some in homes which had been there for a considerable time. The ancient village of Muchelney was completely cut off and could be accessed only by boat. It took several months for the water to completely recede and some sort of normality to return.
There are an estimated 5.2 million properties in England at risk of flooding. The Environment Agency says that if the current rate of planning applications on functional flood plains continues, this could double in 50 years. The Somerset Levels are not the only area in the country prone to repeated flooding, as we have heard. The Environment Agency website has detailed maps of where functional flood plains are, so this is not a mystery to planning authorities.
On the district council where I was a councillor, all planning applications had spaces for the Environment Agency, highway authority, et cetera, to make comments on the application. Often they left them blank or merely had no concerns. All statutory bodies are extremely busy, and the Environment Agency in particular has to respond to emergencies on a regular basis, especially now that climate change has radically altered our weather patterns. It has not helped that Defra, in its wisdom, has cut the Environment Agency budget. I believe it is time for the Government to make it a legal requirement for the Environment Agency to respond to all planning applications of more than five homes, where they are likely to be situated on a functional flood plain.
It would, of course, be helpful if local authorities were given the power to refuse all applications on flood plains, regardless of their merits, unless significant flood prevention schemes were part of the application. Developers believe that a likely occurrence of once in 200 years means they can ignore guidance. There are many communities in which a “once in 200 years occurrence” has happened twice in the last 20 years.
The Somerset Levels are very definitely functional flood plains. When severe rain is predicted, there is a plan for which sluice gates will be opened, in what order and when. Sometimes the whole area is flooded if the rain is persistent over a long period of time. The whole object of flooding the plains is to keep a safe level of water in the River Parrett and prevent the town of Bridgwater flooding. That objective has been fulfilled for many years, but for how much longer if more homes are erected? Perhaps those homes will be erected on platforms via stilts and residents will buy boats instead of cars to keep in the spaces under their homes.
The Government’s proposed planning Bill has come in for considerable criticism; I have a premonition that at some stage I will be speaking during its passage. It is time that the Government had an overall strategy on how they are going to manage water, safely store it during winter for use during the summer droughts and deliver the number of homes needed without building anywhere near flood plains. Can the Minister confirm whether there is such a strategy? This must be a strategy that local people with knowledge can contribute to and not one that is cobbled together from on high.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and others have raised very significant issues. I hope the Minister is listening. It is unacceptable for London’s city-dwelling civil servants to produce policies which have devastating effects on rural areas. I am sure he is aware of this and will be taking note of our comments.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I add my appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for creating the opportunity for us to take part in this debate, which is extremely close to my heart. My first crisis as leader of Leeds City Council was dealing with the impact of Storm Eva around Christmas 2015—the worst storm to hit Leeds since the mid-19th century.
It is hard to really get across just how much the impact of these events hits at the time, but the lasting effects are truly devastating. When he is able to do so, I recommend that the Minister visits Leeds to see the work that we have done since that time. Our flood alleviation scheme brings together a combination of the most advanced technology in Europe with natural flood alleviation measures, which we have heard so much about today, and the Pickering model for Leeds, going right up into the Yorkshire Dales, with extensive tree planting and other land-use management measures. The issue remains that so many people are still at real risk of flooding in future. It is not an accident that there are so many voices from Yorkshire here today. One thing that we have managed to do in Yorkshire is to bring together a whole range of different constituencies to look at all the measures that we can take to address this issue.
It is now over a year ago that the chief executive of the Environment Agency, Sir James Bevan, gave a very stark warning about the risks of housebuilding on flood plains. We are very disturbed to see that the Government have failed to take any action that we can see up to this point. All the comments today go further to get across just how serious the situation is. We have heard about the number of properties at risk of flooding, which equates to one in six properties, and the projections into the future are very stark indeed, if serious action is not taken. One thing that we do know is that, combined with sea levels on the rise, more extreme weather events are likely to take place. So why are the Government still allowing completely inappropriate buildings on flood plains? It simply has to stop—and it is my firm belief that the power to do so is within the Government’s hands.
Could the Government equip local authorities, as the local planning authorities, with the necessary funding and powers to resist unsuitable development on flood plains? They must also include the powers to consider flood-resilient design in all areas at risk of flooding. We have a real problem with repeated cuts to funding for local government across the board, which has led to planning departments across the country with too scarce a resource to be able properly to consider all the complexities of these applications. According to the LGA, what we know is that councils have lost 60 pence out of every pound from central government funding over the last 10 or 11 years. Can the Minister confirm what recent engagement he has had with local authority leaders over the funding of planning departments? Can we insist on future funding flexibility to local government and reflect the increases in line with inflation?
On top of this, the Government’s own National Planning Policy Framework and planning practice guidance on flood risk and coastal change do not even mandate councils not to build on flood plains—they merely request it. Those are the Government’s principal documents giving guidance to councils on flooding and flood plain areas. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to update those documents? This issue is urgent and the Government’s action must be, too. I hope that the Minister can assure the Committee that change will be forthcoming.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering on securing this important debate and campaigning on flood-related matters so ardently. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed this afternoon. The debate has been passionate and very well informed. I am glad to hear that noble Lords share the Government’s commitment to ensure that flood resilience and reducing flood risk is a priority.
Flooding presents a risk to homes, towns and cities every year. The devastating effects of flooding can be seen year on year and, as my noble friend set out in her Question, climate change is a critical consideration in thinking about the future. As the recent UK Climate Risk Independent Assessment sets out, climate change will increase sea levels and associated flooding as well as river, surface and groundwater flooding changes due to altering rainfall patterns. Flooding goes right to the heart of our communities, and the Government take that risk very seriously.
To directly address my noble friend’s Question, our national planning policy is clear: new housebuilding and most other forms of development should not be permitted in the functional flood plain, where flood-water has to flow or be stored. Areas at little or no risk of flooding from any source should always be developed in preference to areas at higher risk of flooding. I cannot comment on individual planning applications or development plans, but our planning policy ensures that only water-compatible or essential infrastructure developments are allowed in the functional flood plain. That should not include new homes.
The National Planning Policy Framework sets out a clear, overarching policy on flood risk: inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, whether an existing or a potential future risk, should be avoided and, where possible, alternative locations at a lower flood risk should be identified. That is known as the sequential test. Where development is necessary, and where there are no suitable sites available in areas with a lower risk of flooding, the proposed development should be made safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. This is the exception test. Where these tests are not met, new development should not be allowed.
That policy recognises that it is unrealistic to completely ban all development in flood-risk areas, as currently around 11% of England is in national flood risk zone 3, which is commonly referred to as high-risk. Flood zone 3 is split into two separate zones by the local planning authority: zones 3a and 3b, where 3b is classified as functional flood plain and has the highest likelihood of flooding. Large parts of many major towns and cities comprise land classified as flood zone 3. However, I have to stress that building on land assessed as high-risk is not the same as functional flood plain. Even then, building in flood zone 3 is not common, as less than 0.2% of land use in flood zone 3 is residential. Areas at the lowest risk of flooding can still experience flooding following a very heavy downpour, which is why we have prioritised the use of sustainable drainage systems for all development in areas at risk of flooding.
In addition to the framework, there are further safeguards in place to protect against inappropriate development on areas at high risk of flooding. The Environment Agency must be consulted on planning applications in areas at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, and in critical drainage areas. Lead local flood authorities must be consulted on surface water drainage considerations in applications for all major new developments. Their comments and advice should help inform the local planning authorities’ decisions on planning applications and ensure that they are in line with the framework policy on flood risk.
The framework is clear that flood risk assessments are needed for all areas where development is proposed that are at risk of flooding from all sources, both now and in future. Appropriate design and risk considerations that include an allowance for climate change need to be included in any flood risk assessment. Allowances that consider future impacts of climate change on flood risk incorporate a precautionary risk-based approach for more vulnerable areas. This means that increased levels of resilience are factored in.
Our planning guidance recognises the need for appropriate flood resilience and resistance measures. Guidance highlights that such measures are unlikely to be suitable as the only mitigation measure to manage flood risk. We are clear that flood resistance and resilience measures should not be used to justify development in inappropriate locations.
For any major developments within flood zones 2 and 3 where the Environment Agency raises objections on flood risk grounds, the local planning authority is required to consult the Secretary of State if it is minded to grant an application against the agency’s objections. This provides the Secretary of State with an opportunity to call in the decision.
In July 2020, the Government published the policy statement Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management, which sets out the Government’s long-term ambition to create a nation more resilient to future flood and coastal erosion risk. This means that we will reduce the risk of harm to people, the environment and the economy. Boosting our resilience will mean that more properties will be protected and communities will be better prepared to reduce the impacts when flooding happens.
The Government are not standing still on this issue. We are assessing the current protections in the National Planning Policy Framework and are considering options for further reform, as part of our wider ambitions for an improved planning system. As part of that, we recently consulted on proposed changes to the framework, including to clarify that the sequential test should consider all sources of flood risk.
We are also finalising our review of our policy for building in areas at flood risk. This will seek to ensure that communities have the reassurances that they need that future development will be safe from floods. The Government are investing a record £5.2 billion in a six-year capital programme for flood defences that will better protect 336,000 properties from flooding and coastal erosion, which will become even more vital in the light of our changing climate.
In summary, my noble friend asks an important question. I can reassure her and the Committee that we not only have incredibly strong protections against the development of new homes on the functional flood plain but that we are working to ensure that these are as effective as possible.
I will now respond to some of the additional specific points that have been raised during the debate. We had a call from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Blake, to have a complete ban on development on functional flood plains. As a Government, we feel that to ban development in flood zone 3 would mean that land that could safely be built on could no longer provide the economic opportunities that our coastal and riverside settlements depend on. That is why we are against an outright ban.
My noble friends Lady McIntosh and Lord Randall and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, wanted to see sufficient resource for local authorities both to improve flood resistance and to boost enforcements. The Government want to ensure that local authority planning departments are well resourced and that planning professionals have the right skills to make creative decisions and take forward our ambitions, which will be outlined in the forthcoming planning reform Bill. Since 2010, we have provided direct grant support to local authorities and neighbourhood planning groups to help them engage their communities in neighbourhood planning to shape and influence the places in which they live and work.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh also raised the issue of the automatic right to connect to sewerage. The Government’s planning practice guidance already includes a hierarchy for sustainable drainage options that favours non-sewer solutions. The guidance is clear that draining to a combined sewer should be the least-favoured option in new development. Removing the right to connect to an existing sewer does not offer clear benefits over the current arrangements. It is likely to add costs and delay the planning process.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh also referred to catchment management control liaison and asked whether I could liaise with Defra on that matter. In its Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management policy paper, Defra has committed to increase the number of waste management schemes within and across catchments to reduce flood risk and help manage drought risk, and I can assure my noble friend that we will work with Defra on that.
My noble friend also referred to Flood Re and asked whether we could extend it to those homes that were built after 2009. Homes built after 2009 are one of the categories of property excluded from Flood Re, as she pointed out. This mirrors a similar exclusion in the statement of principles, a voluntary agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and the insurance industry that was the forerunner of Flood Re. Measures introduced in 2006 and reaffirmed in 2012 through the National Planning Policy Framework should ensure that homes are built only where appropriately robust flood mitigation is in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, also referred to the implementation of the Pitt review recommendations. Defra has informed me that all recommendations from the review were accepted by the Government, and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was introduced as a result.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, wanted to know the publication date of the planning reform Bill. It was announced in the Queen’s Speech and will be introduced in the autumn.
I conclude by reassuring your Lordships that the Government are committed to reducing the risk that flooding poses to our communities. We acknowledge that climate change will increase the risk of flooding. We have strong protections in place to ensure that inappropriate developments are not given permission to go ahead in areas of high flood risk, especially new homes. We are working hard to go further via our planning reforms, investing £5.2 billion in flood defences and reviewing flood policy.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the Grand Committee stands adjourned until 4.40 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, which we are not expecting, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Official Development Assistance
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what impact assessment they have undertaken of their proposed change to the target of spending 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income on Official Development Assistance.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as an ambassador for HALO, a Scottish-based charity that has acted on mine clearance and the removal of improvised explosive devices around the world, most topically in Afghanistan, to which I shall return in a moment or two. I recommend to your Lordships an article written by the chief executive of HALO, James Cowan, a former Major General in the United Kingdom Army. In the current issue of the Spectator, he writes a most compelling article, following the murder of 11 HALO employees in Afghanistan last week.
I wish to approach the question of the proposed cuts in the overseas aid budget more generally. I have reached the conclusion that these reductions are ill thought out, mean spirited and damaging to our interests at home and abroad. Perhaps rather improbably, I take my cue from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has said that it is difficult to justify the size of the aid budget in present circumstances—to which I say, well, how does he know? He has never tried to do so. If he had knocked on a few doors in Chesham and Amersham, he might have found a few people who were sympathetic to the view that the cuts were not in the best interests of either the people of the United Kingdom nor, indeed, those whom the use of overseas development aid is supposed to help.
As a consequence, my conclusion is that the reason for the cut is political, but I have to confess that I see no legitimate political reason—so I have been forced to ask myself whether there is an illegitimate reason. I hope that I am wrong and that it can be shown to my satisfaction that these cuts are not just a dog whistle. I have also sought to ask myself how many of the Government’s party publicly support these cuts, and I can provide the answer to that—it is precious few. I know of members of their party who are, on the other hand, viscerally opposed to the cuts: John Major, Theresa May, Andrew Mitchell and David Davis. You might describe that as a broad spectrum of Conservative thinking and experience, not to mention the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, who will no doubt speak later and who resigned from the Government so that she could speak against the proposed cuts.
At the heart of this issue is the extraordinary fact that the Government have proposed cuts without a proper policy base to support them. There is a document called the international development review, but it is having a pretty long gestation as it circulates around departments, and it has not yet been published—indeed, some say that it has not yet been approved. Precisely what sort of Government are they who take action to breach the status quo when they have no resolved policy base? There is no question of urgency—indeed, anything but. I am convinced that abroad, these proposed cuts have damaged trust among local communities and locally engaged employees in those areas where overseas aid is effective.
These cuts have been proposed without an impact risk assessment, without considering conflict sensitivity, without regard to the many partnerships we have with other countries and without understanding that cuts are quick, but rebuilding takes longer. They have been proposed without considering the damage to our reputation, particularly among the countries of the G7. Of those who went to Cornwall, no others are cutting their aid budgets; indeed, President Biden has asked Congress for more. Worst of all is that these cuts are proposed with neither consultation nor transparency for the charities and agencies that work in the field.
Let me finish by returning to James Cowan. In the article I referred to, he said that the Halo Trust will not leave Afghanistan notwithstanding the events of last week. He said, much to my surprise, that
“Halo has cleared 850,000 landmines … in Afghanistan, and almost 14 million mines and other explosive items worldwide.”
I offer Halo as being illustrative and typical of the professionalism and commitment of so many of the agencies and charities who look to the United Kingdom for financial support for their work.
As we speak, all over the world, there are countless local, national and international charities and agencies helping to alleviate the suffering of the poor. They are helping, sometimes in difficult circumstances, to maintain human rights. They are helping to increase life chances, particularly those of girls and women. The fact is that the United Kingdom has been a notable contributor to these efforts. Indeed, our commitment is enshrined in statute. A reduction in support will diminish the effectiveness of the charities and agencies which depend on it. It will inhibit them in the valuable work they carry out. The agencies and charities deserve better from this Government.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for asking this Question.
My Lords, despite the difficulty caused by the lack of transparency around the details of the cuts, analysis by Save the Children indicates that gender equality-focused programming is being severely affected, and women and girls will suffer disproportionately. An estimated 20 million women and girls will not be reached by programming as a result of the reduction in funding. Some 700,000 fewer girls will be supported by education, 2 million fewer supported by humanitarian assistance, 8 million fewer supported by nutrition interventions and 9 million fewer women and girls supported to access clean water and sanitation. These cuts will, sadly, undo progress towards gender equality at a time when the pandemic has rolled back women’s and girls’ rights by a generation.
The Foreign Secretary has confirmed that the FCDO
“carried out an equalities impact assessment”,
the only one I believe, which
“showed no evidence that programmes targeting those with protected characteristics were more likely to be reduced.”
Given the analysis I referred to and the huge cuts of up to 85% to family planning and contraceptive programmes, alongside no similar cuts to male-focused programmes, I fail to understand how these cuts are not worse for women and girls. My first questions are: do the Government still consider that women and girls have not been disproportionately impacted by the cuts, and when will they publish the equalities impact assessment?
Turning to girls’ education, I welcome the UK contribution announced at the G7 to the Global Partnership for Education, an increase of 15%. However, given the increased need I point out that the percentage burden share of the UK contribution to GPE has actually fallen, and the G7 failed to raise the $3.5 billion needed to hit the $5 billion target of the GPE replenishment summit that we are hosting in July. I fear this is a regrettable ripple effect of cutting our aid spending by such a large amount; it makes it a lot harder for the UK to encourage other countries to do more when we are doing less.
It is difficult to get to the bottom of the detail, given the lack of transparency, but, as far as I can uncover, this GPE increase is being paid for by cuts to wider education programming such as Chevening and the prosperity fund. Given these equivalent cuts, that means that total spending on girls’ education has still decreased by 25%. My final question is: do the Government recognise this 25% reduction? If not, will they publish the detailed figures so that we can understand the reality of the situation?
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem for tabling this debate.
For what it is worth, my personal opinion is that the resounding defeat of the Government’s party in the by-election in Chesham and Amersham, one of its safest seats, by my party should be a salutary reminder that the Prime Minister’s Teflon qualities are wearing thin. What I heard on the doorstep was dislike and distrust of this Government, which made it much easier to get our points on planning issues across. The Government have underestimated the damage that cuts to the aid budget will do, not just to the UK’s reputation abroad but to their own brand. Whether or not you agree with the cuts, what sticks in the memory is that the Government willingly broke a manifesto pledge. For voters, trust is a commodity that, once lost, is hard to regain.
How does a cut to the aid budget hurt us? Let me count the ways. In a global pandemic we let down the poorest in the world, the only country in the world to cut its aid programmes, and we did so in the most brutal way possible. Without notice, we cut research funding to some of the brightest and best in developing countries. Our cuts forced nutrition centres and health clinics to close. Our cuts led to water sanitation projects being cancelled. Our cuts mean that 78,000 healthcare professionals will be left untrained and millions therefore left untreated. Our cuts mean that over 700 million donated treatments are at risk of going to waste—et cetera, et cetera.
As if trashing our reputation for trustworthiness were not enough for this Government, we have now learned that they are toying with the idea of retaining part of the £19 billion from the IMF’s proposed drawdown for special drawing rights. These, although designed to add additionality to our aid and development programmes—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
May I remind the noble Baroness that the speaking limit is two minutes?
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
Indeed. They may instead be swallowed into the 0.5% ODA limit, so we will be seen as greedy as well as untrustworthy. Can the Minister assure me that that is not the Government’s intention?
In conclusion, the latest ICAI report is a damning indictment of the lack of transparency in UK ODA spending by the new FCDO, reversing the excellent reputation held by DfID.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry, I have to stop the noble Baroness. It is not fair on others.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.
During the recent G7 summit the UK Government committed $600 million in additional funding to the Global Partnership for Education in developing countries over the next five years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, mentioned. HMG went further in urging other nations to donate at least $2.75 billion to the GPE. That is welcome news but at least two questions immediately arise: has this contribution on the part of the UK been agreed and budgeted for, and how far will it replace the cuts imposed on female education programmes as a result of the reduction in ODA?
My concern remains Afghanistan. Violence in that country is increasing by the day. In the 24 hours from 20 June around a dozen districts fell to the Taliban, mostly in the north of the country. Since 1 May, when the USA officially began its drawdown, more than 50 districts out of a total of 400 have been taken by the Taliban. The combination of bombings, fear of attack and the ravages of Covid-19 are destroying considerable gains achieved in educating girls over the past 20 years.
Will the Government make a sustained effort to focus on the institutions of democracy? That must include schools as well as higher education bodies to demonstrate support for that vital democratic and long-term investment, and to give courage to those who continue to resist the Taliban by steadfastly keeping schools open and the teaching of girls alive. The Government know that educating girls is the single most effective pathway to overall development. We urgently seek reassurance that HMG are honouring their commitments to human rights, to open societies and to the education of girls.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, I echo the thanks expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for this debate. There are many reasons for honouring the manifesto commitment to 0.7% aid, of which the Conservative Party can be proud. I will focus on just one.
Our National Health Service has done a fantastic job during the pandemic and been rightly lauded for doing so. One of the reasons for its success is its superb workforce, no fewer than 170,000 of whom are foreign, the vast majority from poorer countries which are struggling in the face of the pandemic. Figures show that Indians make up the largest number of foreign staff members at 27,000, followed by Filipinos at 23,000. Ghana provides over 3,000, Zimbabwe 4,500 and Pakistan 4,400. The fact is that we are taking more out of developing countries, when we poach their doctors, nurses and other skilled professionals, than we are putting in through aid.
I know from our close relationship in the diocese of Worcester with Morogoro in Tanzania how great is the shortage of health professionals in the developing world and how difficult it is to recruit, train them and pay for that training. Though the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, talks of reducing our reliance on foreign employees, Matt Hancock speaks of a new Windrush generation, to recruit the best from abroad. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has just been quoted as observing that it is difficult to justify the aid budget in the present circumstances. Is not the sad truth that, as we break our promise of 0.7% aid to the poorest in our world, we are taking more out of the developing world than we are putting in? Does the Minister agree that, in so doing, we are stymying the crucial effort to eradicate the pandemic worldwide, which we really should be ensuring happens?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz.
Lord Sarfraz (Con)
My Lords, last week our permanent envoy to the UN said that the situation in Myanmar is fast becoming a humanitarian crisis and that 60% of healthcare facilities are not functioning. I have spoken to a number of NGOs on the ground, and their message is consistent. They are struggling with resources. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcement that we will reprioritise our spending towards urgent humanitarian needs in Myanmar.
I would be grateful if my noble friend the Deputy Leader could tell us what progress has been made on reducing our reliance on consultants and advisers in deploying our overseas development assistance? Looking across our portfolio, it is incredible that the same names appear over and over again. For example, take the Palladium group. It is hired by us to work on dozens of projects across the world. It operates in 90 countries and claims expertise in every aspect of development: healthcare, education, environment, infrastructure—it does it all. There are half a dozen organisations like it which are repeatedly mentioned across our country reports. We are propping up a development industry. Between them, they employ hundreds of consultants and grant writers. As a result, smaller, local, less polished but much more impactful organisations never get a chance to partner with us. They now need us more than ever before. As we reprioritise our commitments, let us also broaden who we work with; even if they do not have glossy presentations or host global development summits, they may well give us much more value for money.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, is unable to take part in the debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register as a corporate adviser to DAI and a consultant with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.
Last year, official development assistance from all donors reached a record $161 billion. Most of the largest donors increased their aid budget as we were cutting the UK’s. Germany achieved 0.7% as we moved away, and Australia has reversed last year’s cuts. The UK is exceptional, but in a shameful way. The decision to cut aid is ideological and deeply damaging to the UK’s reputation and the needs of the world’s poorest. It undermines any credibility for the ridiculous and meaningless slogan “global Britain”.
What concerns me is the damage to the UK’s reputation and the long-term weakening of the UK’s development capacity. I have two examples. A long-standing flagship programme to transfer title to 14 million parcels of land to farmers in Ethiopia has been halted. Disgruntled with the UK’s betrayal of trust and determined to meet the needs of small farmers, the Ethiopian Government are looking to other donors. In Bangladesh, a strategic partnership with BRAC, established by DfID 10 years ago, has been cut. It is being continued by Australia and Canada but, without the UK, it will be cut by 30%. The UK’s aid programmes have been delivered flexibly and cost effectively by a wide range of large and small development partners, all of which fulfil a role. Faced with cuts at this scale and speed, some may fail. Others will let experts go or redeploy them to programmes with other donors.
The Government boast of a record economic bounceback, which will mean that we may miss even 0.5%. Will cuts be restored if that happens? Will we stay behind France and Germany in our delivery? They have taken over the UK leadership position. The problem is that, if the UK looks to get back its lead, capacity will not be available and previous ODA recipient countries might have found more trustworthy development partners.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests regarding malaria and neglected tropical diseases, as set out in the register. The UK has led globally in these two areas in the fight against death and disease and has been extremely successful in saving hundreds of thousands—indeed, millions—of children’s lives and preventing disease and disability. Yet the cuts that have been made have damaged programmes for both.
The cut to the UK flagship programme for NTDs, Ascend, will mean putting a stop to 151 million scheduled treatments this year, and the malaria programme in Nigeria, funded by the UK and SuNMaP 2, will now end two and half years early and will mean a huge deficit in the fight against malaria in Nigeria, one of the countries with the highest prevalence. Cuts to UKRI will take away the capacity in our academic institutions which have in the past provided the basis for the work that has been so successful in the vaccine development against Covid.
I hope that the Government will recognise that it is counterproductive both to their reputation and future capacity to fight disease and pandemics to cut spending in these areas. I further hope that, when the Global Fund replenishment comes up, they will make good these cuts and ensure that we have these basic health provisions that help not only us but the whole world.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for securing this debate. I commend particularly the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, who has shown her absolute commitment to those in need of our aid.
Let us run through where some of these cuts are falling and how we have found out about them. It is thanks to the UN Population Fund—UNFPA—that we know the UK Government are cutting their funding for its programmes by 85%, down from $211 million to $32 million. The UK Government are that organisation’s largest donor, a major supplier of contraceptives, other sexual and reproductive health products and some maternal and newborn health supplies. We provide contraceptives to about a third of users in some of the poorest countries.
We have learned about another cut from the World Health Organization. We will see millions of people at risk of dying from neglected tropical diseases—to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, just referred. These diseases mostly affect people in the poorest countries. This is a particularly disgraceful, disgusting waste: some 280 million tablets are likely to expire and have to be incinerated because of the withdrawal of this money.
From the World Food Programme, we learn that in Yemen, considered to be the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, will see a cut of nearly 60% in UK aid. Nearly half the population—13.5 million people—is already struggling to get enough food, and that is expected to rise by 3 million by the end of this month.
So what gender assessment have the Government carried out of their decisions? Will they publish a gender assessment? Will it publish a poverty assessment? How is it that this seems to be hitting what is perhaps the 1% of the world’s poorest people? Has it actually been targeted at women and the poorest?
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend on securing this timely and extremely important debate, and commend him on his powerful opening speech this afternoon.
On Monday this week, the Prime Minister set out his ambition to make the UK a science superpower, yet these cuts not only undermine current and future science research but that very ambition. Many projects will have funding cuts midway through, leaving them unable to complete critical work such as vaccine development or fighting future pandemics through AMR research. This means that millions of pounds worth of British taxpayers’ money which has been invested in those projects now risks being lost. Making cuts at this most critical time, particularly given the opportunity for leadership through the G7 and COP 26 presidencies, risks damaging the UK’s position on the global stage.
Innovations for global public health need public funding, because there is no incentive for private research. We should recall that it was innovations such as work on malaria vaccines which helped lead to the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. This research, long funded by UK ODA, has built a depth of expertise in infectious disease vaccines that is almost unparalleled. Does not the Minister agree that there is a very real risk that such innovation will not be there when we need it in future if we do not fund it now? In the wake of Covid-19 and with budgets tightening around the world, does not the Minister further agree that applied health research is exactly what is needed right now to make our limited budgets go further?
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome this debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and other speakers for their important contributions today. I shall keep my comments brief: most points have already been covered.
During the gracious Speech, the Government committed to provide aid where it has the greatest impact on reducing poverty and alleviating human suffering, but rather than providing aid where it has the greatest impact there, the Government have cut global health spending by up to 40%, affecting people of all ages. This is occurring at a time when the pandemic is having the greatest impact on low and middle-income countries. Specific health initiatives have been devastated by these cuts and are sure to set development back enormously. These include a 95% to polio eradication, a 90% cut to addressing neglected tropical diseases, an 80% funding cut to UNAIDS and a reduction of 80% to addressing WASH programmes providing water, sanitation and hygiene to people in poorer nations. How is this increasing the UK’s ability to strengthen relations globally and to meet its commitments to help younger and older people in poorer countries?
Development aid is not purely an act of charity. By limiting the spread of deadly diseases such as AIDS and Covid in poorer nations, we help keep our own country safe. In the recent resurgence of nationalism in this country and elsewhere, we have, sadly, seen a less internationalist or global approach by this Government. I conclude by remarking that we live in a global society where it is in everyone’s interest to eradicate poverty and prevent the spread of deadly diseases. If we reduce our international development contribution as a nation, we do so at our own peril.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem for asking this Question and outlining it so clearly and powerfully. Many of his points were supported by those taking part in this short debate.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Greengross, referred to the relatively little-noticed but devastating submission by the World Health Organization to the IDC in the Commons, which referred to the set of 20 neglected tropical diseases which
“affect the poorest people in the poorest countries”
and which
“kill, blind, disfigure and maim, causing considerable and largely untold suffering to millions of people worldwide.”
The submission goes on to say that,
“as a consequence of the aid cuts, 20,000-30,000 individuals are likely to die, with the uncertainty in that estimate related to expected recent increases in disease incidence due to COVID-19-related programmatic delays.”
It concludes:
“the withdrawal of UK funding makes it likely that an estimated in-country inventory of”
277 million tablets
“donated by British and international pharmaceutical companies will expire and need to be incinerated”.
Can the Minister commit that no tablets meant for the poorest people in the world will be destroyed as a result of these cuts? That is my first question.
My second question relates to something that the Leader of the House was unable to provide me. Last week I asked her, as a member of the Government, to do something which members of the British Government have been doing for 25 years, which is to encourage the other richest countries in the world to meet their UN target of 0.7%. She was unable to do that, so I would like that reassurance in this debate today that it remains the position of the Government that we are encouraging all other developed countries to meet their obligations, which this Parliament enshrined in our law.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the short answer to the question posed in this debate is: none. To refuse to publish full information on the cuts as well as any kind of impact assessment illustrates how reckless the decision is. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, was absolutely right to ask her question and I hope the Minister will confirm specifically when the equalities impact assessment will be published, given that many of the cuts fall on programmes relating to women and girls. Although the full extent of the cuts is not clear, totalling over £4 billion, we know that aid to Yemen is cut by 60%, humanitarian relief to Ethiopia is cut by 95%, and child nutrition projects are cut by 80%. When will the Government introduce legislation to abandon the 0.7% commitment in the International Development Act? It is shameful that they are still blocking a Commons vote on this issue.
The donation of surplus Covid-19 vaccines is welcome. The Prime Minister has confirmed that the value of donated doses will be additional to the £10 billion ODA budget in both 2021 and 2022. However, with the economy expected to rebound, it is possible that a 0.5% ODA budget will exceed £10 billion. Will the Minister therefore confirm that this means that those doses will be offered in addition to the 0.5% of GNI? Can he also indicate whether the Government have responded to proposals by the ONE campaign to accelerate the timeline for sharing those doses, which is vital in the current situation?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for tabling this Question and for the long experience that he has brought to bear on the subject before us. I add my thanks to all other speakers for delivering so many insightful contributions in such a restricted speaking time.
I say first to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that the move to spend 0.5% of our gross national income on official development assistance was a far from easy decision. It was taken in response to an extreme economic and fiscal situation, which last year saw the highest peacetime levels of borrowing on record—£300 billion—following the seismic impact of the pandemic. This year we are forecast to borrow a further £234 billion with another £109 billion the following year, and these unprecedented circumstances have forced the Government to take unprecedented action. Noble Lords will be aware from previous debates of the extraordinary support that we have provided to the UK economy, to jobs and business, on top of the need to balance multiple departmental priorities.
Nevertheless, in spite of the reduction to the ODA budget, it remains the case that the UK will spend £10 billion on overseas development assistance in 2021 and, in looking at how best to deploy that large sum, Ministers have been clear on two counts: first, that we should allocate our aid budget in accordance with our key strategic priorities and, secondly, that we ensure—as we always endeavour to do—that every penny of our aid brings with it maximum strategic coherence, maximum impact and maximum value for taxpayers’ money.
The FCDO is now working through what that means for individual programmes, in line with the priorities that we have identified. Those priorities are seven in number: climate and biodiversity; Covid and global health security; girls’ education; science and research; open societies and conflict; humanitarian assistances; and trade. Inevitably, for the period when we spend 0.5%, there will be reductions across all regions and sectors, compared to what we would have spent under 0.7%—but because of our priority setting, not all sectors will see the same percentage reduction.
In working through the allocations, Ministers have been mindful of the impact on four groups in particular: women and girls; the most marginalised and vulnerable; people with disabilities; and people from other protected groups. In that context—and this answers my noble friend Lady Sugg—the FCDO has carried out a central equalities impact assessment across our bilateral country spend, looking at risks and impacts, and this has been considered by Ministers as they reviewed plans. The Foreign Secretary is considering carefully whether to put the central overarching assessment into the public domain. As she said, the central assessment showed no evidence that programmes targeting those with protected characteristics were more likely to be reduced or discontinued than other programmes.
I cannot yet specify in any granular detail what our planned spend will be this year, either by project or by country. Given that we are in a one-year spending settlement, the FCDO’s planned country allocations will be published in our annual report later this year in the usual way; in addition, and as always, we will continue to give monthly updates of our spend by project on the development tracker.
Contrary to the impression gained by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, none of these decisions on country and project allocations is being taken in a vacuum. The FCDO has engaged with NGOs and others and listened to feedback on the impact of the reduction in spend. FCDO Ministers engage with more than 80 NGOs, partners and parliamentarians, including through a round-table discussion with civil society. In the allocations process, we engage partners on the underpinning evidence, on priorities for delivery and to gather essential information. Now that the process is complete, we are working with our host countries, international partners and supply chains to deliver the budget changes set out in the Written Ministerial Statement published on 21 April.
Here it is worth my making the point that the creation of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has moved the coherence, efficiency and effectiveness of our decision-making in a very positive direction. The departmental merger has aligned our development work with our diplomatic clout and in so doing has improved development outcomes.
While I cannot yet give precise figures for the year ahead, I should like to provide the Committee with what figures I can. First, despite the budget reduction, we will be investing £400 million in girls’ education in over 25 countries this year. That is in addition to our pledge of £430 million to the Global Partnership for Education over five years. This is our largest ever pledge to GPE and an uplift of 15% from our current position as top bilateral donor.
On global health, we will donate at least 100 million surplus coronavirus vaccine doses within the next year, including 5 million beginning in the coming weeks. This donation is in addition to the Government’s work to support Oxford/AstraZeneca’s contribution to fighting Covid. I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that the £548 million that we have already committed to COVAX as one of the scheme’s largest donors will help it to deliver more than 1 billion vaccines to up to 92 lower-income countries this year. We also have a long-standing commitment to Gavi, as she knows, which will continue.
On climate change, we will deliver more than £1 billion of international climate finance activities this year as part of our flagship five-year £11.6 billion target. Our themes in this area include promoting clean energy, halting deforestation, preventing biodiversity loss and supporting countries damaged by the effects of climate change.
