House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I wish to make a short statement about working safely on the parliamentary estate and the wearing of face coverings. With the increase in infection levels in the community and with people having to isolate, I strongly advise that everyone on the estate should wear face coverings when moving around, accessing catering venues and areas they consider crowded, including the Chamber. We have four sitting days before the House rises and I really want us to behave safely and responsibly during those few days. None of us wants to risk taking covid back to our families, staff or constituents, and I am sure we want everyone working on the estate to feel safe and secure and to ensure that the business of this House continues. We certainly have a large number of people who have been contacted, so I am worrying about the outcome. With four days to go, I want us all to have a good break and enjoy our holidays, so I hope we will take this seriously and not push the limits for the sake of it.
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2021.
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)
Our focus in the last year has rightly been on managing the response to the pandemic and supporting tens of thousands of the most vulnerable people across our society. During the pandemic, we took unprecedented action to protect people sleeping rough or at risk of doing so. This saved lives and achieved huge reductions in the number of people sleeping rough: a 37% decrease in the latest statistics. Our ambition to end rough sleeping within this Parliament still stands. We are taking into account the lessons learned from our ongoing pandemic response, including Everyone In and the Protect programme, to inform our long-term plans.
Layla Moran [V]
The Everyone In scheme has undoubtedly been a success and led to incredible stories of lives being turned around in a housing-first approach that has support from all sides of the House. However, several councils have reported that the Government have instructed them, through the terms of the rough sleeping initiative funding allocations, to end the use of emergency accommodation for those sleeping rough, so signalling the end of the Everyone In scheme. To make matters worse, the rough sleeping strategy is still in need of updating following the pandemic. Were local authorities instructed to end Everyone In? If so, have charitable and third-sector groups been made aware so that they can fill in the gaps? When can we expect to see the updated rough sleeping strategy and, indeed, the promised review of the Vagrancy Act 1824?
Eddie Hughes
As is so often the case, the Lib Dems are more focused on two things: making plans—rather than taking action—and scaremongering. It is categorically not the case that either charities or local councils have been instructed as the hon. Member suggested. Indeed, funding through the rough sleeping initiative continues to fund people in emergency accommodation. More importantly, we should note that that is a temporary form of accommodation and it is incredibly important that we get people moved on to more permanent forms of accommodation. That should be the objective of all of us.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall) [V]
The Secretary of State expects to announce his decisions on the unitary proposals before the summer recess. Alongside those decisions, he will publish a summary of the consultation responses. I assure my hon. Friend that that will include all the detail he seeks and much more alongside it.
Mr Liddell-Grainger [V]
That is the most pathetic answer I think I have heard in 20 years. The Government’s consultation for the unitary was finished months ago. I have asked parliamentary questions and written to the Minister—I have tried everything. If on 13 December 2019 the returning officer in Thornbury and Yate had stood up to announce that a total of 52,000 votes had been cast but refused to declare the winner, there would have been outrage. Why will the Government not come clean over this? Why are they holding it back? Why on earth has this become an issue? Let us just hear who won the Government’s consultation. Please tell us now and tell the House.
Mr Speaker
Let me remind the Member that I am not responsible for the answer, and I am certainly not taking the blame for Bridgwater and Somerset. Minister, please pick that one up.
Luke Hall
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his question. There is no broken commitment. We always said that we would publish the outcome before the summer recess, and we are absolutely on track to do that. We received more than 5,500 responses to the consultation on local government reorganisation in Somerset and, when we publish the information, which will be on schedule, as promised, we will show the proportion of respondents who supported the different proposals, together with a summary of their expressed views. I assure him that we are on track to publish before the summer recess.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)
I am proud that my Department is leading a cross-Government drive to eliminate rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament. We are spending £750 million over the next year to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping. That includes the largest ever investment in long-term move-on accommodation, with 6,000 homes pledged in this Parliament. Our efforts are paying off: recent data shows that rough sleeping has fallen by 43% under this Administration, with a 37% fall in the last year alone.
Sir David Amess [V]
And now for something completely different: Southend. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Southend on reducing the level of rough sleeping by nearly 90% since November 2017, which is well above the national average? Local organisations such as HARP and Off the Streets have done a magnificent job under really difficult circumstances, so I urge him and his Department to continue to support local charities with this important and valuable work.
Eddie Hughes
I am delighted to commend my hon. Friend and the local teams and providers who have worked incredibly hard in Southend to achieve the figures that he described. They have worked tirelessly to achieve such a brilliant result and continue to work towards seeing an end to rough sleeping in his area. It is particularly heartening to hear him championing the cause of organisations such as HARP and Off the Streets, which have redoubled their efforts to support local people—vulnerable people—during the pandemic.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall) [V]
We are working across Government and with the waste sector to better understand the issues facing waste-collection vehicle staffing levels. We are working with the industry and have already taken action on HGV driver shortages, including by ramping up vocational test capacity and funding apprenticeships.
Greg Clark
The Minister was good enough to meet me to discuss the poor performance of Urbaser, the company that has the contract for waste with Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge and Malling. Will he update my constituents on what action he has taken since our meeting so that we can see a rapid improvement to their service?
Luke Hall
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising his concerns again about the performance of Urbaser and for taking the time to meet me to explain in detail the concerning situation that his constituents face. It is something that we take extremely seriously. Following our meeting, I have written to Urbaser to ask how it intends to address the concerns that he has relayed. I certainly urge it to use every tool at its disposal to meet its contractual commitments and I look forward to working with him to continue to monitor this important situation.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
We will modernise the planning system, ensuring a simpler, faster and more predictable system that delivers more homes, more infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals, and honours our commitment to net zero and the environment. Our reforms will also make the planning system more accessible through digital plan making, ensuring more local people—more than the 1% who currently engage with the planning system—can get involved. We are taking power out of the hands of the big developers and giving it back to local communities and small builders so that, together, we can build back better.
Dean Russell
I thank my right hon. Friend and Ministers for their engagement and correspondence over the last year. As he will know, I have asked what mechanisms exist to challenge the housing targets for my constituency. As such, will he confirm my new understanding that the local authority housing needs target is not set in stone and is a starting point for negotiation, and that it is the local authority’s responsibility to challenge the housing target as part of its local plan?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend and I have spoken about that on a number of occasions—as have I with you, Mr Speaker. He will appreciate that I am unable to comment on the specific local plans because of my quasi-judicial role. However, he is right to say that housing targets are only a starting point. All local plans are subject to an independent examination. Following consultation with the local community, anyone who wants to make representations to change a plan must be heard by the inspector. That process will take into account local land constraints such as the green belt, sites of special scientific interest, national parks and so on in coming to a sensible and credible way forward.
Rob Butler
My right hon. Friend is right that planning reform is overdue, but in Buckinghamshire there are serious concerns that the voices of local people will not be heard. For example, we know that in Aylesbury many thousands more houses will be built in the coming years, but the town is already merging into nearby villages and infrastructure is at breaking point. What reassurance can he provide that when residents raise legitimate concerns, they will be listened to?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and he is right to say that significant housing delivery is occurring at the moment in Aylesbury. There are two principal things that the Government seek to do to support his constituents. The first is to ensure that more infrastructure accompanies that housing; we will do that principally through our infrastructure levy, which will capture more of the land value uplift and put more money at the service of his excellent local council in Buckinghamshire. Secondly, we will ensure that more local people can be involved in the planning system by digitising it so that, at the touch of a smartphone, people can access and understand a plan and comment on or even object to a planning application. By doing so, we expect that we can boost the number of people who engage in our system and drive a truly localist approach.
Chris Clarkson
There is a great deal of concern in my Heywood and Middleton constituency and across Greater Manchester about the amount of green belt approved for release by the Greater Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham, as part of his Greater Manchester spatial framework. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give me about protection of the green belt as part of his Department’s new planning reforms?
Robert Jenrick
This Government made a manifesto commitment not just to protect the green belt, but to enhance it. At the moment, planning policy is clear that building on the green belt should be contemplated only in the most exceptional circumstances, and we intend to continue that through our modernised planning system. I appreciate the pressure that my hon. Friend and his constituents are under as a result of the proposed Greater Manchester spatial framework, which does not seem to accord with the wishes of local residents. I hope that as we come out of the pandemic, Manchester City Council and others with a good record of house building and regeneration will find opportunities for imaginative building on brownfield sites and around the city centre.
Laura Trott
I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend’s earlier answer, but does he agree that in any future planning reforms we must increase protection for our green belt? In Sevenoaks and Swanley, we are 93% green belt, yet we are constantly inundated by speculative planning applications such as that at Broke Hill, which worry the local community. The message should be clear: if it is green belt, it is protected, and if a planning application is put in for the green belt, the answer will be no.
Robert Jenrick
The point that my hon. Friend touches on is that the current planning system is not well regarded and is not producing the kinds of outcomes that we want; that is precisely why we want to reform and modernise it. We want to ensure that protections such as the green belt have the weight that they deserve in the planning system and that we can cut out speculative development unless it is approved by democratically elected local councillors at their sole discretion. The system that we are bringing forward does exactly that. Local authorities will need to have a plan; if they have a plan that is allocated land, there will be no need for issues such as speculative development and the five-year land supply.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
The anti-corruption campaign Transparency International says that the Conservative party has become overly dependent on donations from developers. It is particularly concerned that Ministers failed to report the details of what they talked about to developers in over 300 meetings about which they simply disclosed generalisations such as “housing” or “planning”; it fears that that could amount to what it calls aggregate corruption. Will the Secretary of State now publish the full minutes of all those meetings so that the public can see exactly what Ministers agreed to do for their developer paymasters?
Robert Jenrick
As the hon. Gentleman knows, all meetings that Ministers have are correctly identified on the register of interests, but I have to say that he has been on quite a journey. One adviser who worked with him as leader of Lambeth Council has been left bemused: is this the same Champagne Steve he remembers meeting with developers? It is not just him who has invited charges of shameless hypocrisy; the Leader of the Opposition has received thousands of pounds of donations from developers, and the deputy leader of the Labour party caused a splash in the papers the other day for accepting £10,000 from developers for her leadership campaign.
Mr Speaker
Order. Could the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the word “hypocrisy”? Hon. Members would never be hypocritical.
Robert Jenrick
I will certainly withdraw that, at your request, Mr Speaker. We can only imagine how much the deputy leader of the Labour party will be asking for when it comes to her impending leadership campaign.
Steve Reed
It is not surprising that the Secretary of State is refusing to be transparent, because we all know who benefits the most from their developers’ charter. Just weeks ago, this House passed Labour’s motion to guarantee residents’ right to a say over local planning applications in their own neighbourhoods. This week, councillors of all parties—including the right hon. Gentleman’s—in Medway and Richmond passed similar motions. How many more councils will need to do the same before he ditches the developers’ charter and his plan to pay back developers by selling out communities?
Robert Jenrick
I am sure that Conservative councillors the length and breadth of the country were over the moon to receive the hon. Gentleman’s letter. I can see the scene now over the summer recess, when the gate rattles or there is a knock at the door and he rushes to check what the post has brought in, but like a jilted lover or a pen pal who assumes his letters got lost in the mail, he finds nothing there except just another letter from Croydon Council telling him that the bills are going up as a result of the terrible mistakes and mismanagement that his friends and cronies are making over at Croydon. He has taken an avowedly anti-house building approach. This is a far cry from the Labour party of Attlee and Bevan, who said that this was a social service and a moral mission. This Government are going to keep on building houses, but we will build them sensitively. We will build beautiful homes, we will protect the environment and we will help young people and those on lower incomes to enjoy all the security and prosperity that comes with owning a home of their own.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]
I hope that the Secretary of State has seen the Select Committee’s report into the planning reforms. We were supportive of a number of aspects, including the need to strengthen local plans and how they are drawn up. Could I ask him two things in relation to our recommendations? We need to recognise the serious change in moving to a zonal system and the importance of getting the details right, and I wonder if he might consider the recommendation to move, at the next stage, to a draft Bill, so that we could give it serious pre-legislative scrutiny as to what it would mean in practice. Secondly, will he have another look at the distribution of housing under his latest proposals? Under the proposals, large areas of the north outside the major cities will see their housing numbers fall, which seems to be in contradiction to the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and the members of the Select Committee for their interesting report, which we have considered carefully as part of the broader work that we have done to listen to the views of colleagues here in Parliament on both sides of the House and in the country before preparing our response to the White Paper in the autumn. I will of course bear in mind his suggestion about pre-legislative scrutiny, which may be a good way forward. On his second point, I must respectfully disagree, because I think levelling up involves ensuring that our big cities of the midlands and the north build more homes. That is the way we will ensure a brownfield-first approach. That is also the way we will ensure inspired regeneration and get aspirational middle-class families back into some of those great cities, and ensure that councils have the revenues they need to invest and to prosper; and of course it is the way to protect the countryside from unnecessary development.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)
We listened to thousands of residents in 2018 and acted decisively, publishing the social housing White Paper last November. We have strengthened the housing ombudsman service, run a complaints awareness campaign and taken important steps to improve safety and decency, including launching the review of the decent homes standard, reviewing electrical safety and consulting on smoke alarms and carbon monoxide measures. We are putting residents first and ensuring that they live in safe, decent homes and are treated with respect and courtesy.
Mick Whitley [V]
Every day, millions of people across the country grapple with the realities of the housing crisis, from overcrowded and unsanitary housing, to rip-off rents and negligent landlords. Our country is calling out for a new generation of high-quality, sustainable social housing, but the much-delayed social housing White Paper has failed to deliver on promises made by the then Housing Secretary in 2017, while the Government’s planning reforms could remove the main remaining route to social house building by abolishing section 106. So will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to build the social housing that people up and down the country so desperately need?
Eddie Hughes
First, and perhaps most importantly, it might be helpful if Labour-run councils such as Croydon were providing high-quality social housing—that would be incredibly helpful. We do not need Government legislation for them to be able to do that. We do not need to wait for Government legislation; I have already convened a meeting of the social housing White Paper challenge panel, with representatives from across the sector and, more importantly, tenants’ representatives, to hear what they need. As we have heard earlier, this Government are also investing £11.5 billion in building new affordable homes, so we are increasing the number of properties that are available and we are also working with the sector to ensure that the housing we have at the moment is all of an acceptable standard.
Liz Twist
Too many families spent lockdown in overcrowded homes. Housing and health go hand in hand, as we know; overcrowding not only increases the risk of catching covid-19, but puts a strain on mental health. Building back better must mean building good-quality, affordable housing. What plans does the Minister have to reverse the trend whereby we are losing more social homes than we are building?
Eddie Hughes
I think the simple answer to that is that since 2010 we have delivered 365,800 affordable homes for rent, of which 148,000 are for social rent.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall) [V]
The local government finance settlement this year was another excellent outcome for councils. We made available an increase in core spending power from £49 billion last year to £51.3 billion this year—an increase in cash terms of 4.6%. There are no plans to review this positive outcome for councils, which was unopposed by this House.
Christian Matheson
The prevailing problem for local councils is, of course, the massive cuts from central Government funding, but may I ask the Minister to reflect on another issue—the patchwork of funding and the short-term basis of that funding? Would it be possible to have a settlement, of perhaps three years, that gave councils more time to plan with the less money that they have?
Luke Hall
First, I would not accept that there are cuts for local government spending in the finance settlement; there was a huge increase this year. If the hon. Gentleman felt it was an unacceptable settlement, he had the chance to oppose it. His local council saw a 4.1% increase in funding this year and it has £150 million sat in reserves, so I do not accept that argument at all. On biddable pots of funding, that is exactly why we have provided capacity funding to councils in the top priority status for the levelling-up fund and community renewal fund, to help them with that work to build good business cases and bids, and submit them to central Government—and to build strong relationships with us as well. I do not accept his overall point about funding, but we are absolutely supporting councils with the capacity funding that they need, and helping them to build that through the support we provide through the Local Government Association as well.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall) [V]
The £4.8 billion levelling-up fund will invest in infrastructure that improves everyday life in our country. It is a core part of our levelling-up agenda, and I regularly speak to my ministerial colleagues about the fund. These discussions will inform our levelling-up White Paper, which we intend to publish later this year.
Catherine McKinnell [V]
Health inequalities are a clear and persistent indicator of the growing gap between and within regions. Swim England forecasts that, because of the impact of the pandemic, by 2026 just 35% of children in the most deprived areas will meet the required national swimming standard when they leave primary school, compared with 77% in the most affluent areas. More than 400 leisure centres—including West Denton swimming pool in my constituency—have already closed and many more are under threat. Will the Minister give assurances that he and the Chancellor will use the levelling-up fund to address such glaring inequalities? They could make a great start by backing Newcastle’s levelling-up fund bid to develop a new swimming and leisure development in the outer west of Newcastle.
Luke Hall
I know that the hon. Lady is hugely passionate about this project in her constituency and has raised it with the Prime Minister directly. We certainly welcome her enthusiasm for the fund and the bid, which is exactly why we are providing councils such as hers with the £125,000 of capacity funding that I have mentioned previously. I am sure she will appreciate that I cannot comment on the specific nature of the bid, but we are supporting projects throughout the country, through mechanisms such as the towns fund, to support positive health and wellbeing implications. I will keep the hon. Lady updated as we move through the process. We expect to announce the outcome of the competition in the autumn this year.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)
Unfair practices have no place in our housing market and the Government are committed to ending them. In January, we announced a package of reforms that will result in substantial savings to leaseholders, and we are currently legislating to restrict ground rents to zero for future leases. The legislation is currently with their lordships and will come to this House in the autumn.
We have asked the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate potential mis-selling in the leaseholder sector. In September last year, the CMA began enforcement action against a number of developers and investors. I was particularly pleased to hear that both Persimmon and Aviva have already agreed to amend their practices as a result.
Mark Logan [V]
This is my first time shooting the breeze with the Minister in his new role—I offer him big congratulations. Will he clarify whether the Building Safety Bill will protect leaseholders in cases in which the property developer has failed to complete its work diligently, even if the company in question becomes insolvent because of its own malpractice?
Eddie Hughes
It is a pleasure to shoot the breeze with my hon. Friend. It is fundamental that industry contributes for having compromised public safety, which is why the Building Safety Bill introduces a new levy on high-rise residential buildings. Clause 124 of the Bill also provides legal requirements for building owners to explore alternative ways to meet remediation costs and provide evidence. If that does not happen, leaseholders will be able to challenge costs in court. In addition, we have announced more than £5 billion towards remediation work on buildings of 18 metres and above and a generous finance scheme for remediation work on buildings of 11 to 18 metres.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
There is, finally, much in the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill for many people to welcome going forward, but people like Tracy in my constituency, and many millions of existing leaseholders, remain trapped, with unjust and feudal charges. Will the Minister commit to supporting Labour’s amendment, which is to be considered in the other place tomorrow, to extend the ban to the many leaseholders and not just the new?
Eddie Hughes
It is important that we take the opportunity to be proportionate about the situation we are in: 96% of the high-rise buildings with unsafe aluminium composite material cladding identified at the start of last year are now remediated or have work under way. The Government are already taking action to help people who are in a difficult position. As I said, the new Building Safety Bill will provide legal requirements for building owners to explore alternative ways to meet future remediation costs.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
We are transforming the planning system through not only the recently announced changes but our proposals for ambitious long-term reforms. The planning Bill announced in the Gracious Speech will modernise our planning system, with simpler processes and a digital transformation. We have also published changes to the way local housing need is calculated, to enable more homes to come forward in our largest cities, where we need them most, and a national model design code, which will drive up the quality of new development.
Rachel Hopkins [V]
I have just heard the Secretary of State talk about building beautiful homes. However, the Government’s new permitted development rights will see more commercial buildings converted into small cramped flats in inappropriate locations, such as Unity House in Luton South, which, although sited on a four-lane ring road, bypassed important air quality regulations as it was converted under PDR. The Government must wake up to the reality that they are creating the slums of the future. Will the Minister adopt measures set out in my ten-minute rule Bill last week that would allow local planning authorities to impose design standards on PDR applications to protect communities’ health and wellbeing?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Lady, but design codes will apply, including to PDRs. She might note that 72,000 additional homes have been created in the past several years thanks to PDR. That is about double the number of homes that the Mayor of London has managed to build in an equivalent time. We have stipulated that those homes going forward must be of a good design quality, must be of a reasonable space standard and must have light in all habitable rooms. We are building homes for people who need them on the brownfield sites where they need to be built, and she should support our reforms, not oppose them
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Councillor Martin Tett, the Conservative leader of Buckinghamshire County Council, said that planned changes to permitted development will create
“open season for developers to break up”—
the high street. He has said that article 4 directions are vital in enabling local planning authorities to protect town centres such as the medieval streets of High Wycombe and that councils need time to implement article 4 directions to protect their high streets. Therefore, will the Minister agree to Councillor Tett’s request to pause these changes? What does he have to say to Councillor Tett and any other council leaders of all parties who oppose these highly unpopular planning reforms?
Christopher Pincher
I am afraid that the hon. Lady is a little behind the times, because we have already announced our proposals for article 4 directions. We are keeping article 4s as a tool in the armoury of local authorities should they wish to use them. We have also made it very clear that, with permitted development rights, there must be prior approvals in place that local authorities can use to determine whether a planning application should go forward with a PDR, looking, for example, at the height of a building, the aspect of it, and whether there is an aerodrome within 2 kms of a taller-rise building. We made appropriate changes to ensure that we can build brownfield development where it needs to be developed in order to bring forward the homes of the future that people need.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
As we build back better from the pandemic, we are transforming our high streets into the kind of places that people want to call home for generations to come. Last week, the Prime Minister announced the last 15 of our 101 town deals worth £2.4 billion, alongside launching our £150 million community ownership fund and our high streets strategy. That set out a vision for cleaner and more vibrant high streets where entrepreneurs can thrive and local businesses are supported, with permanent al fresco dining and where derelict eyesores are transformed into quality homes.
Lee Anderson
Now then, Ashfield has benefited from more than £70 million from the towns fund and the future high streets fund, which is welcome news to our struggling high streets, but the independent traders in Kirby-in-Ashfield are up in arms at Ashfield District Council’s decision to double car parking charges on a four-hour stay. This is after it has increased its own allowances by £55,000 a year. Will my right hon. Friend please remind the politicians at Ashfield District Council that, while they are taking Government cash to help regenerate our high streets, they, too, could help by not doubling car parking charges, which hurt our shoppers, our shopworkers and our high streets?
Robert Jenrick
I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituency has received that £70 million to deliver exciting regeneration projects across his local area. He is right to say that it would be perverse if the Government are doing so much, with his help, to support the people of Ashfield for his council not to play its part as well. We want high streets to be as accessible as possible, whether that is by car, walking or cycling, and to be attractive places for local people to visit, to live in and to shop.
Aaron Bell
I thank the Secretary of State for coming to visit me in Newcastle-under-Lyme earlier this month. Newcastle-under-Lyme is benefiting from more than £34 million of investment through the towns deal and the future high streets fund. He knows the town very well and will know that the Ryecroft site, in particular, has been an eyesore for a long time, along with the derelict former Sainsburys site and the former civic offices. Does he therefore welcome, as I do, the fact that we now have a Conservative council under the leadership of Simon Tagg that has a proposal for the site, with the demolition of the old offices, and that with our future high streets funding we will see that developed in the next couple of years?
Robert Jenrick
It was a pleasure to visit Newcastle-under-Lyme once again with my hon. Friend—a town that I have known for more than a decade. It was heartening to see that a good Conservative council very ably led by Simon Tagg has a real 10 or 20-year plan for the town centre backed by tens of millions of pounds of Government investment. That is exactly what we want to see replicated on high streets across the country.
Simon Jupp
I am backing an exciting multi-million-pound bid put forward by Devon County Council and East Devon District Council to help regenerate east Devon’s largest town, Exmouth. If the bid is successful, the planned Dinan Way extension will improve journeys into Exmouth and cut congestion, and will also see the town centre spruced up around the train station. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to make sure that every corner of the country, including the south-west, sees the full benefits of levelling up?
Robert Jenrick
We have already committed over £430 million of investment in the south-west alone through the getting building fund, the future high streets fund and the towns fund. My hon. Friend and I have spoken many times about Exmouth and I visited the town with him a year or so ago. It is exactly the kind of place that these funds were designed to support. I very much look forward to reviewing the advice from my officials with regard to the bid for the levelling up fund, and, if it is a successful bid, to seeing positive change for his constituents in the months and years ahead.
Alexander Stafford [V]
It is great to be able to announce that after a long campaign through my parliamentary petition and an Adjournment debate in this House, a bid for the levelling-up fund has been submitted by Rotherham Council to improve Dinnington high street. However, I am greatly disappointed that Rotherham Council has not submitted a bid for other high streets across Rother Valley such as Maltby, Thurcroft and Swallownest. What can this Government do to ensure that Rotherham Council has plans for and improves all our high streets across Rother Valley?
Robert Jenrick
I wish my hon. Friend a happy birthday. I am delighted that the council put in a bid for Dinnington high street, where he and I met for the first time in 2019. He asks a very important question about what the Government will do for smaller towns across the country, particularly those in ex-mining and ex-steel communities—places that I know well in north Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire. That is one reason that we brought forward the levelling-up fund, which I hope his constituency will benefit from. It does require councils such as Rotherham to step up and develop with their local Member of Parliament high-quality bids, so I hope it will do so in the years ahead for the other towns in his constituency.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall) [V]
Levelling up all areas of the country remains at the centre of our agenda, empowering our regions by devolving money, resources and control away from Westminster. In March the Secretary of State and I met Ministers from each of the devolved Administrations to discuss UK-wide funding programmes. My officials will continue to hold discussions with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations as we continue to develop this important investment.
Kirsten Oswald [V]
The Prime Minister has previously said that a pound spent in Croydon is of much more value than a pound spent in Strathclyde. How can anyone in Scotland, or even anyone outside London, really trust the Prime Minister on his levelling-up agenda, which his own MPs seem somewhat uncertain of the meaning of, given his clear record of supporting investment in London ahead of investment in the rest of the UK?
Luke Hall
I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s question overlooks the facts. We are prioritising funding in the devolved Administrations by delivering £125,000 capacity funding for every single council in Scotland to help them work up strong bids for the UK community renewal fund, and to build a strong, lasting relationship with central Government so that we bond our precious Union together and help deliver the kind of infrastructure in Scotland that people want to see in every area. We are putting our money where our mouth is and putting that investment straight with the Scottish councils.
Joanna Cherry [V]
Communities such as Wester Hailes in my constituency are best placed to identify their priorities for improving their quality of life, and they have been doing that through a number of grassroots projects, so can the Minister tell me why UK Government Ministers with no remit for devolved matters, such as housing, communities and local government, should get to dictate the support that my constituents receive? Why do they not leave it to the Scottish Parliament and City of Edinburgh Council, who were elected to do so in terms of the devolved settlement? If there is extra funding to be allocated, why not do so through the proper channels?
Luke Hall
The point of delivering the funding in the way we are is that it is localism in its truest form. We are asking local areas to come up with solutions to the problems that they are telling us they face. We certainly do not believe that the Scottish Government have a monopoly on good ideas for improving Scottish communities. That is why we have asked them to come forward with us, and of course we want to work closely with communities in Scotland and build that long-lasting, strong relationship so that we can bind together our precious Union for many, many years to come.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
In his speech last week on levelling up, the Prime Minister made a plea to the public to email him with ideas for how to flesh out his so far very vague concept of levelling up. Can the Minister tell us how many emails the Prime Minister has received so far and whether any of them contained a plan with any more substance than the Government’s?
Luke Hall
Considering the lack of ideas from the Labour party in opposition, I am loth to suggest that that question was ultimately predictable. If Members look at the work we are already doing on levelling up, they will see the £4.8 billion levelling up fund for regenerating town centres and high streets and upgrading local transport networks. They will see the UK shared prosperity fund, which will start from next year. They will see the £220 million of new investment through the UK community renewal fund. They will see the 101 town deals that the Prime Minister announced last week. They will see us progressing towards delivering 300,000 new homes a year by the middle of the decade. They will see the £3 billion we are investing in the city and growth deals, the devolution programme and the freeports we are delivering. In contrast, we see a Labour party with no ideas for levelling up anywhere in the country. All it has is a struggle to reconcile itself to the fact that it is this Conservative Government who are spending money to support the communities that it neglected for so many years.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
If each local authority in the UK submits only one bid for the maximum of £20 million of levelling up funding, that will amount to £7.4 billion, which far exceeds the current fund. Given that 300 applications have already been received in the first round, how will the UK Government ensure that sufficient funding is available for later rounds?
Luke Hall
First, Members have to look at the volume of funds that we are delivering over the course of the Parliament that are designed to address the different challenges that communities face. We will also ensure that we have attached priority rankings to councils that need that extra support to invest in their communities, whether that is to regenerate high streets or town centres, to upgrade transport infrastructure, or to support cultural and heritage assets. Scotland has a disproportionately high number of those communities, so the hon. Member should be welcoming the fact that we are ensuring that the funding will be targeted at the communities that need it most. Again, we are providing every local authority in Scotland with the capacity funding to ensure that they can put in strong bids to make sure they can level up and build these new relationships with central Government.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
As the Prime Minister said last Thursday in his speech on levelling up, the Government’s vital mission is about raising living standards, spreading opportunity, improving our public services and restoring people’s sense of pride in their community. That is why I was delighted to launch last week the Government’s new high streets strategy. It is why I was pleased to launch our £150 million community ownership fund and the final details of our multibillion-pound towns fund. Last year, my Department introduced changes to make it quicker, easier and cheaper for restaurants, pubs and cafés to set up outdoor sitting and street stalls to serve food and drink, sparking, for the first time in my lifetime, a real pavement café culture. I am delighted that the Government have announced that we are making these changes permanent—something I think we can all drink to as we enjoy a truly great British summer.
Chris Loder [V]
Good afternoon from West Dorset, Mr Speaker. Dorset Council has done a huge amount of effective work to protect vulnerable people by tackling domestic violence, and there is no doubt in my mind that the extra funding given by my right hon. Friend’s Department will help substantially. However, this funding is ring-fenced for reactive responses to domestic violence. Can I ask my right hon. Friend to look at providing non-ringfenced funding for new burdens under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, so that Dorset Council can continue its vital work in preventing domestic abuse, not just reacting to it when it happens?
Robert Jenrick
Domestic abuse is a terrible crime, and I, like Members on both sides of the House, was pleased that we passed the landmark Domestic Abuse Act earlier this year, and that the Government are fully funding the duties on local authorities with £125 million. I have written to all local authorities in England, asking them to use that money for its intended purpose, and to ensure that money goes to refuges, which are not the only thing we should be supporting but are a very important part of the answer in protecting victims of domestic abuse. I will take his comments with respect to Dorset Council seriously. I have heard that it is taking a number of important steps, including, for example, spending £650,000 to tackle this issue.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State lobby the Chancellor to ensure that any legislation introduced after the current consultation on access to cash will include a statutory obligation on banks to provide adequate access to cash withdrawals free at the point of use and that meet the needs of our high streets and our communities?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady raises an important point, particularly for rural communities and those that are harder to serve. The pandemic has had a profound impact on access to cash, with many stores—perhaps the vast majority—moving to a cashless society, but we must not forget those people who are left behind by that, so I will take her comments back to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor as he prepares to respond.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) [V]
Robert Jenrick
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that it is vitally important that new housing development is supported by commensurate infrastructure —both physical and social infrastructure—and affordable housing. Of course, it is also true that the majority of that infrastructure today is funded by developer contributions from new housing, but we need to ensure that developers pay their fair share. That is the idea behind the infrastructure levy, whereby local areas can themselves set the rate of taxation they require to capture more land value to put at the service of local communities. I think that if we can secure that passage—I hope we will get cross-party support for this—it will make a big difference, particularly in those parts of the country where planning is particularly challenging at the moment.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is good to see the Secretary of State here, having survived yet another thankless broadcast stint on behalf of those in No. 10—sent out to defend the indefensible, only for them to U-turn as soon as he finished on air.
The Big Issue warned this week:
“More people are at risk of homelessness now than at any time in living memory.”
So can the Secretary of State tell us what assessment he has made of the number of evictions that will happen as a result of covid, and how much will the resultant homelessness cost local councils in temporary accommodation? In March 2020 he said that
“nobody should lose their home”
as a result of the pandemic. Can he confirm that this promise has now been abandoned, and if not, how is he fulfilling it?
Robert Jenrick
This Government took exceptional steps early in the pandemic, with cross-party support, and they were the right things to do. We legislated and, for example, we increased the notice periods for people with tenancies under section 21. That protected many thousands of people in a very difficult period for this country. They were also a product of a time when the housing market was closed as a matter of law, so it was impossible to move house. The position today is different— people are able to move house and the housing market is very open and active—but we still want to protect the most vulnerable people in society. We are doing that with longer notice periods and further support through the benefits system and local housing need, and of course we will keep this under review. However, I pay tribute to councils across the country for the phenomenal achievement of our Everyone In programme, which has seen rates of people sleeping rough on our streets reduced by almost 40%, and we must keep that going.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]
Robert Jenrick
As a son of Wolverhampton, I know the city well and I wish it well. It is absolutely right that we need to build more homes in our town and city centres, and that is what the Government are doing. That is why we brought forward changes to permitted development, why we created the right to demolish and rebuild a building, and why we are bringing forward reforms to modernise the planning system. That is the way we protect the green belt for future generations. From Wolverhampton and the Black Country, one has to drive only a few miles into the most beautiful countryside of Shropshire and south Staffordshire. I want to preserve that, which is exactly what our planning reforms will do.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall) [V]
Yes, we want to establish at least one freeport in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as soon as possible, and negotiations with the devolved Administrations are ongoing. Freeports will benefit and regenerate communities across the country. They act as national hubs for international trade, innovation and commerce, bringing together ports, local authorities, businesses, stakeholders and the community, to boost prosperity and opportunity for the region. We want to see progress, and it is in the interests of Welsh businesses and communities to benefit from that policy as quickly as possible.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) [V]
Luke Hall
I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the role that post offices play across our country. They have a vital role in supporting high streets, and keeping them a social and vibrant place in which to live, shop and work, and I thank him for bringing that case to my attention. The management of the post office is the responsibility of Post Office Ltd. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and colleagues from BEIS, raise the issue with the Post Office directly, and discuss the matter in more detail.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
Robert Jenrick
In terms of buildings with the most dangerous form of cladding, there are five that I am aware of in Lewisham. One has completed work and is awaiting building control sign-off, three have had their unsafe aluminium composite material cladding removed altogether, and the other one has works under way, so we are making good progress there, as we are elsewhere in the country. On buildings below 18 metres, we need to take a more proportionate approach. There are leaseholders who are being asked to pay bills for those buildings that are unconscionable and likely to be unnecessary. I am working intensively with lenders, insurers and building safety experts to change that, because we have to adopt a more proportionate and sensible regime than the one we are experiencing right now.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)
I praise Darlington for its work in supporting the Gypsy, Romany, Traveller community. The Government consider that local councils are best placed to make decisions about the number and location of sites locally, as they know their local area best. We encourage local authorities with social housing providers to bid for funding through the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme, which includes funding for permanent Traveller and transit sites. However, I appreciate that the present system is not working as well as it should. We often see corrosive cases of retrospective planning permission. My Department is actively considering options to increase local council enforcement powers through the planning Bill, and we will announce steps in due course.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) [V]
Robert Jenrick
I would be happy to look at those proposals. I have already seen them, but perhaps the hon. Lady and I can meet to discuss them in further detail.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
Shoddy workmanship of that kind is disgraceful, and developers should step up and pay for any works that are required. We are changing the law through the Building Safety Bill to give homeowners a longer period of redress to take action against developers and builders who build poorly. As I said in answer to an earlier question, it is also important that our response is proportionate, because some of the works relating to that kind of non-cladding issue—not all, but some—that leaseholders are being asked to pay for are unnecessary. We will be saying more about that soon.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
Robert Jenrick
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place in this House. As a former by-election winner, I know what it is like to enter in a class of one. I am sure she will thrive, as others have done, including several members of the Opposition Front Bench.
We are seeing an increase in the number of applications across the country for logistics sites, born of the pandemic experience of increased online shopping. It is an issue that other local authorities are experiencing and we are alive to it. Of course, any reforms we make to the planning system will continue to have the hon. Lady’s constituents at their heart. They will continue to be able to allocate sites in the plan making process, including commercial sites, and to object to planning applications if they wish.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
It is disappointing that proposals have not been brought forward so far, but we want to work with my hon. Friend and her local council. I saw from Accrington when she and I visited just how much potential it has. It is a very beautiful town centre, but in need of investment. We will bring forward proposals shortly for the second round and I or my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will set that out later in the year.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Robert Jenrick
The good news for the hon. Gentleman is that that is exactly what we are going to do, so I hope he will be an enthusiastic champion of the planning Bill when it reaches the House. He is right to say that there is an issue with developers not building the homes they have got permission for. Successive studies suggest that it is overstated, but none the less, it is an important issue, its time has come and we as a Parliament should tackle it. The planning Bill will include such proposals and I hope that we can work on a cross-party basis to achieve them.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
The Conservative party has always been the party of home ownership, which is a fundamental tenet of what we seek to achieve. We want to extend opportunity to all. We are bringing forward the Bill to help the next generation of young people on to the ladder. Of course, we are also doing brilliant things such as First Homes, whereby we offer discounts of up to 30% to 50% to local first-time buyers throughout the country. I was pleased to unveil the next site for those near my hon. Friend’s constituency in Cannock the other day.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Mr Speaker
I need to advise the House that Dame Rosie Winterton has been contacted by the NHS covid-19 app and advised to self-isolate. It is therefore necessary to appoint a temporary Deputy Speaker to serve for the remainder of this week. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for being prepared to take on this role at short notice.
Ordered,
That Judith Cummins shall act as Deputy Speaker to serve in place of Dame Rosie Winterton until the rise of the House on Thursday 22 July; and that she shall exercise all the powers vested in the Chairman of Ways and Means as Deputy Speaker.—(Mr Rees-Mogg.)
International Travel Rules
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make a statement on changes to international travel rules.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
After a hugely challenging 16 months for the aviation industry, I am delighted that new rules allowing fully vaccinated people to travel to nearly all amber list countries, without isolating upon return, came into effect this morning, although people will still need to comply with necessary testing requirements. This coincides with a change in our advice, meaning that the do-not-travel rules for amber countries have now been relaxed, which will be a huge boost to our aviation and travel sectors ahead of the vital summer season.
Also from today, children under the age of 18 will not have to self-isolate when returning to England, making family reunions and holidays far more accessible. Children aged four and under will continue to be exempt from any travel testing, while children aged five to 10 will only need to do a day two PCR. Eleven to 18-year-olds will need to take both a pre-departure test and a day two PCR, as is the case for arrivals from green list countries.
I must reiterate that public health remains our priority, and with our measures on international travel we are safeguarding the gains made by our successful domestic vaccine programme. That is why, on Friday, the Government took the decision to exempt France from the new arrangements for fully vaccinated people returning to England. This decision was taken after concerns were raised by the Joint Biosecurity Centre over the persistent presence of cases in France of the beta variant, which was first identified in South Africa. I understand that the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), will be able to answer questions on the data and the concerns raised by the JBC in a statement shortly.
I can also confirm to the House that, since 4 am this morning, there have been changes to the countries in the traffic-light system. Bulgaria, Croatia, Hong Kong and Taiwan have been added to the Government’s green list; Croatia and Taiwan have also been added to the green watchlist, signalling to passengers that these countries are potentially at risk of moving from green to amber at short notice should swift action be required to protect public health in England.
The Balearic islands and the British Virgin Islands have been added to the amber list and, unfortunately, Cuba, Indonesia, Myanmar and Sierra Leone have been added to the red list.
We keep all these measures under constant review to ensure that they remain necessary and proportionate. The system we have designed is adaptable to the evolving epidemiological picture, and the UK Government are prepared to take action at any time to protect public health.
Jim McMahon
I would like to know whether the Transport Secretary, as a genuine pilot, has been forced to self-isolate today. He should be here, he should have made the statement to the House, but that courtesy was not provided.
Again, the Government’s travel rules have been thrown into chaos and confusion. The British people, the travel industry and Members of this House are running out of patience. The Government have been all over the place from the start. Let us remember that the UK was one of the last countries in the world to introduce restrictions on incoming passengers. By the time such restrictions were introduced, 22 million passengers had arrived in the UK. Then, came a blunt intervention with a total lockdown, but without the financial support for aviation.
When the traffic light system was introduced, we were promised full publication of the data and the criteria. That did not happen. It is little wonder—it is as clear as day—that the delay in adding India to the red list was all about the Prime Minister’s vanity and not about the national interest or public health.
We now see even more confusion, with changes being made for travellers coming in from France, but we have also seen reports that the high rates of the beta variant are in fact not in mainland France, but on the Indian ocean island of Réunion, 6,000 miles away. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case?
Why have a traffic light system, if there are different rules for countries that happen to be in the same category? The Transport Secretary told this House that a country-by-country assessment was published: Mr Speaker, that was not the case. Even the most recent update has only 10 countries listed, and France does not even get a mention. When will the Secretary of State ensure that the full data for every country being assessed is published?
Will the Minister comment on reports over the weekend that travellers from Spain and Greece may well be subjected to the same restrictions as travellers from France? It is remarkable that a major airline CEO commented over the weekend that the Government are
“making it up as they go along and causing confusion and uncertainty”.
The travel industry was promised a rescue deal, but it never arrived. It was promised air corridors and air bridges, but they did not happen either. Now, it is vital that the Government take the action needed, get their house in order and give this important industry the support that it needs.
Robert Courts
I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman on confusion and uncertainty. The irony of the Labour party calling our position uncertain and confusing will not, I am sure, be lost on the House.
This is the party that supported hotel quarantine, but then said that quarantine should be on a case-by-case basis. This is the party that said no one should be travelling, but then called for more places to be added to the green list. This is the party that supports using covid certification, while at the same time saying that all amber countries should be red and off limits to everyone.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about confusion, before coming to the House maybe he should sit down with the shadow Home Secretary and decide what their position is first. The Opposition party tells us to be cautious and to follow the evidence—that is precisely what we have done with France. That may explain why the hon. Gentleman’s Labour colleagues in the Welsh Government have followed our action precisely.
Through our approach, we are helping to get international travel back on its feet. Fully vaccinated people are now able to travel without isolation to the vast majority of countries in the world. However, we will never hesitate to take action quickly where it is necessary to protect our vaccine roll-out.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I welcome the fact that it is now possible to travel to amber list countries without the need to quarantine, at last, but that is not the case for France. Many travellers, whether for business or leisure purposes, will have their lives disrupted as a result. Will my hon. Friend the Minister publish the data on which this unexpected decision was made? Since we now know it is possible to change initial decisions, will he commit to review this one before waiting three weeks to do so? While he is there, will he also reassure us that there will be no further problems for travellers from this country who have been vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine produced in India being denied entry to any European Union country?
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the disruption that is undoubtedly being caused to his constituents and others. I entirely recognise that concern, and he is right to raise it. I know he will understand, however, that the action we have taken is to protect public health, which is, of course, the first duty of any Government in these circumstances and is what I think people would expect us to do. All this policy is kept under constant review in any event. As my hon. Friend will know, there is an assessment of the country listing every three weeks, and there is of course the policy listing as well, which comes up at the end of this month. If he was referring to the concern that existed over Malta’s accepting AstraZeneca vaccinations, my understanding is that that confusion has been resolved.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
As it happens, Mr Speaker, I am joining you from Glasgow airport, where I have just been updated on the latest developments.
I have spoken many times about the impact of the pandemic, with more than 3,000 aviation-related jobs in and around the airport having already gone. Notwithstanding the UK Government’s criminal dither and delay over the decision relating to travel from India and the importation of the delta variant, we do take a four-nations approach to international travel, so may I ask whether the Government gave the devolved Administrations notice of the decision on travel from France so that they could prepare?
However, whether we are talking about the decision about France or the fact that, owing to the delta variant, international travel is increasingly not in our gift—for example, Bulgaria added us to its red list just as we put it on our green list—the Minister must surely see the need for a specific package of support for the entire sector. The UK Government’s support does not even compare well domestically, let alone with that of the UK’s international aviation competitors. Is the Treasury not listening, or are the Minister and his colleagues just not shouting loudly enough?
Robert Courts
The Government have at all times an ongoing programme of engagement with all interested parties, including those in the devolved Administrations, and, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the Scottish Government have followed our action in this case. We continue to talk to them, as we talk to all our international partners—that, I think, is the answer to the second part of his question—and he will of course be aware that, most importantly, we continue to talk to all parts of the sector to understand how they may best be assisted at this time.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Apart from a rapid roll-out of vaccines, there are only three ways to control this situation: lockdown, which is unthinkable, the rubbish “pingdemic” test and trace, which we should abolish as soon as possible, or and being tough on foreign travel. May I urge my hon. Friend to be honest with the British people and say, “Our advice is going to change constantly. We cannot foresee this disease. Don’t go abroad this summer, but if you do go abroad, you go entirely at your own risk”?
Robert Courts
The approach that the Government take is a balanced one. It is important that people are able to travel: it is important to people who have friends and family abroad whom they have not seen for a long time, and to those who need to be able to sustain their businesses, as well as the businesses in the travel sector itself. What we are doing, however, is opening international travel in a way that is robust and sustainable and protects public health. I think that that balance is achievable, and I think it is what we have set out.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I have a constituent who is currently in Russia caring for a sick relative. She cannot be vaccinated where she is, and will need to return to the UK to get a vaccine that is recognised here, which, given the severity of her relative’s illness, is very difficult to manage. This highlights the difficulties of the status of vaccines for those undertaking international travel. This needs to be managed properly, so may I ask what steps the Government are taking towards developing a mutual recognition of vaccines, particularly in view of the need to secure the longer-term future of the inbound tourism industry?
Robert Courts
I am sorry to hear about the case of the hon. Lady’s constituent. If there is any assistance that I can offer, I will offer it. The hon. Lady is, of course, right to point to the fact that so many of the solutions here are international, and we continue to work bilaterally with international partners in, for instance, the World Health Organisation, and also with the International Civil Aviation Organisation, to ensure that we find that international solution as soon as we can.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Constituents across Hyndburn and Haslingden have been in touch with me because they have booked holidays and are due to depart soon, but have unfortunately been “pinged” and forced into isolation after close contacts. Most of these people are double-jabbed. Can the Minister confirm that discussions between his Department and the Department of Health and Social Care are ongoing to resolve this, and to do so before 16 August? It is causing huge numbers of holiday cancellations, and huge disappointment to many families across the country.
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend is quite right to raise her constituents’ concerns. I accept that this is a very difficult situation for her constituents, and for others all across the country and in all parts of the industry. I can confirm that across Government we continue to discuss the next steps we may be able to take. When we are able to, we will come back to the House and update people.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]
Owing to our proximity to both, a large number of my constituents work at Manchester airport and Liverpool John Lennon airport, or otherwise rely on them for their livelihoods, and that includes our local taxi trade. The business rates relief for airports and ground handlers in England was welcomed by the sector and is a much needed boost for everyone, as is the Chancellor’s extension for a further six months. However, those payments, capped at £8 million last year and £4 million this year, barely touched the sides for some airports, yet the Minister repeatedly assures us that the Government are helping the sector. When will the Minister step up and provide real assurances that our aviation industry will be given the support it needs?
Robert Courts
The hon. Lady is quite right to draw the attention of the House to the importance of Manchester and Liverpool airports. I visited Liverpool airport not long ago, so I understand how important it is for her area. I am grateful to her for acknowledging that the airport and ground operations support scheme was welcomed and has been of assistance in relation to fixed costs, in particular business rates, to airports around the country. The most important thing we should all be doing is looking to find a way to enable people to get flying again. That is the way we will best be able to support our airlines and airports, which are so important in many different ways to all our constituents across the country.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
I think the Minister is as confused as I am by the Opposition’s position. They spent many weeks criticising a non-existent delay in action on the Indian variant and now they criticise prompt action on France.
It is absolutely right that we make the most of our fantastic vaccine roll-out to restore the freedoms we have had to sacrifice. Will my hon. Friend join me in encouraging everyone who has not yet had the jab to get it, whether they live in Thornley, Hurworth, Newton Aycliffe or anywhere else in the UK, so that airports like Teesside International airport can take off again?
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to enable airports like Teesside to take off again. We are seeking to lay in place a system that enables a robust, cautious and sustainable return to international travel in particular. He is absolutely right that the vaccination programme is a great national triumph. I encourage everybody to get their jab when it is open to them to be able to do so. It will help to protect them, their friends, their family and the people they work with. It will also help, as he quite rightly points out, with travel.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers so far. I know that he wants to help and assist. I know that that is his purpose. I have been contacted by constituents who have loved ones who have died in Poland, and who are having difficulty travelling. There are those who want to travel from Morocco to visit elderly dying relatives and are also having difficulty travelling. My staff spent 35 minutes on the phone this morning on just one of those issues. I am not being critical, Minister, but it really is an issue. Given the fluidity of travel arrangements, where tourists are already on holiday and restrictions change while they are there, will the Minister make allowances to those who were not expecting to quarantine on arrival back in the UK, as there have been reports of a lack of medication and basic daily needs?
Robert Courts
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is right that the Government wish to see travel restart, provided it is in a safe and sustainable way. He draws attention to the reason for that: often it is not just about people going on holidays, important though that is because of the jobs the industry sustains, but because people have not seen relatives who may be ill. It is important that we do that in a globally connected country, and we will continue to do that in a safe sustainable way. If there is anything I can do to assist any particular constituents, such as those he mentions, I hope he will not hesitate to contact me and I will see if there is anything I can do to assist.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
It is unarguable that the effect of imposing quarantine on travellers to France will be significantly to reduce the numbers of those wanting to travel. With that in mind, does my hon. Friend agree that the imposition of Operation Brock on the M20 in Kent, which is designed to cope with long queues at Dover or the tunnel, was a trifle premature, and that Operation Brock should therefore be removed as soon as is humanly possible?
Robert Courts
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that question. I know that it matters a great deal to his constituents and that he has been a leading voice in campaigning on it. I recognise the disruption to his constituents. At the weekend, the Kent Resilience Forum put in place the moveable barrier between junctions 8 and 9 of the M20 that enables Operation Brock to be implemented. That is a precautionary decision by the KRF in advance of the summer holidays. The KRF will keep the decision under review and will deploy Operation Brock for as short a period as possible. I entirely recognise the strength of feeling on this matter. I know that the Minister for Kent will be arranging a meeting between the KRF, my right hon. Friend and other interested MPs as soon as possible.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]
Constituents attempting to return from abroad have contacted me in desperation because official Government advice is not to take a PCR test if they have had covid-19 in the last 90 days, yet testing is a requirement both to return to the country and as part of the test and release scheme. Can the Minister offer some much needed clarity for my constituents and say how testing requirements for people returning to the UK apply to those who have recently had a positive PCR test abroad?
Robert Courts
The guidance on testing is laid out on the Government website. I know there has been a change as of today, which is worth bearing in mind. I am happy to write to the hon. Member to give her that precise clarity so that she can pass that on to her constituents and indeed to others who may need to refer to it.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I am looking forward to my holiday in the English countryside this summer—and may I invite my SNP colleagues to join me in enjoying the beautiful English countryside? For those who would like to journey abroad, will my hon. Friend provide greater clarification on how his Department will examine the travel corridors and on his further commitment to the aviation sector in the months to come?
Robert Courts
The aviation sector is vital to hon. and right hon. Members across the House for the connectivity and employment that it brings and for our place in the world. The Government are committed to continuing to review the measures we have in place and to building a restart of international travel that protects public health and is safe, robust and sustainable. To that end, we review the country allocation regularly, and there are checkpoints at the end of July and in October when we will review the overall policy. I of course commit to keeping that under review.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It feels a little like groundhog day: I stand before the Minister to ask for sector-specific support for aviation and he reels off figures that bear no relation to the reality of what aviation workers and the sector actually need. UK airports, compared with those in other countries, have had an absolute pittance from the Government. Will there be specific support for aviation to get it through a second summer of reduced travel, before it is too late?
Robert Courts
I recognise how important this is to the hon. Member, to her constituency and to her constituents who are employed in the sector, and I recognise that this is a difficult time for the sector. As she knows—she recognises the figures—we have provided about £7 billion of support through the cross-economy schemes as well as the AGOSS scheme, to which I referred earlier. We will keep all those things under review. We are really trying to enable the sector to restart in a safe, sustainable way that protects public health. By doing that, we help Luton airport, the airlines that operate from it, and all her constituents.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Nearly seven in 10 British adults have now received two doses of the vaccine. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should use the long-term protections that the vaccines provide to restore some of the freedoms that we have lost in the past year, including the ability to travel abroad?
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend is quite right that the vaccines have been a major national success story and we are looking at ways to capitalise on that to restore freedom and the ability to travel. Of course, the measures that come into effect today are a major part of that. We will continue to examine ways in which we can take the next step.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The Association of Independent Tour Operators says that the changes to travel to France have “squashed” consumer confidence. Of course the SNP upholds the rule that public health must come first, but the continued tumult of international restrictions and rules will deny the travel sector a full recovery any time soon. Businesses such as Travel Your World in Forfar in my Angus constituency desperately need dedicated support, so will the Minister finally accept that and commit to new financial support for the travel sector for as long as this international chaos persists?
Robert Courts
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. I recognise that these are challenging times for his constituents who work in the sector. I am also grateful for his acknowledgment that he supports the principle, as the Scottish Government have done; I think that people would expect us always to protect public health, and I know that he accepts that. As I have said to other right hon. and hon. Members, we are very keen to make sure that we restart international travel in a way that is sustainable and robust and protects public health. That is the way to assist his and all our constituents in the travel sector, wherever we are in the UK.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I am pleased that Teesside holidaymakers who choose to fly to amber list countries can do so from Teesside International airport once again, but may I ask the Minister to reconsider the position of Dubai on the red list? The United Arab Emirates has vaccinated approximately 82% of its population and is home to hundreds of thousands of British expats who just want to come home.
Robert Courts
I pay tribute to Teesside International airport for the expansion in services there; it is very good to see, and I hope to see very much more of it in the weeks and months ahead. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we keep the categorisation of all countries under constant review. We are guided by the data provided and the advice given by the Joint Biosecurity Centre for Ministers to make the decisions, and we will continue to review those at all times.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
July and August are crucial months for airports, but the modest uplift in travel expected this year means that airports such as Newcastle International will continue to face an extremely challenging financial outlook for some time. Can the Minister confirm when we will see a more targeted comprehensive support package for the sector, as well as further help such as the harmonisation of quarantine rules for UK nationals vaccinated abroad and action to bring down the high cost of testing?
