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.