All of that means that this year, 2021, the UK will be the third largest overseas development assistance donor in the G7 as a percentage of GNI, based on data in 2020 from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In 2021 we will also be the third highest bilateral humanitarian donor country, based on OECD 2020 data. Even at 0.5% of GNI, the UK’s 2021 spend is above the preliminary 2020 average of OECD development assistance committee member states, which was just 0.41% of GNI.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, took the Government to task for a lack of transparency, as alleged in the report from the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. The Government have provided relevant documents and information as part of the follow-up review where those have been available. The FCDO remains committed to full transparency in our aid spending; for example, throughout the pandemic we have continued to publish our spend information by project through DevTracker. However, the impact of the pandemic has been seismic around the world and we have therefore pivoted our resources to our Covid-19 response to help the most vulnerable. That resulted in some information not being available during the period in which ICAI carried out its follow-up review.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred to his connection with HALO and to its remarkable work in demining. Although there will be a reduction in financial support compared with the previous financial year, we remain a leading donor in the sector and our work will continue on the same lines affecting livelihoods across the world, supporting those most in need. We have assessed that over a four-year period we will be spending over £146 million in this area, including £21 million this year.
My noble friend Lord Sarfraz asked about consultancy. In 2020, DfID and the FCO contracted over £1.5 billion in development assistance with businesses, universities and NGOs. These contractors provide programme management, technical assistance and specialist advice to partner Governments, complementing our in-house expertise to deliver the UK’s world-beating development programmes. As the FCDO, we explore allocations to make the best use of both our in-house expertise and the services that we procure to deliver world-beating programmes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to the UNFPA. The UK is fully committed to the mandate of the UNFPA, including its work on sexual and reproductive health. We remain committed to ensuring that women and girls have access to life-saving reproductive health supplies, and we highly value our partnership with the UNFPA on this important agenda.
The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, spoke of the situation in Afghanistan. On 14 April, as she knows, NATO announced that its forces would leave Afghanistan within a few months. Since 2002, the UK has supported the country with £3.3 billion worth of aid in various forms. We remain committed to supporting Afghanistan, including its efforts to counter terrorism, through our diplomatic and development work and support to the security sector. It is interesting to note that, alongside our NATO allies, the UK has built and equipped security institutions and has trained 5,000 cadets, including over 300 women.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Greengross, touched on the important issue of water sanitation and hygiene. I can tell them that our support for global health, which embraces many aspects of WASH, remains a top priority for the UK aid budget. The FCDO plans to spend over £1.3 billion on global health this financial year and we will rightly focus on the international response to Covid-19. The FCDO is planning a strategic shift of our water and sanitation programmes, from supporting the direct delivery of WASH facilities at a household and community level, to instead strengthening national WASH systems that are able to deliver inclusive, sustainable and resilient WASH services at scale.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, also questioned our commitment to global health. That commitment should not be in doubt. Our aim is to help end the pandemic, strengthen global health security and end the preventable deaths of mothers, newborn babies and children. We are committed to those causes.
Regarding malaria, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that the UK is a long-standing donor on malaria. We remain committed to stamping out this deadly disease. We are a leading investor in malaria research. The Global Fund, as she knows, allocates 32% of its budget to malaria and we have committed £1.4 billion to the Global Fund.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to our aid to Yemen—I am being told I have only one minute left, so I must undertake to write to her on that. Suffice to say that we are deeply concerned at the moment by the crisis in Yemen and we are working with international partners and the UN special envoy to find a peaceful resolution to it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, referred to the importance of R&D funding and I fully agree with her. She may like to know that we will spend 4% of the whole UK ODA budget on science and technology and the FCDO will spend £253 million on R&D.
I will write to other noble Lords whose questions I have not had time to answer, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on his question about the potential destruction of tablets and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on the question of vaccines and additionality.
The seismic impact of the pandemic and the current unprecedented economic and financial circumstances have forced the Government, as I have said, to take difficult spending decisions. But, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has emphasised, this is a temporary departure. He, the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary are as one in wanting to return to spending 0.7% of GNI on overseas development assistance as soon as fiscal circumstances allow. I wish that I could help the noble Lord, Lord Collins, with his question on when that will be, but no one can yet predict with certainty when the current financial circumstances will have sufficiently improved. We are monitoring the situation all the time and, clearly, we will make plans accordingly. However, I can assure him and the Committee that the UK remains and will remain indissolubly committed to poverty reduction and international development around the world. To that end, we shall ensure that the £10 billion allocated to our overseas aid programmes this year delivers a transformational impact consistent with our interests and values, of which all of us in this country can be proud.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the Grand Committee stands adjourned until 5.45 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for the next debate is one hour.
Child Maintenance Service
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reform the Child Maintenance Service.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, in the few days since I secured this debate, I have been contacted by a large number of organisations and individuals expressing strong views based on very difficult experiences as either paying or receiving parents in the child maintenance system. The parliamentary digital engagement team did sterling work to publicise this debate and elicit testimony from the public to inform it. I am very grateful to every one of the 1,524 people who took the time to respond and I hope to do some justice to their stories in my remarks.
That the number using the Child Maintenance Service across Great Britain is high is unsurprising, given that an estimated third of all children grow up in separated families. In December 2020, the Department for Work and Pensions reported that 756,500 children—roughly equivalent to the whole populations of Bristol and Newcastle cities combined—were covered by CMS arrangements. This fairly small cohort of speakers today does not represent the importance of child maintenance reform to those directly involved, their extended families and wider society. At least we will have longer to unpack properly our concerns in this highly contested area of policy. To quote Professor Patrick Parkinson, a key architect of the Australian child support reforms, it
“involves making compromises between the conflicting interests of mothers, fathers, children and the state … A win for one interest group … is a loss for another. Child support policy is a complex and contentious area involving zero sum calculations in political terms.”
No pressure then, Minister.
The contention is wholly understandable: the process of separation, however amicably achieved, is usually emotionally and financially stressful. A once-intimate relationship undergoes significant change, sometimes at the behest of one partner and strenuously resisted by the other. The indissolubility of parenthood and the important shift away from clean break divorce mean that both parents will still need to co-operate, at the very least around money and contact.
History has taught us there are no silver bullets and a whole host of potential unintended consequences when it comes to reforming child maintenance. Nearly 40 years ago, the seminal Finer report proposed a dedicated agency for administering maintenance payments. The ground lay fallow until 1993, when the Child Support Agency first opened its doors following the Child Support Act 1991. Just two years later, more legislation was required to fix its considerable problems, setting the tone for the sporadic reforms that produced the current system, in place since 2012.
We appear overdue for another wave of change, especially as universal credit is now a much more mature welfare system. The interaction of benefits with child support payments is a particularly salient issue. A reformed child maintenance system must do even more to ensure that paying and receiving parents, and the children both are raising, albeit not under the same roof, are not living in financial poverty as a result of its operation.
Looking briefly at how the current system works, many separated parents agree and adhere to private family-based arrangements. The Child Maintenance Service, which replaced the Child Support Agency, is for parents who have been unable to do this. Around two-thirds of children are covered through direct-pay arrangements, where the CMS calculates maintenance liabilities and parents arrange payments between themselves. A third are covered through collect-and-pay arrangements, where the CMS collects and manages payment between parents. Paying and receiving parents experience this system very differently, as evidenced in responses to the parliamentary survey. Almost half were from paying fathers and almost all the receiving parents, 40% of respondents, were mothers.
Emerging themes from this exercise map on to those in the academic literature and other cases I was sent. First, paying parents highlighted how the nature of CMS calculations could lead to financial hardship, which was unalleviable by working longer hours, as any additional money would be directed towards child maintenance. The Social Security Advisory Committee recently asked the DWP to examine ways of improving the child maintenance formula and its link with earning thresholds to address such concerns. My first question to the Minister is this: has there been any progress on this issue, given the DWP’s commitment to inform future policy development with the views expressed in SSAC’s consultation?
Secondly, as the receiving parent obtains less money if children stay overnight, this can disincentivise sharing care. Thirdly, and correlating with these previous two themes, paying parents reported impacts on their mental health, suicide attempts and suicidal thoughts. Fourthly, many reported issues with customer service, errors in calculations and inconsistencies, as did many receiving parents.
Three other areas stood out among receiving parents’ responses. First, they were dissatisfied with the effectiveness of action taken to collect payments. Secondly, they felt inadequately safeguarded in situations involving domestic abuse; for example, the continuation of control by withholding payment. Finally, self-employment and zero-hours contracts were deemed to create loopholes, so paying parents could hide income. I hope other noble Lords will go into more detail on this wide range of issues, which I have been able only to touch on, and suggest solutions to the Minister.
Paying and receiving parents diverge in what they perceive to be acceptable ways of resolving systemic difficulties. For example, internationally, many child support systems now rely on both parents’ income when determining liabilities, where most women work. In the parliamentary survey, 93% of paying parents said both parents’ incomes should be included, compared to 18% of receiving parents. Admittedly, counting mothers’ income can reduce incentives for workforce participation, but changes in Australia actually increased incentives for more qualified mothers, such as nurses and teachers, to return to work or increase hours. Their reforms, which have helped diminish the extent to which child support is a source of mass grievance, required designing a markedly complex formula, which had to be fair across a broad cross-section of circumstances. This took an expert committee eight months and significant research. A similarly intense process would be required here.
The other health warning is that, as child support systems interact with a country’s welfare system, translating ideas from one jurisdiction to another is always problematic. However, can my noble friend say whether the Government have any plans to consult on the merits of aligning Great Britain to other child support systems by including both parents’ incomes?
Finally, one theme that did not emerge in the survey but was raised by the Social Security Advisory Committee in 2019 was whether separated parents are getting the support that they need through a challenging and stressful time in their lives. The committee pointed to the need for an overarching, joined-up government strategy for separated parents, covering all relevant departments and child maintenance. Necessary, but not sufficient, is the commendable cross-departmental work to reduce parental conflict.
I declare my interest as a director of the Family Hubs Network and say that access points to services offering far more holistic support could be provided in the family hubs that the Government have promised to champion. Such access was instrumental to the progress made in Australia: family relationship centres, integral to its 2006 family law reforms, provide a gateway to the many different kinds of advice and support that parents need. The germ of such an idea was in our own landmark Children Act 1989, which specified that local authorities should provide family centres, where families could get help to overcome difficulties, including when parents separate. Can my noble friend the Minister inform the House how different departments of government are working together, including to deliver family hubs?
In conclusion, child maintenance will always be a system under scrutiny or being “reformed”, but state action must also be accompanied by a cultural shift in attitudes towards parental responsibility. We need to get to a place where there is a strong and pervasive expectation that, first, both parents will always share the cost of raising children, and, secondly, with the holistic support that I have described, they will sort out the thorny post-separation issues that stem the flow of child maintenance.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, my link with this service goes back a long time. When I became Lord Chancellor in 1987, I quickly discovered that many parents who had been deserted had been successful in getting orders from the court for maintenance. But, unfortunately, no sooner had they got the order than the husband disappeared, and they had no resources available to them to try to find out where he was or to raise the money that was due. Needless to say, his attitude was not to come forward—that was not his business; his attitude was to hide himself as much as possible.
I found this an extremely difficult problem. By that time, I knew a little bit about Northern Ireland, which had a state system for enforcing decrees of the court. It seemed to me that this was what we would need: some form of state system that helped to find the person in question and formulated the responsibilities that he had. Eventually, this became government policy in the Act to which my noble friend Lord Farmer has already referred, which set up the Child Support Agency.
As the Lord Chancellor at that time, I had responsibility for divorce law, and a question arose as to whether we should take into our department the necessary work to set up the computer necessities of the CSA. My department very wisely suggested that that was better done in the department that my noble friend represents today. That was very wise advice. Originally, it was thought that this new organisation, with its mighty computer, would be able to adjust the requirements of each case according to the circumstances; but, first of all, that was a very major task, and, secondly, the circumstances changed very rapidly, and therefore quickly became out of sync with the requirements.
The real difficulty in arrears from that source was the arrears of the CSA following the paying parent. It took a long time to get around that problem, with the gradual simplification of what was done via the computer—in the end, it became a job that depended on help with the revenue and so on, and with the fixed sum which was due by the paying parent in respect of the child. That shortened the process quite a bit.
Unfortunately, divorce arrangements remained the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor’s Department. It is now the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor and the Ministry of Justice to adjust the kind of arrangements that will be needed to adjudicate on these where necessary. My view is that it is important that a separation happens with as little animosity as possible. Animosity is a natural reaction to it in many quarters, and a degree of help is needed to overcome that. At the moment, I think that is with the Lord Chancellor’s Department, along with the process of mediation and so on, which we discussed so fully all those years ago in the original proposal for no fault.
I have never seen how allegations of fault get rid of the animosity, because it is very seldom that the parties are agreed about what happened. People who can tell what actually happened are rather scarce, because they will not have been there on most occasions when animosity is shown and the basis for fault arises. It seems to me that that kind of investigation must be in a higher court than any that we can have; it is a matter that should not be allowed to blossom in our system, as I think has now happened.
Collecting money is still an important matter. So far as I can see, at the moment, it is a distinct factor and function in trying to resolve problems with the family. I was very concerned about this when our first Conservative Government after I left office came into power. I was anxious about the arrangements that were made, as they seemed to be fairly heavily disposed against the receiving parent, as well as the paying parent. I am glad to see that the system now operating is 20% extra to the paying parent and 4% to the receiving parent, but I still find it very difficult to accept the view that, because of the attitude of the parents, this particular system is required to achieve payment. The difficulty is that the 4% is really coming off what is due to the child—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Can I ask the noble and learned Lord to wind up, as we have a seven-minute speaking limit?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
Yes, I shall wind up quickly. I understand that the difficulties in the present business of sorting out the money have created the difficulty that my noble friend Lord Farmer referred to, and which I mentioned in my communication with the Minister. I do not know whether it is true or not, but I think it is worth considering.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, is continuing his efforts to find information on and a resolution to the issue of child maintenance, and I thank him for his comprehensive introduction. It is always a great pleasure to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, share his knowledge and experience, and I thank him too.
This is a vital issue affecting thousands of children and blighting some family relationships. Parental tensions, for whatever reason, affect a child’s stability and mental health. Unclear or unfair systems of support for families cause such tension. We need to ensure child-friendly arrangements for child maintenance. As the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states, the welfare of the child is paramount.
In 2019, the Social Security Advisory Committee published a report examining separated parents and the child maintenance system. It raised concerns about the formula used to calculate child maintenance. For example, the formula did not reflect the true cost of raising a child—regional variations or the age of the child are implied—and not reflecting the household earnings of the receiving parent. A paying parent may be on a low income and struggle with costs and a receiving parent may have partnered with someone on a higher income. The reduction in payments for overnight stays with the receiving parent may create perverse incentives. Maintenance payments are reduced if the paying parent has their child stay overnight but are not enough to cover the fixed costs of looking after children, including needing a spare bedroom.
I understand that the National Audit Office is carrying out a consultation to examine whether the child maintenance system is
“delivering value for money for children, separated parents and the taxpayer.”
What is the progress on this?
I have just completed a report for the Council of Europe on the impact of Covid-19 on children’s rights. I interviewed a number of people—professionals, politicians and children—to inform my concerns. There was a general consensus that family tensions could result, in the extreme, in violence against children, domestic abuse and harm to child mental health. Child poverty was one cause. All countries, of course, have different attempts to combat poverty and other family difficulties. Our situation in the UK seems particularly complex. A contributing factor to family difficulties could be arrangements for child maintenance, and it is important to get them right.
I hope that in this debate, we shall receive more information about the impact of government reforms in creating the Child Maintenance Service: for example, the charging for both parents and the notion of pushing parents to make private arrangements rather than use the CMS at all. I wonder how many parents are making private arrangements. It seems that there is no responsibility for collecting child support money unless the parents have tried a direct payment arrangement and it has failed. So what next? What do the statistics say? I realise that more are due very soon. When will we see a dynamic development plan from the DWP? Perhaps the Minister can comment.
The CMS has many problems. I will name a few and will be interested to know what the ways of dealing with this could be. First, the collect-and-pay service charges a large fee to administer payments between parents, yet evidence shows that missed payments are spiralling into millions of pounds. What can be done to prevent this?
We know that many single parents are struggling, and this has become more intense during the pandemic, Many are in severe financial difficulties. How will the department address this?
How many staff were redeployed at the beginning of the pandemic from their CMS roles? What has happened to those staff?
How is enforcement action being carried out? Are video interviews in place? If so, what is the reaction from parents? A quarter of paying parents are not paying towards their liabilities. What action is being taken to redress this?
What is the most recent estimate of current arrears owed from missed payments during the Covid crisis, and what plans will be put in place to resume reinforcements, and how? Is there a timeline for when paying parents will be reimbursed?
How will the DWP deal with staff shortages? I believe that there are now reduced assessment periods for parents. How will this affect changes in earnings, especially given the risks of unemployment, such as during Covid?
It is essential that the statutory child support body is properly funded and functioning well. Is the Minister confident that the problems I have mentioned can be resolved to the benefit of parents and children? I very much look forward to hearing her response.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Farmer for initiating this debate.
Only yesterday I read a rather distressing case of a father who feels that the service has treated him unjustly, left him in a poor financial position not of his making and caused him to lose his job. It left me wondering how many feel the same way. I suppose it is inevitable that some couples will be unhappy with what they regard as unjust arrangements, but does the Minister have any idea of the extent of these problems and how readily they can be put right? For instance, is the appeal system straightforward?
Could the Minister tell us about the progress of the Government’s commitment to supporting parents to make family-based collaborative arrangements, which free them from having to pay the Child Maintenance Service? Could she update the House on the surveys that were commissioned looking at direct-pay and case-closure clients?
As the rates of family breakdown are the reason why so many children are living in separate homes, should we not be focusing on preventing this situation? We need an effective campaign to strengthen families before, during and after separation in order to minimise the effects of unresolved and damaging conflicts.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, I join the other speakers in thanking my noble friend Lord Farmer for initiating this important debate.
The fact that £1 billion is secured by this service for the benefit of children, lifting 120,000 children out of poverty every year with child support payments, is hugely welcome. The statistics show that 756,000 children are covered by Child Maintenance Service arrangements. I am especially pleased to learn of the success of the CMS investigators who, through the courts, pursue fathers who try to avoid supporting their children when they are financially well able to do so.
Some recent reforms to the service are most welcome, including the “apply online” service that is available every day throughout the year. It is encouraging that the service is consulting until August on additional proposals to modernise and improve the service, and that it is continuing to keep child maintenance policy and operational delivery under review.
That large numbers of children are supported by the service is good news but it is also a sad reflection on the number of relationship breakdowns that have occurred, putting children in this position. It is important that we recognise the very valuable work being done through the Government’s Reducing Parental Conflict programme. If help can be given at the start of relationship breakdown, the conflict can often be reduced. Too often the Child Maintenance Service has to deal with two people who hate each other, which makes complex circumstances more difficult when arranging child maintenance payments.
Additionally, it is good to see the support being given by the Government to the family hubs, so ably mentioned by my noble friend Lord Farmer. The support that families can receive from the family hubs is hugely beneficial. They are sometimes described as the place that starts the repair. The general public often hear a narrative of uncaring non-resident parents refusing to meet their obligations to help to provide for their children. I know that in many cases the reality for parents on low incomes is very different.
I ask my noble friend the Minister to look at what appears to be a flaw in the regulations. I am a great supporter of universal credit, which makes work pay, but the interaction with child maintenance appears to undermine UC. This point has been referred to in two reports by the Centre for Social Justice, in 2014 and 2018, and by the Social Security Advisory Committee in 2019. The problems arise from the basic structure of the scheme. The basic rate of child maintenance is a percentage of the income of the non-resident parent. No self-support allowance—a deduction from income to allow for essential living—is included; the liability is a percentage of the whole income.
The schemes in 2003 and 2012 were set up without reference to the system of welfare support. The interaction between welfare support and child maintenance is problematic. The child maintenance scheme has two thresholds. Below the first threshold, parents pay only a nominal amount—a flat rate—and, above the second threshold, they pay the full basic rate amount. In between, there is a catch-up region where parents have to pay a larger percentage of each pound earned—the reduced rate—so that the full basic amount is paid by the time the second threshold is reached. The parents paying the reduced rate can be worse off for every £1 earned, and parents paying the basic rate are only a few pence better off for every £1 earned. In effect, those parents get no financial benefit for being in work. The better option for them is to be unemployed.
It is also interesting to note that the values of the two thresholds were decided in 1998 and have not been changed in the 23 intervening years. In 1998, it was decided that a non-residential parent should not pay more than a nominal amount of earnings—less than £100 a week—and not pay the full amount until earning more than £200 a week. These thresholds no longer make sense in terms of affordability, but changing them will not resolve the issues of the 2003 and 2012 arrangements.
A great deal of very positive work is being achieved by the Child Maintenance Service, but I urge my noble friend the Minister to look at these flawed regulations.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I remind the Committee that, a long time ago, I was a non-executive director of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission and, even longer ago, chief executive of One Parent Families.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Famer, for securing this debate, as we rarely get to discuss child maintenance, which is really important. His opening speech began with a history lesson, capped fascinatingly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who reminded us just why we need an effective statutory Child Maintenance Service—a cause he has long championed. The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, also gave us a tour d’horizon of many of the key policy issues relating to child support, with the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, offering some more in her contribution.
I will focus on more operational questions, but I start by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, that it is important, wherever possible, that both parents should contribute towards the cost of bringing up children after a relationship has broken up. Children are a lifelong responsibility for their parents, and it can be important for them to know that both parents continue to support them. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord McColl, about the importance of good support for families at every stage.
There is also clear research evidence demonstrating the role that child maintenance can play in helping to lift single parents out of poverty. This is really important, given that we went into the pandemic with 4.3 million children living in families in relative poverty. Given the scarring effect in later life of living in poverty as a child, the stakes are very high.
Ministers often say that work is the best route out of poverty, but working poverty is now at a record level of 17.4%. Interestingly, a recent IPPR report found that the poverty rate for couples with one full-time earner is now 31%. Since single-parent households tend to have just one earner, it is perhaps not surprising that almost half of children living in single-parent households are in poverty. But if a single parent is already working full time, they cannot really make much more money by earning more, so getting maintenance paid in full and on time may be their best chance of lifting their children out of poverty.
Unfortunately, too much maintenance goes unpaid, and it must be said that the Child Maintenance Service has not had a good pandemic. That is not a reflection on the hard-working staff of the CMS. When Covid hit, a large number of staff were redeployed away from the CMS to help process universal credit claims. Can the Minister tell us how many? My noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen was pushing on that as well. I understand the need for more staff processing universal credit claims, but single parents paid the price for that. Victoria Benson, CEO of Gingerbread, said that for much of the pandemic, the CMS was
“running a skeleton service, meaning they are now as a rule not enforcing payment and are allowing paying parents to reduce or withdraw maintenance payment without any proper evidence.”
Single parents are still complaining to Gingerbread that CMS is not enforcing child maintenance owed to them.
I looked up the last official child maintenance statistical report, which covered the last quarter of 2020—it came out on 23 April, so we are due another one any day. It said that the CMS had resumed virtually all areas of service delivery and was now focusing on the recovery and enforcement of outstanding arrears. Can the Minister tell us what the current situation is? Is CMS now operating a full service in all areas? Is it using its full range of enforcement powers? Crucially, are there as many staff now in the CMS as there were before the pandemic? Does it have a plan for tackling those arrears?
My noble friend Lady Massey raised the question of the reduction in the period of time for considering a paying parent’s maintenance liability where their income had changed because of Covid. That was cut from 12 weeks down to two. It protects paying parents but of course hits receiving parents. CMS said it will revert to 12 weeks as soon as possible. Can the Minister say whether that is still in force and, if so, when will it revert?
The statistics show that in the last quarter ending December 2020, of paying parents who pay via collect and pay 50% paid over 90% of their child maintenance—that counts as fully compliant; 22% paid something; and 28% paid nothing at all. Does the Minister think that is acceptable? If not, is there a target to improve it? We need to look at those stats in light of the fact that more people have moved on to benefits; they are more likely to pay child maintenance as it is knocked directly off their benefit payments before they get it. Indeed, 40% of all collect-and-pay cases now involve deductions from benefits, whereas it would normally be more like 21% to 24%. So that is flattering the compliance rates.
What about the amounts? In the quarter to September 2020, the statistics say that £41.1 million was paid through collect and pay. But by the last quarter, when things were allegedly back to normal, that went up only by £1 million. That seems to leave £15.2 million of maintenance uncollected in that quarter alone. That is £15 million that could have been spent on feeding and clothing children.
Since 2012, when the Government created the Child Maintenance Service, £395 million in unpaid maintenance is owed through collect and pay. That is roughly 9% of all the maintenance ever due to be paid since the new service started. The Government closed down the previous service, reformed the system and created what we have now. It is their baby. Are they happy with how it is doing?
That is just those who get into the statutory system. Like my noble friend Lady Massey and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I worry about the impact of charging and I would also like to know how much maintenance is being paid through private arrangements.
Finally, a consultation was launched just last Friday on making some changes to CMS. I read that the proposals are to change how unearned income is treated, to enable the writing off of low amounts of debt, to allow CMS notifications to be sent digitally, and some other stuff about who has to provide information. Can the Minister tell us whether all those changes which the consultation is addressing can be made in secondary legislation? Will the DWP analyse the responses to the consultation before it publishes the draft legislation? I know that sounds obvious, but it does not always happen. The NAO is also preparing a report on the CMS. Will the department await the final NAO report before making any changes?
Child maintenance matters to parents and to society but, above all, it matters to children, since, as my noble friend Lady Massey always reminds us, the welfare of the child is paramount. We owe it to our children to have a well-functioning, supportive system of child maintenance in Britain. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for his question, which has led to this important, albeit short, debate. I also thank all noble Lords who have participated and made many excellent points. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock—indeed, we all agree—that this is an important subject and area of work. In summing up, I will try to address as many of the points made as I can. If I cannot address all of them, I will write to colleagues in detail.
I hold surgeries every quarter with MPs from the Commons, and for all MPs who have written to me personally about cases, I have dealt with each and every one. So I commit to organising an all-Peers child maintenance session so that we have the time after this debate to get into the detail, as I know all noble Lords want to do.
My noble friends Lord McColl and Lady Eaton wanted to know that the child maintenance system is working. We continue to keep the child maintenance policy and our operational delivery under constant review. I was pleased that my noble friend Lady Eaton referred to the new digital services, such as the apply online service that has been introduced; it has reduced average application times, is available 24/7 and allows greater flexibility for separated parents to contact the Child Maintenance Service. Operational reforms such as these help to improve outcomes for children by enabling parents to set up and manage child maintenance arrangements in ways that suit their own circumstances.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Sherlock, raised the National Audit Office report. I am pleased to confirm that our officials are working well with the National Audit Office—it is work in progress. It is a value-for-money study and will be completed during October and November.
On child maintenance performance and track record, I know that many noble Lords will have experience of the various child maintenance schemes—already referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay—that there have been over the years. This is an area where the Government have learned a lot. They are completely committed to ensuring that parents play their part and take responsibility for supporting their children. The child maintenance system has had a difficult history in our country, but I am sure most colleagues would agree that the Child Maintenance Service is a significant improvement. As has already been referenced, more than 750,000 children are now covered by child maintenance arrangements. In the past year—2019-20—more than £1 billion was due to be paid through direct pay and the collect and pay service. The compliance rate for parents on the collect and pay service has increased significantly, rising by six percentage points between the quarter ending December 2018 and the quarter ending December 2020.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, said, during the Covid public health emergency, a number of temporary changes were made to the Child Maintenance Service. On the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked me, 1,507 FTEs were redeployed in the Covid emergency to make sure that we could get money to people. I can give noble Lords a categoric assurance that they are all back and we are back in full service mode.
In December 2020, more than 40,000 paying parents on the collect and pay service had a deduction from earnings order in place, collecting more than £25 million. More than 60,000 deductions from benefits were in force and more than 3,500 deduction orders were in place, collecting a record £3.3 million from bank accounts. I am confident that we will maintain these improvements as we move forward.
My noble friend Lord Farmer and the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Sherlock, raised the issue of enforcement powers. The Child Maintenance Service’s enforcement powers are strong and are used widely against those who consistently refuse to meet their obligations to support their children. I have been absolutely staggered at the lengths that people will go to in order to avoid paying their child maintenance. There was an absent dad who owed £80,000 in child maintenance and thought that he could avoid paying it, despite having a great lifestyle. The financial investigation and enforcement teams were right behind him and managed to get that £80,000, which was a life-changing amount of money for the receiving parent. He had £175,000 in the bank. So we are not having any of it—I can tell you that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised the issue of child maintenance and child poverty. We know that child maintenance can play an effective role in reducing child poverty and enhancing the life outcomes of children in separated families. Child maintenance helps to reduce the chances of children being raised in the lowest 20% of the income distribution, and we know that approximately 120,000 fewer children are growing up in poverty as a result of child maintenance payments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised the issue of lone parents, who are much more likely to live in low-income households. Extra money coming in through child maintenance can make a real difference to these families, as it is disregarded in full in universal credit. Lone parents get to keep every pound of maintenance paid, and we encourage lone parents on benefits to make a claim for child maintenance. I am pleased to say that my very first visit as a Minister was to Gingerbread and that my colleagues and officials have a very good ongoing relationship with both Gingerbread and Families Need Fathers, and we consistently listen to the issues that they raise with us.
I come now to parental conflict, which the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, my noble friend Lord Farmer and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay all raised. When two people fall out, the repercussions are felt far and wide by children, and we are only too aware that we have to try to intervene at the right time to reduce this conflict. That is why we have our Reducing Parental Conflict programme, and we are very pleased with the impact that it has had to date. In government, we have a cross-departmental working group on it, involving the Department for Health and Social Care, the Home Office and MHCLG.
Of course, at this point, I want to raise family hubs. We have five government departments working together on family hubs, and we hope that the Reducing Parental Conflict programme can be one of the tools in their armoury. We know that the sooner we intervene in the breakdown of a relationship, the better the outcome can be—and I would be very happy to give more information to noble Lords about that when we meet again.
Before I close my remarks today and deal with some of the other issues that were raised, I will touch on domestic abuse, which I know is a matter of deep concern to all noble Lords. It is vital that the Child Maintenance Service plays its part in supporting victims of domestic abuse. We will continue to waive the application fee for domestic abuse victims and to provide support to allow victims to set up maintenance arrangements safely. The Child Maintenance Service has ramped up domestic abuse training for front-line staff and will continue to review its ways of working to further address a culture where victims of domestic abuse are in absolute poverty—they are a priority. In that vein, I am in the process of commissioning an independent review of ways in which the Child Maintenance Service supports victims of domestic abuse.
Noble Lords raised the issue of the consultation, which we have issued and are embarking on. I give an invitation to all noble Lords: if they have other things they want us to consider, the door is open and they should let us know what those things are. I would now like to cover other important issues that have been raised.
We are grateful to SSAC for raising issues and we have had the opportunity to discuss them with concerned stakeholders. The views expressed will be used to inform future policy development. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, I think I have already said that the system is now fully operational, and the number of staff on child maintenance has gone from 5,500 to 4,700 due to the last CSA cases being closed. Capacity of the system is broadly at pre-Covid levels.
Noble Lords raised the issue of aligning Great Britain with other jurisdictions. We are in close contact with officials in other jurisdictions. As my noble friend Lord Farmer observed, it is hard to transplant measures from one jurisdiction to another, but we continue to monitor international developments in this field. I believe that covers the issue of the situation in Australia. Dual income adds significant complexity to a child maintenance calculation and measures that work in one place do not necessarily work in another. I am happy to continue to discuss that and keep the issue under the review.
On family-based arrangements, we recognise that conflict is harmful to children and the intent of the 2012 maintenance reforms was to try to promote collaboration between separated parents. We know that a family-based arrangement is not for everybody, so we offer people other ways of paying. I think my noble friends Lord McColl and Lord Farmer raised the issue of the appeals process and whether it works. We have made changes to the appeals process and, if a complainant is still unsatisfied with the response they have, they can escalate it to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Noble Lords asked me to tell them about the progress of the Government’s commitment to supporting parents to make family-based arrangements. The survey we did will be published in due course.
I am sorry to have run out of time, because this is a subject dear to my heart; I could spend all day talking to noble Lords about it and answering your questions, believe me. Please go away from here understanding that we know child maintenance is important, we are on it and we are going to make the changes we need to make to take children out of poverty so they can get the best chances in life.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
Thank you, Minister. That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing 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 no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Covid-19: Death Duties and Inheritance Tax
Lord Truscott
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, (1) to reintroduce death duties, or (2) to increase inheritance tax, to help pay for costs associated with the Covid-19 pandemic.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as announced at the Budget, rather than rising with inflation, the inheritance tax nil rate band and residence nil rate band will remain at £325,000 and £175,000 respectively until April 2026. Maintaining these thresholds at 2020-21 levels is forecast to raise almost £1 billion over the next five years. Alongside other announcements at the Budget, this will help rebuild public finances and allow the Government to invest in public services.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for that reply but let us call a spade a spade: we are talking about death duties here, a tax on a deceased person’s estate. Would the Minister not agree that instead of facing yet another wealth or property tax, most people, especially those that are asset rich and cash poor, would prefer to pay tax after they pass away, hence the increasing popularity of equity release? A post-war level of death duties would raise £174 billion. Does the Minister also agree that this is the way to help pay for Covid and prevent a growing generational and societal inequality?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as I have set out, maintaining thresholds at their current levels will make a contribution towards repairing the public finances following Covid. However, in order to do that job, we will need to take a broader-based approach, and that is what the Government did at the last Budget, including through freezing personal tax allowances and raising corporation tax.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that we have a highly regressive tax system in the UK? The effective tax rate for the wealthiest 10%, counting income and wealth combined, is 18%, and for the bottom 10% it is 42%. In any rational society, this would be reversed. Does the Minister agree with the IMF that wealth taxes need to rise to pay for the cost of fighting the pandemic?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, in fact, the UK has one of the highest levels of wealth taxes in both the G7 and the OECD. We also have a highly progressive income tax system. The top 1% of income tax payers are projected to have paid over 29% of all income tax in 2019-20, an increase from 25% of all income tax in 2010-11.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, might an increase in tax on inheritances be considered to help pay for the reform of social care, for which I understand the Treasury is searching for the necessary funding?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as I have set out, the Government’s approach to inheritance tax at the most recent Budget was to freeze those thresholds, which will raise additional funding. The Government’s plans for social care will be set out later this year.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I feel the Minister’s reply and arithmetic are rather optimistic. The Office for Budget Responsibility repeatedly reported that the public finances were unsustainable, even before the pandemic resulted in a 24% increase in public sector net debt in the past two years. How do the Government intend to put the public finances on to a long-term sustainable path? What will that mean for taxes and public spending in the short, medium and long term? The Minister’s reply and the arithmetic used are not believed by the Office for Budget Responsibility.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to hear the noble Lord’s support for fiscal responsibility and repairing the public finances. As I set out, a number of measures were taken at the Budget to do this. These included freezing the income tax personal allowance until April 2026; increasing the rate of corporation tax to 25% from April 2023; freezing the pensions lifetime allowance and annual exempt allowance; and measures to tackle tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance, which will raise an additional £2.2 billion by 2025-26.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, given that a large proportion of most inheritances arises from property values, do not the current tax arrangements contribute to inequality not only between individuals, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, said, but between regions? Given the Government’s levelling-up agenda, could they not use a wealth tax or inheritance taxes to increase that levelling up?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, we seek to balance the contribution inheritance taxes make to the Exchequer in paying for our public finances with the quite legitimate desire of people to pass on assets to the next generation. We believe we have got that balance right.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a callow view, even in some parts of Her Majesty’s Treasury, that there is pile of wealth out there and all we have to do is tax it and all our problems, such as Covid and social care, will be solved? Wiser heads know that most such efforts result in perverse outcomes and hard political cases—capital flight and little old ladies losing their homes— such that, in the end, more harm is done to the economy and the Government’s reputation than the pathetic yield justifies.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is perhaps referring to the balance in priorities that we need to address when looking at tax rates. We raise a relatively high amount from inheritance tax and assets compared to peer countries, and we believe that we have got that balance right.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, when the merits of specific tax changes to help pay for the costs associated with the pandemic are being assessed, I am really anxious that pensioners do not disproportionately bear the cost of the crisis. Are the Government looking at the pension triple lock in relation to older people who are working? Are they, strictly speaking, pensioners or are they really older workers to be treated differently?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the pension triple lock remains government policy and the state pension remains the foundation of the Government’s support for older people. I am not aware of any work looking at treating pensioners who choose to work after the state pension age any differently.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the problem with inheritance tax is that the rich continue to avoid it through the creation of a variety of trusts. Will the Minister explain why the Government have failed to close the loopholes associated with avoidance of inheritance tax?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, it is important to distinguish between the legitimate use of reliefs and those engaging in avoidance by bending the rules to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended. The Government have taken action in this area. Since April 2011, inheritance tax and trusts have been brought into the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes regime. This is to ensure that any new or innovative inheritance tax avoidance schemes involving transfers into trusts must be disclosed to HMRC.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I confess to finding this question insensitive at this time, as it seems to be seeking to penalise for ever those who died from Covid and their families. Will the Minister instead consider the Australian system whereby people are taxed during their lifetime but there are no death duties?