Robert Courts
The hon. Member raises a number of points; I will do my best to address them all quickly. She has spoken very compellingly in debates that I have attended about the importance of Newcastle International airport to her constituents and the jobs that are provided. We are continuing to take steps to see what we can do to reduce the cost of testing; she will have noticed that it has been coming down over recent weeks. We will continue to do anything we can to support the sector as we look forward to a successful restart.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I, too, woke on Saturday morning to lots of concerned residents who were upset about the change in self-isolation rules for people coming back from France. Can my hon. Friend reassure me by answering two particular questions?
First, why did the Government move so quickly to change those rules? I think that that message really needs to be key. Secondly, why was France singled out when beta prevalence is seen in many European countries and it is seen by many to be quite low in France?
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am conscious that the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment will shortly make a statement and may be able to assist further with my hon. Friend’s specific points on data, but he is absolutely right to raise those questions. As I know he will understand, the reason for speed is that, as we have always said, sometimes we just have to act quickly to protect public health. Unfortunately, one thing that we have always found with the pandemic is that things move quickly and sometimes we have to take quick action. We have always said that we will, and I think it is right that we do.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) [V]
The restrictive list of green countries, the expense of numerous tests, the changeability of rules, the severe quarantine arrangements and the refusal to give mutual recognition to vaccine certificates from other countries have discouraged UK citizens from travelling abroad and have stopped much of the inward tourism that generates so much money for our economy. First, will the Minister consider increasing the list of green countries, given the vaccination programmes in some of the countries that tourists would go to? Secondly, will he grant mutual recognition to vaccine certificates issued in other countries, so that tourists from other countries can come here?
Robert Courts
Those are two very important points. I would very much like to see more countries on the green list, but we have to be guided by the advice that is sent by the Joint Biosecurity Centre. A number of different factors are taken into account, and they are listed on the website. They include vaccination, prevalence and the presence or otherwise of variants of concern. This has to be data-led, as I know the right hon. Gentleman will understand, but of course we would like to see more countries on the green list as soon as possible. With regard to the mutual recognition of vaccines offered elsewhere, we have said that this is a phased restart. Today, we are allowing those who have been double-vaccinated in this country to travel abroad and then come back without having to self-isolate, and that is a step. We are also looking to see what we can do to offer the same recognition to those from abroad. I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman any more at the moment, but I hope to be able to come back to the House to do so in due course.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
On freedom day, it is very good news that we can now travel to amber-list countries without restriction. In fact, for someone who is double-vaccinated, they can almost be treated as green countries. However, people can travel to these countries only if the Foreign Office advice says that they are safe to travel to. Could the excellent Minister confirm that the travel advice from the Foreign Office has changed, as well as the advice from the Transport Department?
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend puts his finger on a very important point, which it is right to clarify. The advice that we in the Department for Transport give is around the risk of importing a variant or prevalence of the virus back into this country. The Foreign Office, in giving its travel advice, is dealing with the situation that exists in the other country. It has to take into account a number of other factors, such as political stability and the state of the healthcare system in the other country, so it is essentially looking at different things. We are dealing with the risk of incoming; it is dealing with the risks, and the advice to be given to British citizens, in the other country. The Foreign Office will always have the ability to do that.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
As covid cases in England go through the roof, 1,200 scientists have backed a letter to The Lancet saying that it is completely reckless for this Government to lift all restrictions today. International experts are saying that England as an international travel hub is now a risk to the rest of the world. The reality is that the Minister’s traffic light system is going to be meaningless as more countries such as Bulgaria put the UK on their red list, so when are the Government going to provide real support for the travel industry, rather than continuing to cause chaos and uncertainty?
Robert Courts
I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I simply do not agree that the system leads to uncertainty. It is a robust system, and we have explained in detail how it is put together to enable the industry and our constituents to have an understanding of the system. We will obviously keep it under review, but I think that when the hon. Gentleman looks at the systems that are in place across the world, he will see that ours is actually quite advanced.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend and he is absolutely right to put public health first, but he also has to recognise that public confidence in going abroad is now in a ditch. The travel agent industry is on its knees now, and it is on its last knees. My hon. Friend is responsible in the Department for setting the amber-list countries, and he has made the decision on France. If he cannot say when that decision will come to an end and stay like that, which I know he cannot, can I urge him to follow up on this matter? I have written to the Chancellor and to the Secretary of State for Transport to say the travel agent industry needs—in fact, must have—new grants applied to it because it cannot survive. Minister, it cannot survive. It employs thousands of people and produces a huge amount of taxation revenue for this country, but it will not survive. It needs that support, Minister.
Robert Courts
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having drawn that to the House’s attention. We will all have seen in our constituencies the critical importance of the travel agency sector, including the employment it brings and the way it opens up the world to all our constituents. We will of course continue to talk to the sector and to all our colleagues across Government in order to understand the way in which the sector may be best supported, but I emphasise the point that I have made today that getting people travelling again in a way that commands public confidence by protecting public health is the way in which we will help all parts of the travel sector.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
In April, the rate in Britain was very low and the rate in southern Asia was very high, yet there were no restrictions on people coming from southern Asia, leading to the Johnson variant taking hold here. Now the rate in Britain is very high but we are preventing people from travelling to other countries where the rate is much lower, so there is chaos; people are uncertain about what is happening. Simultaneously, we read in The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail that Conservative MPs are turning off the app so that they do not get pinged and are able to go away on their holidays. Does all this not just add to the sense that we have a Government who are not in control and have different rules for the people from those that they are willing to follow?
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) [V]
Travellers from the US and Canada, which have lower covid rates than the UK, can now travel to Europe but they cannot travel to the UK. I heard what the Minister said about the recognition of vaccines. May I urge him to move as quickly as possible on that? Is it not time to stop talking about green or amber countries and to start talking about green or amber travellers?
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend puts his finger on a really important point: understanding the importance of vaccines and what that can tell us. There are a number of aspects on which we need to fully understand the science—for example, on the transmissibility of the virus if someone is vaccinated and the effect on different variants. We are working at great speed but doing the work diligently to make sure that we can take full advantage of the success of our vaccine roll-out and protect public health at the same time.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
Is there anything that the Government can do to help families who have a young adult who is currently 17, but who turns 18 during the holiday season? They cannot be vaccinated and, if they can, they cannot have both, and yet they can perhaps travel away but they cannot come back if they have turned 18 in the meantime. Is there any way we can relax the rule, perhaps to apply it from September, so that families can have a holiday together?
Robert Courts
The rules as they apply are laid out in detail online and all families can look at those and understand them. I am very happy to consider that suggestion and any others that right hon. and hon. Members may have to refine the system, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
It is worrying that the Minister fails even to allow for the prospect that it is entirely possible that much of the world may follow Bulgaria and place travel from the UK on a red list. If that were to happen, what comfort can the Minister offer to the UK travel sector? Does he not recognise that now is the time for additional support for that beleaguered sector, as travel disruption looks set to continue for the foreseeable future?
Robert Courts
It is difficult for me to comment on the steps that other countries may have taken or may take in future, because they all have differing systems. We continue to talk to all our international partners, both in multilateral and bilateral forums, to understand how best we can enable travel between us, for all the reasons that we have discussed in the House today.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s work on the reopening of international travel while Opposition Members support a complete shutdown. It has been possible thanks only to the success of our historic vaccine roll-out, but while we see the country opening up further today, travel companies in my constituency still have some very rough months ahead, even were travel to be completely unencumbered. They have found themselves low down the grant priority list after 16 months of just refunding customers. Where the Government confiscate, the Government must compensate. Will he therefore add his weight to calls on the Chancellor for ongoing sector-specific support?
Robert Courts
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question. Again, he is right to draw attention to the travel agencies in his constituency, which are, of course, having a very challenging time. I entirely recognise the difficulties that they have. As I have said to other hon. Members, the best way we can help all these sectors is by having the vaccine, rolling out the vaccination programme as we have been doing, and then ensuring that we can restart international travel in a way that protects public health.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
When travelling through the channel tunnel or by air, circulating in their respective terminals, people are not just in public places but in workplaces. In the light of soaring infection rates, will the Minister ensure that all measures under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Employment Rights Act 1996 are taken to protect our transport workers, including public health measures such as wearing a mask and social distancing, to stop the transmission of covid-19?
Robert Courts
A number of different points were raised in the hon. Lady’s question. All employers and all workplaces of course have to enforce the law as it stands; Parliament has legislated and that must be enforced, and there are authorities to do that. On covid-safe travel, a lot of detailed guidance has been made available and I would expect everybody to continue to follow it, to keep everybody safe, as indeed they very much are doing. Some travel providers may decide to take steps in addition, such as making a mask a condition of carriage or of entry. I am confident that those assessments that each travel provider undertakes on their premises or in their transport means will enable everybody to travel and to remain safe while they travel.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I very much welcome the fact that fully vaccinated people can now travel to amber countries without having to quarantine on return, but I am disappointed with the change in the situation with France and, in effect, the creation of a new “orange-red” category. It is right that the Government act quickly, and it would have been a disaster if France had become a red country, but new variants are going to keep on coming—that is inevitable—and what the sector, families and travellers need is certainty and predictability. Will my hon. Friend assure me that at the next review certainty and predictability particularly will be looked into, and that the traffic light system will remain a three-pronged one, rather than covering all colours of the rainbow?
Robert Courts
I am keen to reassure my hon. Friend that the system we have laid out in the Global Travel Taskforce report—the red, amber, green system—remains in place. A precautionary measure has been taken, for the reasons explained, with regard to France. I agree with him that certainty is what we would like to provide—we aim to do that through the system that we have. One difficulty, of course, is that if a situation develops in another country with regard to a variant or increased prevalence, we have to react to that, and it is right that we do so. In answer to his question as to whether these matters will be kept under review as we continue to consider policy, I can tell him that they will, of course.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Infection rates are at their highest since January, and the Health Secretary has said that he expects a spike following the relaxation of regulations today. So how can it be responsible of the Government not to require people to wear masks on transport? People spend long periods next to one another on planes, trains, the undergrounds and buses, so how can it be responsible not to require people to wear masks in those environments?
Robert Courts
There are two parts to the answer to that question. I believe the hon. Gentleman is referring to the broad range of transport, rather than simply international maritime or aviation—he refers to domestic travel as well. The Government are seeking to ask people to exercise their own judgment and responsibility, which is a situation we do have to get back to. However, we have made it clear that in some circumstances we would expect masks still to be warn, and some travel providers have also made that stipulation. If that is the case, it is right that people follow it. The reason for that is that there are very different circumstances between a crowded tube train and a rural train late at night that has only one person on it. There are different circumstances and we are seeking to make allowances for those.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I want to touch further on points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). Recently, I visited Blue Bay Travel, a business based in my constituency, and people there particularly highlighted the mismatch that is causing issues between the traffic light advice for some countries, which would allow people to come back into the UK, and Foreign Office travel advice, which prevents them from leaving in the first place. Will the Minister please look at what more can be done to better join up this advice, to make it easier for travel businesses and for those wishing to travel abroad?
Robert Courts
I am very happy to assure my hon. Friend that I, like the Department for Transport more broadly, will continue to talk to our colleagues across government to see what more can be done. I have to point out again that the two issues are dealing with different aspects—almost two sides of the same problem. We are dealing with the risk of importing the virus, or variants of it, into this country. The Foreign Office is seeking to give advice to British citizens when they travel abroad; although we will obviously continue to talk to each other, they are dealing with fundamentally different things.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
There is already confusion over recent international travel announcements as well as an increase in the rates of covid. We all know that masks cut the risk of getting covid and passing it on to others, so leaving face coverings to personal responsibility is just a recipe for further confusion, conflict, chaos and, of course, more covid. It also leaves 3.5 million clinically vulnerable people frightened to travel. Should not wearing a mask just be compulsory on all modes of transport?
Robert Courts
It is right that we allow transport providers to assess the situation on their own mode of transport and to make that a condition of carriage if required. Moreover, it is also right that we trust people to take the right decision for themselves and for those around them.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
It is great that international travel is now happening again, and I am absolutely clear that we must continue to do all we can for our aviation, travel, leisure and hospitality sectors. May I please draw the Minister’s attention to the high cost of covid testing? Our families returning from holidays are forking out lots of money for this, so may I ask him to consider the uniformity of the policy and also to get the costs down, please?
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend raises a critically important point. We are working with industry and across Government to see how we can help with the cost of testing; the Government are aware of it. We seek to enable that information to be made available to consumers on the website, which shows the different providers, but he will have noticed that the cost of testing has been coming down over the past few weeks and months, and I am confident that, as we see more travel in a safe, sustainable way, the cost will come down even further.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
The Minister did not answer the question on support for the aviation sector and associated sectors, such as the travel industry and hospitality posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), so, here we go again. Has his Department lobbied the Treasury for additional funds to support jobs in these sectors, and, if so, what was the answer?
Robert Courts
The hon. Lady will be aware that we estimate that the aviation sector itself will have benefited from approximately £7 billion-worth of support by September, as well as the other sectors, which have benefited from the cross-economy support schemes that the Government have put in place. The best way that we can assist all of those sectors is to unwrap international travel as soon as we can while protecting public health, because that is the best way to help them.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Almost 70% of Ashfield residents have been double jabbed. Although that has given us back our domestic freedoms, does the Minister agree that another freedom that we need to get back is foreign travel, which will give our aviation industry a much-needed boost?
Robert Courts
I am very keen to see foreign travel resume, because of the immense benefits that it brings to this country in individuals’ life experience, the jobs that it brings in, the money that comes into the Treasury, the families who need to be connected, and the businesses who rely on international travel. I am very keen to see all of that increase as much as we can. However, we must do so in a way that reassures the public that we are protecting public health.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]
The Minister’s regulations require people wanting to travel abroad to have PCR tests. When will the Government publish an up-to-date and accurate list of suitable, recommended PCR test providers for travellers, and what will he do to protect travellers from those companies that charge a lot and then do not deliver timely results, thus ruining travel plans for families at the last minute?
Robert Courts
The Department of Health and Social Care continually reviews the list of providers. It has a rolling programme, and it takes action if providers are not delivering what they have promised.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Travel to the US is very important for businesses headquartered in my constituency. Several own major US subsidiaries, which they cannot adequately oversee—they cannot tour a factory, for instance, by Zoom—and many have major US investors whom they cannot update. Can the Minister assure me that he is doing everything he can to get a travel corridor in place with the US—I know that we have the taskforce—because it is essential that we can have travel going in that direction?
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend gives a perfect example of the importance of travel: there are certain things we cannot do over Zoom and she is quite right to draw attention to that. Transatlantic travel is hugely important to the United States and to the United Kingdom for many reasons, and has obviously been greatly affected by the pandemic, which has kept families apart and made trade difficult. We want to restore travel with our closest ally as soon as we possibly can. My hon. Friend will know that the Prime Minister and President Biden made clear the importance of bringing about the return of safe travel as soon as possible, which is why the joint UK-US experts’ working group to which she referred has been formed, and work is well under way to deliver that goal as soon as possible.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Significant concerns about conditions for people who return to the UK and in the quarantine hotels have been expressed by Members of this House and by the directors of public health for the local authorities around Heathrow airport. One cannot book a flight until the quarantine hotel is booked. My constituent had to wait for more than a week to receive vital HIV medication while he was waiting to enter the UK and then again while in the quarantine hotel. He contacted me and we were fobbed off by being told: “The hotels have on-site doctors”. He needed a specialist doctor to prescribe his essential medication, which he had to wait too long to receive. That is unacceptable and I worry how many other people’s lives and health are being put at risk due to such delays and the poor management of the quarantine hotels and arrival system. What steps is the Minister taking to prevent this from happening to others who arrive in the UK?
Robert Courts
I am concerned to hear about the case raised by the hon. Member. If she would like to share it with me in writing, I will ensure that that complaint is sent to the right place and addressed. I am happy to take action on that individual case. More broadly, we of course continue, across Government, to ensure that the policies we have in place are not only accurate and required but carried out to the satisfaction of all involved. Circumstances have obviously been fast-moving. We are all committed to making sure that the policy is delivered and that quarantine hotels are managed appropriately.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
I am sorry to say that the further restrictions for France stretch both the credibility of the system and the patience of the travel industry. The whole industry—from regional airports, including Exeter airport, to travel agents in places such as Sidmouth—continues to watch as its reserves are dried up, Government support is reduced and its ability to trade is hampered to an extent beyond that of any other industry. Will my hon. Friend look again at bespoke support for the travel and aviation industry, to avoid further job losses affecting hundreds of thousands of people?
Robert Courts
The travel industry and regional airports, particularly Exeter airport, have powerful voices in this place, not least that of my hon. Friend, who is exceptionally eloquent and powerful in making the case to me and others. I commit to remain in close contact with him and all in the sector so that we can best understand how we may be able to support them. As I have said, the best way to do that is to ensure that we are able to travel in a way that protects public health. None the less, we must enable travel.
Mr Speaker
I suspend the House for two minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment (Nadhim Zahawi)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the pandemic.
Today marks an important milestone in our fight against this virus as we take step 4 on our road map. It is a long-awaited moment for the businesses that can now open their doors at long last, the happy couples who can have weddings without curbs on numbers and, of course, the people who can see more of their loved ones in care homes. Although we have made huge advances in our race between the vaccine and the virus, we are not at the finish line yet. Instead, we are entering what I believe to be the next stage—a stage where we continue with caution while doing what it takes to manage the risk of this virus, which is still with us and still possesses a threat. Cases and hospitalisations have risen over the past week, as we predicted, and we know that these numbers will get worse before they get better. Although there is never a perfect time to take this step, making the move today gives us the best chance of success. We are cautiously easing restrictions when we have the natural firebreak of the school holidays and when the warmer weather gives us an advantage, so we will move forward with caution, drawing on the defences we have built, as we set out in our five-point plan two weeks ago.
One of these five defences is the protective wall provided by our vaccination programme, and I would like to start by updating the House on this life-saving work. Our vaccination programme has given us extra legs in our race against this virus. The protection it has built up in people across the United Kingdom means that the ratio between cases and hospitalisation is the lowest it has been during this pandemic. This reinforces the need to protect as many people as we can as quickly as we can, and we made a four-week delay to step 4 so that we could do exactly that, with 8 million more vaccinations in that period. We set the target of giving second doses to two thirds of United Kingdom adults by today, and we hit that target last week with five days to spare. We also pledged to offer a first dose of a vaccine to all adults, and we have met that target too. Now, almost 88% of adults have taken up that offer. Although uptake among 18 to 30-year-olds is much lower and needs to increase, we are in a good place.
Our work is not over yet. As we strive to reach the remaining adults who have not yet had a first or a second dose, we are already making our plans for the next stage, because we do not know how long immunity lasts. Because coronavirus mutates, just like flu, we must stay one step ahead of it, so we are drawing up plans for a potential booster programme, subject to the final advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, so that we can protect the most vulnerable ahead of winter.
We are also looking at extending our vaccination programme so we can protect even more people. We asked the JCVI to consider whether children and young adults should be given the offer of a vaccine, and that advice has been published today. Before I continue, allow me to apologise to you, Mr Speaker, for mistakenly referencing that on air this morning before setting out the details in full before the House. The JCVI considered not just the health impacts but the non-health impacts, as we asked it to do, such as how education is disrupted by outbreaks in schools. I reassure the House that the number of children and young people who have had severe outcomes from covid is extremely low: the hospitalisation rate during the second wave was between 100 and 400 for every million. When we look at the small numbers who were hospitalised, most had severe underlying health conditions.
Today’s advice recommends that we continue to vaccinate 16 and 17-year-olds who are in an at-risk group, as we do now. It also recommends expanding the offer of the vaccine to some younger children with underlying health conditions that put them at greater risk of covid-19. That includes children aged 12 to 15 with severe neuro disabilities, Down’s syndrome, immunosuppression and profound or multiple learning disabilities. The JCVI advice also recommends offering a vaccine to children and young people aged 12 to 17 who live with someone who is immunosuppressed. That means that we can indirectly protect the immunosuppressed, who are at higher risk of serious disease from covid-19 and may not generate a full immune response to vaccination. Finally, the JCVI advises that we should offer the vaccine to all 17-year-olds who are within three months of their 18th birthday so that they are protected as soon as they turn 18.
Together with Health Ministers in all parts of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State has accepted that advice and has asked the NHS to put it into action as soon as possible. As we do that, we will be using the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is the only vaccine in the UK that has been clinically authorised for people between the ages of 12 and 17. I know that people will have questions about what it means for them and their children. I assure them that nobody needs to come forward at this stage. The NHS will get in touch with them at the right time and will ensure that the jabs are delivered in a setting that meets their complex needs.
We also asked the JCVI to consider rolling out vaccines to all children and young people over the age of 12. Although we are not taking that step today, the JCVI is keeping this matter under review and will be looking at more data as it becomes available, especially on children with a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The steps that we are taking today mean that we will be offering even more vulnerable people the protection that a vaccine brings, and we will all be safer as a result.
We know that vaccines are our most important defence against this virus. That is especially the case in adult social care settings, which are home to some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, who are vulnerable to a devastating impact from covid-19. Last week, the House passed regulations to make vaccination a condition of deployment in care homes, and the Lords will consider those regulations tomorrow. These regulations are designed to help maximise vaccine uptake and protect some of our most vulnerable citizens, yet I recognise the need for more detail on the Government’s analysis of their expected impact, so today we have published an impact statement, and we will be publishing a full impact assessment as soon as possible.
As we learn to live with covid, we must be pragmatic about how we manage the risks we face. Self-isolation of positive cases and their close contacts remains one of the most effective tools we have for reducing transmission. However, we recognise that there are some very specific circumstances where there would be a serious risk of harm to public welfare if people in critical roles, such as air traffic controllers or train signallers, are unable to go to their workplace. People in such roles who have received two vaccinations, and who are two weeks beyond the second vaccine, will not need to self-isolate to perform those critical tasks. However, they will have to continue to self-isolate at all other times. The people who are eligible for this will receive personalised letters setting out the steps they must follow. This is a sensible and pragmatic step, and one that will be used sparingly and responsibly.
We are being similarly pragmatic at our borders. As the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), has confirmed, UK residents arriving from amber-list countries who have been fully vaccinated will no longer have to quarantine, although they will still need to comply with necessary testing requirements. This will not apply to France, due to the persistent presence of cases of the beta variant, which was first identified in South Africa.
We are doing everything in our power to restore international travel, and to restore it safely, but new variants pose the greatest threat to our path out of this pandemic. We will not hesitate to act in a similar way with any other country. We will continue to keep a close eye on the data and to be firm and decisive in how we protect the progress we have made, but the enduring message is that getting vaccinated is the best way to ensure that people can travel as freely as possible.
Vaccination also holds the key to doing the things we love here at home. We are supporting the safe reopening of large, crowded settings such as nightclubs, as we saw last night, and music venues through the use of the NHS covid pass as a condition of entry to reduce the risks of transmission. I encourage businesses to draw on this support and to use the NHS covid pass in the weeks ahead. We will be keeping a close watch on how it is used by venues, and we reserve the right to mandate it, if necessary.
By the end of September, everyone aged 18 and over will have had the chance to receive full vaccination and the additional two weeks for that protection to take hold. At that point, we plan to make full vaccination a condition of entry to nightclubs and other venues where large crowds gather. Proof of a negative test will no longer be sufficient. Any decision will, of course, be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and we will ensure there are appropriate exemptions for those who have genuine medical reasons for not getting vaccinated. I am clear that we will always look at the evidence available and do all we can to ensure that people can continue to do the things they love.
Our vaccination programme has put us on the road to recovery. We should all be proud of how this national effort is helping us to take steps towards a more normal life, but we must keep reinforcing the wall of protection—getting the jab, getting the second jab and getting the booster shot, for those who are asked to come forward. With such a deadly virus and the continued threat of new variants, our wall of protection must be more than just vaccines alone. We must continue to do all the other sensible things that we know can keep the virus at bay: getting tested, considering the advice and continuing to act with caution. Taken together, this will help us all enjoy these new experiences and safely slow the spread of this deadly virus. I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
Of course people have the right to protest against a lockdown that no longer exists, but will he join me in condemning the ugly scenes of harassment, thuggishness, throwing of objects, pushing and intimidation directed at police officers outside on Parliament Square earlier?
The Minister has said that a number of teenagers will be vaccinated. Can he tell us how many and by when? The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has approved the Pfizer jab for all 12 to 18-year-olds. Indeed, countries such as the United States, Canada, Israel, France, Austria, Spain, Hong Kong and others have started vaccinating, or soon will be, 12 to 18-year-olds, so why are we not?
The Minister rightly said that the risk of death to children from covid is mercifully very low, but children can become very sick and they can develop long-term conditions and long covid. Indeed, according to the Office for National Statistics, 14.5% of children aged 12 to 16 have symptoms lasting longer than five weeks, so will he spell out in detail the clinical basis for why the JCVI has made this decision? Will he publish all its analysis and documents in the same way that the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies publishes its analysis—not just the advice—and can he guarantee that this decision was made on medical grounds and not on grounds of vaccine supply?
The Minister talked about infection among children being disruptive, and we know that infection among children is highly disruptive for learning—we have seen hundreds of thousands of children out of school. If we are not vaccinating all adolescents, can he tell us what the Government’s plan is for September, when children return to school? For example, will he consider using this summer to install air filtration units in every classroom or in every school?
Testing is already stretched, with turnaround times lengthening. Can the Minister guarantee that through the summer—and especially once contacts can be released from isolation on the back of a negative PCR test in August—and into September, when schools return, there will be sufficient PCR testing capacity to meet demand? As we move into autumn and winter, we anticipate more flu and respiratory viruses. Those are illnesses with symptoms that often overlap with covid, so will he also now invest in our testing capacity, so that alongside a covid test we can test for flu and respiratory syncytial virus this winter? We need multi-pathogen testing going forward.
Three weeks ago, the Health Secretary told us that unlocking would make us healthier, and he promised us that it would be irreversible, but today we have some of the highest infection case rates in the world, and the mayor from “Jaws” has decided to reopen the beaches, recklessly throwing off all the restrictions with no safety precautions in place, such as mandatory mask wearing. It risks reimposing new restrictions in the future, and it means that the NHS is facing a summer crisis. Already, admissions for covid are running at around 550 a day, and hospitals are cancelling cancer surgery. Liver transplant operations were cancelled in Birmingham last week.
Throwing off all restrictions like this will see thousands suffer serious long-term illness. The clinically vulnerable and scared are feeling shut out of society, and selection pressure could see a new variant emerging that evades the success of the vaccine programme, setting us back and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It is reckless, and it does not have our support.
More infections means more isolation. The NHS staff who will be released from isolation if double-jabbed will still want protection for themselves and their patients, so will the Minister ensure that the standard of masks worn in NHS settings is upgraded to the FFP3 requirement, as NHS staff have called for? What is his plan for keeping the economy and public services functioning throughout the summer as more and more people are asked to isolate?
We know that the Prime Minister’s and the Chancellor’s plan was to dodge isolation, so can the Minister tell us how this “random” clinical trial, which so helpfully selected the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was set up? Will he tell us what exactly happened between 8 am and 10.38 am on Sunday that persuaded the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to withdraw from this presumably valuable and random clinical study? Can he tell us how many other Ministers have participated in the trial? Did he participate? How many Government Departments and officials were involved, and why? If he cannot answer these questions sufficiently, our constituents will rightly conclude that it is one rule for Tory Ministers and another for the rest of us.
Nadhim Zahawi
The right hon. Gentleman began well but ended with petty politics. However, I will address the issue of the testing trials over a number of days, which began, I think, around December. It was not just the Cabinet Office and No. 10 that participated; organisations such as Transport for London, Heathrow airport and others would have participated as well. The Government make thousands of decisions every day, every week, which is not something that the Opposition are used to doing—certainly not their leader, anyway. Nevertheless, I shall refrain from engaging in petty politics and try to address some of his more substantive questions.
On the harassment and thuggish misbehaviour, I join him in condemning such behaviour outside the Houses of Parliament against our police officers.
On vaccinating 12 to 15-year-olds, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the number for England. Approximately 370,000 children will receive that protection. We are currently not following the United States of America, Israel or other countries in vaccinating all children, although the JCVI is continuing to review the data and is waiting for more data on second doses. Millions of children in the US have already received a first dose but there is a time lag for second doses and that is being kept under review. We publish the JCVI advice accordingly.
On testing, the United Kingdom now has the capacity for over 600,000 PCR tests and many millions of lateral flow tests. I myself am not on the trial that the right hon. Gentleman spoke about, but I do take the lateral flow test and I tested negative earlier today, as I did on Thursday and Friday.
I am happy to have the right hon. Gentleman’s support on the JCVI advice on protecting the most vulnerable children, and of course asking it to make sure that it reviews the data on all children. I reassure him that the decision was not in any way made taking into consideration volumes of vaccine. We have plenty of vaccine available for the vaccination of all children that is necessary. We have ordered more of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is the vaccine that was approved. The decision was made by the JCVI based on looking at the data from other countries, and that is the decision that we will implement.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Nearly eight years ago, Mr Speaker, in Central Lobby on Saturday 7 September 2013, when the G7 Speakers were here as guests of your predecessor, I hosted the Japanese table, and at 8 o’clock that evening the fact that Tokyo would be the Olympic games city was announced. We send our sympathy to those who are affected by covid there and wish the games success.
Turning to the domestic matter of the NHS, can I put to the Government what has been put to me by a community sister? She said that in order to test voluntarily every day before going to other people’s homes, she had been getting three months’ supplies of tests. The system appears to have changed and each member of staff like her now has to apply for a seven days’ supply, which are sent to their home, meaning much more waste and much more work for each member of staff.
Could the Government please get together to see whether it is possible for those who work for the NHS who want to test each day to get bulk supplies from work and cut out some of this unnecessary extra work?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who asks an important question. I certainly take that feedback very seriously and will take it back to the team to ensure that we get the most efficient operational way of delivering lateral flow tests to the frontline.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Minister for his statement. It is important that we follow the science on this issue, and I welcome clarity from the JCVI on that matter. The Pfizer vaccine is required for young teens, and Pfizer or Moderna vaccines are required for young adults, but the supply of those looks to be the lowest since February. What assurances can the Minister give that delivery will be sufficient? With many younger adults unvaccinated, and with some more complacent about covid, how does the Minister propose to persuade more of them to get vaccinated, and dramatically reduce the risk of serious disease? The UK now has more daily cases than any other state in the world, and as the Health and Social Care Secretary has demonstrated, it is still possible to catch and therefore spread the virus when vaccinated.
Last week, more than 1,200 scientists, doctors and disease experts said that the UK Government and their complete and immediate unlocking of England with only 54% of the population fully vaccinated was a “threat to the world”. Will the UK Government accept responsibility should the concerns of those experts come true? Finally, the Health and Social Care Secretary has spoken, as his predecessor did often, about the need not to politicise the pandemic. Will the Minister explain why his party colleagues in Scotland are attempting to attack the Scottish Government for their vaccine programme, despite the fact that a greater proportion of people in Scotland have been vaccinated than in England? Does he condemn attempts by his party colleagues to politicise the vaccine roll-out in Scotland, or does he consider their untruthful claims to be acceptable?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Gentleman raises a number of important questions. Pfizer supply remains consistent, and we have every confidence that the manufacturer will continue to deliver, as it has done, according to the delivery schedules. Being able to continue to vaccinate the over-18s with their first dose, and of course their second dose by the end of September is not a question of supply. Equally, as we did a few hours ago, jointly with Minister Humza Yousaf and the Ministers from Northern Ireland and Wales, we can take a decision that we will all follow JCVI advice on vaccinating vulnerable children and those who live with vulnerable adults, as I described in my statement.
On our capability in the UK to manage this pandemic, I hope, with the booster campaign in September, to transition from pandemic status to endemic status. With the wall of vaccinated adults—I think 87.9% have had a first dose in the United Kingdom, and 68% of all adults have had two doses—it is the right precautionary pragmatic decision to transition, and return our country to as normal a place as possible. We will get those businesses that were almost first in and now last out of the pandemic, back and up and running.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
Thanks to the efforts of the Minister we have one of the best vaccine programmes in the world, so I hope he does not mind me expressing two concerns about our current strategy. First, if we are to introduce covid vaccine passports for nightclubs by the end of September, which I support, why are we waiting until then, and giving more weight to the concerns of people who want to go to nightclubs than to the additional extra cases that waiting two months is likely to cause, at a time when that growth of new cases is such a concern?
Secondly, on the NHS app, people who have been double jabbed know that if they are pinged they are less likely to have the disease. They are therefore starting to ignore the request to self-isolate, and in some cases to delete the app. Before we lose social consent, should we not replace the requirement to isolate for 10 days with a requirement for someone to isolate until they have had a negative PCR test, thus using that testing capacity that the Minister talked about to keep our national show on the road?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his two excellent questions—rather than one—which I shall try to address in reverse. He will have heard the announcement in my statement about the NHS app and frontline social care or healthcare staff, as well as critical workers. Part of the reason we want to do that is that we want to maintain the ability of that workforce to do what it does best. As my right hon. Friend rightly outlined, they will do that with a negative PCR test and seven days of lateral flow testing. The clear clinical advice from the Chief Medical Officer and the expert team is that 16 August will be the most appropriate time to do that, for the rest of the economy as well. As we open up—we are now at step 4—and are getting more people double jabbed and protected further, especially younger parents, teachers and other professions, this is the appropriate measure to take on 16 August.
On the issue that my right hon. Friend raises on nightclubs, by the end of September 18-year-olds will have received their second dose. We will work with the industry to ensure that we get the covid pass right—now and in September—while we collate the evidence.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Like hundreds of thousands of other school children, my seven-year-old daughter is out of school at home today, self-isolating. I am sure that the Minister will agree that children have paid far too high a price in this pandemic in their mental health and in their education, missing out on school. Yet only last week, Professor Whitty said that we may see new restrictions in five weeks’ time, which is just before schools return. The Department for Education issued new guidance to schools, saying that they must be prepared to deliver remote education in the autumn. Today, the Minister said that we will not vaccinate all teenagers. What guarantees will this Government provide to pupils and parents across the country that schools will reopen in September fully and safely, and will stay open? Will he rule out any further school closures?
Nadhim Zahawi
We and the devolved Administrations have accepted the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to vaccinate vulnerable children, those children who live with vulnerable adults, and 17-year-olds close to their 18th birthday. The committee is, however, keeping the situation under review and looking at more data emerging from other countries, including the United States of America, on whether we should vaccinate all children. I reassure the hon. Lady that children will have two supervised tests on their return and that testing will continue until the end of September. A combination of that and vaccinating at scale all adults helps us to control transmission. Double-vaccinated people reduce transmission rates by about 50%.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) [V]
My hon. Friend said at the start of his statement that the disease was still here and that we were not out of the woods yet. The fact is that variants of covid-19 will be with us for many years to come. If we are truly to live with this virus, freedom day must mean what it says; the alternative is utter confusion, with hundreds of thousands of people having to isolate after being pinged by the NHS app. Here in Dorset, the police are beginning to struggle, because of the numbers who have to isolate. Will my hon. Friend tell me that the emergency services to which I think he referred include the police—that if they are double jabbed, they do not have to isolate—before enforcement of law and order becomes a real difficulty here in Dorset, I believe down in Devon and perhaps in other parts of the country?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we take this step confidently but cautiously. I remind the House that this is probably the most infectious respiratory virus known to humankind, with aerosol transmission, so we need to ensure that we are careful as we head into step 4.[Official Report, 21 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 7MC.] I outlined the action that we are taking on key workers and critical workers, and of course the police fall within that.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the Catch Up with Cancer campaign, which I hope to join tomorrow in delivering a petition to No. 10 Downing Street, and thank them for their tireless work over the last year, pressing, petitioning and lobbying the Government to deliver urgently needed ring-fenced investment for our NHS cancer infrastructure so that cancer patients can get the timely diagnosis and treatment they need. The Minister mentioned the expert advice in his opening remarks. Will he outline his plans to ensure future protection for immunocompromised or immunosuppressed groups, such as those living with cancer, like me, who may still be at risk from covid-19, despite the vaccine roll-out?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Gentleman attends the Friday briefings that I offer colleagues. He is absolutely right. Last week, Public Health England published some encouraging real-world data that showed that two doses of the vaccines offer around 74% protection for those who are immunosuppressed or immunocompromised. That comes with a caveat that that group of people is not homogenous and we need to unpack some of the data. The JCVI has already recommended in its interim advice on the booster campaign in September that that group goes top of the list for the third dose as a boost. Of course, we have a large clinical trial, which will report imminently on the immunosuppressed and the immunocompromised. We will look at that data with the JCVI. The chief medical officer continues to ask the JCVI to look at what else we can do to protect that group, including through the therapeutics taskforce, which is doing some tremendous work.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
There is some real concern among my constituents that they might in some way have the wrong batch of AstraZeneca vaccine. My hon. Friend provided a useful update on Friday, but can he give any further reassurance that no British traveller will be turned away at the border because they have been given the wrong vaccine?
Nadhim Zahawi
My right hon. Friend is right that there is no such thing as a wrong batch of Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in the United Kingdom. Our independent regulator regulates all manufacturing sites for AstraZeneca, Pfizer and the other vaccines. The AstraZeneca vaccine produced in the Serum Institute is the same vaccine—the Vaxzevria vaccine brand that is approved by the MHRA and the European Medicines Agency. There was some confusion in parts of world such as Malta last week, which the MHRA, the EMA and the Commission helped to clear up. I reassure my right hon. Friend that anyone who has had an Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and has the UK app or the letter to demonstrate their vaccination can travel. I think that 33 countries now recognise our vaccine certification.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Many of my former public health colleagues are very concerned about lifting mitigations today in the context of escalating cases—50,000 currently—12 million people who have not been vaccinated and an NHS and care workforce who are frankly on their knees. What estimates have the Government made of the effect of extending the wearing of masks and other mitigations three weeks after 80% of the eligible population have been vaccinated on incidence of long covid, hospitalisations and deaths?
Nadhim Zahawi
The vaccination programme could in no way have delivered the extraordinary uptake without the backbone being NHS doctors, nurses and pharmacists, working with our armed forces, local government and the private sector to deliver it.
Nadhim Zahawi
And volunteers and the police. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) reminds us all of the role that policemen and women played in ensuring that the vaccination roll-out worked well. The very clear guideline is that we should take both personal and corporate responsibility. It is great to see Transport for London, other transport systems and the M10 of metro Mayors, which I speak to regularly, taking that corporate responsibility. We all have our part to play, as we have done by coming together and vaccinating the country at scale. This is the most infectious respiratory disease that is aerosol-transmitted.[Official Report, 21 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 8MC.] We have to be very careful to ensure that we take this step carefully; for it to be irreversible, we have to continue to work together with a booster campaign. Beyond that, in the years to come, we have to get used to the transition from pandemic to endemic status.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
As various hon. Members have noted, the number of coronavirus cases is rising very rapidly, but the great success of the vaccination scheme means that the number of deaths remains very low. That means that the fatality rate of coronavirus is now similar to that of other endemic viruses. Does my hon. Friend agree that with coronavirus now in approximately 200 countries around the world—almost every country in the world—the chance of eliminating it is almost zero, so as a society we have to learn to live with it, as we do with other serious infections such as flu and pneumonia?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent question; I agree. I remember that when I took on the role of vaccines Minister in November, I explained to the House and the country that the reason we began by vaccinating phase 1—the most vulnerable cohorts, as set out to us by the JCVI—was that categories 1 to 9 were where 99% of the virus’s mortality was coming from. That work has gone incredibly well: in all those categories we have uptake of more than 90%, in some of them it is at 95% or 96%, and in one it is even at 100%. There is very high uptake of the second dose as well. I think that it is right that we now take this step, pragmatically but cautiously, as we transition from pandemic to endemic status and help the rest of the world to do the same.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Because of the pandemic, nearly 5 million people in the UK are now waiting for hospital treatment of some kind or other. In many cases, they are waiting for really important operations, from eye operations that could save or improve their eyesight to hip or knee operations. Everybody gets that the NHS has been really stretched, but the problem is that thousands of people are now saying, “You know what? If I pay £3,000, £5,000, £10,000 or £20,000, I can get that new hip or that new knee done with exactly the same doctor that I would see in the NHS, but in the private sector.” Surely that is unfair. Surely we must say that the NHS will buy up every single piece of spare capacity in the UK to get the backlog down as fast as possible, including for cancer care and for things that might seem minor but that make a dramatic difference to quality of life, such as hips and knees.
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank the hon. Member for that thoughtful question. He is absolutely right: there are about 5.3 million people waiting for treatment. He is also right that we have to make sure that the NHS has the resources to do it, which is why two things have happened: the Secretary of State has made it a priority to deal with the pandemic, and he has made it an equal priority to deal with the backlog. He has made £1 billion available for the NHS to do that work.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, but I confess to some disappointment that the daily vaccination rate is not being sustained at a higher level. What is the constraint? Is it supply, is it logistics or is it that the hard-to-reach groups are slower in coming forward? What consideration are the Government giving to what is happening in other countries such as the United States, where people are being offered some kind of reward for coming forward and accepting a vaccination?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. The vaccination rates in the United Kingdom have been incredibly high. We are at 88% with the first dose and 68% with double doses. On double doses, we are actually ahead of the United States of America. That does not mean we become complacent, however. We are doing everything we can to ensure that every cohort, and every ethnicity has the ability to access the vaccine.
Let me give him an example of some great work in the London Borough of Newham. Last week it had 23 different vaccination sites in pop-ups, in mosques, in GPs and in community pharmacies across the borough. Young people were literally tripping over a vaccine site. Part of it is access. Part of it is taking the vaccine to those communities. I am working with a number of colleagues to make sure we get into rural communities, for example with vaccine buses, and in community centres where people feel safe and comfortable to have the vaccine. The work does not end today. We continue to double down on our effort to continue vaccination. Again, I want to place on record my thanks to the metro Mayors for the work they do with us to make sure that happens as well.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister has been thanking everybody else, but I think we also need to thank the Minister, his Department, his team and the NHS staff for all they have done for the vaccine programme. Given recent news that those aged 12 to 17 will be offered a covid vaccination to protect them in the colder weather, has the Minister come to an assessment of how effective that will prove to limit the spread of covid-19 in schools? What discussions has he had with Education Ministers to deliver the vaccine roll-out?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Member, who is always wonderfully complimentary and polite. I am grateful for his compliments and I will take them back to the team. We have conversations all the time. We are making preparations for the co-administration, wherever possible, of the flu vaccine with the covid boost, beginning early September, based on the interim advice from the JCVI. The only caveat is obviously that it is only interim advice and it could change as the JCVI gets more clinical data through. We have a big trial on seven of our vaccines to see which delivers the best boost possible. When it gets that data back, we will firm up that advice, but operationally we aim to begin in September.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) [V]
I am obviously pleased that we have reached step 4a of the road map, but I am keen to understand what lies behind the month-long gap between 19 July, when it feels as if we do not believe in our vaccines as much as we might, and 16 August when we do. What is the scientific basis for the decision to give my fully vaccinated constituents their real freedom after the middle of next month, but not now?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent question, as always. Most restrictions have been lifted and many people have now been vaccinated, but it is still possible to catch and spread covid even if you are fully vaccinated. Introducing the exemption in August will allow more people to be fully vaccinated, as I mentioned earlier. Unlike in previous waves, the rise in cases driven by the delta variant is not translating into significant increases in hospitalisation and death. This is due to the effectiveness of the vaccine in reducing the risk of transition into severe illness.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
As Ministers recklessly lift almost all restrictions in England, despite the UK now having the third-highest number of cases of any country in the world—only Indonesia and Brazil have more—the efforts of public health leaders to keep cases down are being hampered by delays in accessing and processing PCR tests, with reports that the national booking system is being regularly switched off for hours at a time and that turnaround times for tests are lengthening. And that is before the even greater surge in case numbers that Ministers freely admit we face now that they have offloaded responsibility for managing the pandemic on to individuals and businesses. Can the Minister clarify whether the 600,000 PCR test capacity he referred to earlier is per day? How many tests will we need per day if we get to 200,000 daily cases? Can he really guarantee that we have sufficient capacity, in terms of PCR tests, to cope with the rising tide of covid infections that this Government are responsible for?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. On the PCR testing capacity, it is 600,000 per day. I looked at the data this morning for yesterday, and I think just about half of that was being utilised—300,000-odd tests. Of course, that does not include the millions of lateral flow tests that we are also capable of delivering.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
Last Tuesday, the House passed a statutory instrument making it compulsory for care home staff to be vaccinated. The last time compulsory vaccination occurred was in the 19th century. I was slightly confused by what the excellent Minister said in his statement, so could he confirm that a full impact assessment was completed before this contentious legislation came to the Floor of the House and that he saw that assessment before signing off on the policy? After all, this was a major change in Government policy.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his excellent question. As I mentioned in my statement, an impact statement has been published today, and a full impact assessment will be made. Just to bring it to life for him, to reassure him and the House, I can say that Barchester Healthcare, one of the providers, has about 16,000 employees, so it is quite a large sample to look at, and it has implemented this policy early. When it consulted its workforce on the duty of deployment, it managed successfully to get the workforce to be vaccinated —they were on a priority list in phase 1 of the vaccination programme—and only 78 out of the workforce of 16,000, or about 0.5%, actually chose not to and no longer work for Barchester Healthcare. I hope that gives him some reassurance that we look at this data very carefully.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I would like to pay tribute to the Minister for his work on probably the only functioning part of the Government’s response to covid, but all of that work is at risk because of the Prime Minister’s surrender strategy.
In my Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency, I have one case—I will give it as an example—of a young girl who had eight negative lateral flow test results, but as she was symptomatic her parents insisted on a PCR test, and that was positive. A cluster has grown up around the young person and her family, and they are obviously in great distress not just because of her infection, but because of the consequences. So why do the Government, both here and in the devolved countries, persist in using discredited lateral flow devices that are not designed for use in asymptomatic subjects—they are designed for use in symptomatic subjects—and that are designed for use in the professional setting, not for self-administering that test? We have domestic tests that excel in both and that beat the current tests hands down, but they are not being contracted. Can the Minister please advise the House why the Government are blind to the domestic diagnostics industry?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank the hon. Member for his question. I would just respectfully say that, on the contrary, the Government work with the diagnostics industry. Indeed, we were able to scale up. When we entered this pandemic, we were only capable of doing about 2,000 tests a day, but we now have a PCR testing capacity of 600,000, as he will have heard earlier, and millions of lateral flow tests. I think it is the combination of both those things that works, but if there are other companies in his constituency or indeed elsewhere in the country that he thinks are worth looking at, I will certainly put them through to the relevant team in the Department.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
Can I thank my hon. Friend for his unfailing courtesy and diligence in responding to MPs week after week in respect of his duties, and also ask him if he could share with the House the results of the test to release experiment? Like many businesses in my constituency, the Dine Yard restaurant in Leighton Buzzard had to close for a week, and I have been told that GObowling in Dunstable may have to close as well, because of a lack of staff, so anything the Minister can share with the House on that issue would be very welcome.
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. We are, as he rightly outlines, incredibly aware of the stress of self-isolation and the effect of the policy on various workforces. Subject to the results of the clinical trials, which are expected within the next one to two weeks, we hope to be able to extend the use of daily contact testing for some workplaces, although the initial focus will need to be on workplaces with established asymptomatic testing sites, or possibly those that can rapidly stand up ATSs, given that the first clinical trial is for assisted rather than home-based testing.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
We all want to see the back of this pandemic and life return to normality. History will no doubt judge the wisdom or otherwise of “freedom day” at this point in time. I wish to focus on long covid, because it is a fact that the more covid there is, the more long covid there will be. At its worst, it is debilitating. It is just awful, and I know that because I am still suffering with it, after 16 months. If the balance of risk is more long covid, may I ask the Minister what more his Government will do to help those with it in their health recovery, to help employers impacted by an ill workforce and in providing social security for those on the long-term sick with long covid?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his excellent question and I wish him a continued recovery. I know from the work that I have seen that it is not easy. I believe there are just over 900,000 people suffering from different forms of long covid. We have made an additional £150 million available for the NHS, both in terms of looking at long covid, and having an infrastructure to be able to deal with it and help support GPs to diagnose it.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Minister is aware of my reservations about asking children to be vaccinated where it may provide only very marginal benefit to them, but this relies on the importance of informed consent and people being given all the right information. Can he confirm, first, that where children with medical conditions are being offered the vaccine, the risk posed to that child from a serious effect from covid is greater than the risk to that child posed by any vaccine? Can he also confirm that, where children are being asked to be vaccinated to protect an adult who may be vulnerable for whatever reason, those parents, carers and the child will be provided with the absolute—not relative—risk reduction for those individuals they are being asked to be vaccinated for?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend’s question is an excellent one. She has participated in the vaccination programme—she is one of the heroes I stand on the shoulders of—and she has done work in Sleaford and North Hykeham. I absolutely confirm to her that the JCVI advice is very specific on the conditions of young people who will be eligible to receive the vaccine to protect them from covid and, of course, those adults who are also vulnerable to it. That is why I talked in my statement about the NHS being in contact with those families to be able to advise them and then facilitate vaccination in a place and at a time convenient for them.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Health Secretary was double jabbed and got infected. In Swansea Bay, 18% of those infected in June were double jabbed and 31% were single jabbed. So does the Minister accept that freedom day is not the freedom to infect others, that masks and social distancing remain vital and that jabs are stopping people from dying? Will he confirm that he is not pursuing a policy of herd immunity, which would overwhelm the NHS and leave a massive legacy of long covid, disabling our economy?
Nadhim Zahawi
I can certainly confirm that, and the guidelines are very clear that we are both supporting people and recommending that they continue to be careful when in indoor spaces and crowded places, to wear masks and to take personal and corporate responsibility, rather than having government by diktat.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I have to say that I do not welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly his announcement of compulsory vaccine passports for crowded venues, which is effectively moving to compulsory vaccination. However, I look forward to the debate and the vote in Parliament in September when he will bring forward the evidence, because I do not think that that policy is supported by the events pilots that have taken place.
I want to ask the Minister about the self-isolation regime. It is important for public confidence that it is supported by evidence. It is the same regime that we had before we had any vaccination or before we had any lateral flow tests, and the Government seem to accept that logic because they are going to move to a new, more sensible model on 16 August. I listened carefully to his multiple answers to colleagues on both sides of the House, but I am afraid he could not really explain why we were waiting until 16 August. All the things that will be true on 16 August about the reduced risk for those who are fully vaccinated of getting infected also apply today. I have to say to the Minister that, if the Government do not move on this before 16 August, he will be back at that Dispatch Box, probably during the recess. Reality will intrude, and I would rather the Government did this in a planned, organised and controlled way, rather than having a bit of a shambles developing later this month. I urge him to bring forward that announcement and those measures to today or this week; do not leave them to 16 August. Do the right thing, and I think the country will thank him for it.
Nadhim Zahawi
My right hon. Friend always makes thoughtful and important interventions and I take his words incredibly seriously on both questions. One was about sharing with the House the evidence and working with the industry, whether it is the nightclub industry or at-risk large-scale indoor events. As I mentioned in my statement, we will come back to the House with that evidence. On the self-isolation issue, I hope he agrees that this was the right thing to do for frontline health and social care staff and for critical workers. The important thing is the clinical evidence. The chief medical officer’s very clear advice is that, as we go through step 4, we should have that additional buffer, if I can call it that, and continue to double vaccinate to allow us a bit more time to ensure that people who are double vaccinated can then come out of self-isolation because we can move to a PCR-negative or daily testing regime. That is the right thing to do. We will keep it under review, and I take his words very seriously.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Come September, the settings that will be most vulnerable to covid will be schools. School classrooms are going to have a higher percentage of non-vaccinated people than anywhere else. The Government have scrapped the need for face masks and the bubbling system, and they have now forbidden schools and nurseries from doing in-house track and trace and forced them on to the failing nationwide track and trace system. I understand why we need to be really sensitive and cautious about vaccinating young people aged 12-plus, and I am cognisant of the comments made by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). However, in other areas, the JCVI has ensured that we are at the forefront of the global vaccination programme.
Could the Minister explain the conversations he has been having with the JCVI as to why the Government are being so cautious in this regard? Will he explain to the House when the JCVI will give updated advice, because really those young people should be vaccinated over the summer if it is safe? To be very clear, I am not asking for a forced programme for children. I am asking for this to become available when the JCVI says it is safe, and for parents and families to have all the information they need so that they can make the decision on behalf of the interests of the child, the family and the community, and take into account educational scarring as well.
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Member asks a really important question; it is one that we have asked the JCVI. There will be two supervised tests on return to school, but the other advantage will be the wall of vaccinated adults that will continue to increase.
Nadhim Zahawi
I hear the hon. Member and I absolutely understand. That is why the JCVI will continue to review the data on the vaccination of children. Specifically on his question, it has a concern. It has received data from around the world; from countries that are already vaccinating. We are with those countries at the forefront, but at the moment we are an outlier as they have chosen to move forward on children’s vaccination and we have not fully; we are moving forward for children who are vulnerable and those who live with vulnerable adults. It wants to look at second-dose data; at the moment it has first-dose data. There is a very rare signal of myocarditis that it is concerned about and it wants to see second-dose data from places such as the United States before it makes its decision. That decision, however, is under review.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
It is good to see the Minister still standing on this freedom day, when it feels like half the Cabinet has been struck down, knocked out or whatever it is. Does he agree that, at a time when worryingly we hear of increased threats to vaccination centres, be they from the vile anti-vax propagandists outside this building right now or even people so keen to get jabbed that they leave vaccinators feeling vulnerable, nobody should feel intimidated when seeking perfectly legal healthcare? Does he also agree that there is scope for investigating an offence of violence towards NHS professionals, whether verbal or physical, in such a setting? It would bring the law into line with the “protect the protectors” legislation we already have for ambulance staff and the police. That was suggested to me by the Florence Nightingale nursing trainees I met last week. If he did that, he would be a hero among them—even though they did not get their pay rise. What does he think?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank the hon. Lady, who made an excellent video about the vaccination centre in Acton—she had a bit of a go at me for not delivering it within a few weeks, but we finally got it delivered in Acton. She has done a tremendous job in leading the vaccination communication in her community.
I agree that it is abhorrent and completely wrong for anyone to intimidate people looking to get their vaccination, the incredible NHS staff delivering it, the volunteers or anyone else in the extraordinary mobilisation we have experienced of the nation coming together and delivering the largest vaccination programme in history. I will look at anything we can do to continue to protect our frontline staff. A senior responsible officer embedded in the vaccination deployment team looks seriously at security every single day, and we will not hesitate to take action against anyone who threatens any member of staff or volunteer taking part in the vaccination programme.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) [V]
We cannot ignore the slight reduction in vaccine uptake in the past couple of weeks, which is in spite of the fantastic work being done across Keighley and Ilkley to deal with this, including at the Silsden medical practice, Keighley’s central mosque and Airedale Hospital, which this week are providing walk-in services for young people to get their vaccine. Will my hon. Friend join me in encouraging all those who have not yet taken up the offer of the vaccine to do so to prevent transmission and to help protect themselves and others?