Baroness Penn (Con)
Perhaps I can reassure my noble friend, in that some 94% of estates are forecast to have no inheritance tax liability whatsoever over the next five years. However, inheritance tax does still make an important contribution to funding public services, raising more than £5 billion each year.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am afraid that I could not quite hear the noble Lord’s question, but I would be happy to write to him when I have clarified what he said.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
All supplementary questions have been asked, and we now move to the second Oral Question.
BBC: Freedom of Information Legislation
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to amend Freedom of Information legislation to ensure that the British Broadcasting Corporation is more transparent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the BBC is a public authority for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act. As with other public service broadcasters under the Act, the right of access extends to all information held other than that held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. There are no plans to amend this provision.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the BBC is a huge institution that took £3.5 billion from the public last year, yet it is the least transparent in its attitude toward freedom of information requests, using, as the Minister has just said, journalism as a broad way of getting out of FoI. BBC Northern Ireland is particularly bad: it even refused an FoI request to tell us what it paid the polling company LucidTalk, which it employed when it could have used other existing polls. The BBC is unaccountable, and now that GB News is established and it has some rivalry, when will the Government change the FoI rules to ensure that the BBC becomes more transparent and more accountable for our money?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As I said in my initial Answer, there are no current plans to amend the rules. As I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, requesters have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner if they believe that a public authority has not complied with the Act. However, my understanding is that in no recent decisions has the Information Commissioner upheld any appeals against the BBC based on journalistic and other exclusions.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I think the Minister agrees that FoI exemptions are afforded to the BBC and other PSBs so that they can correctly maintain editorial control. Does she also agree that nothing should be done that might prejudice journalistic integrity, and that BBC journalists should have exactly the same protection of their sources as those working, for instance, for the Daily Mail?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I hear the noble Baroness’s point. What is perhaps behind the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is perceptions of impartiality concerning the BBC. The noble Baroness will be aware that both the new chairman and the new director-general have made addressing those perceptions a priority.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, the BBC has to be held to account and to deliver high standards, particularly because of the unique way in which it is funded. Although there is a requirement for the BBC to publish information on salaries of more than £150,000, should the threshold not be further reduced to, say, £100,000 in order to further inform and provide even greater transparency and clarity, which would help to satisfy the general public that more is being done?
Baroness Barran (Con)
A very clear objective in the last charter review was to deliver greater transparency on the part of the BBC. The first step to which my noble friend refers, in terms of those paid above £150,000, was part of that. As she knows, there will be a mid-charter review starting next year, which will look at whether the governance mechanisms are indeed fit for purpose.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB) [V]
Ministers have repeatedly said that the BBC’s mid-charter review into the corporation’s governance and regulation will be a transparent process. Can the Minister tell the House whether the review will be a health check on how the new Ofcom regime is operating, or something more fundamental?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I can only repeat what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said about this, which is that the review will focus on the governance and regulatory arrangements of the BBC. I know that my right honourable friend has gone further and said that there will be no knee-jerk reforms and the mid-charter review will be used to determine whether further reforms are needed.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am all in favour of transparency with regard to the BBC, but transparency surely has to be applied across the broadcasting sector as a whole—and to the Government. Can the Minister assure the House that there will be transparency in the decision-making process relating to Channel 4 as a public service broadcaster and any moves to privatise the channel? When will the Government publish the rationale behind any changes they wish to make to its status, given how successful it is in its current form?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The consultation we recently announced on the ownership structure of Channel 4 and the potential regulation of video on demand services is forward-looking and aims to ensure the long-term success of Channel 4 into the future. As for transparency, we will of course publish the government response to the consultation.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s emphasis on, and welcome for, the initiatives taken by the new chairman and director-general to increase transparency and freedom of information within the BBC. I wish her well in resisting knee-jerk reactions from her own Benches, and from strange places on this side, in reviewing the future of the BBC.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think the majority of my colleagues on these Benches have echoed the sentiments of the Secretary of State and my right honourable friend the Minister for Media and Data when they have said, again and again, that the need for a strong PSB system and trusted journalism has never been stronger.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the success of global Britain requires support and celebration of those things that the rest of the world most values in the UK, which provide soft power and promote bonds of affection and trust? Will she then congratulate BBC News on the finding in the most recent Reuters Institute Digital News Report that it is among the most trusted news brands in the United States, Canada, India and South Africa? In most cases, it is more trusted than domestic news providers.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am delighted to echo the right reverend Prelate’s congratulations to BBC News on that recognition.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, if the new team at the BBC want to return it to the British Broadcasting Corporation we have been so proud of, and are sincere in their wish to draw a line under the past, does the Minister agree that they should also apologise for spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of public funds keeping the Balen report secret? This report was commissioned to investigate biased BBC reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What are they hiding and what are they afraid of? Will she urge the BBC to be completely transparent and honest and publish the findings?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely acknowledge my noble friend’s wish to see transparency in all regards. The Government absolutely agree that the BBC should be a beacon in setting standards and that the recent Dyson report, in particular, showed that in some instances it has fallen far short.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
Does the Minister agree that misunderstanding and misuse of religion is one of the greatest causes of conflict in the world today? When a BBC fundamentalist Christian producer tries to stop a Sikh presenter on “Thought for the Day” speaking about Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith, or Guru Tegh Bahadur, who gave his life standing up for the right of freedom of belief of those of another faith, such arrogance should be open to challenge and scrutiny.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Sadly, I think religion has been a source of misunderstanding over many centuries. The noble Lord will be aware that the BBC is editorially independent so I cannot comment on the rest of his question.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the third Oral Question.
Criminal Justice System: Equal Treatment of Deaths and Injuries
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the criminal justice system treats deaths and injuries caused by motorists equally to those not caused by motorists.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, where there is evidence of an intention to kill or cause serious injury, offences committed by motorists will be prosecuted in the same way as other homicides or assaults. However, in the context of driving it is often difficult to ascertain the driver’s state of mind or intentions. That is why the law contains additional road traffic offences that consider an objective test of the standard of driving, rather than the driver’s subjective intent.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
In 2014, a man travelling at 80 to 88 miles per hour in his car drove straight at the traffic officer who tried to flag him down to stop him. The killer made no attempt to swerve or to slow and he threw PC Duncan into the air like a ragdoll, leaving him with fatal injuries. The starting point for murdering a police officer with a knife or an iron bar is 30 years; this driver got an eight and a half year sentence. Is that justice?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, first, I acknowledge the gravity of that incident and we should pay our respects to the police officer’s family, remembering the work that police officers do, day in and day out. However, one has to distinguish the road traffic offence from the consequences. In that case, if there were sufficient evidence to prosecute for murder or manslaughter, that prosecution should have been brought. I know that the CPS does bring those charges when there is evidence to support them and sufficient likelihood of a guilty verdict.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend say how you compare offences which are different in their formulation and different in the sentences available—including, for example, disqualification?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, as would be expected, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. Homicide offences and the specific driving offences of causing death and injury are different. They are designed for different purposes and have different levels of culpability, but there is a complementary structure and, as I said, where there is evidence to charge for the homicide offences, that will be done in addition to the driving offences.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
There appears to be a perception that drivers get off with lighter sentences, possibly because people can identify with driver error. It is the kind of attitude that says, “There, but for the grace of God, go many of us”. How will the Government ensure that there are suitable punishments for the most serious cases of dangerous driving, as we have heard the Minister say today, involving the sort of conduct that we would all find abhorrent?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I agree that perhaps going slightly above the speed limit is something that, inadvertently, many of us might do for a short period, but no one is sympathetic to the behaviour of those who drive very dangerously, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and cause devastation to the families of the people they kill or injure. This Government, in the PCSC Bill, are looking to increase the sentencing powers for courts where people who have committed that sort of behaviour are convicted.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware of the tragic death of Ryan Saltern. He was killed by a driver who failed to stop and report the accident, yet upon conviction the driver received only a four-month jail sentence, suspended for a year. With this case in mind, does the noble Lord agree that issues such as this should be addressed in the PCSC Bill, either through the creation of a hit-and-run offence or by ensuring that, in cases where someone is killed or seriously injured by a motorist, magistrates are required to send the person convicted to the Crown Court for sentencing?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am aware of that case, and I send my condolences to the family of Ryan Saltern. Failure to stop offences are often referred to as hit and runs, but that is not really an accurate reflection of the offence. The offence is designed to deal with the behaviour relating to the failure to stop; it is not an alternative route to punish an offender for a more serious but not proven offence. As I said, where there is evidence that the driver caused harm, there are other offences they can be charged with, and the failure to stop will then be an aggravating feature in the sentencing for that offence.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
One way of addressing the incidence and consequences of unacceptable driving is to change the culture among road users. Last year’s consultation on the interim review of the Highway Code focused specifically on improving safety for vulnerable users—particularly cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders—and asked respondents for their views on introducing a hierarchy of road users. If introduced, this would ensure that those road users who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they may pose to others. Do the Government support a hierarchy and the prioritisation of road users in this way? When will the Government publish their response to the consultation, which closed eight months ago?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, some of the points the noble Lord has raised are really for my colleagues in the Department for Transport, and I will pass those on. But he is absolutely right that culture is an important part of this debate; we can all think of examples around the world where there is a different culture in the way that road space is used. Of course, one has to remember that everybody who uses the road is subject to the Highway Code. That includes both the drivers of juggernauts and, if I may say so, cyclists, who sometimes appear to think that they are subject to the pavement code.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I know the House will remember the cycling safety Bill in 1993, which I introduced in the other place as a 10-minute rule Bill—I see my noble friend nodding his head. This would have made a presumption of a charge of dangerous driving if a motorist had collided, through his or her fault, with a cyclist, and I still stand by that. But in this particular case, there must be a difference between accidental and intentional malign behaviour, and surely we should allow some leeway for the CPS and magistrates and judges to make their judgment on the case, rather than pass yet further laws.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right when he says that the purpose of criminal law generally is to look not only at the consequences of the behaviour but, far more importantly, at the culpability of the offender. That is the same in the context of driving as well. Where the driver intends to kill or commit serious injury by driving deliberately at somebody, it is right that they should face homicide or similar charges. But, in other cases, the problem with driving offences is that a relatively small driving error can lead to catastrophic consequences.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, the Vienna convention on diplomatic immunity is to protect diplomats in doing their duty. It has been used to escape prosecution for road traffic offences—not only for one very sad death but also for injuries. Could the Minister communicate with his colleagues in the Foreign Office and ask them, first, to get agreement where possible from missions that they will not claim diplomatic immunity for road traffic offences, and, secondly, to seek an amendment to the Vienna convention?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I have some experience of this; in a former life, I argued a few cases against some other Members of your Lordships’ House relating to the Vienna convention and the consequences of it. I fully understand the point that my noble friend makes, and I will pass it on to the appropriate department, as he suggests.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
[Inaudible]—change of personality with some people behind the wheel; we have seen road rage lead to murder in some cases. Could the noble Lord say whether there has been an increase in motorists driving while using mobile phones, drinking or eating, and, of course, driving while drunk, drugged or disqualified—all of which are against the law and could result in accidents, sometimes fatal? Does he agree that the most effective penalty is to remove their wheels and, if they persist, for the court to deprive them of their liberty?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I do not have those precise figures to hand, but I will write to the noble Lord with them and place a copy in the Library. So far as bans are concerned, the noble Lord will be aware that, in the table of road traffic offences and penalties, there are discretionary bans towards the bottom end but obligatory bans towards the top end of the scale.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My noble friend may recall the very sad case of Kim Briggs, a pedestrian mowed down by a cyclist using an illegal bicycle. Will he ensure that the objective test to which he refers will extend to all those e-scooters, e-bikes and other cyclists who inadvertently mow down pedestrians, whether on a road or pavement, so that they face the full consequences of the law on an equal footing with other road traffic offences committed by motorists?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. I made a comment about cyclists earlier, and I will not ask the House to indulge me by saying it again. As far as e-scooters are concerned, one does not hear them coming; when they come down pavements at fairly quick speeds, they can be extremely dangerous. However, this is really a matter for the Department for Transport. I will pass it on and ensure that my noble friend receives a written response to that part of her question.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. We now move to the fourth Oral Question.
Homeowners: Cladding-related Costs
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to protect homeowners from further costs as a result of unsafe cladding, in addition to the £5.1 billion investment in building safety
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so refer the House to my relevant interests as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
The Government will fund the cost of replacing unsafe cladding for leaseholders in residential buildings of 18 metres and over in England. This will make homes safe and protect leaseholders from costs. There is no reason to suggest that there will be a funding shortfall for eligible applications to our remediation funds.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, the response from the Government is woefully inadequate. When will the noble Lord, the Government and the Prime Minister get a grip? The thousands of people trapped in this living nightmare need their Government to help and support them. When are we going to see action on the failures of the companies who built these buildings; the professional failures; the insurance companies not delivering on their obligations; the increased insurance premium costs levied on people; the building safety fund contract terms, which are not fit for purpose; the unrealistic bills being sent to innocent victims; the dangerous fire safety and building safety defects which have not been addressed; and the EWS1 form fiasco, which is making buildings unsaleable? What will it take to get the Government to make those responsible pay up, so that innocent victims get the justice they deserve?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I think that extended beyond two points. In addition to the unprecedented sum of £5.1 billion towards the remediation costs, we recognise the need to strengthen redress mechanisms. That will come forward as part of the building safety Bill. We have also stepped forward to support the installation of many hundreds of alarms to ensure that people do not have to pay for a costly waking watch, with our waking watch relief scheme of some £30 million. We recognise that it is for the building owners to shoulder their statutory responsibilities to keep their buildings safe. We will continue to work with all levels of government to make sure that that happens and that the costs are not passed on to the leaseholders.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester [V]
My Lords, four years on from Grenfell, one of the heaviest burdens being borne by those trapped living in unsafe buildings—whether due to cladding or otherwise—is simply not knowing when their plight will end. Will the Minister now urge Her Majesty’s Government to present this House with a clear timetable and deadline for resolving all outstanding issues, so that residents will know when they will be able to live in their homes safely and when they will be able to sell them for a proper price?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we have made further progress on the remediation of all forms of unsafe cladding. Nearly 700 buildings have had their funding approved, and around £400 million has been allocated as part of the building safety fund. We recognise some people’s problems with regard to access to EWS1, but that is why we have the RICS guidance, which has been adopted by about 80% of lenders. I hope that it that will see a more proportionate approach.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Is my noble friend the Minister aware that there are instances where leaseholders have paid for recladding, mainly through their service charges, but freeholders, who are the only people who can claim for repayment, are withdrawing their applications because of onerous conditions imposed by the Government? Will he consider changing the legislation to allow leaseholders to claim for repayment of funds, rather than freeholders?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
Unfortunately, we are aware of cases such as that my noble friend has raised with me; I thank him for drawing it to my attention. It is shameful that some building owners would rather refuse the Government’s offer of funding and push unaffordable costs on to innocent leaseholders than take responsibility for ensuring that their residents are safe. The conditions for government funding are designed to ensure that residents are protected from shoddy or delayed remediation works. As they are taxpayer funded, we require building owners to make reasonable efforts, claiming costs back from developers using warranties where possible.
Lord Thurlow (CB) [V]
One solution to funding remedial work following Grenfell is to take robust action against the French manufacturers Arconic and its then-parent Saint-Gobain, which supplied the defective panels. Following concerns over the safety of these panels in France, I read that they withdrew them from sale in their own country yet continued selling them in the UK. This is disgraceful and ethically dishonest. What action are the Government taking to demand compensation from Arconic and/or Saint-Gobain? It should not be a UK taxpayer burden.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we have to let the inquiry take its course, but we recognise that deficiencies in testing have been thrown up, so the Secretary of State has commissioned an expert group to look at construction products testing. We are establishing a new regulatory regime as well.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will remember that, when we had the emotional debates on this issue at ping-pong, he said that the Government would come forward with further measures to deal with a comprehensive settlement in respect of leaseholders. That was the argument why he was not prepared to accept the view of this House that we should impose a timetable. That was two months ago. Can he tell us precisely what measures the Government have come forward with in the last two months?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
We have continued with the progress of the existing fund, which is now at over £5 billion. As I have said, nearly 700 buildings have had their funding approved for the remediation of other forms of unsafe cladding, similar to the type seen on Grenfell Tower. Obviously, further details around the financing scheme will be announced in due course.
Lord German (LD)
On 24 May, I asked the Minister about the funding gap in remediating external wall cladding. The Government estimate that £15 billion will be required to fully remediate. The Government are putting in £5.1 billion and there is £2 billion from developers. That leaves a gap of £7.9 billion. In reply, he said,
“We need to watch this very carefully.”—[Official Report, 24/5/21; col. 807.]
Having cast his watchful eye over this matter, will he say whether these figures have altered, and how the gap will be filled?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, those are not official figures. There are a lot of estimates, and there is a great range in those estimates. We are carrying out some detailed research so that we can properly understand the incidents, particularly in lower-rise and medium-rise buildings, where remediation would be required. Then we will be in a position to know the burden that will potentially fall either on the taxpayer or on leaseholders.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the substantial support that the Government have provided to deal with the cladding crisis but, on its own, it is clearly not enough to deal with the problem and with hardship. In February, the Government announced a new tax on future high-rise development, but would it not be fair to complement that with a levy on those developers who built these substandard homes?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
Of course it is right that the polluter pays. That is why we have announced not only a building safety levy on future high-rise developments as part of the building safety Bill, but a tax on developers that is aiming to raise some £2 billion over 10 years.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, because of high demand on relatively few surveyors, the hazardous cladding on my home in London was only recently identified as needing to be replaced. We have been told that applications to the Government remediation fund closed in July last year. Leaseholders now face bills of up to £15,000 for something not of their making. How can the Government justify such a position?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
Although the registration closed for the initial tranche of £1 billion, we have announced a further £3.5 billion. There is a process of registration for further amounts of money available. If the noble Lord’s building qualifies, he would be eligible for government funding and would be able to register. Further details will be announced in due course.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, this Government and previous Governments have encouraged essential workers to buy into shared ownership schemes. In the last week, various newspapers have reported that some shared owners who own as little as a quarter of the flat in which they live are receiving demands for up to £100,000. This includes teachers, nurses and laboratory technicians. Will the Minister please outline how the Government intend to work with housing associations to resolve this issue swiftly?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, there was media coverage of a medium-rise building where leaseholders and shared owners were facing demands of around £100,000. I was struck by that, not least because the building in question did not have unsafe cladding. There we have a medium-rise building without unsafe cladding, but with some building safety defects that refer to compartmentation. Talk about levying bills of £100,000 seems to be disproportionate, so I have met in that case with the housing association and talked it through with my officials, to encourage them to find a more proportionate approach to keep people safe in these sorts of buildings.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this question has elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing. We now come to Oral Questions to the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, the noble Lord, Lord Frost. There will be three Questions, with 10 minutes allowed for each, and we will proceed in the same way as for other Oral Questions. I call the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to ask the first Question.
Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Thomas of Gresford
To ask the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) what steps he is taking to promote bilateral negotiations with the European Union to facilitate the implementation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are working hard and in good faith to resolve outstanding issues with the Northern Ireland protocol, including by providing the EU with more than a dozen detailed proposals on the way forward. We continue to look to make progress in these discussions, but the situation is now urgent. If we cannot find solutions, we have to consider all options to meet our obligations to support peace, prosperity and stability in Northern Ireland.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, in the light of the encouraging report last night that there is a prospect of agreement with the EU on extending the grace period in Northern Ireland in certain areas, can the Minister confirm that the Government have abandoned threats of unilateral action as a fruitless negotiating tactic and intend henceforth to solve problems through the dispute resolution mechanisms agreed within the protocol?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, we continue to discuss the grace period for chilled meats with the European Commission. It is not yet resolved and there are still a number of issues to sort out. We will continue to consider all our options on this or any other matter if we cannot resolve them by consensus.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, why on earth should Brussels, Dublin or Belfast trust him?
Lord Frost (Con)
The question of trust is important in these negotiations. Trust is required on all sides. The protocol is, in our view, not being operated in the pragmatic and proportionate way we hoped for when we agreed it. If we are to establish trust between us again, we need to operate it in that fashion.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I know that the noble Lord understands the fragility of the situation in Northern Ireland due to the protocol. I hope that he also understands the feeling that I saw at the rally in Newtownards last week. People feel not just angry but desperately upset and saddened that they have been neglected by their Government. Can the Minister answer what criteria Her Majesty’s Government will use to judge when the protocol is not realising its objective, in Article 1, to protect the Belfast agreement in all its dimensions, not just north/south—which sticks out strongly for the Irish Government—but east/west too?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the question asked by the noble Baroness is obviously a very political one. It is important to bring political judgment to these questions, rather than mechanical criteria. It is clear that we have already seen political turbulence in Northern Ireland and that the delicate balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement risks being disrupted. We keep this matter under close review and recognise a clear responsibility to act in support of stability and security in Northern Ireland, if necessary.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, earlier this week, the Irish Government said that they would “go the extra mile” to find solutions to the problems caused by the protocol. In welcoming that intervention, does my noble friend agree that it would also help if the Irish Government impressed on their EU partners the extent to which implementation of the protocol is now fuelling political instability in Northern Ireland, and that solutions are urgently needed if we are to avoid the situation deteriorating to the extent that it threatens the institutions established under the 1998 agreement?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend. We welcome the intervention and statement referred to by the Irish Government; we should all go the extra mile to find solutions to problems. I urge all EU member states to look carefully at the situation in Northern Ireland and consider whether they can support durable and pragmatic solutions to restore the balance in Northern Ireland and support the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is certainly what we will be doing.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister may have seen that his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, told the Irish Times that the UK Government should “tell the truth” and implement the “legally binding” Northern Ireland protocol, adding that
“the problem at heart is not the sausages you get from Sainsbury’s but the porkies that we all get, home and abroad, from Downing Street.”
Is it not the case that honesty from the Government about what they have negotiated, signed and ratified would be a good start in finding that durable and pragmatic solution to which the Minister just referred, with maximum flexibility?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I have the highest respect for the expertise of my noble friend Lord Patten on Northern Ireland. I read his speech in full this morning; it is extremely interesting. I note that he urges the European Union to show flexibility in some areas, for example areas where we have pressed for flexibility such as the trusted trader scheme and pharmaceuticals. I do not believe that the conclusions he draws from the Brexit process, as it affects Northern Ireland, are correct. It is important that all those commenting on the situation in Northern Ireland show responsibility in the way they do so. If I may say so, the tone of some of his comments in that speech was not entirely consistent with that.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, today is the fifth anniversary of when the British people had the temerity to vote to be free of the restrictions of the EU. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to arrive at a mutually beneficial settlement on the Northern Ireland protocol, particularly for the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland but also for those of Great Britain. What concerns me about these negotiations is whether both sides are negotiating in good faith. I hope my noble friend can reassure me that they are and that the EU is not trying to punish the British people for their determination to leave the EU.
Lord Frost (Con)
I give both sides the courtesy of believing that they are negotiating in good faith. I am sure they are but, as I said frequently in the negotiations last year, the European Union spent a bit too much time speculating on our intentions and not looking at actions and what we said. To turn that principle around, we look at the actions of the European Union on Northern Ireland and the things it does and says about the protocol. Those actions and words, in the way we are operating the protocol, cause the difficulties we are facing, so I urge, as we always do, thought about pragmatic and proportionate solutions as the way forward.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, on 7 November 2019, the Prime Minister said of the Northern Ireland protocol:
“There will be no forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind.”
Can the Minister say how the Prime Minister reached that conclusion?
Lord Frost (Con)
At the time, we faced the need to find pragmatic and proportionate ways to implement the protocol in a balanced way, respecting all the dimensions of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement—east-west, as well as north-south. If we are to find a solution, it will be in re-establishing that balance and making sure that east-west trade is subject to as few difficulties as possible, so that the balance in these arrangements can be re-established.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, in answer to an earlier question, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said that these were matters of political judgment. Indeed, his political judgment brought us the Northern Ireland protocol which he negotiated in the first place. I want to look forward on the subject of how this will work. Has he yet had the opportunity to read the written evidence to the inquiry that our Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland Sub-Committee is undertaking? If not, I urge him to do so. I particularly refer him to the submissions from the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group and from Queen’s University, Belfast. If he has not read those, he really must do so, because they look at a pragmatic, best-interests way forward. Surely any judgment is best made on the basis of facts, not just of political views.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I have indeed looked at that evidence. It is extremely interesting in all kinds of ways. Obviously, we talk directly to many of the groups which have submitted evidence. When I look at the views expressed by the business group, I am struck that it recommends solutions which we ourselves have put forward. We have put forward a proposal for the veterinary agreement based on equivalence, for a trusted trader scheme, for arrangements for pharmaceuticals, and so on. I think we have a good common understanding of the problems. The difficulty is in developing a constructive negotiation that gets us towards solutions.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. I apologise to the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Moylan.
UK and EU Relations
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Kinnoull
To ask the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) what is the current state of the relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con)
My Lords, we are very pleased that the trade and co-operation agreement has entered into force and that its governance mechanisms are operational. This includes the partnership council, which met for the first time on 9 June. There are of course some outstanding issues between the UK and the EU, notably as regards the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. Although we want to improve the situation, realistically, things may remain bumpy for a little time. We continue to engage constructively and pragmatically with the EU as a sovereign equal.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. This morning, the European Union ambassador to the UK was a witness before the European Affairs Committee. In his evidence, he talked of the need to raise the mutual level of trust and to improve the quality of co-operation. He felt that it would produce a positive impact on the relationship. Does the Minister agree with this analysis? What are the Government doing to raise the mutual level of trust and improve the quality of co-operation today?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, as I mentioned, the governance mechanisms of the trade and co-operation agreement are now operational. The specialised committees will meet in the weeks and months to come. As this process gets going and the teams get into contact and discuss the issues, I am sure that matters at this level of detail will improve. The best way of improving the level of trust between us would be to engage in a pragmatic negotiation on the Northern Ireland protocol. If we can find solutions there, I am sure that things will greatly improve.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, if everyone is serious about adhering to the Belfast agreement as amended by the St Andrews agreement, we must all agree that it fails the test of cross-community support in Northern Ireland. It undermines the three-stranded approach to the east-west relationship and the constitutional settlement as far as the Assembly is concerned. In bringing forward solutions, which are urgently needed as we approach the summer, does the Minister agree that, as well as the trade friction, the constitutional and democratic flaws at the heart of the protocol need to be addressed?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, when one observes the situation in Northern Ireland, there is a clear sense in one community that ties with the rest of the UK risk being weakened. That has the political consequences with which we are very familiar. The situation needs to be dealt with. Consent is extremely important. We recognise the issues of democratic accountability, which is why—unusually—we built arrangements for consent into the protocol. The whole protocol depends on consent. If there are clear doubts about it in either community, in practice it will be very difficult to operate, which is why it is so important to come together to find pragmatic solutions.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the ability of the arts to work across Europe is an aspect of good relations. The agreements with EEA countries represent a small part of the market for the performing arts. The desire of the music industry for us to have a bespoke visa waiver agreement with the EU remains paramount. Has the Minister seen the agreement which the industry has carefully drafted, and which does not break the commitment to take back control of our borders? If so, will he consider taking this agreement to the EU? I am sure that it would be receptive.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, in the negotiations last year we made proposals to try to fix the problems to which the noble Earl refers. They were rejected by the European Union. We were able to agree better arrangements in negotiations with the EEA—with Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland—which is an indication of what could have been possible. I have seen the proposal for a visa waiver agreement. I do not think it consistent with our requirement to retain discretion over our own immigration arrangements. We are actively working with all the member states to find solutions in how they operate their visas for touring performers to see if we can reduce the burdens that way.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister wears two hats. The first is that of chief negotiator, wherein he rightly calls for trust, pragmatism and compromise. This is the hat of a relationship builder and deal maker. The second hat is that of the Minister for Post-Brexit Affairs, wherein he writes editorials to the Mail on Sunday saying that drastic action may be needed in response to EU intransigence and telling the EU that it needs
“a new playbook for dealing with neighbours.”
Does he understand that there may not be room for both hats? In strongly criticising the EU to a UK audience for political reasons, Lord Frost 2 may be undermining the work of Lord Frost 1, who actually has to work and negotiate with the EU.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I do not see the same inconsistency with the two hats to which the noble Lord refers. My approach has been to tell it like it is and to make sure that what we say in these negotiations is what you get. We believe in saying the same in public as in private, so the European Union is not hearing different things in the negotiations from what it may read in the press. These issues are quintessentially matters of political debate. It is perfectly natural to engage in political debate within this country about them, and I do not apologise for it.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Minister negotiated an agreement with the European Union whereby, from Thursday next week, e-commerce businesses and customers for internal UK trade—which never encroaches on the EU market—will have to apply EU rules, pay EU rates and apply a new VAT system, without any representation at all. Why on earth did he negotiate this?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, we are aware of that issue and in discussion with the European Union about it. It is of course consistent with taking back control ourselves that the other party to the treaty also takes back control. That is what the treaty is designed to regulate. We believe that the benefits of having control over our own rules and the opportunities that offers us globally will be best in the long run for this country.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
It was indeed five years ago today that we got the results of the referendum. For five years I have been at this Dispatch Box. I have done the talks, the Statements, the Bills and Questions to the Ministers: the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, the noble Lord, Lord True, and now the noble Lord, Lord Frost. In taking my leave of this portfolio this week—and not before time—I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Chapman will hold the Minister’s feet to the fire in future. She is a welcome addition to our Benches. But before I depart, perhaps the Minister could explain to the House how the deal that he negotiated and advised the Prime Minister to sign has led to quite such a “bumpy ride”—his words—and whether he can persuade the Prime Minister to heed Monsieur Barnier’s advice to respect his signature on the withdrawal agreement.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for our sadly brief but enjoyable co-operation. I look forward to standing here at the Dispatch Box and dealing with her successor. On her question, the difficulty is that we did something pretty exceptional as a country in the withdrawal agreement, which was to agree that goods could be controlled in a particular way as they moved within our own country. Self-evidently that can happen only if it is applied with a degree of delicacy, pragmatism and proportionality, which, unfortunately, we are not seeing. That is the core of the difficulty. If we can re-establish the balance, we shall be able to find a satisfactory way forward.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I look forward to discussing the problem of musicians touring in Europe at a later date, but there is one specific problem that I will put to the Minister. Will there be some arrangement between the UK and the EU over emergency replacements? Let me give an example: suppose the Royal Opera House is putting on the “Ring” here and Wotan falls ill. As the noble Lord might know, only a handful of singers can sing Wotan in the world. This is analogous with sports as well. Will there be any way to deal with this in the coming months?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I am very familiar with that particular issue. In fact, my last private trip aboard before the pandemic was to see “Das Rheingold” in Berlin. I look forward to such things resuming. I will take away the particular point he mentions. DCMS has established a working group with representatives from across the sectors looking at these particular problems in a high level of detail. I will make sure that that is drawn to the attention of those involved.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. My apologies to noble Lords who were unable to ask their questions. We now come to the third Question to the Minister of State. I call the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock.