Nadhim Zahawi
I commend my hon. Friend for his exemplary work in taking the message out to his constituents that vaccines protect people, families and communities. He is right to continue to double down on his efforts. I assure him that we will do the same across the system, whether through pop-ups, mobile sites or opening for longer hours. The Eid festival begins tomorrow and we have a whole programme around that. I wish the Muslim community a happy Eid Mubarak, but I also encourage them to come forward and get vaccinated.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
As the Minister will know, I have long campaigned for a vaccine passport to enable individuals, society and the economy to speed up the return to normality, so I very much welcome the long-overdue and realistic NHS covid pass, but how will the Minister ensure take-up? Will he tell us which venues will be included and—equally importantly—whether any sporting, hospitality or leisure venues will be excluded?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support. We are looking at high-risk, large capacity indoor venues. My colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) and others—are currently working with the industry to take advantage of step 4, to get those businesses back on their feet and then, of course, to take all that learning so that I can be back here at the Dispatch Box in September to share with the House how we can sustain the industry going forward while we live with covid, because we will have to transition this virus from pandemic to endemic status.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
The now famous test and release pilot was first announced on 29 April. Is the lack of any results from that pilot, nearly three months after it started, a failure on the part of Public Health England, or are the results being suppressed because the Minister might be concerned that NHS Test and Trace does not have the testing capacity available to make test and release available to everyone?
Nadhim Zahawi
In answer to an earlier question I informed the House that the test and release pilot results will be available in one to two weeks’ time. When they are, we will come to the House and share them with Members.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
The Minister has proved himself to be helpful and thoughtful in the way he has handled his brief, but will he tell us what research there has been into the impact of long covid on younger people? If in the end long covid is an issue not simply for adults but for children as well, will that affect the way we assess the need for a vaccination programme for young children?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that excellent question and for his support on the weekly MPs’ briefing that we deliver on a Friday. Long covid is a serious issue among adults and children, and the JCVI of course looks at the available evidence. I caveat what I say by reminding the House that obviously this virus has been with us for only 17 months and we have had vaccines for only the past eight of those months, so we are learning all the time. As I said in answer to an earlier question, we have made money available to the health service so that it can look at how to support, for example, GPs in diagnosing long covid.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) [V]
In addition to holidaymakers, hundreds of UK citizens want to go to France, a country with a much lower infection rate than the United Kingdom, to visit family, and there are also hundreds of UK citizens—expats—who wish to visit families in the United Kingdom. As a result of the decision taken by the Department of Health and Social Care, all those people now face exorbitant test costs and isolation when they come into the United Kingdom. The House of Commons has an excellent test system that generates a result within around 30 minutes and is reliable. Will my hon. Friend, who is the most effective of Ministers, use his influence to make sure that at the very least people who come back into the United Kingdom and have to be tested can do so at a reasonable and not disproportionate cost?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is always diligent in his questioning, including on the Friday calls, on behalf of his constituents. He raises a really important point about the beta variant, which as a precautionary measure is clearly a variant of concern to us. It is the one that would give us the greatest headache, in terms of vaccine escape—hence why we took those precautionary measures. We keep that under review, and the biosecurity team does that very effectively.
My right hon. Friend also raises a really important point about the cost of testing. I will certainly take away his comments and discuss them within Government, including with the Secretary of State for Transport, who has looked at this and talked to those involved in the testing process to ensure that people are not penalised by exorbitant PCR test costs.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said in response to the excellent question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who chairs the Science and Technology Committee. The Minister said that when the information is available from the test and release pilot in the next couple of weeks, he will come back to the House straightaway.
You will have noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am sure all Members will, that the House will be in recess at that point, and Ministers are unable therefore to answer written questions, lay written ministerial statements or make oral statements. I therefore ask those on the Treasury Bench, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether the Minister will ensure that the House is recalled to hear that evidence. Of course, the decision point is on 16 August —during the recess. This will be of interest to millions of people in our country who by that point may be self-isolating, so we need a commitment that the Minister will return and the House will be brought back to enable Ministers to be questioned on this important matter. It would be helpful if the Minister can confirm that at the Dispatch Box now.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The Minister is smiling at me. I do not think he wishes to speak. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the House goes into recess on Thursday and does not come back until 6 September. It is way out of the ability of the Chair to recall Parliament, but I am absolutely certain that those on the Treasury Bench heard what he had to say and will pass it on to the appropriate people.
I thank the Minister for his statement and for answering 29 questions in well over an hour. We will now suspend for three minutes in order to sanitise the Dispatch Boxes.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Monday 19th July 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 View all Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have to report that the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.
5.55 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The British people have had enough of open borders and uncontrolled immigration; enough of a failed asylum system that costs the taxpayer more than £1 billion a year; enough of dinghies arriving illegally on our shores, directed by organised crime gangs; enough of people drowning on these dangerous, illegal and unnecessary journeys; enough of people being trafficked and sold into modern slavery; enough of economic migrants pretending to be genuine refugees; enough of adults pretending to be children to claim asylum; enough of people trying to gain entry illegally ahead of those who play by the rules; enough of foreign criminals, including murderers and rapists, who abuse our laws and then game the system so that we cannot remove them.
Priti Patel
The British people have had enough of being told that none of these issues matter. They have had enough of being told that it is racist even to think about addressing public concerns, and to want to fix this failed system.
Priti Patel
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to either intervene or listen.
The British people have repeatedly voted to take back control of our borders, something that the Labour party has repeatedly voted against and complained about. The British people finally have a Government who are listening to them, because our priorities are the people’s priorities. For the first time in decades, we will determine who comes in and out of our country. Our plans will increase the fairness of our system.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I hope my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I intervene in this way, but she is giving the impression that no Conservative Government since 2010 have tried to address these issues. Can I assure her, on the basis of six years in the Home Office, that they have been addressed? I will refer in my speech to the fact that Governments constantly have to look at these issues relating to immigration, rather than thinking that one piece of legislation will deal with the problem forever.
Priti Patel
I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point, which the Labour party should also recognise. A little earlier, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) said, “In 11 years, what have you done?” As my right hon. Friend has just pointed out, cumulative efforts have been made—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) would like to listen as well. It is important to note that over the years —my right hon. Friend is right, and in fact I am going to refer to a piece of legislation with which she will be familiar—change did come in, but unfortunately, for a range of reasons, the system is now being abused and gamed.
Priti Patel
I will give way shortly.
Our plan will increase the fairness of our system so that we can better protect those who are in need of genuine asylum. That is absolutely right, and it is important that we have that fair principle. However, it will also do something that I sense does not interest the Labour party: it will deter illegal entry to the UK, and, importantly, will break the business model of the smuggling gangs and protect the lives of those whom they are endangering.
Stephen Timms
One of the big problems at present is the very long time that it takes to determine asylum applications. Since the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), left the Home Office, the number of case workers has gone up but the number of decisions has gone down in every single year. Why has that catastrophic fall in productivity been allowed to occur?
Priti Patel
I shall go on to refer specifically to the time it takes to process cases, but the right hon. Gentleman will also be familiar with the number of appeals involved. This is not just about initial decisions; it is about the system itself, seen from an end-to-end perspective. That is why—and I will go on to make this case as well—in our new plan for immigration, as the right hon. Gentleman and all other Members will be aware, we are speaking about comprehensive end-to-end reform of the asylum system that looks at every single stage.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary explain why the number of initial decisions—not appeals—made by the Home Office dropped by 27% between 2015 and 2019, before the pandemic started?
Priti Patel
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. In relation to the initial decision making—this point is absolutely in our new plan for immigration—we are looking not just at caseworkers, but at digitalising the system to make it much more efficient. The fact is that when more cases are coming in that are down to things such as illegal immigration—people being exploited by coming into the country illegally—the number of cases in the system has gone up. That is a fact. Cases have gone up over a significant period of time.
Priti Patel
I will shortly, but I am going to make a bit of progress. It is important to reflect on the fact that when it comes to reforming the immigration system and tackling many of these complex issues, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. I think it is important for all right hon. and hon. Members to recognise that we would be kidding ourselves if we thought there was a silver bullet and said, “There is one thing that could be done.” There are a range of cumulative issues that this legislation seeks to address.
When we launched our new plan for immigration, Labour effectively spoke out about many of the measures in the Bill and in the new plan for immigration. I think it is fair to say that the Opposition seem to think that the British people have the wrong priorities when it comes to tackling issues of migration and illegal entry.
Priti Patel
I will give way shortly, but I want to make progress first. The Opposition argue that it is wrong to deport murderers, rapists and dangerous criminals—[Interruption.] It is a fact. They think that border controls are wrong. They think that ending free movement is wrong. Well, Labour Members can sigh and shake their heads, but the fact of the matter is that over the last 12 months, when it has come to ending free movement and having discussions about reforming immigration and our points-based system, they seem to think that open borders are the answer. They obviously do not support our new plan for immigration. They do not like the people’s priorities when it comes to these issues, yet they have no plan.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The public seem to want a fair, fast and affordable system, so can the Home Secretary tell the public how much more the taxpayer will pay for her new proposals?
Priti Patel
In fact, the taxpayer will be saving money in the long run. We already spend over £1 billion a year on dealing with the failed and broken asylum system. If the hon. Gentleman has read the Bill and the new plan for immigration, which I urge him to do, he will see that there are a range of measures—
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir John Hayes
I am extremely grateful. Is not the truth of the matter that too often our courts exaggerate the significance of international treaties and obligations and, by so doing, frustrate the process by which we deport illegal immigrants, including large numbers of foreign criminals?
Priti Patel
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and for his observation. There are a range of aspects, certainly through this Bill, that we are seeking to address in order to make courts and immigration tribunals more efficient. It is wrong for them to have endless appeals, where individuals frustrate the appeals process and clog up the system. It is right that we do that because otherwise there will be individuals—genuine people seeking to claim asylum—who are simply not getting their cases heard, and we want to make sure that we can give them the support.
Priti Patel
No, I will not.
For years, people have risked their lives to enter our country, such as those crossing the channel in dangerous boats to claim asylum. [Interruption.] I have been generous in giving way and I will give way again shortly, but I would like to make progress.
If there were simple and straightforward solutions to many of these challenges—my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) has touched on this—issues such as illegal migration to the UK would have been resolved by now, but illegal entry to the UK and the subsequent claims of asylum have become complex because of the nature of cases that arise. But I am absolutely clear that no one should seek to put their life, or the lives of their family, in the hands of criminals to enter the UK illegally, and I would like to think that that is an important point that this House can unite on.
The Bill will finally address the issues that over a long period of time, cumulatively, have resulted in the broken system that we have now. It is a system that is being abused, allowing criminals to put the lives of the vulnerable at risk, and it is right that we do everything possible and find measures to fix this and ensure that a fair asylum system provides a safe haven to those fleeing persecution, oppression and tyranny.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We are receiving emails saying that this Bill is somehow cruel to illegal migrants, but is not the cruellest thing to do nothing? This very day, hundreds of people are putting their life at risk by crossing the channel. If we close these loopholes, if we clear up the doubts about human rights legislation and if we create safe havens, this trade will stop dead, as it did for Australia.
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are many ways in which we can address this problem, and creating safe and legal routes, which are in the Bill and are something I have spoken about many times, will build upon the generosity of our country. We are generous as a nation when it comes to providing refuge and support to people fleeing persecution, but what we have to do right now is stop this trade in which people are being exploited so that they can come to the country illegally.
Priti Patel
No, I am giving way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has been waiting patiently.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. One of the things that greatly concerns me and others in this House, and I know it concerns her, is the children held in immigration detention. The figure has dropped since 2019, down to 73, but they often arrive having been separated from their family, or they arrive unaccompanied, unaware that they will be placed in detention straightaway. What will be done to help children in particular?
Priti Patel
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I will shortly address some of these wider issues, but obviously, along with our work on safe and legal routes, we have to provide the right pathways and a secure environment for children to rebuild their lives. That is at the heart of our work in being humane, compassionate and fair.
Our system is overwhelmed, and it is a strong point of reflection that, because of the trends we have been seeing in organised immigration crime and gangs that are effectively exploiting vulnerable individuals, we now need to be able to provide support and to understand where those needs are coming from. Genuine people are being elbowed aside by those who are paying traffickers to come to our country.
Priti Patel
I will not give way.
As a nation, we have always stepped up to support refugees in need, and rightly so. This is a great source of national pride for our country, and of course that will never change.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Priti Patel
No, I will not give way.
Since 2015, more than 25,000 refugees have been resettled in the UK from regions of conflict under formal schemes, more than in any other European country. Again, reflecting on the comment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, this has happened at a time when we have seen all sorts of challenges around the world and have seen people fleeing persecution, oppression and conflict.
In addition, more than 29,000 close relatives have joined those refugees in the UK over the past five years. Our country is not mean spirited or ungenerous towards asylum seekers, as some may claim.
Chris Bryant
May I gently say to the right hon. Lady that I do not think the issue is whether we are mean spirited or generous? The issue is whether the legislation that she is introducing will actually solve the problem. Every single Member of this House is opposed to illegal migration and every single Member of this House hates the trafficking that has made many vulnerable people put their children in terrible positions, through no will of their own. If we really are to have an end-to-end solution, do we not need to be able to answer the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the Chair of the Homes Affairs Committee? Do we not all have to be able to say how we will make sure that the factors that push so many people out of their country, when they would much prefer to stay, are dealt with?
Priti Patel
If the hon. Gentleman had followed much of the work undertaken by the Home Office prior to the introduction of the Bill, and if he had looked at our new plan for immigration, he would fully appreciate the end-to-end work that is already in train. There is a lot of upstream work to go after criminals outside the United Kingdom, not just in France but across Europe. We do a great deal of work with our partners around the world and across Europe on intelligence to go after criminal gangs, but he will recognise that that is one component of our work.
I have already spoken about the refugees we have resettled from parts of the world where there has been oppression and conflict. It is a fact that, since 2015, this Government, with the generosity of the British public, have spent billions of pounds on accommodation, education, healthcare and amenities to resettle people and keep them in their own regions. That is absolutely right. I can say from my time as Secretary of State for International Development that economic development in countries upstream is at the heart of everything we do. Of course, there is much more that we need to do on that.
Chris Bryant
This is a really important point. The vast majority of people who, as the Secretary of State said earlier, put their children at risk by putting them on boats to cross the channel are doing so only because they were forced to leave their country—they did not do so of their own free will. The more we can do to prevent that happening at source will, in the end, save us from some of this headache, will it not?
Priti Patel
There are a number of points to make on the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. First and foremost, no one would dispute the work that we do in other countries around the world, or how vital it is. All of our Governments have had a very strong record on that—on investment in people, in livelihoods, in women and girls, and in economic empowerment. That is fundamental to the work of the Government and always has been.
Secondly, we must recognise that, given the trends we are seeing in illegal migration, the majority of people entering the UK illegally are travelling through safe countries across the EU where they could claim asylum. Indeed, the figures bear this out. France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Greece are all safe countries, yet these people are being trafficked through those countries. Furthermore, the majority of people entering the United Kingdom are young men, not women and children, and they are paying the people smugglers to push those women and children to one side. That is why—
Several hon. Members rose—
Priti Patel
If I may just finish my remarks before I go back to my speech. That is why our focus is on creating safe routes and looking at what we can do outside the United Kingdom to help support women and children and families to come to the United Kingdom to resettle. These are important principles that we have already established in our resettlement schemes, and we do want to do much more in this area.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a very good speech. As we can see from the Bill, much needs to be done. I want to draw her attention to part 4, which deals with modern slavery. I was very proud when the Centre for Social Justice brought forward the paper and very proud that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) brought forward the world’s first legislation on this subject. There are problems with part 4. I gently ask her and her team to retain an open mind about changes that may come forward, because we really do want to lead the world on this and be generous to those who are not just trafficked, but trafficked for the most abominable reasons.
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know from our discussions that we will continue to work with him and others to ensure that we are doing the right thing. I will come to part 4 later in my remarks, but let me expand on exactly where we are seeing the problems and anomalies within the system. Of course we want to close them down, because modern slavery is absolutely abhorrent, but there are key elements that we also need to address.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I cannot let the comment from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) just pass. He made the point that people who seek asylum here are always fleeing their country because of persecution. I have many concerns about the immigration Bills that have been passed in this place, many by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister. It is naive to think that the people coming through irregular routes are only seeking asylum for reasons of persecution. There are a large number who are seeking asylum based purely on economic migration. Is that not one reason why separating out regular and irregular people is such an important change in the way that we are pursuing the legislation?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is right, and that is where the system becomes conflated and there is no separation between the two. He is absolutely right to make that point.
Priti Patel
I will not give way. [Interruption.] I have been very generous in taking interventions, and I would like to make some progress.
It is important to reflect on the fact that, when it comes to anyone claiming asylum in the UK—this is established in long-standing legislation—we have a statutory duty in relation to accommodation, subsistence, cash and transportation. The system, as I have already mentioned to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), is currently costing the taxpayer more than £1 billion a year. It is right that we look to reform the system, and not just to make it efficient but to ensure that we do the right thing. The very principle of seeking refuge has clearly been undermined by those who are paying to travel through safe countries and then claiming asylum in the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) said, many of those are economic migrants and not just those fleeing persecution. People should be claiming asylum in the first safe country that they reach and not using the UK as a destination of choice. That is why our intention is to work—
Priti Patel
I will not; I have given way several times now.
Our intention is to address the wider system to fix this problem so that we can help those who are in genuine need to resettle here. We are strengthening through the Bill the safe and legal ways in which people can enter the UK, adopting a fair and firm approach. From today, I will be granting indefinite leave to remain to refugees resettled under our world-leading resettlement schemes, giving them the vital freedom to succeed from the moment that they arrive in our country and, importantly, offering certainty and stability to help them rebuild their lives from day one.[Official Report, 22 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 9MC.] That is absolutely the right thing to do. From that, we can also learn and build better schemes going forward.
We also want to continue to strengthen our proud record to support those in need, such as, over the past few months, the brave Afghan nationals who have worked alongside our brave military and who are now benefiting from a bespoke resettlement scheme. That is in addition to the type of scheme we have set up for British nationals overseas from Hong Kong whose liberties were restricted and who are now able to live freely in the UK, with a full pathway to citizenship, thanks to the route that we opened up this year. We will always give people coming through safe resettlement schemes the support that they need, which is of course the right thing to do. From learning English to gaining employment and training, they will gain essential skills to build a new life in the UK. New pilots to support refugees into work are already happening. Community sponsorship schemes that are well-established and have been established over recent years are making an enormous difference and helping local communities to support refugees directly. We want to do more, and we are empowering more schemes like these every day.
Those displaced by conflict and violence will also be able to benefit from access to our global points-based immigration system to enable skilled people who have been displaced and who have fled their homes to come to the UK safely and legally through established routes. We will work with the charity Talent Beyond Boundaries and other partners on this pilot project. Up to 100 refugees in Jordan and Lebanon will be supported first to gain sponsorship from a UK employer. These are the types of schemes that we will continue to build on.
This is in addition to our world-leading resettlement schemes. Providing greater support to refugees arriving safely will reduce the incentive to enter the country dangerously and illegally, because when the British people object to illegal entry, they are right to make the case as to it being absolutely abhorrent. In 2020, 8,500 people arrived in the UK by small boat, 87% of whom were men and 74% of whom were aged 18 to 39. Those who claim that it is heartless to stop these illegal crossings have it all the wrong way round, because it would be heartless and immoral to let them continue to do so through these dangerous and perilous journeys. People have drowned in the channel, and thousands, some only recently, just three weeks ago, have died in the Mediterranean.
It is not just illegal sea journeys that are lethal. One of my first and saddest tasks as Home Secretary was to respond to the devastating and, really, preventable deaths of 39 Vietnamese people in a trailer found in Essex. The judge described their deaths through suffocation as “excruciatingly painful”. This terrible crime was organised by a gang; it was all gang activity. In recognition of the severity of this appalling crime, five members of the people-smuggling gang were jailed, with two ringleaders going down for 20 and 27 years respectively. Two lorry drivers were imprisoned on manslaughter charges with sentences of 18 years and 13 years, four months. Such cases are not just heartbreaking; there is only one word for them: they are evil. We have a moral duty to prevent such appalling atrocities from happening again. There is simply no justification for what is going on. People-smugglers are motivated by profit. They line their pockets with the takings to finance other crimes such as drugs and firearms-trafficking. They do not organise illegal entry by small boat and in the back of lorries out of kindness.
Three weeks ago, to give another example, late at night, I received what I can only describe as a sickening call from officials at the Home Office. They told me of reports of a family attempting to make their way across the channel who had been separated. They said that people smugglers in northern France had forced a mother and father to get into a small boat at gunpoint. They said that their family, their two young daughters, would be put in the next boat to make the crossing. When the parents refused to be separated from their children, the people smugglers threatened them again.
The anguish and distress of those parents is absolutely unthinkable, but it is all too common for families to be put into many such perilous situations by criminal gangs. Organised gangs involved in exploiting and trafficking children are of course involved in modern-day slavery. We have also had recent accounts of facilitators using violence. The threat of guns and violence has now become the norm. The threat of violence also includes rape to control people. We are talking about unimaginable wickedness. We cannot, in good conscience, fail to act. We have a moral obligation to stop this vile trade, because human beings are not cargo.
The status quo is entirely unacceptable. That is why I and this Government will look at all options—every option—and work with international partners on how to fix the system and save lives. We are determined to smash the criminal gangs who cause such misery. We are absolutely determined to break their business model.
Let me turn to the key measures in the Bill. It is illegal to arrive in UK waters without permission. Those who bring migrants to the UK and facilitate illegal entry will now face a life sentence. That criminal and exploitative behaviour can now be punished with the severity it rightly deserves. A maximum prison sentence for entering the country illegally will increase from six months to four years. We are sending—we need to send—a signal to those criminal gangs that there is increased risk of paying for propping up criminal activity to get to the UK illegally.
The Bill will also give Border Force additional powers, including powers to seize vessels used to facilitate illegal entry to the UK. Border Force will be able to search all freight for people suspected of seeking illegal entry, to prevent illegal trafficking and facilitation, like the case of almost 50 minors who were found recently hidden in tiny crevices in the back of a lorry with no chance of escape. This is what we are dealing with.
In addition to the changes and the powers for Border Force, we intend to make the border fully digital, which will not only allow us to count people in and out, but, importantly, help us to stop dangerous people coming here. Anyone who is not a British or Irish citizen will need to provide more information about themselves before they travel, including any history of criminality. Electronic travel authorisations have been a major step in our border security. Carriers will check that passengers have the digital authorisation, or another form of digital permission such as a visa, before they travel. They will risk a civil penalty if they fail to deny boarding to those without permission. We are also increasing the maximum penalty for hauliers caught entering the UK with an illegal migrant onboard from £2,000 to £5,000.
In addition to many of the changes included in the Bill, we will introduce new accommodation and reception centres, which are already used by many countries across Europe and elsewhere. They will provide new accommodation for processing and speeding up claims, and that will include the reforms to and digitisation of much of our own processes within the Home Office. Asylum seekers will be allocated to accommodation centres by the Department and the Home Secretary, rather than being dispersed across the United Kingdom, as we do already.
Currently, detained appeals are subject to the same rules as non-detained appeals. There is no set timeframe in which decisions have to be made. That can result in appeals taking a long time. We will reinstate an accelerated appeals process that is fast enough to enable claims to be dealt with from detention, while ensuring that a person who is detained has fair access to justice. That will expedite the removal of people without a legitimate need to claim asylum in the UK.
In recent years we have seen some of the most shocking cases of grown adults—mostly men—claiming asylum as children. Through deception, they have been able to access children’s services and education, leading to the most worrying cases and safeguarding issues. This Bill will change how someone’s age is assessed. Many countries around the world and across the EU already employ safe scientific methods, and we will start to do so. This will stop people falsely claiming to be children and protect genuine children from being moved into the adult asylum system.
The British public are incredulous that it is so hard to remove foreign criminals and failed asylum seekers from our shores. We are therefore amending the early removal scheme to help us to remove foreign criminals from the UK as early as possible. The British people have also had enough of foreign criminals getting one over on us. One foreign national offender first claimed asylum in 2001. He chose to leave the UK voluntarily in 2009, re-entering in 2011 with his wife and child and claiming asylum for a second time. He was deported in 2015 after a 15-month sentence for sexual assault on a child. He returned to the UK in breach of a deportation order in 2017 and was arrested and detained. He then went on to make a fresh asylum claim. He then appealed that refusal and eventually exhausted his rights to appeal.
In detention, this man sewed his lips together, refused food or fluid and declined healthcare. Then, in 2018, he was released on health grounds with electronic monitoring. He appealed this decision through the family courts and a hearing was scheduled for months later, acting as a barrier to removal. Then, in early 2018, he cut off his electronic tag. In 2019, he was arrested on suspicion of murder after his estranged wife was found dead. That is not justice, and it shows that our system is simply not working. Things cannot continue like this, and we must change the law so that we can remove dangerous foreign criminals and ensure that justice is done.
The Bill raises the minimum sentence for any foreign criminal who returns to the UK in breach of a deportation order from six months to five years.[Official Report, 22 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 9MC.] It speeds up appeals and stops the endless cycle of baseless claims. People who are subject to removal action often wait until the very last minute to make a challenge, leading to cancelled flights and delayed removals—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead could recount many tales from her time as Home Secretary—and this has become standard practice when it comes to too many of these cases with foreign national offenders and others.
Time and time again, we see murderers, rapists and child abusers launching numerous last-minute claims to attempt to try to stay in the UK. That simply is not right. These last-minute claims and appeals mean that criminals can thwart removal from our country, even when they are on the tarmac ready to be removed from the UK. We have had far too many cases like that, and we and the British public are sick of it.
Through this Bill, all protection-related issues will need to be raised up front and in one go, and that includes, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has already said, claims of modern-day slavery. It will stop the endless cycle of people raising repeated claims to frustrate their removal. Our approach is fair, but firm. It is firm where we have seen too many abuses over many years and, in fact, decades. The notice period of an intention to remove someone will be standardised, and we will provide fair access to justice and legal advice for individuals.
Slavery is one of humanity’s greatest evils, and it has never gone away. It was a Conservative Government who pushed through the Modern Slavery Act 2015, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead when she was Home Secretary. The House recognises—we all do—that she deserves immense credit for the work that she undertook. It was an act of good faith that other countries have since been inspired to follow. We will continue, as we have done, to protect victims of modern slavery by creating a statutory grant of leave for confirmed victims. They of course need the time and the support to recover from their horrendous and appalling ordeals, and the authorities also need time to bring perpetrators to justice.
I would also like to pay tribute to many colleagues in the House and to policing partners as well, who have worked diligently. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has already mentioned the Centre for Social Justice, but we have worked with policing partners as well to look at many of the cases around law enforcement and bringing perpetrators to justice—how difficult some of those cases are. But the law on modern slavery is being exploited.
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman will have his chance to speak shortly.
There has been an alarming increase in the number of illegal entrants and foreign national offenders, including child rapists and people who pose a national security risk seeking modern-day slavery referrals to avoid immigration detention and frustrate removal from the UK.
One individual, who was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK, had that leave revoked following persistent offending that led to a prison sentence adding to more than 12 months. They were subject to a deportation order, a decision upheld by the courts. On the day that they were due to be removed, they went on to make an asylum claim. Once that was refused, they claimed to be a victim of modern slavery in relation to incidents several years before they came to the United Kingdom. This was then referred to the national referral mechanism, which rightly identifies and supports victims of modern slavery. Decisions on these cases currently take around 12 months, with a low bar for postponing removal. The person was released from detention and their removal was postponed. They subsequently absconded and went on to commit further serious offences.
The Bill contains vital measures to ensure that victims are identified as quickly as possible, while making it easier to distinguish between genuine and non-genuine accounts of modern slavery. It is absolutely right, as I have said throughout my remarks this afternoon, that we are doing the right thing to support genuine victims and genuine asylum seekers. This is where we absolutely need to reform the system, to close down loopholes and gaps that are being exploited by those who have been a harm to British citizens and who have no legal right to be in the UK.
Help and support will be available where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is a victim, rather than that they may be a victim. People claiming asylum or human rights protections will be required to provide relevant information relating to being a victim of slavery or human trafficking within a specified period. In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, I say that this is exactly the area where we need to do more work. We will absolutely work with Members of the House and other organisations to make sure that we have the right protective measures in place for those who have absolutely been victims of modern-day slavery.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The Home Secretary is being most generous in giving way. The time in which people are granted leave to remain has a bearing on whether we can prosecute those who are guilty, because they need to be settled, in a settled state, able to give evidence and not fearing what will happen next. This will have a huge impact on the ability to prosecute those who traffic them.
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Without going into detail here, I give him the assurance that this is effectively what we are seeking to achieve and are working on right now. The point has been very well made by him and by the Centre for Social Justice. Linked to his comment, it is right that we pool all our resources into helping genuine victims of modern slavery and that we do not allow dangerous foreign criminals, who are effectively pushing aside real victims, to go on to abuse the system for their own despicable means.
We already maintain a list of safe countries that consistently adhere to international human rights law, to stop people delaying removal by falsely claiming that their human rights are at risk. Every EU country will be on that list, as they are safe countries. That speaks to the point frequently made and discussed in this House that people moving through safe countries—through EU member states—should seek to claim asylum in the first safe country, not to come to the UK as a destination of choice. Furthermore, we are taking a power to allow us to remove countries from the list as well as adding them to it, so that the list can remain relevant and appropriate to our needs as assessments change.
If someone’s human rights claim is clearly unfounded, there will no longer be a right to appeal. Whether someone has complied with the asylum or removal process will also be considered when deciding whether to grant immigration bail. Other countries must co-operate when taking back those citizens who have no right to be in the UK. If countries do not co-operate in the return of their nationals, their access to our generous, fast and open visa system will be at risk. Every effort will be made to remove those who enter the UK having travelled through a safe country in which they could and should have claimed asylum.
For the first time, how people arrive in our country will impact on how their claim is progressed. Those we cannot remove but whose claims prevail will receive only temporary status with limited entitlements. Anyone who arrives in the UK via a safe third country may have their claim declined and be returned to a country they arrived from or a third safe country.[Official Report, 22 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 9MC.] People who make a successful claim after arriving via another safe country may receive new temporary protection status without the same benefits and entitlements, and that will be reassessed periodically.
The Bill also makes it easier to remove someone to another safe country while their asylum claim is being processed and enables us to recover taxpayers’ money from lawyers where their unreasonable behaviour wastes the courts’ and other parties’ resources.
Priti Patel
No, I will not give way. I have taken many interventions.
We are also closing the loophole that has prevented the defence of some immigration decisions on the ground of national security.
I am resolute that we must fix a terrible injustice suffered by the Windrush generation and others who were denied British citizenship unfairly—
Priti Patel
By successive Governments, if the hon. Gentleman had read the Wendy Williams report about Windrush. I have already overhauled the Windrush compensation scheme. I urge colleagues across the House to help us encourage people to come forward. What happened to them must never be repeated. That also means fixing our outdated nationality laws. The Bill gives the Home Secretary power to grant British citizenship to people who would have become British citizens if not for unfairness and exceptional circumstances beyond their control. For example, in one case, an individual was refused citizenship due to an absence from the UK on a given day, despite many years of previous residence. Of course it was not his fault.
The Bill provides further flexibility to waive residency requirements to help members of the Windrush generation and others acquire British citizenship more quickly. That will also mean that children unfairly denied British overseas territory citizenship can finally acquire citizenship here. That was one of the anomalies that came out in the Windrush scandal.
Our laws must be clearer and easier to understand. The “Windrush Lessons Learned Review” by Wendy Williams also said that immigration and nationality law is complex. The Bill gives the Home Secretary the power to simplify and consolidate immigration law so that we can address many of the citizenship anomalies that have existed for too long—for decades, in fact.
The British people are generous and compassionate. As I said to the hon. Member for Rhondda earlier, they give billions of pounds every year in overseas aid to provide support in countries around the world, to empower countries and communities and to invest in many economies. The British public also embrace those in genuine need and want people to succeed. They also want a system that is fair and firm—fair to the British people and to those in genuine need, but firm against the criminals and those who exploit our generosity by gaming the system.
The Bill is critical to delivering that new fair but firm system. It is also central to our new plan for immigration. It goes a long way to addressing decades of failure and challenges, in the law and illegal migration and in immigration courts and tribunals, in the way in which I have just reflected upon. The Windrush scandal has shone a spotlight on many of the anomalies that have existed when it comes to citizenship. We will change those areas, with secure borders and rules that will be easy to understand. That is part of the cumulative end-to-end change that we seek to introduce.
We want to slam the door on foreign criminals, put organised crime gangs out of business, and of course give help and support to those in genuine need. Everyone who plays by the rules will encounter a new system—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Home Secretary, but does the hon. Lady have an actual point of order?
Debbie Abrahams
As the Home Secretary is very eloquently saying, this is an incredibly important piece of legislation, and the lack of opportunity to hold the Government to account on it is a source of real concern. Can she invite—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. That is not a point of order. We are starting a debate, the purpose of which is to allow this House to hold the Government to account. We will be doing so until 10 o’clock tonight, and then again tomorrow. That is not a point of order, and the hon. Lady knows that.
Priti Patel
This is an important Bill, and it is right that we have given the House plenty of time to debate it.
We are seeking to achieve systematic, end-to-end reform of this system, but it is complex—it is absolutely complicated. Throughout this debate and in Committee, I hope all hon. Members will reflect on some of the points that have been made by Government Members. Over decades, we have found anomalies in our system. I have mentioned Windrush, tribunals and many of the processes that we want to streamline, which will of course deal with efficiency and productivity in case management.
Fundamentally, the new system will be fair to those who need our help and support. Everyone who plays by the rules will encounter a new system that is fair but firm. As representatives of the British people, we will be finally in control of many of these highly challenging issues that many successive Governments have sought to address in different ways, but now this Government are committed to fixing the broken system.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the shadow Home Secretary—[Interruption.] I would be obliged if the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) did not speak loudly while I am on my feet. He can heckle other people, but he should not be heckling the Chair. I draw to the House’s attention the fact that there is obviously a very large list of people who wish to take part in this important debate. Therefore, there will be an initial time limit of four minutes, which will be reduced to three minutes at some point, depending on how fast we proceed.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Nationality and Borders Bill, notwithstanding the need to address the increasing number of dangerous boat crossings in the English Channel, because the Bill breaches the 1951 Refugee Convention, does not address the Government’s failure since 2010 to competently process asylum applications which has resulted in a backlog of cases and increased costs to the taxpayer, fails to deal with the serious and organised crime groups who are profiteering from human trafficking and modern slavery, does not address the failure to replace the Dublin III regulations to return refugees to safe countries, fails to re-establish safe routes and help unaccompanied child refugees, and fails to deliver a workable agreement with France to address the issue of boat crossings.
We on these Benches will be opposing this Bill. It is a Bill that is wrong and will make the dangerous situation in the English channel worse. We on these Benches do not want to see people risking their lives making a sea crossing in some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, often in boats that are unfit for purpose, but the measures proposed will not address that.
By judging claims on the type of journey people make, Ministers will create
“a discriminatory two-tiered approach to asylum”.
Those are not my words but the words of the United Nations Refugee Agency. That must be our starting point today. Any proposals—I will come to some in a moment—to address this profoundly serious issue must be compliant with the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees.
We should in this House remember the circumstances in which that convention was created. Drafting began in 1946, after the end of the second world war, as the full horrors perpetrated in that conflict had been brought into public view. It was a noble ideal for nations to work together to prevent such awful things from happening again. Countries came together to ensure that, across the world, we would offer a new protection to those who suffered persecution. Countries would not look the other way when there was systematic persecution in other parts of the world. We all bore a responsibility in our common humanity to help others.
The convention was signed under the post-war Labour Government in July 1951, but the document became one of the foundation stones upon which all post-war British Governments stood—a matter of pride to our country and a sign of the values we stand for around the world. It sent a clear signal that Britain was a force for good and was setting a strong moral example that gave it the authority to argue that other countries take responsibility as well. It is to this Government’s shame that they stand outside that fine British tradition. Seventy years after the 1951 convention was signed, this Government have decided to renege on its commitments. [Interruption.] I hear what the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), the Minister for immigration compliance, says, but do not take my word for it. This is what the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says about the proposals:
“The international refugee protection system, underpinned by the 1951 Convention, has withstood the test of time and it remains a collective responsibility to uphold and safeguard it. If States, like the UK, that receive a comparatively small fraction of the world’s asylum-seekers and refugees appear poised to renege on their commitments, the system is weakened globally and the role and influence of the UK would be severely impacted. UNHCR is concerned that the Plan, if implemented as it stands, will undermine the 1951 Convention and international protection system, not just in the UK, but globally.”
If the Minister doubts that, this is what the United Nations Refugee Agency had to say ahead of this Second Reading debate:
“Plans to create a new lower class of refugees are discriminatory, breach commitments in the Refugee Convention and should be dropped”.
They are breaching commitments in the refugee convention that a past British Government who truly believed in a global Britain had signed.
In fact, the UN Refugee Agency said the two-tier approach is:
“a recipe for human suffering, social problems, inefficiency and greater cost to the taxpayer.”
Frankly, it is a dangerous and ill-thought-out proposal with profound consequences.
Stuart C. McDonald
Given that there seems to be unanimity that the Bill should be interpreted in the light of the refugee convention and apparently the Government intention is to follow the refugee convention, surely there could be no possible objection to an interpretation clause in the Bill. We can all work together to put that in there to ensure that all the provisions follow refugee case law and the refugee convention as it is.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In reality, this is a Bill based on an immigration plan that is harmful. Just listen to the story of Waheed Arian, now an NHS doctor who escaped the Taliban in Afghanistan as a child. These are his words:
“When I arrived alone in London, a bewildered 15-year-old with nothing to my name but $100 and my hopes and dreams, I had no idea I’d end up two decades later working as an NHS doctor fighting Covid-19 on the frontline in A&E. As a former child refugee from Afghanistan, under the UK government’s so-called New Plan for Immigration, it is doubtful I would be here at all.”
I repeat:
“It is doubtful I would be here at all.”
We also know the serious concerns that have been raised by campaigners across the LGBT+ community about the Bill. The way it is so badly drafted risks us turning our back on people fleeing persecution. This is particularly chilling when we know the scale of the dangers faced by so many LGBT+ people across the world, including state-sanctioned persecution. The plan is wrong and it is wrong-headed.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to the Home Secretary, he would realise we are not on about Waheed. We are not on about stopping him from achieving what he wants to do. We are on about people who are coming here through safe routes, often adults using the child route, and stopping them from abusing that system. If the right hon. Gentleman had actually listened to my right hon. Friend, he would have probably picked that up.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
With the greatest respect, if the hon. Gentleman had listened to me, he would realise they were not my words I was quoting—it was Waheed Arian himself I was quoting.
The Government say that the asylum system is broken. I totally agree. And it is the Conservative Government who have broken it over the past 11 years. Under this Conservative Government, the asylum processing system has imploded. Their own incompetence, removing targets from the system and failing to run it properly, has completely undermined it.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman says it has imploded under the Conservative Government. I remind him that after his party had been in power for 10 years, there was a backlog of nearly 500,000 asylum cases and 120,000 of them were put in the controlled archive because they were unable to trace them.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
If the hon. Member wants to hear about statistics, try these: the share of applications that received an initial decision within six months fell from 87% in 2014 to 20% in 2019. That is the scale of the failure of this Government. At the end of March 2021, over 66,000 were waiting for an outcome on their initial claim. Seventy-five per cent. of them—over 50,000—have been waiting over six months. New research from the Refugee Council shows that, according to the most recent data available, over 33,000 people have been waiting for over a year. I have been intervened on about the last Labour Government, but that represents a tenfold increase in the past decade—tenfold. It is failure heaped upon failure, and not only that: the initial decision making is so poorly judged that around 40% of initial decisions are overturned: so four in every 10 decisions are wrong. Yes, this process is broken and, frankly, it is getting even worse.
Mrs May
I note the right hon. Gentleman has made the point about initial decisions. Does he not recognise that one of the problems has been the ability for people to bring extra evidence after that decision has been made, so that the court is often looking at a case that is different from the one on which the initial decision was made?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will come to that point in a moment because I have deep concerns about that. The right hon. Lady passed, as has already been pointed out, the legislation on modern slavery, but it is also the case that victims often feel too traumatised to talk about their experience at an early stage, so this idea of giving such minimal weight to later evidence I find very concerning, particularly in the modern slavery context. I will come back to that in a moment because I know it is a matter of concern on the Conservative Benches as well as on these.
Mrs May
I do apologise to the right hon. Gentleman and he is very gracious in giving way, but can I just say to him that that comment about modern slavery—and he will hear that I have some concerns about the modern slavery aspects of this Bill—did not respond to the intervention that I made?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
With great respect to the right hon. Lady, she was making the point about late filing of evidence, and I was making the point in response—I will come on to it in a moment, and I am quite happy to give way to her again when I do—that the way this Bill is framed, in terms of the direction to give very little weight to late evidence, is very concerning with respect to victims who are unable to talk about their trauma at an early stage in the proceedings. I will come back to that and I will be very happy to give way to her again when I do.
On asylum accommodation, the idea of sending people to offshore processing sites is dehumanising and unconscionable. As the UN Refugee Agency puts it,
“The UK should abandon plans to ‘externalise’ its refugee commitments, which would see it shift responsibility for protecting refugees on to states with less capacity and more refugees.”
Frankly, it is an attempt to distract from Government failure on the housing of those seeking asylum.
Stephen Timms
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I agree with him about this point. Of course, Australia has undertaken offshore processing, and there are terrible stories, which shame Australia, about what has happened to some people in those places. Has he had any indication: where might these offshore places be where asylum applicants could be processed?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. Unfortunately, I have had no such indication beyond leaks to the media, a fact which will probably not surprise him.
Last month, the High Court judgment on Napier barracks found inadequate health and safety conditions and a failure to screen victims of trafficking and other vulnerabilities. The Home Office continued to house people against the advice of Public Health England, endangering those in the accommodation, staff and the local community. It resulted in what the Court described as an “inevitable” covid outbreak in January 2021, with nearly 200 people testing positive for the virus. No wonder the independent chief inspector of borders and Her Majesty’s inspector of prisons published an emergency report that raised “serious safeguarding concerns”. On asylum accommodation, this Government have failed and failed dangerously.
The idea that this Bill helps those fleeing violence and persecution does not stand up to scrutiny. Let me take one example, because the former Prime Minister raised it a moment or two ago. The Bill says that evidence submitted late without good reason should be given only “minimal weight” by asylum judges. Asylum seekers have been required for the past 19 years to submit arguments and evidence at an early stage. Now it seems we are going to have a situation where judges are directed to have minimal regard to evidence being given late. But there are many reasons why refugees, and particularly victims of human trafficking, cannot provide evidence at an early stage, not least the fact it is difficult for survivors of trauma to talk about their experience immediately, including—and, indeed, especially—women and other survivors of sexual violence. That shows the real failure at the heart of this Bill. It fails victims of human trafficking, and it is a glaring missed opportunity to address the vile crime of people smuggling. Instead, the Government will turn their back on some of the most vulnerable people on Earth.
The Bill changes the law so that helping an asylum seeker will no longer need to be done “for gain” to attract criminal liability. That is what the Bill does, and it is a profound and dangerous change in the law. It could criminalise the Royal National Lifeboat Institution for saving people at sea, and it seems to take no account whatsoever of the international law of the sea, which requires ships’ captains to assist those who are in distress. Let us be frank about this. Had this measure been in place when Sir Nicholas Winton was rescuing hundreds of children from the holocaust on the Kindertransport, he would have risked being criminalised—[Interruption.] There is no point in Members shaking their heads, because this legislation risks bringing into the scope of the criminal law those who are helping people for humanitarian reasons.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Gentleman says that that is disgusting, but it is what is in the Bill. I suggest he takes it up with the Home Secretary. The Bill is wrong, it benefits nobody and it sends out the worst possible signal about the Government’s intentions.
Let me turn now to what the Government should be doing instead. First, we need legally binding targets for clearing asylum cases and proper resourcing for Border Force. The Government are failing, and they are not acting in the national interest. The system is hugely costly for the taxpayer, and it leaves people in the asylum system stuck in limbo, unable either to properly enter society and rebuild their lives or to be returned to a safe country. There is little wonder that performance has been so poor due to the cuts to Border Force.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. This might be me being naive, as I am quite new to the House, but is not the whole purpose of Second Reading to discuss the Bill so that we can go forward to the Committee stage where the Opposition can put forward their points, rather than voting against the whole of a Bill that would stop this broken system that they keep mentioning?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Bill is wrong and it will not solve the problem. Let me just continue with the critique. The Government—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
No, I have already given way to the hon. Lady.
The Government should seek to rebuild the system so that it is fair. Quick, effective decision making is in the best interests of everyone, and Ministers should be legislating for legally binding targets for processing asylum cases. We need a proper plan to deliver deals with international partners to tackle gangs, because the measures outlined in the Government’s plans completely fail in their own terms. The measures are all dependent on deals with international partners, both to stop criminal gangs operating on the French coast and to replace the Dublin III regulation allowing those registered in a “safe country” before they reached the UK to be returned after a failed claim.
The existing arrangements with France on stopping gangs exploiting people and putting them into boats in the English channel are clearly not working. The Minister for immigration compliance has talked about his joint operational plan. He said that he would be completely cutting this route and that he would be working at pace “in the coming days” to make that a reality. That was 11 months ago. The Government talk about safe countries, but Ministers have not signed any of the required deals with any of the European Union countries to return those whose claims have failed. The Government have shown a complete inability to deliver these deals, which risks leaving people stranded in the UK, unable to be returned and in limbo. Yes, there should be full life tariff sentences for human traffickers and tougher sentences on modern slavery. The problem is that under these plans the Government will weaken protections for victims of modern slavery—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads clause 48 of the Bill, because he will discover in it a higher bar for people receiving support as victims of human trafficking. That is despite the fact that recent reports show that four out of five rejected trafficking claims are overturned on appeal. These reforms risk leaving greater numbers of victims without support and more gangmasters free to commit further crimes. Human trafficking and modern slavery are vile crimes and those responsible should face the harshest penalty. Yes, there should be a full-term life sentence for those convicted for human trafficking and increased sentences for perpetrators of modern slavery, but such measures will not be effective if we withdraw support from victims.
I come to the issue of safe routes for claiming asylum and helping unaccompanied children. Following the outbreak of the Syrian civil war and the resulting refugee crisis, the Government agreed to Lord Alf Dubs’ amendment to accept unaccompanied children to the UK. The initial pledge was understood to have committed to provide support to around 3,000 unaccompanied children, but the scheme closed with the number having been capped at 480. It was wrong to close the Dubs scheme after helping just a fraction of the number of children promised help. It has meant that under this Government the UK has looked the other way when unaccompanied children have faced dire consequences, including when the Moria refugee camp was ablaze last summer.
Worse still, clause 9 introduces a new requirement for the registration of a stateless child aged five to 17 as a British citizen or a British overseas territories citizen, and maintains existing requirements in relation to those aged 18 to 22. No wonder there is concern about leaving children stateless, which would run contrary to the UK’s obligations under the 1961 UN convention on the reduction of statelessness.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
The shadow Home Secretary talks about the Dubs amendment and those 480 children. I remind the House that those children were already in safe European countries, and I remind the shadow Home Secretary that the United Kingdom currently has more unaccompanied asylum-seeking children—more than 5,000—than any other country in Europe, including Greece and Italy. Finally, on the point about providing protection to those in need in war zones, the resettlement schemes that have operated here since 2015 have seen in excess of 25,000 people being directly resettled not from Europe, which is safe, but from war zones such as Syria. That is more than any other country in Europe. This Government’s record is a proud one and we stand by it.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Well, we will see how proud their record is in a moment when we go through it. Let me just say to the shadow Minister for Immigration Compliance—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I certainly stand corrected on that. The point is that there were local authorities that were willing to step up and help beyond that 480 and it was this Government’s absolute failure—[Interruption.] Including my local authority, yes, and I am very proud—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Absolute utter nonsense. I have visited the Syrian refugees in Torfaen, so I hope the Minister will take that comment back because it is utter nonsense.
The Government often talk about the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme—I just heard it from the Minister—and I of course pay tribute to local government, including my own local authority of Torfaen, for stepping up to help to deliver safe havens for those fleeing persecution. Those who have come to the country under that scheme have added to the diversity and richness of our communities. The Government have gone quiet on a 2019 commitment to resettle 5,000 further refugees at the conclusion of the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, and they still refuse to make proper commitments on the future of the scheme. Existing safe routes are very limited. The Minister stood up a moment ago to speak about statistics; well, in March 2021 the new UK resettlement scheme began, and in its first month it resettled a grand total of 25 refugees. The lack of safe and legal routes will lead people to continue to attempt dangerous routes to the UK.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Home Secretary shakes her head, but in the 2019 report “Responding to irregular migration: A diplomatic route” the Foreign Affairs Committee warned of exactly that:
“A policy that focuses exclusively on closing borders will drive migrants to take more dangerous routes, and push them into the hands of criminal groups.”
The Home Secretary should remember that because she was a member of the Committee at the time and her name is attached to the report.
While we are debating—or at least should be debating—a plan for refugees, we should cast our minds back to last week and the failure to restore the 0.7% commitment to international aid. The Department for International Development was tasked with delivering help to countries to tackle poverty and the drivers of people becoming displaced from their homes in the first place. The abolition of that Department was wrong and short-sighted. The work that was going on around the world to tackle the refugee crisis has been starved of funds, with programmes suddenly cut off. Our reputation around the world as a force for good has been damaged. The Government should restore the Department for International Development and restore spending to 0.7%.
The Bill is as wrong as it is ineffective. It will not tackle people smugglers, and it will not protect victims of human trafficking. It is, in reality, a continuation of this Government’s culture war. It is a culture war that led them to side with those booing the England men’s football team for taking the knee. Instead of supporting that brave stance against racism, the players were dismissed as taking part in “gesture politics” by the Home Secretary, and were told to stay out of politics altogether by other Conservative MPs. Last week, the Government refused to live up to their promises on international aid, and they ran away from their own failure to stand with football players against racism. This week, they promote more division with this Bill. As ever, they talk tough, but deliver nothing.
As it stands, the Bill is a charter for human trafficking. It is a missed opportunity that represents the worst of all worlds, lets evil criminals off the hook, and fails those who have been exploited. The cruel irony of this Government’s approach is that they are weak on taking action against criminal gangs, and brutal when it comes to orphan children from war zones. I ask all Members of the House to reject the Bill in the vote tomorrow.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
To reiterate, I am sorry but we have to start with a time limit of four minutes, simply because so many Members wish to participate in the debate. I call Mrs Theresa May.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try to get in as many points as I can in those four minutes. I thank the Home Secretary for holding prior discussions with me on the Bill and the Government’s approach. The Government are right to try to find a better way to differentiate between economic migrants and refugees. This is an international challenge: as I said to the United Nations in 2016, we need to revise international conventions on this issue, so that we can more clearly focus our help on those who are refugees. As we saw in 2015 with the significant movement of people into the European continent, many of whom were trying to get through to the UK, they were widely portrayed as all being refugees, but in fact the majority of them were economic migrants. We must find a way to differentiate between them.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most compassionate thing we can do to help these people, is stop them getting in the boat in the first place?
Mrs May
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the work being done—I shall refer to this later—to increase the economic development of the countries that people are coming from, and to deal with the criminal gangs, is so important.
I have set out three principles, which I am pleased to say underpin the Bill. First, we must help to ensure that refugees claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. The current trend, where refugees reach a safe country and then press on with their journey, can only benefit criminal gangs and expose refugees to grave danger. The refugee convention does not state that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country they come to. We were able to exercise that rule in the Dublin regulation as part of the European Union. Obviously that is not applicable to us now, and indeed the EU has since changed the Dublin regulation.
Secondly, we need to improve how we distinguish between refugees fleeing persecution and economic migrants, which will help to target support on those refugees who need it most, as well as encouraging people to support such a measure if they see that the people who are coming are genuinely refugees. Thirdly, we need a better approach to managing economic migration, which recognises that all countries have the right to control their borders. We must all commit to accepting the return of our own nationals when they have no right to remain elsewhere.
Sadly, as the Home Secretary said, the business of people trafficking has increased in recent years. To the criminal gangs, it does not matter whether they deal in drugs, weapons or desperate people—it is all the same; they want to make money. Breaking their business model is essential. That means stopping the routes available to them, but it also means catching and prosecuting them. That requires international co-operation. We have been very strong on international co-operation, and we must encourage more countries around the world to see this as an issue on which they should be working with us, and others.
I recognise that the Bill focuses on differentiating between those who came here legally and illegally, and I understand why the Government have gone down that route, but that in itself does not address the issue of better differentiating between refugees and economic migrants. I hope that the Government will give some thought to how they can work internationally to try to deal with that.
The concept that Britain could process asylum claims outside the UK came up when I was Home Secretary, and there was a lot of discussion on it in the European Union, but we did not go down that route because of practical concerns. It would not automatically remove the criminal gangs’ business model, because they would get people to the centre and still take those rejected by the centre and move them on across the Mediterranean, so there could be an increase in people being picked up and taken into slavery. There is also the problem of what we do with those people who are rejected for asylum but cannot be returned to their country of origin. The concept of allowing asylum to be granted outside the UK is also a major step, and it would have ramifications for any Royal Navy or Border Force vessel operating humanitarian missions in the Mediterranean, for example.
On seeking protection but entering illegally without a valid entry clearance becoming a new criminal offence, we must not send the message that somebody genuinely fleeing persecution whose only route out of that persecution is to the UK will automatically be seen as a criminal. I also echo the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).
Yvette Cooper
Does the right hon. Lady agree that part of the concern is about ensuring that the modern slavery provisions do not end up being drawn too tightly?
Mrs May
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her intervention, because I am coming on to that point. I am sure that across the House we are sickened to know that some are abusing our world-leading modern slavery legislation in trafficking people into this country. We need to deal with the problem, but I have two concerns with the Bill. The first is about timing and the issue that the Secretary of State can require information to be provided within a specified period. It takes time for many victims of modern slavery to identify as a victim, let alone be able to put forward the evidence to establish that. I would like reassurance about how that power will be exercised.
Secondly, I would like an explanation about the change from needing reasonable grounds that a person may be a victim of modern slavery to reasonable grounds that a person is a victim of modern slavery. I know we need to toughen up to ensure that the law is not being abused, but again this relates to the degree of information that an individual may be able to provide at an early stage in consideration of their case.
I understand the complexity of the issues with which the Government are dealing in this area of policy. There always seems to be a need for a new immigration Bill because people are always trying to find loopholes that they can use to get here, so we must have legislation that not only strengthens the Government’s ability to deal with illegal immigration but continues to show that the UK is a country that welcomes those who are genuinely fleeing from persecution.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I am afraid that I regard this as a dreadful Bill, and the Refugee Council was absolutely right to characterise it as the “anti-refugee” Bill. There are eight welcome clauses on nationality, but thereafter what we see risks trampling international convention after international convention, and vulnerable children, stateless children and victims of trafficking will all pay a penalty. Nowhere is the retreat from international law, international co-operation and basic human decency more apparent than in the absolute trashing of the refugee convention as it approaches its 70th birthday. A convention that has saved and protected countless millions of people is being undermined by one of its first champion countries.
Refugees and asylum seekers—we have skirted over this so far—will be criminalised, stripped of their rights and offshored. That is true whether they are Uyghurs fleeing atrocities in China, Syrians fleeing war crimes or persecuted Christians seeking refuge here. The Bill does absolutely nothing to stop them getting in boats in France; what it does is punish them when they get here. That is morally reprehensible.
It is not just the Bill’s awful ends that justifies the Scottish National party refusing it a Second Reading and stopping it in its tracks but the means by which it seeks to pursue those ends. We are talking about a unilateral rewriting or reinterpretation of our obligations under international law. That is, once more, a hugely dangerous precedent to set. It will make our international partners query whether this country gives two hoots about international law and keeping its word.
Secondly, to put it directly, what we have here is a deliberate policy decision to inflict harm on people seeking sanctuary by criminalising them, splitting them from their family, forcing them into destitution, putting them in legal limbo and offshoring them. That is not just ineffective and dangerous, but morally outrageous.
Not only is the Bill the opposite of the right solution, but it wrongly identifies the problem that needs solving. The problem in the asylum system is simply down to the incompetent management of it by this Home Office and this Government. We live in a world in which 80 million people have been forcibly displaced, and 30 million of them are outside their country of origin and are therefore refugees. Four million of them are asylum seekers pursuing recognition as refugees. Some 86% of them are hosted in developing countries, 73% in neighbouring countries.
What we are asking of wealthy western countries barely scratches the surface of their share of responsibility. In European terms, what has been asked of the UK is very little at all. I applaud and support everything that has been achieved through the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and other resettlement programmes, but none of it justifies what the Government propose today.
The Government regularly trot out that they have resettled more Syrian refugees than other European countries. In absolute terms that is true but, per head of population, neighbours such as Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Finland and Ireland have all resettled more. Yes, although the UK resettled a few thousand more Syrians than Germany and France, those two countries have offered sanctuary to more Syrians through their asylum systems by massive margins.
In 2019, the UK received around five applications for asylum per 10,000 people, compared with the European average of 14, putting the UK 17th in the table of member states, just behind Italy, Finland and Ireland. Similarly, the UK granted roughly two applications per 10,000 people, compared with the European average of 13, putting it 16th in the table. Yes, although by international standards the UK has a decent history of offering protection, let us not pretend that it has been bearing an unbearable burden that entitles it to rip up the refugee convention and start trying to pass refugees back up the chain to those that already do much more.
The real problem, as we have heard, is that the Home Office’s handling of asylum cases is abysmal. We have heard the extraordinary figures on how long it is taking, and it is not just the length of time it takes to make a decision but the number of decisions that it gets wrong. We are at record levels of successful appeals—it is almost 50:50.
It is not just statistics that cause grave concern but the regular stories of life inside the Home Office: impossible targets, a culture of fear, ill-treatment of staff, high staff turnover, a shortage of skilled asylum caseworkers and administrative chaos. Asylum decision making is a matter of life and death, and it seems clear to me that it should no longer be entrusted to the Home Office, a Department that has again shown itself to be unfit for that purpose. Such decisions should be removed from political interference and entrusted to an independent body, as they are in Canada. That would be a sensible approach.
Stuart C. McDonald
Absolutely, as there is in Canada.
Members from all parties in this House, sitting on the Front Benches and the Back Benches, regularly speak up for some of the most oppressed people on the planet. We have seen brave interventions on Uyghurs fleeing atrocities in China. The plight of Syrians fleeing a decade-long conflict has been championed, and Christians around the world, including Christian converts, have numerous ambassadors in this Chamber, but we have hardly come to terms with what this Bill means for them.
This Bill prompts a question: why speak up against persecution abroad only to say, when they come knocking at our door seeking shelter, “You are not our responsibility. Go somewhere else”? France seems to be the popular answer among Conservative Members. What if France and the rest of Europe say the same thing? We would end up with the system of international protection of refugees breaking down, as the UNHCR points out.
If the Bill passes, that is exactly what it means. Prior to the Bill, we would have sheltered people fleeing persecution. The Bill expressly seeks to discourage them from coming here by making life miserable for those who do. Today, if a Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian convert arrives in the UK to seek asylum, life will be far from plain sailing, precisely because of the outrageous waiting times, the dreadful asylum accommodation, the prohibition on work and the dreadful levels of financial support. They get here and, thanks to our amazing non-governmental organisations and charities, they slowly start to rebuild their lives.
But next year, if this Bill passes, for many of those Uyghurs, Syrians or persecuted Christian converts claiming asylum here, things will be infinitely bleaker, and that will be a deliberate policy choice of this Parliament. Arriving next year, the Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian will be much more likely to be criminalised, regardless of arguments about whether they had come here directly or not.
Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 already punishes illegal entry by those without leave to enter. Sensibly, however, those who claim asylum on arrival are granted immigration bail, which does not count officially as entry. Clause 37 of the Bill changes all that. It would essentially criminalise the very act of arriving to claim asylum, because, as the explanatory notes acknowledge, the majority of asylum seekers will not have the ability to secure entry clearance. Despite the Home Secretary’s protestations last week, as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, this criminal offence will apply to Uyghurs, Syrians, persecuted Christian converts and anybody else, and the penalty is up to four years in prison.
The next problem for the Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian convert is that although they are absolutely obviously in need of international protection, this Government, in their wisdom, are not even going to consider their claim for protection for six months. The Government are trying to pretend that that is some sort of replication of the Dublin regulations that the UK was party to prior to Brexit, but of course it is not, because, as we have heard, there are no returns agreements with any remotely relevant country and little indication at this stage that there will be any time soon. Any such returns agreement would have to be carefully circumscribed so as to be consistent with the convention and to have carefully considered the circumstances of the individual, including any ties to the UK, such as family members here.
By contrast, the powers in the Bill will allow the Home Secretary to remove a Uyghur, persecuted Christian or Syrian to any country at all, even if there is no connection, and with very little by way of restriction. Today, the Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian faces outrageous delays in asylum protection systems, and the Bill simply adds another six months.
Where will the Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian be during that time—during that limbo—while the Home Office goes through the futile motions of seeking to remove them? Just now, for those who seek asylum we have a struggling, privatised, over-concentrated system of dispersed asylum accommodation. Numerous Committees have told the Home Office how it could be improved, only to be ignored. Under this Bill and this plan, that is not where the Home Secretary envisages the Syrian, the Uyghur or the persecuted Christian going. Instead, the grim future for these refugees appears under this Bill and this plan to be the disgraceful, disreputable open prison-like conditions that we have already witnessed at Napier or Penally.
Even worse, as we have heard, they may face being removed to an offshore centre to have their claim resolved. Here is the real asylum shopping: the British Government grubbing around to find a country to palm off their responsibilities on to. Let us think of the outrages and the lack of accountability we have seen in relation to immigration detention and the Napier open prison—the abuses that have been meted out there and the harm done. As we know from the Australian experiment, that will be as nothing compared to the hell that is likely to await at an offshore asylum facility. How on earth have we gone from having a Parliament where there was widespread support for time-limiting and restricting the use of detention, to imposing a form of it that is infinitely worse?
Having endured their limbo period, these three groups of refugees will finally have their case assessed by the Home Office. But instead of working to improve asylum decision making, the Bill seeks to make it harder for them to prove their case. It seeks to alter the long-established test set out in the refugee convention that the standard of proof required is a lower, but far from negligible, standard of real risk. That standard is clearly justified by the possible consequences of getting decisions wrong and the huge challenges of proving circumstances that happened thousands of miles away in a country the person has fled.
The Bill seeks to muddy the waters by applying a higher legal threshold. The claimant now has to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they do belong to one of the protected convention groups and that they fear persecution based on that characteristic. That not only undermines the cautious approach in the convention, justified by the dangers that exist for asylum seekers, but pays no regard to just how difficult it is to prove events that happened in faraway countries.
In addition, by having two different standards of evidence in the same proceedings, it makes life harder for already struggling caseworkers. The judge or decision maker may be certain that the proselytising Christian convert will face the death penalty or torture on return, but now the “real possibility” that the claimant is such a proselytising Christian convert is not enough. If the judge is only 49% satisfied that the person is a proselytising Christian convert, the claim is going to be rejected, even though the risk of torture or death is absolutely certain if the decision maker has got that assessment wrong. I find that deeply troubling, and it is clearly inconsistent with the refugee convention.
Let us imagine that the persecuted Christian, the Syrian and the Uyghur have survived their limbo period and made it through the asylum system, and the Home Office refusal of their application has been overturned on appeal. Unbelievably, the harms inflicted on them by the Bill have barely started. On the contrary, the repugnant programme of disincentives is ramped up further, even after they navigate that system. Because they have stopped temporarily in a European country, they are to be treated as a second-class refugee. Regardless of what any Minister says, that is absolutely contrary to the refugee convention and, more importantly, it is simply disgraceful. It is not just nasty, but sickening—
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that on many occasions, particularly for those seeking asylum on the basis of their sexuality, those in the LGBT+ community are the most likely to be adversely impacted by this new legislation? Does he agree that more should be done to protect them and ensure that they can come here as a safe haven?
Stuart C. McDonald
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are all sorts of problems with provisions in the Bill that penalise late disclosure of information, which can very often be the case in modern slavery or LGBT cases, or even religious conversion cases.
Having established that these people are refugees—and the Government have had to recognise that—the system should allow them to rebuild their lives after the trauma of their persecution, their journeys and their asylum claim, but instead this Government still want to turn the screw. Instead of the stability and permanent residence refugees were once provided with, today they are given five years’ leave, with a review that is fairly light-touch, before settlement. But this Bill and the Government’s plan propose endless 30-month cycles of review and ongoing attempts to remove. Nobody can rebuild their lives in those circumstances—and I do not know how on earth the Home Office is going to cope with having to revisit every single asylum case every 30 months.
These refugees will not be entitled to public funds unless they are destitute. So if, say, the Christian convert finds some part-time, low-paid work—a big ask, given the language and cultural barriers, the enforced years out of work, and the trauma—there will be no universal credit to cover housing or income shortfalls, and if he or she was able to bring a child, there will be no support for that child. Their refugee family reunion rights will be diminished, according to the plan, meaning that they cannot be joined by a spouse or perhaps a child. The detail is not in the Bill, but that is what the plan suggests and the Bill enables.
That inevitably gives the Christian convert a choice: does the family stay apart or do other family members—often the women and children that the Home Secretary professes to be protecting—then have to follow and make their own dangerous journeys? Without the family, without state support and without stability, the Uyghur, the Syrian and the persecuted Christian convert have no hope of rebuilding their lives. That amounts not to a place of sanctuary, but to a place of punishment—and the Home Office has the audacity to claim that it is in their best interests. This is, in short, an outrageous way to treat refugees, and it is why the Bill is rightly being called the anti-refugee Bill.
There is so much that could be said about the undermining of efforts to support trafficking victims, the total absence from the Bill of protection for children, and the undermining of rights of stateless children. We need to know what the placeholder clauses will give rise to. We do not even have the chance to debate them here on Second Reading, and there are six or seven of them. The whole of the dentistry profession is up in arms at the suggestion that the discredited and unethical dental X-rays system could return as an inaccurate method of assessing age.
Stuart C. McDonald
Well, the dentistry profession and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees say that it is not accurate and it is entirely unethical.
The Home Secretary is also making it harder to identify victims of modern slavery and cutting their recovery period to the minimum allowed in international law.
There is so much that should be in the Bill that is not. I mention just one thing: the failure to end the disgracefully painful 10-year route to settlement that many essentially British kids face and the outrageous fees that others are charged for registering their entitlement to British citizenship. When will that finally be done? This is an abysmal and, indeed, shameful Bill. It does not remotely deserve a Second Reading.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the support that I have received—a research capacity in my office, relating to my work on asylum seekers, refugees and migrants—from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project.
When discussing immigration, asylum and our borders, there is a real problem with language and tone. I tried for 18 months to get that tone right, not always successfully, I will admit—although, having listened to the shadow Home Secretary, there was apparently much that I did not do successfully. But I always remembered that behind every visa application, every asylum claim and every journey to the shores of the UK there is a personal story—an individual. Meeting people in detention centres—Syrian refugees who came here fleeing war or young people trying to regularise their status in order to complete their education—was both the toughest and the most rewarding part of the job.
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s reiterated commitment to a firm but fair immigration system. There can be no question but that the issue of small boats making perilous crossings of the busiest shipping lane in the world is a challenging one. I have many constituents who are concerned about the crossings. In her opening remarks, my right hon. Friend reminded us all that this is a trade in human misery. She is right in her determination to crack down on that evil trade, but we need to find practical and sustainable ways to do so.
My right hon. Friend will know as well as I do that once a craft has taken to the waters of the English channel, it is not only difficult to stop but potentially puts lives at risk, not only of asylum seekers but of our Border Force personnel. Small boat crossings are not a problem that will be solved on the water. She highlighted the use of guns and violence. That of course could be turned on our own Border Force mid-channel. I worry for their safety if attempts are made to turn boats around on the water.
I want to focus on the issue of support for those who seek to use safe and legal routes to claim asylum here. Britain has a proud history of providing a safe haven for those fleeing persecution. In particular, I draw attention to the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, as highlighted earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). She has spoken about it already, but it deliberately selected the most vulnerable, the most in need, and the Home Secretary is right to look at making its successor programme less geographically specific. However, we have an important responsibility to resettle adequate numbers. That will be challenging to meet.
We have to be fair to those seeking asylum and fair to the taxpayer. I was pleased to hear the borders Minister say in a Westminster Hall debate recently that there is to be a dramatic uplift in the number of those employed by the Home Office to process asylum claims. That is good news, in particular given the scale of the current backlog, but it is essential for the system to be relatively rapid, and I worry about building in a six-month delay at the start of the process for those who might have travelled through a safe third country. Currently, there is no mechanism to return them, and it will be extremely challenging to find appropriate accommodation for those individuals.
There is of course discussion of reception centres, but the proposals to establish those are not yet clear. We do not know if that will involve the housing in those communities of women and children. I gently direct the attention of Ministers to their responsibility under the Children Act 1989. It is crucial that when we do this, we get it right, and that we treat people humanely. It is obvious that local authorities such as Kent, Croydon and Glasgow are already under extreme stretch. I am worried that the new plan for immigration might place further burdens on them. These are long-standing problems and, therefore, sustainable solutions are needed. I know that being pragmatic is not necessarily everyone’s cup of tea, but it is essential.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I am grateful to be able to follow the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who has worked hard on this issue.
There should be widespread agreement that the UK should do its bit to support those fleeing persecution and torture, that the system should be fair and not be undermined, that there should be a crackdown on the criminal gangs who exploit people’s misery and desperation, and that we should prevent the dangerous journeys across the channel in unsafe boats in which lives are put at risk. That includes encouraging asylum much earlier. In this House, we have debated many different ways to tackle those problems in a calm and common-sense way that avoids stoking division or promoting hostility against those who are most vulnerable, because we know where that leads. However, that is one of the things that troubles me about the debate and the approach Ministers are taking.
I also think that the Bill is counterproductive. It is likely to attract more people into the UK asylum system and drive more people into the arms of criminal gangs. The caseload, the backlog, is not a reflection of an increase in applications. In fact, those have stayed at about 30,000 a year—with a drop recently, during the pandemic—but the number of initial decisions made dropped 27% between 2015 and before the pandemic.
The Bill will make that worse, because there is no serious return agreement to replace the Dublin agreement for people who have travelled through a third country. Under the provisions of the Bill, asylum seekers who have travelled through third countries will have to wait in the system for six months. Those whose claims are unfounded will not be assessed or be returned, and those whose claims are justified and who need support will not be able to get on with their lives, to start working and rebuilding their lives here. Moreover, instead they will be waiting, dependent on the support of the Home Office, dependent on making the system more costly for the taxpayer.
Rightly, the Government say that we should prevent dangerous routes, but the Government have cut the alternative safe legal routes. The resettlement scheme has been halted, with no commitment for how many people will be supported.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way to the Minister if he wants to tell me how many places will be included in the resettlement scheme when it restarts.
Chris Philp
It never stopped. When we met the 20,000 commitment in February this year, the UK resettlement scheme continued. Obviously making a precise numerical commitment is difficult, given the coronavirus circumstances, but it has never stopped; it continues to this day.
Yvette Cooper
Everybody understands the pressures of the coronavirus crisis, but what we need is a commitment to the number of places. The UK has been resettling approximately 5,000 a year over the past few years as a result of cross-party consensus to support Syrian refugees, but we have not yet heard a commitment. Will it be 5,000? Will it be 10,000? What will the support be from the Government to ensure that the resettlement scheme continues?
The Dubs scheme has been cancelled, even though we know the need for support for those who are most vulnerable, and the Dublin family reunion system has not been replaced. Safe Passage, which works with young people in need of family reunion, said that last year, under the Dublin scheme, all the young people it worked with on family reunion went through the legal system; they did not try to go with people traffickers or people smugglers through a dangerous route. This year, however, under the new system, a quarter of the children and young people it has worked with had given up in frustration, sought to try illegal routes and ended up in the hands of people smugglers or people traffickers as a result. Those are the dangers that we face: if there are not safe legal routes for family reunion, we end up with more people driven into the hands of dangerous criminal gangs.
Clause 26, on offshore processing, is perhaps most troubling of all. The Government floated a range of impossible proposals: sending asylum seekers to be processed on Ascension Island or disused oil platforms or, most recently, sending them to Rwanda. Of course those proposals are impossible, but it is deeply troubling that the Minister even thinks that it is okay for them to be floated and for him not to deny them. We heard from Australia about how its offshore processing simply did not work in the end. It stopped doing it in 2014 because there were too many humanitarian and practical problems and it was costing approximately 1 billion Australian dollars a year to accommodate just 350 people.
This is not an answer. It is deeply shameful and undermines our international reputation. We need France, Spain, Italy, Greece and countries across the world to work together, but for that we need to show proper international leadership and not undermine our reputation.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
When this country voted to take back control, clearly it had immigration in mind. As we all know—many of us deal with a lot of casework on it—this is an extremely complex and difficult area. Over the years, I have always felt that the Home Office has never got on top of the correspondence; sometimes these things go on for years and years. If, when the Bill is passed, we have a more efficient system for dealing with cases more quickly, I think we will all welcome it.
When we took back control, it seemed to me that it was about us determining our priorities as a country. That may mean turning the tap off in times of high unemployment and turning it on in times of high growth. At the moment, it looks as if we will probably have a labour shortage and may well need people with skills in certain areas to come in and keep a fast-recovering British economy going.
My constituents get very upset, however, when they watch television and see reports of people arriving on boats—something like 8,000. They think, “Can’t the Government do more?” We all know the problems of trying to deal with small boats in the channel. We have tried to co-operate with the French, who I understand are doing their best to stop the trade, but when people are arriving illegally daily and then, when we finally put them on a plane back to the country whence they arrived, human rights lawyers get involved, clearly we have a system that is not functional and is going to drive some of our constituents nuts.
In so far as the Bill gives us a vehicle for starting to deal with that, I think it can be welcomed. Whether the whole balance is right, I do not know, but as it goes through Committee there will be opportunities to improve it. It is vital that the Government try to break up the criminal gangs and stop this trade, which is dangerous and profitable to some.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) is absolutely right that most people who are economic migrants come through two, three or four safe countries; maybe France is such a terrible place that the Government, tax rates and sunshine that we have in the United Kingdom and the English language are a great draw. The reality is that, as a responsible neighbour to some of the EU states, we have to take some of the refugees that the Italians, Greeks and Spanish get because of their proximity to north Africa and the middle east, and it would perhaps be better to do that in a planned and organised way than to allow illegal crossings of the channel. This is a complex area. I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced this Bill. One of the first Bills on which I did an all-night Committee sitting was the Immigration Bill introduced by the Blair Government in 1998. This really is a little bit like putting fingers in the dam to try to stop changes as they occur over a period of time. It is a constant battle that both the Labour party and the Conservative party have always wrestled with, and, as we have signed up to various human rights legislation, it has become even more complex.
I welcome the Bill and I welcome the opportunity to try to deal with this very important issue. My constituents will want to see the end of the rubber boats turning up in Sussex and Kent and perhaps a more streamlined and efficient system for dealing with these very important and complex problems. Nobody in the world has all the answers, but I am sure that this Government are trying their best to get to where they want to be, which is to produce a fair and equitable system.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
This Bill on such an important issue to my constituents and to the country is sadly a flawed piece of legislation that will undermine our humanitarian obligations and foster a punitive environment for asylum seekers and refugees, some of the world’s most vulnerable people. Moreover, as we heard from the Home Secretary when she opened the debate, it perpetuates the myth that the UK is overwhelmed by asylum seekers and refugees to fit the Government’s political agenda. It is strong on populist rhetoric and headline-catching gimmicks, but weak on delivery.
The reality and the facts tell a very different story. In total, the UK receives a much lower number of asylum applications than other comparable countries in Europe. In 2020, the UK received 29,456 asylum applications, whereas France received more than 95,000 claims. This Bill is being brought forward because the Government have broken our asylum and refugee system through chronic underfunding and mismanagement over the 11 years that they have been in charge. It is a fact that, in March 2021, there were more than 66,000 people—the highest number in a decade—waiting for an initial decision from the Home Office. It is also a fact that the number of people waiting for over a year has increased tenfold since 2010, from 3,588 to 33,016 in 2020. Unfortunately, the proposals in the Bill will just increase the delays and the backlog.
Clause 37, which proposes to judge an asylum seeker’s claim based on the journey they have made, breaches article 31 of the refugee convention and will make journeys even more dangerous; it will push refugees further into the control of trafficking gangs. As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I am particularly worried about the lack of safe and legal routes for immigration, particularly in the case of family reunion. For example, let us look at the widely acclaimed Dubs scheme, which has helped just 480 unaccompanied children when the expectation was that it could help up to 3,000. The Government have claimed that local authorities will not take more children, but I doubt that. In Hull, we have always stepped up. We are a city of sanctuary, proud of welcoming some of the world’s most vulnerable people. We have played our part in the Gateway programme since 2006 and the Syrian refugee resettlement programme. However, our pride in this is matched by concern that other local authorities are not doing their fair share. Hull has seen massive cuts to its budget throughout the years of austerity, far more than Tory councils that take no or very few asylum seekers and refugees. The distribution of asylum seekers must be fairer and manageable.
The current system means that this Conservative Government, often at very short notice, with no consultation, can unilaterally increase numbers in a council area with little regard to local resources, the suitability of accommodation or the pressures of the pandemic. While some councils are simply allowed to opt out, other councils that engage in a spirit of civic responsibility get treated shabbily by Ministers, which is both wrong and unfair.
Finally, I turn to the issue of trafficking. I am particularly concerned about criminals who traffic women for prostitution. Evidence obtained by the all-party group on prostitution and the global sex trade revealed that the UK sex trade is dominated by serious organised crime, exploiting predominantly non-UK national women and trafficking them around networks of so-called pop-up brothels and hotel rooms to be raped time and time again. Evidence suggests that Romanian women are heavily represented in brothels across Britain. The suffering inflicted on the minds and bodies of these women can scarcely be imagined. Perpetrators face low risks for high profits and this Bill will not bust the business model, as the Home Secretary claims, nor will it support the women who have been trafficked.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I rise to speak in broad support of the Bill, which offers a comprehensive reform of an asylum system that is broken and dysfunctional in part.
It is clear that a system is needed that is fair to those in genuine need but firmly against those who break the rules and the criminal gangs who seek to exploit some of the world’s most vulnerable and desperate people. Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not the ability to pay for people smugglers. All too often, it is they who gain, not the individuals who are being trafficked.
My constituents have been rightly enraged by the images of abandoned boats on the south coast and they have not been backwards in making their demands for change. They do not want to pull up the drawbridge, but they expect that we should have a system that cares for those in need and which exercises genuine control over who enters the country and in what circumstance. Mine is a community of strong ties, which has welcomed families from afar with open arms, but it also a community that, frankly, has been shocked to find it would appear that we do not have control over who enters and leaves our country, so I applaud my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s determination to improve the UK’s position.
Imagine, for a moment, the lived experience of some of the people arriving on the UK’s shores by boat—a boat not fit for purpose and overpacked with families with a bursting need to leave their homes. Such people sold most of what they owned to pay for a journey that is likely to be illegal from beginning to end and have paid what money they have gathered to criminals who care not a jot for their safety or whether they make their end destination. These are people who are drip-fed stories of a land of milk and honey on these shores by gangs who want to extort as much money as possible from them by making the journey longer, by encouraging them to travel through safe countries to the UK. The gangs do not care about their charges; they care about their wallets. This is a system that must be reformed and the most valuable tool to do that is to bear down on those who enable it: the vile criminal gangs at its heart.
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s determination on that aspect of the Bill in particular, but I would also welcome the Government giving some consideration to strengthening an area linked to that—that is, joining up the powers that they might employ to gather information from across different silos, such as law enforcement, the private sector and the public sector. We know that these gangs are linked to lots of different types of criminal activity, whether it is money laundering, human slavery or even common scams, so we need to break down those silos to work more effectively and tackle them.
I also welcome that the Government have been clear that we stand by our moral and legal obligations to help innocent people fleeing cruelty around the world. This is rightly the cornerstone of our immigration policy. Continuing the resettlement of genuine refugees, family reunion and improving the reception processing system are welcome measures.
I would also argue that there is another side to this that needs watching: if we choose not to reform the system now, we risk stoking up outrage and fear on our shores. I have already seen in my constituency some of the effects of this. We have had hateful right-wing propaganda distributed on the streets using some of the imagery from the south coast. Our cenotaph in Barrow was recently defaced, and we have had a few—very few, thankfully—isolated incidents of racism on our streets. The people responsible are the exception and the fringe, but we must be in no doubt that by tackling this issue fairly, we remove some of the tinder that could light a dangerous fire at home.
I broadly welcome the measures in the Bill. It is beyond time to reform our broken asylum system and replace it with one that is fair and offers a hand up for those in genuine need and targets those who seek to exploit some of the most vulnerable in the world.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
Let me start by saying that I categorically reject this Bill and its proposers. The UK has a long and proud history of welcoming those fleeing war and persecution and providing sanctuary to some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The Bill would end that forever. It would not just turn away people seeking safety in the UK, but would treat them as criminals.
The most damning assessment of the Bill has come from the UN Refugee Agency itself. The UNHCR has warned that the Government’s proposals could cause great suffering, and could undermine the 1951 refugee convention and the international protection system. The Government are fond of talking about the broken asylum system, but they fail to acknowledge that it is they who have broken it with a decade of mismanagement. Delays in the system have reached disgraceful levels. The Refugee Council recently reported that the number of asylum seekers who had waited more than a year for an initial decision had increased tenfold since the Conservatives had come to power. Even when the decisions are made, the number overturned on appeal has consistently risen over the past decade. The Bill does not tackle that. It will increase delays, it will add to the backlog of asylum claims, and it does nothing to address the culture of disbelief in the Home Office.
The Government are keen to emphasise their commitment to safe and legal routes for vulnerable children and adults to reach sanctuary in the UK, but there are no such commitments in the Bill. We urgently need a renewed effort on refugee resettlement and family reunion. Detention Action recently summarised the position, saying that
“while the Bill fails to deal with the real problems that exist in the system, it pretends that the problems lie elsewhere and proposes a host of regressive, authoritarian & discriminatory policies that will cause deep harm to our society.”
While abdicating their responsibility to provide sanctuary for the world’s most vulnerable, the Government are simultaneously cutting international aid, which will inevitably drive up the number of refugees. The combination of those two actions will have a devastating impact on vulnerable people and refugees around the world.
Let me end my speech by reminding the Government that this legislation was an opportunity to overhaul our asylum system, and to embed fairness and compassion in the Home Office. Instead, the Government have chosen to pursue a deeply hostile and unpleasant attack on those who flee conflict and persecution and have sought a safe home in our country. I for one will never be able to support that, and I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the House will stand up against this dangerous and malicious legislation.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
The United Kingdom has always been a generous, open and welcoming country. We help some of the most vulnerable people in the world to settle and make their lives here. We welcome migrants, refugees and asylum seekers from around the world, and we will continue to do so: nothing in the Bill will change that.
People who enter the country legally will continue to be able to claim asylum here. We will continue to prioritise helping the most vulnerable: the elderly, children, and the poorest—those who are unable to travel hundreds of miles or to pay people smugglers, like the 25,000 people who have come here through our resettlement programme in the last six years. We have resettled more people through that programme than any other country in Europe.
People in genuine need deserve an asylum system that functions properly, supports them through the process, and makes a decision quickly. Perpetuating the current system is not fair to them. Nor do we want to continue with the system that is being exploited by people smugglers who callously treat human beings as if they were cargo, and sometimes not even as well as that. The Bill will introduce life sentences for those found guilty of people smuggling. It will give Border Force additional powers to search, seize and divert vessels carrying people illegally, and it will provide an incentive for people to use safe and legal routes to claim asylum in the UK. This combination of measures will disrupt and undermine the business model of people smugglers.
It is important that we are able to keep all our citizens, our constituents, safe. There are currently 10,000 foreign national offenders outside prison in this country whom we need to deport. Some are guilty of the most hideous crimes. They have no right to be here, but time after time Labour Members have come here to Parliament to plead for their rights. I am more interested in the rights of their victims. That is why I support the measures in the Bill that will end repeated, last-minute and vexatious legal challenges to deportation, expand the early removal scheme for removing foreign offenders from the UK as early as possible, and increase the sentence for breaching a deportation order from six months to five years.
This Bill will deliver an asylum system that continues to prioritise the most vulnerable, immediate indefinite leave to remain for refugees who are resettled through safe and legal routes, tougher sentences for people smugglers, and tougher sentences for foreign national offenders who try to come back to our country when they have no right to do so. That is what I am voting for. My question to Opposition Members is: will they?
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate.
History is going to judge our Parliament and our Government harshly for introducing this piece of legislation at a time when there are unprecedented numbers of refugees around the world—the total figure globally is about 80 million. They are fleeing from war, poverty, injustice, human rights abuses and environmental disasters, and they are living in refugee camps in enormous numbers —in Bangladesh, where there are 1 million Rohingya people, and in Jordan, Lebanon and other countries across the middle east, including Libya. Those conditions are created by unfair trade and the arms that we sell, which bring about the wars that bring about the refugee flows. The number of refugees is likely to rise.
At a time when country after country is closing its borders to refugees, who are stuck for decades in refugee camps, our Government are joining the throng who stand against refugees, rather than for them. Instead of patting ourselves on the back for our historical good work in supporting refugees from some countries, we should recognise what is happening at the present time.
I took the opportunity to visit the refugee camp in Calais in 2015, for which the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, described me as preferring to spend a weekend hanging round with a “bunch of migrants”. I found poor and desperate people who had walked all across Europe to try to get to a place of safety. They were frightened of gangs in the camps, the police and fascist gangs, and they wanted to get to this country, where they hoped they would be better treated.
Under this piece of legislation, the Government will make the task of anyone trying to into Britain much more difficult. The Bill will also create two tiers of asylum seekers: those who come through a moderately legitimate route by arriving in a port of entry and applying, and those who come out of desperation on leaking dinghies.
So what are we doing? Are we looking after the refugees or accusing them of wrongdoing for trying to get to a place of safety, and then condemning those who try to save them so that seafarers around the world who pluck refugees from the sea will be accused of illegally abetting migration to this country? It is a terrible situation. Ten days ago, a Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboat took a group of people on a dinghy into a north Kent harbour to give them a place of safety. Are the Government going to prosecute the RNLI for saving life at sea? That would be contrary to the law of the sea, which requires it to save such lives.
I also ask the Government to look at the conditions in which refugees have to survive in this country, such as the disgusting conditions at Napier barracks, and at the number of refugees sleeping on our streets and begging to try to survive. Just think for a moment of what it is like to be a refugee trying to make a contribution to our world, and being criminalised in the process. We rely on refugees in hospitals, as doctors, as engineers, as teachers, as technicians and in so many other jobs in our society. Instead of criminalising people who try to get to a place of safety, can we not have a more humane approach and use the opportunity of this legislation to send a message of decency, humanity and responsibility towards the world as a whole?
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), although, ironically, his views on issues such as those included within the scope of this Bill are the main reason I find myself in this House today.
Since 1994, every single year the UK has seen positive net migration. From 2004, when several new states became members of the EU, net migration dropped below 200,000 only once. The trend is continually up and the most recent figures show that 700,000 migrants arrived in the UK in the year ending March 2020. To put that into perspective, that number is five times the size of Blackpool. This is simply unsustainable.
For the past 50 years, the Conservative manifesto has always referenced controlling immigration. Immigration puts pressure on our schools, the NHS and housing, while also challenging our identity and values when it is not properly controlled and when new arrivals do not integrate within their new communities. The British people can see this and understand this, and they have demanded action for at least the past two decades.
The vote to leave the EU was, among other things, a vote to take back control of our borders and to control immigration. Of course, that is not to say that immigration does not bring benefits to the UK, but the over-supply of low-skilled labour has had severe consequences, suppressing wages and reducing the number of entry-level jobs available. I am so pleased we have a Home Secretary who is willing to discuss these issues and face up to the problems that large-scale immigration is causing. Successive Governments have been far too reluctant to do so, perhaps through fear of facing the cancel culture of the woke brigade.
The element that is most emotive and that angers my constituents more than any other is illegal immigration—specifically, the thousands of small boats arriving on the south coast. It is high time this Bill was brought forward to tackle the scourge of illegal immigration, and I strongly welcome the measures outlined within it. Giving our Border Force additional powers to turn around boats crossing the channel, making it a criminal offence to knowingly arrive in the UK without permission and introducing life sentences for people smugglers will all reduce the number of migrants making the unnecessary and illegal crossing in small boats.
However, some will still make the perilous journey. The task of processing asylum claims must be made quicker and, for those who are rejected, we must be far more robust in deporting them from the UK. Over the past 15 years, around three quarters of applicants who were refused asylum have lodged an appeal. Their vexatious and often last-minute appeals—submitted and encouraged by left-wing human rights lawyers—are done at tremendous cost to the UK taxpayer, and it is encouraging that this Bill will overhaul the legal system for asylum claims, finally putting an end to this utter nonsense. If people have no right to be here, they should be swiftly deported—it is as simple as that.
Those on the Opposition Benches, including the Leader of the Opposition, have previously stood on election promises to reintroduce the free movement of people, showing just how out of touch they are with traditional Labour voters. On this side of the House, however, we are building a system that is fair for the British people and reforms our broken asylum system, and this Bill is one I wholeheartedly support.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the hon. Member for Cardiff North, I should tell the House that after the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), the time limit will reduce to three minutes. With four minutes, I call Anna McMorrin.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Bill is not about improving legislation, but about hate. It is little more than political gesturing of the worst kind. Worse, it panders to far-right politics, stirring up resentment, fear and division because the system is not working for them. It is the nastiest, most vicious politics.
We live in an increasingly hostile world, where conflict, climate change and covid are making life impossible for many. Innocent families with children flee for their lives, driven from their homes and communities and joining the 30 million refugees worldwide with little more than the clothes on their backs and their hopes and dreams. They flee to protect themselves and their loved ones, but tragically that hope is usually never fulfilled. I recently spoke to a mother who fled drought in South Sudan. She lost her children to thirst and starvation. I have felt the pain of victims of conflict—the many who have fled Syria, who suffered immeasurable brutality and war crimes at the hands of the Assad regime and are heartbroken that they cannot return. I have spoken to women and girls forced into arranged marriages as young children who have fled a life of violence and abuse. They faced sexual assaults, gang rapes, exploitation on the road between camps and homelessness before finding refuge. To those who make that perilous journey, the Government are saying, “We don’t care,” and attempt to build a wall around our shores.
Taking a deliberately and unnecessarily hostile attitude does not tackle the drivers of displacement, which will continue to force the vulnerable to flee and aggravate the very threats that make our lives here at home less secure. It will make the United Kingdom even more isolated, not just from our partners but from the values that made us a welcoming nation.
So many look towards us with hope. As the pandemic has shown, our planet is shared and so are our successes and failures. We must not forget that the United Kingdom was a co-signatory and the first to ratify, with the support of the whole House, the 1951 refugee convention. Rather than be open and inclusive, the Government seek to remove us from those shared challenges, wash our hands of the crises and injustices fuelled by many decisions made at home, and weaken communities’ resilience overseas.
The Bill seeks to criminalise refugees. They are not criminals and seeking safe haven is not a crime. The true crimes are the provisions and the intention at the heart of this heartless Bill. It puts the UK at odds with decades of consensus on the need to offer safety to the persecuted and stateless, and it would breach international law. It picks on the poor and the desperate and the children put in boats by their parents who are desperate because they see that the sea is safer than the land.
When we strip away the means to safe passage, cut international aid, which helps people remain in place, and penalise anyone for facilitating arrivals, how does the Home Secretary intend desperate people to arrive? In stark terms, what would the Bill have meant for the Kindertransport? Would it mean turning our backs on the children fleeing the brutality of Tigray and Yemen today?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
My focus today in the short time available—I cannot wait for call lists to end—is a very specific element in the Bill: part 4. I co-sponsored the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill with Lord McColl and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for meeting me and Lord McColl on a number of occasions to look for a way to improve it before it was published. I spoke on 19 October last year about the need for an immigration provision that provides confirmed victims—I stress “confirmed”—with certainty of recovery and the ability to focus on working with the criminal justice system to ensure that we increase the very low number of prosecutions for offences related to modern slavery. I want the House to hold that thought because it is critical. Our self-interest means being better on that element of the Bill.
Part 4 sets out several reforms on modern slavery. I am aware that the Home Secretary is seeking to meet varying objectives through the Bill and that she wants to reduce abuse of the system. I want to deal with clause 52, which will provide identified potential victims in England and Wales with assistance and support for a period when the person is in the national referral mechanism. Although I welcome the support for adult victims in England and Wales during that period being put on a statutory basis, as is already the case in Northern Ireland and Scotland, the support that clause 52 places on a statutory basis is actually less than is currently provided as a matter of practice in England and Wales, which is a problem. Essentially, whereas the current guidance in England and Wales affords 45 days’ support, as does the statute in Scotland and Northern Ireland, clause 52 proposes a reduction in England and Wales to just 30 days’ support for confirmed victims of modern-day slavery. I draw that to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister, because it needs to be dealt with.
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. Friend has many faults, and I am aware of a handful of them, but one of them is not naivety. He has far more qualities, and his quality will tell him that the system is being gamed by all kinds of unscrupulous people. The risk is that modern-day slavery is one way of gaming the system.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I simply ask my right hon. Friend to notice what I said: I referred to those who already have confirmed status as a victim of modern-day slavery. This is important, because it means they have already gone through the NRM. It is a question of how we deal with them at that point. This will give time to arrive at the right conclusions.
Statutory support is provided during the national referral mechanism, so having no such support afterwards makes no sense. They go out of the NRM and are suddenly in the cold world, unable to navigate their way and fearful of retribution by those who treated them so badly in the first place. The provision of support to help these people is also in our self-interest, because it is in our national interest to ensure victims get sufficient support to allow them to help police and prosecutors with criminal investigations. In a way, by reducing such support, we are making things worse.
Clause 53, on leave to remain for victims of slavery or human trafficking, is at the heart of the Bill. I co-sponsored a Bill with Lord McColl to provide leave to remain for 12 months, along with assistance and support, for adult victims who want to remain in the UK. I gave evidence on this to the Home Office, and I am therefore disappointed that, instead of addressing the problems with discretionary leave that I highlighted last October, the Government have simply placed current practice, which is clearly not working, into a statutory framework.
Under clause 53, leave to remain will remain discretionary and the same justifications for its provision will apply: being necessary to assist the police with investigations, being necessary because of personal circumstance or being necessary to make a compensation claim.
The ability of a victim to remain in the UK is unchanged by the Bill, and one would therefore expect that the proportion of confirmed victims in receipt of leave to remain would remain low. In other words, this Bill would perpetuate rather than address the current arrangements in which the vast majority of confirmed victims are denied leave to remain in the UK to help their recovery. The police have made it very clear that they want victims to be settled in accommodation so that they know where they are and they can give evidence.
I support much of what the Bill is trying to do, and I understand the motives behind it, but part 4 deals with those from the most terrible backgrounds and facing the worst persecution, trafficked as they are. We need to give them time, and that time will help us prosecute the very people we wish to go after. Being good and decent is a payback to us at the same time.
I support this Bill, but I look for changes to part 4 during its passage.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
As we have heard today, this Bill is deeply flawed, cruel and inhumane. If passed, it would punish those entering our country to seek refuge from violence and persecution. The Bill would see us abandon our international duties and, ultimately, turn our back on the world’s most vulnerable. Under international law there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker, yet, if passed, the Bill would seek to ignore that reality and establish a dangerous new precedent.
I wish to briefly outline two of the most concerning aspects of this legislation. First, I am deeply concerned about the powers that the Bill would allow the Government to create offshore camps in which to detain refugees. There is no justification for such an inhumane practice. Wherever that has been tried, it has failed and put those who are subjected to it at risk of re-traumatisation. The Australian Government’s own report into their offshoring facility in Nauru revealed horrifying conditions, including the sexual abuse of women and children. Meanwhile, detention centres such as Napier barracks demonstrate clearly that this Government are very comfortable with housing asylum seekers in the most squalid conditions. Those conditions would only get worse if the Government were allowed to move asylum centres offshore, out of reach of oversight and accountability.
Secondly, as chair of the all-party group on no recourse to public funds, I am particularly concerned that the Bill would greatly expand the number of people who are subjected to that awful condition. The Bill removes the automatic right to settle for those who secure refugee status having travelled to the UK through another country. By introducing that condition, the Government will substantially increase the number of people who have no recourse to public funds—people who will no longer have the right to work or to access homelessness assistance. In short, if the Bill passes, a huge number of people will be forced into destitution.
In conclusion, if the Government were truly interested in fixing our asylum system, the Bill would have contained new commitments to provide safe routes to this country and to ensure that all those who claim asylum here are able to live a dignified life while they await a decision. Instead, the Bill abandons our obligations under international law, criminalises refugees and expands the cruel and inhumane “no recourse to public funds” regime. For those reasons, I shall be voting against this Bill and I urge all Members to do the same.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Children separated forcibly from their parents at gunpoint, pregnant women held at knifepoint, babies and toddlers stripped of lifejackets and dangled over the side of dinghies. Young women and girls disappearing, unaccounted for; their last known movements in the hands of criminal gangs involved in modern slavery. This is not happening in some far-away conflict zone. This is not happening in a war-ridden country. This is happening here in our land and across the English channel—death, violence, sex trafficking, exploitation, bribery, guns, drugs, modern slavery, and illegal migration. Let us make no mistake: this is the reality of the small boats crisis. Where is the compassion in walking on by, in leaving families, young children and babies in the hands of people traffickers and violent criminal gangs when people are already safe in France and in many other countries before they even get to France?
Let me turn now to the risk to our national security. Persons with criminal intent have been identified coming into Dover in boats picked up in the channel. Any local person knows about the very many boats that do make it onto the land, onto the beaches and onto our shores in the coastal villages of Kingsdown, St Margaret’s and Walmer and further afield. It happens so often—even today, even this very morning. We must be compassionate to people in greatest need—I believe that that unites all parts of this House—but it would also be naïve given the very real risks that exist, with some people actively wishing to do us harm and they do harm others. That is why, for our national security, we must have strong borders and bring an end to the small boats crossing route.
Today’s measures are not about a lack of compassion. They are about recognising that there is no compassion in allowing this illegal activity to continue. Today’s Bill, alongside its sister immigration reform Bill, provides more powers to strengthen our borders and more options to work with other countries to make sure that people are encouraged to use legal and safe routes and discouraged from using these dangerous and illegal ones.
The bottom line is this: it is only when migrants and traffickers alike know that they cannot break into Britain in this way that the small boats crossing route will come to an end.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Member’s Financial Interests because I have help from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy—RAMP—project for my work in this area. RAMP is brilliant, in direct contrast to this Bill, which is the worst I have ever seen. This dog’s dinner would have been avoidable, however, if Ministers had listened to the evidence of experts, or even to the consultation responses, which they have promised, and failed, to publish. I hope that they will publish them as they finalise the Bill. It was strange after 11 years of a Conservative Administration to hear the Home Secretary admit, on the Second Reading of her own Bill, that it was not yet complete, in response to the question from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).
At a time of rising global crises, this Government could help to stop asylum seekers being created by intervening, perhaps under “global Britain”, but that has sadly proved to be an empty slogan, often mouthed by emptier heads. That given, we have a Government who have twice betrayed their own manifesto—and, of course, the people who voted for them—by cutting our aid and by cutting our armed forces personnel, which will mean shrinking our global reach and influence. This Government are also shrinking our international standing by seeking exclusivism in the form of a new special status for the UK outside international law, to the direct detriment of and cost to other countries, including our immediate neighbours. It is bonkers, but Ministers present this fiction to us. They have a real battle with reality ahead.
It is a fiction to pretend that we have deals with other countries to return anyone to them, except for Albania, a country that we accept asylum claims from. It is a fiction to claim that it is fair to criminalise someone fleeing communist torture and slave labour in Xinjiang, or that it is fair to criminalise RNLI volunteers or anyone on any boat who rescues asylum seekers from drowning. It is a fiction to claim that this Bill is fair on councils, who already pay for Home Office failures and delays, because they will face additional costs through the rough sleeping that these plans will create and the estimated additional £55 million of the new costs of these proposals, which will create 3,000 more people experiencing the pernicious Home Office “no recourse to public funds” restrictions. It is a fiction to pretend that this is fair to the taxpayers who will pick up the bill, whether it is through the Home Office, through councils’ emergency social services or through the new criminal justice and imprisonment costs, which are estimated to be more than £400 million a year.
The only truth I heard from the Home Secretary today is that the system is broken, with the number of people waiting over a year for a decision rising tenfold since 2010, with 33,000 in that position in 2010, including almost 7,000 children. What is maddening is that the number of people working for the Home Office has risen but productivity has collapsed, with around 2,500 people now having waited three years or more for a decision. It is a decade of Tory rule that has broken the Home Office. The party who used to claim to represent law and order has run the Department for law and order into the ground, with nine in 10 crimes now going unpunished in this country. But now, Ministers are asking the Home Office to act unlawfully in pursuing an aim that breaks international law. Sadly, the idea that the people who broke the Home Office now have ideas about how to fix it is also a fiction. I would ask Ministers to think again about these plans, but there is little evidence that they put much thought into the Bill in the first place.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]
I start by paying tribute to some of the fantastic organisations that support people seeking asylum in my constituency, such as Asylum Link Merseyside, the Merseyside Refugee Support Network and the British Red Cross. Every day, I see the difference they make in supporting some of the most vulnerable people in society who have come to our country seeking refuge, only too often to find that their trauma and suffering are made worse by the hostile environment that this Government have created for them.
I agree with the Home Secretary on one thing: our asylum system is broken. However, that is where our consensus ends. Many aspects of this Bill are objectionable—probably too many to mention in the time available. It is a disgraceful attempt to make people seeking asylum pay the price of the gross mismanagement of the asylum system by the Home Secretary and her predecessors. According to figures from the House of Commons Library, the Home Office’s asylum case load has doubled since 2014. I have constituents who have now been waiting over two years for a decision, and many who have been waiting nearly two years for a substantive interview.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees put proposals to the Government on fixing the asylum system based on its experience and best practice around the world. Instead of implementing those proposals, the Government have chosen to put forward a Bill that undermines our international obligations and our standing in the world. I am sure I am not alone in this House in being proud that the UK was a founding signatory to the 1951 refugee convention. It was then, and is now, an important legacy from the horrors of world war two and the many people who were displaced as a result.
The UNHCR serves as a guardian of the refugee convention. In its detailed observations about the measures in the Bill, UNHCR has been clear that it disagrees with the Home Secretary’s statement that her proposals comply with our obligations under the convention. It has stated that many aspects of the plan do not respect fundamental principles of refugee law and will undermine the 1951 convention and international protection system, not just in the UK but globally.
Let nobody in this House be under any illusion: supporting the measures in the Bill will signal to the world that we are withdrawing from our international obligations. In that context, why would any other country be willing to reach agreement with us on what the Government describe as safe and legal routes? I appeal to hon. Members on the Government Benches who value Britain’s standing and reputation as a global leader not to let the Government get away with undermining the sacrifices and achievements of the generation before us with this Bill. I also call on the Government to share with the House their legal advice to support the Home Secretary’s statement that the measures in the Bill are compatible with our obligations under the 1951 refugee convention.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I believe everyone wants to tackle people smuggling, human trafficking and dangerous trips across the channel. The only way to do that is the one thing that the Bill does not do: to provide safe legal routes to sanctuary in the UK. Instead, the Bill treats asylum seekers more harshly, despite no evidence that such an approach will stop them trying to come here.
The Home Office has been treating asylum seekers abysmally for years, keeping them in unsafe accommodation, making them wait months for a decision on their claim, banning them from working and forcing them to rely on little more than £5 a day. If cruelty were the answer, the problem would have been solved long ago.
What about the legal routes to asylum that the Government promised? The number of people granted asylum in the UK fell by 46% last year. The number of children granted asylum fell by 55%. The Government’s new scheme, which opened in March, resettled 25 refugees in its first month—just 25. That compares with 477 per month on average under the previous schemes. The proposals under the Bill are not just cruel; they undermine the UK’s commitments under the refugee convention. We cannot simply rewrite them to suit ourselves.
The Liberal Democrats are calling for a fully funded commitment to resettle 10,000 vulnerable refugees each year. We should resettle a further 10,000 unaccompanied child refugees from elsewhere in Europe over the next 10 years, and we must guarantee the rights of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Europe to be reunited with family members in the UK.
Another historic injustice that the Bill fails to address is comprehensive sickness insurance. A few years ago, many EU citizens had their application for a permanent residence document refused. Those refusals were down to an obscure need for CSI, which they had never previously needed to live in the UK or to use the NHS. At the time, the Government insisted that they were powerless to change the requirement as it stemmed from EU free movement laws. The requirement was removed from the EU settlement scheme, but CSI is still hidden deep within our rules. Many thousands of children have been cut off from their rights to be citizens of this country, all because of some obscure insurance requirement that no one was told they needed to have. The Government must come clean and use the exit from the EU for some good, as they so often claim they do. There is no more excuse to hold on to the CSI requirement for those seeking to become UK citizens.
Rather than fixing the problem, the Bill will make the problems worse and fail those most in need. I will vote against it.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is crucial that we restore trust in our immigration system. Our asylum system is in desperate need of reform and our constituents rightly expect it to be fixed.
In only the past year, 16,000 people have entered the country illegally, and those are just the ones we know about. Some of those people are genuinely fleeing persecution and need our support, but others are not, and they may abuse the legal system by making repeated vexatious and often last-minute claims, challenging the Home Office’s ability to remove individuals lawfully in those cases and costing taxpayers a lot of money. That also creates a severe backlog, which delays the processing of genuine asylum cases and slows down our judicial processes.
Most worryingly, there are now 10,000 foreign national offenders in circulation outside prisons in the UK whom the Home Office are intent on deporting but cannot because of legal barriers. I welcome the fact that the Government’s new plan for immigration will speed up the removal of these dangerous foreign criminals. Any foreign national who comes to this country and abuses our hospitality by breaking the law should be in no doubt of the UK Government’s determination to deport them.
When assessing the needs of individual asylum claimants, knowing the age of applicants is really important for ensuring that children get protected and properly looked after. The UK is currently one of the very few countries in Europe that does not commission or employ scientific methods of age assessment when determining how old these young people are. As a consultant paediatrician, the welfare of children is of the utmost importance to me. As a doctor, I have participated in the past in the assessment of asylum-seeking children, and the current system in place is nowhere near accurate enough for making such crucial and important decisions. I welcome the fact that the Bill will enable the use of scientific age assessment techniques, and that there will be increased research into their accuracy, so that we can best direct our efforts to support the youngest and most vulnerable people.
Finally, the Bill addresses a number of anomalies in the system of British nationality law. Behind each of these anomalies is a person and a family, and I am pleased to see a change in the law that I have lobbied for since 2019: nationality for children whose fathers are not the husband of their mother at the time of their birth. One of my constituents, who has served this country on military operations, was shocked to discover that he was unable to get British citizenship for his son, despite the fact that he is British and the son was born in Britain. This is because his European mother was still legally married to a foreign national at the time of their son’s birth, and under the current legislation a child’s father is legally deemed to be the husband at the time the woman gives birth. However, in this particular case my constituent is the father in all biological, emotional and practical terms.
New measures in the Bill will provide an entitlement to British citizenship for people who were previously unable to acquire it because their mother was married to someone other than their biological father at the time of birth. This will fix an outdated rule and ensure that my constituent and many others can rightfully pass on their nationality to their children. I am pleased to support this Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
For the sake of clarity, I ought to reiterate what Mr Speaker said to the House earlier today. As the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton) has been required to self-isolate and therefore cannot take her usual place in the Chair, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) will shortly be taking the Chair having been appointed a temporary Deputy Speaker, and I hope that the House will be gentle with her.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
The Government state that this Bill is necessary to deter irregular journeys and increase the fairness of the system in order to support those in need of asylum. I think that most of us in this House agree that the system needs to be fairer. Lengthy waits for asylum applications to be processed are the norm, immigration detention is often indefinite, and modern slavery and trafficking survivors are routinely detained. As the Red Cross states, removing support and raising the penalties for those who arrive irregularly does not address the underlying reasons why people seek safety in the UK.
This Bill is brutal. It in effect punishes those desperate souls who often genuinely flee persecution, famine and war in the hope of safety. The Refugee Council has stated that
“the actual effects of the bill in its current form will be to punish refugees who have been recognised as such under international law, and actually reduce safe and regular routes to the UK as refugee family reunion rights become more limited.”