Civil Society Forum: UK Delegation
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) when Her Majesty’s Government expects to establish the United Kingdom’s delegation to the Civil Society Forum set out in the United Kingdom-European Union Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con)
My Lords, we are absolutely committed to working with a broad range of business and civil society groups on the implementation of the trade and co-operation agreement. At the 9 June Partnership Council, we agreed that we and the EU should begin to work and to agree, we hope, on the operational guidelines for the civil society forum in good time so that it can meet this year as required. Obviously, we will draw on the network of business and civil society groups we talk to domestically to make sure we have a balanced representation at that forum.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, in the Minister’s reply to my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, which he sent eventually—interestingly, just after I tabled this Question—he did not answer a question that Mr Gove also failed to answer in the other place the other day. Could he now, as the Minister ultimately responsible, give us an assurance that representatives of charities, social enterprises and trade unions will be included on the civil society forum?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, we will obviously seek to have a balanced representation on the forum. I would personally be very surprised if that did not include at least some representation for charities, trade unions and the sectors the noble Lord mentioned.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, the Minister went a long way to addressing my question. However, is not the right messaging that civil society engagement across the board is a key strand that would serve to deepen our relationship with all EU regions by identifying common interests, bringing greater understanding and generally enriching our lives, building on our recent association to include that of Northern Ireland and the Republic, for example? When operational guidelines to the Partnership Council are being determined, will the Government go beyond that of the Brussels-centric forum on interparliamentary exchange and advocate that any civil society networks created be EU-wide and meet on a regular basis, possibly using our APPG movement as a working model?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, we will certainly reflect on the issues that the noble Viscount raised. There is, of course, a provision in the agreement for a partnership forum between Parliaments, work on which is also moving forward effectively. It is the nature of civil society that it does not need the Government’s permission to develop such links and to work effectively with fora established under the treaties. We certainly hope that that would happen.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, it is six months since the noble Lord’s Brexit deal and this institution, like the border arrangements in Northern Ireland, still is not functioning properly and may never do so. Has he had the chance to reflect on the evidence he gave to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee earlier this week, where he said that he could not have been expected to foresee the problems with the Northern Ireland border, only to have the chairman point out that almost everybody else had foreseen them, including the noble Lord, Lord Barwell, who was Theresa May’s chief of staff, and almost everyone who commented on this issue in the House? Does he appreciate that he is coming to look a bit like Anthony Eden in the Suez crisis in perpetrating an escalating crisis, and undermining our foreign policy and our standing in the world, which is apparent to everybody except himself?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, obviously I do not accept the conclusion. The noble Lord is oversimplifying what I said at the Foreign Affairs Committee. It is precisely because we knew we had agreed something exceptional, complex and difficult that we built in consent arrangements, and why we had a reasonable expectation of the arrangements operating pragmatically. That has not turned out to be the case. There has turned out to be a very significant chilling effect on Great British businesses moving goods to Northern Ireland. We knew that there would be such an effect. It has turned out to be very much stronger and much more rapid. I do not think there is anything unreasonable in learning from experience when we deal with such a sensitive and delicate situation and trying to find a more reasonable balance as we go forward.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, given that the civil society forum must bring a wide range of experience to collaborate with government and business leaders in finding and advocating solutions, would my noble friend agree that engagement with civil society representatives from a wide range of experiences, including the recreational and active lifestyle sectors, could benefit government by drawing together expertise from across government and the recreation sector to ensure the success of the recently announced office for health promotion in the Department of Health, which in turn would focus on how an active lifestyle could benefit our population, tackle obesity and mental health challenges, and enable us to emerge stronger as a nation from Covid-19, as well as sharing all our experience with the UK-EU civil society forum?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I certainly agree that the civil society forum, when it is up and running, should seek to draw in as wide a range of expertise and ideas as it possibly can. I certainly agree that it is also important that the Government meet as wide a range of civil society organisations, broadly defined, as possible. I certainly meet business representations weekly from sector to sector. I have met a wide range of civil society representatives in Northern Ireland, and we continue to do so.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, we know that this was discussed at the beginning of the month in the Partnership Council. Indeed, I raised it at the previous Questions to the Minister on 27 May so, as my noble friend just described, it was very nice to get the letter last night. We have a habit of getting letters from Ministers late at night—one of the Minister’s colleagues does the same thing. I know that time might move a bit slowly for the Minister, but can he confirm two things? First, is there beginning to be a list, on paper, about who might sit on the forum? Secondly, does he agree that the domestic advisory group, which should feed into the forum, needs to be up and running before the forum so that that group—in other words, the British section of the forum—can begin meeting, thinking and preparing, so that when it meets its EU counterparts it is equipped to do the job that the forum will be set up to do?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, obviously, a prerequisite for moving this forward has been the first meeting of the Partnership Council to kick it off, which happened only two and half weeks ago, so we are in the early stages of identifying the possible UK representatives. It is for departments to do that, and departments are engaging very actively with the civil society groups they meet. Our intention is absolutely to establish a collective capacity on the UK side to begin the discussions with the European Union. We are at rather an early stage of that process.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, Article 14.3, which deals with the establishment of the forum, states:
“Each Party shall promote a balanced representation, including non-governmental organisations, business and employers’ organisations and trade unions”.
I remind the Minister that between one-third and 40% of trade unionists support the Conservative Party and a number support other parties. It is doubtful that the Labour Party even has a majority of TU support these days. Will the Minister ensure that, when the government departments appointing people to UK places are appointing representatives of the trade union movement, they take steps to ensure that they reflect the political balance of the members of trade unions, not just the leadership?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point about the possible gap between the views of trade union members and the views of those who speak in their name. This has been a feature of British politics for some time. It is absolutely our intention to ensure that the UK component of the civil society forum is balanced in every possible way, so that there is full representation of all shades of opinion and interest.
Business of the House
The Earl of Courtown
That the debate on the Motion in the name of Baroness Jolly set down for today shall be limited to 2½ hours and that in the name of Baroness Doocey to 2 hours.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Customs Safety and Security Procedures (EU Exit) Regulations 2021
The Earl of Courtown
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 May be approved.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 22 June.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Motion agreed.
Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2021
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Order laid before the House on 18 May be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 22 June.
Scotland Act 2016 (Social Security) (Consequential Provision) (Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 May be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 22 June.
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Order laid before the House on 20 May be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 22 June.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Paddick
At end insert “but this House regrets that the draft Order is necessary to correct errors in the original Order; and further regrets that the volume and nature of secondary legislation means that Parliament is limited in its ability to offer detailed scrutiny that could assist Her Majesty’s Government in preventing such errors”.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have put down an amendment expressing regret at this order for two reasons. The first is to highlight to the House, if it needed highlighting, the volume and complexity of secondary legislation that this House is being asked to scrutinise. It is so vast and complex that it would appear that not even the Government are able to draft legislation correctly—let alone noble Lords being able to scrutinise it properly. The second is to draw the attention of the House to the unreasonable pressure being placed on government Ministers in general, and on the noble Baroness in particular. As well as having to deal with these tsunamis of secondary legislation, she has been having to cover two important and demanding ministerial posts during the absence of one of her colleagues. I take this opportunity again to send my very best wishes to the right honourable James Brokenshire MP, the Minister of State for Security.
On 19 January 2021, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2021 was laid before this House and it was noted as an instrument of interest by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on 2 February. It was considered by this House on 2 March. On 20 May, the Government laid this order, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021, to correct mistakes in the drafting of the original order. In a letter from the Minister dated 20 May to noble Lords who took part in the 2 March debate, she wrote:
“I am acutely aware of the pressures on Parliament over the past year as a result of the pandemic and EU exit and apologise unreservedly for these errors.”
In the 2 March debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said of immigration law:
“It is just the sort of legislation that frustrates parliamentarians—and others, presumably—because it relies on so many statutory instruments, orders and regulations, rather than the primary piece of legislation, to introduce the rules.”
I agreed, saying that, when I got to examining the regulations, rather than the Explanatory Notes accompanying them,
“I had to admit defeat.”—[Official Report, 2/3/21; cols. 1101-04.]
I quoted from the regulations. I was going to do so again but suffice it to say that they are practically unintelligible. I asked the Minister to explain precisely what the section that I had quoted meant. Understandably, she declined to comment at the time, but she did not write to me subsequently to explain.
In the same debate, I asked the Minister a series of perhaps easier questions, such as why the regulations covered only the French channel ports and not the Dutch and Belgian North Sea ports, as they do apply to Eurostar terminals in those countries. I asked why the regulations appeared to extend all immigration enactments to control zones in French channel ports, whereas the previous regulations extended only a few. I also asked about double jeopardy and jurisdiction, including whether offenders would be tried in French or British courts, or potentially in both. None of these questions were answered at the time, nor in writing afterwards.
I have heard from other noble Lords, and from other parts of the House, that they feel that the Government are either unable or unwilling to be held to account. Not only is an extraordinary amount of secondary legislation being pushed through this House, often weeks after it has come into effect, but the House is being given little opportunity to scrutinise it and, by its nature, no chance to amend it. Such is the complexity and volume of legislation that the Government are now making mistakes in the drafting, and even when noble Lords ask questions about that legislation, we receive no response.
I am grateful to the Minister’s office for confirming to me yesterday in an email:
“We are currently in the process of drafting a letter to cover points that were unanswered in yesterday’s debate and the points you raised during the debate on 2 March.”
This is not effective scrutiny of government. This House needs to exert its right to scrutinise the Government. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
The original question was that the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021, previously debated in Grand Committee, be approved, since when an amendment has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The question I therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to. I have been notified that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, wishes to speak.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, there is an early opportunity, at the beginning of a Session, to raise these issues. As noble Lords will be aware, they have come up before. I want to make a brief comment and offer a way forward that I think may be helpful to both the Government and the House.
First, we have only to look at the previous Session of Parliament and read the reports of the Constitution Committee, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Delegated Powers Committee to see that they all raised concerns about the Government’s overreliance on secondary legislation and the use of skeleton Bills. They commented that the Government’s reliance on secondary legislation has grown markedly in recent years. The Constitution Committee said:
“Skeleton Bills inhibit parliamentary scrutiny and we find it difficult to envisage any circumstances in which their use is acceptable”.
There are examples from the previous Session. The noble Baroness was involved with the then Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, which was a particular issue, and there was also, again, immigration legislation from the Home Office.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is slightly different, because he asked questions in Committee during the debate on a statutory instrument, to which the Minister was unable to respond. She is still unable to respond to him even at this stage when we are being asked to vote on that order.
I can recall an instance when a former Home Office Minister, in response to me, agreed not to bring something forward until they had answered the questions that I had asked, because they were unable to answer them in Committee. The House may want to consider that idea in future because it is best to have answers to questions before we are asked to vote.
It is inadequate to have an early debate on revised legislation. However, it would help—I have raised this idea before with the Government, and I hope that the Minister will take it back if she cannot give me an answer today—if the Government could commit to ensuring that, although there may be an occasional exception, draft SIs are published prior to the Report stage of legislation going through. That would give this House an opportunity to look at an SI while discussing the legislation, which would then give us an opportunity to scrutinise it better. I would be happy to discuss this further with the Government. The situation at present is not always, but too often, unacceptable— but there is a way forward that might help both the Government and your Lordships’ House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
Does the Minister wish to reply? I call the Minister.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for tabling this Motion—[Laughter.] I did mean that sincerely, although it might have come out all wrong. On the noble Lord’s second point, I join him in wishing my right honourable friend Minister Brokenshire all the very best for a speedy recovery. In fact, I can update the House: he is making a speedy recovery. May I also say that it has been my absolute pleasure to cover his work for him in his absence? I wish him a speedy return.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is the responsibility of government to ensure that correct legislation is in place and that, where errors are identified, they are rectified swiftly. This second order—the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021—which we debated in this House on Tuesday and on which answers were given, corrects drafting errors in the earlier order to ensure that the law is absolutely clear.
That order, which I shall refer to hereafter as the earlier order, was debated and approved by this House on 2 March. The corrections that the second order will make to the earlier order will remove the potential for any ambiguity in the law and ensure that the law is explicitly clear. I repeat what I said during consideration of the draft order in Grand Committee on Tuesday. I say it now and I said it then: I fully accept that mistakes were made, and I again offer my full apology for the fact that errors were made. It is highly regrettable but we have been swift in taking corrective action. The department has been proactive in taking steps to improve internal quality assurance procedures to prevent such errors recurring.
I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about the importance of detailed parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation. I also note the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about the amount of secondary legislation. We have, of course, had a legislatively busy couple of years, and I wholly agree that proper oversight of delegated legislation is an essential function of Parliament.
It is for this reason that both this order and the earlier order were subject to the standard procedures in place to ensure that delegated legislation is fully and properly scrutinised by Parliament. That includes consideration by both the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as well as debates on the content of orders by both Houses.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was not content with my responses to points made by noble Lords during the earlier debate, for which I apologise. I was not able to answer all the questions fully, but I hope that I did respond to some of them when they were made again during the debate on this order on Tuesday. I will now endeavour to address some of the key areas raised.
One of the issues on which the noble Lord challenged me was the potential for double jeopardy to arise, whereby an individual, having committed an offence and then been detained, could be subject to both UK and French law. As I explained in Grand Committee, matters relating to the responsible state as regards offences have been considered and are the subject of specific provisions in the underpinning of Le Touquet, the purpose of which is to negate this possibility.
The noble Lord also asked me about the jurisdiction of courts and raised concerns about Article 12 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) Order 2003, which relates to the jurisdiction of courts as regards offences. Article 12 makes it clear which court, either UK or French, has jurisdiction over offences committed in the UK control zones at Calais and Dunkirk, in line with specific provisions contained in the underpinning of Le Touquet.
On whether errors occurred because of deficient processes, rather than simple oversight, they occurred because of human error. To prevent the recurrence of such errors, the department has directly informed all staff working on the drafting of statutory instruments of the steps to be taken on preventing them.
Another issue brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was Belgium and Holland. We obviously do not operate juxtaposed controls at the seaports of Belgium or the Netherlands, but I think he was making precisely that point: we do not have international agreements enabling us to exercise immigration powers in these countries, other than for the Eurostar service. We do have international arrangements underpinning the international rail regime with France, Belgium and the Netherlands, and separate domestic orders setting out those arrangements.
I hope that I have answered the specific points that the noble Lord called out for clarification. On draft SIs, I can certainly recall SIs that were previously brought in draft for noble Lords’ consideration, but I shall take both those points back: adding to legislation by secondary legislation, and the point on SIs. With that, I apologise yet again and commend this order to the House.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, for her support and her helpful suggestion. The Minister said that standard procedures were followed in the amendment of the (No. 2) Order and the original order. It should not be standard procedure that the only way in which noble Lords can get answers to the questions that they raised in a debate on 2 March is to put forward a regret amendment to an amendment order on the Floor of the House. Those answers should be given promptly, following the original debate. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Free Trade Agreement Negotiations: Australia
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his letter and the Government for their update on the progress of the UK’s trading relationship with Australia. I had been waiting for the detail, following the announcement at the end of the G7 conference, as it seemed from reports that nothing had been signed and was unlikely to be before October or November this year. The information was released under the cover of darkness, on the night of 17 June. I imagine this was the time that Tony Abbott, on behalf of the Secretary of State, signalled agreement with the Australian counterpart, Dan Tehan. The information reveals it to be a series of commitments that the Government have entered into to agree many details yet to be worked up. Can this be described as “historic”, as claimed in the Statement?
These commitments were translated into negotiating wins for the Government: tariff reductions for UK exports of food, drink, clothing and cars; provisions for the under-30s to work in Australia to be extended to those under 35; and reductions in barriers for services exports, and data and digital exports. I certainly congratulate the Government on them, but none of these so-called wins has ever been controversial or problematic for Australia. Its tariffs on UK goods were already very low, and making it easier for young people to work in Australia is a positive boost to the Australian economy, particularly its farming industry, which relies on casual labour from British backpackers.
What do the Australians make of these commitments? Would the meaning of “historic” be revealed on their website? Indeed, yes, as the Australians could not believe what they had achieved. Yes, it was only, as they put it, an agreement in principle—AIP—but, to them, these commitments are locked in to benefit Australian farmers and workers, as well as their consumers. We begin to see a different perspective: one that highlights the fears of the farming industry throughout all parts of the UK, and perhaps suggests why the Secretary of State for Defra was so alarmed in Cabinet.
The Government describe the agreement on beef and sheep as securing 15 years of capped, tariff-free imports, while the Australians state it as 10 years, as the subsequent five years include enough significant extra volumes as to be pretty meaningless. But the cap on volumes rises in significant leaps, all without tariffs, in complete contrast to the agreements the Australians had achieved in recent deals with Japan, China, the USA and South Korea, where tariffs on their beef were reduced gradually in the various deals between 10 and 18 years, with additional safeguard triggers.
This deal has historic elements for Australia. The trade expert and former Australian negotiator, Dmitry Grozoubinski, described it as follows:
“I don’t think we have ever done as well as this. Getting rid of all tariffs and quotas forever is virtually an unprecedented result.”
Has the Minister worked out what this means for the UK? We await the impact assessment and the reconstitution of the Trade and Agriculture Commission to assess the AIP, as required in the Agriculture Act and Trade Act, as secured by your Lordships’ House last year. In the meantime, it seems to mean that Australia would be able to increase its beef exports to the UK to more than 60 times their 2020 levels in the first year before any quota would apply. Australia could export four times more beef to the UK in the first year of the deal than it did to the whole of Europe in 2020 before any quota would apply. Indeed, the UK would leap from 27th place to sixth in the global ranking of Australia’s biggest beef exports markets if Australia were to use its full quota in the very first year.
This commitment offered to the Australians has triggered an array of angry responses from agriculture in all corners of the UK, especially the devolved Administrations, where agriculture is such an important part of their economies. The Welsh have particular concerns for their lamb, and Northern Ireland for its dairy trade. While Scottish whisky producers will be pleased, Scotland’s agricultural input suppliers will be concerned, along with its beef producers.
Environmental groups, animal welfare groups, consumer groups on food and nutrition, and trading bodies are all concerned: Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, Compassion in World Farming, and the National Trust are all alarmed. Sustain points out that Australia has no model conditions for animal welfare and no federal animal welfare legislation, opting instead to devolve responsibilities to states and territories. The world animal protection index, which ranks 50 countries according to their legislation and policy commitments to protect animals, has awarded Australia a D mark, versus a B for the UK. Being the first deal that the Government have signed after leaving the EU, even if only in principle, how will they negotiate their further ambitions to achieve deals with other countries, such as America and India? The Statement proclaims that this deal is only a precursor to the CPTPP deal that the Government have set their ambitions on next. Australia is committed to helping the UK sign up to this existing CPTPP deal without any changes or protections, as a deal taker not a deal maker. Do the Government see UK agriculture as a sacrifice worth giving up on the way to this further agreement?
The Government are truly making a hash of Brexit. The UK has left the EU, to be sure, but so far the Government see more mileage in being anti-EU than in being pro-British. The Secretary of State compared this deal to trade with the EU in her replies last week in the Commons, but our neighbours in Australia are not 20 miles away. First-quarter exports to Europe were down £2 billion during the first part of 2021. Sales of dairy products plummeted by 90% after the trade and co-operation agreement was signed at the last minute in December. As far as Europe is concerned, it seems that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. As far as Australia is concerned, everything is agreed while nothing is detailed.
The Government are hopeless on trade after Brexit. Northern Ireland is in turmoil. The fishing industry, whose voice was so strongly for Brexit, has already been sacrificed. The steel industry is collapsing and farmers who also wanted Brexit to be successful for them have already had £255 million slashed from their budgets this year in reductions to BPS payments. The Welsh football fans are certainly unhappy that they cannot visit Amsterdam to support their team this weekend.
Many important questions remain. I finish by asking just a few. The interim Trade and Agriculture Commission made a series of important recommendations, including for the establishment of a new national framework of food and farming standards, against which all future trade deals could be judged. Can the Minister explain why there has not been a formal response to the commission’s report and why that national framework of standards is not yet in place? Have the Government made plans regarding a proper labelling of Australian beef, so that consumers can identify it clearly on menus and supermarket shelves? Have the Government demanded that the Australians raise their standards in correspondingly high leaps over the years in tandem with the increase in their agricultural supplies? Finally, what will be the cumulative impacts from all the deals that the Government plan if these follow the precedent of the Australian deal, or do the Government have plans to rescue the farming industry from the disaster that it sees ahead?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his letter of 18 June with a copy of the agreement in principle and an explainer. He is very good at keeping the Front Benches informed in the House, which is appreciated.
These Benches that I speak for want more free, fair and open trade, for the UK to export more and for UK consumers to have a wider choice of higher-standard goods at globally competitive prices. We want trade deals to reflect growth in UK export potential, but we want them strategically used for wider social, climate, human rights, labour and environmental standards. We do not want them to be an opportunity for the UK to miss, to provide market access for other countries without commensurate or better gains for us.
The desperation of this Government to have any deal, no matter what, is noted among our trading partners, and they take advantage. A bad deal is better than no deal, it seems. On the much-heralded £15 billion Japan deal, £13 billion was for Japan and £2 billion for the UK. On this deal and the agreement in principle, UK exports to Australia will go up over 15 years by £500 million, the Government say, while Australian exports to the UK will go up by £700 million. That is about three royal yachts. The telling point on market access was in the bullet point that
“both sides formalise their agreement on splits of TRQs at the WTO and Australia withdraws its objections to the UK’s goods schedule.”
That was the giveaway. Australia has got exactly what it wants. It has withdrawn its objections at the WTO—objections which, I remind the House, this Government said had no foundation. It turns out that our negotiation had rather weak foundations. I co-chaired, with the Nigerian Trade Minister, a commission of inquiry looking at areas where we can expand Commonwealth trade. Why is there no reference to the Commonwealth in this agreement?
However, let me quote positively from the website of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade:
“an ambitious and comprehensive FTA will assist with post-pandemic economic recovery by providing new opportunities in a highly significant market for Australian goods and services. It will provide Australian exporters with a competitive edge and more choices about where they do business. Australian consumers and companies stand to benefit through greater choice in goods and services at lower prices.”
That is the headline of the Australian Government of the agreement with the European Union, now in its 11th round. The Australian Government go on to say:
“We want an FTA with the EU to set the benchmark for what can be achieved between like-minded partners.”
The narratives for the EU and the UK are remarkably similar. The UK scoping exercise for this, an ambitious and comprehensive FTA for Australia, said that it would bring GDP growth ranging from 0.01% and 0.02% over 15 years. The EU scoping exercise in 2018 said that
“an ambitious and comprehensive FTA will bring about GDP growth ranging from 0.01% to 0.02% over 15 years.”
Why has a Brexit agreement no greater benefit than we would have had anyway? On goods, we are expecting an increase in exports of up to 7.4%, which is of course positive. In the Government’s own document, Australia is looking for exports to the UK to increase up to 83.2%. Why is there such a difference? It is estimated for the EU scoping exercise that EU exports to Australia could go up under their agreement by one-third. Why are UK exports up by 3.6% and European exports up by 36%?
On legal services, the Minister said to me on Tuesday that:
“It will contain provisions on legal services, as we have heard, but it will not confer the automatic ability for Australian lawyers to practise law in the UK.”—[Official Report, 22/6/21; col. 163.]
The fourth bullet point of the agreement in principle mentions:
“Legal services provisions which will both guarantee that UK and Australian lawyers can advise clients and provide arbitration, mediation and conciliation services in the other country’s territory using their original qualifications”.
I regret to say this, but I believe that the Minister misled the House. I hope that he has an opportunity to correct that at the Dispatch Box today.
Can the Minister explain why in the agreement there will be a chapter on mobility, which could well be positive, about companies sponsoring
“visas committed in the FTA without first having to prove that a national of the country in question could not be hired to do the job, through the reciprocal removal of economic needs”?
Is this now a direct repudiation of the points system that the Home Office has put in place, and, which will be the case—the UK Home Office points system for Australia or this trade agreement? On goods, during the trade negotiations the Government’s press release in November said that the Government had a suite of tools including tariffs, tariff quotas and safeguards to ensure that British farmers, with their high standards, were not unfairly undercut in any trade deal. However, the NFU said that it was not consulted, and none of these methods seems to have been used.
We know that, according to Food Standards Australia New Zealand—FSANZ—around 40% of cattle are given hormone treatment, but the quotas for imports are currently for accredited hormone-free cattle. There is no differential quota guarantee in this outline agreement; will it be in the final agreement? Neonicotinoids are used on Australian crops—cotton, canola, cereals and sunflowers—but their use in the United Kingdom is banned. What guarantees are there that we will not import goods for which illegal pesticides have been used as part of their production? What guarantees are there that we will not import sows that have been reared in sow stalls, which have been banned in the UK since 1999? What guarantees are there that pigs raised by intensive farming methods and chickens reared in battery cages, which we have banned, will not be imported?
Finally, it is of course a fallacy to suggest that, if we are critical of this agreement, we are critical of free trade. We are critical of the Government’s ability to negotiate good trade agreements. If imported goods are cheaper, the Government say that they will safeguard against undercutting—but that is not in this agreement. Workers with skills having to get a visa because of economic need is not mentioned in this agreement. The continuing protection against hormones and pesticides that Defra has indicated is also not in this agreement. Who is in charge of our agriculture, immigration and economic policy?
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, it is a constant disappointment to me that Opposition Front Benchers find it difficult ever to say any nice things about trade agreements. Of course, the whole purpose of our striking them is to benefit British businesses and consumers. This deal with Australia eliminates tariffs on all UK goods, making it cheaper to sell products like Scottish whisky and cars to Australia, and supporting industries that employ 3.5 million people in the UK. It would be nice to hear some recognition of such positive impacts when we debate these agreements.
For our consumers, this means lower prices and better choice, and that includes iconic favourites such as Aussie wine, which I would not be surprised at all to learn that the two Front-Bench spokesmen enjoy from time to time. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has great expertise in farming matters, but I should make it clear that this deal will not undercut UK farmers unfairly or compromise our high standards. Indeed, we believe that it will open up opportunities in fast-growing markets such as CPTPP countries. It would be nice to hear some recognition of the fact that our farmers, who are among the best in the world, will be able to take advantage of these agreements.
I say categorically that, throughout the negotiations, we have listened closely to the concerns of farmers and other stakeholders, which is why we have agreed 15 years of capped tariff-free imports from Australia. This means that Australian farmers will only have the same access as EU farmers 15 years after the agreement comes into force.
Of course, so far, this agreement is only at the “in principle” stage, and the House will have an opportunity to scrutinise it fully. Some of the questions asked by noble Lords will be more easily dealt with once we have commenced that formal scrutiny. Let me explain for a moment what I mean by that. The agreement in principle signifies only that the main elements of the deal have been negotiated; both countries will now work together to continue to translate the agreement into legal text. Parliament will have full opportunity to scrutinise this agreement: the FTA treaty will be presented to it after signature, alongside an independently scrutinised impact assessment. I know how carefully the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, always reads those, and I am sure that he will find answers to his questions when that impact assessment is published.
Of course, the House will then have the benefit, for the first time, of advice from the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which we have debated many times in this House. Some of the really important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, will no doubt be dealt with in that report. Once the Agriculture Act’s Section 42 report and the TAC’s advice have been laid in Parliament, there will then be a further chance to scrutinise these matters, so that will be the time to come back to some of these detailed points.
Turning to some of the specific points that have been raised, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked where we are with the very good report from the Trade and Agriculture Commission. It is still being carefully analysed, and I am sure the Secretary of State will make her views on it known to Parliament in due course.
I would like to deal specifically with the accusation the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, made about my misleading the House. I categorically refute that suggestion, and I will explain why I am so categoric about that. This agreement allows lawyers from both sides to practise not domestic law, either in the UK or Australia, but foreign or international law in certain limited areas such as giving advice, arbitration or conciliation. These are not regulated matters, so it will be possible for an Australian lawyer to open an office in Edinburgh and put a sign on the door saying that he is an Australian lawyer, but from that office he will be able to offer advice on foreign and international law, on arbitration in relation to those matters, and to comment on Australian law. Having given that explanation, I would be grateful if the noble Lord felt able to withdraw his very serious allegation that I misled the House from this Dispatch Box.
I believe that this is a positive agreement. It is the first that we have negotiated from scratch since leaving the European Union, and it shows what we are capable of as a sovereign trading area. I believe that it will lead to a whole succession of broader and even better agreements going forward.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the owner of a livestock farm in the Midlands. Before I ask my substantive question, I note something that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said. I think that sow stalls are still permitted in the European Union; could my noble friend clarify that?
I congratulate my noble friend, and all those in government involved in this, on an excellent start to an FTA that will be to the mutual benefit of the people of the United Kingdom and the people of Australia. Does he appreciate that, whatever carping he may hear in this House against free trade agreements, many here do not want the FTAs to succeed because they want to prove Brexit wrong? We heard that from the Labour Benches. They want to prove that Brexit was a terrible mistake, while the people of the United Kingdom will rejoice at the increased prosperity that this free trade agreement and others will bring them.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My noble friend is quite right: Australian animal welfare standards are in fact higher than those in many other countries around the world, and in some cases higher than those in the EU. My noble friend has given one example. Others include the practice of castrating chickens and the production of foie gras, which are banned in Australia on welfare grounds, as they are in the UK; however, they continue to be permitted in the EU. Australia is marked five out of five—the highest possible mark—in the World Organisation for Animal Health performance survey.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate this FTA. Let me say something nice: I congratulate the Government on having negotiated this deal very speedily. Incidentally, I want this and other FTAs that will follow to succeed. I have two questions for the Minister. When the TAC, the Trade and Agriculture Commission, is eventually established and able to scrutinise the agreement, and when Parliament has a chance to debate it, will it be possible to amend the agreement if genuine concerns exist, or is it a fait accompli? Secondly, do this agreement and others that will follow put our free trade agreement with the European Union at risk?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I think the House is well aware of the scrutiny processes that these agreements go through. The process culminates in the CRaG process, in which the other place has the ability to vote against these agreements, so there will be scrutiny there. That provides a real bulwark. I do not know the answer to the question about the European Union, and if I may I will write to the noble Lord about that.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, when I worked in No. 10 and was involved in the Brexit debate, I was told on many occasions by Members of this House and the other place from all political parties that Britain would never be able to negotiate any free trade agreements and did not have the capability—it was just folly—so I am really pleased today to be able to congratulate the Minister on getting this deal done, especially as the EU is still struggling with its deal. I am also delighted that he has not listened to the protectionist voices from various parts of our community.
Can the Minister please confirm to me that although the priority is the CPTPP, he will give equal priority to some of the others, particularly the GCC? In this, I declare my interests as the co-chairman of the UAE-UK Business Council, where tariffs are not the key issue. The key issue is the same as with Australia: professional qualifications, access to markets and generally the removal of red tape—all the things he has managed to deliver with the Australian deal.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to answer my first question from my friend and noble friend Lord Udny-Lister from this Dispatch Box. He is right: we are making extraordinary progress on negotiating these free trade agreements, and the free trade agreements we hope to strike not just with the Trans-Pacific Partnership but with the GCC, Canada, Mexico, India and a number of other countries around the world are designed entirely to benefit the British consumer. I welcome his support for that.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, now that we are out of the EU, I welcome trade deals we do with the rest of the world, though I have concerns about the agricultural dimension of this. I have great respect for the Minister as a highly intelligent and objective man. If he reads the Statement delivered in the other place, does he not agree that it is hyperbolic and propagandist? It is hyperbolic in the sense that it talks about “huge benefits”. Most economists estimate the benefit to UK GDP of this agreement to be about 0.2%. It is propagandist in that it talks about how we are no longer
“hiding behind the same protectionist walls that we had in the EU”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/21; col. 453.]
He must recognise that in the new Pacific world to which we attach so much importance, Germany—a member of the EU allegedly held back by those “protectionist walls”—is able to export two or three times as much as we do at present.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord for his kind comments. It is the case that politics sometimes enter into these matters in the other House. Maybe that is not a surprise, given the importance of these agreements. I hope the noble Lord agrees that when I comment on these matters in this House or in front of our very well-run IAC, I try to give my answers in a measured and constructive way.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I think I welcome the Minister’s comment that the House will have the opportunity to fully scrutinise the text of the agreement, which will be presented after signature, but given the limited parliamentary oversight arrangements in both Houses, will he commit to presenting the document immediately after signature so that the committees have sufficient time to review the agreement before it is formally laid under the CRaG arrangements?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I can certainly confirm that the House will be given sufficient time to scrutinise these agreements, not just because that is right in its own instance but because our International Agreements Committee will want to scrutinise them. Importantly, the new, independent Trade and Agriculture Commission will need time to scrutinise this agreement properly. The sequence of events will be that the agreement will be laid in this House after signing, these other matters of scrutiny will then proceed, and only when that is completed will the agreement be brought back to the House formally to take its chance under the CRaG procedures.
Lord Lansley (Con) [V]
My Lords, this agreement could offer an opportunity for many smaller UK businesses to get into the Australian market. The economic impact and benefit for the United Kingdom could be much more if we can gear up our businesses to take those opportunities. The time to do that is now, even if the final FTA takes some time. Can my noble friend say what initiatives the Government are taking to work with businesses to achieve this?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. A point I have made previously from this Dispatch Box is that it is not the signing of these agreements that is important but the operationalising of them afterwards, to the benefit of British businesses and consumers. Interestingly, we already have 13,400 UK SMEs—that includes micro-enterprises and sole traders—exporting goods to Australia. I completely agree with my noble friend that we have to mobilise our efforts to explain the advantage of this agreement to them. Chambers of commerce and intermediaries will have a valuable role to play. With our friends in Australia, we certainly intend to make the information on how to trade clear and easily accessible. There will be a dedicated website and a search database, but most importantly we will be out and about informing British businesses and customers of the advantages of the agreement.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. As a carrot—forgive the pun—to win farmers’ support for this agreement, the Government have indicated investment in and funding of technology to improve productivity through ELMS. Can the Minister inform us of the status of the promised comprehensive cross-government strategy to improve productivity and competitiveness and, secondly, the promise to provide adjustment assistance for farming in the changing market conditions resulting from the new FTA?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asks two important questions. If I may, I will consult my ministerial colleagues in Defra and write to him on these matters, so that I can give him a full answer.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I declare my agricultural interests in the register. In particular, I am a livestock farmer, but I have no fears about competing with Australian imports on price. However, does the Minister not agree that if agricultural imports from Australia—or from anywhere else, for that matter—are not subject to the equivalent welfare, phytosanitary and husbandry standards and so on that apply to domestic production, that gives foreign producers financial advantage over domestic producers in the UK market, and that this is unfair competition for UK producers? Further, does he not agree that arguments to the contrary echo the thought processes of those who supported the abolition of slavery but at the same time supported the slave trade?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to confirm to my noble friend that there will be absolutely no diminution of the controls that we apply to imported agricultural produce. As he will know, our phytosanitary regime is very strong. I sometimes hear scare stories from noble Lords that, for example, hormone beef will be allowed into this country as a result of this agreement. I can put people’s minds completely at rest on this: we will be maintaining our strict animal health standards and our own animal welfare standards.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, how extraordinary that there should be this opposition to a trade deal with Australia—a country with which we enjoyed the closest commercial relations before the artificial diversion of our trade by the phased imposition of European tariffs and non-tariff barriers in the 1970s. It is a country to which we could hardly be closer in language, law, accountancy systems and interoperable regulations. Does my noble friend the Minister find it odd that in this debate Australian trade is attacked on the contradictory grounds that the deal will wipe out our agriculture while making little difference? Does he detect behind those questions the real problem, which is nostalgia for EU membership? We heard it in almost every intervention from the Benches opposite—a few desultory remarks about Australia and then a prolonged complaint about Brexit. Does he share my surprise that people who spent the referendum brandishing their internationalist credentials have, on this issue, now descended into mercantilism, protectionism, nostalgia and fear?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point. If someone came to listen to these proceedings for the first time, they would think we were debating an agreement with a hostile country—a country with which we had perhaps had a long period of enmity. This agreement, and the agreements that we are hoping to strike with New Zealand, Canada, India and elsewhere, are with our Commonwealth friends. I detect that nostalgia for the EU on the other Benches. I just wish I could also detect a nostalgia for the Commonwealth and dealing with those countries that have stood by us for many years.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, this is a short description of Australian farming:
“The introduction of a distinctly European agriculture in 1788 had a vast and extreme impact on the flora and fauna of Australia, with land-clearing, invasive species and foreign crop and livestock breeds degrading soil, water and vital ecosystem functions. Decades of continued land clearing and overgrazing coupled with industrialised farming methods have culminated into considerable challenges”.