One of the most dangerous parts of the proposals is that someone’s means of arrival will determine how worthy they are of protection in the UK. Asylum seekers arriving through anything other than resettlement will receive a lesser form of protection, including temporary status, no access to financial support and limited rights to family reunion. In fact, the new proposals plan to criminalise anyone arriving irregularly, not through official channels. But as we all know, people fleeing atrocities are rarely afforded the luxury of arriving through official channels. As the UN Refugee Agency has confirmed, this principle is in breach of the refugee convention.
These are cruel and unworkable plans. I agree with Amnesty International:
“Instead of introducing this piece of utter legislative vandalism, what the Home Office should be doing is establishing safe routes for the relatively few people escaping persecution who wish to seek asylum here…This reckless and deeply-unjust bill is set to bring shame on Britain’s international reputation.”
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Madam Ddirprwy Lefarydd.
The Bill is an assault on the human rights of men and women who happen to be asylum seekers and on our common humanity. Across Wales, thousands of decent people are united. This legislation shames us, and it is not in our name. It expands the hostile environment by criminalising asylum seekers and their families. The Bill’s proposed tier system for claiming asylum rips up the basic tenets of the 1951 refugee convention: that people’s mode of arrival should have no influence on whether they are legitimate refugees or on their right to make an asylum claim.
The potential criminalisation of the life-saving work of organisations such as the RNLI is incomprehensible. I commend the determination of our lifeboat crews to continue to come to the aid of anyone in peril on the sea. The Bill threatens to penalise seafarers if they do not leave people to perish, and thus it scorns the UN convention for the safety of life at sea, as well as the refugee convention.
Expanding the use of detention-style asylum accommodation will result in more people being sent to sites such as Penally camp in Pembrokeshire, which was described by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration as
“impoverished, run-down and unsuitable for long-term accommodation.”
Let us not forget that the Home Office was shamed into closing Penally only four months ago.
The human cost of these proposed changes would be immense. They would criminalise people such as Joseff Gnagbo and prevent them from seeking sanctuary in the UK. After fleeing the Ivory Coast following threats to his life, Joseff sought refuge in Wales. He now works as a carer, a translator and a teacher, and he volunteers for Cymdeithas yr Iaith, the Welsh Language Society. These are his words, and they are worth hearing:
“We are already treated as an inconvenience under the current asylum system. Under these reforms, we will be treated as criminals... The welcome I have received by the people of Wales in that time is in stark contrast with the Home Office’s cruel policies. I want refugees and asylum seekers to have more help in integrating into Welsh society. Sadly, this legislation seeks to make that almost impossible.”
Wales is a far richer place because of people such as Joseff, but the Home Secretary would make criminals of them. We must stand up to this heartless borders Bill, which prevents Wales from fulfilling the humane, honourable ambition of our own Parliament: to become
“a nation of sanctuary for refugees.”
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) [V]
I rise to speak in support of this Nationality and Borders Bill, because the current system is not working for the interests either of nationality or of UK borders.
It cannot be right that over the past year an estimated 16,000 people have entered this country illegally—and that has been during a period when international travel has been severely restricted because of the covid-19 pandemic. It is right that the system be changed and updated so that people who come to the United Kingdom should do so on a legal basis, not circumvent the system that exists. The suggestion that those coming to this country from continental Europe are fleeing persecution in those countries is ridiculous. There is no analogy with the situation that existed in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s.
I wish to mention an aspect of nationality that has not been properly addressed: the position of the descendants of the Chagos islanders who were forcibly removed from the British Indian ocean territory by Harold Wilson’s Administration in the late 1960s and typically resettled in Mauritius, the Seychelles and some other locations. Many of those descendants are the grandchildren of people who were British subjects in the British Indian ocean territory and now find themselves with, in effect, no rights to British citizenship, despite the fact that it was no fault of their own that their grandparents and relatives were forcibly exiled from their home territory.
I would therefore be grateful if the Government considered including in the Bill a clause to rectify that anomaly, which affects a relatively small number of people. This injustice has existed for more than half a century. I plan to introduce an amendment on Report, but I hope that the Government can work with me to remedy this historical injustice once and for all.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]
I am pleased to have the chance to speak in this debate, although I regret the fact that the time limit means my comments will be brief.
This important Bill aims to provide a fair and safe asylum system and give greater rights and protections to those who have legally sought asylum in the UK. It seeks properly to control our borders and thereby strengthen our national security, and it will clamp down on some of the most despicable criminals: the gangs who make money from people smuggling and modern slavery. For me, that is the most important provision in the Bill.
Everyone in this place should back any measures that will stop the trade in human misery. We all remember the tragic deaths of migrants who have paid smugglers to cram them into lorries without sufficient ventilation. We have seen people with no sailing experience who have paid to be piled into unseaworthy vessels—often nothing more than a dinghy—and then pushed offshore to make a dangerous and, tragically, often deadly sea crossing. It is the duty of our Home Secretary to take any measures she can to stop these perilous attempts to enter UK, and I thank her for her clear commitment to reform the system and stop the organised criminals. Let us be clear: while such journeys are deemed to be viable, others will attempt the same journeys. We must act to stop them.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, many who seek to come to the UK by illegal routes are economic migrants. If I had more time, I would speak about the work that the UK is doing in trade and education, and the work that we should do to help developing countries to really develop, so that people all over the world can have prosperous, fulfilling lives for themselves and their families.
I was deeply disappointed by the shadow Home Secretary’s remarks about the Bill creating a more discriminatory asylum system, because by not supporting measures in the Bill he would allow the current system to continue. He must surely look at the current system and see the clear discrimination against older people, disabled people, women and children—against anyone unable or less able to make long, arduous, dangerous journeys.
As I have only a few more seconds, I conclude by saying that we should all want a fair and just asylum system, and such a system does not say that if people are young enough, fit enough or brave enough, they can get ahead and jump the queue. A fair and just asylum system does not reward organised gangs of criminals for putting vulnerable people’s lives at risk. A fair and just asylum system is not this perverse and deadly real-life “Hunger Games”. That is why we must act and why I support the Home Secretary’s measures. I commend her determination to stop these vile, inhumane practices.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope you are enjoying the view—congratulations.
I sometimes wonder whether the Home Secretary or her cheerleaders on the Government Benches have ever actually met an asylum seeker. If the asylum seekers who come to my surgeries in Glasgow North find it stressful, embarrassing or upsetting to have to carry a biometric ID card that states that they have no right to work when, being a human being, they are born with that right, or that they have no recourse to public funds, it is no less humiliating to have to explain from the other side of the surgery table why the Government are so unremittingly hostile to their presence in this country.
It is easy to stand at the Dispatch Box or on the Back Benches and say that these people should leave the UK; try looking them in the eyes—eyes that have seen horrors that some of us cannot even imagine—and saying that. I defy any Minister or any Tory Back Bencher to come to the next meeting of the Maryhill Integration Network Voices group, listen to the testimonies of the men and women who take part and then come back to this House and justify the policies that they are promoting today.
For 20 years the Maryhill Integration Network has supported asylum seekers and refugees in the north of Glasgow, welcoming them into the community, and helping to share experiences, culture, food and joy across the entire city. For 17 of those years, it has been led by the remarkable Rema Sherifi, until her recent retirement. Rema was a refugee—she was a journalist in Kosovo—who fled to a refugee camp in Macedonia with her family, before being evacuated to Glasgow for health reasons. Since that time she has worked tirelessly to support thousands of others who have been through similar experiences, helping people to overcome traumas, and learn how to make new lives as part of Glasgow’s wonderfully diverse community.
My friend and constituent Abdul Bostani has a similar story. He fled the Taliban in Afghanistan at the age of 18, and on arrival in the UK he was put on a bus to Glasgow, a city he had never heard of. Twenty years later he is a proud father who works in translation and runs Glasgow Afghan United, which brings people together for sport, language, culture and other activities. How many more Remas and Abduls are out there who could help to transform our country and make it a better place for everyone, but who instead will find themselves shut out, turned away, and criminalised by the Bill? How many will be put up in barracks before being deported, and criminalised on the moment of arrival, because of course they had to struggle to get here—their oppressive regime did not give them a passport and a ticket to the airport?
Hostility is the hallmark of this Government: hostility to devolution, hostility to the aid budget, and now a supercharging of the hostile environment for refugees and asylum seekers. A hostile environment pervades the Home Office. The visa system is in at least as much of a mess as the asylum system, and it amounts to one message: global Britain is closed. Do not come here unless you are going to spend lots of money and then leave again very quickly.
I agree with the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on his point about the Chagossians. Well Scotland wants no part of it. In time, Scotland will have its own immigration system, and just as Scots have been welcomed and made their homes in countries around the world, we will welcome travellers, migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, respecting their human rights and our humanitarian responsibilities. I say this to refugee and asylum-seeking constituents in Glasgow North: no matter what you hear from the Tory Dispatch Box today, you are welcome in Glasgow, you are welcome in Scotland, we want you to be safe, and we want you to stay.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I was elected in 2019 on a manifesto that promised to reform our immigration system. For too long, excessive and uncontrolled immigration, and abuses of our asylum system, have allowed people to get around the rules without much prospect of ever being removed once they are here. The Bill is an important turning point. It provides the powers we need to remove people who should not be here, and to discourage anyone who would try to cross into the country illegally. The message is simple: if you come here illegally by irregular means, you will not be staying.
The Bill has three main objectives: first, to increase the fairness of the system better to protect and support those in need of asylum; secondly, to deter illegal entry into the United Kingdom, thereby breaking people smuggling networks and protecting the lives of those they endanger; and thirdly, to remove more easily those with no right to be in the UK. Those aims are sensible, proportionate and just. They are also what the public want us to do.
Whenever I am out and about in Hyndburn and Haslingden, I hear concerns from residents about controlling our borders and cracking down on illegal immigration. There is a proper asylum route into this country, and it is important that people realise they will be punished if they do not follow it. The Bill will not only deter those people who get in boats to make illegal crossings, but it will smash the networks that bring them here. There are no words strong enough to express my contempt for the traffickers, who give people false hope and then risk their lives by unscrupulously smuggling them into the country for a huge fee. We need an asylum system that is compassionate towards people who apply to come here, processes claims efficiently and effectively, and quickly removes anyone who is not successful in their application. The Bill delivers on all that.
The Bill will broaden criminal sanctions for offences related to illegal entry or bringing people here illegally, and it will increase the maximum penalties for both. It will also give border and immigration staff additional powers to stop and redirect vessels out of UK territorial waters. The Bill is an important step in creating a new immigration system, based on merit, which controls who, when, and how people can come here, and cuts immigration overall. It gives my constituents confidence that the Government have heard their concerns on immigration, and are working to tackle them.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Judged while seeking justice. Criminalised while fleeing criminals. Expelled while being exploited. Scapegoated while escaping some of the worst violations against human dignity or human rights. In breach of global agreements. The words in the Bill should never enter the minds of anyone, let alone those entrusted to protect us. They should never be echoed in the Chamber, let alone be brought forward in legislation. In our country—the place that founded human rights—the Government have reached the depths of stigmatising people fleeing war, terror, trafficking, climate catastrophe and, yes, destitution, judging them on how they arrived, not what they have left. As the Government play on the global stage by cutting aid to the world’s poorest and removing their last hope of being able to stay home and support family and community, play with our climate, which is burning our planet and every grain that could feed the most destitute, play war by selling arms while walking away from building peace, fail to use their voice, power and influence on the global stage to stem some of the worst violations against humanity, and preside over a broken asylum system and do not fix it, they must recognise their contribution to the decimation of the global order before pointing the blame at its victims.
From centuries of imperial abuse to withdrawing from reparation today, the Government are now prepared to suppress a small number of the 80 million people forced from their homes and land without shelter or hope. They are prepared to criminalise people who, for the want of safety and survival, and some just to be reunited with their families, have been subject to criminal gangs. Worse, the Bill will stop people even fleeing danger as the Government force them to apply to enter the UK from a place of peril or some offshore hidden place, creating more risk, more trauma and more harm.
I appeal to all Government Members not to tread those dark paths. I appeal to all who say they live by a moral code and are here to further justice and advance human rights not to support their Government tonight but to uphold our British values, which welcome the repressed and offer people somewhere to live safely. I am so proud to represent York, the UK’s only human rights city and a city of sanctuary, where we put the needs of others before our own, tear down walls and create bridges, and take care of those whose stories break us as they recount the trauma they have endured in their lives. We listen and we act. We quicken our resolve to speak up and stand up for human rights and against violations and abuses. That is why I speak out to oppose this oppressive legislation and say: not in my name.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Welcome to the Chair. Edmund Burke said:
“Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.”
Restoring justice and order to the chaotic and confusing asylum system broadcasts that a line in the sand has been drawn that will not fade away with every new boat that arrives on the beach. The Bill is a testament to the principle that laws must be just and be seen to be; otherwise, we can hardly call them law at all.
According to poll after poll, the vast majority of the public see illegal immigration as a serious problem. Is it any wonder when there were 16,000 illegal entrants into Britain last year, with 8,500 on boats? Those are the ones we know about. This year alone, 7,000 have arrived on those boats.
Richard Fuller
Does my right hon. Friend not think that somehow turning the debate simply into, “Everyone who claims asylum must have a legitimate claim and everyone who is against it must be racist” does not help in trying to get to the just law that he is talking about?
Sir John Hayes
Absolutely, it does not, nor is it just to pillory the public and those who speak for them when they argue that we should enforce the law and that migration should be controlled. As a number of hon. Members have said, legal migration has been out of control for some time, and illegal migration, by its very nature, is both unjust and unfair because it breaks the law. It breaches that principle that people who arrive here and pursue legal routes are doing the right thing and that those who do not are simply doing the wrong thing and should be deported. That is what the public think, and that is what we should say very clearly.
Stuart C. McDonald
Is no one on the Conservative Benches remotely concerned that the Bill would see a Uyghur fleeing persecution in China, a Syrian fleeing disastrous war crimes in that country or a persecuted Christian seeking sanctuary on this shore criminalised with an offence that could see them in prison for up to four years, stripped of their family reunion rights, offshored and whatever else? Does nobody on those Benches have any qualms about that whatsoever?
Sir John Hayes
Surely the hon. Gentleman must realise that while the principle of granting asylum—of giving sanctuary to people in desperate need—is a noble one, it is being gamed, day after day and month after month, with people travelling through many safe countries before claiming asylum, repeated claims on a whole range of different grounds, and even modern slavery, which we all deplore, being used as a justification to stay here when it is invented. That is to insult—to besmirch—those who are really suffering persecution and who come here in genuine need. It is being gamed, frankly, by a combination of unscrupulous civil rights and human rights activists, and people-traffickers. Although they do not work together in an organised fashion, the combination of the two is damaging public faith in our ability to control our borders. If “take back control” means anything, surely it means taking back control of our sovereign borders.
When the average Briton sees the asylum system being played, it leaves them bewildered, frustrated and angry that we should be taken for such fools. British people do not want to pull up the drawbridge to the world’s needy. What they want is a consistent system that helps the right people in the right way: one that will remove those with no right to stay in Britain just as it protects those we ought to be protecting, not one that grants favour to those who manage to successfully break our laws when they first arrive here.
Sara Britcliffe
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, contrary to what the Opposition are saying, the Government are not changing their approach to maritime law and those organisations and individuals will still be able to rescue anybody who is in distress at sea?
Sir John Hayes
As my hon. Friend may know, I am a former maritime Minister, and it absolutely right to say that the agreement that we have with the International Maritime Organisation to rescue people at sea is also being exploited by unscrupulous people, and we need to be mindful of that fact.
This Bill goes some way to addressing the huge gulf that exists between public perceptions and those of the liberal establishment that has too much say about too many things in this country. Criminal gangs and desperate economic migrants know that every time bleeding-heart liberals oppose tougher penalties and tougher measures—and so blur the distinction between those in genuine need and those who break the rules—they do immense harm to the cause of genuine asylum seekers.
Finally, let me say a word about foreign criminals, who have been mentioned. In 2010, there were 4,000 foreign criminals here; now, there are 10,000. Surely every one should be deported. We do not want to import crime into our country. We must take back control and we must pass this Bill to do so.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I welcome you to your role. I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to follow several hon. Members who have spoken so eloquently on this Bill—sadly, for the most part, on the Opposition Benches.
My colleagues and I will oppose this abhorrent legislation that rides roughshod over the refugee convention. As we approach the 30th anniversary of the convention, this Bill places some of the most vulnerable people in the world at risk of destitution, exploitation and family separation. The Government’s rhetoric and virtue signalling has failed to comprehend the valuable contributions that those people make to our society, regardless of how they got there. If the Bill is passed, it will, as we have heard, cast the UK adrift from international law, making it more insulated from other countries and staining what is still left of our international reputation on the world stage. It is insensitive, rushed and deeply problematic given its intention to effectively end the right to seek asylum in the UK. By doing so, it contravenes the refugee convention itself and also the European convention on human rights. The Bill proposes a two-tier system and a two-tier approach to asylum, despite there being no legal requirement in international law for an applicant to seek asylum in the first country they reach.
By bringing this Bill forward, the Home Secretary is ignoring both international and UK law with her approach, as well as being blind to the fact that how an applicant arrives in the UK is unrelated to the level of protection that they require. The Home Secretary encourages asylum seekers to use official schemes to make their application, fully aware that in many cases the abhorrent regimes that an asylum seeker is seeking refuge from will place them and their families at greater risk. The risk that many asylum seekers face is not a choice they make freely; it is a choice they make simply because it is the only choice they have left—to turn to criminal gangs for help, leaving them open to exploitation.
The UK simply cannot depart from international law on an issue that requires co-operation with other countries and by doing so refuse to play its part in supporting some of the world’s most vulnerable citizens. The Bill is shoddy, it vandalises the UK’s international reputation and it undermines the devolution settlement itself.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Stoke-on-Trent, which I am proud to represent, has the fifth-highest rate of asylum seekers per 10,000 of population, Glasgow being the first. Does the hon. Lady agree that the SNP-led councils outside Glasgow should step up and do their bit, and start being part of the asylum dispersal scheme?
Angela Crawley
I thank the hon. Member for that comment. Feel free to fund Glasgow City Council to deal with the situation that, frankly, the Government have caused.
Most importantly, the Bill ignores the reality of why people flee in the first place and seek safety. That wilful ignorance lies within the Bill’s severest risk of harm to refugees seeking protection in the UK. [Interruption.] The Bill would put the continued use of military-style barracks at the heart of the Home Office strategy, flying in the face of court rulings and expert opinion, including the NHS and Public Health England. [Interruption.] Their use has been ruled unlawful and the court has banned it by a decision of the High Court. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) wishes to make a further intervention I will take it, otherwise I will carry on. It is simply astonishing that the Home Office is casually disregarding that ruling and the views of public health experts, and placing this practice at the heart of the Bill.
The Bill is one of the many reasons that Scotland needs her independence and to break away from this insular little Britain that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister are working to create. These are real people. These are real lives. That someone should arrive here, illegally by this Government’s definition, by exploitation or worse and be penalised for the very notion that they make it successfully here at all is absolutely abhorrent. This place should be regarded as a safe haven. The UK is that opportunity for many, many people. This Government turn their back on so many lives.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Now then, Janis Bite was 13 years old and living in Latvia at the start of world war two. Two years later, the Nazis came. Their request was simple: one male member from each family to go and fight the Russians. It was either Janis, his dad or his younger brother, so Janis went to the Russian front and witnessed the horrors of war in temperatures of minus 40.
When the war ended in 1945, Janis was classed as a displaced person—a refugee. Imagine that. He could not go back to Latvia, because he had been sent straight to Siberia and that is where they sent his dad, so Janis was given two more choices: the US or the UK. So he came to the UK to a small village in Derbyshire, where he and other refugees were housed in Nissen huts in army barracks. He did not complain or whinge or moan about the barracks or set fire to the barracks or make TikTok videos. In fact, they were so grateful to the UK that they all volunteered to work in the fields at local farms picking potatoes and other seasonal vegetables for no pay. Janis met a girl in the village, he fell in love and he later married. He worked hard all his life and had three sons, one of them being Alan in Ashfield. Janis loved his football. He became a British citizen and loved this country. He even went on to meet our Queen. Janis is no longer with us, but his story makes me feel incredibly proud of our great country and its willingness to help people from all over the world.
Sir John Hayes
The story my hon. Friend is telling is a story of someone who sought our aid and got it, but would he contrast that with what is happening now? Would Janis not take the view, which has been articulated in this Chamber tonight, that the system that he held in such high regard is now being gamed and exploited, besmirching the good name of our country and people like him?
Lee Anderson
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. That is absolutely right. I spoke to Janis’s family last week in Ashfield, and they made exactly that point. I will feed that back to them when I get back to Ashfield this weekend.
We have always been a welcoming and tolerant country that has reached out to genuine refugees from all over the world, but just like Janis’s family in Ashfield, most people in the UK do not accept that people travelling here from France in dinghies are genuine asylum seekers—[Interruption.] They are not genuine asylum seekers. We know that many of them have been trafficked with a clear instruction on how to claim asylum once they get here. That is because our asylum system is not fit for purpose, and this Bill stops that.
The Labour party and the Opposition want to bring back free movement. They dislike our points-based immigration system, and now they are going to vote against a Bill that protects our borders and helps us deport foreign murderers and rapists. They will always vote against the British people. This new Bill will ensure that people in genuine need, like Janis all those years ago, get the help they need, and the greedy lawyers and the human traffickers will be told, “No more.” We owe it to people such as Janis who are suffering today to ensure that we have a fairer system that offers genuine refugees a safe haven. This Bill does that.
We have nothing to be ashamed of in this country. We are a kind, tolerant and welcoming country. That is proven by the number of people who risk their lives every single day to get here. If Janis’s family can see that the current situation is unacceptable, surely the Opposition should see that too.
I give a massive thanks to the Home Secretary, who has stuck to her guns. She has listened to the British people and delivered. Opposition MPs want to travel into reality. I will offer this opportunity to all of you now sitting there now with those glazed expressions on your face: come down to Ashfield, come speak to some real people in my towns and villages, and the message you will get will be completely different from the message you are feeding into this House. I am here because of you lot and the attitudes you had in 2019. We are getting tough on crime, we are getting tough on immigration and we are getting tough on law and order.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on taking the Chair. I am delighted to see you there.
Every year or two, we hear from a Conservative Home Secretary that they are going to fix the broken system. The Home Secretary has told us again tonight that the system is broken, and of course she is right: it is broken. All the previous attempts—we have heard about exactly the same things in the past—have not fixed it, and this one will not either. I cannot agree with the thinking in this Bill that making life more miserable for people whose circumstances are already utterly miserable will fix these problems and deter people from their desperate efforts to reach the UK.
Most people think that distinguishing between asylum seekers on the basis of their route to the UK is contrary to the 1951 refugee convention. No doubt that will end up in the courts. I am particularly dismayed by plans to process asylum applications overseas. We have no idea where this will happen. We certainly should know before we agree to this Bill.
Australia has offshore facilities in Papua New Guinea and Nauru, although nobody has been sent there since 2013. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees urged that they should be evacuated because of poor health standards, highlighting in particular the number of suicides there. Those facilities shame Australia, and if we go down the same road, it will shame us too.
The long wait for asylum decisions is a massive problem. I asked the Home Secretary about this earlier. There are 50% more asylum caseworkers now than there were in 2014-15, but the number of decisions they make has gone down every single year in that time. Why has productivity fallen so far? I asked the Home Secretary that and she did not give me an answer. Without fixing the problem, things will just carry on getting worse.
The number waiting more than a year for initial decisions, as we have been reminded repeatedly in this debate, has risen tenfold since 2010. I have seen that in constituency surgeries. People wait four years, and they have no idea when they will hear anything. Sometimes a reply to me is the only way they know they actually are in the Home Office system. They have no other evidence that they are.
I strongly support the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) for legally binding targets to process asylum cases more quickly. If people cannot stay, they should be told soon, not, as happens so often at the moment, after years, so that leaving is impractical and in practice hardly ever happens. The current gross inefficiency helps nobody. I hope the House will reject this Bill.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Our United Kingdom has always stood up for those in need, whether by helping the thousands escaping fascism in Europe in the 20th century or by offering a home to the people of Hong Kong who face persecution at the hands of the Chinese communist party.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, an adopted Stokie, is right to say that our asylum system is broken. People in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke will see images of people crossing the channel illegally in small boats and are rightly infuriated, because they know the impact that illegal immigration has. In Stoke-on-Trent, we have done more than almost any other area in giving asylum seekers a home. At the end of 2020, we had the fifth highest rate of asylum seekers per 10,000 of population in the whole UK, housing more than 1,000 asylum seekers. That means that one in every 250 people living in Stoke is now an asylum seeker, and with the certainty of even more illegal entries into the UK on boats, in lorries or through those arriving without visas, places such as Stoke-on-Trent will be pushed to their limit. In 14 council wards, the one in 200 cluster limit has already been breached in Stoke-in-Trent, with Etruria and Hanley, a ward I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), having a ratio of one in 44. The stark truth is that our city has reached its limits. Services such as our local NHS and schools are under strain and being stretched even further, and I fully support the decision by Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s leader, Councillor Abi Brown, to pause our involvement with the asylum dispersal scheme.
Patrick Grady
Perhaps some of the asylum seekers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency could be given the right to work and could then work in the schools and hospitals, and the whole community could benefit from the economic, cultural and social growth they would bring, rather than demonising, othering and making people afraid of them.
Jonathan Gullis
I see the hon. Gentleman getting very animated. I just hope he can convince his Scottish National party colleagues—or the nats—to get involved in the asylum dispersal scheme. I know that the Minister will be very keen for meetings tomorrow to start the paperwork and let us have lots more councils in Scotland taking part in the scheme.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking my intervention. He keeps saying this, as do many of his colleagues. However, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities last week and it said, as it has so many times before, that every one of the other 31 local authorities in Scotland would be happy to get involved in the asylum dispersal scheme if it were funded—why shouldn’t it be funded? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it should be properly funded.
Jonathan Gullis
Stoke-on-Trent, sadly, has the second lowest council tax revenue income of any local authority in England, yet all I am hearing from those opposite is excuses, excuses, excuses. The SNP has money for all these vanity projects, but it does not have any money to look after asylum seekers—I find it baffling. By creating new accommodation centres, removing asylum seekers to a safe third country while an asylum claim is pending, in the same ways as is being done in Denmark, increasing maximum penalties for entering the UK illegally, enabling the quicker and easier removal of foreign criminals convicted of horrific crimes such as rape and murder, creating new safe and legal routes that will be looked on favourably when people apply for asylum, and backing our Border Force to stop and redirect boats out of British waters, returning them to safe countries from which they came, such as France, this Bill is delivering the reforms that we need and that are wanted by the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke.
Angela Crawley
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the picture he paints is not the same as the one we experience in Scotland. In Glasgow, in Kenmure Street, people wrapped themselves around those who were being deported by the Home Office and said, “Refugees are welcome.” The picture he paints is not representative of the whole of the UK—it is inaccurate and false.
Jonathan Gullis
I have the greatest respect for the people of Glasgow, their council and their MPs, because they have got involved in the asylum dispersal scheme, and they deserve full recognition and credit for that. That is just like how Stoke-on-Trent has wrapped its arms around the people who have come to this country in need and looked after them. But we have simply said that our NHS, local schools and local council services cannot do this any more and it simply has to come to a point where fairness is applied equally. I say to the hon. Lady again that if all the SNP councils that are not in Glasgow want to, they can meet the Minister and get the asylum dispersal scheme signed up to and we can share the load across our country.
But let us talk about the Labour party, who will listen to the woke mob on Twitter rather than listening to the people in former red wall seats. The Labour party wants to sign back up to free movement, which its leader spent years arguing for when trying to block Brexit. He also believes that immigration controls are racist. I suggest that the Labour party champagne socialists of north Islington, whose Labour-run council had not given accommodation to a single asylum seeker by the end of 2020, and their leftie sponging lawyer friends who soak up taxpayers’ money by preventing foreign criminals from being deported should get out and talk to some real people rather than worrying about their likes on Twitter. The truth is that the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke want to take back control and this Bill delivers that.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Good evening and welcome to the Chair.
“It is a sad fact that in our broken world forced migration is a reality…UK Government Ministers might wish for people to stop trying to cross the English Channel but when there is still conflict and injustice in the world then there will always be those wanting to seek sanctuary from war and suffering.”
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talks about conflict and suffering and, of course, we deplore that on both sides of the House, but I am not aware that that conflict and suffering are in France. Much as I deplore many aspects of French civilisation, including its attitude to the monarchy, France is in the G7, the G20 and a founder member of the United Nations, so I do not understand why he feels that we need to give a safe home to those who are already in a fellow G7 member state.
Allan Dorans
They are fleeing conflict and war. That may be not be in France, but they are fleeing from it in their own countries where they are in severe danger of losing their lives.
Andrew Griffith
Will he just clarify whether, in his view, France is a safe country?
Allan Dorans
It is a safe country, but these asylum seekers are travelling from war-torn countries where their lives are in danger.
“We cannot close the door and instead we need to call out this policy for what it is—xenophobic populism which exploits people’s fears of the outsider.”
Those are not my words, but the words of Susan Brown, a leading member of the Church of Scotland and honorary chaplain to the Queen in Scotland, after seeing the consultation paper on the Bill. Susan clearly does not believe in myths, such as that immigrants are a drain on the NHS and the benefits system or that they bring increases in violent crime with them. For her, this is about being the kind of people we would want to be, treating others as we would hope they would treat us and our families were the roles reversed.
Some may argue that strict immigration policies are necessary to protect our borders and our country from the effects of immigration. However, on our NHS staffing, migration is good for the NHS. Migrants are an essential part of the healthcare workforce. They are the consultants, doctors, nurses, porters, cleaners, canteen staff and other people who look after the nation. 13.3% of NHS staff in hospitals and community services in England reported a non-British nationality. Among doctors, that proportion is 20.4%. Many doctors trained abroad and, in March 2019, 20% of GPs in England qualified outside the UK. Immigration is a necessary part of the British way of life.
On healthcare, the demand among migrants to the UK is lower than among the UK-born population, except among in-patients for childbirth. In Scotland, migrants from outside the UK are in general young and have low healthcare needs. Consequently, there is little evidence of increased demand for health services. On benefits, foreign-born people are less likely to receive key Department for Work and Pensions out-of-work benefits than UK-born people. On crime, in Scotland, statistics for individual crime participation tend to show that migrants are less likely to commit crime than observably similar people who were born in the United Kingdom.
I return to Susan Brown of the Church of Scotland, who said:
“What we need is political leadership which acknowledges and allays people’s concerns and promotes the importance of human life and dignity…This means giving asylum seekers the right to work…Establishing safe passage routes or humanitarian corridors to the UK for those that need sanctuary…and…support for individuals to alleviate destitution and poverty.”
In conclusion, I urge the Government to seriously reconsider many aspects of the Bill and to adopt a more appropriate economic and humanitarian approach to nationality and immigration.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome you to your elevated position.
Many of my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South are shocked and angered by the illegal crossings of the English channel. The integrity of our borders is broken, and my constituents are fed up of seeing people continue to enter the UK illegally. We must act to put an end to the profiteering of criminal people traffickers, for whom illegal routes have become an industry, and we must deter those who seek to make these perilous journeys across the busiest shipping lane in the world in no more than a rubber dinghy.
Clearly, there must be safe routes for those in desperate need. The UK and Stoke-on-Trent have a proud record of helping those in the greatest need, but what my constituents cannot understand is why there should be any need to make illegal journeys to do so: European countries are safe, and those attempting to claim asylum should do so in those countries.
We have seen repeated attempts to game the system, using any legal loophole to do so. There were 16,000 illegal immigrants last year yet, because the system is overwhelmed and repeatedly abused, deportations are declining. The increased pressures we have seen on the entire immigration system put enormous weight on the few asylum dispersal areas. Stoke-on-Trent has seen one of the highest proportions of refugees in the entire country.
Angela Crawley
Does the hon. Member accept the criticism from his former colleague Anna Soubry, who said the Conservative party is now a “Trumpian”, far-right, “populist” party?
Jack Brereton
I do not agree with that. We have absolutely supported those in the most desperate need. It is about making sure we support the genuine ones in those countries and regions. We have supported around 25,000 over the past six years in this country, which is the most in the whole of Europe. We will not take any lectures from the SNP, which talks so much about support for immigrants but does not do a single thing. Glasgow is the only city in Scotland to be a dispersal area. The rest of Scotland does not lift a single finger to help asylum seekers.
Jack Brereton
I agree with my hon. Friend. Cities such as Stoke-on-Trent are actually putting in the effort.
Angela Crawley
The hon. Member’s statement that Glasgow is the only place in Scotland that accepts refugees is untrue. South Lanarkshire, my local authority, has accepted a number of refugees, particularly after 2014. [Hon. Members: “How many?”] I do not have the numbers, but the fact stated by the hon. Member is untrue.
Jack Brereton
Glasgow is the only official asylum dispersal area in Scotland. Other authorities have the opportunity to come forward as dispersal areas, but SNP-controlled authorities in Scotland have failed to do so. All the pressure has fallen on the minority of authorities that are dispersal areas, while numerous authorities have failed to resettle a single asylum seeker.
The west midlands is currently accommodating 12.26%, an increase on 2019, but all of this is falling on only half of the authorities in the region. In Stoke-on-Trent it is having a significant impact on our overstretched local services.
Stuart C. McDonald
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can join our delegation tomorrow, because what we seek and what the cross-party Home Affairs Committee has advised is that the Home Office properly fund the dispersal system. Every single local authority in Scotland got involved in the refugee resettlement scheme because it was properly funded. I am more than happy to join him in seeking more money for dispersal areas, and we will all then happily sign up to do the job properly.
Jack Brereton
What the hon. Gentleman is actually saying is, “We are happy for authorities like Stoke-on-Trent to continue to pull their weight, and we in Scotland will just sit here, not pull our weight and continue not to support asylum seekers in this country.”
Patrick Grady
The Scottish Government have published the “New Scots” plan to welcome asylum seekers and refugees across the entire country. If the UK Government do not want to give us the money, why do they not give us the power? Then we can have our own immigration system in Scotland.
Jack Brereton
I will make some progress, as I have very little time.
There are currently around 10,000 national foreign offenders in this country. Again, the Labour party will not do anything about it, and it tried to accept murderers and rapists into this country. We in Stoke-on-Trent will not allow that. As I said, the pressure faced by those few who have done the most is totally unsustainable. It saw all resettlement area authorities in the region withdraw from the scheme recently. Since then, we have continued to see attempts to place people, and the latest letter from the Minister—I do thank him for the support he has given—says that there will continue to be procurement in these areas, against our wishes. I totally recognise the urgent need for these areas to house people, but it cannot continue to fall on a few areas of the country. It is time that other areas of the country step up and do what they should in taking a fair share and contributing, as Stoke-on-Trent has and continues to do.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]
There is only one thing on which the Home Secretary and I would agree today, and that is that we have a failed and broken immigration system that costs far too much money. But that is because of successive Conservative Governments, who have failed it and broken it, and an incompetent and chaotic Home Office that continues to preside over it. When they constantly have to pay out claims for wrongful decisions and they outsource immigration detention and asylum accommodation, it costs money and causes misery. When more than 50% of those in immigration detention actually end up staying in this country, what an absolute waste. Extending the immigration detention estate will only enrich companies such as Serco and G4S, which is why the plan makes no sense to me. The pandemic has proven that it can be managed in another way. If the Government want to save money, they should simply end immigration detention.
This horrendous piece of legislation, hailed as a solution, does nothing to resolve these issues. It does nothing to create safe routes for refugees, nothing to end the hostile environment, nothing to end the danger of unsafe asylum accommodation and nothing to address the bureaucratic hurdles that leave people without documentation through no fault of their own.
We are living through an age of mass displacement driven by war, poverty and climate breakdown. Under the refugee convention, anyone seeking asylum should be able to claim in their intended destination or another safe country. Asylum seekers are under no obligation to seek refuge in the first country they arrive in, and there are a number of reasons why they may not do so.
At times like this, the Government should not be dodging their moral and legal obligations to accept their fair share of refugees. Instead of creating a fair and humane system, this Bill, coupled with the Government’s new plan, discriminates by distinguishing that whether people are fleeing from persecution is irrelevant compared with how they arrived. Does the Home Secretary realise that a trafficked woman cannot stop and ask her handler to ensure that she arrives under the correct documentation? LGBTQ people and those fleeing political and religious persecution cannot do a Google search to find out what mode might be considered the most favourable. An unaccompanied minor stripped of everything and everyone they know does not have the luxury of ticking the correct box. These people are fleeing conditions some of us could never imagine. These plans will limit the options of those most in need and create a two-tier system that will ruin lives.
It is 100% a misrepresentation to say that the legislation meets our obligations under international law. Do not take my word for it; the House has heard time and again today about the view of the United Nations, and the opinions of those lawyers who the Home Secretary seeks to demonise. I want all those campaigners and lawyers who continue to support migrants’ rights to know that, no matter what is said about them on the Conservative Benches, they are absolute heroes. Long after the Government are done away with, they will be on the right side of history.
This Bill is yet more of this Government’s authoritarian agenda, turning away the most vulnerable. As the late, great Tony Benn once said:
“The way a Government treats refugees is very instructive because it shows you how they would treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it.”
Only safe and legal routes will—
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations.
Before I come to the substantive points I wish to raise in relation to the Bill, it is worth reminding ourselves that what we are debating tonight touches on the experiences of some of the most vulnerable people in global society. Facing an ever-hardening legal system, asylum seekers find themselves in what can only be described as a paradox of precarity. The legal system offers asylum seekers little to no support, despite their already fragile and precarious position. That cannot be a satisfactory state of affairs.
I contend that this Bill only serves to entrench that paradox of precarity. While an account of the traumas faced by those who have fled their homeland for fear of persecution is best left to those who have first-hand experience, we cannot overstate the pain, suffering and disorientation faced by many of those who arrive on our shores. Let us reflect on the plight of the Uyghurs, the Rohingya and the Tigrayan people, for it is those groups the Bill will fall hardest on—those fleeing war and genocide.
For a nation whose proud reputation was part-founded on welcoming the persecuted over many centuries, this Government are doing much to trash that. Compare Germany, which accepted 1 million from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan in 2015, with the UK promising to take just 20,000—a mere 2%. Our reputation is the reason why our legal system ought to be a bastion of firm, steady protection for those most in need, rather than—as will be the case in the event of the Bill’s passage—a contributory force in the erosion of the rights of asylum seekers. Our reputation is the reason why our legal system ought to be a bastion of firm, steady protection for those most in need, rather than—as will be the case in the event of the Bill’s passage—a contributory force in the erosion of the rights of asylum seekers.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Matt Western
I am afraid that I want to let everyone speak this evening.
Let me give three clear examples of how the Bill will contribute to weakened protection for asylum seekers. First, clauses 16 to 20, requiring them to provide evidence supporting their claim by a specific date, appears to be almost entirely arbitrary. Indeed, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association has said that those clauses ignore the practical difficulties faced by many asylum seekers. Secondly, clause 24, which allows the Home Secretary to accelerate appeals when she thinks they would be disposed of expeditiously, grates against both article 34 of the UN refugee convention and the principles of natural justice—the very principles on which our legal system is founded, signed into force by the Attlee Government. It is more than regrettable that the convention appears now to be held in such little regard by this Government. Thirdly, not only will the Home Secretary have a much wider arsenal of powers at her disposal, but the Bill authorises decision makers to decide on the balance of probabilities, rather than on the basis of reasonable likelihood, whether a person claiming asylum has a well-founded fear of persecution.
Let us be clear: this amounts to an unnecessary raising of the legal bar for asylum seekers to succeed in cases. I struggle to see a valid policy reason for such a move, in the light of the Home Secretary’s commitment to upholding the apparently long, proud tradition of providing a home for people fleeing persecution and oppression. The answer lies not in raising the bar disproportionately high for asylum seekers to overcome, but in a more holistic approach to the support offered. It is not just our footballers who see this divisive Government for what it is; the public are more compassionate than the Government, and they seek a fair, compassionate system to provide for those in need.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
What a great pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
For many of my constituents, rightly or wrongly, the success of the Bill depends on whether it stops or clearly limits three persistent and frustrating problems with our immigration and border controls. First, it depends on whether the Bill stops or clearly limits the use of the channel crossing by boat or truck to make a claim for asylum; secondly, it depends on whether the Bill stops or clearly limits the filing, over many years, of speculative further asylum claims—frequently on specious grounds—that clog up our system, crowd out legitimate claims, and generally make a mockery of our legal processes; and thirdly, it depends on whether the Bill stops or clearly limits the opportunity for cherry-picking that leads people to make an asylum claim in the UK rather than in the one or many other safe countries through which they travel.
It is for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Minister to bear in mind that it is on those bases that my constituents will judge the success or failure of this measure, not the rhetoric that accompanies it. To me, however—and, I would say, to some other Conservative Members—there are further aspects that are important. Let me pick up the challenge from the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), on the views of those on this side of the House, because there are aspects of nuance and detail that I think it important to bring out.
First, if the assessment system is to be quicker, it is important for the Government to ensure that claimants have much better access to legal advice. Secondly, if the system is to work effectively, there needs to be greater availability of counselling, psychiatric and other medical assessments. Thirdly, we should once and for all have a culture of getting to the truth, rather than the culture of disbelief that has for too many years permeated the Home Office asylum system.
Sir John Hayes
I am intervening for a specific reason. What is actually happening is that the truth is being obscured by repeated claims which many of the people whom my hon. Friend is describing are encouraged to lodge by the unscrupulous lawyers who were given such a plaudit by the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy).
Richard Fuller
My right hon. Friend speaks very wise words.
Let me just say to Opposition Members that there is no monopoly on compassion, and that it does not mean saying that the system must apply to everyone in a particular process. Compassion applies to an individual claim. The importance of our system is that we get to that individual and do not lose sight of him or her. In a previous life as a Member of Parliament, I spoke in a debate on another immigration Bill and bemoaned the lack of compassion in our immigration system. It was encouraging to hear the Home Secretary use the word “compassion” so often, and to hear stories of compassion from other Conservative Members, whether they were about how a council looks after the people who are claiming asylum or about people’s feelings about the system. So there is no monopoly on compassion here, and I look forward to working with Opposition Members in finding ways in which we can make it work more deeply in the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Member, particularly for his stance on immigration detention and his campaigning for time limits on it. The Home Secretary talks about compassion, but at the end of the day—I have said this a few times, but people do not seem even to acknowledge it—the Bill would criminalise people it recognises as refugees, strip them of their family reunion rights, strip them of recourse to public funds, limit the amount of leave that they are allowed here and never let them even apply for settlement. That is not remotely compassionate. We are talking about refugees.
Richard Fuller
I look forward to the hon. Gentleman talking about specifics, because again there was a bit of broad generalisation there. However, one thing that I will say for SNP Members is that at least they have some ideas, whereas 10 minutes into the shadow Home Secretary’s speech he said, “Let me tell you what the Labour party will do”—and in the rest of his speech he came up with one idea, which was to set a legal target for how quickly asylum claims get processed. Is that it? Is that all the Labour party has to offer? I see that it is, so let us work with the SNP.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East where I think we can work together. Let us have some compassion for victims of slavery; there is plenty of support on the Conservative Benches for that. Let us have some compassion in how we treat children in the Bill; there is lots of support on both sides of the House for that. Let us have some compassion for how the particular issues of women will be affected by the separation of regular from irregular routes. And let us have some compassion, Minister, by ending indefinite detention once and for all.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Last week, Swansea celebrated 10 years as a city of sanctuary. We offer a hand of friendship, not a fist of resistance; we are a community of communities, moving forward together in an uncertain world. But the Bill is not a helping hand for those fleeing war and persecution, nor is it a worthy successor to the 1951 refugee convention that Britain helped to produce. Instead, it is a mean-spirited act of national populism to provide more hostile environment for those in genuine need when we have savagely cut overseas aid by £4.4 billion, which will increase refugee demand.
Last year, we had 27,000 asylum seekers in Britain—the 17th highest number in Europe per head of population and the fifth highest overall—so there is not a massive problem of refugees and asylum seekers. That debate has been whipped up as a cynical political exaggeration. Millions of people have been displaced from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, where we have been engaged in war, and we need to take our responsibility in due accord.
The 1951 refugee convention recognised that in fleeing from war and persecution, people arrive irregularly, obviously—they are escaping. The Bill reduces the rights of people who arrive irregularly by boat or lorry, which is a natural way to escape. The plan is to put them into temporary isolated camps so that they do not settle, which will be a magnet for protesters, fascists and the like. They need rehabilitation and settling, not isolation and persecution. People who are not travelling directly or who are delaying will get second-class treatment as so-called group 2 refugees, so they will have to wait 30 months at a time. They will have to wait 10 years before they have any sort of permanency.
What is more, the Bill criminalises people. People could face up to four years in prison if they do not arrive in a regular way, as no one would who was escaping war or persecution. What we should be doing, like the United States—at last—and like Canada and Norway is increasing the number of refugees settled. Ours went down from 5,000 to 3,000, but it should be nearer to 10,000.
The cut in overseas aid will hit people in Yemen, Afghanistan and Syria the hardest and will produce even more problems, but all we can do is create a hostile environment. We are better than this.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]
Listening to this debate, not for the first time, there has been a real effort to talk down our record and to talk down the generosity of the British taxpayer. Our Syrian refugee resettlement scheme, for example, has protected 25,000 people in the past six years, more than any other European country. That is worth restating. Conservative Governments have done that. Conservative Governments have resettled 25,000 people ahead of the rest of Europe.
I want to take head-on the shallow arguments being made against reform. We need to face reality: right now, it is estimated that 426 million children are living in conflict zones. There is absolutely no way that any country can provide a home and refuge to even a substantial proportion of those children. Millions more live in conditions all over the world that would qualify them for humanitarian relief, and there are tens of millions of refugees. Importantly, there are many, many more people who live in similar circumstances to those already seeking to come here as economic migrants. We cannot help everyone. Labour Members want to pretend that there are no choices to make, and whatever choices we make, it will find some way of saying that those in the Labour party are heroes and that we are the villains because they would have helped just a few more people. It is the same old Labour.
There are millions of people who, if they could get here, would make a contribution and become positive members of our society. A policy is not a failure because an example of that can be found. If Labour got its way entirely, there would still be refugees in camps who would be better off in the UK. It is a vacuous way to attack Government policy on this issue. The question is: are we playing our part? I want to see that we get the most out of the money we spend. For every person who gets here because criminal gangs took their money to get them across the channel, there is someone among the hundreds, thousands, or millions of people who have not done that whom we could offer asylum to instead. For every penny that we spend on housing someone here, we could help many more people in conflict zones.
Who is it that we want to help? We always have to make a choice. Instead of helping the primarily fit, young men of working age who make the channel crossing, we should help the children, the elderly, and the destitute who cannot. I welcome that we will make it absolutely clear that coming here in a boat across the channel is not acceptable. There is only one way to do that, and that is to create a system that takes that into account.
We need to sort this issue out to secure long-term public support for taking in refugees. That is not populism; that is democracy. The public are not stupid. They know that there is a difference between economic migrants and refugees, and they know that boat crossings is a route that favours economic migrants. The public need confidence that the people we help are genuine refugees.
It is important that we do not let our record turn into one of which we cannot be proud. We should keep our decent record, but by using the new system to tip the balance towards those who are the most vulnerable. This shift is a good one. I am someone who cares about vulnerable people and who is proud of our record, and I support these changes.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Our asylum system has saved countless lives from persecution, discrimination and conflict. It plays a key role in enabling us to honour our international, legal and humanitarian responsibilities and I am proud that our country, my home, is a place that people in crisis come to for safety.
There can be no doubt that our asylum system is in disarray. This Bill was a chance to fix that. Instead, it will enable the Government to turn their back on some of the most vulnerable people in the world. Over 33,000 people waited more than 12 months for an initial decision last year. That is 10 times the number in 2010. The Bill does nothing to address that shocking backlog, or the discrimination and destitution faced by asylum seekers today. Instead, it will make their lives harder when they seek the safety that they desperately need. This includes one of my constituents here in Vauxhall, an Eritrean national. Since he arrived in the UK, more than 18 months ago, he has been moved to four different hotels while waiting for an initial decision from the Home Office. During that time, he and a friend were subject to a shocking, violent crime. An acid attack led to his friend losing his vision at just 18 years old. How much longer does my constituent have to wait to know whether he is finally free to start to rebuild his life here in the UK?
Unfortunately, this Bill does not answer his question.
This Bill creates no commitment to reopen safe routes or resettlement for family reunion. As hon. and right hon. Members have rightly highlighted, after the UK’s new resettlement scheme, we settled just 25 refugees in March. The Bill proposes to build on the Government’s hostile environment agenda by criminalising some of the most vulnerable migrants, locking them up in an overseas accommodation centre. That is immoral and should shame us. Our asylum system should not be a soulless, bureaucratic administrative process, or a tick-box exercise. It is about people’s lives, and it should therefore involve compassion and understanding. The Bill will make it harder for vulnerable refugees to build their lives. That is why I will support the reasoned amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
Immigration is one of the biggest issues of concern to my constituents. I will spend a few moments talking about how we got to where we are now. The Labour Government of ’97 changed everything. Labour’s overhaul of Britain’s immigration policies took average net entry into the country from between 10,000 and 20,000 a year, to between 200,000 and 300,000 a year. From then on, the mere claim of asylum was sufficient to be allowed to stay in the country.
That was when Labour and the media created a toxic atmosphere in which merely mentioning “immigration” branded a person racist, so any expression of fact about immigration was made impossible. From ’97, Labour legally wove into the very fabric of society something akin to a culture war against the British people and their mainstream values—the same people who value fairness, generosity and compassion for true asylum seekers, and who want a fair immigration system. Those same people have been bullied and abused by the toxic atmosphere created by Labour and much of the media. Since then, tragically, all politicians have failed them—until now. And yes, equally, true asylum seekers have been failed.
Labour’s legacy is clear, if just from the numbers. Immigration estimates have consistently shown no resemblance to the actual numbers. The recent resettlement applications have shown some 3 million additional applicants on the numbers forecast, almost two thirds more than the forecasts made by the same quangos that estimate housing need and advise Government. This has been a failure of Labour policy and the civil service of gargantuan proportions. My voters in Dudley have made that very clear to me.
People smugglers have benefited from the UK magnet, and the system has helped migrants become prey to them, putting their lives in danger. Our councils have not got enough houses, but we are asking them to develop green belt. We do not have enough doctors, dentists or school places, but we need more interpreters for them. This colossal failure is what Labour designed and delivered when in power, thinking that it would change society to keep it in power. In some places, that has worked, but in 2019 the British people said enough. They will hold every Labour MP in contempt for wanting to rejoin the EU and bring back freedom of movement.
The Government are making solid progress. We want to be able to protect our poorest, weakest and most vulnerable. The Bill will deliver on our people’s priorities.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]
The Nationality and Borders Bill is anti-refugee to its core. I will fight it every step of the way. It lacks basic humanity and represents an acceleration of the Government’s deeply damaging demonisation of migrants and asylum seekers.
The Bill will enable the UK Government to block visas for overseas visitors if the Home Secretary believes that their country of origin is refusing to co-operate in taking back those the Government want to deport. Asylum seekers will be able to be removed from the UK while their asylum claim or appeal is pending, which opens the door to offshore asylum processing.
Those who have fled war, famine, persecution or violence will be blocked at the border, based on the false premise that a refugee who has sought to escape persecution and danger through what the Government call an irregular route to the UK ought not to seek protection, creating a two-tier system regardless of need and criminalising those seeking protection, while failing to end indefinite detention. That is cruel, deeply unjust and unworkable, all from a Government comprised mostly of individuals who have led lives of extraordinary privilege.
The Bill is illegal, breaching commitments under the refugee convention of 1951. Like many places in the UK, my home city of Leicester is forged from a proud history of welcoming refugees and asylum seekers. We are better for our diversity.
The Bill shows that, far from learning from the appalling treatment of the Windrush generation, the Government are intent on expanding the damaging hostile environment. Asylum seekers who arrive in Britain are often from countries where the UK has contributed to their disruption, either by arming current conflicts or through the enduring legacy of colonialism.
The UK Government have persistently been warned that if they do not open safe and legal routes for people to practise their legal right to claim asylum, deaths at sea are unavoidable. Yet they have proceeded to close the few legal avenues that exist, such as the right to family reunion. Time and again, the Government have chosen to turn their back on those seeking protection from war, climate disaster, torture or other awful acts. The Bill will compound the misery of people fleeing intolerable conditions.
The Government must end the destructive demonisation of refugees and asylum seekers and abandon this deeply damaging Bill.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
I start by thanking Liverpool City Council, health projects and all community and voluntary organisations in Liverpool, Riverside for their tireless and invaluable work for the most vulnerable people who have fled unimaginable circumstances. As a scouser, I am proud that Liverpool has a long history as a city of sanctuary and will continue to welcome refugees, even though the Tories have stolen 63% of our central funding in the last 11 years.
The Bill is fundamentally flawed and will result in the Government turning their back on some of the most vulnerable people. According to the UN Refugee Agency, the Bill risks breaching international law. Rather than offering genuine proposals to fix the broken asylum system, it will make the situation even worse. Many asylum seekers are already desperately vulnerable when they reach the UK. They are the victims of war, persecution, humanitarian crisis, modern slavery, torture and sexual abuse. Their mental health deteriorates drastically through years of uncertainty and powerlessness. There is the separation of families who have been torn apart, with no family reunion rights for the years they are stuck in the asylum system.
Countless constituents have contacted my office, including one who has waited more than three years for a decision. Another, an engineering doctor, who cannot work in his speciality and submitted his citizenship claim in July last year after 15 years in the UK, still has not had a response. Another is a Berti tribe member who faces persecution in Sudan for his ethnicity and still has not had an interview after a year of application. My office has noticed that the delays for asylum decisions get longer and longer.
The Bill not only fails to protect those people in need of safety, but treats them as criminals. All people who seek protection should be allowed to make an asylum claim, no matter how they have arrived. Creating a two-tier system that grants lesser rights to those who arrive in the UK outside so-called official routes undermines the refugee convention.
The Bill does not address the Government’s failure since 2010 to competently process asylum applications. It contains no plan to reduce the backlog. Instead, its provisions are likely to worsen wait times for applicants, leaving more people vulnerable, living in limbo and suffering uncertainty and anxiety. Instead of treating people who are fleeing war, persecution and trauma as criminals and forcing them into destitution with no prospect of escape for years, I implore the Government and appeal to their humanity—what little they have—to stop punishing people for seeking protection.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
It is a genuine pleasure to contribute to the debate with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome you to the Chair and hope you enjoy your time there.