In that context, does the Minister believe that, as chair of COP and, we hope, a responsible international actor, we should be encouraging more trade, particularly in beef and sheepmeat production, with Australia in those products, given their ecological and environmental climate damage? He referred to the impact assessment. Will it include a calculation of the carbon and ecological impacts of the trade deal?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
The noble Baroness always speaks with authority on these matters and I always listen to her carefully. I am happy to reassure her that trade does not have to come at the expense of the environment. Those two matters are not incompatible. I am pleased to report to noble Lords that we have worked with Australia to secure provisions on a wide range of environmental areas in this agreement, including preventing pollution from shipping and co-operating on addressing marine litter, including plastics and microplastics. We have committed to an environment chapter that will go above precedent, and both parties have confirmed commitments under multilateral environmental agreements, including the Paris Agreement. Noble Lords will see that in detail when the full agreement is available and the impact assessment will, of course, cover these matters. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to welcome that environmental chapter when she is able to see it in full.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, the Statement refers to what the world will be like in 2030, 2040 and 2050. One reality is that China will play a much more significant part and that the Pacific area needs defenders of democracy. This agreement must be welcomed and we should seek agreements with democratic countries in the region and on joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Can the Minister assure us that the Government will redouble their efforts to get those agreements?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I am very happy to give my noble friend a full assurance on those matters. As noble Lords will be aware, we applied to the Trans-Pacific Partnership as to whether we could commence negotiations. It was pleasing that, as a multilateral group, it came back very quickly. Those negotiations are now commencing and I look forward to bringing their results before the House in due course, and when I do so it will absolutely meet the point that my noble friend is asking about. We will see that it is yet another agreement reinforcing British interests and benefiting British businesses and consumers.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I congratulate my noble friend on negotiating this agreement but, before we get too carried away, our existing trade with Australia is 0.5% of our total trade and the increase will be 0.02%. He said that high standards of food production that farmers and consumers in this country are delighted to support will not be compromised. However, the Government are going further in their pledge to this country to impose even higher standards, yet we are going to accept beef produced in Australia, which travels much greater distances, which must surely increase its carbon footprint while not meeting our high animal welfare standards. Will he accommodate the request from the outgoing chair of the Trade and Agriculture Commission that any trade agreement be presented to the incoming commission well before signature and at the earliest possible opportunity?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that. I indeed looked into the question of food miles before this debate. I was pleased and slightly surprised to find that Australian farming methods are less carbon-intensive than ours in certain instances. As that is the case—it is, of course, subject to further analysis—it will more than compensate for the food miles point that my noble friend raises. As I said, there will be full time for this agreement to be scrutinised by our new Trade and Agriculture Commission.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, with apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, we have reached the time limit of 20 minutes. We now move to our next business.
Social Care and the Role of Carers
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jolly
That this House takes note of social care provision in the United Kingdom, and the role of carers in that provision.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to open this debate on social care. I am sure it will be rich and varied, and that the Minister will struggle to sum up the points made in the time he is given. I am sure we will welcome a letter from him with his responses to our more trying queries. This debate also doubles as my health and care swansong, as I now move to defence.
I start by putting on record my, and our, utmost thanks to all those who work in social care systems, from carers to cleaners and caterers, to management in care homes and domiciliary care, and those who provide so much care for friends and family, expecting nothing in return.
I want to cast our minds back to the time of the coalition, when the Liberal Democrats made reform of social care an absolute priority, and the Dilnot commission provided a framework for us to fix the inherent unfairness in how social care is funded and provided. Cross-party talks were promising and it felt as though progress was being made. Not so. Later, both Prime Ministers May and Johnson said that they would sort it. But somewhere along the way this issue has been pushed into the long grass again and again, despite two Conservative Prime Ministers pledging to make it a priority. Of course, Covid has not helped.
So will it be Dilnot, Forsyth or something completely different? How will it be funded? We have seen, over the last year, what is possible when resources and energy are mobilised to address a crisis. We know that this an issue exercising the Chancellor. I want to be clear: what is happening in social care is a crisis, and we need to approach it as such.
Looking at the sector since the onset of Covid, we see that the Government have provided significant short-term support to help care providers through Covid-19, but it is vital that the Department of Health and Social Care now sets out how it will help providers move beyond it. The costs of the pandemic and the dramatic fall in care home occupancy, from around 90% at the start of the pandemic to 80% in February this year, puts many providers at risk of failing. In response, the Government provided short-term funding through local authorities and the infection control fund. This support has stabilised the market and kept most providers from falling over. However, the department does not have a strong grip on the variable levels of support that individual providers received, and there have been some reports of providers struggling to access some of the additional funding. The commitments around extra funding and free PPE—personal protective equipment—until the end of next March are welcome, but the department does not yet have a road map outlining how long extra funding and support will be in place. Can the Minister tell us please?
The Care Quality Commission warns that ongoing support is likely to be required in 2021-22 if care home admissions remain low or costs are inflated. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Department of Health and Social Care, working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, has an assessment process in place to determine how much support providers need in the short to medium term to deal with Covid-19 and lower occupancy in care homes?
I want to address the role of carers, both paid and unpaid. For those who work in social care, it is time for parity to become a reality. This relates to a number of issues. As I am sure carers themselves would say if they were here, the first issue is pay. Noble Lords will remember the outrage over a mere 1% pay rise for some of our NHS workers earlier this year, but the reality is that this is something our social carers can only dream of. Of course, the sector is far more fragmented, and much of it private, but the Government need to be ambitious in providing a fair, living wage to our social carers for all the hours that they work. This means leading the way on developing a framework that outlines what social care staff should be paid.
Secondly, along with pay, our carers need recognition and career progression. During the first stage of the pandemic, on Thursday nights, we all went outside and clapped to support all the NHS workers and care workers who were doing their very best. But care work, as many of us know, can be immensely rewarding and challenging in equal parts. Our workers need to know that their skills are valued and there is space for them to grow and progress in their career. We know that retention is an issue, when pay matches that in a supermarket. Greater recognition and regulation are needed. In both Wales and Scotland, care work is acknowledged as a profession. Would the Minister explain why care workers in England are not regulated and their pay derisory? What is stopping their recognition and regulation in England, as for those working in Wales and Scotland?
Turning now to unpaid carers, I draw on family experience, which is typical. For five years, my brother was my mother’s carer. He was able to get out of the house and shop when her carers came to get her up or get her ready for bed. His main breaks came when I got back at weekends, or when she went into a care home while we all went on holiday. Caring for a loved one is hard work, particularly when dementia is involved.
A Carers UK report found that, during the pandemic, 72% of carers have had no breaks from their caring role, with an average of 25 hours of support lost each month. Caring for someone can be a 24/7 job, and more. Research suggests that a third of unpaid carers now feel unable to manage their role. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on unpaid carers of the closure of respite care during the pandemic?
Will the Minister tell the House when the Government last looked at the issue of family carers? Family carers deserve breaks, so will the Minister commit to making sustainable funding available, to ensure that respite and day care centres can provide these much-needed breaks? If we fail to do this, we risk seeing an increase in burnout and mental health problems among carers, many of whom are old. This will lead to a vicious circle, where we find ourselves asking the question: who cares for the carers? Many day centres were run by organisations such as Age UK and funded by local authorities, but that funding was pulled five or six years ago by stretched local authorities. We cannot continue to rely on the unpaid labour of women—it is most frequently women—to prop up a social care system that is not sustainable or fit for purpose.
The devolved nations have instituted occupancy guarantees where they are falling, due sadly to the deaths of residents and hesitancy of individuals to move into care settings during the pandemic. In England, occupancy rates have fallen 7% to below 80%. Will the Government follow the example of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and intervene with this short-term measure before wider reforms of funding and provision are announced? If not, I fear there will be no social care system left to reform.
The issue of indemnity for care homes has also been raised in this House many times. This comes back again to the theme of parity. As we hope to enjoy more freedoms over the next few months, these need to be extended to homes, with visits from family and friends and trips out. However, homes will not be able to provide these experiences if they are not adequately insured. Will the Minister please agree to look into this issue as a matter of urgency?
Looking to the future, our current model of care provision is unfair and unsustainable. Funding is one obvious issue. With the sector so fragmented, cuts to local authorities and a postcode lottery, we need to find consensus on how to fund the system. Government funding for local authorities fell by 55% in the decade between 2010 and 2020. Where there are cuts, we now see self-funders picking up the tab, but also subsidising the care of others in the care homes they live in. This is not fair, nor is it sustainable.
Workforce planning is another issue. We need to commit to a 10-year workforce plan that will adequately fill vacancies but also allow care providers to aim higher, providing continuity of care and allowing relationships to develop, to the benefit of both staff and those receiving care. The ideas have all been laid out and opposition parties are ready to work with the Government on the solution. What are we waiting for?
Through Covid-19, the Government provided significant short-term support to help providers. It is vital that the Department of Health and Social Care now sets out how it will help providers to move beyond it. The costs of Covid-19 and the dramatic fall in care home occupancy, from around 90% at the start of the pandemic to 80% by February 2021, puts many providers at risk of failing. In response, the Government provided short-term funding through local authorities and the infection control fund. This support has stabilised the market and kept most providers from failure. They are very grateful but still fear for the future. However, the department does not have a strong grip on the variable levels of support that individual providers received, and there have been some reports of providers struggling to access some of that additional funding.
Commitments around extra funding and free PPE until the end of March 2022 are welcome, but the department does not have a map out. The Care Quality Commission warns that
“ongoing support is likely to be required … if care home admissions remain low or costs remain inflated.”
It recommends that the Department of Health and Social Care, working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, should assess and outline by the end of July—next month—how much support providers need in the short to medium term to deal with Covid-19 and lower occupancy in care homes. Can the Minister outline how this work is progressing?
For several years, I was the chairman of one of the large charities that provide residential care for people with one learning disability or more. We cared for more than 1,000 people across England. Local government pays their fees and essentially what they get is a roof over their heads, full bed and board and care. More often than not, their homes are in large semis in residential parts of town with access to public transport. Supported people are in receipt of benefits, and the older ones a pension. This helps them to save for an annual holiday. They use their buying power to go out in the evening with their carers for a pizza, to the bowling alley or to a film. A day at the seaside is a favourite. Many are helped to find local jobs. Some of the large coffee chains will pay and train people with a learning disability to work the espresso machine, make milkshakes and clear tables. Job placements are carefully chosen and it is rare that the arrangement fails due to lack of commitment. The skill set and temperament that is required to care for someone with a learning disability is very different from what we expect from the carers of older people.
Many of us have seen at first hand the work of care homes, carers in our locality or those caring for family or friends. Many of us have seen people with a learning disability out with their friends enjoying themselves. All that points to dedicated carers in that sector. I know that there will be much expertise and wisdom in this debate today; I look forward to hearing noble Lords’ contributions and the Minister’s responses. I beg to move.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the forensic, measured and moving opening speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, demonstrated that there are a number of pressing issues to be addressed within the wide topic of social care. The Government have committed themselves to resolving the issue of who pays for residential care in old age, and we are all eager to learn of their plans as hundreds of families face this challenge every month. I shall focus in my three minutes on two points: social care provided by the not-for-profit sector; and social care provided by family, friends and others who are unpaid—what is called informal care.
As chair of the National Housing Federation—I declare that interest—I have taken a keen interest in housing associations’ provision of not-for-profit care and housing, and seen the amazing work they do not just for the elderly but for those with disabilities, learning difficulties and physical and mental illness. I echo the call from Anchor Hanover, England largest not-for-profit provider, on the need to tackle the negative perceptions of social care in terms of low pay and lack of career progression. This is not new: before the pandemic, there was a shortfall of 1.1 million care workers in the next 15 years. With a current workforce estimate of 1.6 million, that is a massive challenge. What will the Government do to deal urgently with these negative perceptions and begin to address the shortage challenge?
On my second point, about informal carers, my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley has consistently and passionately advocated their cause in this House; I look forward to hearing her contribution shortly. In my experience, the majority of all social care is provided by family or friends caring for their loved ones. In most cases, they do not even label themselves as carers; they do it because they are husbands or wives, daughters or sons, sisters or brothers. It is what they do, and it is what we do. This vast army of carers increased dramatically during the pandemic. In most areas, services for carers, including young carers, vanished overnight, and there are real concerns that they will not be reinstated. There are an estimated 13.6 million of them, plus 800,000 young carers, yet they are often invisible when it comes to public policy and they have to fight every inch of the way for support, often at the cost of their own health or financial security.
Despite their warm words, the Government entirely missed the opportunity in their health and social care White Paper to recognise the contribution of informal carers. The Minister will be well aware of the mounting criticism of the Government’s response to the pressures on social care provision and on carers as a result of the pandemic. Can the Minister assure us that carers will be specifically included in any forthcoming legislation, and that carers themselves will be directly involved in its preparation? The Government now have an historic opportunity to make changes that will at last deliver parity of esteem between social care and the NHS.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on securing this timely debate. I declare my interests with Marie Curie, the Motor Neurone Disease Association and other charities; I also chair the National Mental Capacity Forum.
There are two main groups needing social care: those with long-term chronic conditions, both physical and mental disorders, often both; and those who are terminally ill and dying. The first group often slips into the second as disease progresses. I want to focus on those families providing unpaid informal care. More than three-quarters of those carers bereaved during Covid reported that they were not offered the care and support they needed, and Carers UK data suggests that one in three may be nearing breaking point. Pre pandemic, it was no better. The Motor Neurone Disease Association found that more than 75% of unpaid carers had not had a carer’s assessment and a third spend more than 100 hours a week caring. When caring for other conditions, the average hours are less, but more than 1 million people are providing 50 or more hours of care per week. Marie Curie estimated that there were 6.2 million carers in the UK in 2018 and 500,000 were looking after someone with a terminal illness, which is about 8% of all carers.
Most informal carers are not professionally trained, and of the 1 million people eligible for attendance allowance, it is estimated that about a third do not claim it. When someone is nearing dying, a prognosis of six months is impossible to provide with accuracy, so the DS1500 form for funding is sometimes filled in relatively late, leaving the financial burden on the family even greater. For many, the care of a person who is critically ill, whose recovery is unpredictable or who has been in intensive care is particularly difficult. These family carers need to be taught some basics of caring and they need to know who to call for immediate support 24/7. The current systems of even supporting them are not adequate.
Those millions of people providing care usually do it well and willingly, but they are exhausted and are becoming more exhausted as there seems to be less support available. What consideration is being given to creating eligibility for a total of up to one month’s paid leave from work for informal carers when someone is critically ill or dying? This could be leave taken flexibly as required for the individual circumstance. After all, we recognise maternity and paternity leave. Why do we not recognise carers’ leave?
Baroness Browning (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society, as an ambassador for the Alzheimer’s Society and as an informal carer. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on securing this debate. I shall miss her contributions in this area, which we have shared over many years. I am going to leave to others today discussion of the urgent need to reform social care for the elderly and flag up how important it is that reform, when it comes, includes those of working age.
According to Rethink Mental Illness, from 18 to retirement age, those with mental illness, learning disabilities, autism, as well as physical disability and declining mental health, are among a third of adult social care users. Half of the spend of the adult social care budget is with this group, which gives a good idea of the numbers. Services are stretched and, since March 2019, they have been reduced due to Covid. Legislation that we already have on the statute book—the Care Act 2014, the Mental Health Act, the Mental Capacity Act, and the long-awaited strategy to go with the Autism Act 2009—is meant to provide statutory services for all those people. People have a right to expect them to be provided. This House has supported that legislation along with the codes of practice and some of them are not even implemented. I hope that when we see the new reform, there will be a review of everything on the statute book to make sure that it is being used in practice.
Perhaps I may say a word about informal carers. Informal carers of working-age adults struggle. It is estimated that they are over 7% of the population. Parents and carers battle to advocate for adult children when services are not provided. That leads to mental health breakdown of both carers and those cared for. We have yet to learn the lesson of making cuts to low-hanging fruit in this area. It is all too easy to cut out some of the low-budget issues such as advocacy, befriending, welfare rights and employment—to name but a few. They are easy things to remove, but there are big consequences when they are. We are being made to wait and wait for the long-promised social care reform, So, when it is presented, there should be no excuse if it is not comprehensive, fair and fit for purpose. I say to the Minister: bring it on.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle [V]
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on securing this timely debate. I should declare an interest as co-chair of a newly formed archbishops’ commission on reimagining social care. Understandably, much of the current discussion of social care involves the issue of funding. That is fundamentally important, but I believe the time has also come for a radical—in the sense of going to its roots—reappraisal of the values and principles underlying social care, not only for the elderly but for those with disabilities and severe mental illnesses. It has been clear for many years that we need an inspiring, cross-party, long-term vision for social care which involves rethinking how we want it to be understood as well as delivered, with those in need of care valued for who they are rather than simply regarded as an inconvenient burden. It has also been clear that that should include reference to some of the underlying societal conditions that contribute to the overall need, such as deprivation, lack of family support and loneliness.
Within this general framework, I want to focus on two specific areas that have already been raised and must demand our attention. One concerns the status, recruitment and retention of paid carers, especially in care homes. This issue has of course been highlighted by the particular burdens placed on care home staff during the pandemic. Quite often, those staff have had to work in more than one care home, with attendant implications for both their health and well-being and that of residents. It is essential that we raise the status of paid carers to ensure that caring, like service in the NHS, becomes a viable career choice rather than a last resort. Being a carer should be as much a source of pride and dignity as being a healthcare professional. This would involve the registration of carers, a suitable suite of qualifications, agreed national pay scales and realistic career progression structures.
The other specific area is the role of informal unpaid carers, including family members, who enable people, as we have just heard, to stay in their homes and who need better recognition. This applies in particular to the 750,000 or so young carers in England, many of whom, as we have recently been reminded in your Lordships’ House, regularly miss school and have little or no extra support. They, together with unpaid carers of all ages, need to be identified and properly supported if the UK’s standards of social care are to become world class.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak about home carers which is something I know about as I have them myself. So, I declare that interest. I feel strongly that being a carer is not a low-skilled job. Even helping to dress a frail, elderly or disabled person safely is a skill which should be recognised. Disabled people might be under the care of well-paid hospital consultants, but the consultants could not do their job without the day-to-day work of competent but low-paid carers. Half-hour-only visits are common, with no travelling time paid. It is not uncommon for carers to be the first people to find that a client has fallen or even has died in the night. Carers, particularly in large cities, are often from overseas and have to get used to difficult clients who sometimes resort to mild racial abuse, particularly if those clients are slipping into dementia. Good carers are like gold dust. They should be much better rewarded.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
We are in a vicious cycle. After decades of reviews and failed reforms, the level of unmet need rises, the pressure on unpaid carers grows, the supply of care providers diminishes and the strain on undervalued care workers ever increases. Yet, far from having an “oven ready” social care deal, the Government are seemingly paralysed and constantly postpone the hard decisions they need to make.
Paid carers make up a 1.5 million workforce, but there are millions more unpaid carers. As a society, we rely on unpaid carers and exploit them while giving them a lack of personal support, respite care or funding. Carers UK has carried out research on the impact of the pandemic on unpaid carers. It shows that 81% of carers provided more care during the pandemic, 64% have not been able to take any break because of a lack of respite care, and 74% feel exhausted and worn out. If we are to support these amazing people, we have to reform social care, starting with implementation of the Dilnot proposals by putting a cap on care costs, but that is not sufficient. As Dilnot himself has said, additionally we need a pay rise for social care staff and extra cash for the current system to increase the numbers eligible for care. It will cost: the Health Foundation says £11 billion a year, but I suspect that is an underestimate. Rather like the experience of the NHS at its formation, there is a huge level of unmet need that will emerge if the current tight eligibility criteria are relaxed, as they must be. It will cost, but if our experience of the last 15 months has taught us anything it is that it is imperative to sort this out.
Why then have the Government postponed a decision time after time? It appears that the latest setback is due to the Prime Minister’s financial illiteracy in refusing to allow any increase in income tax, VAT or national insurance to pay the additional cost. He may think it is smart politics. He may think it is best to waste money on vanity projects such as the ludicrous proposal for a new royal yacht—I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, much joy in focusing on that and other defence matters in the future—but the Prime Minister’s ultimate legacy will be to be remembered as a man who ducked the most pressing public policy issue of the day.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and echo the thanks for the wonderful work done by carers. Our care system is broken: every part of it is in need of radical change, from the arbitrary distinction between what counts as social care and what qualifies you for NHS healthcare, the healthcare lottery; to the way in which care is provided, the postcode lottery; to the standards applied to the workforce of 1.5 million people, such as social care nurses relative to NHS nurses, an employment lottery; to the lack of funding that has increasingly rationed care; to the draconian means test and funding shortfalls, which force the entire cost of care on to the most vulnerable, who pay not only significant sums for their own care but usually a 20% or 30% surcharge to subsidise council underfunding as well, whereas those who do not need care pay nothing; to the lack of support for unpaid carers; and to the financial fragility of care home operators, who can load their business with debt, extract equity, take rental income to their offshore companies, and have provided handsome profits to hedge funds, which buy and sell their distressed debt.
Each of these parts of the system needs reform, and there is no silver bullet. Extra funding is of course needed, but system redesign is also required. Leaving social care to cash-strapped councils leaves more than 1 million people who need care. The demographics are such that, within the next 10 years, the enormous bulge of baby boomers will start to enter care needs. At the moment, the current cohort is rather small. Social care seems to have been the forgotten front line at the start of the pandemic, and it was used by the NHS as an overflow service, perhaps being considered as part of the private sector rather than part of the health service. If someone has a health problem, however, and they need social care, why should that not qualify for free basic care at the point of need? It could be modelled on the lines of our pension system.
Carers have suffered significantly; unpaid carers have often been taken for granted. They have lost, according to Carers UK, an estimated 25 hours per month of extra support that they would have had before the pandemic from support services, family and friends. I am keen to see how we can better recognise their needs. Will the Minister agree to meet Peers from across the House and Carers UK to learn from the new measures that have brought together for the first time the various parts of our service to help vaccinate carers?
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on securing the time to discuss this vital topic. I draw attention to my interests in the register, particularly as a qualified nurse. Despite extensive knowledge and expertise as a country, we have moved forward at a snail’s pace in trying to address the real problems and opportunities that face us in the domains of respite and support for carers and readily available social care support, as other noble Lords have said.
Social care is funded and paid for differently in the four nations, yet we have a central funding system for the NHS. Unless more resources are allocated for social care, the NHS will continue to attract staff much more readily because of the employment terms there compared with the zero-hour contracts on which many care staff are employed. Today I looked for a job that I would apply for in social care, and noble Lords will be pleased to know that I found one on Housing Today, but it requires me to be the Swiss army knife of care: to work flexibly, and to use the salary-sacrifice system in order to have a pass to go around the city in which I would work. In return, they will give me a regular full day’s work—which are actually really good terms for many people. When will the Government take initiatives to drive the parity of esteem between the NHS and social care employment so that we can recruit, train and retain an excellent social care workforce with the skills and compassion needed for this intimate personalised work? The Government have a real opportunity to correct this by providing apprenticeships and meaningful, secure employment, while demonstrating to the current social care workforce how much we value its work through career development opportunities and fairer terms and conditions of employment.
Respite for carers is particularly important at this time, because most family-based carers have managed with little or no respite or external assistance during lockdown. Many are now exhausted and need respite to rest and recuperate in order to continue with their caring responsibilities. Some are young carers who have had particularly difficult challenges: for example, supporting a single parent with issues including mental illness, addiction and long-term physical disabilities.
It will surprise noble Lords to know that Bumble, the social dating platform, has given all its staff an extra week off for respite, due to the demands of the increased workload associated with the gradual reduction of lockdown and people seeking new partners. How will the Government instigate and monitor policy to guarantee a similar respite for all informal carers? Will they give young carers the right to have breaks? How will their support be prioritised, promoted and guaranteed?
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, in the olden days when I was first in your Lordships’ House, it was very difficult to get anyone to be interested in a debate on social care, still less on the role of carers. I used to call the valiant Peers who turned up the usual suspects, and we tried to bring the problems of social care and the difficulties of carers to the attention of your Lordships. Today, however, so many of us want to speak that our time is very limited and there is an agreement on the social care situation on all sides of the House. I am sure that we shall hear that the Minister himself is in agreement that the situation is bad for everyone: it is bad for councils, because local authorities cannot meet their obligations; it is bad for the NHS, because hospital beds are filled with people who should and could be treated at home; it is bad for care homes, which even before all the problems brought about by Covid were finding it increasingly difficult to balance the books; and it is very bad for family carers.
We all now know that families and friends are holding the social care system together by providing support for the most vulnerable in society. Many were at breaking point before and the Covid crisis has further exacerbated that: many are now saying that they are sick with worry. We are asking even more of these carers than ever before, and they urgently need to be supported and recognised. A recent ADASS survey said that there was now greater awareness of carers among local authorities, which is very good news; but a majority of directors are pointing to increased carer breakdown and requests for more complex support, a result of carers having gone without support for so long.
In all the years I have been banging on about this issue in your Lordships’ House, I have always been amazed that the economic case for supporting carers has not been more acknowledged. I have regaled your Lordships often with the billions saved for the Exchequer by carers, whose care is given willingly and with love. During the pandemic, carers are estimated to have provided care worth £530 million per day. It dwarfs any funding the Government could contemplate. Many carers have given up paid jobs to care, and want to return to work, but the services are not yet there to help them. That, of course, results in a loss of tax returns to the Exchequer. We now estimate that there are 13 million unpaid carers of every age, and they are by far the most cost-effective way of providing care, so it must make sound economic sense to support them and prevent the breakdowns that are going to happen.
Let me tell you about Shelly, who I spoke to during Carers Week. She is caring for both her parents, one with dementia, and her 30 year-old son who has severe learning disabilities. Before Covid, she was just about managing—a bit of respite here, a daycare place there, provided by the voluntary sector. All those services have now gone and she is going to break down. When she does, four people will need state support. Surely the Treasury, naturally concerned about the cost of social care reform, will take note of this. If Covid and what followed brought anything to the party, it is that we will finally be forced to take bold decisions about the funding and provision of social care. That is what I want to hear from the Minister: that “bold” is the watchword when we finally see the reforms.
Lord Astor of Hever (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a real honour to follow the noble Baroness, who does so much for carers. I declare an interest as the father of a profoundly autistic daughter. My experience with our daughter, whose residential care was disrupted during the pandemic, was a real eye-opener. It is an exhausting business looking after a disabled adult, tending to their well-being 24/7. I have nothing but admiration for the carers who dedicate themselves to this task and I join the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, in thanking them all.
Greater than the physical demand is a concern that our loved ones will be properly looked after when we are no longer around. A social care system for the 21st century needs to make us feel more secure on that score. Others are far worse off than my wife and me. I know a family with two profoundly disabled sons, aged 28 and 32, the elder in a wheelchair—sadly not electric because the parents are not disabled, so do not qualify. They have relied on carers provided by their local council to help with this full-on exhausting care, day after day. There is a chronic shortage of carers, who are on very low wages, in the care industry, so I join other noble Lords in asking the Minister how the Government plan to address this. Will the Government consider increasing the carer’s allowance to the minimum wage?
The closure of day centres, which provide much-needed respite from the constant, round-the-clock supervision, as well as swimming pools and places of worship, was a blow to this couple. Could special exemptions be considered in future lockdowns for disabled people and their families in well-supervised, safe environments? The imposition of strict procedures to limit the spread of the pandemic has weakened an already fragile and fragmented system, causing untold suffering. Covid exposed a plethora of gaps and shortfalls, in addition to contradictory and counterproductive measures, which unwittingly endangered people’s physical and mental well-being. In short, instead of social care, we had social carelessness.
The NHS will continue to suffer, as long as the social care structure is neglected, whether we are facing killer viruses or not. How do the Government propose, in practical terms, to better integrate adult social care services with services provided by the National Health Service?
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Jolly on her excellent opening speech and declare an interest, as I have a close family member in a care home. As we have just heard, the pandemic has cruelly exposed the plight of those dependent on social care. The NHS provides free care for all, based on need, but there is no equivalent care service to which families can turn when they or their loved ones need help, causing untold heartache. Only countless money and time from individual families is stopping the system from complete collapse. Age UK has estimated that more than 1.5 million people are missing out on the care they need, and the cost of inaction is falling on the shoulders of 11.5 million unpaid carers, some aged 80 and above. This national scandal is no longer hidden from view due to Covid, but it is something the country increasingly understands and feels is grossly unfair.
Not just the elderly are affected. Younger disabled adults make up half the costs of the adult social care budget and generally do not own their own houses. The NHS provides insurance against the cost of health- care, primarily paid for through taxes, but there is currently no way for individuals to insure themselves for social care. Addressing this requires bold action and a strong political will. We need a comprehensive programme of reform for social care, both now and in the future, and I believe that programme needs three key pillars.
The first is to shore up a fragile and highly fragmented sector reeling from the impact of Covid, increased costs and low occupation rates, with some care homes becoming increasingly unviable financially. Immediate funding is needed to improve the quality of care and introduce minimum standards.
The second is individual funding. A cap on individual social care costs, as proposed by the Dilnot commission 10 years ago, alongside a more generous means test for access to publicly funded social care, would at least fix one of the system’s big problems: the lack of protection for people and their families against potentially catastrophic care costs. The architecture for doing this already exists; Dilnot’s proposals were put into legislation in 2014, with cross-party support.
Thirdly, we urgently need a new deal for the care workforce, with action on pay, training and development, career progression, professionalism and recognition. Care staff, who have given so much during the pandemic, deserve to be paid well above minimum wage.
A reform package including all these elements, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is estimated at around £12 billion or 0.6% of GDP. How are we going to pay for it? That needs to be the subject of a separate debate but, at this stage, I think we need a solution that takes intergenerational fairness into account. During the pandemic, tens of thousands died before their time in care homes from Covid. The best possible legacy we can give all those who lost loved ones is to ensure that we fix the care system, so a similar tragedy can never happen again.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on initiating this important debate, and the Care & Support Alliance on launching its campaign to make the Government act to reform the social care system. Since Mr Johnson made his well-known pledge to “fix the crisis” 100 weeks ago, 35,000 people have sold their homes to pay for care and 2 million requests for care support for older people have been turned down by local authorities. Councils are turning down 21,000 requests a week.
It is important to remember that social care is not just about the elderly; children with disabilities and people of working age with severe mental illness are part of any consideration, as the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor, both pointed out. Working-age adults account for a third of social care users and half of the so-called spending, according to Rethink Mental Illness. As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, there is an estimated gap between funding and need of £6.1 billion. That does not take account of unmet need due to the pandemic or the vital issues of enhancing the status and pay of care workers, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins.
Everyone taking part in the debate knows all this; we have been here before. What are the political incentives to do something about it? If Mr Johnson fails to deliver, will he lose an election because of it? Will he take to heart that he has broken this particular promise? In any new arrangement, there will always be winners and losers. It is well-known that the Prime Minister hates taking unpopular decisions, so let us make it easier for the Minister to bolster Mr Johnson: simply hand him a copy of the Dilnot report and the report of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, for that reference to the all-party Economic Affairs Committee report. It is now becoming rather ancient, but it set out a basis upon which the Government could act and the Prime Minister could fulfil his promise to fix social care. We described the situation as a “national scandal”; I have described it as a disgrace and the Government’s position as a breach of trust. Yet in debate after debate, Ministers tell this House that they have been distracted by Covid or that it is necessary to get all-party agreement before we can make progress. As the months go by, nothing is done to convene talks to get all-party agreement. We all know that the reason action is not being taken is that the Treasury does not want to spend the money.
For me, politics is first and foremost about protecting the most vulnerable in our society. The Government should provide a safety net below which no one will fall, and social care is absolutely central to that. The statistics that the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, has just reiterated are something that all of us should be ashamed of—the Government should certainly be ashamed for not having acted before now.
It is a real pleasure to take part in this debate and to speak alongside formidable campaigners such as my noble friend Lady Browning and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. I am really grateful to her for giving us yet another opportunity to remind the Government that procrastination is the thief of time and is creating real misery.
I want to emphasise how important it is to raise the professional standing and status of carers. I can see nothing that the Government have done in engaging with the professional bodies to achieve that purpose. We are talking about big sums of money, but in one year we increased the NHS’s funding by more than the total cost of social care, and the NHS—as so many speakers have already pointed out—is very dependent on social care. In Scotland, we saw people who had tested positive for Covid being transferred to nursing homes and care homes, with disastrous consequences.
We have a situation where the Government are committed to levelling up, but why then is the responsibility for funding being put on to local authorities? They can raise their local taxes in order to fund social care, but the local authorities with the most need often have the narrowest tax base. There is real pressure, which results in people not getting the care and support they need, as the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, pointed out.
There is a huge need for additional recruitment in the care sector. That will not be fulfilled if people are not properly paid, properly rewarded and properly treated for the fantastic job they do for our country. Frankly, the Minister is letting them down by coming back repeatedly to this House and saying, “We will produce proposals soon, perhaps by the end of the year”, and making excuses. We all know that the Prime Minister must tell the Chancellor to stump up the cash, because this is one of the first duties of government.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we know what the problem is. We have just heard that the Lords Economic Affairs Committee spelled it out in detail in July 2019, and the House debated it in May this year. In the meantime, of course, the Prime Minister has more than once told us that he has a plan—famous for social care plans is our Prime Minister. I will use just one speech, made in Dudley, on 30 June last year, as an example, when the Prime Minister said
“we won’t wait to fix the problem of social care that every government has flunked for the last 30 years … We are finalising our plans and we will build a cross-party consensus”.
There is another chance today to hear from a Minister the excuses for no action being taken on the plans that the Prime Minister has more than once said were finalised.
The Lords Economic Affairs Committee said that an injection of £8 billion was needed—of course, that was two years ago—just to restore the level that the coalition Government of Tories and Lib Dems inherited from the Labour Government in 2009-10. The Mencap brief for today’s debate gives one example of a £180 million gap in local authorities for people of all ages with a learning disability to be able to live a decent life.
The question is: how do we get the cash? Not from people selling their homes, as the Prime Minister is against that—but it is happening every week. It has to be a national effort, shared as we share the funding for the NHS. The Government want to be consistent with their manifesto, so here is my solution. Yes, it will involve more tax, but it will save money and misery in the end. My bid is simple: the over-40s pay an extra 2% on income tax as a social care supplement. As for national insurance, why on earth does it cease at the age of 65? I was on a salary until I was 72, and paid no national insurance after the age of 65. Today, I am an 80 year-old, 40% taxpayer, yet I pay no national insurance. You could keep the rate the same, or tweak it after 65, and stay in line with the Tory manifesto, and you could get this social care supplement from employers as well. The extras for pensioners, such as winter fuel and bus passes, are all great and convenient, but we should make them taxable. As the Minister who introduced the 75p pension increase in 2000, while ensuring that the poorest pensioners got £3, I say we need only the double lock introduced by Labour; the triple lock cannot be justified any longer.
Baroness Hollins (CB) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as chairperson of the independent care, education and treatment review process for people with a learning disability or autism in in-patient settings, as president of the Royal College of Occupational Therapists, and as a carer for my adult son.