In the little time I have, I want to speak in support of the clauses that create more penalties for those who facilitate illegal immigration and more enforcement penalties. I speak from the perspective of representing ports in my constituency. It is not for nothing that Thurrock’s motto is:
“By Thames to all peoples of the world.”
In particular, the port of Tilbury has been very much at the heart of our island story of migration for many years, from the Windrush and people arriving in this country from what was then the empire right through to today, when arrivals tend to be of a more clandestine nature.
But there is one thing that unites all those people: hope. People want to come to this country because—let us be frank—it is the best country in the world. Why would people not want to come here? The fact is that it is organised criminal gangs who exploit that hope. People get seduced by the fantasy that if they get here, the streets will be paved with gold, and that all they need to do is to get here and they will be fine. They are the victims of crime and wilful criminal activity around our border.
For me, it is all about going after those organised criminal groups that exploit people who only want a better life for themselves. Hon. Members will remember that in October 2019 I was standing in this very spot talking about the fact that Essex police had found a container with 39 poor souls who had died on arrival in this country en route from Vietnam. I issued the challenge then that we had to go after those people and bring them to justice, and that that was the way to really tackle our illegal immigration. I can advise the House that Essex police have been truly fantastic in prosecuting that investigation. There have already been 10 convictions and there are more coming down the track. I have to commend the energy with which officers throughout Essex police have sought to prosecute that investigation around the world.
Let us not say that this is too difficult. We know that these networks operate across many different jurisdictions, but with determination we should go and get them, because once we start to shut down these criminal gangs, they will move away from trafficking people into our country. Right now they think that this is an opportunity for crime. Let us ensure that, instead of demonising people whose only ambition is to come here, we go after the serious criminals who are exploiting their wish to do so.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I make no apology for addressing this Bill through a Scottish prism. Perhaps with the absence of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), the voices that I have heard from the Conservative Benches have been really quite dispiriting.
There is a toast from the bard in Scotland that contains the phrase “Wha’s like us?” but that toast will never be proposed to the British nationalism riven through the heart of this tawdry Government, no more evidenced than by the tenor, tone and impact of this inhumane anti-refugee Bill. This Government never seek or seem to learn: Windrush; the PM’s betrayal of his own Brexit promises to our EU friends, neighbours and family; and a Bill that is hostile to the world from a Government hostile to Scotland but with the temerity to claim that they speak for us and that we are one nation.
If this Bill achieves anything, it will be to demonstrate how very different we are. What does it say to us in Scotland? It says, “We care not for your identity as a nation.” It says, “You will fall in line; you will fail to meet the refugee convention; you will criminalise asylum seekers for exercising their legal right to seek asylum; you will process traumatised asylum seekers offshore; you will pile pressure on to the judicial system while reducing access to justice; you will retraumatise victims; you will remove hope; and you will decrease protection and enhance exploitation.” It says, “You will do all this not because you want to, but because we say so; your international welcome is not valued by this Government and your international friends are no friends of ours.” Nothing makes the case for independence more strongly than such a murky piece of legislation.
The people of Scotland will reject the UK Government’s divisive, jingoistic nationalism and are revolted by the casual xenophobia it embodies. Successive UK Governments have had no qualms about hostility, invading nations, instigating conflict and supplying weapons to oppressive regimes the world over in the pursuit of wealth. Despite that profit, there is not a blush when they complain that those they have helped to displace seek refuge on these shores. Those are people in desperate need. They are victims recast as “us” and “them.” The response of providing needed help is not just a matter of basic humanity; it is a fundamental ethical concern. There is no “us” in humanity, and no “them” in humanity. There is no humanity in this Bill and no humility in this Government.
It is time for Scotland to face facts. We were dragged out of the EU against our will and Scotland is being dragged through the gutter by the Tory party yet again. The people of Scotland: wha’s like us? They certainly do not think that it is this shoddy Westminster Government.
Mr Speaker
Excellent—perfect timing.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Maria Caulfield.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For those who were on the list and were not called—there were a few people left—can I just ask for your direction and help? Will those who were not successful today be called tomorrow?
Mr Speaker
First, I do not think that was quite a point of order. I think you want some clarification for tomorrow and, Jim, I presume you must be acting for others and not yourself when you ask that question. I would say that I think those Members who did not get in today will automatically be put on the list for tomorrow, and I hope those who do not want to be on the list will withdraw.
Business without Debate
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 to 5 together. I do not think there are any objections to doing so.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Aquaculture
That the draft Fisheries Act 2020 (Scheme for Financial Assistance) (England) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.
Public Health
That the draft Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) and the Biofuel (Labelling) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 21 June, be approved.
Medical Devices
That the draft Medical Devices (Northern Ireland Protocol) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 16 June, be approved.—(Maria Caulfield.)
Question agreed to.
Places for Growth: DEFRA Office (Melton)
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Nowhere in the country could offer a better home to DEFRA than Melton Mowbray. I could finish my speech there, but I suspect the Minister would like me to make my case in a little more detail. My debate this evening is a straightforward one. I am proud that our Government are levelling up our country, but rural areas need levelling up too, and if the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will not take up a rural home, then I ask the Minister: who will?
To make my case, I would like to start by inviting you, Mr Speaker, to learn more about the wonderful town of Melton Mowbray. We are located in the very heart of our country. Our market town is surrounded by the Vale of Belvoir and the welcoming villages of Melton. When one thinks of England’s green and pleasant lands, one must surely be thinking of our wonderful area—not perhaps Lancashire, as you may prefer. Our history is long and fascinating, and I will share some of the stories of our town with you today, because they make the case that not only is the food of our nation in our blood, but we are no ordinary market town.
Our livestock market, of which I will speak much today, is mentioned in the Domesday book dating back to 1085. A millennium on, and throughout the week farmers come from as far as Cornwall and Scotland to do trade at Melton Mowbray market. Visitors enjoying great hospitality in Melton is nothing new, because since the middle ages it is Melton where royalty have come to play and to relax. Indeed, in the last 850 years, 16 kings and two queens have visited Melton.
Even the most infamous of kings has a link to our town, for in 1540, as part of his annulment agreement with Anne of Cleves, King Henry VIII gave his former wife a stunning house in the centre of our town, which had previously been owned by Thomas Cromwell and the Church before that. Mr Speaker, that house is now a phenomenal pub, and you and the Minister would be very welcome to come and enjoy phenomenal food and drink there one day.
There is no question but that we are famous for two things in particular—the one and only Melton Mowbray pork pie and Stilton cheese, which was invented in Little Dalby and Wymondham villages in Melton borough in 1710. Until recently, I did not know that we can lay claim to perhaps the most English of all past times—that great thing, afternoon tea. In 1842, the 7th Duchess of Bedford was staying with the Duke and Duchess of Rutland at Belvoir castle and, bored between lunch and dinner, she ordered tea, sandwiches, buns and cakes at 5 o’clock. When she returned to London from her visit, she took the custom with her, and so afternoon tea was born.
Keeping on the aristocratic theme, Melton Mowbray is also where the phrase “paint the town red” originates. In 1837, an eccentric aristocrat by the name of Henry de la Poer Beresford turned up at the tollgate at Thorpe End and, in his state of extreme inebriation, refused to pay the toll to enter the town. Having been challenged over his refusal, he came across a pot of red paint and proceeded to paint the toll keeper, a local constable and a good deal of the town red.
As those wonderful stories show, the two constants in Melton Mowbray’s history are our agricultural and culinary way of life and the extraordinary people who make up our town and borough. Melton Mowbray is a uniquely wonderful, welcoming and generous place, alive with British history, traditions and values and a people proud to feed our country. I will speak much of our farming heritage this evening, but Meltonians are honest and fair people, full of common sense, deeply passionate about our communities and caring for our neighbours.
I secured this debate because on my election I promised to give the people of Melton peace of mind; to create opportunity for us and give our town every chance to succeed; and to deliver a local economy that raises the standards of living for everybody—a fair economy that guarantees that everyone matters and no one is left behind. Like much of the east midlands, Melton Mowbray has been left behind. Through this debate and by working with the Government, I hope to change that, so I shall make the case that DEFRA should open an office in Melton Mowbray.
Melton deserves the chance to succeed. Our town has been identified by the Government as a town ready for levelling-up and investment, and we are a tier 2 priority area in the levelling-up fund. Even though we have a strong manufacturing base, our average wages are lower than the national average and not in line with house prices. We are the key centre for regeneration and growth identified in the whole of Leicester and Leicestershire, yet too often we lose out.
The east midlands has the lowest levels of public investment of any region in the United Kingdom. Because of the way the local government funding formula is calculated, both Leicestershire and Rutland suffer from under-investment as rural areas, despite the fact that it costs so much more to deliver services in rural areas. For example, if Leicestershire County Council was funded at the same level as Surrey, it would have an additional £104 million to support the people of Leicestershire. The east midlands also hosts only 5% of the civil service, which is the lowest level in the country apart from Northern Ireland, and only 1% of those civil servants are at the senior civil service level, which is again the lowest level outside Northern Ireland.
Too often, policy is detached from our communities and from the industries and people for whom our civil service regulates and makes policy. It is clear that the east midlands does not have a loud enough voice in policy making, and it is against that backdrop that I am pushing for a DEFRA office in the Borough of Melton. On every score, this project is right for the places for growth programme, right for the country and—it goes without saying—right for the east midlands and for Melton.
I argue that DEFRA needs Melton Mowbray, too, because we need to make rural policy in our agricultural heartlands, not just on Marsham Street, surrounded by the white buildings of Westminster. We should not be reliant on field visits by policy officials to see our incredible countryside and meet farmers and environmentalists. Surely we want DEFRA officials to work from offices where they can see from their window a thriving breeding-sheep auction, as they reflect on sheep welfare, biodiversity or environmental management; where they can pick up lunch from the farmers’ market or town food stalls and meet workers from food factories in local cafes and shops; and where green fields abound.
I have heard it said that two cities are in contention for DEFRA’s office outside London. I urge the Minister to consider the message that it sends when even our rural policy is set from cities. DEFRA plays a huge role in setting agricultural and food policy for the entire UK, so there is surely nowhere better to call home than the rural capital of food. This Government believe that putting policy makers closer to the experience of farmers, food makers and land stewards will create a more joined-up farm-to-fork environment for policy development and its real-world impact. I agree, so let me set out our offer.
We are an agricultural powerhouse and major food-production economy. Our countryside in Rutland and Melton alone has more than 100 farms of every type—arable, sheep, pig, poultry, beef and even bison. Nearby Rutland is a major centre for bird life and hosts the annual Glastonbury of bird-life festivals. Melton is home to one of the oldest and largest town-centre livestock markets in the country, with everything from alpacas to sheep to cows to peacocks to horses on sale, depending on the market that day. We also host the national traditional and native breeds show.
In Melton, the rate of employment in food and drink-related manufacturing is significantly higher than the national average, with around 3,000 people employed in the sector in 2017. Two thirds of our manufacturing is food related, and Melton was one of the first food enterprise zones in the UK. The Minister will forgive me for tempting to strike awe with my exhaustive list, but here are some of the household brands and outstanding food producers to which Melton is home. Samworth Brothers owns and produces Ginsters pasties, Soreen, Melton Mowbray pork pies; owns the West Cornwall Pasty Company; and is one of the largest sandwich providers for supermarkets in the UK. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Mars Petcare owns Pedigree, Whiskas and Royal Canin, and its Waltham Petcare Science Institute is the UK’s leading scientific authority on pet nutrition. Belvoir Fruit Farms makes the best elderflower pressé in the world and would be happy to stock Parliament at any time. The famous Long Clawson dairy makes outstanding cheeses, such as Stilton, Rutland Red and many more, and the Arla factory makes even more standout cheeses. The brewery Round Corner Brewing has won more global gold medals for its beer than any other brewery in the world over the last three years, including “best lager” in 2019—that might pique your attention, Mr Speaker.
The incredible Brentingby Gin distillery makes outstanding award-winning gins. It stepped up during the pandemic, and rolled out sanitiser for free to care homes across Melton. We have Nice Pies and Brockleby’s pies, and the first-class Cidentro cider house. We are even the leading producers of paneer cheese, and of tofu for the Japanese restaurant market. Food is in our blood, and food heritage is who we are. Melton is the Rural Capital of Food, and our town hosts the national pie awards, the largest cheese fair in England—it concluded this week—a chocolate festival, and the East Midlands food festival. Civil servants would never find themselves short of the highest quality food celebrations.
Our offer extends beyond our existing farming economy. If DEFRA were to open an office in Melton, we could offer educational opportunities to support civil servants. Brooksby Melton College in Melton is an exceptional specialist land-based college, with an agritech centre, commercial farm, rural catering centre and even a quarry. It is an outstanding college. Nearby Loughborough University offers agriculture and related sciences courses for policy officials to undertake. Nottingham University is not that far away, with Sutton Bonington campus for veterinary sciences, one of the leading centres for veterinary medicine in the UK.
Not only does Melton Mowbray have a vibrant food manufacturing and agricultural economy and educational offer, we also have the Vale of Belvoir, which was mentioned in the landscapes review as a potential area of outstanding natural beauty. We are a leading light for diversification of farming and environmental stewardship. We have one of the largest abattoirs in the country, and we have an area rich in environmental leadership. Indeed, it is little known that it was in my constituency that Sir David Attenborough developed his love of fossils. There is much to be explored, and we cover many of DEFRA’s policy areas.
But it is not just in policy terms where Melton excels. Let me get down to brass tacks, and the practicalities of our offer. We offer an unbeatable location. Melton lies in the centre of the country, and meets the connectivity, space and logistical needs that the Government have outlined to me. In particular I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Lord Agnew, and the Environment Secretary for the wise words of encouragement they have given me on this subject.
By car, Melton is within two and half hours of 80% of the country. It is just off the A1, with easy access to the M1. It is 20 minutes to Loughborough, 25 minutes to Leicester, 40 minutes to Nottingham, and 40 minutes to Peterborough. By train, London is only an hour and a half away. People can get to Birmingham in an hour and Cambridge in an hour and a half. East Midlands airport is 30 minutes away, as well as Stansted and Birmingham airports. People can go anywhere they need to get to.
Melton offers an ideal place to work for people across six different counties. I find it hard to believe that anywhere else in the country could offer employment to people from that many counties: Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, Rutland, Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire are all within striking distance. Some would even include Derbyshire, if I can extend to seven counties. This is an opportunity to create rural jobs for rural people.
There are many hundreds of rural villages within a 30-minute drive of Melton Mowbray across Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Rutland and Lincolnshire. Indeed, I represent almost 160 villages in Rutland and Melton alone, all of which are looking for high-quality rural jobs close to home. There is a semicircle of nearby cities that already host civil service offices. It is the perfect opportunity for civil servants to go between different Departments and gain skills.
We are ideally located, and we even have office space ready to be occupied. Both Melton Borough Council and Pera Business Park could house between 500 and 2,500 civil servants almost immediately. Pera has 129,000 square feet already ready, and it would design the office space around the needs of the civil service. Both those sites are in the centre of our town. They overlook the livestock market, town market and train station.
It is also important that the home of DEFRA’s new office offers an outstanding quality of life to civil servants and policy makers. In 2020 The Sunday Times announced that Melton Mowbray was one of the best places to live in the whole of the UK, so Members will forgive me if I take up the challenge of listing as many things as I can, as quickly as I can. In Melton, we have: hundreds of outstanding pubs, including the Anne of Cleves, the Stag and Hounds in Burrough on the Hill and, nearby in Rutland, the Olive Branch in Clipsham, which is this year’s best pub in the entire country; Twinlakes, a wonderful children’s theme park that my son adores; excellent state and independent schools; a thriving local market and amazing independent shops such as Luna Rayn; vintage classic car nights on Fridays; the award-winning Eye Kettleby Lakes; Ragdale Hall, one of the best spas in the country and one that I will make it to at some point; an iron age hill fort in Burrough on the hill; Belvoir castle, where “The Crown” is filmed, which has an incredible diary of events from fireworks competitions to re-enactments of the civil war and a fabulous shopping and dining offer at the engine rooms; 140 acres of lakes, trails and children’s play areas right in the centre of Melton country park; the stand-out Ferneley’s farm ice cream, which people travel miles to enjoy; Vine Farm Dairy’s milk shed, which is secretly stocked with amazing cakes that I am sure have no calories in them at all; phenomenal garden centres such as Gates—we all know the British people love a garden centre—Melton theatre, with panto when it reopens; and fantastic sports facilities for all the family, from flying across the sky to the two new 3G football pitches that are being built. The pork pie army at Melton Town football club are always looking for more fans, and I am confident that they would welcome civil servants heartily. Of course, we also have nearby Rutland offering incredible outdoor sports on the famous Rutland water.
Those are just some of the things that saw Melton voted the happiest place to live in Leicestershire, with life satisfaction levels at an all-time high. There are so many more amazing businesses and people that I wish I could mention. Melton would be delighted and well-equipped to keep the DEFRA team filled and fuelled with cheese, pork pies, beer, gin and outstanding food and drink alongside the most beautiful countryside, an outstanding quality of life and some of the warmest people in our country.
When I proposed DEFRA’s potential move to Melton, I could never have expected the extraordinary outpouring of support from every corner of the community. Institutions and people from every walk of life, from our borough council to farmers, businesses and local religious leaders, have all stepped forward and said, “Yes, this is the opportunity for Melton. This is the right one. We would not ask for any other Department to come to Melton. DEFRA is in our blood. It is the right thing to come to us.”
I pay tribute too to all the MPs who would have come to the Chamber this evening, had I been able to join you in person, Mr Speaker—unfortunately, I was pinged by that pesky app. I thank in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), for Bosworth (Dr Evans), for Charnwood (Edward Argar) and for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), who have all stood behind the proposal and agree that it would bring jobs for their residents. They recognise that the east midlands would benefit from DEFRA coming to Melton. They want those jobs, they know it makes sense, and they know it would offer opportunities for their areas, too.
For too long, Departments have been detached from those they seek to represent, support and regulate. That is what our Government have set out to change. By opening an office in Melton, DEFRA would have the chance to be closer than ever before to every aspect of its work—except perhaps fishing. The Secretary of State may make a pitch to open an office down in Cornwall—or in Scotland—and I would fully accept that alongside Melton Mowbray being the core hub outside London. Policy makers could work in the most beautiful part of the country in a wonderful town, with the Vale of Belvoir and Rutland on their doorstep and with the full backing of the local community.
If we are trying to connect parts of the country and Government in ways that augment the Government’s ability to develop policy while boosting local economic growth, there is simply nowhere better for DEFRA to find a new home than Melton borough. The people of Melton need these jobs. They need policy roles. We are experts in agriculture, but we do not have such policy roles in our community. We have people who want to find senior roles, but those roles do not exist. This move could provide them.
The people of Melton are welcoming and generous, and I know that they are waiting with open arms to offer a new home for the hardworking members of our civil service. They are waiting to do their part in this programme of national renewal. They are waiting to offer DEFRA a new home. They are waiting to take up the employment opportunities that it would bring. They are waiting for this to transform our town, and they are waiting to see rural policy made from the rural heart of our nation. They are waiting for the Government to say yes. I very much hope that the Minister will visit—and that you will visit, Mr Speaker—to see the amazing potential that our wonderful town holds and the home that it could offer to the Department and employees alike.
The people of Melton are offering an open hand. I hope that the Government will step forward and, in taking their hand, revolutionise rural policy making in our country and prove that they will level up not just cities but our rural communities as well. That starts with Melton Mowbray.
Mr Speaker
That was a very passionate speech, and how could I not take up the offer to visit? I just say that Handley’s, Bowen’s and Hall’s pies in Chorley might give you a little run for your money. I certainly know that Cuckoo gin and Rivington beers will be there as well. But I want to hear from the Minister; I think the case has been very well put.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. I feel a trip coming on, perhaps as a duo—don’t you?
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing this debate, making such an impressive case for her constituency, and indeed speaking up for her constituents. She is such a champion and a great voice in this place. I am genuinely sorry that she is not here in person tonight, but we know the reason for that. However, she is no less passionate for being on the screen.
I do welcome the suggestion of Melton Mowbray being a possible location for DEFRA and I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s proposals. What a rosy picture she paints of Melton Mowbray, perhaps, Mr Speaker, even rivalling Chorley in Lancashire and Taunton Deane in Somerset. There is no doubting that Melton Mowbray is a hub for both agriculture and food production. My hon. Friend listed a huge range of products, including, of course, the famous pork pies and Stilton cheese. I must say that I am rather partial to a bit of Stilton myself. I did not realise, though, that it is where afternoon tea was conceived. There is such a list of mouthwatering food businesses there that I am slightly fearful for the waistlines of any DEFRA staff in future. We will have to think carefully about that and bring in some exercise regimes alongside.
I know that my hon. Friend has already raised this with the Secretary of State, so she is leaving no stone, or pork pie, unturned. The Government have committed to moving 22,000 civil servants out of London by 2030 under our Places for Growth programme, as I am sure she knows. This is an important part of our plans to level up all parts of the country. She quite clearly touched on levelling up.
The DEFRA group has a clear purpose: to safeguard and enhance our natural environment; to support our food, farming, fisheries and forestry industries; and to sustain rural communities and protect against flooding, animal and plant diseases, and other natural threats. This means that our work is truly nationwide: for example, maintaining flood defences from Skegness to Totnes; visiting farms from Malvern to Melton; protecting our critical national infrastructure; and improving our rural and urban environments in all quarters of the country.
DEFRA is actually already highly geographically dispersed owing to our operating model. Our UK-wide footprint enables close proximity to our customers and stakeholders and underpins our emergency response role. The DEFRA group has 200 locations across the country—I think my hon. Friend will agree that is a significant number—and 85% of DEFRA staff are already based outside London. All our arm’s length bodies are headquartered outside London and are deliberately rooted in places where they are close to the communities we serve and accessible to local labour markets with the skills we need. I am sure she will be aware that the new Office for Environmental Protection has just been located in Worcester, which is exactly the sort of rural place that she is raising the case for. Proximity to the correct and most useful kind of skilled labour force was one of the key things that made that a suitable place. Obviously, there were others, and all the right boxes had to be ticked, but that was one of the issues, as she mentioned.
We now have an opportunity to further strengthen our connection with communities across the country, supporting the levelling-up agenda by having more staff outside London. The east midlands is an important area for DEFRA and our delivery bodies. We currently have over 1,200 staff in the region representing the Environment Agency, Natural England, the Rural Payments Agency and the Animal and Plant Health Agency. At present, there are six DEFRA sites within 30 miles of Melton Mowbray—in Leicester, Derby, Rothley and Sutton Bonington, and with two in Nottingham. Together, they accommodate more than 400 staff from our core Department and delivery bodies. That provides a sound foundation on which to grow our presence in the area, and potentially we can consider Melton Mowbray as a future location for expansion.
Looking slightly further east, we have an even greater footprint across East Anglia, including a cluster of key offices in Peterborough, soon to consolidate into the new Government hub in Peterborough, and two of our delivery bodies—the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee—are headquartered in the east of England. DEFRA is committed to maintaining a strong presence in the east midlands, and we are keen to explore opportunities to connect with our customers and communities in the region.
Melton Mowbray is a key part of our rural economy and agricultural supply chain, as my hon. Friend highlighted, with assets including the Melton agricultural college, numerous major food producers and the food enterprise zone. I commend the work that my hon. Friend has done with the all-party parliamentary group on geographically protected foods. Of course, Melton Mowbray is home to two geographical indications that have already been mentioned—the world-famous pork pies and Stilton. The people and businesses of Melton Mowbray are exactly the customers DEFRA serves daily, so it is right to consider whether more could be done to bring more of DEFRA’s public service closer to the communities it serves in Melton Mowbray and places like it. Of course, we must weigh up value for money, the office space available, local labour markets and proximity to stakeholders, along with many other factors.
The Government are committed to making sure that all Departments are looking beyond London, and DEFRA will play a leading role in that effort, ensuring we do our part to level up all parts of the country. My hon. Friend makes a very sound point: levelling up really needs to include rural towns too. I come from a not dissimilar area, and I think she makes a very important point. She also raises the attractive proposition of how lovely it would be for staff to wander out in that amazing market town and see the livestock market in action. I have spent a great deal of time in livestock markets. My husband was an agricultural auctioneer. There is something unique about those places, so I was captivated by the picture she painted of her livestock auction and the myriad things it sells.
I have asked my officials to include Melton Mowbray as a potential location for a new DEFRA office. It will be considered with all other options, and will be subject to the usual disciplines, such as securing value for money, and all the criteria that will have to fit the DEFRA operating model.
On that note, I shall conclude. I thank my hon. Friend for her stellar performance up there on Zoom and for her work to identify viable options for DEFRA in Melton Mowbray. I really do look forward to discussing this further.
Customs Tariff (Establishment) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021
Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments and Repeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members that Mr Speaker has stated that the wearing of masks is encouraged. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Customs Tariff (Establishment) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 661).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments and Repeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 714).
Jesse Norman
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. As the names of the statutory instruments may suggest, these are two extremely technical and small instruments, but they are important because they correct errors and omissions identified in EU exit legislation. They ensure that the law applies as intended and that businesses across the UK are treated fairly by VAT legislation.
I would like to turn first to the Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments and Repeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021. This instrument, together with the Value Added Tax Amendment (EU Exit) Regulations 2021, corrects errors and omissions identified by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in a review of VAT EU exit legislation. The instrument makes those changes in relation to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018.
The amendments are needed to ensure that the VAT system continues to operate as required. First, the instrument removes an inadvertent extension of the zero rate to the transport of goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It also confirms that the VAT zero rate applies only to the transport of goods exported from or imported into the UK. Secondly, the instrument ensures that businesses moving their own goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland for non-business purposes are not hit with double taxation on those goods.
Thirdly, the instrument ensures that EU businesses selling goods that are delivered to Great Britain via Northern Ireland are liable for VAT, giving parity of treatment with goods delivered from the EU to Great Britain or from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. That approach is consistent with HMRC’s published VAT guidance on Northern Ireland. Fourthly, the legislation corrects minor errors that do not obscure the legislative intent but need to be remedied. Finally, the instrument repeals powers in preparation for a no-deal scenario that are no longer required.
It is important to add that there was an error in the original commencement date for this instrument, which was rectified by an amendment SI that was laid before the instrument took effect. As was always intended, the instrument will take effect from 1 August, alongside the Value Added Tax (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021.
I now turn to the Customs Tariff (Establishment) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021. This instrument amends a minor part of a package of tariff legislation that was laid before the House on 16 December. The package ensured that the UK had a functioning customs regime in place at the end of the transition period. This instrument, which came into force on 10 June, corrects five tariff lines—relating to chemical products, vulcanised rubber gaskets and tropical fruit—in the reference document associated with the Customs Tariff (Establishment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. The errors mainly concerned missing tariff duties on goods omitted in the original tariff reference document. This SI resolves the issue by inserting the tariff rates. Traders were charged rates on the relevant goods as intended and as traders expected, although this was inadvertently achieved without a proper legal basis. HMRC will contact any traders who were charged those rates before this legislation came into effect. However, it is worth noting that the majority of those lines saw little or no trade. The vast majority of customs duties are being collected as intended.
The measures contained in these instruments are small yet significant changes that will play a critical part in ensuring that the tariff and customs regimes operate as required in future, and I commend them to the Committee.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition as we consider these two statutory instruments.
The Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments and Repeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021 make a number of changes to EU exit VAT legislation that was commenced at the end of the transition period, following the UK’s exit from the EU. As set out in the explanatory notes, a review of EU exit VAT legislation identified a number of errors and omissions that need to be corrected to ensure that the VAT system continues to operate as required. They include minor changes to address missing or superfluous words, incorrect cross-references or formatting errors, for example. The instrument makes those corrections in relation to primary legislation.
Specifically, we understand that the instrument seeks to remove an inadvertent extension of the zero rate for the services—which are not covered by the Northern Ireland Protocol—of transport, handling and storage of imported and exported goods to movements of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We understand that the instrument deems that a movement of own goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland that are wholly or partly for non-business purposes is treated as a zero-rated supply. This approach means that VAT on the original purchase can be recovered, preventing double taxation through the business incurring two irrecoverable VAT charges—one on the original purchase and one on the movement into Northern Ireland.
The instrument makes further amendments to ensure the correct taxation of goods supplied from the EU to Great Britain that are transported via Northern Ireland. It does so by providing for the treatment of supplies of low-value imported goods—those sent in consignments valued at £135 or under—sold by businesses to customers in Great Britain. That provision relieves the import VAT due on the removal of the goods to the UK and instead provides that the place of supply of those goods is the UK. The instrument also makes the business, or an online marketplace if it facilitated the sale, responsible for accounting for VAT on that supply. Finally, the regulations also make minor changes to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 by repealing sections that have been made redundant by a change in policy.
We will not oppose this instrument. It is of course important that goods are appropriately taxed, that the appropriate regulations cover trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that no business faces double taxation, and that our country’s legislation is clear and correct. However, this Committee is being asked to correct mistakes and oversights, and to properly hold the Government to account, we need to understand the impact of those mistakes and oversights. The explanatory notes make it clear that the changes that we are being asked to consider have
“no, or no significant, impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies.”
However, that is not quite the same as confirming that the errors themselves have had no, or no significant, impact. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister set out what impact each of the unintended errors in legislation has had.
The Customs Tariff (Establishment) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 correct typographical errors and add commodity codes and duty rates for a small number of goods in the tariff of the United Kingdom. By amending the establishment regulations—part of the legislation to ensure that the UK’s customs, VAT and excise regimes were in place at the end of the implementation period—this instrument gives legal effect to an updated tariff reference document. We will of course not oppose minor changes to the commodity codes on two chemical compounds used for manufacturing, a subset of vulcanised rubber gaskets, and certain types of tropical fruit. However, this is not the first time we have been asked to sit in this room and correct errors in the tariff reference document. The explanatory notes state:
“There is no, or no significant, impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies.”
As with the other SI before us, that is not quite the same as confirming that the errors themselves have had no effect. I would be grateful if the Minister set out what impact these errors have had.
I am also conscious that, with repeated errors to the same tariff document being corrected, we need to know what the cumulative impact is of all the errors that have been made. Individual corrections or small sets of corrections might have no significant impact, but we do not know whether the same is true cumulatively of all the corrections that we have been asked to make over many months. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister made a commitment that, if we are asked to make further corrections to the tariff reference document, he will ensure that the explanatory notes include an assessment of the impact of all corrections made since its adoption.
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Member very much for his comments and for supporting this legislation. He correctly noted that the explanatory memorandum sets out—as, indeed, does the tax information impact note—that there was not expected to be any impact for the different bodies that he described, but he also raised the question of the tax impact. We are not aware of any, or any significant, tax impact, but as he might imagine, this is something over which HMRC will continue to keep a watching brief. As he will be aware, VAT is typically claimed through the chain of the system of value-added tax, so it is not a straightforward matter to assess whether there may have been some revenue loss. However, I take the point he raises, and he is right to ask the question.
On the issue of customs tariffs, I wish I could assure him that there will never be any mistakes of this kind in the future. With a body of tariffs of the scale that we are talking about—16,000 lines, in which a handful of mistakes have been discovered on this occasion—I do not think that will be possible. We have to be grown up about it and recognise that, with human error and an evolving situation, there may be moments when mistakes occur. Of course, it is absolutely the Government’s intention, and that of the Department for International Trade and the Treasury, that they should be kept to an absolute minimum.
The hon. Member is right to ask whether there might be some cumulative impact. The numbers concerned are likely to be extremely modest, as we have described in this case and a previously, but whether there may have been a cumulative impact is a proper concern. I would certainly expect that, in the review of the policy by HMRC and the Department concerned, they would ask themselves whether the cumulative impact may be significant or, indeed, targeted in some area that was hitherto unsuspected. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the question and will make sure that it is pursued, after giving enough time for any possible impact to become quite substantial. I do not think we should expect that within a few months, or even potentially a year or two, but it is appropriate to ask the question when it looks as though the impacts may be substantial or—this is not a point he raised, but it is an important point—unexpectedly focused in some area that could lead to an unnecessary effect on that area, even if the overall impact was quite modest.
Question put and agreed to.
VALUE ADDED TAX (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2021
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments and Repeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 714).—(Jesse Norman.)
Draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (2021 UEFA Super Cup) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Gray. In the context of today’s extraordinary weather, I am afraid that I have inadvertently left my jacket in my office. In order not to delay the Committee, do I have your permission to proceed without my jacket?
The Chair
Being a very old-fashioned bloke, I entirely disapprove, but on this particular occasion, I am happy to allow the hon. Gentleman to remain improperly dressed. I am grateful to him for his courtesy in raising the matter with the Committee.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (2021 UEFA Super Cup) Regulations 2021.
The draft regulations provide an income tax exemption for accredited overseas individuals—however they may be dressed, Mr Gray—who participate in the annual UEFA super cup football match. The exemption will apply to any UK income that a non-UK resident receives for playing in the match or for duties and services performed in connection with the game.
The Committee will be aware of the severe impact of coronavirus on all sporting competitions since March 2020. Numerous large-scale events in this country and around the world have been cancelled or postponed to protect public health. It was very good to hear, then, that the Irish Football Association was successful in bidding to host the annual UEFA super cup game, which this year features Chelsea, winners of the Champions League, and Villareal, winners of the Europa League, in Belfast on 11 August. It would be wrong for me to display any partiality about the outcome of that game, but Villareal beat my team, Manchester United, in the final of the Europa League, and we are not at all sore about it. I am sure Members on both sides of the Committee will agree that the hosting of such a high- profile match will be a further welcome sign that the UK is returning to a more normal sporting environment.
Let me turn to the specific legal changes being made. As a fundamental condition of hosting the 2021 UEFA super cup game, the UK is required to provide an income tax exemption for competitors and officials who are not tax resident in this country. In previous years, the Government have opted to provide statutory tax exemptions for a range of similar sporting competitions, including the 2017 UEFA Champions League final, the 2017 world athletics championships and, of course, the 2020 UEFA European football championship. As that list illustrates, a tax exemption is reserved for only the top sporting events, and any decisions are made case by case.
To be considered for a tax exemption, an event must satisfy three policy conditions: it must demonstrate the highest level of world sport; it must be internationally mobile; and the granting of an exemption must be a necessary condition of a bid to host the event. I hope the Committee agrees that it is consistent with Government policy to provide a similar exemption now for the UEFA super cup game.
The statutory instrument makes use of the powers introduced in the Finance Act 2014 to provide a tax exemption through secondary legislation. The exemption from UK income tax will apply to non-resident players, officials and individuals designated by UEFA on income earned in connection with the super cup match. The exemption will run from 10 to 12 August 2021.
I conclude by acknowledging that the past 18 months have been difficult for sport. The regulations will help to support the sector and provide a welcome boost for Northern Ireland.
James Murray
Thank you, Mr Gray, for the chance to set out the Opposition’s position on the statutory instrument, despite my present attire.
James Murray
Neither will I. As we have heard, the instrument will remove income tax liability from accredited persons who are non-resident in the UK but who earn income in the UK arising from work related to the UEFA super cup, which is scheduled to take place on 11 August between Chelsea and the Spanish club Villareal. The football match is due to be held at the Windsor Park national stadium in Belfast, and the income tax exemption is valid from 10 to 12 August. Beyond the non- residence condition, accreditation entails that the beneficiary of the tax relief work for, or be contracted by, one of the clubs that are participating in the super cup, UEFA or broadcast, commercial or media organisations working with UEFA for the purposes of the super cup match.
May I start by congratulating the Chelsea team on winning the Champions League and booking their spot in this prestigious cup match? I am sure I speak on behalf of all members of the House of Commons—except, perhaps, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson)—when I put on the record my admiration for and thanks to the Chelsea players who represented England at the recent European championships: Mason Mount, Reece James and Ben Chilwell. I also put on the record how pleased I am that Windsor Park was selected for this match. It hosted its first match nearly 120 years ago, so it is very welcome that this iconic Belfast landmark will now host such a significant European game.
We will not oppose the statutory instrument because we know the income tax exemption was agreed as a condition of the bidding process to host the 2021 UEFA super cup match in the UK. In January 2019, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), confirmed to UEFA in writing that all the necessary tax exemptions would be given if the Irish Football Association in Northern Ireland were awarded the match. We recognise that that is consistent with the treatment of other world- class events, not least the recent final of the Euros
Although we will not oppose the instrument, I will use this opportunity to ask the Minister to set out his view on the low pay often received by those who will not benefit from the exemption granted by this statutory instrument, but whose contributions are critical to the organisation and delivery of the event—stewards, bar staff, workers at food kiosks, cleaners and many more besides. It is striking that just four clubs in the premier league have committed to the living wage and are accredited by the Living Wage Foundation. We know that football clubs are built by their fans and communities, so I would be grateful if the Minister set out whether he agrees that British football clubs owe it to their communities to be fair employers and to commit to the living wage.
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his question and for his party’s support for the legislation.
Of course, I am speaking as a Minister in the debate. From that point of view, it would be in appropriate for me to be volunteering personal views that might be taken to be indicative of the Government’s position. The Government certainly recognise the situation of the people the hon. Gentleman describes. It is important to say that although the instrument may not affect them, it certainly affects a wide range of people involved in the staging of the event who may not necessarily be plutocratic or have great incomes, as many footballers do.
The hon. Gentleman’s point that people should be properly paid is an important one, and it was recognised by the Government in the way that the last Chancellor but two or three—the former right hon. Member for Tatton—took specific measures to raise the minimum wage and support people on the lowest incomes. That has also been reflected in the ways that tax policy has evolved with the raising of the threshold for income tax.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the status of those people and to the situation of people on modest incomes. It is right for the Government to continue to support those people through the tax system. Although those issues have little direct bearing on the instrument before us, I think it is important that they are often taken in public, and I am grateful to him for raising them.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT EUROPEAN UNION (FUTURE RELATIONSHIP) ACT 2020 (REFERENCES TO THE TRADE AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT) REGULATIONS 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 (References to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement) Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. As hon. Members will be aware, and following the negotiations that took place last year, on 31 December 2020 the process of transition to our future relationship with the European Union was completed. We have recovered our economic and political independence, upholding a key demand of the British people and fulfilling our manifesto commitments. We are now focused on seizing the opportunities of being an independent sovereign nation.
The first trade and cooperation agreement partnership council, which took place in London last month, represented the start of the TCA governance. Both the substantive partnership council agenda items, and the formal launch of the wider governance apparatus, signal a milestone in the future relationship between the UK and EU. The secondary legislation before the Committee is required to help to ensure the future functioning statute book and provide clarity for businesses and citizens alike.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister might have seen the media story over the weekend about a suggestion that the UK-Ukraine trade deal, which the Prime Minister signed, contained a series of errors apparently still binding the UK to certain EU rules. I wonder whether she could explain what those mistakes were and how they relate to the statutory instrument, or whether we will have to come back to debate another statutory instrument, given those errors.
Penny Mordaunt
I do not intend—you will be relieved to hear, Sir Edward—to talk about things outside the scope of the particular correction that we are making this afternoon. I think that all Members should welcome the trade agreements that we are signing. The Department for International Trade has done a sterling job in rolling over agreements, but also in forging new ones. I am sure we want them to be technically accurate. If there are any difficulties, I am sure that both parties—both our Department for International Trade and whomever we are signing that particular deal with—will make those corrections, but I am keen to emphasise that this extremely dry and narrow amendment is technical in nature and is not new policy, as the hon Gentleman will understand. It is simply to ensure that the statute book works coherently and effectively, allowing the legal revision process of the trade and cooperation agreement, as signed by the EU.
The instrument was laid by Lord Frost following the affirmative procedure in exercise of the powers provided for in the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. Those powers allow Ministers to make amendments that they consider appropriate in pursuit of coherence and clarity following the legal revision process envisioned by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
Gareth Thomas
On the Minister’s point about the need for coherence and clarity, can she explain to the Committee whether the statutory instrument will in any way reduce the extra red tape that the TCA created for businesses, particularly those businesses, say in England, which want to trade with Northern Ireland?
Penny Mordaunt
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the debate that took place last week on the Northern Ireland protocol and, indeed, many other such debates that we have had, which are focused on the solutions that we are putting forward to deal with friction—unnecessary friction, as we see it. He will know that many things are going on to address those issues, particularly in relation to trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, and he will know that we expect further information about that before the summer recess. Again, I can appreciate why he might want to liven up the debate by talking about other issues, but we are making some very technical amendments that do not affect policy in any way. Largely, they are about the numbering of particular articles; he will appreciate the complexity and the flux when producing the innards of the agreement.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the use of the affirmative procedure, which allows colleagues in the House and in the other place, in their respective debates, to scrutinise the instrument and the background to it, which I will now set out. The trade and cooperation agreement, along with the security of information agreement and the nuclear cooperation agreement, was provisionally applied from 23:00 hours on 31 December 2020, in time for the end of the transition period, pending ratification. The Government subsequently agreed to the European Union’s request to extend the original period of provisional application to 30 April 2021, to give it more time to complete those processes. The EU completed the processes before the end of April, and the agreements therefore came into force on 1 May.
Due to the short time available between concluding negotiations and the end of the transition period, it was not possible to complete the necessary legal revision processes before the agreements were provisionally applied on 31 December. Instead, the agreements have since undergone a final process of legal revision. That legal revision process is provided for by article FINPROV.9, now article 780, of the trade and cooperation agreement. The processes identified typographical and other errors in the trade and cooperation agreement, which were corrected, and the articles were renumbered from article 1 through to 783.
I must make it clear that the substance and policy content of the agreement has not changed. Following the legal revision to the trade and cooperation agreement, some of the corresponding numbering and references to the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 must be updated, and that is what this statutory instrument seeks to achieve. The instrument is required to update references in the Act, including numbering and annexes, to ensure that it matches what is contained in the revised trade and co-operation agreement.
It is vital that businesses and citizens are clear about their legal status and obligations. This instrument provides clarity and will allow businesses and citizens to pursue the opportunities of our agreement with confidence. I am sure that hon. Members will have questions about the extent of the changes that this instrument makes. I can confirm that the main changes to the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 as a result of this instrument are the renumbering of the articles and the correction of cross-references to the trade and cooperation agreement in the Act. For example, in section 15(2)(a) of the Act, “Article TBT.9” will now become “Article 96”, to reflect the legally revised version of the trade and cooperation agreement. I will spare hon. Members of further examples, but there are many.
There was engagement with the devolved Administrations prior to the laying of the instrument, and they are content. I am grateful for the opportunity to note our thanks to them for their co-operation on this and, indeed, the wider body of secondary legislation delivered in the past year, carefully ending the transition period. I hope I have provided some helpful background to the instrument and that all members of the Committee agree that it performs a simple but important role in ensuring the certainty and clarity that citizens expect from our statute book.
Gareth Thomas
Let me endorse the fact that it is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, for this debate on the statutory instrument. Certainly, at first glance, the instrument does not appear particularly contentious, and unless something quite shocking crops up during our debate, we will not try to block its passage. It appears at first glance to be a correction of some 20-plus references in the 2020 Act to the trade and cooperation agreement, although it prompts a number of what I hope the Minister recognises are gentle questions and concerns.
If the Government could not even do a technical revision before the agreement came into force and ensure that the implementing legislation was final, how on earth could they expect businesses to understand the deal and adapt to a new trading relationship, especially as the Government themselves had admitted that the document was signed too late to allow the lawyers to take a proper look at it? That raises another gentle concern about the instrument and the manner of its being required. This seems to be another example of the Government not properly checking the deals that they have signed. Sadly, there is a growing number of such examples.
Let us take the freeports blunder, when the Department for International Trade accidentally ruled out some £35 billion-worth of exports from tariff-free trade for England’s eight new freeports because it included the duty drawback prohibition clauses from those roll-over deals. Then there is of course the Prime Minister’s new yacht. He obviously had had the ambition that only British shipbuilders would bid to make it, yet once again, because Ministers at the Department for International Trade failed to exclude the construction of civilian ships from the list of those contracts that must be open to global competition when it signed the World Trade Organisation’s Government procurement agreement last October, there appear to be some concerns. Imagine, Sir Edward, if—God forbid—the French should win the contract to build the Prime Minister’s new super-yacht because of the failure of the Department for International Trade.
I raised earlier the example of the UK-Ukraine trade deal, which is one of the most sensitive post-Brexit agreements; indeed, it is the only roll-over deal signed by the Prime Minister. As I said in my intervention on the Minister, some of the errors apparently bind the UK to EU rules. Given all the Government’s talk of not wanting to be bound by EU rules, you might have thought, Sir Edward, that Ministers would have checked that part of the agreement particularly carefully.
Then there is the Minister’s own boss, who negotiated the Northern Ireland protocol, admitting that some companies in Great Britain have found it “too much trouble” to trade with Northern Ireland and that he had not fully foreseen the “chilling effect” of the punishing new red tape, which has left many smaller firms facing higher costs.
There is, too, the sense that the statutory instrument represents a bit of a missed opportunity. Ministers could have used it to build on the deal that was done so late and so badly. Perhaps the Minister will give us some clue about where negotiations with Brussels are on a veterinary agreement, for example. Is Lord Frost still determined to reject the EU offer on a veterinary agreement, because it would—apparently—prevent Britain from joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership?
I ask that question in the context of the growing concern about the scale of difficulties that British exporters have faced with post-Brexit red tape and disruption at the UK-EU border, particularly around sanitary and phytosanitary controls. That has led to many businesses and their representatives arguing publicly for a veterinary agreement with the EU. Once the Minister has reflected on the debate, I wonder whether she might be willing to acknowledge privately, if not to the Committee now, that some of the other key trade deals that the Government have done are not quite as important as the trade deal that we are discussing today. According to the very best case scenario, the Australia deal will be worth just 0.025% of UK GDP over the next 15 years—and, of course, along the way it will do huge damage to farming, particularly in Scotland and in Wales.
The International Trade Secretary’s top deal, the CPTPP, looks set to yield, at best—again, this is according to independent forecasters—only very marginal economic benefits. Surely, improving the poor deal under discussion, which was so badly negotiated by Ministers, is key to our country’s future economic prospects. How will Ministers help not only musicians and those young people who want to be guides in the ski resorts of our European allies, but, crucially, those in financial service businesses, architects, interpreters, IT installers, management consultants and business traders whose jobs have been made that bit harder and are potentially on the line because Ministers would not do a visa-free trade deal with the European Union?
It is a privilege to have the chance to debate the statutory instrument, but it would not have been necessary if Ministers had negotiated a better deal. Sadly, that reflects a growing pattern of mistakes, particularly by the Department for International Trade in negotiating trade deals. One hopes, for the sake of businesses and jobs in our country, that the Government’s performance improves significantly after the recess. None the less, we will not oppose the instrument.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. He has done a good job of trying to liven up the proceedings, but I remind him that the statutory instrument is about changing the numbering of paragraphs in the articles and providing neat and tidy clarity both to us in this place and to our citizens and businesses.
The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on businesses. I will not go through everything I said in last week’s Backbench Business debate, but we have done a tremendous amount to enable businesses to be ready for the transition and to maximise the opportunities that will come with Brexit. They have done a tremendous job and we have been right to focus on them. I repeat that the EU’s obligations under articles 1 and 6 of the Northern Ireland protocol mean that it should take a pragmatic and risk-based approach to protecting its single market while also honouring the internal market of the UK. Last week, I gave copious examples not only of where that has not been the case, but of where we have been proactive in reducing unnecessary friction and proposing solutions. We have produced a dozen papers to tackle the remaining issues, which the hon. Gentleman was right to raise and which are of great concern to us. We are making progress on those issues.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned in particular the comprehensive veterinary agreement. He may not know this, but in last week’s debate his party spokesman committed Labour to supporting the Government’s proposal on a comprehensive veterinary agreement. Labour knows that the EU’s proposal cannot work for us. Again, we should take a pragmatic, risk-based approach. We have an advantage in the fact that we have been trading as part of the EU bloc. I welcome the pragmatic, positive step taken by Opposition Front Benchers to support British businesses. Long may that continue.
The hon. Gentleman pushed the scope of the debate by introducing the royal yacht, but I am very confident—
The Chair
Order. I have to say that the scope of the delegated legislation is extremely narrow. It is completely up to the Minister how she replies to the debate, but she should bear in mind that the royal yacht is perhaps one holiday trip too far.
Penny Mordaunt
Thank you for your guidance, Sir Edward. I shall content myself with simply saying that I am confident that our British ships will be built in UK yards.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned trade deals. The biggest divide in politics at this moment is not between left and right, but between optimists and pessimists, and we on this side of the Committee are optimists. I am confident in our potential and in our businesses’ potential to maximise their exports. We wish to focus on growing those trade agreements, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman is in agreement with us on that.
I shall leave it at that, Sir Edward, and simply reiterate my thanks to Members for contributing to the debate. It has been technical, but this is important secondary legislation that demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring certainty and clarity in the UK statute book. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
International Trade
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jayawardena
On the point the hon. Gentleman made towards the end of his question, there has been much talk about global Britain this week and trade is the route to prosperity, for Britain and her friends around the world. Although others may be content with offering only handouts, we are determined to give our friends a hand up. So having taken back control of our trade policy, I can confirm that we will be looking to go further than the EU and we will be setting out our plans and launching a consultation on this very soon.
[Official Report, 15 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 527.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan).
The correct response should have been:
Mr Jayawardena
On the point the hon. Gentleman made towards the end of his question, there has been much talk about global Britain this week and trade is the route to prosperity, for Britain and her friends around the world. Although others may be content with offering only handouts, we are determined to give our friends a hand up. So having taken back control of our trade policy, I can confirm that we will be looking to go further than the EU and we will be setting out our plans and launching a consultation on the generalised system of preference very soon.[Official Report, 22 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 10MC.]
Petitions
St Ilids Meadow postal round
Occupation of East Jerusalem
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Cervical Screening
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Hon. Members will be aware that social distancing is no longer in operation. I remind hon. Members that Mr Speaker has encouraged us all to wear masks. I also remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the hybrid arrangements that we have today. I remind colleagues participating both physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of the debate, as I think they have today, and Members are expected to remain for the entire debate, please.
I must also remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their camera on for the duration of the debate and that they will be visible at all times, both to each other and to those of us here in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address, which is westminsterhallclerks@ parliament.uk. Members attending physically should still clean their places when they leave, to ensure that other hon. Members can come into a place that is clean.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 317336, relating to cervical screening.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard, for this really important debate. I apologise for not being able to be there in person today, but I thank the House for these hybrid proceedings because I was pinged last week.
I will begin by putting on the record my huge thanks to Caitlin, who is Fiona’s sister, for speaking to me last week about Fiona’s case and the way that it has affected her whole family. I also thank Fiona’s friends, Melissa Macdonald and Niamh Foley, who started the petition, and all those who have signed it, which led to this debate being held today.
As a woman, I know that we all sort of dread getting the call-up for our smear test. For most women, it is not painful, but it is uncomfortable and awkward. What can someone even chat about when the nurse is having her little look? But why should it be like that? We have all been there; the nurse has seen it all before. It is just not spoken about, so we feel a sense of shame about it. It is time we stopped being so coy about it, because that may well persuade more women to go for screening and ultimately it may save lives.
Cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers in women under 35, and 99.7% of cervical cancers are caused by human papillomavirus, or HPV. In recent years, testing for HPV has meant that it is easier to identify who is at greater risk from cervical cancer at the earliest stage.
During covid, England had an attendance rate for smear tests of 72%, which means that more than one in four women are not going for screening when invited to do so. The wonderful charity Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust has a number of ideas to increase the uptake of smear tests, and I suggest that the Minister meets it to discuss ways of increasing the number of women being tested; I know that she has a keen interest in women’s health.
I was really moved when I spoke to Caitlin, because I got a real sense of how difficult it must be to lose a sister, especially at such a young age. Fiona was only 30 when she died. She was married to Andrew and was the mother of two young children. When Fiona died, Ivy was only four and Harry had just turned two. As Caitlin said, Fiona used all her strength to stick around for Harry’s second birthday.
Fiona was called for her first smear test in 2015, but she was pregnant with Ivy and so was told not to go. When she was called again, she was pregnant with Harry, but there was no follow-up to the first appointment. Fiona never received a reminder to go to her smear test in the interim. This situation is not about someone missing appointments when called to attend them; Fiona went to every appointment that she was meant to go to.
Fiona’s cancer was finally diagnosed after a routine smear test in 2018. She did not have any symptoms, but there seemed to be a lot of hold-ups and delays before her cancer was diagnosed. Caitlin mentioned that it could perhaps have been because of Fiona and Andrew moving from England to Scotland that Fiona received her first invitation. That raises questions about communications between the devolved Administrations and about what procedures are in place to make sure that communication between different trusts and devolved countries is clear.
A hysterectomy was performed and Fiona then went through chemotherapy and radiotherapy as a belt-and-braces approach to dealing with the cancer. After that, Fiona had a number of visits to A&E, including one where the doctor later admitted that she knew the problem was cancer and not a hernia, but did not say anything as Fiona was seeing a specialist soon after.
Most of us are not medical experts. We rely on doctors to tell us the truth because we do not know what is going on, and that vulnerability is really exposed when we hear such stories. I know it is extremely rare to hear stories such as Fiona’s, and the vast majority of our doctors, nurses and other health service staff really care, but it is shocking none the less.
Before covid hit, cancer services were already struggling due to severe staff shortages. Despite the incredible efforts by staff, a backlog has built up. Relying on current staff, who again have not had a pay rise, to clear the backlog on top of delivering regular services will only lead to burnout. It is just not sustainable. Research from Macmillan Cancer Support in 2017 showed that 2,500 specialist cancer nurses were needed to maintain cancer services. By 2030, we will need 3,700 new nurses—an increase of 124% on 2017 levels. Those figures will also have been hugely impacted by the pandemic. The Government have come forward with their own cancer workforce strategy, which is inadequate, and I implore the Minister to reconsider the plans that they have and come up with something that will really help those living with cancer.
Everything that happened to Fiona came before the pandemic hit last year. We have heard countless times about the delays in diagnosis and treatment that the last 16 months has caused. Approximately 1.5 million smear tests take place every year. With the pressure on the NHS since March 2020, that could mean 1.5 million women missing out on a vital tool in diagnosing cervical cancer.
We know that the rates of covid infection are on the up. Hospitalisations for covid are rising, and some NHS trusts across the UK are already cancelling operations as they are at capacity. The recklessness of so-called “freedom day” in England and the removal of all the measures that have been in place to keep us safe is therefore unbelievable. Putting the immunosuppressed at risk, such as those going through cancer treatment, is downright dangerous, and I am glad that the devolved nations have taken a more cautious approach.