There is a growing number of households of elderly carers who may have their own health and support needs but who still support adult children with a learning disability, themselves approaching retirement age. Mencap’s survey of such carers during the pandemic found that the majority experienced significant reductions in social care, including a lack of continuity of social worker input. Knowing that parents are ageing is a reason to make plans and to have good support in place, rather than waiting for a crisis. Too many crisis admissions to residential care or hospital occur after a last surviving parent has died or following some other trauma.
Last week, some families shared their stories in a report, Tea, Smiles and Empty Promises, to mark the 10th anniversary of the BBC “Panorama” documentary which revealed the abuse and neglect of people with a learning disability and autistic people at Winterbourne View hospital. Tens of thousands of pounds are spent detaining people such as these in hospital, rather than using the money to provide community-based support. Working-aged disabled adults account for half the total social care spend in England, and of this, learning disability accounts for one-third. Is the money being spent well? The answer is mostly no.
Far too often, our social care system ignores the real needs of disabled adults of working age for skilled support to live an ordinary and decent life. They absolutely do not need to be locked up, warehoused, or kept out of sight. This debate is not just about who should pay but about the very nature and quality of the support provided.
Social care exists for a purpose: to provide personalised care that ensures well-being in line with the Care Act 2014. When it is good, it is very good, but a system based on crisis management is a failing one. Of the workforce, currently 604,000 of the 1.5 million care workers in this country are paid less than the real living wage—that is nearly half. The social care people plan framework, launched at a major summit with politicians from all parties, this afternoon, argues for a real living wage for care staff, a national register and nationally prescribed training. Does the Minister agree? I believe that the case for a social care people plan to mirror the one already in the NHS for a similar sized workforce is unassailable. The Royal College of Occupational Therapists agrees.
Lord Pendry (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this important debate. As a result of it, I hope the Government will recognise their duty to carers and provide the necessary means to remedy the disastrous situation we find ourselves in.
Of course, we have all been around this block many times before, especially my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley—my mentor and a great champion of carers. With her assistance, I piloted the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 through this House and the Commons. I am delighted to have heard her words in this debate. I hope the Government will take them on board and act accordingly.
I will draw attention to the vulnerability of carers in our society. In a recent Carers UK survey, 72% of unpaid carers said that they had suffered from mental ill-health and 61% had suffered physical ill-health as a result of caring. It is not surprising that these are the results of the carers’ condition if we look at the facts. For unpaid carers to get the carer’s allowance, they must work for more than 35 hours a week. In doing so, they will receive an income of £62.25 a week, or less than £2 an hour. Paid workers will receive the minimum wage, with three-quarters earning less than the real living wage. Both those statistics are disgraceful.
My union, UNISON, is one of the principal carer unions and for many years has fought for their needs. It tells me that the Covid-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on receiving and providing social care. Thousands have died from this deadly disease in care homes, as have many more in their own homes. We know of at least 1,500 staff members who have died across the health and social care sector. Covid has highlighted many of the problems that have worsened the plight of care workers. No wonder UNISON describes them as the “forgotten front line” of the pandemic.
Time does not allow me to go on any more, but I hope that the Government will act on the voices that we have heard, lest all that cheering and clapping on the doorstep of No. 10 praising the heroic work of health service workers during recent months will have a hollow ring with those workers.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, the first duty of the state in social care is financing its provision to those who cannot pay for themselves. Yet local authority budgets have been cut to the bone, despite rising costs and increasing numbers.
This primary duty has been eclipsed politically by the natural fear of home owners and their heirs that potentially catastrophic costs of social care will consume the value of the parental home. Most proposals to deal with this involve setting a maximum amount anyone has to pay—say £80,000—after which the taxpayer would meet the costs. That gives the greatest benefit to those with the most valuable homes, particularly in the south. The owner of a modest or a partly mortgaged house who needs three years’ care would still lose nearly everything, while someone in a London home worth £1 million could bequeath more than £900,000 even if they spend more than 20 years in care. How is that fair, popular or levelling up? Moreover, extending free social care to some, let alone all, home owners would pre-empt public funds desperately needed to ease the pressure on councils’ social care budgets and on the many care homes that were barely viable even pre-Covid.
Yet there is a solution to the risk of catastrophic costs of elderly social care that does not pre-empt funds needed by the existing care system. It is insurance, which was one of the first solutions to be considered by Dilnot and others but was rapidly dropped because the insurance industry said that it would not provide policies to protect people from having to sell their homes. It could not do so because of uncertainties about future government policy and possible medical advances prolonging frail longevity. Moreover, working people will not pay for such policies on top of saving for their pensions and repaying their mortgages.
But an alternative to private insurance has been ignored: that the state offer such insurance. The alternative to asking people to contribute during their working lives is not taxing them but enabling them to pay for such insurance after they retire by taking a charge on their homes. The state insurer would then be reimbursed when they die or sell their homes. I have set out the details in the Civitas pamphlet Solving the Social Care Dilemma, and in a Private Member’s Bill coming before this House on 16 July, when I hope to see all noble Lords once again. Meanwhile, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that this option has been considered by his department, to which I sent it many months ago?
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for securing this debate on such an urgent issue. I fully endorse the remarks of other noble Lords about the urgent need for proper pay, conditions and employment arrangements for employed care staff. There is an urgent need for a national care service.
However, in the time available I will focus on young carers. As we all know, much social care is provided informally by family, friends and neighbours. Estimates vary, but there might be as many as 800,000 young carers, some of whom are very young indeed. These children often support a family member, often their mother, who is unable to look after not just themselves but the rest of the family. This might be on a short-term or a longer-term basis, and the emergence of long Covid might well mean an increase in the amount of such care being undertaken by young carers.
Prior to the pandemic, it was estimated that young carers missed as much as 48 days’ schooling. That is more than nine weeks, and it is not at all clear how young children were ever able to catch up. Regrettably, their school experience might also, according to work done by YoungMinds, have been blighted by bullying. In addition, they would certainly have been more tired and stressed by their responsibilities than their peers who are not carers. Moreover, the range of tasks that young carers have to carry out means that they have less time to devote to their homework or self-study, let alone time for social or recreational activities with friends.
This role is a huge responsibility for young carers throughout the country, but it is also a huge and probably underrecognised contribution to adult social care nationally. I hope that many schools and colleges have systems in place to support young carers in their roles, but I fear this may not always be the case. According to YoungMinds, young carers can experience feelings of guilt, anger, anxiety and low self-esteem. With overstretched GP services and children and adolescent mental health services at capacity and beyond, does the Minister agree that access to a qualified school or college counsellor able to offer support to these young carers is the very least support that they should be afforded?
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support my noble friend, Lady Jolly, who laid out so well the importance of social care to all of us. It is clear that the crisis in social care must be addressed urgently and a cross-party consensus reached on a fair system of funding. That will happen only if the Government liaise with other parties, not just the Chancellor. The pandemic has highlighted the interdependence of social care and the NHS, but there has been a damaging shortfall in social care funding over the past few years—currently at £6.1 billion—and local authorities have struggled to subsidise social care from other funds.
The social care workforce is dedicated, but its pay is on average 25% less than that in the NHS. No wonder some are moving into retail and agriculture: the Brexit shortages in those workforces has meant that they can earn a lot more if they work in those sectors. There were 112,000 vacancies before the pandemic, and a shortfall of half a million care workers is predicted by 2035 unless something is done. The public support parity of esteem with NHS staff. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that we need a social care people plan similar to that for the NHS. What is the Government’s plan for this?
Domiciliary care workers are particularly hard hit as they are not paid for travel between clients and have too short a time to carry out their duties. They are in some respects even more important than those working in residential care because they contribute to keeping clients out of hospital and preventing their move to more expensive residential care. Related to this but slightly beyond the scope of the Minister’s department—but just as crucial to the objective of keeping elderly people safely at home—is housing design and adaptations. Can the Minister tell the House who in government takes responsibility for this?
The shortfall in funding means that the burden of care has fallen on the shoulders of 11.5 million unpaid carers, family and friends. Their care allowance is a pittance and must be increased. Although their rights to support were laid down in the Care Act 2014, they have not been met because of the requirement that local authorities remain within their budget. Can the Minister say when those rights will be fulfilled?
Many people are unaware that half the cost of social care is for working-age adults with physical and mental disabilities. During the pandemic there has been even more pressure on services for them. Is the Minister aware that, although the emergency powers to modify entitlement to services have not been overtly used, organisations that speak for these groups report that their services have indeed been curtailed? Will he look into that?
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, it is clear that the occasion of a pandemic means that reform of carers and social care cannot be put off, but it is a big and difficult task. There are big regional differences in patterns of social care and care arrangements, mostly determined by local authorities and the shape of the population. Care is also provided to all groups: children, the young, people of working-age and those who are older. Carers can be provided by local authorities, private companies and charities and, most of all, informally by families and neighbours. It is estimated that 1.6 million people work in the adult social care sector and 7% of the population provides unpaid family-type care services. The biggest territory is the old, although there are still significant differences in longevity around the UK, which affects care needs.
There is major reliance in the UK on family carers, which consists of one partner in a marriage looking after the other and children helping. There is nothing wrong with that. I remember that my parents looked after each other and all my grandparents looked after each other, but they had to be in a position and willing to do so. Post-pandemic, the UK simply cannot afford huge increases in care costs, but spending on care is more justified than spending on the NHS, which is already huge. There is the problem that care home costs have risen substantially over the past 20 years, largely reflecting regulatory costs.
I was very interested in the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, about children. While working as a councillor, my wife found that there were child providers, some as young as eight, whose parents were bedridden. They were wonderful young children and pleased to do it.
I fear that the major political issue will be whether individuals have to sell their houses and use the proceeds to finance the provision of care until the funds run out. The free provision of care where individuals do not have such savings is clearly some incentive not to save during working life and one reason why the UK savings rate is, surprisingly, massively less today than it was 100 years ago. I think the Foresight report is crucial to reform. I agree with it and am disappointed that it has not been implemented sooner. I also think there is scope for state provision of insurance, but we need to get a move on.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, I must declare an interest. Like others, my wife and I are carers for our son, who has advanced multiple sclerosis. That takes up a lot of our time.
Members of this House who follow rugby—there are some, I know—will have noted that in the past year or so two prominent players have contracted motor neurone disease: Doddie Weir from rugby union and Rob Burrow from rugby league. Both have been generously supported by their respective games. For example, Rob Burrow’s colleague at Leeds Rhinos, the admirable Kevin Sinfield, ran seven sponsored marathons in seven days and raised £2 million for the Burrow family and medical research. As Rob Burrow said, everyone needs a friend like Kevin.
However, not everyone has the profile of these rugby lads, nor does everyone have a friend like Kevin. That is why having a social care system to be proud of is so important. We must make sure that the most vulnerable and fragile in our society are properly supported. As others have said—I will not labour the point—we are far from that at present. We have been reminded of the landmark report by the Economic Affairs Committee of this House, which has made a notable contribution to pushing forward this debate. Now, after years of delay and dither, we are promised that a plan is imminent. It would not be the first promise on social care that has been broken, but let us take the Government’s word for it this time round.
I have two questions. First, I stress that the expected plans should address the plight of working-age adults as well as the aged and children. Working-age adults already account for half of social care spending. Will the Minister explain whether they will be covered in the first part of the plan or deferred, as I understand was the case in Scotland, until a later date? We need to move forward on the working-age population, and I would like an assurance that that will be the case.
My second question is about the position of the staff in the care sector. Other noble Lords have said what the situation is. There are many unfilled vacancies, high turnover and low pay. Will the Government commit in their plan to lead on measures to improve pay, training and career prospects? If we have learned anything from the Covid crisis, it should be about the need to protect and fairly reward front-line medical and care staff. They have supported us and we must support them.
Baroness Cavendish of Little Venice (CB) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on securing this important debate. I think all the speakers know what all the issues are. I shall not try to tackle the whole issue of social care in three minutes, but I shall make two points.
My first point is on the paid workforce. The pandemic brought a new influx of workers into the social care sector, many from the hospitality industry, so some of the statistics we are hearing today are probably slightly out of date, but that does not mean that there are not huge issues of retention and attrition. It is important to think about how we are going to keep that new group of people and the existing staff, who have shown in this pandemic that they are extraordinarily dedicated. We need to emphasise that care is, as others have said, not low-skilled. The further you are from a hospital setting and that kind of supervision, the more maturity you need to handle the very real challenges you face in going into someone’s home, trying to figure out what they need and trying to connect with children with learning disabilities, elderly people with dementia and so on. We have heard a great deal about funding in this debate, and it is vital, but we also need to think about what we want to spend the money on. I do not think that throwing more money into an unreformed system will give us the quality of care that we all want.
I want to talk a bit about commissioning. We need a care service which does not just work on a time-and-task basis but gives front-line staff the autonomy to assess what they think is needed and to do what they think is right. Their vocation is to care. Many who drop out of the social care workforce are some of the best people. They have real problems because they are underpaid, but they also have emotional problems because of not being able to give the care needed. We ought to allow that autonomy. We ought to commission for outcomes and not always ask staff to refer to a social worker if they want to change a care package by as little as 15 minutes. That would be a revolution in the way in which we provide care. In Holland, a million patients are cared for by staff who organise themselves and who do what they think is needed. They provide far higher satisfaction levels. They have enabled some vital cost savings, ploughing back money into the service and into staff wages. In this country we do not learn enough from other places. I ask the Government to look at that. Yes, we need better pay, training, career progression and much else that has been mentioned in this debate, but we also need staff autonomy.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for giving us this debate, and for the contributions made by other noble Lords. In particular, I picked up what the noble Baroness said about care homes and the number of unfilled beds. Having watched television and seen people who have gone through the difficulties of Covid, I am not surprised that many questions are now being raised about care homes and what people should do with their loved ones. Looking to the longer term, maybe we should ask whether people working at home, being remunerated at home and, in turn, caring for loved ones there is the way forward. The best quality of care we can give anyone—young or old—is love. In the first instance, this comes primarily from family members and friends all around.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle set a challenge. I was interested to hear that the Church is looking at this. I hope that it will be radical. A radical solution is available, though the Government would certainly not embrace it. Back in the 1990s, the Government would not embrace the national minimum wage. We now need to move towards a universal basic income. In due course, we shall be faced with AI and a lot more people will be unemployed. Many more will want to work from home. Many would be willing to spend their time caring for and looking after loved ones if they were remunerated, as the noble Lord, Lord Monks, has just said.
I am looking for a radical response in the longer term. If the Government do not have that within them, I would hope that my own party might start looking at something as radical as a universal basic income. We might try to start a conversation with the Lib Dems, the Greens and the SNP, as well as with Cross-Benchers. We should bring together a crowd of people who see that we need really radical and fundamental solutions that address future changes and some of the lessons that we have learned from Covid.
There needs to be a levelling up, and levelling up means a redistribution. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, spelled out very clearly the whole range of available options. There are many more. We cannot run away from it. If we are to do the job and care for people properly, we have to pay for it. Those of us who can afford to pay should do so willingly and be prepared to see that the problems of the past are not repeated. When AI comes in the future, much money will be spent on unemployment benefit. That could be redirected into a positive return, which would be about better lives at home, people working from home and looking after their loved ones.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V}
My Lords, I will focus my remarks on the wonderful work done by voluntary and community groups during the pandemic—as well as the rest of the time—particularly in the area of social care. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.
I declare an interest as a trustee of Community Action Suffolk, the infrastructure body for the county. I am also a member of the advisory body of the Institute for Volunteering Research in Norwich. I can recommend that all Peers with an interest in these matters take a look at the research being done there.
Volunteers bring a user-based focus and use their personal commitment, time and skills to make the social care system more resilient. In this way, society becomes more resilient. However, they are complementary to—and not a substitute for—properly resourced public services and professional staff. Volunteers can play a significant role, but government needs to use the existing knowledge and evidence as the basis on which to build effective and sustainable volunteering efforts.
Covid-19 has highlighted much of what we already knew from this evidence. The voluntary sector best supports individuals when it is linked with statutory services and not kept disconnected from them. A key achievement of Community Action Suffolk throughout the pandemic has been to have a seat at the table to ensure that the response of all the voluntary organisations in the county is dovetailed with statutory services. That way, we have been able to link volunteers with shielded individuals, support food banks, assist school testing programmes, and much more.
The Institute for Volunteering Research has shown just how important these infrastructure bodies are. As the demand for their services and the volunteer base grew, their role became more important. But not all areas have these. They are underfunded and not universal.
As people return to work, the sustainability of the volunteer base is in question. Older people are re-evaluating their lives in the same way as are so many of us. Further research by the IVR has shown that attempts by national government since 1948 to direct volunteer efforts centrally have been largely ineffective. Further research by the ESRC has shown how the devolved Administrations have taken a significantly different approach during the pandemic.
Levelling up should not just be about infrastructure in certain geographic areas. There are huge variations in social capital, access to community assets and people’s capacity to help one another. Government departments need to use the available evidence and consider working with funders to create an observation study to find a clearer picture of the disparities which exist and to build a response to them.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I wish to take a moment to reflect in honour of all those who lost their lives under this Government’s watch and their loved ones who mourn their absence. I want also to record my thanks to all front-line staff for their perseverance during what was a dangerous time.
I too welcome the work of the Care & Support Alliance and place on record my respect for the outstanding advocacy of Carers UK, Rethink and the Disabled Children’s Partnership. I salute the valiant leadership of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley. I humbly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for enabling this conversation.
Speaking as a parent, I can say that caring for someone you love is a lifelong, all-encompassing devotion. According to Carers UK, during the pandemic more than 13 million people provided unpaid care—72% without any break or support. There was a 78% increase in demand for their care, with no response. An estimated 1.2 million carers live beyond poverty. The Government cannot say that they do not know these facts. Even with the time constraint, the detrimental underfunding of social care cannot be overemphasised. It has resulted in an enormous toll on individuals not having their most basic and urgent care needs met, as well as on those who do everything they can for their loved ones.
The system is failing more than 1.5 million of those who need urgent care as a result of government policies and constraint on local authorities. Services are crippled, including voluntary organisations that have been and are a lifeline for the most disadvantaged in our communities.
I wish briefly to speak about the dire situation of hundreds of thousands of families caring for their loved ones with disabilities and autism, which was recently highlighted by the Disabled Children’s Partnership report No End In Sight. I commend it to your Lordships. I have heard first-hand testimonies from several of the parents panel families, who have felt broken, ignored and abandoned over recent years—more so over the past months because they have not received their most basic care services and cannot access what they regard as crucial physical and language therapies and mental health support, with significant adverse consequences for their families’ well-being.
In my social work career, I have had the privilege of managing care homes. I appreciate their invaluable resilience, which was so evident during the early months of the pandemic. I also am fully aware of, have witnessed and have managed at first hand the fallout of the ugliness of abuse of the elderly and the disabled, much of which remains unreported—markedly so in unregulated care homes. Will the Minister assure the House, in the light of the recent case against the National Autistic Society, on what additional safeguards and monitoring are in place to prevent such abuse occurring yet again?
The time for integrated care, free at the point of delivery, is now. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and other noble Lords have eloquently said, we need political will and leadership, as well as a willingness to work alongside local authorities and leading organisations to cherish the fundamental principles of choice, control and—
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I am going to have to remind the noble Baroness of the time limit for the debate.
Baroness Uddin [V]
Thank you. We want the dignity of independence for those who are living with disability and their carers.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords:
“I have heard members of political parties on both the left and the right describe this as an incredibly difficult problem, and my response is that it is not a terribly difficult problem.”
Those are the words of Sir Andrew Dilnot in giving evidence to the Economic Affairs Committee two years ago during its inquiry into social care funding. Although I am a current member of the committee, the excellent report resulting from this inquiry predates my membership.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer told the committee a year ago that one of the reasons for the lack of progress in delivering on the Prime Minister’s promise on his first day in office was the “absence of consensus” over funding. Yet, as Harry Quilter-Pinner of the IPPR told the committee, there is
“a consensus growing behind free personal care”.
The IPPR, the Social Market Foundation, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Policy Exchange think tanks, spanning the full range of philosophical and policy approaches, were united in their support for this. With the cancellation this week of the advertised summit between the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, I suggest to your Lordships that the lack of consensus on funding is within the dysfunctional Government and between government departments more than across the political and ideological spectrum.
In focusing on funding, I do not wish to miss the opportunity to pay tribute, as has every speaker this afternoon, to the extraordinary commitment, skill and kindness of individual carers, both professional and unpaid. The urgent need to improve the terms of employment of the professionals and increase the support for the unpaid is precisely why the funding problem must be solved—and solved without further delay.
I shall finish, therefore, by reiterating the recommendations of the committee and the policy of the Labour Party that this urgent need should be wholly or substantially funded from general taxation. I quote Sir Andrew Dilnot’s evidence again:
“One way of describing the current system is that it is a very high inheritance tax, but only on people who have high social care needs.”
The fundamental unfairness of the current system is hard to address through trying to modify the established model, and hypothecated taxes and insurance schemes—such as the one advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—exacerbate the challenge of gaining both political and popular acceptance. I have argued to your Lordships in a broader economic context that a radical overhaul of inheritance tax, creating progressive taxation of both inter vivos gifts and inheritance with complex loopholes and allowances eliminated, is an obvious opportunity to increase revenue to the Exchequer. Does the Minister not agree that this would be a compelling challenge to the Treasury’s refusal to loosen its purse strings to address this national scandal?
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I salute the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, as she makes her way off to her new defence portfolio. I want to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, in turning the House’s attention to the often forgotten part of social care: mental health social care.
I put it to the Minister that, as we sit here watching, as we have done for the past year, an unfolding mental health crisis with an unprecedented level of mental health problems in the general population, and waiting for the legislation following Sir Simon Wessely’s review and the Government’s response to it, now is the time, with popular support, to change radically the way in which we fund and devise mental health support. We need to ensure that adults of working age have access to skilled mental health support, to enable them to remain in work. We also need to do what my colleagues in Sutton local authority have done: find the money to support mental health staff in schools so that children can get through this challenging period with some resilience.
In mental health, it is often said that the NHS gets lots of resources and local authorities get lots of responsibilities. They do. They have huge responsibilities for commissioning mental health social care. At the moment, they are running those on resources that are pretty well exhausted. We need a system whereby people have quick access to emergency preventive support and to crisis support of the kind that we provide very well when we have resources; and whereby, when people have had episodes of acute care in hospital, their Section 117 aftercare, to which they are entitled, is actually there, and they are supported back into work. If we do not have that, we will simply have a generation of people who are not earning the capital to fund their future care needs when they are older.
I also want to do one thing that I do not think we have done today: acknowledge that communities of people of colour and LGBT communities are disproportionately hit by all this, as they have been disproportionately affected by Covid.
I finish by asking the Minister two specific questions. First, what assessment have the Government made of his department’s convened Mental Health and Wellbeing Advisory Group’s recommendation that we need £1.1 billion of investment in mental health social care budgets? Secondly, when will the Government publish their response to that group’s recommendations, after committing to review them in a mental health winter plan? If we leave this, it will become more than urgent; it will become an acute and endemic problem. We need to seize the time now to deal with it radically.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I should first declare an interest, in that my son has MS and his wife is his full-time carer, although my wife and I have also helped out at intervals. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for the clear way in which she set out the argument.
The crisis in social care existed before Covid and will exist long after Covid unless we take urgent action. This is no time to tinker at the edges; we have to deal with it fundamentally. My noble friend Lord Rooker gave good examples of how to fund social care. The Government could take those to heart; they would probably work. We have heard successive promises from the Government. The usual argument for delay is that they cannot do anything because of Covid. It is time that these promises stopped and the Government got on with it.
We have all heard how, in the residential and domiciliary social care sector, there is low pay, poor status and desperate staff shortages. Then we have the unpaid carers: I do not know how many there are, but estimates vary between 4 million and 13 million people. I have also seen an estimate that they are worth £100 billion a year, given the contributions that they make. Besides that, the actual cost of social care, large as it is, has to be seen in proportion. Unpaid carers have often given up their jobs and work long hours. They are desperate for respite care. A week’s respite care for a full-time unpaid carer is worth its weight in gold. It can change her—it is usually a woman—attitude to life, give her a lease of energy and enable her to go on doing the difficult job she is doing. We have to be reconciled to the fact that demand for social care is going to increase, partly because we are living longer and partly because of dementia and other illnesses. We need to prepare for an increase, not just try to cope with the present demand.
If run effectively, social care would actually save the National Health Service money by reducing pressure on hospital beds. I wonder how many people are occupying a hospital bed because there is not the care and support in the local community. I do not blame local authorities for that; they do a fantastic job and a pretty difficult one. But I will say that the forms one has to fill in to apply for social care are formidable. They still run to pages and pages; I think one needs two PhDs to fill them in. They are pretty difficult for people, but there it is.
We also need better data and statistics on the whole social care sector if we are to make sensible decisions about the future. I do not believe those exist. Sometimes local authorities get together to share their statistics, but I think the Minister will confirm that we could do with better data and statistics. Finally, I believe that we need a national care service, parallel to the National Health Service and introduced with all the imagination shown by the 1945 Labour Government when they introduced it.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank my noble friend Lady Jolly for instigating this debate and for her wonderful service to the Liberal Democrats’ health team, and to your Lordships’ House, in speaking calmly and authoritatively on health issues for over a decade.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle was so right to start with the suggestion that we need to go back to the absolute fundamentals of social care, because the current system is plainly not working. Over the last two hours we have heard many stories alongside examples and statistics of how the system is failing. As my noble friend Lady Walmsley said, this needs to extend to housing too. Habinteg has produced homes for life standards that cost only a fraction more when a place is built new but can mean people then stay in one place for their entire life, with very minor and cheap adaptations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, is right that we need to think in completely different ways. I, too, want to mention an exemplar from the Netherlands, where students are now living alongside residents in care homes. In return for accommodation, they are also providing some support. Not only has it proved career-changing for the students but the record of dementia has reduced because of regular contact with younger people. That is the sort of radical idea we need to think about.
From these Benches, we are calling on the Government not to delay any longer but to engage urgently in cross-party talks on the future of social care. Our Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, pledged during the 2019 election and then from the steps of No. 10 to
“fix the crisis in social care once and for all”.
With social care services in such crisis, it is time that he and the Chancellor acted. People are selling their homes to pay for care and more than 1.5 million people are missing out on the care they need. Others are stranded in hospital, unable to leave because the follow-up care just does not exist. This is putting an increasing strain on the NHS, which also does not have the cash to cope.
The Dilnot review has been repeatedly referenced, including by my noble friends Lady Jolly and Lady Tyler, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, who is right that Dilnot’s proposals demonstrated that this is not difficult. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. In 2010, all three major parties agreed on proceeding with Dilnot and then the Conservatives pulled out. A decade further on, nothing has happened.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, might feel that his committee is long in the tooth now but its report was exemplary and will last the test of time. He is right that this is all about money. As many other speakers have said, people’s lives are being damaged because the system has fallen apart. If the Treasury is the block, we must now commit to extra funds to make this work. We cannot continue with this broken system.
In England, publicly funded but means-tested adult social care is primarily funded through local government. It constitutes the biggest area of discretionary spend for local authorities, which are already cash-strapped due to repeated cuts and extra responsibilities. If the adult social care workforce grows at the same rate as the projected number of people aged 65 and over, the number of jobs in that sector will increase by one-third to around 2.17 million by 2035. We are not even thinking about the growth in our demographics and its consequences. Everyone is thinking about mending the short-term problem.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, pointed out, new analysis for the Care & Support Alliance found that since the Prime Minister stood in Downing Street and promised to fix social care once and for all, 2 million requests for formal care and support from adults aged over 18 have been turned down by their local councils. This is equivalent to about 3,000 requests being turned down every day, putting immense pressure on unpaid carers as well as the NHS. These numbers show the human cost of the Government’s dither and delay. Will Ministers please stop their internal spats and off-the-record briefings, and start the urgently needed cross-party talks, involving the sector, so that we can look at fixing this urgently?
The cost of inaction is also far higher, as 11.5 million unpaid carers are bearing the brunt of the Government’s failure to reform social care. The pandemic has exacerbated the immense pressures they were already under; many have not had a single break since the crisis began. It is clear that any reform of social care must consider the impact on unpaid carers and include ways to alleviate the pressures that they face. Will the Government commit today to the emergency funding that would give unpaid carers across the country at least a weekly break? Will the Minister also commit to involving unpaid carers and carer organisations in talks on reforming social care services?
Last week, 50 organisations wrote to the Prime Minister, calling on him to fix social care. They wrote in the letter:
“During the pandemic tens of thousands died before their time in care homes from COVID-19. The best possible legacy we can give all those who have lost loved ones would be to ensure that we fix the care system so that a similar tragedy cannot happen again.”
The Local Government Association tells us that the ongoing recruitment and retention problems show that a high vacancy and turnover rate is really affecting service quality. As others have outlined, many staff have uncertain incomes because of the prevalence of zero-hours contracts. Temporary shifts in these patterns due to Covid-19 have highlighted the need to deal with these issues permanently. A recent Skills for Care report on the state of the social care market found that pay in adult social care is on average 25% lower than in the NHS, that the adult social care sector in England still needs to fill more than 100,000 job vacancies on any given day, and that the staff turnover rate of directly employed staff in that sector was 30% in 2019-20.
The ability to attract and retain staff with the highest skillset is hampered by poor pay, poor reward and a lack of coherent career structures that allow people to think beyond temporary work in social care. We need better pay and rewards to form part of a package of reforms and to transform the sector. All this means that we should have a 10-year workforce plan. It is vital that this is part of any proposals made by the Government. Professionalism is key but so is the registration of healthcare professionals in the social care sector, along with proper pay scales and funding for the sector, so that local government is not put in impossible positions. The pressure should certainly not end up with care providers.
My noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester is right: being a carer is not a low-skilled job. The skill must be recognised. I noted she said that carers are often from overseas and face racial abuse, especially from clients as they slip into dementia. That is another reason why carers need to be trained properly: to help and understand their clients in what is and is not appropriate.
Thanks so much to my noble friend Lady Scott for talking about the role of volunteers in our communities; her speech was very powerful. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, referred to disabled children. I repeat her question about proper funding for respite care for the families trying to manage the most vulnerable children in our society.
Unpaid carers can also be children. Our own experience as foster parents to two children who lost their mother through a long terminal illness demonstrates that in addition to missing school, which was already reported on, there are other long-term psychological issues in having to face the death of a parent when they are your sole parent. I give particular thanks here to CAMHS, which provides a service but, as my noble friend Lady Barker said, mental health support is woefully limited at the moment and needs to be tackled.
The cost of inaction and delay is also falling on the shoulders of the 11 million unpaid adult carers in the UK, whose contribution to the current social care system is almost completely ignored by government. The cost of reform may seem great, but without these carers—particularly if they themselves break down—the burden will fall further on government itself.
The Lib Dems are also calling on government to immediately raise the carer’s allowance by £1,000 a year to support unpaid carers and to recognise the huge financial pressure that many of them are facing during this pandemic.
The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, noted that half the social care budget is going on working-age disabled people. That is also important, because there are not often houses to sell afterwards. That is why we have to review everything and completely rethink the way our social care system works. I will end on another point on which I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. Everybody today has said that we have waited far too long for these reforms. The only block to progress is the Government, specifically the Treasury. Act now. Bring it on.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on securing this debate and on her usual very thorough and thoughtful introduction. Of course, it is deeply frustrating for us all to be yet again debating the ever-deepening crisis in social care in the absence of any sign of the Government living up to their promises of reform and “once and for all” change, in the words of the Prime Minister.
The excellent “national scandal” report of our Economic Affairs Committee was our last major debate on this vital issue and is still an authoritative source for this debate. The committee warned, and it is worth repeating, that:
“With each delay the level of unmet need in the system increases, the pressure on unpaid carers grows stronger, the supply of care providers diminishes and the strain on the care workforce continues.”
That is why it is so important for us all to keep up the pressure, as noble Lords have done this afternoon, hammering home the scale of the crisis and the substantial extra funding urgently needed. This must be sustainable long-term funding, not just the welcome but wholly inadequate plugging-the-hole periodic cash injections that Ministers trumpet at every opportunity as the solution to the deep crisis we are in.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for specifying unpaid carers. As usual, her words were movingly reinforced by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and by almost every speaker; it is a most welcome and essential focus. They drew on the extensive surveys and reports produced by Carers UK for Carers Week. In these we heard from carers themselves on the huge challenges they have faced during the pandemic—not just the absence of essential breaks and respite but the impact on their own health and well-being and their worries about when the key daycare and other services, vital to the loved ones they care for, will come back.
Many routine but essential services came to a halt during the pandemic, as noble Lords have spelt out. For example, I am a carer and the excellent services at our local community centre—stroke clubs, memory clinics for people with dementia, community meals and support groups—show no sign of reopening until at least September. For carers of disabled people, people with learning difficulties and disabled children and their families, this daily or week-by-week support is so important. It is devastating when it is not there. It helps carers cope, gives them a chance to get on with the other things they have to do and, most important, helps to keep the person they are caring for well, active and engaged.
A longer break for carers and the cared-for is just as important. As Care England has said, respite care provided by many care homes has been withdrawn because of the 14-day isolation requirement. For younger adults with learning disabilities living at home with parents, a few days of respite every month or even week, or care home provision if the carer falls ill, is a key part of their care plan. It helps carers continue to cope. The Minister has promised us a meeting with Carers UK; I hope he is arranging it with the urgency it deserves. Can he please update us on the progress of the department of health and local authority talks and work he referred to last week to ensure that daycare centres and care services are reopened?
We know that the Minister’s response today will contain all the elements we are used to hearing about government funding support for carers, the care workforce and social care during the pandemic, and the now-familiar “later this year” promise of the social care reform proposals. But it is clear from today’s debate that, nearly two years after the Prime Minister’s Downing Street doorstep pledge, such is the despondency, scepticism and doubt about this latest deadline that it is almost not worth asking the Government how they are getting on with it—particularly with the recent press reports on cancelled meetings and the Prime Minister’s obdurate blocking of various funding options.
On the issue of cross-party consensus, raised by a number of speakers, rather than just his usual passing reference it is time for the Minister to explain today just what he means by this. To repeat for the record, we had cross-party consensus on the Care Act 2014 setting up the care cap on funding costs recommended by the Dilnot commission, the eligibility criteria for social care and many other important reforms, such as legal rights for carers to assessment and support. The consensus on the cap was there during the 2015 general election, councils were given lead-in preparation funding for implementation in April 2016, and £6 billion was allocated for care cap costs. But we know the rest of the story: delayed implementation and then cancellation —too costly—the £6 billion gone and huge sums of implementation funding just wasted.
The same cross-party consensus was reinforced in the “national scandal” report, as the chair of that committee, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made clear in the previous debate. On these Benches we have strongly welcomed this report as a fully costed and solid basis for moving forward. It shows the scale of extra funding needed to break the cycle of chronic underfunding and unmet need, and to begin to address the unfairness and disparity in entitlement to care between the NHS and social care.
Many noble Lords have today again articulated the committee’s fundamental principles, which have the widespread support among the social care stakeholders and community that the Government say they want—for example, the top priority of restoring local authority funding for social care to 2010 pre-austerity levels; an end to councils’ dependence on locally raised funding for social care; a new £7 billion-a-year system for providing free personal care to help people with basic daily needs such as washing and dressing; and a major investment in a new deal for the social care workforce and joined-up workforce planning with the NHS. That is an excellent consensus on which to move forward, and the Minister knows it; it makes the current delays and dithering inexcusable.
On the vital issue of a new deal for social care staff, like all noble Lords I add my heartfelt tribute to them, not just for the pandemic but for the year-on-year dedication they have shown in the face of low pay and lack of public understanding and appreciation of the value of their work. They are a skilled profession and need and deserve the training, career and pay structures that properly reflect this. Raising the status and standing of care staff has to be a key part of social care transformation.
The positive signs of the impact that Covid has had on the public’s awareness and perceptions of care work are welcome. For example, the recent survey with care providers, stakeholders, care workers and candidates by the Work Foundation and Totaljobs reinforces this, showing an increase of 39% in people applying for social care roles in the last two years; younger candidates more likely to pursue a career in social work; and 56% of new starters in care joining from other sectors. This is promising, but these staff will stay in the profession for the medium and longer term only if there is fundamental reform to social care staff’s pay and professional status.
One of the key features of today’s debate has been the range of speeches across social care provision—I very much welcome this—not just on adult social care and the care of older people but on working-age disabled adults and children, people with learning difficulties and the importance of mental health social care, so often overlooked. This was referred to by my noble friend Lady Donaghy and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker.
The excellent briefing from the charity Rethink Mental Illness has been referred to in relation to the vital role that this should play in supporting people living with severe mental illness to help them to recover from hospital care, stay well and not go back into crisis. I hope that the Minister’s response will include reassurances that their needs will be included in social care reform. The parliamentary briefings that the seven leading charities representing working-age disabled people are organising for July will be very valuable in increasing our understanding of how social care should be working for this vital group. I hope that as many noble Lords as possible are able to attend.
During the debate, we were constantly reminded that half of local authority public social care funding is spent on working-age people and that local authorities also deliver children’s social care. This was so sharply brought into focus by the publication earlier this month of the first stage of the MacAlister independent review, which called for major reform and investment to ensure the effective protection of young people at risk. Alas, there is no time to debate this today, but we sadly see the same fragmented, disjointed system across multiple government departments and agencies, with the life chances of vulnerable children paying the price.
On residential care, noble Lords have rightly pressed the Minister on the issues that have so dominated our consideration of the SIs, Statements and Questions during the pandemic—on testing, PPE, hospital discharges to care homes, visitor access, indemnity insurance and occupancy guarantees. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on this, particularly on how care funding will be provided when the infection control fund ends at the end of this month.
We have had yet another powerful debate today. Noble Lords have made it clear that we cannot build a better future for our country after Covid-19 without transforming social care, and that real progress is needed now. If the press reports and rumours are correct and government focus is on reintroducing the care cap after all, five years after it could have started, this would address only part of the problem. It would not be the comprehensive plan for the reform and sustainable funding of social care that is so vitally needed.
I echo noble Lords’ good wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, in her new role. My noble friend Lady Thornton and I have always enjoyed working with her, and we very much value her contribution and work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I join other voices in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on securing this debate on a subject that is absolutely at the top of the agenda, both here in the House and more widely. I wish her godspeed in her journey to other climates in the defence sector—I wish her very well in that new brief. I also genuinely commend noble Lords for an enormously moving and persuasive debate, with very personal and thoughtful contributions from all sides of the House.
Any Minister who listened to today’s debate, or to any of the interventions that we have had on social care in the last year, would want to start by paying tribute to carers, both unpaid and paid, for all the work that they do in care homes, people’s homes, day centres and other settings, year after year, during this awful pandemic and, as many noble Lords have noted, in the difficult period in the near future of getting back to normal life. I have heard and completely acknowledge the testimony about the significant personal and structural challenges faced by the sector from those who live and work in it. These challenges were exacerbated and highlighted in the pandemic. I do not pretend that they have not put pressure on the 290,000 who live in care, the 630,000 who depend on care, the 1.5 million who work in care and the many millions of family carers who contribute to care.
I will take a moment to reflect on the huge amount that we have done to provide support, at pace, to the social care sector during the pandemic. As we went into it, there were both strengths and weaknesses across the sector, but we started from a point where the quality and satisfaction with the care sector was high, and there was a range of provision for those who needed care. That point is sometimes lost in a debate such as this. As of March 2020, 84% of all social care settings were rated good or outstanding by the CQC, and 89% of those receiving local authority-funded support were satisfied with it, with 64% saying that they were very or extremely satisfied. The importance of raising this point is to pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of those who work in social care: the social care workforce, the care assistants, the care home managers, the social care workers and the family members, who have all contributed to those incredibly impressive statistics.
I will take a moment to remind my noble friend Lord Astor, and all the many noble Lords who quite understandably questioned our efforts to protect the sector during this awful pandemic, of a few of the things that we did. We published bespoke, tailored guidelines on how to safely provide care and protect those we love during the outbreak; these were used by families, care homes, care providers, domiciliary carers, unpaid carers, local authorities and others. From a standing start, we built up a huge capacity for regular testing: to date, we have sent out more than 35 million PCR swabs and 85 million LFTs to care homes, and we have done more through community testing in the NHS. We set up a massive PPE supply chain, completely from scratch, and through the PPE Portal, we have provided 2.4 billion items of PPE free to providers. As of 30 May 2021, we have provided 440 million items through local resilience forums and local authorities.
We have prioritised health and care workers and older care home residents in the UK vaccines delivery plan, offering vaccines before 15 February to residents in care homes, to older adults and their carers, those over 70, the clinically extremely vulnerable and, very importantly in this debate, front-line health and social care workers on an equal footing. We moved quickly to provide financial support, and have now provided £1.8 billion in specific Covid funding for adult social care. We set up regional assurance teams, and have supported safe discharge with £2.8 billion—a colossal sum—including an extra £594 million announced earlier this year. With this in mind, I very gently challenge the implication made by some noble Lords that, during the pandemic, we overlooked social care, the vulnerable or the elderly.
To address the specific subject that the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, has raised in this debate, I turn to the social care workforce. The 1.5 million people who make up the paid social care workforce provide an absolutely invaluable service to the nation, working tirelessly to support people of all ages who need care. As the pandemic has made clear, we as a nation are totally indebted to their selfless dedication and compassion. Like other noble Lords, I pay particular tribute to the moving personal testimony of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, who spoke so engagingly about her carers. I thought of the carers who looked after my father and other loved ones, and I was really moved by the way in which she spoke about this. As she and the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, said, these people may be low paid but they are extremely highly skilled. I want to make sure that all noble Lords pay tribute to them.
What we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and in other very moving personal testimonies, was completely consistent with what I heard in my meeting with Carers UK and Care England earlier this week. They brought other carers, who talked about their very challenging and difficult lives in the last few months, and I found engaging with them extremely moving indeed.
I completely hear the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, who pointed out the impact of the pandemic on those who work in social care. Perhaps I may reassure him that we have taken steps to support social care workers during the pandemic. We identified paid carers as key workers in response and gave them much-needed acknowledgement of their critical role in keeping people safe and supported. Through the infection control fund, we ring-fenced funding for providers to be used for measures such as helping to maintain normal wages of staff who may need to self-isolate.
More recently, in December 2020, we appointed Deborah Sturdy as the chief nurse for adult social care to provide professional leadership to the workforce, delivering clinical and professional advice across the social care sector. Huge thanks are owed to her for that.
I have heard loud and clear the words of noble Lords on parity, education, recognition, career progression and autonomy, points that were extremely well made. To the noble Baronesses, Lady Donaghy and Lady Barker, I completely acknowledge that the well-being and mental health of the social care workforce are paramount and have been under threat during these challenging times. We have invested over £1 million in social care well-being and worked alongside the NHS and other organisations to provide a package of emotional, psychological and practical resources for the workforce in a way that has not been done before and I hope has made a difference.
There are at least 6.5 million unpaid carers—around 10% of the entire population, according to the census. Other noble Lords mentioned other equally impressive figures. As my noble friend Lady Browning and the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, rightly pointed out, that number is even bigger if we include informal carers. The life of those looking after those with terminal diseases is particularly difficult, as was rightly described by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. As she rightly and positively made the case for a carers’ allowance, I should reassure her that the consultation on carers’ leave last year demonstrated huge interest in this area—there were 800 submissions—and we will reply in due course, as per our manifesto commitment on that.
Of those unpaid carers, 23% have high-intensity caring responsibilities of more than 50 hours a week. I clearly heard the personal testimony of noble Lords. I have met some of those carers and acknowledge that their life has been incredibly challenging during the lockdown when day centres and other forms of respite were closed, and when the full burden of care fell heavily on their shoulders—month after month, night after night.
We recognise the impact that the pandemic has had on carers and we responded. Perhaps I may single out four areas. First, there was the provision of free PPE to unpaid carers living separately from the people for whom they care. Secondly, there was funding to charities, such as the £500,000 to the Carers Trust and £122,000 to Carers UK to extend its helpline. Thirdly, we gave them priority for vaccines, which I have mentioned already, with carers being put into cohort six, in line with the JVC advice. Fourthly, we published guidance tailored to carers, enabling them to identify themselves and their needs so that those could be more easily met, with ongoing work to help carers on respite and breaks.
To the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and my noble friend Lady Browning, I completely acknowledge that the challenge continues as we try to return to normal. Day services in particular have been raised by a great many noble Lords, as well as by Carers UK and carers England. The services provide an important form of respite for carers, and allow people with support to meet others and have a break from their obligations. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, and my noble friend Lord Astor gave moving, precise personal testimony on that and I completely acknowledge the point. I wish to reassure all those noble Lords that we are helping to ensure the safe continuation and restarting of day services. We are working with the Social Care Institute for Excellence to publish guidance. We have undertaken work with ADASS and local authorities to understand the barriers. Specifically in answer to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, there is now a joint ministerial task force between DHSC and MHCLG, working specifically on that initiative.
Moving on to workforce development, perhaps I may reassure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle that I agree with him completely that this is a key element of how we can improve social care. As we come out of this pandemic, it is essential that we make sure that we continue to have a workforce with the right values, skills and knowledge, and with real prospects for career progression, if we are to provide a high-quality service for those with need of care services.
I reassure my noble friend Lord Forsyth that we are continuing to commission and fund a range of training opportunities and other programmes to help recruit people in this sector. To give a couple of examples, we have provided £27 million to expand the Think Ahead programme to train 360 graduates in career switches to become mental health social workers; and there is the workforce development fund, which distributes about £12 million a year for training and qualification at all levels. That has helped almost 3,000 establishments to support more than 14,000 learners in 2018-19. The 2020-21 fund will continue to focus on key sectors.
I can only agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, that Covid-19 has exposed some of the long-term inequalities in our society. Research from PHE and others continues to show those disparities.
To the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly and Tyler, and my noble friend Lady Altmann, I agree that there have been some home closures, but so far there has been no major overall impact on bed numbers in the care sector. The largest regional loss of beds since March 2020 has been a 1% loss in London. Perhaps I may therefore reassure noble Lords that the Care Quality Commission is closely monitoring the financial health of the largest and most difficult-to-replace adult care providers. This allows the commission to warn local authorities if a provider is likely to fall over.
In response to my noble friend Lady Browning’s call, perhaps I may reassure her that a plan for reform absolutely is under way. We have before us the building of foundations, which will be laid in the social care measures in the health and care Bill, which will support us in working together. It will increase integration, reduce bureaucracy and enhance public confidence in accountability. I reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler, Lady Hollins and Lady Watkins, that these measures will include a new enhanced assurance framework to improve oversight of how social care is commissioned and delivered to people.
To the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, the measures will help us to get much better data from providers on what is going on at a local level so that we can, as he rightly described, follow the evidence of what works and what does not. The health and care Bill will also introduce a new place for social care in the integrated care systems, which will capture and build on some of the joined-up working that has accelerated in some areas already during the pandemic where local collaboration between health and local government, and between different parts of the NHS, has previously been essential to supporting people. With that in mind, I reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Watkins, that we are developing enhanced assurance frameworks.
To my noble friend Lord Lilley and all those who raised the long-term reform of financing social care, it absolutely remains a government priority and all options are being considered, including those of my noble friend. The Prime Minister will be making an announcement on this before the end of the year. To the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, I say that boldness will be our watchword.
By way of conclusion, I thank those who have spoken so eloquently on this important topic. I know that noble Lords are all deeply committed to supporting the social care sector and would once again wish to join me in thanking all those on the front line providing care and going the extra mile every day. I am enormously proud of their efforts and immensely grateful to them all. We absolutely must not lose sight of what is important. This means doing our utmost for people who rely on social care and their families. In the words of several noble Lords, bring it on.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, this debate has been as far reaching, well informed, well supported and inspirational as I expected. The message is absolutely clear. The Minister has probably has it, but I would be grateful if he would pull together all our thoughts—I do not think there has been any disagreement across the House on any of these issues—and tell his right honourable friend the Secretary of State that this is what needs to happen and ask him to go and chat to his friend the Prime Minister.
As I said at the beginning, this is my swansong. I say for those noble Lords who might not take part in health debates regularly that there is a sort of core team of “healthies”, and I will miss working with them. I will miss the camaraderie that exists in the core health and care community, and I look forward to working with an all-party defence team. That might take a bit more work to make it all-party, but we will work at it. I thank the Minister very much for his time.
Tourism
Baroness Doocey
To move that this House takes note of the need to promote tourism in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the pandemic has elevated tourism from something to be taken for granted to something to be nurtured and treasured. Today’s debate is very welcome, but it is regrettable that colleagues are restricted to just two minutes on such an important subject.
The tourism industry is the UK’s third largest employer, contributing £147 billion a year to the economy and providing jobs for over 3 million people. Those jobs are evenly spread around the country with no region in England having fewer than 100,000 tourism-related jobs. The industry is a huge mosaic made up of thousands of tiny tiles. In total, the sector comprises 240,000 small businesses providing a diverse range of services. Ninety per cent of them employ fewer than 25 people.
Tourism provides over £20 billion each year for rural communities, which supports 350,000 jobs in the UK’s small towns and villages. It also provides £14 billion each year for seaside destinations, which supports nearly a quarter of a million jobs all along the UK’s coasts. That combined £34 billion spend makes tourism the largest non-governmental mechanism for transferring wealth from urban to rural and seaside destinations.
Quite obviously, the industry is the most acutely affected by Covid. In terms of inbound tourism, the sector is not yet even at the start of a recovery phase, since borders are effectively closed. In response to the crisis, the Government have produced a tourism recovery plan with the following objectives:
“Recover domestic overnight trip volume and spend to 2019 levels by the end of 2022, and inbound visitor numbers and spend by the end of 2023.”
According to the Oxford Economics report on which DCMS based this plan, achieving these targets requires initiatives that will generate an additional £20 billion in tourism revenue for the UK economy, of which £14 billion has to come from overseas visitors.
I very much welcome these objectives but I hope to encourage the Government today to be rather more ambitious in the measures that they put in place to realise them. Generating an extra £14 billion in tourism revenue will require large-scale and ground-breaking action that makes overseas visitors sit up, take notice and holiday in the UK. The recovery plan envisages £10 million of vouchers for visitor attractions. That is welcome, but hardly compelling. There is also a promise to talk to the Rail Delivery Group about a new domestic rail pass, which sounds a bit like jam tomorrow, and beyond that, there are somewhat vague commitments to a sustainable tourism strategy and a consultation on statutory registration for tourism businesses. The flocks of tourists that we need to return to this country from overseas will not, I fear, be rushing to book their UK holidays on the strength of these commitments, so we need to be much more imaginative.
The Government have already taken steps in the right direction with a temporary cut in VAT on hospitality. Now is the time to make that permanent, not least because all the UK’s main competitors have a reduced rate of VAT on their tourism products and services. The cut has already saved more than 300,000 jobs. Making it permanent would generate a further 120,000 jobs as well as an extra £23 billion in inbound tourism revenue.
To give one example, for a town such as Blackpool, making the VAT cut permanent would generate a further £216 million per year for the local economy and an additional 3,600 jobs. As things stand, research by the World Economic Forum shows that the UK has the most punitive tax regime in the world for tourists. Recognising, as a Treasury adviser did in discussion with the industry, that a reduced rate of 5% for tourism and hospitality is
“one of the most efficient, if not the most efficient, means of generating GDP gains at low cost to the Exchequer”
would go some way to reversing that trend. A second serious economic step that the Government could take is to revise their recent decision to remove the VAT reclaim scheme which attracts high-value, high-spending visitors from countries such as China and the Middle East. The Government’s own analysis shows that allowing duty-free shopping for tourists in the UK would bring in at least £1.2 billion of extra revenue per year. The current situation is essentially a signpost to the global tourism market, telling potential visitors that if they want to go shopping, frankly they would be better off going to Paris or Milan.
The Government must also reform the visa regime. A standard entry visa presently costs £95, but the Government lose money on processing every one of them, and very few people buy a five-year multi-entry visitor visa because it costs £655. The industry instead recommends pricing the five-year visa much more competitively, at around £150, which would cover the costs. That would save the Home Office money and encourage repeat visits, especially from parents of international students studying in the UK, who would of course bring their spending power with them. It simply makes no sense to shut them out of global Britain in the way that the present system does.
Turning briefly from the consumers to the businesses that make our tourism sector deliver for the economy, I want to cover the recruitment crisis that firms are facing because it is very serious. Put simply, there are just not enough people coming forward to fill either seasonal or full-time permanent vacancies. Many potential employees see tourism and hospitality as unstable and far too risky. Many have been on furlough for such a long time over the past 12 months or more that they have sourced alternative employment. Meanwhile, EU workers are not returning to the UK to work, even when offered a job. Having spent quite a lot of time discouraging overseas workers, the Government now need to make clear that they are very welcome—and, of course, investment in vocational qualifications and secure apprenticeships in tourism for young people is critical.
Sticking with the domestic market, I am currently engaged in discussions on behalf of the industry with the Government on amendments to the package travel regulations, which would allow small domestic tourism businesses to work together to provide UK residents with the value-added products that they want. I welcome the progress made so far and the open-minded attitude both of Ministers and officials. I look forward to turning useful discussions into real action in the near future.
Finally, I want to say a word about the impact of tourism on communities. In generating income for the economy, it is essential that much of it is directed back to the communities that host tourists year in and year out. One example is the rail service. Some 85% of visitors to the Lake District come by car, with all the associated issues of congestion and pollution. Expanding rail services in that part of the country—and, indeed, in rural parts of the south-west—would be an immense and very welcome investment in both the tourism industry and the communities that act as host. I am very grateful to councils around the country that have told me about the issues in their areas, not least an unbalanced housing market where homes are bought up for holiday-makers with nothing left for those who live and work in the community. That, too, must be addressed.
After the global economic crisis, research by the Office for National Statistics showed that tourism led the UK’s economic recovery, creating one in three new jobs. Our tourism industry can now lead the UK’s recovery from this pandemic, provided we have the vision, wisdom and conviction to support our tourism industry fully. I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of the Woodland Trust. If you walk in a green space with trees for 15 minutes a day, you can reduce your risk of diabetes by 50%. Lockdown showed many people how experiencing nature saved their mental as well as their physical health. We have a unique opportunity this year to reshape the UK’s vacation experience. A YouGov poll for the National Trust found that more than two-thirds of the British public are looking forward to celebrating summer with a walk in nature. Countryside staycations have multiple benefits: healthier and happier lifestyles; benefits for climate change from reduced aviation carbon; more carbon sequestration from new and better managed woodlands and other green spaces; and site management and tourism jobs in rural areas where jobs are often difficult to create.
We need closer collaboration between the providers of open spaces, local authorities and sustainable transport in national and local tourism strategies. This must include spreading the volume of visits in areas of higher pressure, with support to more sites across more seasons. We need wider education in The Countryside Code—the old one that set down the ground rules, not the new one that bangs on about respect. Most of all, we need a national campaign that
“puts the UK’s natural landscapes and communities at the heart of the country’s brand proposition.”
That is a quote from the Government’s Tourism Recovery Plan, which, alas, came out this month—too late for this year’s season. I ask the Minister to commit to an innovative promotional campaign for sustainable staycations now.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, yesterday, I joined a peaceful protest just across the road. It involved the tourism and aviation sectors. I listened to stories of job losses, destroyed livelihoods and uncertainty that would make you weep. I understood the frustration and anger at the way in which the industries and supply chains have been the victim of decisions that seemed to be made without any understanding of how they work operationally. These sectors are key to our prosperity. The figures are all there: £71 billion a year from tourism alone supports millions of jobs. While 93 million Brits might venture abroad, 41 million overseas visitors come here. None of the sectors works in isolation and they all depend on each other.
We have the largest aviation network in Europe and the third-largest in the world. It is a great success story and did not happen by accident. In 1984, the late Lady Thatcher privatised BA, the first national flag carrier. The low-cost and charter sectors flourished because the late Lord Nicholas Bethell, with whom I served, was a visionary behind the liberalisation of the 1980s and 1990s. It meant that people from all walks of life could travel, work, do business and live abroad at prices they could afford.
Today, we are in dire straits. In my view, government policy is a bit of a shambles; I do not point criticism at my noble friend on the Front Bench. Last summer, we saw families dragged back from abroad just hours after they had left and flights cancelled last minute as routes were closed. It has started again recently in Portugal, with the Champions League final. The green list is absurd; there are perfectly safe countries on the amber list that are still closed to us—unless you are involved with FIFA, of course. The vax is the silver bullet. Having led the world along with Israel, we have lost ground and are starting to look ridiculous. By all means shoot the messenger but I will say, finally, that if someone, somewhere, makes decisions that are rational, risk-based and treat us like adults, maybe—just maybe—people will get back to work, rebuild this industry and get on with their lives.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the tourism industry contributes more than £120 billion to the economy. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said that the government tourism plan will recover inbound visitors and spend by 2023. That is too late. The impact of the month-long delay right now on businesses operating in hard-pressed sectors, such as tourism, hospitality, leisure and live events, cannot be lost. Labour shortages are high in hospitality, which is intrinsically linked to tourism, with migrant workers returning to Europe during the pandemic.
We cannot be first on vaccines but last to reopen international travel. We saw a 75% fall in the number of air passengers travelling to and from the UK in 2020. Why are we not using mass lateral flow testing more to facilitate travel? We have become very good at making it available to businesses and to every citizen in this country, so can we use it more to facilitate safe travel? Businesses are telling the CBI, of which I am president, that, without moves to safely increase connectivity into key markets this summer,
“the government will need to consider further sector specific support”
for both companies in the travel industry and the wider supply chain. By March 2021, almost 62,000 aviation and aerospace jobs had been lost since the start of the pandemic. We can only assume that more have been lost since then, as well as in the maritime and international rail sectors.
We are competing with other countries. In Europe and the United States, key moves have been made to cover the capital costs of keeping international travel under restrictions—for example, in French airports, the €4 billion rescue package for Air France-KLM. In the United States, there was a $24 billion package under President Trump, and now $25 billion under President Biden. Germany recently created a further €1.2 billion package to support its airports. So, when international travel recovers, UK port and airport operators are likely to struggle to compete against foreign rivals with far stronger balance sheets. Does the Minister agree?
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
My Lords, I speak, once again, about the communities I have engaged with in Lincolnshire over the last 10 years. Two years ago, I was pleased to serve on the Select Committee on Regenerating Seaside Towns and Communities under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. That helped me to understand some of the policy issues that need to be addressed by the Government. The committee had a splendid and impressive visit to Skegness, which is addressing some of the issues. Lincolnshire has an extensive coastline and much unspoiled countryside, and is still popular with many holidaymakers. It is heartening to see reports over the weekend of a boom of interest in domestic tourism during the last few months, as a side-effect of the pandemic. However, many of our seaside towns need more than a one-off boost. They need sustained, strategic investment, in which entrepreneurs are encouraged to set up businesses in coastal areas. They need better broadband, better transport connectivity, flexible recruitment practices, and further education provision to be enhanced.
More generally, we all know that tourism benefits from cathedrals and church buildings. Of course, Lincoln Cathedral is one of the most inspirational spaces in the western world. It and other church buildings are places of pilgrimage, worship and living history, but also drivers of local economic growth. It is important that we welcome worshippers, pilgrims, school parties and events back into these spaces as soon as we can. What steps are we taking to increase the promotion of holidays at home, to improve investment and infrastructure in our coastal communities and elsewhere, and to help domestic tourism to get back on its feet?
Lord Haskel (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Aldeburgh is a charming small town on the Suffolk coast. Like many others it has a harbour, a nice beach and lots of seaside facilities. Yet it receives over half a million visitors a year including my family. Like us, many come for the music festival that takes over the area with opera, concerts and recitals, not only in the Maltings concert halls, but at many of the surrounding churches and other venues. But that is only for three weeks in June. In August, there are prom concerts every day for holidaymakers. At other times there are recitals, other concerts, residencies, retreats, master classes and community work full of creative projects—all done to the highest standards which attract students, performers, music makers and those just interested in music.
This is cultural tourism in action. People come from all over the world to see it. The year-round activity keeps all the local services going, giving the whole enterprise resilience. This is levelling-up in action. All this illustrates the value of cultural tourism. What can the Government do to help? In the short term, due to the need for advanced planning and binding contracts, organisers need the Government to provide insurance in case of cancellation and in case of government U-turns because of Covid. The private market will not provide it. Also, support must be maintained for the entire time that arts organisations are forced to limit their audience, and preferably beyond because concern about being in a packed hall will continue for some time.
The clock says that ideas for long-term support will have to wait for another debate.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for promoting the area of Suffolk where I have the great pleasure to live. He will recognise that it has been badly hit during the pandemic. I therefore genuinely welcome the measures taken by the Government to support the visitor economy during the pandemic, but I argue that more needs to be done to, for example, address the staff shortages that even the Brexit-supporting owner of Wetherspoons is now experiencing, improve local public transport, and ensure that our councils are resourced to support rural tourism and our seaside towns.
I will mention two specific measures. First, the case for reducing VAT for tourism accommodation and attractions is overwhelming. I raised this issue long before the pandemic and pointed out that most other European countries had already done it, and that it would reduce our tourism deficit, create at least 100,000 jobs, and boost Treasury coffers over 10 years by around £5 billion. It is now even more important to help tourism’s road to recovery, so the now-extended cut to 5% was welcome. So important was it that 75% of survey respondents said that they might not have been able to continue trading without it. Given that the measure is proving to be a real benefit in bad times and all the research shows it will be so in good times, I hope the Minister will urge his colleagues in the Treasury to maintain the 5% VAT in perpetuity. I look forward to his comments on that.
Secondly, our world-beating cultural and artistic events are key components of our tourism offer yet many planned live events, such as music festivals, are likely to be cancelled without immediate government support, not only for this year but for ever. Yesterday’s PAC report painted a stark picture of a sector on a cliff edge. For too long, the powerful case for government to underwrite Covid-19 cancellation insurance so that planning can get under way has been ignored. At this late hour, can the Minister offer some hope?
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, Northern Ireland surely deserves a place in this debate on UK tourism, not least since this week marks the centenary of the opening of its first devolved legislature. Tourism is a devolved responsibility but surely it must be right to take note of it, because progress in Northern Ireland matters to us all.
My title’s territorial designation includes Strangford, County Down. It signifies a lifetime’s devotion to this important part of our country. The 63 properties there in the care of the National Trust are always of special interest to me on my visits. The trust stresses its commitment to “nature, beauty and history”. How wise it is to avoid the controversies that have arisen elsewhere. Historical houses, like statues and college and church monuments, should be preserved to help us to understand our complex past.
Before the pandemic, tourism in Northern Ireland was growing steadily after a decade of success. Tourism NI, the excellent public body that does so much to help the tourist industry, reported a record 3 million visitors in 2019, half from elsewhere in the United Kingdom, which is so important in increasing understanding of Northern Ireland’s circumstances in our country as a whole.
How can the Government help tourism in Northern Ireland recover? They should consider suspending air passenger duty for a specific period. The tax bears very heavily on the Province, to which holidaymakers from within the United Kingdom can, in most cases, travel for only short breaks by air. The Government should also recognise the concern in Northern Ireland’s tourism industry about the forthcoming requirement that EU visitors show passports. This will create particular difficulties in Northern Ireland, whose EU visitors almost invariably travel via the Irish Republic, where identity cards will of course remain valid.
The House can be confident of the Northern Ireland tourist industry’s determination to recover its former success, and play a growing part in the life of Northern Ireland as it enters its second century as part of our country.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, tourism brings enormous benefits to the United Kingdom but also places enormous burdens on various towns and cities up and down the country. It might seem a strange time to say this, but I make a plea on behalf of the Local Government Association, which includes all parties, about the burden that tourism places on the finances of many of our major cities.
A pet theory of mine, which I have expounded without any great success over the years in your Lordships’ House, has been the need for a tourism tax in many of our towns and cities. It is always resisted, of course. The Treasury hates the idea—it has hated most of the ideas that I have put forward over my not-so glittering political career. The Treasury loathes the idea of hypothecation because it would take away the control over local authorities’ budgets that it enjoys so much.
The last time I raised this was during a debate last year on the Commonwealth Games being held in the city of Birmingham, where I happen to live. I said that, although the Government have been very generous in assistance, there is still a considerable financial burden falling on the city, and I suggested a tourist tax, perhaps administered through the hotel industry. Of course, the usual objections were made—that the industry itself would not like it and that it would deter tourists and visitors coming to Birmingham. Well, no one has ever been put off going to Paris or Berlin because of tourist taxes. The fact that New York charges its tourists fairly heavily for the privilege of visiting does not deter them from that great city.
I make a plea to the Government to look again at the need for greater financial assistance for our great cities in this country—Bath, for example, has put forward suggestions for a tourist tax. It is said also that it would deter local business if such a tax was applied. It is not deterring anybody in Nottingham, where there is a workplace parking charge. The money raised from that is hypothecated and spent on the public transport system. We could do exactly the same in many of our major cities up and down the country, particularly here in London. I make a special plea to the Minister to look again at this idea.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, enforced staycations have encouraged many people to rediscover the splendours of the UK. Here in Cardiff, famous for its magnificent city centre, beautiful parkland and shopping arcades, we also have a national museum and an art gallery with the largest collection of French impressionist paintings outside Paris; a lovely waterfront, with a lively restaurant quarter; two castles; several theatres and concert halls; and, of course, a magnificent rugby stadium—so please come and visit us.
But as UK tourism recovers, we must not forget the international travel industry. There is still no proper tailor-made support package, and airports are particularly badly hit. Unlike airlines, they cannot just shut down; they must employ staff for safety reasons and to enable emergency service flights to operate. The Government’s AGOS scheme is woefully inadequate. Last year, Gatwick paid £32 million in business rates but received only £4 million from AGOSS. I urge the Government to tackle this and to reverse the decision on duty-free shopping.
Many travel agents have been badly squeezed. They take a package booking for the flight and hotel, and pass the airfare portion on to the airline, usually months in advance of travel. If government restrictions cause cancellation, legally agents have to refund the customer, but some airlines have failed to refund travel agents themselves. Which? has run a campaign to ensure airfares are held safely in trust until travel is imminent, and I urge the Government to deal with this problem.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, has withdrawn from this debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Quin.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in two minutes I can make only two points. The first is to stress the need for support for tourism in my home area—the north-east of England—and the second, which echoes concerns that have already been expressed, is about the way tourism is being damaged by decisions taken by the Home Office on passport and visa policies.
Regarding the north-east, I declare my interest as chair of Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums. I should perhaps mention some other activities I am involved in, including being chair of the Northumberland National Park Foundation, president of the Northumbrian Pipers’ Society, and having been for many years one of Newcastle’s volunteer tourist guides, doing regular walking tours of the city to show off our 2,000-year heritage to locals and visitors alike. Time does not permit me to extol all the north-east’s tourist assets, but I take some comfort from the fact that the Minister, whose title includes “Whitley Bay”, must already be aware of the region’s great tourist offer.
The helpful Library briefing for this debate points out that the Government are considering whether there are better models and ways of supporting English tourism at the regional level, and I certainly urge the Government to do this in the north-east. When we had regional development agencies, the north-east agency, One North East, did some excellent work in promoting tourism. But since its demise no other organisation has had the same impact, despite the good work being done by smaller or geographically more limited organisations. The north-east has a bigger population than Northern Ireland and it is not much smaller than Wales, but it has far less to spend on tourism in comparison. If the Government are serious about levelling up, they should look at this urgently.
Secondly, and all too briefly, I urge the Minister to lobby the Home Office to continue to allow ID cards and group travel arrangements for school visits from our EU and EEA neighbours. The Home Office says it wants to treat all countries the same, but I am not aware of any school day trips coming to the UK from, say, Sydney or Singapore, but there is huge demand for groups coming through the Channel Tunnel. If the Home Office does not change its policy, it will harm our tourism industry, and its current approach seems simply petty and self-defeating.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to the register of interests and my position as chairman of VisitBritain. The importance of the tourist industry is shown by the number of speakers in this debate. It is a pity that we have so short a time that we cannot cover all the points we would want to cover. I endorse many of the points made by other noble Lords earlier in the debate.
I shall talk about the importance of the visitor economy to United Kingdom plc. The visitor economy, as opposed to tourism, is of great importance. It stretches right across the whole of the United Kingdom, whether it be Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England. That it can help the Government in levelling up is very important. There is no doubt about the devastation which has been heaped on the industry over the past 12 months, not by anyone’s desire but because of consequences which are beyond anybody’s control. One way the Government can achieve the levelling-up agenda, which I fully support, is through tourism and supporting the tourist industry.
There are tens of thousands of jobs and tens of thousands of businesses involved, be they hotel chains or family-run companies. We know the difference there can be between day trips and people who stay overnight: the average day visitor spend is £14.52, and the average spend for overnight trips is £239. One of the great things about the Eden Project down in Cornwall is that it is impossible to visit it in a day; you have to stay overnight. It has had an incredible impact in Cornwall, as far as visitors are concerned. We need to see more ideas like that taken forward. That is very important, and I very much welcome this debate.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, in October 2019, tourism leaders in north Wales were celebrating a golden year of tourism, with the area outperforming all parts of Wales in visitor numbers. Nearly 30 million people had visited north Wales, and the overall spend had increased to an all-time high of £3.241 billion. These numbers encouraged a further £100 million of public and private sector investment, mainly in the adventure sector. It was this adventure sector, with Zip World and Adventure Parc Snowdonia leading the way, that was making a difference and driving the growth of the region’s reputation as the European capital of adventure, and, crucially, changing the age profile of visitors. None of this happened by chance. It was part of a deliberate plan by local authorities, local tourism chiefs and the private sector, determined to increase the length of the visitor season and to provide as near as possible to year-round employment for local people.
Nearly two years later, as our tourism industry begins to rebuild after a catastrophic year, I support calls for the Government to take a flexible approach to the continuation of the furlough scheme and the extension of full business rate relief, if necessary. Winters are long in our coastal areas, and our hotels and businesses will struggle to survive on the restricted takings of this shortened season.