What will the extra pressure on the health service mean? Another delay in getting a smear test. And what will that do to the outcomes for so many young women? What will the Government do to make sure that those women who miss out are not left behind, and to stop a knock-on effect on testing? We are looking at new ways forward. Fiona’s case has highlighted some of the gaps that were there before the pandemic started, and things have only deteriorated since covid hit. We must work together to make sure that cancer services are the best that they can possibly be, and that our cancer workforce is protected and given all the tools that it needs to continue to save lives.
When Fiona got really ill, her daughter Ivy used to ask why mummy had to spend so much time in bed. To stop another family having to answer those questions, I want the Minister to answer the questions that Fiona’s family and friends, and all of those who have lost someone to cervical cancer, need answers to. What procedures are in place to make sure that women like Fiona do not fall through the cracks? How does that work across the devolved nations? What is the current screening backlog? What plans to increase the cancer workforce are currently in place?
Caitlin finished our meeting by saying that any change that could come from this debate—if one life is saved, or if one family does not have to go through what her family have been through—would make it worth it.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Before I call John Lamont, I have to say that even though the attendants have been fantastic in helping with the air conditioning, it is still very warm, so if hon. Members want to remove jackets, they should feel free.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard.
I am pleased to speak in today’s important date, which has attracted so much support from my constituents in the Scottish borders, with almost 3,000 signatures coming from Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk—the highest number across the United Kingdom. This can be explained by the fact that the petition was launched by borderer Andrew Mathewson, who lives in Kelso, in my constituency. As we have heard, Andrew tragically lost his wife Fiona, mother of Ivy and Harry, when she died after battling cervical cancer for 17 months, aged just 30.
I have met Andrew, and I admire the way that he has campaigned tirelessly for cervical cancer screening, in memory of Fiona, and dedicated his work to ensure that other families do not go through what they had to. Fiona’s story is close to the hearts of many people in the Scottish borders who know the Mathewsons, and indeed many people far beyond and across the country, with over 146,000 signatures recorded in total for the petition.
The NHS and this policy area are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and my comments will have a distinctive Scottish slant. Around 850 women die from cervical cancer each year in the UK. Sadly, that is more than two women every day. Yet cervical cancer is one of the most preventable cancers for two key reasons. First, cervical screening tests check for abnormal changes in sample cells from the cervix. Cervical screening is not a test for cancer, but early detection allows action to be taken to prevent cervical cancer from developing.
Second, the HPV jab is on offer to every child between 12 and 14 in Scotland. For girls, it is designed to protect against types of HPV that cause around 70% of all cases of cervical cancer in Scotland. In most people, HPV does not cause harm and the infection clears on its own, but in some cases HPV infection can lead to cell changes that progress into cervical cancer. Taken together, cervical screening and the HPV vaccine mean that cervical cancer can be avoided.
Cancer Research UK has stated that cervical screening is the best protection against cervical cancer, yet in Scotland it is offered far less frequently than in the rest of the UK. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, women between 25 and 49 are screened every three years, but women in Scotland face a five-year wait between each screening. Over the past year, some women were notified that their waiting time of five years would be extended as NHS Scotland rightly diverted time and resources to tackling covid-19. However, I am pleased that the resumption of cancer services, including cervical screening, are now being treated as a priority by NHS Scotland.
Alarmingly, this transparency from NHS Scotland was not mirrored by the Scottish Government, who failed to reveal that a number of women had developed cervical cancer after being wrongly excluded from the screening programme following a hysterectomy. One of those women tragically died. The SNP Government were made aware of the errors back in a December audit, but waited until the last day before the summer recess to reveal the scale of the problem to the Scottish Parliament.
This debate is not about party political point scoring, but it would be wrong of me not to highlight the concerns of anxious women, their families and the wider public, who were left in the dark by Scottish Ministers who prioritised their political campaign and attempted to avoid scrutiny. These serious errors have affected hundreds of women, with more cases potentially still to be identified.
The crux of this debate on cervical screening is about the opportunity to reduce the number of women who tragically die from cervical cancer. In my closing remarks, I would like to address some ways in which we can reduce this number of preventable deaths. Evidence shows that the women most likely not to attend a cervical screening appointment are those between the ages of 25 and 34. Yet the evidence also indicates that cervical cancer is the most common cancer in women in this age group. Awareness needs to be raised among women. There is a real incentive to ensure that resources are dedicated to this cause, since cervical cancer can be prevented.
One method that has been trialled in London has involved GPs sending text messages about cervical screening appointments, instead of relying on sending letters through the post. Stigma also needs to be addressed: personal barriers such as lack of knowledge about the purpose and benefits of the test, as well as fear and anxiety about the procedure itself, can play a role in women not attending their appointments. Finally, the Scottish Government should listen to the worries of some Scottish women, who say that they are concerned that they would develop cervical cancer within the five years and just would not know about it.
I end by again paying tribute to Andrew Mathewson and his family and friends, who have been at the forefront of this petition and have ensured that we are debating this important issue today. Andrew continues to selflessly battle on behalf of women he does not even know so that fewer families will have to lose a wife, a mother, a sister or a daughter to this cancer.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Pritchard, and I am incredibly grateful to be called to speak in this debate on a topic that, as colleagues may know, is extremely close to my heart. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont).
Fiona’s story is tragically similar to so many other women’s stories across the country, and my thoughts and condolences are with the whole Mathewson family. As elected representatives, we have the great fortune of being able to speak up on a huge range of the issues that matter most to the people who live in our local communities. It is a fantastic privilege, and one that is not at all lost on me, but there are still certain debates that speak to us as people, not just as politicians. I will always be a vocal and loud champion of cervical screenings, and I am grateful that we are taking the time to speak about this important issue today.
We know that cervical screenings are the best way to protect against cervical cancer: the numbers speak for themselves. Indeed, cervical screenings can prevent more than seven in 10 diagnoses. Those who know me well will know that I speak about cervical screenings whenever and wherever I possibly can, mostly because a delayed cervical screening changed my life almost overnight. Like many others, I put off having my first cervical screening at the age of 25 for all the usual reasons: I was too busy, I did not have the symptoms, and I simply had other priorities. After many conversations with friends, most of whom gave me a good telling-off when I shamefully revealed that my screening had been delayed, I booked my appointment and thought nothing more of it.
While most of us will agree that cervical screening is probably not up there with our top 10 favourite things to do on a morning, the test itself is relatively quick and simple, but as many of us will know, the wait for the results—for that NHS letter arriving on our doorstep—can feel genuinely endless. In my opinion, it is the hardest part about being tested.
Fast forward to a few months after the screening, and I was sat in my local hospital undergoing a colposcopy after my initial test results came back abnormal and further examinations were required. I was genuinely terrified. Everyone had told me that a routine screening was nothing to be concerned about: that it would just be five minutes of awkward conversation with the nurse at my local GP practice, and it would be job done for the next three years in Wales. Sadly, that was not the case for me. I was told that I had abnormal CIN 3 cells that, if left undetected and untreated over a number of years, could develop into cervical cancer. We always think it will not happen to us, but there I was at the age of 25, diagnosed with CIN 3 on a large area of my cervix.
The next few weeks were a complete blur. I became obsessed with googling everything I could about abnormal cells, potential treatment and cervical cancer. I became a prolific poster on, and reader of, the excellent Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust forum, and I found comfort in talking to others who had gone through, or were going through, exactly the same thing. Thankfully, the staff at my local hospital were incredible, and almost immediately I underwent LLETZ—large loop excision of the transformation zone—treatment to burn off the abnormal cells on my cervix. I went to that appointment alone. It was one of the most surreal moments of my life and one that, try as I might, I will never forget. After the doctor had finished—which felt like an eternity at the time—she did not look happy. More treatment was needed. She told me that on closer inspection, the abnormal cells on my cervix were embedded deeper and looked more challenging than initially expected. I will never forget those words.
The next stage for me was a cold knife biopsy. Thankfully that minor operation went smoothly, and a few weeks later I got the call that I had desperately hoped for: the clinicians were confident that all the abnormal cells had been removed. The damage was quite severe, and if I had put off that initial cervical screening test any later, the situation would have been very different. The extent of the treatment meant that I was now without the majority of my cervix. Of course, having that treatment comes with risks, such as a slightly increased chance of giving birth prematurely, but by that point I did not really care: I just wanted the nightmare to be over.
I was without the majority of my cervix, but my life was saved. Sadly, for many—as we have heard, tragically, in Fiona’s case—that is not the case, and I count my lucky stars that my friends gave me the push I needed to book my cervical screening when they did. After receiving treatment, I attended screenings every six months to ensure the abnormal cells did not return. Even now, years down the line, my screenings are more common than most, and I go on an annual basis.
It would be wrong of me to pretend that I have not been impacted on by the ordeal I went through. The physical scars might be internal, but I will always grapple with the mental effects. Even years on, I still get that nervous feeling in my stomach before I go to my screening. However, we have all seen the numbers—my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) touched on them in her opening remarks—and we can all recognise the devastation that cancer, in its myriad forms, can have on those suffering and on their close friends and family. It goes without saying that we should be doing everything we can to protect those who may be particularly at risk of developing cervical cancer, and regular cervical screenings are absolutely key if more lives are to be saved.
Although I am pleased to say that there has been progress on specific incentives to encourage more people to attend their screenings, cell changes such as mine often fall through the gaps, along with HPV. HPV diagnosis is still associated with high levels of fear, confusion and stigma and a lack of understanding, despite it being an incredibly common virus. Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust recently surveyed its community of users who have HPV and found that one in two people said they knew nothing about HPV prior to receiving a diagnosis. Interestingly, people with recurrent or persistent HPV report feeling let down by their bodies and anxious about the ongoing and uncertain nature of the condition, and they often feel that there is no support or information for them either. There is clearly a need for increased education when the vaccine is first given, greater awareness of how common it is and how it affects the body, and greater information and support for those affected.
The same goes for cell changes such as mine. Around 220,000 women each year will be told that they have cell changes, and many will be treated to prevent the potential development of cervical cancer. There are opportunities to improve the care that is offered. We know that treatment for cell changes is highly effective at preventing the development of cervical cancer, the impact of which can be truly devastating, but more must be done to ensure that women diagnosed with cell changes are properly supported before, during and after treatment. Research from Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust found that 20% of women said the possible impacts and side-effects of treatment were not explained to them beforehand. Even more shockingly, 60% were not told about the different types of treatment that were available to them. It is clear that although progress has thankfully been made on the dialogue around cervical screenings, we still have a long way to go to change the situation more broadly.
I am hopeful that today’s debate will send a reminder to those who, like me, put off their cervical screenings. I also hope that by touching on issues such as HPV and cell changes, people can learn about the broader benefits of screening too. Although health is of course devolved to the fantastic Welsh Labour Government, I truly believe that this is an issue that crosses the political divide. Indeed, I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the work that she is doing, including across Government Departments and the devolved nations, to encourage better understanding of the widespread benefits of cervical screening.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and an honour to speak in this important debate. It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and hear her personal story. I am sure we are all glad to see her today.
The petition is a proposal to introduce yearly cervical screenings for all women. As we have heard, the campaign for Fiona’s law was launched after the untimely death of 30-year-old mum Fiona from Kelso in the Scottish borders. Cervical screening is unequivocally the best method of protection against cervical cancer, and I think I speak for us all when I say that I hope to see greater uptake of screening. Unfortunately, prior to the pandemic one in four women across the UK did not accept their invitation for screening. The figure is higher in areas such as London and Glasgow, among women under 30 years of age, and among groups who face additional systemic barriers to their attendance—for example, this issue disproportionately affects LGBTQ people, with 40% of lesbian and bisexual women in the UK having been told that they do not require cervical screening. Experience of trauma or violence can also deter women from attending, with 72% of women who have experienced sexual violence delaying or cancelling their appointments.
Most clinicians would largely disagree with the proposal to make cervical screening annual. The UK National Screening Committee sets the eligibility criteria for screening programmes and makes recommendations about changes in order to maximise the benefits and minimise harm. Cervical screening starts at the age of 25, not 18, as HPV is very rare in younger women, with fewer than four cases per 100,000, due to the high uptake of the HPV vaccine. Around 90% of HPV infections are cleared naturally by the body in two years, and many cell changes return to normal without the need for treatment. Research generally suggests that a lower screening age does not substantially reduce cases and can in fact lead to over-treatment, which can have serious implications on physical and mental health, including on the ability to carry a child to term.
A more viable option for increasing the uptake of cervical screening would be to roll out widespread HPV self-sampling, which would allow women to enjoy the comfort and convenience of performing the test in their own homes. Research by Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust suggests this would greatly increase uptake, with 47% of women who rarely or never book a test preferring self-sampling to clinician-led screening. Only 9% preferred clinician-led screening, while 50% of women who are overdue for an appointment and 34% of women from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds also preferred self-sampling. Some 63% of those living with a physical disability have noted that their disability made it impossible for them to attend screening. Making self-sampling possible would put the screening process into women’s own hands.
For that to be recommended by the UK National Screening Committee, far more research into this procedure is required. At the moment, only a few pilot schemes are being run: one in Scotland, in Dumfries and Galloway, and another in London. It is essential that progress on these vital studies continues. It would be helpful to know whether the UK Government plan to increase support for such schemes, to accelerate studies into the viability of HPV self-sampling nationwide, and to give an estimate of when the necessary research will be collected by NHS England.
While annual cervical screening may not be realistically viable or desirable, we can take concrete steps to ensure that access is widened, risk is adequately assessed and appointments are not missed. I hope the Department of Health and Social Care will take on some of these considerations, especially with regard to advancing the research into, and roll out of, home HPV self-sampling.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and to follow the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), who spoke with great passion about this crucial issue. Cervical cancer is something that all women fear. It is not only a deadly disease but one, like breast cancer, that strikes at the heart of how we view ourselves as women.
The petition that we are discussing on Fiona’s law received more than 146,000 signatures, with many from my constituents. That figure represents a groundswell of people who are concerned that not enough is being done to ensure detection of cervical cancer for women in the UK. We cannot ignore them. To detect cervical cancer early, we have developed highly accurate screening tests that enable women to know whether they have pre-cancerous cells, and if so, to receive the proper treatment. In fact, women will be tested for HPV before they get cervical screening, because 99.7% of all cervical cancers are caused by HPV. Simply put, thanks to our researchers and all the medical professionals across our NHS, tests for cervical cancer are more accurate than ever before.
There is much debate in this country about how early and how frequently women should be screened for cervical cancer, but women are only able to have their cancer detected if the screenings are successfully performed. Research on how often women access existing appointments should give us real cause for concern. We all know that the pandemic has had devastating effects on women’s ability to access life-saving cervical cancer screening. Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust estimates that around 600,000 tests failed to go ahead in the UK in April and May 2020, and figures show that cancer screening for women in the 25-to-64 age group—the most vulnerable age group—decreased by nearly 7% from the previous year. These figures are completely unacceptable and show that the recent physical barriers to screening have a strong negative impact on women’s access to preventive services.
However, figures also show an equally strong mental impact. Unfortunately, this life-saving smear test remains a source of great anxiety to many. Earlier this year, it emerged that around one in four women eligible for smear tests do not take up the invitation. New research has found that, among those who do not go for their cervical cancer screening, 75% are scared at the thought of going and 81% are embarrassed to go.
The Government must do more to create public awareness about the test. They must normalise it, so that women do not feel embarrassed to seek this vital service, and bust other myths that induce anxiety about it. Perhaps most worryingly, Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust has published a study that reveals that women from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds are twice as likely to be strongly worried about contracting a virus at their cervical cancer screening as their white counterparts, and a third more likely to feel unsafe visiting a doctors’ surgery than white women.
It is vital that the Government look more closely into the cultural and mental barriers preventing black, Asian and minority ethnic women from accessing life-saving screening in much higher proportions. They must dedicate more resources to learning why women, especially those from minority backgrounds, are not taking up their testing appointments. That is crucial to achieving a reproductive health programme that is not only thriving but equal. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on the work that she is doing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Pritchard, as I often have in this Chamber, and I very much look forward to the Minister’s response. I very much look forward to speaking in this debate on cervical cancer screening.
I stand here to speak on behalf of my female constituents, whom this directly affects, and I speak in complete support of the e-petition, which had 146,000 signatures. Cancer is a tragedy that all of us know only too well. I am sure it has touched the lives of everyone in the room today. I am sure the Minister will not mind me saying that she has been directly affected, and we are very pleased to see her here as a survivor.
We must take every necessary step to catch cases sooner rather than later. The petition for Fiona’s law applies to women in England. However, I speak on behalf of my constituents and the women of Northern Ireland. It is estimated that some 3,200 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer every year in the UK. Eighty people in Northern Ireland are diagnosed every year, and roughly 20 to 30 of those women will, sadly, pass away from the disease. The Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland has said that early detection and treatment can prevent seven to 10 types of cervical cancer. As the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) mentioned, Northern Ireland offers screening every two years. I would like to see it done better. I would like to see it every year; that is the best way to do it. The request is for early detection and treatment as the way to prevent cervical cancer.
It is important to remember that screening is not a test for cancer; it is a test to help prevent it. That is what we are trying to do, and that is why, to assist in preventing cervical cancers, we must do more to ensure that women have screening appointments regularly. Current legislation states that women between the ages of 25 and 49 will be invited for screening once every three years, and those aged 50 to 64 every five years. That is in line with the NHS’s long-term plan to detect 75% of cancers at stage 1 or 2.
I cannot stress enough the importance of screening appointments for women. First, I can only imagine that it is not a comfortable or easy procedure to go through, but I do believe that the prolonged interval of three years only increases the anxiety. Secondly, yearly screening would allow for more effective diagnosis, but it also provides an opportunity to make a procedure that a lot of women dread having more familiar and comfortable, if that is possible.
The UK’s leading cervical cancer charity, Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, report that 51% of women admitted to delaying their screening, that 24% delayed for over a year and that 9%, one in 10 women, have never attended a screening. Those are shocking figures, but they are understandable at the same time. These are lives being lost, and because of the frequency of cervical screening it is getting worse.
There needs to be more communication about screening so that people are aware of what they are going into. That would then provide confidence and would increase the numbers attending, which would ultimately result in lives saved: more mothers, more daughters, more sisters, more grandmothers and more wives living longer and healthier lives. My wife went through it. She did not for one second wish to go. She found the whole thing very uncomfortable and, honestly, a little embarrassing. Obviously, we encouraged her. My mother encouraged her, and I think that probably helped—from lady to lady is probably better. She went for the tests and got the all clear.
Cancer of all kinds has destroyed lives and families for too long. We must do all we can to increase early diagnosis, as the petition calls for, especially in the light of the impact of the pandemic, which has seen a further decrease in screening figures. We need to get back on our feet and allow women yearly screenings. I urge the Minister to undertake discussions with the UK National Screening Committee to ascertain why it feels that women do not warrant screenings every year.
To anyone who is offered a cervical cancer screening, I say please go. I say to the Government that the encouragement from the Minister will start here. More must be done to get more frequent appointments, more awareness of the benefits and more discussion around the appointment itself, because there is nothing more promising than the prevention of disease.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Before I call Mike Kane, there has been a slight adjustment to the call list. I will call Dr Philippa Whitford after Mr Kane, and then Alex Norris.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Mr Pritchard. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I add my congratulations to the petitioners on securing a debate in Parliament on such an important topic.
In January 2021, the Minister stated:
“While we do not hold waiting lists for National Health Service screening programmes, NHS England…are confident that no one eligible for cervical screening has missed an invitation for an appointment.”
An invitation is one thing, but being able to book and access a test can be quite a different matter. In the third quarter of 2021, no clinical commissioning groups in England achieved 80% coverage of women invited for a test. I am, of course, aware of the pressures placed on the NHS during the pandemic, and my speech does not denigrate it at all, but 600,000 cervical screening opportunities are estimated to have failed to go ahead in the UK just in April and May of last year.
In October 2019, NHS England commissioned an independent review of adult screening programmes. It highlighted that demographic factors—levels of affluence and deprivation, and ethnic diversity—have a huge impact on whether women take up the tests. For women who live in areas with higher levels of deprivation, such as parts of my constituency of Wythenshawe and Sale East, the coverage of screening programmes is lower than average.
Hologic, a fantastic innovative medical technology company in my constituency, focuses primarily on improving women’s health and wellbeing. It specialises in high-volume population screening. We know that more than 99% of cervical cancer cases are preventable and that, alongside HPV vaccination, cervical cancer screening is one of the most effective ways to prevent that cancer.
There are opportunities to improve screenings, both for clinicians and for patients, by adopting new innovative screening technologies. One such method is using HPV mRNA testing for primary cervical screening. The tests provide significantly higher clarity and would safely reduce the number of women who require a colposcopy, thereby reducing unnecessary fear, anxiety and stress for the women involved. It would also reduce the pressure on an already overburdened system, save the NHS an estimated £15 million a year, and potentially prevent 30,000 unnecessary colposcopy procedures.
Currently, just 54% of all samples in England are processed using that form of testing, meaning that 1.5 million women in England do not have access to the technology. England should move towards a system in which mRNA HPV primary screening is the gold standard used by all labs. With better co-ordination within NHS England, cervical screening would, for example, be commissioned by the same part of the NHS as colposcopies, enabling clinicians to work more effectively together and have a positive impact on patient experience and outcome.
Another innovative technological advance is digital cytology. This advanced imaging technology, used to identify lesions and pre-cancerous cells, which stores cervical images using cloud-based technology, would help maximise screening capacity, enabling any cytologist with capacity in the network to access a particular image. That would provide a much more flexible deployment of the workforce, would speed up time from result to treatment if necessary, and provide physical efficiencies, such as less need for storage and for the transportation of cervical images and slides.
Rolling out such technologies would save not only money and time, but would, in time, reduce the stress on women and girls at a worrying time, as has been pointed out today, as well as reducing the need for unnecessary gynaecological procedures. It would also provide a streamlining of these lifesaving services. I would welcome any comments that the Minister has about those suggestions.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. First, I want to extend my sympathy to Fiona’s family and friends, who were moved by her loss to set up the petition in her name. I have seen at first hand the impact of cervical cancer, as one of my friends lost her beautiful and vibrant daughter at the age of just 28 to this horrible disease. As a breast cancer surgeon for more than 30 years, I know the devastation caused by the death of any young woman.
Before we go further, I want to emphasise that any woman with symptoms of vaginal discharge or bleeding should not wait for a screening appointment, but should go and see her GP. There is usually a simple cause, but it is always important to get checked out.
Although the petition specifically calls for annual cervical smear tests, what we are all actually trying to achieve is the prevention and eventual elimination of cervical cancer, as called for by the World Health Organisation last August. For that we have to understand the cause of cervical cancer, and that is where our knowledge has developed considerably. We know that 99.7% of cervical cancers are caused by high risk strains of human papillomavirus, or HPV, and that is therefore the target of our efforts. This is through a two-pronged strategy, providing protection to the younger generation through vaccination against HPV and using more sensitive polymerase chain reaction testing to detect HPV on cervical smear samples to identify those at increased risk.
The HPV vaccine was introduced for young teenage girls in 2008 and initially included those up to 18 years, so that they would be vaccinated before leaving school. Research from the Scottish cervical screening programme in 2017 reported a reduction in the presence of HPV in the smears of vaccinated women from 30% to 4.5%, and by 2019 demonstrated an 89% fall in grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia—the cell changes that can evolve into cervical cancer if left untreated. That dramatic reduction in CIN 3 among the first cohort of vaccinated girls gives great hope that we will see a fall in cervical cancer in that age group in the coming years.
The vaccine is now also provided to boys, both to protect them from other HPV-related cancers and to provide additional protection to women by reducing how many men carry HPV in the first place. It is vaccination against HPV that really offers the chance to eliminate this terrible disease by the end of the decade. To achieve that, we need to vaccinate 90% of all teenagers, and our uptake rates have drifted below that level over the past five years. Some of that is likely due to fears that the vaccine was associated with health issues such as chronic fatigue or regional pain syndromes. However, a review by the European Medicines Agency found that those conditions were very common among teenagers generally, and there was no increase among those who had been vaccinated.
To reduce the risk of cervical cancer, we need to get rid of the stigma of HPV and ensure that all women and young people understand its importance in the development of cancer. It is a very common virus, which, in the vast majority of cases, causes no harm and is cleared by the body’s own defences, but some strains pose a higher risk of causing malignant change. After vaccination, the other critical approach to preventing cervical cancer is, of course, screening itself, but here too the focus is now on detecting HPV as the driver of cervical changes that can eventually lead to cancer. Classical cytology, which looks for abnormal cells within cervical smears, does not pick up every case, while PCR, about which we have heard so much during the pandemic, is more sensitive in detecting HPV and identifying the women at higher risk.
The UK National Screening Committee has therefore recommended changing to a two-step testing procedure, with the cervical sample tested for HPV first and then cytology performed on those samples that contain virus. Currently, that is carried out on one sample, which is collected in the traditional way—a clinician having to visualise the cervix directly. If the sample contains HPV, cytology is carried out on the cervical cells. If any changes are found, the patient is referred to a gynaecologist for a colposcopy, where the cervix is examined and biopsied to assess the grade of cell changes.
If the woman is HPV-positive but has no cell changes and therefore would never have been highlighted under the old system, she will undergo repeat screening the following year; if the virus persists after two years, even without cell changes, she will be referred for colposcopy. By focusing on the presence of the virus, women carrying HPV and at higher risk are provided with more intensive follow-up. It is the UK National Screening Committee that has recommended that women who are HPV-negative and therefore at very low risk are offered routine repeat screening every five years, from the ages of 25 to 65. That system has been fully rolled out in Scotland since March last year, but I highlight that the same approach is planned across all four UK nations once the PCR testing and data systems are in place.
Screening remains vital in detecting cervical cancer and its precursors in women who did not have the opportunity to be vaccinated against HPV. But uptake is at a 20-year low, with just over 70% of women attending overall. Attendance is even lower among younger women and those from minority ethnic groups or more deprived communities, as well as among lesbian or transgender people, who make mistakenly think that they are less at risk of HPV infections. The challenge is there for how to engage more women to take part in cervical screening. Changing to annual cervical examination might actually cause more women to withdraw from the programme.
HPV is found in only about 10% of cervical smear tests, so carrying out a simple vaginal swab to test for HPV could reduce the number of women who have to undergo a formal cervical smear with direct visualisation of the cervix. That would avoid the need to use a speculum and reduce the discomfort, which puts some women off taking up future appointments. It would also greatly reduce the difficulties experienced by those with physical or learning disabilities. Indeed, disabled women have been campaigning for years about the fact that those with the greatest physical difficulties often struggle to take part in screening at all.
A team at Dumfries and Galloway health board in Scotland established a trial in 2012 in which over 5,000 women took vaginal swabs themselves as well as getting a formal cervical smear done in the traditional way. That demonstrated both the accuracy and acceptability of this approach and the team is working with the Scottish Government to consider making that part of our routine screening programme. The UK National Screening Committee is still evaluating that approach, but research by Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust suggests that this simpler method of sampling could get more women to engage and take up HPV testing as the first step of screening.
The issue is particularly important among groups that currently have a much higher risk of cancer but a lower engagement with a screening programme. NHS England has now begun a trial offering self-administered HPV swabs to 31,000 women in parts of London who have failed to attend their routine appointments. My one gripe with that excellent project was that the publicity and social media around its launch described the tests as self-administered smear tests instead of explaining that they were simple vaginal swabs, which a woman should easily be able to carry out at home. That caused a lot of consternation among women, who wondered how on earth they were meant to ensure that they visualised, or took a sample from, their own cervixes. It could put some off from trying to take the sample in the first place. Describing them as smear tests could also lead someone who is HPV-positive to fail to attend their GP practice for formal assessment, if they are under the mistaken impression that they have already had a cervical smear.
The NHS project in London is designed to engage those who have not taken up their routine invitations, but I hope that simple vaginal swabs to test for HPV will eventually become a routine step available to all women—whether self-administered in the privacy of their own home, or by a clinician in their local GP practice. HPV vaccination holds the potential to drastically reduce the number of young women who are even at risk of cervical cancer, but screening will always be important in order to detect cell changes or early cancer, and all of us need to encourage high uptake of both vaccination and screening. Although I recognise the anguish that led Fiona’s family to start the petition, I hope they can see that our understanding of this terrible disease and its cause opens up new and better approaches to eliminating cervical cancer in this coming decade, so that other families do not suffer the loss that they are going through.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I would not normally make the Front-Bench contribution for the Opposition virtually, but I am afraid that I, too, have been pinged by the NHS app, so I am beaming in live from Nottingham. I thank my fellow pingee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for securing the debate through her role on the Petitions Committee. The points that she made about testing have been a common thread throughout the debate, but she also mentioned the impact of covid, which I will reflect on shortly.
The petition has received close to 150,000 signatures, which is frankly an incredible effort. As well as showing the strength of feeling on this important topic, it is a physical demonstration of the legacy and impact of young mother Fiona Mathewson, who tragically lost her life to cervical cancer last April, at the age of 30. I send my best wishes to the Mathewson family—Andrew, Harry and Ivy. I lost my father to cancer when I was Harry’s age, and I know the impact that it has on a family. I hope the Mathewson family can take comfort from the incredible campaign that they have run, and from the way that they have been able to turn such awful grief into positive action. It is because of them and because of Fiona that we are here today. I hope they have seen that across the debate all four countries of the UK have been represented with very thoughtful and impressive contributions, starting with their own Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). He mentioned the twin giants of prevention—screening and HPV jabs. I, too, will reflect on those.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) was very generous with her personal experience, and we are glad that it has had the ending that it has had. It might make people watching the debate think about a screening they have missed, whether it relates to their cervical health or otherwise. That is a really important lesson that people have taken from her, and I know that she inspires people in that way.
Important points were also made by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) around health equity, particularly in the lesbian and bisexual community but also around those who suffer from sexual violence. We really must ensure that we tailor our messages and the way we contact people, in order to understand their different circumstances. They may present in different ways or need different support, and we would always want that support to be available to them.
As always, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) brings her experience as a senior oncology pharmacist. She knows much about the impact of cancer on people’s lives and how to design cancer services. When we talk about covid in the cancer space, we generally talk about missed screenings, the backlog or late presentation, but she made an important point about the mental impact. It is hard for me to imagine what it is like to be called for a smear test, but she talked about hurdles getting in the way and said that this is very big hurdle that can make people set it to one side. That point was very well made and linked to what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said about the importance of effective communication.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) talked about the importance of brilliant British science, which is something we have seen clearly over the last 16 or 17 months. We need to back our brilliant British science companies, in order to get the best possible outcomes for ourselves here in Britain, and around the world.
As we have heard, every year in the UK around 3,200 people get cervical cancer and Cancer Research UK estimates that 857 people died of cervical cancer in 2018. While the incidence rates have not fallen significantly in the last two decades, the good news is that mortality rates have continued to fall, especially among older patients. Since the beginning of the 1970s, the mortality rate has dropped from 10 women per 100,000 to approximately 2.5 per 100,000. That is significant progress that has saved the lives of many women.
The NHS cervical screening programme is a huge part of this, with the NHS estimating that it saves 5,000 lives a year, which is truly wonderful. In 2019, HPV primary screening was added to the programme, replacing cytology, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) said—a major step that the NHS believe has the potential to eliminate cervical cancer by spotting earlier those 14 types in the HPV infection that combine to be the main cause of cervical cancer.
Earlier diagnosis makes such a difference; quite simply, it saves lives. Where the cancer is diagnosed at stage 1 or 2, one-year survival is over 90%, which drops to 75% at stage 3 and 50% at stage 4. Data from the National Cancer Intelligence Network also shows that the cervical cancer three-year relative survival rate is higher among people diagnosed by screening than by any other route. If there is a message to come out of today’s debate it is the importance of screening.
We know there is scope to improve in this area. Exciting new advances using mRNA, gene therapy, artificial intelligence, combination therapies, robotics and many more, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, will transform our care in cancer. As we restore services affected by the pandemic, we should not be looking to restore what we had 18 months ago, but to embrace new developments and build new pathways of care.
On screening frequency, which this petition relates to, cervical screening in England is offered to the cohort aged 25 to 64. While routine screening is now offered every three years up to the age of 49, and every five years between the ages of 50 and 64, the UK National Screening Committee has recommended that for those who test negative for high-risk HPV, the interval can be extended to five years. I understand that this will be implemented once necessary IT developments allow it. Can the Minister confirm when that is likely to be?
I fully sympathise with and appreciate the arguments for more screenings that have been made in the petition. Any lives saved strengthen the case far more than anything I can say, but I strongly believe that it is right that this decision is made by the experts on the UK National Screening Committee and not by us politicians. Where clinical evidence supports their decisions to screen at the intervals they say and not to extend testing to 18-year-olds, which I know there have been calls for, then we support that.
Beyond that, the Government must do more to increase take-up and ensure that all those eligible for a cervical smear test attend their appointments when they are invited or as soon afterwards as possible. We must also ensure that preventative measures, such as the vaccination, get out into secondary schools and are fully taken up. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s reflections about further plans to develop this, because we know we are not getting it quite where we want to.
The aim is for 80% of women to access their test, with 75% being considered acceptable. In the year prior to the pandemic, it was 72%, a little bit up from 71.9% the year before. That is not where we want it to be and we must do something different. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower said, the pandemic has worsened the situation.
Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust estimates that around 600,000 cervical screenings failed to go ahead in the UK in April and May 2020. NHS England’s own data shows that no clinical commissioning group screened over 80% of eligible women in the third quarter of 2021. These numbers are people who could be living either with high-risk HPV or with cancer itself and do not know it yet. I hope that the Minister will expand on the data to paint a fuller picture of the situation as she sees it and to share with us the steps for how these services will be caught up, so that we can reach those who have missed out.
To conclude, those who raised this petition deserve real commendation for their excellent efforts. I am sorry that perhaps the evidence is not pushing us in the direction that they have encouraged us to take. However, I hope that when Harry and Ivy are teenagers, they might look back on this debate—perhaps wondering why we are all beaming in from different parts of the country, in our own bedrooms or in other rooms in our homes—and see that this was a galvanising moment for politicians to come together across Great Britain and Northern Ireland to improve screening rates and the uptake of the HPV vaccine. I also hope they see that, as we went forward, we embraced improvements in technology and cancer care, and that, as a result, we got more and more brilliant outcomes for women in this country. I hope that when they look back in many years’ time, they will be very proud of their role, and the role of their family and their family friends, in achieving that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
First, as I think everybody else has done, I thank those who initiated this petition in Fiona Mathewson’s memory, and I join others in extending my sympathy to Andrew, to Ivy, to Harry, to Caitlin and to Fiona’s broader family, as well as to the 3,000 individuals in Kelso and across the borders who signed the petition.
Like other hon. Members, for example, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), I know how frightening it is to be given this kind of diagnosis, but I can only imagine the impact on Andrew and the loss that he feels. However, if I may say one thing, it is that this debate today is in itself a huge legacy for Fiona, because we are discussing sensibly what we need to do to help women. We are talking, as many people have said, about something that is often seen as a little bit embarrassing. In response to the points by hon. Members that we must improve take-up, I could not agree more. However, we will not achieve that by not talking about some of the challenges that exist.
Cancer screening is crucial and I thank each and every Member who has shown their support for it and contributed to today’s debate. It was eloquently introduced by the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), as the Petitions Committee allowed us to have this conversation across the United Kingdom. The simple fact is that screening saves lives and that is why we need to drive uptake. As we have heard, screening can prevent cancer from developing. It can catch cancer earlier and, as we know, the earlier people are diagnosed the better the outcomes, because there is a greater chance that treatment can be successful.
Thanks to the tremendous work of dedicated screening staff up and down the country, the NHS cervical screening programme reaches about 4.6 million women in England every year and currently saves about 5,000 lives. However, we have heard repeatedly that only about 70% of women actually take up the opportunity, for a plethora of reasons. If everybody did attend, that number of lives saved would be closer to 7,000. More lives would be saved, so when a woman receives an invitation to attend a screening appointment, I encourage her to go.
As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) said, if you notice anything amiss, such as bleeding after sexual intercourse, between periods or during menopause, discuss it with a medical professional. Do not wait—it is your body and just treasure it. I say that because screening is one tool, but that knowledge of yourself is another tool that you have to access treatment quickly. NHS services are open, safe and ready to help you. That is another thing that has come through: I want to reinforce the fact that the NHS is open and the services are safe. You must come forward when your invitation for an appointment.
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) talked about some of the challenges faced by the lesbian and bisexual community in accessing appointments, but we also need to recognise some of the challenges faced by our trans community, especially trans men, in accessing appointments. Many of them are not sent reminder letters because of administrative policies at GP services. Will the Minister look into that to ensure that everyone with a cervix who is eligible to attend a screening receives a reminder?
Jo Churchill
Indeed I will. I would be happy to write to the hon. Lady, because I have looked at that issue. If there is a chance that someone may have abnormal cells, they should get them checked out. The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) spoke about making sure that we reach those communities who would not necessarily come forward, for a number of reasons.
The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) spoke, as several did, about using technology better, and about the challenges of screening and the health inequality that there is in certain communities for access to screening. I have met NHS England several times about that, to think how we can use that technology and different avenues—I will speak in a minute about the self-sampling sample.
We have to think differently about how we encourage women, because not every woman will come forward in the same way. We have different pressures on our lives at different times. Perhaps we are not as good at the younger end, because people think, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd said so eloquently, “I didn’t think it would happen to me.” Perhaps they have a young family or are busy at work. All those things mean that we have to make it as easy as we possibly can to access screening wherever you are and in whatever form suits you, because there are also cultural barriers for some not only to cervical screening but to breast screening, where they are hesitant to come forward.
Jim Shannon
I referred to my wife, who had some difficulty making the appointment. What she did was talk to my mum. I feel women talking to women is much easier. We should not always push to the back of the queue, for instance, a family member having a substantial discussion. Sometimes it starts with a discussion, before they go to the hospital. It very important to have family members around to support and give advice.
Jo Churchill
I could not agree more. We heard earlier that a good group of friends can give someone that nudge when they are feeling a little hesitant. As Members said, it is not the greatest outing of an afternoon, but it can be one of the most important appointments that you may keep, so I urge you to keep it.
I want to assure all women that screening staff are excellently trained to ensure that they feel reassured and comfortable. For those who feel anxious, there is information available online to help them plan their appointment. As many have done, I would like to commend the work of Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust in raising awareness about what cervical screening entails and how important it is.
Let me turn to the nub of the debate—why screening is not offered on a yearly basis. Currently, cervical screening in England is offered to individuals between 25 and 49 every three years, and between 50 and 64 every five years. For those aged 65 and over, screening is offered if one of the last three results detected any abnormalities. Although health, including how screening is delivered, is a devolved matter, the debate has shown that wherever we are in the country, we need to ensure that health is a priority. We automatically transfer data on a woman’s history to the devolved authorities in Northern Ireland and Wales. I think it was the hon. Member for Gower who raised the question of how we work with devolved authorities: that information goes automatically to Wales and Northern Ireland, but it is still a manual process with Scotland, and work is in progress to make sure we get there.
As I have said, this matter is devolved, but as others have said, we all follow the expert advice of the UK National Screening Committee. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire pointed out how important it is that we follow the advice of a central body, and in 2015, the UK NSC recommended that a test for HPV be used as the primary screen, because 99.7% of cervical cancers are caused by the high-risk HPV types. I could not agree more with one hon. Member—I apologise; I do not remember who it was—who said that we should talk about HPV in a normal, non-stigmatising way. We should have a conversation: it is important that we talk about those things that affect our bodies, to enable people to seek treatment and do something about them. If HPV is detected, you are referred for further testing. Cells are tested for abnormalities and, if present, you are tested again to see if treatment is necessary. If not, a follow-up appointment is always made for the following year, and if HPV is not detected no action is required, because it is highly unlikely that any abnormal cells are present and the chance of developing a cancer within five years is very small.
That process has been in place since December 2019, and since March 2020 in Scotland. It has made cervical screening more effective, improved detection rates and, crucially, requires women to be screened less frequently: there is a very salient point that the more often something is required, the risk that it is not taken up becomes greater. Making sure that we have the best tests at the best time interval, advised by the experts, is how we will proceed. However, that is not to say that all the technologies aptly described by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, as well as others that are available, are not being looked at all the time in all these areas. If there is a positive from the pandemic, it is that we have moved forward in many areas of technology, and as several Members have said, we need to harness that.
Given the strong link between HPV and cervical cancer, the national HPV immunisation programme is a key way to save lives. Introduced in 2008 and extended to boys in 2019, those vaccines have already led to dramatic reductions in HPV infections in England, and it is hoped that immunisation will eventually eradicate HPV and save hundreds more lives each year. The past year has been a challenging one, but as soon as the pandemic hit, we charged those in charge of the scheme with making sure that they had caught up with HPV vaccinations in schools by this August. They have used schools, community centres, and so on to make sure we do not fall behind on what is such an essential part of the programme—we know about the protection that it gives.
I do, however, acknowledge that screening is not perfect: HPV infection or abnormal cells can be missed, and can develop and turn into cancer between screening tests. That is incredibly rare, and the science supports the hope—I have this hope—that with the introduction of HPV testing and vaccination, many more cancers can be detected and prevented. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) spoke of self-sampling, as did others. I am incredibly interested in this proposal. The YouScreen trial currently taking place in London is sending home-testing kits to some of those who have not taken up the offer of screening, making sure that we offer it to women who might find other environments difficult to be part of—because of time or a whole range of reasons—and who may prefer to do a simple swab test in their own home. That is what this trial is designed to do. It is particularly targeted at disadvantaged groups who may not have attended screenings.
As I say, there are busy lives, there is embarrassment and there are cultural barriers, so making sure we push that forward is important. There are plans for a nationwide trial to offer self-sample kits to women as an alternative to a nurse taking the sample. I have asked my officials to keep me informed of the trials. I eagerly await the UK NSC’s analysis once the trial is complete, and the subsequent recommendations on how self-sampling may be incorporated into the cervical screening programme.
I think we all agree on the need for women to come forward. I thank hon. Members for the tone of the debate and for how everybody expressed their concern that we make sure that we get to those women. I reassure people that, while we did indeed cancel those invitations early on in the pandemic, there is currently no national backlog of people waiting for an invitation to the NHS cervical screening programme. We have been working with and supporting providers to work above pre-pandemic levels to manage diagnostic backlogs. Waiting times for some appointments have increased in some areas, and in those areas specifically we are working with Public Health England’s screening quality assurance service and the relevant clinical commissioning groups. The problem is not everywhere, but I am aware that there is a problem in certain parts of the country.
I thank everyone for their contributions, and I express my sympathy—I know I speak for each and every Member here—to Fiona’s family and friends. The most effective way to prevent deaths from cervical cancer is for as many women as possible to attend their routine appointments, as opposed to yearly screening. Cervical screening undoubtedly saves lives, so once again: when you receive the invitation, please go, and if you notice any worrying symptoms in the meantime, contact your GP. NHS services are open, safe and ready to help you and help keep you safe. You have to help us by attending, so that the screening programme reaches as many as possible and we can drive that rate up into the sort of levels that mean we can prevent each and every woman from having what is, in effect, a preventable cancer.
Tonia Antoniazzi [V]
I thank the Minister for her response. I also thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for his contribution. As Andrew Mathewson’s MP, he made a heartfelt contribution on behalf of Fiona’s family and all her friends. In the really powerful and very personal speech of my great friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), we heard about the serious risks that missing a screening can cause. Her story is a stark reminder of the importance of keeping appointments and being tested regularly.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) touched on many of the groups that are less likely to attend their appointments and the Government’s duty of care to improve messaging to those in harder-to-reach communities. In fact, in her intervention on the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd highlighted the fact that non-binary and trans men should not miss their cervical screening appointment, and that it is important to record biological sex on medical records to ensure that that does not happen.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was very clear in his message that screening is not a test for cancer but a test to prevent cancer. That is a really important message to get across to all women. My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) highlighted the fact that not one trust in England achieved 80% coverage of the test. He highlighted the work of Hologic, a cutting-edge company in his constituency that specialises in high-volume population screening. We need to take full advantage of that resource when beating cancer.
I echo the call of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford): if you have vaginal discharge or bleeding, go and see your GP—not your MP—and do not wait for an invitation. She also mentioned the 30% to 4.5% reduction as a result of the HPV vaccine. She noted the difficulties that physically disabled people have in attending their cervical smears. The Minister spoke about the self-sampling project that is going to be rolled out nationwide, which is going to be key to getting as many women as possible to attend cervical screening tests. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) drew on his vast knowledge of health issues and made a powerful case for building back better our screening capabilities and using all of the available technological advances that have been mentioned today.
In conclusion, I thank the Minister for her comments. I am glad that Members, cross-party and from all of the devolved countries of the UK have been able to discuss this issue sensibly. The bottom line is that we must improve take-up and we must talk about it, because screening saves lives.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 317336, relating to cervical screening.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Would colleagues please leave the room via the door marked “Exit” and observe social distancing? Thank you again to our excellent technical teams.
Amnesty for Undocumented Migrants
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
Hon. Members should be aware that social distancing is no longer in operation, but I remind you that Mr Speaker has encouraged us to wear masks. I also remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of Westminster Hall debates, and Members are expected to remain for the entire debate. Members participating virtually should leave their cameras on for the duration of the debate and must be visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall clerks at westminsterhallclerks@ parliament.uk. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 567681, relating to an amnesty for undocumented migrants.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. The petition calls on the Government to
“grant an urgent Amnesty to Undocumented Migrants living in the UK.”
It attracted 103,440 signatures, and I thank each and every one of those people for participating in our democracy by signing the petition, which has led us to debate this very important issue.
It is clear that covid-19 has added a bit of impetus to the decision to sign the petition. There has been concern about the ability of undocumented migrants to get access to a vaccine, which is of benefit both to them and to the wider society, because we know that people are less likely to transmit the virus when they have had the vaccine. That seems to have given the petition a bit of added impetus, because having an unstable existence is made even more challenging through covid-19. As for many things, covid-19 has made a challenging situation more challenging, so I can understand the decision of 103,440 people to sign the petition.
In terms of what the petition calls for, it is as simple as granting an amnesty to all undocumented migrants living in the UK, except those who have a criminal record. The petition was quite clear that if someone has a criminal record, they should not be the beneficiary of the proposed amnesty, but I have to say that there is not much more detail than that. I assume that the petitioners want to treat every undocumented migrant the same, regardless of whether they are someone who has been living here for over 10 years and who has put down extensive family roots, or somebody who, quite frankly, arrived here last weekend on a dinghy from Calais. That is something that the petition is missing, because there is no clarity. I can only assume that the petition is essentially referring to every single undocumented migrant. I also assume that it would be a one-off amnesty for all undocumented migrants, but I am unsure about whether the petitioners wish it to be something that happens routinely—for example, every five or 10 years. That is also not clear. What is clear is the desire to regularise the status of all undocumented migrants, which is what we will be debating today.
The arguments in favour of the petition are clear. There are many individuals and families who have come here as undocumented migrants. Some may have come illegally in the first instance. Some may have come here legally, but the legal time that they are allowed to be here has expired and they are looking to regularise their position. It is a combination of both of those. However, there are many who are making a positive contribution to our country in difficult circumstances. At the moment, it is a very challenging situation for them.
There is also an argument that, by regularising their status, it actually leads to their paying more taxes, which is beneficial to the taxpayer. I have some sympathy with the argument that says we should treat people a bit differently if they have been here for 10 or 12 years and have put down extensive family roots. Is it really realistic, or likely, that the Government will deport migrants at that stage? It is incredibly unlikely. If we are of the view that it is incredibly unlikely that we are ever going to deport migrants in those circumstances, there does seem to be a strong argument that we should regularise their status, and perhaps an argument could be made for an amnesty. However, in terms of the arguments against, and in relation to the petition, I simply cannot support treating a family who may have been here for more than 10 years the same as somebody who came here last weekend in a dinghy.
We also cannot make assumptions about every single person who is in the undocumented migrant category. The reality is that there will be some people who have come into this country through an illegal route. We do not know whether they are genuine refugees; it is impossible to know whether all of them will be. Among them there will be some economic migrants, so ultimately those individuals would likely be the beneficiaries of the blanket move as suggested by the petition. That is something that I cannot support.
If we were to support a blanket amnesty for every single undocumented migrant, it would be impossible to sustain that position while at the same time not being in favour of open borders. I find it very difficult to understand how you could support an amnesty—and potentially have one regularly, every five or six years—and not support open borders. As a Member of Parliament of this country, I would never support open borders. It would put unsustainable amounts of pressure on our public services. There would be all sorts of problems with social integration if migration was unmanaged to that extent. It would also limit our country’s ability to show compassion towards the most genuine refugees and to have a laws-based, rules-based immigration system that allows us to welcome the brightest and the best who want to come to this country to make a positive contribution. More to the point, it would be a slap in the face for all of those people who have moved to this country legally and who have followed the—often cumbersome—rules. They have followed them. They have done their side of the bargain. They have moved here legally. This would be a slap in the face to them.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Does the hon. Member know that a lot of the people that we are talking about, undocumented migrants, have come here legally? They are undocumented not through any fault of their own. Does he accept that?
Tom Hunt
With the greatest respect to the hon. Member, I did make the point that the proposal would apply both to those who may have entered the country illegally and to those who may have entered legally but for a fixed period of time that has expired. Yes, it is a mixture. That is why I am against a blanket amnesty. It would be a significant movement away from the case-by-case approach that the Government are currently taking, which takes into account the differences between cases and the nuances of different circumstances. An amnesty would not do that.
Yes, some of the individuals who would benefit from an amnesty would be those who came here legally but whose time has expired, who are struggling with the process, who have been here for 10 years and who are making a positive contribution. However, it would also include those people who have shunned the laws of our country, who have deliberately come here illegally and who, frankly, have no more right to be here than the families or individuals who are patiently waiting to come here legally. That is the reality of the situation.
We are also talking at a time when the Government are dealing with the significant challenge of the illegal crossings from Calais—
Tom Hunt
No, I am not going to take another intervention. That is a situation in which individuals, regardless of their circumstances, are knowingly deciding not to engage with the legal process for claiming asylum or to immigrate here in a legal way, but to shun that legal approach and come here in an illegal manner. The danger of a blanket amnesty is that it would send out a message to all of those people who come over illegally and fuel an evil trade in human lives. It would potentially make the situation a lot worse. The money fuelling this evil trade in human lives would increase and potentially more lives would be put at risk, because if we adopted a position such as the one set out in the petition, which is very close to an open borders immigration policy, essentially the message would be: “Once you’re in, you’re in. So get over here, ignore the processes, because it’s worth the risk”. The risk is very real; it could lead to the loss of lives.
Anne McLaughlin
Would the hon. Member be surprised to hear then that his own Prime Minister has toyed with the idea of exactly what is being called for in this petition—an amnesty for anybody who has been here for a certain period of time? The Prime Minister has also talked about it recently.
Tom Hunt
With the greatest of respect, if the hon. Member has read the motion in the petition, she will see that that is not what this petition is calling for. It mentions nothing about being here for 10 years. Essentially, it is a blanket amnesty for every single undocumented migrant. People across the political spectrum have floated and supported the idea of a limited amnesty targeted at those who have been here, say, for over 10 years. As I said earlier in my speech, I believe there are some merits in those arguments.
However, this petition is not calling for such an amnesty; it is calling for a situation that sits very closely to an open border policy, in my view. I think it would lead to chaotic results, unintended consequences, unsustainable pressure on public services, problems with social integration and, as I also said earlier, it would limit our capacity to promote a compassionate, generous, rules-based immigration system and approach to refugee resettlement, which could benefit this country and which, I believe, is supported by the majority of people in this country.
That is sort of the wider picture. Of course there will be examples of where the status quo fails individuals and individual families, and we need to work with that system to improve its efficiency and how quickly it deals with these cases, so that it can turn them around as quickly as possible and get people the outcome they need as soon as possible, so that they can plan their lives with certainty. Of course, that is something that I support.
However, the current Government position is that if someone has been in the country for a long period of time, there are opportunities to regularise their status. Nevertheless, I think it is appropriate and fair that that is done on a case-by-case basis, because we cannot make huge generalisations with regard to those who come under the category that we are talking about today, because the motors vary and the circumstances vary enormously.
In conclusion, although I sympathise with the reasons why people have signed this petition and their concern about the circumstances that many people face at the moment, the petition is not focused enough in what it is calling for. To me, it is calling for a blanket amnesty for every single person, many of whom have come here illegally and shunned the legal process. It would be a slap in the face for those who have come here legally, and there would be serious unintended consequences.
If the hon. Members taking part in this debate believe in this petition as it stands, they should run with that policy in a manifesto in a general election. There would be a resounding answer from the British people, namely that they would not support this proposal. The vast majority of people in this country see the benefits of immigration and are compassionate towards refugees, but they want a rules-based system and this petition would fly in the face of that.
For all those reasons, I would be unable to support this petition, but I am glad that this subject will have a good airing today. Having looked at the call list, I predict that perhaps we will hear some arguments being raised that are different to those I have raised. There probably will not be much reiteration of the arguments I have just made, until perhaps the end of the debate.
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
I will put on an informal time limit of five minutes at the moment and we will see where we get to with that.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) [V]
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie.
Undocumented migrants are not some enemy of the state; they are not a risk to this country. The vast majority of them are desperate people who are keen to work and secure a future for themselves and their families. It is with that in mind that they must be given the legal right to live and work in the UK, which will give them the chance to prosper in this country and stand on their own feet, rather than being treated like criminals.
It is obvious that the majority of undocumented migrants are in some form of work, albeit illegal and, in all likelihood, exploitative. I strongly believe that such migrants will have undoubtedly honed their skills and developed their knowledge and experience since they first moved here, and that they are all desperate to contribute to this country. At a time when UK employers are suffering from the most profound labour shortage in a generation, we should turn to a hard-working, talented and resilient resource that already exists here in the UK—undocumented migrants.
Far from the picture painted of them by some Members, a recent Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants survey estimates that 82% entered through legal routes and later fell out of status. According to the research, a migrant on the 10-year route to settlement will have paid £13,000 in application fees by the time they are granted indefinite leave to remain. The sheer cost and complexity of this broken system forces those who are here legally to then become undocumented. Once they fall out of status, it is extremely difficult and unlikely that they will receive it a second time.
This bewildering system limits the life chances of our most vulnerable and puts them at risk of rank exploitation from rogue employers and those who seek to prey on the defenceless. Under the Government’s hostile environment, their situation has become even more precarious.
I was shocked and disturbed by the report of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism last week, which showed that most GP surgeries in the UK refused to register undocumented migrants in spite of NHS policy. Not only is that position cruel and denies them the help that they desperately need, but it holds back our aim of vaccinating every adult in the UK and of beating this hideous disease. That policy puts us all at greater risk. I wrote to the Home and Health Secretaries on that point, which they ultimately agreed with, so pressure must now be put on the GP practices.