Looking ahead, in a move to further promote our area to new visitors, Conwy is using its 13th-century castle and walls—a UNESCO world heritage site—to form the centrepiece of a UK City of Culture bid. I was pleased to see that Grŵp Llandrillo Menai’s Tourism Talent Network project, designed to stimulate public-private collaboration on skills and product development, was successful in its bid for the North Wales growth deal. Can the Minister say what other projects to accelerate the growth of the tourism and hospitality sector in the region are under consideration for this deal?
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, I begin by disclosing my interest as chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions. Our members are a crucial driver of tourism to the UK. Most visitors cite our cultural heritage as the main reason they come.
The Government have been strong in their financial support for the sector, pumping in more than £25 billion. Given the numbers employed in tourism, that is money well spent, but we need to rebuild the sector now. While it is right that we should aim to build back better across the country, there is no denying that London remains our biggest draw. In 2019, the capital had 21.7 million visitors from overseas. Edinburgh was the closest runner-up, with just 2.3 million. The jubilee celebrations next year will put the spotlight on the capital even more firmly.
The “Let’s Do London” campaign that launched last month aims to stimulate domestic tourism to the city. It got off to a good start but, a few days after it launched, Trafalgar Square was crowded with demonstrators against Covid vaccinations. Under the label “Unite for Freedom”, hundreds of protestors besieged our city, none with a care for social distancing or mask-wearing. Others have pointed out that this country has done brilliantly with its vaccination programme. It is completely beyond me why anybody would not wish to take advantage of the protection that vaccination offers, but these people do not. The truth is that their presence in the centre of the city deters people from coming and going into the shops and restaurants that so badly need their business. While I never want to stop people having the right to peaceful protest or demonstration, does the Minister think it is really necessary that these protests should be held in such conspicuous parts of our capital city, where they will deter the wish to build back tourism?
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, four weeks ago, despite the increasing levels of vaccination, for the first time, the Government required children, including British citizens entering this country, to quarantine for 10 days. So a five year-old British citizen returning to this country for the first time in a year is required to quarantine indoors for 10 days. What do the Government say should be done if that five year-old chooses to ride their bike in a safe cul-de-sac outside their house or runs into a playground and climbs a climbing frame? What should the state do in that situation? I ask the Minister for a response.
Adventure is critical to those children and to young adults. They are losing out on not just tourism but adventure. Some of the organisations that assist in that—the outdoor pursuits industry, Youth Hostels Association (England & Wales) and the Scottish Youth Hostels Association—have been particularly badly impacted. Of the iconic youth hostels, Alltbeithe and Loch Ossian in remote Scotland are closed; Black Sail Hut is closed to individual visitors; in Wales, of the great mountain youth hostels, only Idwal Cottage has opened to individual visitors so far.
That income drain is huge. The same organisations that suffered 20 years ago from foot and mouth and struggled for a decade to recover are being hit again. My plea on Government is this: they have not asked for help but I ask for help. A sense of adventure is part of tourism. We should intervene, as the state and government should, to ensure that adventure in this country and for young people coming in is available at an affordable price to all. Let these organisations survive.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I want to speak on tourism and its effect on housing provision in the Lake District National Park. This is a subject of particular interest to my son Markus Campbell-Savours, an Allerdale and Lakeland councillor. His concern remains the provision of housing for local people. It is drifting to holiday letting, denying locals the opportunity of living in their own communities. The proliferation of self-catering accommodation is totally undermining local family housing provision. Planning local occupancy conditions have little effect as they apply only to new build and enforcement is expensive. In Keswick’s housing market, half of all homes sold are to holiday lets; most locals do not stand a chance. The residual residential sector is in constant decline as holiday letting is more remunerative, often under non-local ownership.
My son’s view is that we need a system of capping. He argues for a holiday let licensing scheme, with councillors setting caps based on statutory housing need assessments. Caps would vary to target problem, high-pressure areas. Non-transferable licences could be issued to existing owners, with certain criteria governing expiry—perhaps on death—with special arrangements for companies. Stripped of a licence on expiry, with no guarantee of renewal, holiday lets would lose their price premium. A cap system would be managed by the local authority and self-financing. It would take the heat out of an inflation-driven holiday property letting market and benefit local people. We need action. Something has to be done. The position is desperate.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when you are starting to talk about tourism and you have only one minute and 45 seconds left, you think it is best to concentrate on one thing.
The thing I would like us to have a look at is the provision of service in this country. It is something we do not do that well traditionally, and we have improved of late largely through foreign labour. If we are going to get the best out of our tourism capacity, we have to make sure that those who come here or are travelling around have a nice time, to put it bluntly, and make sure that there are staff who are going to look after you properly. Okay, it is great to be polite and everything else, but what emphasis are we placing on the training of staff to deliver properly? There is no doubt about it that a culture of training and looking at maintaining staff in the catering sector and other sectors helps.
We are a northern European country with a lot of history in it. We are not alone; the rest of northern Europe has that. We have cities of interesting and historical aspect, blah blah blah, and so on; London does very well. We do well when we make sure that those institutions are presented well to the public. I hope that the Government will give us some guidance on exactly how they are going to make sure that local people are better trained and attracted more to staying in this world. If they are not, we are simply going to be dependent on foreign labour, and there will be a cycle of not having the highest standards we want, not guaranteeing what we have got and not controlling. We need to know what we are doing here by having our own people trained. Without them, we are losing the benefit of having that local feel that can make the experience even more memorable. It is only one part of this but, please, can we look after the people who look after the tourists?
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, may I say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, in his advocacy of tourism and the beauties of Northern Ireland? I remember on one occasion, when I had time, walking from Newcastle up the Glen River to the Mourne Wall, and then further—one of the most beautiful walks.
I turn to the Lake District. I have a lot of sympathy with the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. What he did not throw into the mix is having a tough local occupancy scheme, which would again limit the amount of housing taken away from local people.
There are a number of ways in which tourism in the Lake District can be enhanced. First and foremost, there is a need to develop tourism all around the year. There is a feeling that the Lakes are good only for a limited period in the summer. That is when the people pour in. All-year tourism would be a good idea. Most of us have heard the old adage that there is no such thing as bad weather, only unsuitable clothing. Tourism in the Lake District can work all year and one can have a great time.
There are some other difficulties. Public transport needs to be improved. I would like to see the Keswick to Penrith railway line reinstated. It was closed under the Beeching cuts, but it is still possible to reinstate it. There are serious difficulties with parking. As has been mentioned, so many tourists come by car.
I pay tribute to the mountain rescue services. They are voluntary and do a fantastic job. They make a lot of the tourism in the Lake District possible by making it safe to go hill walking or climbing in the mountains. We owe them an enormous debt and we should give them as much support as possible—more than we have been giving them.
I also endorse the comment about visitors from Europe being able to come with ID cards. Let us not make too many obstacles. If it is complicated getting to a country to visit, people will not want to come.
I extol the virtues of the Lake District. It is a wonderful place for a holiday year-round.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
All tourists use public lavatories. Generally these are of a poor, unattractive standard. Many things need to be improved to make the public offer for tourists better. Many noble Lords have referred to this, or will do, in their speeches, but few will mention public lavatories—although the noble Lord, Lord Snape, touched on the poor standard of public services.
Public lavatories, along with tourist offices, are usually the responsibility of local authorities. We all know that these local authorities are at their wits’ end to make ends meet, being obliged to meet statutory duties such as social care and special needs education before they turn to discretionary expenditure such as public lavatories and bus services. These services are used as much by local people as tourists. Where they are of a poor standard, as is so often the case, they detract from the image of the country as a whole.
Many services are delivered by local councils and are regarded as the things that are most important. I hope the Minister might be able to offer some comfort to tourists and residents alike.
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my register of interests, since part of my business relates to the hospitality sector. I also served on the Select Committee on the regeneration of seaside towns.
Tourism is an important sector of our economy and, in our almost post-vaccinated world, it is equally important to the recovery of public morale and confidence. Could my noble friend the Minister tell the House what support is being given specifically to deprived seaside tourism towns ahead of this year’s summer tourism season to maximise both revenue and safety? Can he update the House on how the five piloted tourism zones set out in the 2019 tourism sector deal are getting along? Could he also tell the House how much investment has been spent since 2019 on the Great British coast through programmes such as the coastal communities fund and the coastal revival fund? I understand that the target was around £227 million.
I thank the Minister for the earmarked finance from the welcome back fund for seaside resorts. Is his department looking at reinstating the ratio of Crown Estate revenue allocated to the coastal community fund back to 50%, rather than the revised 33%?
The Government have made a generous commitment to the tourism and leisure sector this year, via programmes such as stronger towns funding, the future high streets fund and the levelling-up fund. Can the Minister detail who is overseeing those funds to ensure that they are spent correctly, and in ways where success can be properly measured, such as delivering jobs and apprenticeships, maintaining iconic or at-risk heritage and community assets, which draw people to an area, supporting troubled leisure businesses, and encouraging tourism-themed start-ups? This is, after all, taxpayers’ money, and we need to maximise all the value we possibly can. We need to make sure that taxpayers’ funds are being spent in the most effective way, which will produce long-term results and returns.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests, as chairman of VisitScotland, a board member of VisitBritain and president of the Tourism Society of the United Kingdom. As many noble Lords have already pointed out, the visitor economy is huge. It is a great contributor to both wealth and jobs. I would also argue that it makes a great contribution to well-being. People need to go on holiday, and throughout the nations and the kingdom, they need the mental health well-being that comes from visits.
The industry has been devastated by the pandemic, but it will recover. The £25 billion that the various Governments have spent is gratefully received. I want to make two points—first, to draw attention to a barrier to recovery, and, secondly, to outline an opportunity in recovery.
The barrier is, quite simply, the failure of the labour market. There are many structural reasons why the labour market has failed at this time, and there are many strategies that will help to cure it, but they will not happen for the next year or two. That is in the future. For the next two years there will be a shortage of labour, and there is only one answer to it—some form of visa waiver programme, so that we can hire staff. Quite simply: no labour, no wealth creation, no taxation.
The opportunity to which I want to draw the attention of the House is putting sustainability at the heart of the recovery. In VisitScotland, which I chair, we have a programme called responsible tourism, which we started two years ago. At its heart are two points. One is that, through our visitor management programme, tourism should be done with communities rather than done to them. The second is that we green the product. We have a target to be a net-zero destination by 2030. It is ambitious, but I believe we are well on the way to achieving it.
The visitor economy is a major force in the economy, and it is a major force in well-being. It is a force for good. We have an opportunity, if the labour market is sorted, to build it back, in recovery, sustainably.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has withdrawn from this debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I am chairman of the Midlands Engine APPG sub-group on the visitor economy. Like other noble Lords, I want to speak in this debate because tourism is a much more important element of the economy as a whole than is commonly understood. The recovery of the visitor economy after the pandemic will be a direct reflection of the people’s, and the nation’s, way back from a time that has proved so devasting. In that respect, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I expect that, in his wind-up, the Minister will reinforce that idea, as he draws on the tourism recovery plan, which addresses many of the multifaceted aspects of noble Lords’ speeches.
My neighbour and friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, has told the House of the joys of his diocese and my home county. I know he will agree that tourism and the visitor economy are about localism and place. In this respect, the recovery in the Midlands generally, and in Lincolnshire in particular, is greatly aided by the key role of destination management organisations. These public-private sector partnerships have adapted to support the industry and can increase visitor spend, attract new markets and investments, extend the season and encourage visitors to lesser-known areas. DMOs listen and respond to businesses, building their trust. They see visitors as people, not numbers, and they work. They work collaboratively in many areas—certainly in Lincolnshire, where they are part of the glue that binds the sector together. They are involved with business, with the LEPs, with town deals and local authorities, acting as a generator of the energy that is so representative of this consumer-oriented industry. I support the Motion before the House—the promotion of tourism is a worthy objective of any Government.
The Earl of Glasgow (LD) [V]
My Lords, Scottish tourism, like that in the rest of Britain, has been badly affected by the Covid pandemic and government restrictions have made life very difficult—in some cases impossible—for some tourist businesses to survive. Some have been hit worse than others. The travel trade, in particular, is in desperate need of government help, for domestic as well as foreign travel. The railways, the airlines, the tour operators and many large hotels depend on domestic as well as foreign tourists for their businesses to thrive. Many of the large hotels have succeeded in weathering the storm, but some smaller ones and guesthouses have already gone out of business.
In spite of the Government’s generous furlough pay-outs, thousands of people will soon find themselves unemployed, if they have not already. However, many visitor attractions, often with government help, have managed to hold onto most of their staff. I have a visitor attraction, Kelburn country centre in Ayrshire, situated on the Firth of Clyde, which normally attracts about 90,000 visitors a year. It is part of my ancestral home, and has benefited recently from being a mainly outdoor attraction. The difficulties of going abroad so far this year, and a cold, dry spring, have enticed people to come for good, healthy walks after months of cramped lockdown. We also lay on special outdoor family events in the school holidays, we have a riding school and we provide glamping. This, for those who do not know, is upmarket camping in special tents called yurts. Also, in every year but this one, we have held a major music festival, which is becoming ever more popular and has been cited in the Sunday Times as one of the best music festivals in Britain, not just Scotland—I tell noble Lords this just to show off a bit.
But seriously, these festivals have been very difficult to plan and organise when the Government will not tell us in good time whether they will let them go ahead or not. This year, we did not risk it, and it seems our decision was right. In the last two difficult years for Scottish tourism, I believe I have been exceptionally fortunate. For the future, the Government must invest in the infrastructure of tourism—roads, parks, paths, adequate parking, signage, litter bins and their emptying, public lavatories, of course, information boards and all the various things essential for tourists. They must help to repair some of the damage that has already been done.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, has withdrawn. The next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak about how the rural economy contributes to the tourism industry in the UK. It contributes more than £13 billion per year to the economy, making up a substantial part of the overall £97 billion value of tourism in England.
Tourism makes a considerable contribution to the rural economy by supporting village shops, services, jobs and businesses. Rural tourism operates 365 days a year. Over the past 15 months, many businesses have closed for ever as a result of the pandemic and there is high unemployment in some of the most treasured coastal and rural communities. The curtailment of international travel means that there is a great opportunity to invest in public transport and make it easy for everyone to see everything the countryside has to offer. Better local transport links will not only encourage those who live and work in the area to use public transport but encourage holidaymakers to leave their cars at home, which will reduce congestion and emissions.
The UK is one of only four countries in Europe not to take advantage of a reduction in the rate of VAT. It means that British families and international visitors holidaying in the UK pay almost three times as much VAT as they would on a German break and twice as much as they would in Italy, France or Spain. I submit that our VAT should be reduced to help the rural economy; otherwise tourists will go to France, Italy or Spain, with a resultant loss to the UK economy and, in particular, the rural economy.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all those noble Lords who have been so succinct in their speeches that we have a lot of time spare in this debate. I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Parkinson will take advantage of that to give an extended answer, or perhaps he will write to us at length afterwards. So many subjects have been raised in this debate that are worthy of answer. I think particularly of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on the countryside and all it has to offer—a really diffuse offering that needs a special kind of support from the Government. I think also of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, who spoke about adventure and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on toilets. Yes, absolutely, we are getting to a crisis point here. We need to reverse the shrinkage in the provision of toilets and to really understand that they are a necessary part of making the countryside in particular—but our resorts in general—accessible to people.
I join my noble friend Lord Smith of Hindhead in welcoming the support that we have heard for the seaside. Eastbourne is a lovely town. Like Whitley Bay, it is enjoying a renaissance, but to continue that it needs help from the Government. First, it needs a strong recognition that there is great value in consulting locally: that what we know, what we want and what we are are important to deciding what should happen. The levelling-up fund was superbly designed in that regard. I have been really pleased to see the coming together of different aspects of the town—the ferment of enthusiasm and creativity created by the requirement for a spread of endorsement and the focus on doing things that really make a difference. Whether we win or lose in that competition, the process will have been immensely positive for us.
However, we also need some things at national level. We are a seaside town—we cannot do everything, we do not know everything and we do not have access to all the expertise we need. It would be really nice to see the Government sponsoring the availability of local rivals to Booking.com—a horrible parasite that sucks the blood out of our tourism industry. It would be really good to see VisitBritain being much better than it has been in the past on helping local towns with access to data and understanding of the market. A million visitors a year come to Beachy Head, just down the coast from us. We know nothing about them. Who are they and why do they go there? What would it take for them to come on to Eastbourne? That is the sort of data that really needs to be sourced for use nationally and ought to be part of what VisitBritain does.
Training has been mentioned by other noble Lords.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend is testing the House: he is well over three minutes, so could he conclude his remarks?
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have a time limit on the debate, but the debate has a lot of spare time in it. I apologise for taking advantage of that, but I intend to continue to do so.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt again, but that is not the way the debate works. I am afraid I have to ask my noble friend to conclude his remarks, on the ground that, if everyone were to speak for three minutes, we would run out of time.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, the time limit is on the debate; the debate must end by 7.02 pm—I have checked that with the clerks. But I do not wish to continue an argument with my noble friend.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend again. I think the mood of the House is that he should conclude his remarks.
Lord McNally (LD)
It is always nice to start your remarks in a nice atmosphere, although I have some sympathy. There must be a better way of organising debates with such interest across all parts of the House than these two-minute interventions. I ask the usual channels to have a long think about this, because they do not work and it is not fair to those who make a contribution.
I was a member of the seaside towns committee, and I am very pleased that the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Smith, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln made contributions on the basis of what was a great experience. I recommend to the Minister a re-read of that report, because it is still relevant.
I must confess that I was a little worried when I saw that both the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and the Minister were speaking; I thought Whitley Bay was going to be overrepresented during this discussion. I declare my own interest as a member of the Blackpool Pride of Place advisory board and the Fleetwood Trust.
I will use my little bit of extended time to do what most Members have not had time to do in two minutes and pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Doocey, who campaigned for this debate. She does so from considerable experience, as a London Assembly member, a member of the 2012 Olympics preparation committee and the driving force behind the Liberal Democrat tourism strategy—another document I recommend to the Minister for his reading.
Although I was born in the north-west, on the Fylde coast, and still take a great interest in that area, like the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, I am not one of those who underestimate or belittle the importance of London to our tourist industry. I came to London for the first time in 1962, to attend University College. In the first week, I realised that I was in one of the most amazing cities in the world, and I have never lost that sense of excitement about London. We should not underestimate the asset that it is, not only in itself but to the whole United Kingdom.
We have had a good debate, in that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and all the regions of England have had their champions. I hope the Minister has taken note that this has not been a debate on narrow party interests but an expression of concern from all parts of the House about a sector that believes that it has all too often been the economy’s forgotten army. We heard in particular from my noble friend Lady Doocey and the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, about the contribution that tourism and hospitality make to the economy and to providing employment and training to often difficult sectors of the labour market. The sector is a kind of Rubik’s cube of interests: the hospitality industry in all its varied forms; entertainment, from Glastonbury to the Royal Shakespeare and the Blackpool Tower Circus; and a countryside and a seaside, each with a personality of its own.
As I said, I had the pleasure of serving on that seaside committee with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, and the noble Lords, Lord Smith and Lord Lucas. That report still has points that I would bring to the attention of the Minister. The issue relating to housing that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, brought up, is strongly linked to considerable and persistent disadvantages in coastal communities. Young people in seaside towns are being let down and left behind by poor standards in existing educational provisions. It is interesting that the seaside towns that have managed to become homes to universities seem to have done much better in relation to their young people. The committee’s recommendation was that
“Investment from central government must be focused on supporting sustainable, long-term regeneration”.
In the light of the various competitions for regeneration funds, I have to say that some have too much of the smell of the pork barrel about them. I join the noble Lord, Lord Smith, in asking the Minister to make sure that pertinent questions are asked about how, and how well, public money is spent in some of these schemes.
In addition to the structural, social and economic changes that have challenged the tourism industry over the last 40 years, there have been, of course, the dual challenges of Covid and Brexit. I was on the Select Committee on the service industries. Again, I feel that the service industries were the forgotten army of the Brexit negotiations. We are only now finding out some of the complications, as Brexit has its impact. It will take a lot of time and a lot of hard work—I suggest by the noble Lord, Lord Frost—to get the fine detail agreed, so that our service industries, in all their aspects, are able to work in the new relationship. We cannot get away from the fact that the EU is 23 miles from our borders, and that proximity brings all kinds of problems—some of which have been raised today—about visas, workers’ rights and things like that.
Looking at Covid, I do not think there are any quick fixes or silver bullets. Drawing together the various points that have been raised by noble Lords in this debate, tourism needs a permanent or semi-permanent Cabinet committee to make sure that the lines of action needed are drawn together in a coherent way. As was referred to, this is needed in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well. I hope the Government will treat this debate as a contribution to solving some of the challenges we face, and which require a coherent, long-term and fully integrated response from government at all levels.
And since Jenny, my noble friend Lady Randerson, forgot to say it, I want to wish Gareth Bale and the boys all the luck on Saturday.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness. Lady Doocey, on securing this timely and pertinent debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for cheering us up.
Among the very real concerns expressed today, I have enjoyed hearing noble Lords showcase some of the best of what Britain has to offer, on a colourful tour of the country from the comfort of this Chamber. As part of this rich tapestry, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone for reminding us of the benefits of our beautiful woodlands; my noble friend Lord Haskel for promoting the cultural delights of Aldeburgh; my noble friend Lord Snape for raising the matter of financial burdens upon our great cities; my noble friend Lady Quin for being a tremendous ambassador for the north-east; and my noble friends Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Dubs for speaking up for the provision of housing for local people, as well as for the Lake District and, of course, the great British weather.
I have to confess to partiality in welcoming the wise words of the right reverend Prelate, who spoke to the issues of concern in respect of coastal towns and who also referred to my former constituency of Lincoln, which is a treasure trove of delights. Those visiting it are enchanted by the cobblestones of Steep Hill, leading up to a castle that houses the Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest and a cathedral described by John Ruskin as
“out and out the most precious piece of architecture in the British Isles”.
I have always been struck by the powerful multiplier effect of the visitor pound. While students, families and academics may come primarily for the cutting-edge University of Lincoln, and while football fans may travel in to watch the mighty Imps in action at Sincil Bank, they will spend time and money while in the city in the shops, hotels, restaurants and pubs. So it troubles me to see boarded-up properties now and to talk with proprietors who are struggling with the challenging day-to-day issues of staffing, and even the basics of keeping open, as a result of the pandemic. Therefore, it is no surprise that noble Lords have powerfully set out the brutal realities being experienced by businesses, employees and local communities in these times. I urge the Minister to take heed of these calls and the many sensible proposals that have come forward today to step up action from the Government.
Much of this debate has, by necessity, been focused on the devastating impact of the pandemic. We know that the food and accommodation sector has been one of the hardest hit by restrictions on trading, which were often declared at the last minute. We saw economic output in the hospitality sector down 90% in April 2020 compared with February 2020. Add to this ongoing fixed costs, accumulating debt, difficulty with staffing and persistent low revenues and cash reserves, and it is surely a toxic mix for an industry that has been hit harder than most.
As of early March, the Office for National Statistics reported that 43% of hospitality businesses were trading, compared with 74% across all industries. We also read that 55% of hospitality businesses had temporarily paused trading, compared with 24% across all industries, and almost one in five hospitality businesses had “low confidence” that their business would survive even the next three months. On 31 January, 56% of eligible jobs in food and accommodation were furloughed, compared with 16% across all industries. This is a shocking state of affairs on an economic and a human level, both now and for the future.
Undoubtedly, the Minister will reference the recently published Tourism Recovery Plan. Regrettably, those in the industry experienced major delays in receiving delivery of this plan, and, when they opened the case, they found that the Government had forgotten to pack everything that they needed. These are extraordinary times that call for extraordinary measures, but much of this plan is just a repackaging of policies already announced. The few new provisions that are in the plan barely touch the sides for this hardest-hit industry, which employs 3.4 million people and generates £147 billion for the UK economy.
The truth is that for the Government to reach the targets in the strategy—of domestic tourism recovering to 2019 levels by 2022 and inbound tourism by 2023—rather more is needed. To rebuild confidence certainty, support and clarity are what tourism needs from government. A specific recovery plan is needed to address the long-term decline of seaside and coastal towns. It is crucial to secure the opportunities for growth presented by the growth in staycations. I encourage the Minister to re-visit the two Select Committee reports which we have heard about today: The Future of Seaside Towns and Time for a Strategy for the Rural Economy.
Tour operators and travel agents need to sell the UK as a destination in foreign markets. They need targeted support to help them survive until international travel can open up again. As we await the details of an announcement, as has been called for on many occasions, we desperately need demystification of the flawed traffic-light system to include just two simple categories: a red list alongside a tightly managed green list. Amber just does not cut it. While we grapple with this traffic-light system, I hope that the Government will be bold in taking steps to encourage and make it possible for people across the UK to enjoy being a tourist in their own local areas, or to travel to the many attractive parts of the country so warmly promoted by noble Lords today.
On the domestic front, as we have heard in this debate, the VAT reduction needs to continue to allow businesses to rebuild, with a clear timeline for when events, exhibitions and conferences can fully operate to rebuild business tourism. With fewer than one in five businesses in the sector having all the staff they need, and over a third being forced to reduce hours or services, we need support for businesses to find the right staff and retain them.
I hope that the Minister will use his best efforts to take the much-needed steps to protect and promote the cause of tourism in this country. Our economy demands it, our people need it and our communities rely on it.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on securing this debate and thank all noble Lords who have spoken in it. Even with a longer and more generous time limit, I think we would have struggled to do justice to the rich and manifold attractions that our country offers and the challenges that they currently face. However, I am very glad that we have had speakers from or extolling the virtues of every part of the United Kingdom in this debate—including, thanks to my noble friend Lord Lexden, Northern Ireland. The official record of our exchanges can form a veritable Baedeker guide to the British Isles. I hope that it will inspire people as they plan their staycations this summer.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, set out in opening the debate, tourism is an economic, social and cultural asset. The tourism sector is a major contributor to jobs and growth in the United Kingdom, indirectly employing 4 million people and making a direct contribution of £75 billion a year before the pandemic hit. The sector connects people to the UK’s history and shows off the beauty and vibrancy of our country today. It will have a key role to play in lifting our spirits in the immediate future, as we bounce back from the pandemic. As noble Lords have said, it is vital that we continue to promote tourism domestically and internationally. That is a collective endeavour and, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, pointed out, this debate forms an important contribution to it.
In listening to the contributions, I was struck by how many Members of your Lordships’ House are playing a direct role in that recovery, whether that is my noble friend Lord McLoughlin or the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, through their work at VisitBritain and VisitScotland respectively, or the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Young of Old Scone, and many more. I pick those four simply to make the point, as did the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that this issue touches all parts of your Lordships’ House and is not a party-political one.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I dwell a little on seaside towns, not least because of the large number of speakers who were members of your Lordships’ committee on seaside towns. They referred to its report, which came out just before I joined your Lordships’ House. My noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach wisely suggested that I, as a new Member, should read it, which I did with particular interest since I come from a seaside town myself—the same one as the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. I am sure I should learn a lot from one of her walking tours of Newcastle.
Whitley Bay was an Edwardian holiday hotspot. I am pleased to say that it had been enjoying a renaissance in recent years, before the pandemic hit, perhaps because of the recently restored Spanish City or its award-winning independent shops. This echoes the point made by my noble friend Lord McLoughlin about the knock-on effect of the visitor economy to businesses big and small. It is also a gateway to the fantastic beaches and castles of the Northumberland coast, including Bamburgh Castle. If people are quick, they may still catch Harrison Ford, who has been there filming the next “Indiana Jones”.
My noble friend Lord Smith of Hindhead asked some specific questions, picking up on the report of your Lordships’ committee. The Government are taking action to regenerate coastal tourism. The five rounds of the coastal communities fund have delivered £229 million for 396 UK-wide projects. Since 2015, the coastal revival fund has provided more than £7.5 million to support 184 projects in coastal areas to kick-start the regeneration of at-risk coastal heritage. In March, my right honourable friend Robert Jenrick announced the welcome back fund. This aims to prepare councils for the return of shoppers and tourists, including at the coast.
The county of Lincolnshire and its cathedral city have been well represented in this debate, not least by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron; this is my first opportunity to welcome her to her position on the Front Bench. I am pleased to say that its wonderful cathedral received a National Lottery Heritage Fund and Historic England grant of nearly £1 million in the first round of the culture recovery fund, as well as a capital grant from the heritage capital kick-start fund worth almost the same amount.
Noble Lords have spelled out clearly the challenges faced by the sector because of Covid. Notwithstanding these, the sector has responded to the pandemic with typical and commendable public-spiritedness—whether through event venues being converted into Nightingale hospitals and vaccination centres, hotels opening their doors to rough sleepers and victims of domestic violence, or the swift action of the aviation and cruise industries in the early months to repatriate British nationals stuck overseas. My noble friend Lady Foster of Oxton reminded us of this.
Of course, such generous action comes with a further significant financial impact on businesses. Her Majesty’s Government acted swiftly to protect jobs and livelihoods, providing a range of both targeted and broader support to help the sector. So far, we have provided more than £25 billion of taxpayers’ money to the tourism, leisure and hospitality sectors in the form of grants, loans and tax breaks. Tourism has been one of the sectors most reliant on government measures such as the furlough scheme.
Taken together, the support of Her Majesty’s Government has helped to ensure that the majority of the sector will be there to welcome visitors once again as our economy recovers. We are pleased that more and more of the industry is reopening as we move through the road map to recovery. We recognise that the delay in proceeding to step 4 is hugely disappointing to the sector. We have always said that we would be driven by data and not dates. On this basis, and from the desire to reduce hospitalisations and deaths, we took the difficult decision to pause for four weeks, but we have committed some additional measures which will support parts of the sector such as accommodation and events venues. There is no longer a maximum of 30 attendees at weddings and civil partnership ceremonies, provided that social distancing is observed. Out-of-school settings can organise residential visits for children in groups of up to 30, an increase from the previous limit of six people or two households. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said, we want to get people, including young people, back enjoying adventures again.
We know, too, that the continued restrictions on international travel are difficult for the sector to endure. A number of noble Lords raised this, including my noble friend Lady Foster. Of course, we want people to be able to travel freely abroad as well as to welcome international tourists back to the UK as soon as it is safe to do so, but our top priority has always remained the protection of public health.
The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and a number of others asked about visas for those visiting the UK. The vast majority of visitors do not require a visa to enter, and that includes those from our largest tourism markets, such as the United States, Australia and the European Union. Since 2019, visitors from the EU, Australia, the US, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea can also use the e-passport gates for a smooth passenger journey. The 2025 UK Border Strategy will deliver a world-class border that will make travellers’ journeys even smoother and more secure.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, asked about skills and staff shortages and pointed out the importance of having a well-trained and welcoming workforce in the sector. We recognise that further efforts will be needed to ensure that the industry is employing more UK nationals in year-round quality jobs and that the workforce is adequately and appropriately skilled. We will work closely with the industry-led Hospitality and Tourism Skills Board on a co-ordinated approach towards the recruitment, retention and training of that workforce. Significant work is already under way—not least the national skills fund, a £2.5 billion investment in helping people gain the skills they need to improve their job prospects and support the economy.
As a number of noble Lords referred to, the Government have published their Tourism Recovery Plan, which sets out how we will help the sector not only to promote tourism and help it recover quickly but to return more resilient, innovative, sustainable and productive. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned some of our specific aims, such as recovering domestic overnight trip volume and spend to 2019 levels by the end of 2022, and inbound visitor numbers and spend by the end of 2023. That was not fast enough to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, but both are at least a year faster than independent forecasts predict. Other aims of the Tourism Recovery Plan are to ensure that the sector’s recovery benefits every part of the United Kingdom, with visitors staying longer, growing accommodation occupancy rates in the off season and high levels of investment in tourism products and transport infrastructure; to build back better with a more innovative and resilient industry, enhancing the visitor experience and employing more UK nationals in year-round quality jobs; to ensure that the sector contributes to the enhancement and conservation of the country’s cultural, natural and historic heritage, minimises damage to the environment and is accessible to all; and to return the UK swiftly to its position as a leading global destination for hosting business events.
In the short term, these objectives will be achieved by reopening the sector safely from 19 July and providing businesses with the support they need to return to profitability. For instance, the Government have allocated at least £19 million to domestic and international marketing activity, with a £5.5 million domestic campaign already under way. Measures such as the VAT cut for tourism and hospitality and the continuation of business rate relief for eligible properties will continue to support businesses with cash flow, and new proposals in the plan, such as the introduction of a domestic tourism rail product and a voucher scheme run by the National Lottery, will help stimulate demand. On the point about VAT, a number of noble Lords enticed me to make representations to Her Majesty’s Treasury. I point out that we have already extended the cut in VAT for tourism and hospitality activities to 5% until the end of September. To help businesses manage the transition back to the standard rate, a 12.5% rate will then apply for a further six months. This is, of course, UK-wide and is valued at £5 billion of help for tourism businesses across the UK.
We will also make the most of the set-piece events coming up next year. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, mentioned Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, and there will also be Festival UK and the Commonwealth Games, which will all act as major domestic and international draws.
In the medium to long term, we also need to focus on building back better. The plan helps us to do that by laying out significant levels of UK-wide investment, which is already under way, as well as new support which is due to come in over subsequent years, such as the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund. The plan will be delivered in close partnership with the sector and the devolved Administrations across the UK and will engage the whole of government. Mechanisms are being put in place to revisit the plan at regular intervals, including a new inter-ministerial group for tourism, chaired by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and supported by the Minister for Tourism.
The plan also covers points which were raised by noble Lords in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell- Savours, and others talked about the impact on housing of holiday lets. The tourism recovery plan includes a commitment to consult on the introduction of a tourist accommodation registration scheme in England, which will give us better data on the current situation and help to inform future policy-making. In response to points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, it also includes a commitment to a specific sustainable tourism plan in the run-up to COP 26. So the plan represents an important piece of work in the sector’s recovery from the pandemic.
Like other noble Lords, I am running out of time. I will, of course, consult the official record to make sure that all the points which were raised by noble Lords and all the questions that were posed get the answers they deserve. Like all noble Lords who have spoken today, I certainly recognise the importance of promoting the UK’s world-leading tourism sector, especially as we bounce back from Covid-19, and the Government have plans in place to do just that. We do not underestimate the challenges of the past 15 months or the long road to recovery which still lies ahead of us, but I share other noble Lords’ conviction that we can and will recover and, indeed, that we can emerge stronger than ever.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. Despite the very difficult time constraints, it has been a very interesting and wide-ranging debate that has highlighted a lot of very important issues. I also thank the Minister for his time. I am sure I speak for most, if not all, noble Lords who have spoken today when I say that I look forward to a time when Governments of all colours take tourism sufficiently seriously to appoint a dedicated, Cabinet-level Tourism Minister who will be the sole voice for tourism—because only then will this absolutely brilliant industry realise its full potential.
Motion agreed.