Amid the despair, there is still great hope among migrants. During the recent annual refugee week at the end of June, I took part in a Working West London employment event hosted by East London Advanced Technology Training, which offers training and skills development courses for refugees and migrants. I met a group who were crying out to contribute to this country, and I could see the rich array of skills, talents and passion that they have to offer.
Migrants play an important role in our society and are a statement of who we are. Not only are they people with aspirations and hopes, but they represent our values and demonstrate our humanity and decency. To the majority here in the debate today and the 100,000 people who signed the e-petition, it is clear that the Government must urgently reform our immigration system to prevent people from falling out of status, and must simplify the routes to regularisation. A commitment to an amnesty by the Government could only ever be the beginning of this, which should be swiftly followed by a fundamental reform of our immigration system and by ditching the hostile environment.
That change is not just the right thing to do. It will benefit this country and everyone living here. The Government must show some flexibility, pragmatism and humanity—principles that have long been at the heart of British policy making—and give undocumented migrants the chance to truly succeed in and contribute to our society.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) [V]
It is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. My speech will be quite short.
Most migrants to the UK have taken the trouble to apply properly through our immigration system. Here in Gravesend we live with highly successful immigration— notably, the Sikh community. But a blanket amnesty is not sensible if it applies to every undocumented migrant. Potentially, this proposal would allow tens of thousands of people—more perhaps—who are in the UK illegally to regularise their status. I entirely sympathise with their desire to build a better life, and I might do exactly the same thing myself if I were in their circumstances, but an amnesty like this would do nothing to reduce illegal immigration, which is what we are trying to do, and it would act as an additional pull factor to those wishing to come to the UK.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) points out, an amnesty like this is akin to having open borders. It means our immigration system would no longer be rules based. He raises the interesting point that if the Labour party put this in an election manifesto, it might not be a vote winner.
Finally, I entirely support any effort to attract undocumented people to vaccination centres without fear.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for opening the debate and laying out the strongly-held opinions on both sides of this debate.
It is important for us to have a sensitive and nuanced debate on this important issue, because there are hundreds of thousands of undocumented people in our country. If we do not engage with or discuss this subject, we create bigger problems for our society. I want to focus on those who face severe exploitation because they have found themselves as undocumented migrants in our country.
I have no truck, as I am sure most in our country do not, with those who are deliberately and wilfully flouting our legal system and breaking the law in this country. However, I am interested in what we can do to protect and support those who arrived in this country, often through legitimate means, according to the JCWI, and found themselves becoming irregularised.
In many of our constituencies, there are countless examples of people facing violence or being trafficked, and of women facing domestic abuse. They sometimes arrived on spousal visas and then faced huge amounts of exploitation. Although people who face domestic violence can apply to stay in the UK even if their spouse does not sponsor them, they often do not pass many of the requirements, because if they do not have police reports and so on, it is difficult to prove to immigration officers that they have faced domestic abuse and violence.
This is a complex area for those who face exploitation and who are vulnerable. I have met many individuals who have faced those sorts of issues and, although we may have different views about the text of the petition, it is important to build a consensus around those who are particularly vulnerable and who should be given an amnesty.
Since the pandemic began last year, the issue of what we do with undocumented migrants, what healthcare provision they get and whether they have access to covid vaccines affects all of us. That is why it is a no-brainer to look at some of these issues carefully and to think about how they benefit us as a society, in terms of healthcare and protection for all of us. We have already heard about some of the issues around vaccination programmes and people being fearful about going to get vaccinated. Many GPs require people to register with them in order to access vaccines. There are one-off vaccination offers to undocumented migrants, but that is not comprehensive. On the public health benefits for the whole of society, to combat the pandemic we need to ensure that the estimated 800,000 to 1.2 million people who, according to the JCWI, are undocumented in our country, are given protection.
What should we do going forward? As the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) said, as recently as earlier this year the Prime Minister said that when people have been here for a very long time and have not fallen foul of the law, it makes sense to try to regularise their status. When he was Mayor of London, he talked about an “earned amnesty” for some 400,000 people who live in the capital. It is important that we look at how to address this issue in a sensible way that does not lead to a pull factor, which many have raised concerns about.
We want a managed migration process with legitimate routes for people to come here to make a contribution, whether to study, to work or to join family members, while recognising that some people came to this country over the past decade and beyond and, for different reasons, have found themselves in the irregular status category but did not break the law. Those are the people I am particularly concerned about—those who then fell foul of the system. I hope that we will look at how to protect people who have been exploited and trafficked and who have faced huge challenges in our country, and at opportunities for them to make a contribution to our economy, given that they have been here for a long time.
Although I do not agree with the exact wording of the petition, it is important that we look at how to protect those who have huge vulnerabilities and ensure that, in the middle of a pandemic, those who are not documented have access to vaccination programmes, testing and treatment for covid.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie.
My constituency of Feltham and Heston had the fourth highest number of signatories to this e-petition, reflecting—[Inaudible.]
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
Order. Can you speak up a little? I think there is something wrong with your microphone. We cannot hear you well at all.
Seema Malhotra
My constituency of Feltham and Heston had the fourth highest number of signatories—[Inaudible.]
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry, we simply cannot hear you. Try again, and if it does not work, we will come back to you.
Seema Malhotra
My constituency of Feltham and Heston had the fourth highest number of signatories to this e-petition, reflecting in my view—[Inaudible.]
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
Order. Again, I am sorry, but the sound is not working. We will have one of the engineers get in touch and we will come back to you. I call Ruth Cadbury.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Hosie. I think this is the first time I have served with you in the Chair—it is a great pleasure to do so.
The e-petition on undocumented migrants has been signed by over 900 of my constituents. It notes that:
“Undocumented Migrants are suffering in silence, with no access to adequate Financial support, or any help.”
I know from my casework and from listening to hon. Members’ speeches so far that, sadly, that assessment is far too accurate. Not only are they suffering in silence; their suffering is made worse by the careless, heartless and reckless Home Office, which continues to inflict a hostile environment on so many. They face long delays, irrational and inconsistent decisions, and inadequate legal support, especially for those with low or no income. Many of the people affected are victims of modern slavery. They are adults who came over as small children, or children joining the only family members they know are alive in this world.
The petition says that these people want to be able to
“live their lives as normal human beings and pay tax to help the UK economy”,
and we know that migrants who have legal status and are taxpayers are more likely to be net contributors to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs than the average person in our population. I am not saying that I agree with all the wording of the petition, but it is really important that it is debated today.
As the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants makes clear in its recent survey, 82% of people in the UK who are undocumented arrived through a legal route, so I will start by addressing the extortionate and unfair immigration fees that impact not only those who are undocumented, but all those who have to navigate our immigration system here in the UK. People accept the concept of paying a fee to cover the cost of the service, but it is simply unfair for the Home Office to charge excessive fees that go well beyond the cost of providing the service. The fees are disproportionate compared with those of other countries: the average cost of a regularisation application in France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and Germany is less than a tenth of its cost in the UK, and the cost of applying for permanent settlement in the UK is 20 times more than the average cost in those countries.
The Government keep increasing those fees. In 2014, the cost of a limited leave to remain application was £601; it has now risen to over £1,000 per person. For many applicants, that cost is multiplied by the number of people in their family. I know from listening to people locally that the costs are having a huge impact, and the JCWI rightly cites the high cost of fees as a major reason why people remain undocumented. These fees leave families in limbo, with the JCWI noting:
“Families who are unable to raise thousands of pounds every few years are at risk of losing their status and becoming undocumented, or forced to choose which family members maintain their status while others cannot.”
However, this debate is not just about fees, but about a wider system that is set up to create a hostile environment for undocumented migrants. We hear a lot of warm words from the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and junior Ministers about the Home Office’s change since the appalling Windrush scandal, but the hostile environment that the Windrush generation faced is still impacting so many people here in the UK, and the net number of people it ensnares only seems to be expanding.
Just this morning, we read in The Guardian of a Spanish woman who was less than a year old when she arrived in the UK. She has been sacked from her job in a care home because she is unable to prove she has a right to work in the UK. She applied for settled status before the deadline for EU citizens closed, but she is still waiting, and her employer has said that it was forced into this action because of the fines it faced. Of course, she will not be eligible to claim benefits until this is sorted out. This is yet another example of the awful hostile environment—a hostile environment that I fear is now going to impact on the millions of EU citizens living in the UK, including many in my own constituency.
I will finish by focusing on the real impact that these decisions and actions by the Home Office have. It is easy for us to become focused on numbers, but every number is a story of a family pushed into hardship, unable to pay bills or to cover the cost of food, and left in limbo. Many of these migrants have children who are UK citizens. We know that undocumented migrants experience domestic violence at three times the average national rate, yet the Government recently rejected an amendment to the Domestic Abuse Bill that would have sought to provide support to migrant women suffering from abuse. Once again, the Government’s rhetoric does not match the reality. This Government cannot claim to be compassionate or just until they end the hostile environment faced by my constituents and many others around the country.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and I congratulate the well over 100,000 people who signed the petition to secure this important debate. Indeed, many of my constituents have contacted me to raise their concerns, and more than 2,100 of them have signed this official petition.
In essence, those people are saying that they reject the Home Office’s hostile environment, and that what we need is a fair, transparent system that provides a safe harbour for those fleeing war, genocide, domestic abuse, violence and other forms of persecution—a system that has at its heart our true British values of compassion, justice and humanitarianism. They highlight that the UK system of asylum and immigration is mired in crisis. Although I am not advocating a policy of open borders, we do need a fair, rules-based asylum and immigration policy.
A recent report makes for grim reading. The Joint Committee for the Welfare of Immigrants published a report called “We Are Here” just a few weeks ago. I am sure the Minister has read it. The report looks at the routes by which people become undocumented. Often a small error, a period of illness, bad advice or mental problems can lead to someone becoming undocumented and entering a Kafkaesque nightmare of impossible bureaucracy, social exclusion and exposure to the criminal underworld. These are people who are bewildered, disoriented and traumatised and who often suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, and the system makes things worse for them.
We know that people without access to benefits and work are coerced into criminal activity or forced into dangerous work, but the pandemic has highlighted that, shamefully, undocumented migrants are also denied access to basic healthcare. The JCWI reports that they are scarred by the whole experience and are scared of seeing a GP, going to hospital or getting a covid vaccination, for sheer fear of arrest. I do not need to tell the Minister that this creates a danger to public health for everyone. There is obviously a huge unmet need for vaccinations. Is it not clear that the only people who the current system helps are criminals? We are fuelling exploitation and rewarding organised crime groups and people traffickers.
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has set out a series of entirely sensible policies: namely, new and simplified routes to status based on five years’ residence; British citizenship for children born in the UK; making visa renewals automatic and affordable; and scrapping the illegal working offence and creating a route to status through work.
What have the Prime Minister and his Conservative Government proposed instead? It is hypocrisy, back-tracking and hostility. The Prime Minister himself advocated the creation of a migrants’ amnesty when he was the London Mayor in 2008. In 2016, as Foreign Secretary, he called measures to give amnesty to undocumented migrants who had lived in the UK for longer than 10 years “economically rational”, but after raising so many people’s hopes, and when he has the opportunity as Prime Minister to make a real difference and ensure that it is easier and simpler for those who are undocumented to become regularised, he has done nothing for the last two years. It is just not fair for those who could make a huge positive contribution through taxes to our Exchequer, and who have to suffer excessive Home Office fees, as hon. Members have already highlighted, to have their hopes falsely raised and then cruelly dashed.
I hope the Minister will have the confidence to deviate from the notes prepared by Home Office officials and to engage with those points with the seriousness that they merit. He can end the uncertainty, which has devastating consequences for the lives it affects. Undocumented migrants who have been here for several years deserve clarity.
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
We will go back to Feltham and Heston and see whether we have any more luck.
Seema Malhotra [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie.
My constituency of Feltham and Heston had the fourth highest number of signatories to the petition, reflecting the humanity of our local community and our rich history of immigration and diversity. With over 150 languages spoken in Hounslow alone, our diversity is also our strength. Neighbours, colleagues, business owners and key workers come from all over the world and contribute to our local economy.
This important debate is focused specifically on action to support undocumented migrants. I support the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for consensus on how we move forward. Caritas Europa defines the challenge well, saying that while the fight against irregular migration has dominated the political agenda for years, undocumented migrants remain a sizeable population in Europe. The lack of regular resident status often goes hand in hand with a huge amount of suffering and vulnerability. Referred to as undocumented migrants or people without papers, these people may find themselves in a protracted limbo situation, living on the margin of society under continuous stress and anxiety, their basic rights often disregarded. As has been said, hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrants are being blocked from booking covid vaccinations, despite Ministers saying that everyone should have access to vaccines regardless of immigration status. As a result, we are all less safe.
This issue is not without complexity, but we cannot be without humanity and compassion. The current system locks people out of vital services—often families with children. Research conducted by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants shows that 82% of respondents to its surveys entered the UK through legal routes and later fell out of status. Expensive and stressful reapplication processes, which can cost more than £12,000 by the time genuine cases are granted indefinite leave to remain, push families into enormous debt that lasts for years. These extortionate fees are not a deterrent. Instead, they push people into exploitative work. These are people who are ambitious to do well for themselves, their families and their adopted country.
That was the case with Navin—not his real name—whom the JCWI noted became undocumented after he was wrongly advised by a lawyer that his leave was still valid. He intended to rectify this when right-to-work checks meant that he lost his steady job in a restaurant. He could not afford to pay the fees required to regularise the status of his entire family, leaving them all undocumented. He took on cash-in-hand work at a car wash. He was regularly underpaid or simply not paid at all, and feared that social services would take his children away if they found out about his situation. He said:
“My kids were born here, and I don’t know where else I would go. I’ve got nothing back in Mauritius at all, no family, no one I know. I left when I was young, a long time ago. Here I have my life, my family.”
In so many cases, falling out of status is due to situations outside the control of the migrant. JCWI’s research found that this can happen for a variety of reasons too, including relationship breakdown, domestic violence, poor legal advice, inability to pay those extremely high fees, or a simple mistake. However, once the migrant falls out of status, it can be difficult to obtain it again. The impact of falling out of status results in people being trapped in limbo. As in these stories, the vast majority of undocumented migrants have been settled in the UK for more than five years, or indeed 10, and arrived legally. The UK has the second largest number of undocumented migrants in Europe behind Germany. The insecurity and, often, destitution of these families has worsened through the pandemic, with many also dependent on food banks.
This intractable problem needs a different approach, which is why I believe it is time that the Government reformed the current system to create a simplified route to regularisation, so that migrants can access services, rent a home, work and pay taxes, and live a life free from fear. Addressing the damagingly high application fees alongside simplifying the process is an approach that has been taken in Ireland. According to the Institute for Public Policy Research, there are also precedents for an amnesty policy intervention. It is interesting that Greece, Italy and Portugal all implemented amnesty programmes in recent months. There is also clear economic evidence that if undocumented migrants can move out of informal employment and into more secure jobs, there are many benefits for wider society. According to The Economist, studies in America suggests that citizenship for its 11 million undocumented immigrants could boost the economy, with GDP rising up to $1.5 trillion over 10 years.
In conclusion, undocumented migrants clearly need a different way so that they and their families can move forward. The JCWI powerfully remarks that
“once someone becomes undocumented, the criminalisation of their everyday lives drives them into exploitation. Their voices are silenced, and they are unable to…tell anyone about their plight. Under the Hostile Environment, almost everyone who should keep them safe…is part of the system of immigration enforcement and surveillance trying to rip them away from their families”
and their homes. We need a sensitive, long-term solution to the undocumented migrants crisis. As a first step, we should simplify the process to make it easier for those who are undocumented to become regularised, and reform the extremely high fees, which mean that people cannot pay for visa applications. Surely, in the interests of our economy and effective administration, which covid now demands, and in the interests of humanity, there needs to be a much better answer to the issue of undocumented migrants.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) on securing this important debate, although I disagree wholeheartedly with what he had to say.
I congratulate the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition calling for this debate, including the more than 1,200 Leicester East residents. Although I wholeheartedly support the petition’s call for the urgent regularisation of undocumented migrants, with a safe pathway to citizenship after five years, I suggest politely that its use of the word “amnesty” is not quite accurate because it implies wrongdoing. The reality is that in nearly all cases undocumented people are not criminals but have simply fallen through the cracks of the Government’s callous hostile environment policies.
Last year I tabled an early-day motion calling on the Government to take immediate action to ensure that leave to remain is granted to undocumented migrants, irrespective of their nationality or immigration status, so that they can access healthcare, food and housing. The issue came to a head when it became clear that undocumented migrants would be left out of the vaccination programme. It was clear to many that we were only ever going to be as safe as the most vulnerable among us. Earlier this year, I pushed again, including with another early-day motion calling for undocumented migrants to be granted leave to remain so that no one is excluded from that necessary protection. Such exclusionary practices are not only morally abhorrent; they also undermine the whole purpose of a vaccine. While people and institutions discriminate, the virus does not. The only way for the vaccine to be effective is by ensuring that everyone is protected from the virus.
Most migrants enter the UK through legal routes. As we have heard, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants estimates the figure to be 82%. Every two and a half years, a migrant must pay thousands to stay. A migrant on the 10-year route will have paid £12,937 in fees alone. They will have been denied legal aid to seek legal advice about, or appeal the refusal of, their applications. If at any point they are unable to submit the right application at the right time and with the required fee, they will become undocumented. This is deeply unjust.
There are an estimated 1 million undocumented workers who lack any entitlement to support from the state and who are, therefore, entirely without funds to feed, clothe and house themselves and their families. For a demographic who already face uncommonly difficult challenges in their daily lives, the pandemic has only deepened fears over how to maintain an income, remain healthy or even stay alive.
Many undocumented people are destitute and live in the shadows, fearful of what would happen to them if they identified themselves. They cannot access healthcare, emergency shelter or food, nor report or seek protection from domestic violence, sexual assault, exploitation and other awful abuses. Following the Immigration Acts of 2014 and 2016, the invisibility in which undocumented migrants are required to live has led to many of their human rights being effectively denied by the criminalisation of their right to work and to rent housing, while limiting their access to healthcare, contravening article 25 of the United Nations universal declaration of human rights. For people forced to endure this level of instability, it is impossible to comply with any Government guidance on self-isolation and social distancing. It is morally and practically imperative that the basic needs of all those living in this country are met.
The tragic irony is that many undocumented people who live in constant fear of the British state work in the frontline services that the Government have been at pains to praise and even clap for during this crisis. We must ensure that all workers, regardless of their immigration status, are valued and protected as we rebuild our economy and society. It is essential that the Government take immediate action to ensure that leave to remain is granted to everyone in the UK, irrespective of their nationality or immigration status. All migrants, regardless of status, ought to be granted rights that respect their humanity and allow them to live with dignity and fully participate in society.
Hate crime has more than doubled since 2013, so it has never been more important for the Government’s demonisation of migrants to end. Together, we can build a society in which everyone is valued, no matter their country of birth. More than ever, what is needed is status now.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie.
Human beings are not illegal; first and foremost, they are humans. For me, that has to be the starting point of this debate and any debate about immigration. Over the last few days, I have been contacted by dozens of people from across Luton North asking me to speak in this debate, and I was glad to see that 446 people from across my constituency had signed this petition online. That shows the strength of feeling among many of my constituents, and our unifying belief in human rights, in particular for women and children who are fleeing from some of the most horrific circumstances across the world.
When someone is locked out of the system and shut out of safe and legal routes through the immigration system, they are unable to get a job, rent a home, open a bank account or obtain a driver’s licence. It is not an easy life. People living here who have come from abroad are considered temporary for a decade and must reapply for the right to remain in their homes and jobs every two and a half years. As we have heard already, each application costs thousands of pounds per person. At present, a migrant on the 10-year route to settlement will have paid £12,937 in application fees by the time they are granted indefinite leave to remain.
I am sure most Members here will have seen in their inboxes and casework the impact that this situation has on people’s family life and wellbeing. The 10-year route to settlement is the default rate for most categories of visa holders. If at any point during the 10-year period the visa holder is unable to submit the right application at the right time, they will be classified as undocumented. Research by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants found that that can happen for a variety of reasons, including relationship breakdown, domestic violence, poor legal advice, a physical or mental health crisis—for the applicant or one of their relatives—an inability to pay extremely high fees, or just a simple, honest mistake.
In this pandemic, we are currently seeing how the ability for everyone in this country to access healthcare is crucial to our country’s collective wellbeing. As a principle, healthcare should be free at the point of use in our country. This virus does not care what someone looks like or where they come from. If someone is living in poor conditions, or is too scared to get the vaccine because of what might happen to them or because they might leave a paper trail for the NHS, this virus will catch up with them. I pay tribute to all the vaccination hubs that are reaching out specifically to these overlooked groups.
In my role as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on hate crime, I and Lord Sheikh have been taking up the difficulties that undocumented people have faced during this pandemic, specifically around vaccination. I welcome the early announcement by the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment that people will not need an NHS number or a fixed address to get a vaccine. However, those are not the only barriers for people reaching out for help. I wrote to him in March to ask how his Department was actively reaching out to that incredibly hard-to-reach group. I am still waiting for a response, but perhaps the Minister can shed some light on that. I appreciate that everybody is busy, but from March is a long time to wait for a response to a letter from an APPG.
This debate is ultimately about our values as a country. I am not a fully-fledged football fan, but I am a fan of our England team because of who they are and what they represent—the kind of England that stands up for and alongside one another. But do our Government reflect that? Do our leaders treat other human beings as equals? Over the last 11 years we have seen a hostile environment for people from overseas grow in our country—a hostile environment where vans were driven around neighbourhoods, where people’s aunts, nans, grandads and uncles have lived for years, telling them to go home or face prosecution; a hostile environment where as many as 170,000 NHS heroes from overseas are still waiting for the refunds they were promised by the Prime Minister for the charges they have to pay to use the NHS that they work in and support; and a hostile environment where a person from overseas whose first language is not English is more likely to have contracted covid and more likely to have ended up in hospital over the last year.
Even today, a Bill being debated in the main Chamber would see our country turn its back on some of the most vulnerable people in the world. It risks breaching international law and lowering our global standard as a country even further, and it undermines global efforts to support victims of war and persecution, while criminalising even the Royal National Lifeboat Institution for saving people from drowning in the English channel. What have we become? A human being is a human being, and our responsibility to others is not determined by what passport somebody holds.
One of Luton’s strengths is its diversity. One can visit the whole world in one street. A dear friend of mine coined a phrase: “One town, many voices”. That is very true of where I live now. Our Government could learn a lot from Luton. It is time the Government stopped the divide-and-rule style of politics, because we are all the poorer for it.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
Before I comment on the speeches so far, I want to mention this. Today I visited the Crowne Plaza hotel in my constituency, which has housed asylum seekers for the last year. This weekend a young Sudanese man died at the hotel. I will not name him because I am not sure whether his family have been contacted yet, but I want to send my condolences and sympathy to all his friends that I met today. It exemplifies the precarious nature of the life of many of the people who come here to seek safety and security. We are not sure of the cause of death. There were reports this morning about the large numbers of young men who come here and go on to take their own lives. We need to learn some lessons and approach the issue with compassion. I have listened to all the speeches, and I do not think I can add to any of the recommendations that have been made, bar one.
All I can do is bring my experience to the debate. Sometimes these debates are no longer rational. They are delivered by emotions, including the emotions that I feel. I have been dealing with asylum seekers in my constituency for over 40 years, as an activist campaigning for our local law centre, or as a Greater London Council councillor, and then as the local MP. I have met hundreds of asylum seekers and hundreds of families. Their lives undocumented have been scarred and sometimes broken by the asylum system that we now have.
As others have said, the system is complex, slow, incompetent, inefficient, brutal and inhumane. And it is expensive, especially for those living in poverty because they have been forced by the hostile environment on to the margins of our society and because there is no access to legal aid. As someone has already said, most of the people we are talking about came legally into the country and went into the process but dropped out. In my experience, people drop out in many instances, first, because of appallingly poor legal advice, with people being ripped off and given expensive legal advice that was going nowhere, and, secondly, because of the huge mental health issues that they have faced, both through their suffering in their country of origin and in their travels here, and when they arrived here—a place where they thought they would find security and succour.
The issue around the fees is important because by criminalising work for these people, it means that they are exploited. In the cases I have dealt with, because work has been criminalised it forces them into illegal work, being ripped off and often not being paid. I have dealt with many women who have been exploited sexually as a result of their vulnerability, because their work is illegal. In some instances, when they have gone to the authorities and reported it, they have been picked up as an illegal. That is why people do not report and often do not identify the perpetrator of some of these appalling acts of exploitation and, in some instances, sexual violence.
I therefore agree with all the proposals that have been put forward by my hon. Friends. Some Members who have spoken today may not accept an amnesty. It has worked elsewhere, as others have said, and I think it should be considered, just as the Prime Minister considered it when he was the Mayor of London. I welcomed the statements that he made then. If people cannot go as far as that, my hon. Friends the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), along with others, have set out a number of reforms that are readily available to us and could transform the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who are living in our communities. They come here for safety and security, but they also want to contribute to the society of their host community.
One further reform that I would like the Government to consider is the scrapping of no recourse to public funds, because it is forcing people into destitution, exploitation and, in many instances, situations of vulnerability that put their health and their lives at risk. The plea from the people who signed the petition, nearly 4,000 of whom were my constituents, is the same that others have made in the debate today, which is that this system is not working, even on the Government’s own terms, because 99% of people are not intimidated by the hostile environment to return their countries of origin because they are so vulnerable there. If the system is not working, even on the Government’s own terms, now is the time for reform, and it is needed urgently because people are suffering and, as we have experienced today in my constituency, people are dying as well.
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
I call Anne McLaughlin, who has eight minutes.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
It is an absolute joy to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, even though we are not speaking about anything particularly joyous today.
I have just come from the House of Commons Chamber where right this minute, as we debate the suffering of undocumented migrants on these islands, the Nationality and Borders Bill is getting its Second Reading. It is a horrible piece of legislation that will discriminate against those who, according to the refugee convention, to which we are signatories, enter the UK legally but by boat. It will give preferential treatment to those who have been fortunate enough to be able to use the very few safe and legal routes.
The debate today is about undocumented migrants, stuck in legal limbo and trying to find a route to resettlement. What we are hearing is that even when migrants use those safe and legal routes, the state often continues to neglect, to discriminate and to punish, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation. A number of Scottish National party colleagues and I supported an early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) on the regularisation of undocumented migrants in May this year and many of my colleagues have spoken regularly about this issues.
As others and I have said, there can be numerous reasons why someone is undocumented. They might not be able to get legal advice or life might have got in the way, for example through a bereavement or an illness, theirs or that of someone close to them. They might make minor mistakes on their application. A friend of mine sent a copy of her wedding certificate instead of the original. Yes, it was her mistake but, instead of allowing her to rectify it, she had to go through the entire palaver again, including paying the fee again.
As several hon. Members have said, another big reason is that many are simply unable to pay the extortionate application fees, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). It is also worth noting that some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), spoke about people being trafficked to these islands.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) has spoken repeatedly about the costs for children registering their right to British citizenship. Most people would be surprised to hear that children born here are not automatically citizens. Indeed, they used to be, but that was repealed by the British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force in 1983. At least in 1983, a fee of just £30—that is equivalent to £100 today—was charged to register a child as a British citizen. That really raises the question about why the Home Office currently charges more than £1,000 for a migrant child, or even a child born here of migrants, to register. I appreciate that that is under review at the moment, but only because the courts are forcing the Government to look again.
I want to share the story of Paul—that is not his real name, of course—who is a constituent of mine from Nigeria. He was on minimum wage, so he was just getting by and no more, but he was doing a really good job of keeping a roof over his son’s head, and making sure that he was healthy and educated—all the things a good dad would do. He realised that his leave to remain was due to be renewed or considered, so he went to apply, only to discover that the cost was more than £2,000, which would have required him to save up £1,000 for every year of his leave to remain. That is just not possible on the minimum wage.
Paul’s leave to remain then expired, so he became an undocumented migrant, but he was doing nothing wrong. His employer had to let him go because he did not have the right to work. He had no recourse to public funds—I completely agree with what the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said about that—leaving him with no food, no electricity and rising rent arrears. He did not know what to do. He had no choice but to send his son to live with his mum.
By the time I met Paul, he was in a terrible state. He had been unable to face responding to the letters from his housing association, which was ready to evict him. When I contacted those at Spire View Housing Association, they could not have been more helpful. Reassured by the fact that I had had a meeting with the Minister to plead Paul’s case, they agreed to pause proceedings, and they then gave him money to get food and electricity. I really thank them for that, but it was all so unnecessary, as we have heard many times in the debate.
Here is the other problem: Paul got two and a half years’ leave to remain after the fee was waived. The first year of that was spent in lockdown, so understandably, he is still unemployed. In around a year’s time, he will again have to apply for an extension, and he will have to find another £2,500 or hope that the fees will be waived, but there is certainly no guarantee that they will be. If they are not, he will yet again be an undocumented migrant. With the best will in the world, if he gets another minimum wage job, it will not be possible for him to pay back his rent arrears, which have been clocked up through no fault of his own, and save that amount of money.
Paul’s was the first case that I took to the Minister, who sorted it out, to his credit. I thank him for that, but we cannot keep going to the Minister with every single case. That said, I will take this opportunity to highlight the case of another constituent, who contacted me at the weekend to say that because of an error, the fee for his wife’s spousal visa had been taken twice. He was told by the Home Office in November that it would be refunded within six weeks. He is still waiting. Last week, he was told for the umpteenth time that it would be with him in six weeks. To add insult to injury, each phone call he makes costs him £5 because of the 65p a minute charge. He really needs that £2,000. The Home Office agrees that it owes it to him, and I hope that when the Minister responds, he will offer to look into this urgently, as he did with Paul.
I can see you looking at me, Mr Hosie, so I will sum up. I urge the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt)—I went on holiday to Ipswich last year—to read what the Prime Minister actually said about the notion of an amnesty for undocumented migrants. As welcome as some form of amnesty would be for those who are currently battling for the right to remain, the system as a whole needs reform. The hostile environment is alive and kicking. After an amnesty, we would bear witness to a whole new generation of migrants being subjected to this endless cycle.
Let us reform the whole system root and branch, and save ourselves and them all this unnecessary grief. Otherwise, as the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) asked, what have we become?
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the 103,440 people who signed the petition, including 447 from my constituency of Enfield, Southgate, enabling the debate to take place. I thank the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for leading the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.
It is not often that I find myself speaking in a debate in which the Prime Minister has a different view from the official Government position, but this is one such time. On previous occasions, both as Mayor of London and as a Cabinet Minister, the Prime Minister stated his support for having an amnesty for undocumented migrants. Whereas the Government say that the immigration rules already provide for undocumented migrants to regularise their status, and that such provision would unduly reward those who have not complied with immigration law, that fails to recognise the reality of the situation. There are tens of thousands of people in the UK who are undocumented, and the Government are either unaware of them, which smacks of incompetence, or unwilling to deal with the problem.
As the Prime Minister pointed out in a radio interview on LBC in 2013, when he was Mayor of London:
“If you have been here for 10 or 12 years, I’m afraid the authorities no longer really pursue you. They give up. Why not be honest about what is going on? Ultimately, you have got to reflect reality. Otherwise they are not engaged in the economy, they are not being honest with the system, they are not paying their taxes properly and it is completely crazy.”
Expanding on the topics that the Prime Minister touched on, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants points out in its excellent briefing for the debate that, according to its research, 82% of those who are undocumented arrived in the UK via legal routes and have fallen out of status. That point was made passionately by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra).
The first point I wish to make is that the current immigration system, and its cost, is a factor in people becoming undocumented. Many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), mentioned the cost of making applications to become regularised. The prime route for acquiring indefinite leave to remain is 10 years of continuous residency, but people have to apply first for temporary leave to remain for two and a half years, then keep renewing it until they have acquired the 10 years. Applying for leave to remain is expensive—a successful applicant under this route will have had to pay a total of £12,937 in fees. The application process is very complex, and lots of evidence is required to be submitted. If someone slips up just once and does not submit the correct forms during the 10 years, they will become undocumented. As a consequence, adult undocumented migrants will be able to regularise their status only by applying for indefinite leave to remain, but they qualify for ILR only if they are aged 18 to 25 and have lived in the UK for over half their life. If they are over 25, they have to show that they have lived in the UK for more than 20 years and prove that they have strong ties to the UK and cannot relocate to their country of origin. Talk about making it tough for people to regularise their status. It smacks of a continuation of the hostile environment that was used mercilessly against certain sections of the community.
With undocumented migrants being denied access to work, accommodation and health services, they are easy prey for those who want to exploit them. As a consequence, they are driven underground, do under-the-counter work and are totally dependent on the shady individuals whom they now serve. The exploitation of migrants was excellently commented on by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). As the Prime Minister pointed out, if tens of thousands of undocumented migrants are working but not paying taxes, it will impact on the economy, so it is in everyone’s interest to ensure that urgent action is taken to regularise their status. It is not just the economy that would benefit—so would our public health, as it was only last week that we heard that, in some parts of London, undocumented migrants were being turned away from GP surgeries, where they were trying to get vaccinated against covid, because they are reluctant to give their names and addresses, for fear of being arrested. Meanwhile, those who were turned away are not putting just themselves at risk. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) and the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) pointed out, they risk spreading the virus among the wider community.
The Home Office does not know even roughly how many undocumented migrants are present in the UK, and it was heavily criticised for that by the Public Accounts Committee in its September 2020 report, “Immigration enforcement”. Another problem that the Government face is that they have hollowed out the immigration enforcement system. As such, they have effectively outsourced the service to the general public, leaving it up to landlords, employers and the NHS to notify the Government if someone is undocumented. The National Audit Office last did an estimate of the number of undocumented migrants living and working in the UK in 2005, and it put the figure at 430,000. There has been no official assessment of the number since then, so not only do the Government not know the scale of the problem, but even if they did and these figures are still accurate, they could not do much about it.
Can the Minister tell me whether the Home Office has made any assessment of the number of people who are currently here and are undocumented, and what the Government’s plan for tackling this issue is? The Minister will no doubt say that anyone who is here and is undocumented is here illegally, but if the Government know this, what are they doing about it? Even the Prime Minister does not believe that the Home Office will detain and deport 430,000 people, so we have a perfect storm of the Government being aware of a problem and being unable and unwilling to deal with it, with tens of thousands of people living and working in the UK undocumented.
The petition proposes an amnesty for all undocumented migrants, but a more comprehensive approach would be to focus on an accessible “route to regularised” system and meaningful reforms to stop people from falling out of status, as mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). This will offer a longer-term solution to the problem. I note that the Irish Government are currently looking at new plans for a fairer pathway to regularisation for undocumented migrants with a period of four years’ residency in Ireland. The current methods of regularising status in the UK are onerous and cumbersome, and need an urgent overhaul. In addition, the exorbitant level of fees for visas is scandalous, and clearly another barrier designed to make it harder for people to regularise their status—a continuation of the Home Office’s malevolent hostile environment.
I therefore ask the Minister whether, as this problem is not going away any time soon, the Government will make it easier for undocumented people to have their status regularised, and what the long-term plan for addressing the problem is. It is surely in all our interests that the basic needs of everyone here are met, and that— undocumented or otherwise—everyone can contribute safely, openly and without fear to our communities. For that to happen, we need to see change.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for having opened this debate—opening a petition debate is always quite a challenge, compared with others. It has been an interesting debate, and I will attempt to respond to the points that have been raised. However, I hope colleagues will appreciate that with eight minutes in which to speak, it is unlikely that I am going to cover the full gamut of our immigration rules and our position in this area.
My first point is to reflect on comments I made at the Dispatch Box last year at the start of the pandemic. I made very clear that for those approaching the NHS in relation to covid-19—either exhibiting symptoms and therefore looking for treatment, or looking for vaccination —the information they give will not be used for the purposes of immigration enforcement. Their status will not be checked: that is not a relevant consideration if they are approaching the NHS for treatment. We not only encourage people to come forward for vaccination, but have facilitated those who have arrived irregularly to access vaccination services. Given some of the stuff that exists on the internet about this, and given some of the comments we have heard throughout the debate, I want to make very clear that such treatment is in line with how those people would have been able to access vaccinations if they had been a UK national, now that vaccination is available to everyone over 18. From a Home Office perspective, the NHS’s operations to tackle the pandemic are not items that we will look to use for any purpose of immigration enforcement.
It might be helpful if I set out some of the background on the issue we have been debating today. First, it should be noted that the definition and coverage of this group is complex: the term “undocumented migrants” often interchanges with “illegal” or “irregular” migrants. As evidenced in this debate, it can include illegal entrants, who have perhaps arrived in the back of a lorry; overstayers who have stayed beyond the term of their visa; failed asylum seekers whose claims have been declined; those not adhering to the conditions of their stay; and even those who remain in the UK without status, but whose situation is temporary and who intend to leave in short order. For today, I will include all of those groups in our definition.
Secondly, there is no current, reliable and accurate estimate of the number of those without status who are resident in the UK. As my shadow, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), touched on, the last official Government estimate was made in the mid-2000s, when the population was believed to be around 430,000. In 2009, a report by the London School of Economics estimated that the number of irregular migrants was around 618,000. An obvious part of the problem in formulating an accurate estimate is not just calculating and agreeing on the different groups this population involves but the fact that, for obvious reasons, many of them will not come into contact with the Home Office or make their presence known here in the UK. The petition proposes an immediate amnesty for all those groups provided that they do not have a criminal record.
Kevin Foster
I will not, as I have less than five minutes and this has been a lengthy debate.
The Government remain committed to an immigration policy that welcomes and celebrates people who are here legally but also deters illegal immigration. We want to encourage people with skills and potential from around the world to make the UK their home and help make the UK a dynamic global economy, but we must not reward those who exploit the system and break the rules. We must also prevent the abuse of benefits and services paid for by UK taxpayers and disrupt the criminals who exploit and profit from the vulnerable, who will be tempted to use dangerous and irregular routes to get here if they can see a clear reward at the end of it. That is right both for the British public who pay for welfare services and for those wishing to visit and settle in the UK who played by the rules.
The Government recognise that we have a responsibility to help the vulnerable and have established several schemes and programmes to assist those most in need. One example is the work that we have done to resettle genuine refugees fleeing directly from regions of conflict and instability and to provide the necessary support to help them build a life in the UK and integrate as self-sufficient members of our society. In the past six years, the Government have offered protection to 25,000 people in this way—more than any other country in Europe in that period—through a planned resettlement scheme. That is in addition to welcoming a further 29,000 people through refugee family reunion between 2015 and 2019. We have also recently introduced a new pathway to citizenship for British national overseas status holders and their family members facing draconian new security laws in Hong Kong, with an estimated 5.4 million people potentially being eligible for the scheme.
We believe that a fair and balanced system is about guaranteeing integrity in the UK’s immigration system. We must support those in need, but we must also make sure that there is a cost for those who intend to break the rules, as have Governments of all colours since the introduction of our modern immigration system, despite some of the comments we have heard today.
The proposal to offer amnesty to all those without permission to be in the UK undermines the integrity and effective working of the UK immigration system. To recognise the stay of those who have wilfully and deliberately broken our laws is first and foremost an affront to those who have done the right thing and migrated here lawfully and contributed by paying visa fees and the immigration surcharge. An amnesty for those not playing by the rules could prove divisive for those groups who feel an injustice when they have complied with our policies, and it is safe to say that it is unlikely to build public confidence in the migration system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said, it would certainly be interesting to see the public reaction if such a policy were included in an election manifesto.
The debate is about not just the impact of those ignoring our migration rules and refusing to leave but making sure that the public feel that there is confidence in the system. Why would someone bother to apply for status or renew their visa if they knew that they could just stay and be granted that status anyway? A point ignored by the petition and by some Members is the fact that the immigration routes already provide for undocumented migrants who have not broken the law except for by remaining in the UK without lawful immigration status.
Kevin Foster
I have less than two minutes, I am afraid. I appreciate that you wanted to give people time, Mr Hosie, but as the Minister I have only eight minutes to wind up, which is pretty short.
People who fear the situation in their country of origin may choose to claim asylum, and there is no cost to that. Those with qualifying family members who are present and settled in the UK can apply under the family rules, for example where there is a qualifying partner and insurmountable obstacles to family life continuing outside the UK. The private life rules provide for those who have been in the UK for a particularly long time to regularise their status. That said, we are in the process of reforming our immigration rules and, as many Members may be aware, I have met the group We Belong to discuss the current process for those who arrived here as children or were born here but did not qualify for British citizenship. We aim to simplify the settlement rules in the near future, as part of our wider work on the new migration system, which will include some changes in response to the points raised by that group, and we will reduce the number of people ending up on the 10-year route to settlement. We accept that too many people are on that route.
I have had to give a fairly short summary of the Government response, but we do not believe that granting an amnesty, as proposed by this petition, would be appropriate. It would undermine the rules—actually, it would make the whole creation of rules pointless if people could just ignore them and get status anyway.
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
I call Tom Hunt for a brief winding-up speech.
Tom Hunt
The hon. Lady should not worry. As I was saying, it has been a pretty balanced debate in which we have heard both sides of the argument. I also think that there is a shared concern for the individuals in question. However, this is a very complicated issue, with unintended consequences.
It seems to me that very few Members agreed with the petition’s call for pretty much a blanket amnesty for every single undocumented migrant. However, I think there is space somewhere for a very important debate about how we can potentially do something in this area.
Obviously, one of the real concerns is what amnesties might mean in terms of encouraging future illegal crossings. In some respects, if the Opposition supported the Bill going through Parliament today and if that Bill were enacted, as I hope it will be, they might think that the public were in a much better place to have a debate about a reasoned amnesty and pathway for citizenship because there would be public confidence that, in doing so, we were not fuelling illegal crossings from the continent. That may be, at some point, where we get to: if there is confidence that we have a rules-based immigration system and we are confident that we are in a better position to tackle illegal crossings and make determinations about the people who aspire to live in our country, perhaps at that point we could have that important debate about amnesties.
Actually, there are some shortcomings when it comes to an amnesty for those who have been here for over 10 years. I said that I saw some of the arguments in favour of that, but it is a complicated issue.
Clearly, though, this has been a productive debate. This issue needs to be debated much further; I am sure that it will be. Again, I thank the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition. Hopefully, they will feel that, at the very least, the issue—in a general sense—has had a good airing and been thoroughly debated today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 567681, relating to an amnesty for undocumented migrants.
Written Statements
Companies House Corporate Targets 2021-22
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Lord Callanan, has today made the following statement:
I have set Companies House the following corporate targets for the year 2021-22:
Complete and up to date data
Ninety seven per cent. of companies on the register will have an up-to-date confirmation statement.
Digital service availability
Digital services will be available for a minimum of 99.9% of the time.
New services
Develop a new online journey for submission of confirmation statements.
Develop a digital filing capability for insolvency transactions.
Customer satisfaction
Be in the top quartile of public service organisations for customer satisfaction.
Diversity
Increase the number of staff recruited to Companies House from under-represented groups by 10%.
Delivering value
Manage expenditure within budgetary limits.
Spending with small and medium businesses
Fifteen per cent. of spend will be spent directly with small and medium businesses.
[HCWS191]
Covid-19 Business Regulatory Easements
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
The challenges faced by the UK, and other countries across the world, since the pandemic began have been substantial and many businesses have experienced unprecedented disruption. In the face of the threat of the virus the Government acted rapidly to provide support to protect businesses, individuals and public services across the UK, and have adapted their economic response as the pandemic has evolved. Our plan for jobs has supported jobs and businesses with over £400 billion of economic support, from generous employment support schemes to tax cuts, deferrals, loan schemes and cash grants.
Alongside financial support, the Government took the extraordinary step of temporarily relaxing a wide range of rules and regulations to make it easier for businesses to continue working through the disruption caused by covid-19. These easements cover a variety of areas, including capacity market easements, competition, and the suspension of liability for wrongful trading, among others.
As we have successfully progressed through the stages of the road map we have reduced many of the restrictions that have been in place over the last 15 months. And the progress we have made on the road map means that many of the rules that were relaxed can be reinstated.
While the phenomenal vaccine roll-out has offered every adult some protection against the virus, and the crucial link between cases, hospitalisations and deaths is weakened, the global pandemic is not over yet, and cases are currently rising across the UK. This means that vigilance must be maintained and people will be asked to continue to act carefully to manage the risks to themselves and others. There will still be high levels of infection and illness and therefore disruption to lives, businesses and the economy.
We are therefore retaining or extending some of the regulatory easements. This is necessary where they continue to provide flexibility to businesses while they feel ongoing impacts from covid-19, including on workforce absences, and where relaxed rules will enable them to recover, helping to reinvigorate the high street and boost consumption.
We will be publishing the details on the easements that will expire or be retained on www.gov.uk shortly.
The relaxation of these rules will be reviewed again in autumn at which point the Government will consider the status of these measures for further extension, permanent retention or expiry.
Ministers will continue to review the measures at regular intervals as needed thereafter to provide certainty to business and ensure that the appropriate regulatory environment is in place as required. A separate process is being taken forward for the measures protecting businesses from eviction, insolvency and debt recovery, which has been outlined in an oral statement by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on June 16.
Better regulation framework impact assessments
The Government introduced a significant amount of emergency legislation responding to covid-19 and we recognise that there may be a risk that current better regulation framework requirements might lead to disproportionate administrative burdens on Government Departments, particularly on the retrospective validation of temporary emergency legislation that is extended to be in force for 12 months or more.
For emergency covid-19 legislation which is exempt from the business impact target (BIT) under the “civil emergencies” exemption we have decided to relax the administrative requirements set out in the better regulation framework for full impact assessments to be undertaken and scrutinised by the Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC). This relaxation of the policy requirement covers time-limited measures only. As a matter of policy under the framework, impact assessments are still expected for other emergency measures which are not temporary, even if they are non-qualifying measures under the “civil emergencies” exemption, and so not legally required to be supported by an impact assessment. Such impact assessments are to be submitted to the RPC in the normal way. The statutory requirement for measures exempted in this way from legal requirements for IAs to be verified as such by the RPC remains.
This adjustment of requirements will remain in place in advance of the wider reform of the better regulation framework completing.
[HCWS192]
Hospitality Strategy: Reopening, Recovery, Resilience
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
On Friday, I published a hospitality strategy to support this vital sector.
The hospitality sector contributes significantly to the economy and plays a leading role in supporting local communities, high streets and city centres across the country. However, it has been one of the sectors hardest hit by the pandemic.
The impact of the covid-19 pandemic on a sector that exists to bring people together was always going to be significant. That is why the Government’s £352 billion package of support included specific and targeted help for hospitality businesses. Despite this, over the course of the pandemic, hospitality businesses have largely been operating at a loss.
To support the sector’s bounce back, we have developed a forward-looking strategy that sets out the Government’s long-term vision to help businesses on their road to recovery and beyond. This will sit alongside and support other Government strategies and plans, including the build back better high streets strategy and tourism recovery plan.
We have worked closely with sector partners and businesses to develop an ambitious vision for the sector which reflects the aims of returning the sector to its pre-pandemic health, supporting wider economic recovery and creating thousands of resilient and dynamic businesses for years to come.
The strategy recognises the vital role that hospitality businesses will play in the UK’s economic recovery, to society and the levelling-up agenda.
[HCWS190]
Loss of Secret Documents: Update
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
On Friday 16 July 2021 my noble Friend the Minister of State, Baroness Goldie, made the following written ministerial statement in the House of Lords:
On 28 June, the Minister for Defence Procurement noted that an investigation had been launched into the loss of MOD classified documents; and undertook to inform the House of its conclusions. That investigation has now concluded. The investigation has independently confirmed the circumstances of the loss, including the management of the papers within the Department, the location at which the papers were lost and the manner in which that occurred. These are consistent with the events self-reported by the individual. We are confident that we have recovered all the Secret papers. The investigation has found no evidence of espionage; and has concluded there has been no compromise of the papers by our adversaries. The individual concerned has been removed from sensitive work and has already had their security clearance suspended pending a full review. For security reasons, the Department will be making no further comment on the nature of the loss or on the identity of the individual. The Department takes protection of its information extremely seriously and will continue to take firm action in response to such incidents.
[HCWS194]
Digital Identity and Attributes Consultation
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
I am pleased to inform the House that the Government are today publishing a public consultation on enabling legislation to strengthen digital identity use for the whole economy.
More and more people, in all walks of life, are using products and services online. People expect these transactions to be simple, quick, safe and personalised. However, people in the UK often still have to use a combination of paper documents issued by Government, local authorities and the private sector—and a mixture of offline and online routes—when opening a bank account, claiming benefits, starting a new job or applying for a school place. And these steps often need repeating for each new transaction.
Voluntary online authentication, identity and eligibility solutions can increase security, ease of use and accessibility. They are central to transforming the delivery and efficiency of public services and people’s ability to operate confidently in an increasingly digital economy.
The Government are committed to realising the benefits of digital identity technologies without creating ID cards. We have committed to put in place the necessary framework and tools so that digital identity solutions enhance privacy, transparency, confidence and inclusion, and that users are able to control their data, in line with the principles published in the 2019 call for evidence response.
In our response to the call for evidence, we committed to enabling businesses and individuals across the economy to use digital identities securely and with more confidence. This is only achievable by putting in place a legal framework and regulatory infrastructure.
The consultation DCMS is publishing today follows up on that commitment. It sits alongside the UK digital identity and attributes trust framework, which was published as a first draft in February 2021, opening the way for legislation. Digital identity legislation is needed to underpin a governance framework in law, to enable Government to allow checks by industry against data it holds, and to create confidence in the validity of digital identities. We have worked extensively with industry, civil society, and academia to get to this point.
The consultation sets out our plans to create a digital identity governance framework. Creating a governance system which can build trust in digital identities is vital. This trust will drive innovation and growth in the UK economy and good governance will ensure that the digital identity and attribute principles are upheld.
We are also consulting on our intention to create a permissive legal power for Government-held attributes to be checked safely and securely by non-public sector organisations for eligibility, identity, and validation purposes. This will allow digital identities in the UK to be built on a greater range of trusted datasets and ultimately provide people with a choice of how they use this data to prove their identity.
Finally, we are proposing to establish in law that digital identities and digital attributes can be as valid as physical forms of identification or traditional identity documents. This builds on our commitment to enable the use of digital identities in as many areas as possible and to build confidence in their validity.
Further details can be found in the consultation, available here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/digital-identity-and-attributes-consultation.
A copy of the consultation will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS197]
School Rebuilding Programme
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
I am confirming details of the next 50 schools to benefit from the 10-year school rebuilding programme announced by the Prime Minister in June 2020. I am also confirming the launch of a public consultation on the approach to prioritising schools for future places on the programme.
The school rebuilding programme forms part of the Government’s plans to build back better, supporting teachers in England to deliver a high-quality education, so that pupils gain the knowledge, skills and qualifications they need to succeed.
It is also an important commitment to investing in construction sector jobs and skills, including apprenticeships and T-Level placements, helping drive growth as we recover from the covid-19 pandemic. The programme will have a continued focus on modern methods of construction and provide opportunities across the industry, including for small and medium-sized enterprises.
As with the first schools announced in February, this second group of schools have been prioritised based on the condition of their buildings. The projects include primary and secondary schools, as well as special and alternative provision schools. This also represents a substantial investment in schools in the midlands and north of England, with 32 out of 50 projects located in these regions.
The new school buildings will be energy efficient designs with high sustainability standards that will be net zero carbon in operation and mitigate the risks of climate change.
The 10-year programme will continue to target school buildings in the worst condition across England, and today we have published a consultation on the approach to prioritising schools for the long-term programme. Responses from this consultation will help to shape the way we identify the buildings most in need of replacement or significant refurbishment. The consultation will be open until 8 October 2021.
Alongside the rebuilding programme, the Government have committed £1.8 billion in financial year 2021-22 for maintaining and improving the condition of the school estate.
Further details, including lists of the school rebuilding projects have been published on www.gov.uk. Copies will be placed in the House Library.
[HCWS199]
Three-year School Funding Settlement
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Today I am confirming provisional funding allocations for 2022-23 through the schools, high needs and central school services national funding formulae (NFF). The allocations distribute the final year of the three-year school funding settlement that the Secretary of State for Education announced to Parliament on 3 September 2019. Core school funding increased by £2.6 billion in 2020-21, and is increasing by £4.8 billion and £7.1 billion in 2021-22 and 2022-23 respectively, compared to 2019-20.
These allocations are part of the annual funding cycle. They are separate to the three major interventions we have made to support education recovery in response to the covid-19 pandemic—over £3 billion in total. All of that support for recovery will be provided on top of the funding allocations announced today for local authorities and schools.
Funding through the schools NFF is increasing by 3.2% overall in 2022-23, and by 2.8% per pupil. The NFF will distribute this funding based on schools’ and pupils’ needs and characteristics. The main features in 2022-23 are:
The core factors in the NFF (such as basic per-pupil funding, and funding for additional needs such as deprivation) will increase by 3%.
The funding floor will ensure that every school is allocated at least 2% more pupil-led funding per pupil compared to its 2021-22 NFF allocation.
The minimum per pupil funding levels will increase by 2%, compared to 2021-22. This will mean that, next year, every primary school will receive at least £4,265 per pupil, and every secondary school at least £5,525.
Support for small and remote schools (through the “sparsity” factor) will receive a further increase. In 2022-23 the additional funding that such schools can attract is rising to up to £55,000 for primary schools, and up to £80,000 for secondary schools—in both cases, a £10,000 increase from 2021-22. We are also moving to using road distances instead of straight line distances when measuring a school’s remoteness. This will significantly increase the number of schools attracting this funding. As a result, the funding allocated through the sparsity factor is increasing from £42 million in 2021-22 to £95 million in 2022-23.
High needs funding is increasing by £780 million, or 9.6%, in 2022-23—following the over £1.5 billion increase over the last two years. This brings the total high needs budget to £8.9 billion, an increase of over a third since 2019-20. The high needs NFF will ensure that every local authority receives at least an 8% increase per head of population, with some authorities seeing gains of up to 11%. This vital extra resource will continue to help local authorities manage their cost pressures in this area, while the Government remain focused on completing the cross-departmental review of the SEND system to ensure that it supports children and young people with SEND as efficiently and effectively as possible.
Central school services funding funds local authorities for the ongoing responsibilities they continue to have for all schools. The total funding for ongoing responsibilities is £284 million in 2022-23. In line with the process introduced for 2020-21 to withdraw funding over time based on the historic commitments local authorities entered into before 2013-14, funding for these historic commitments will decrease by 20%.
The provisional NFF allocations published today will be updated, based on the latest pupil data, to produce final allocations in December that local authorities will receive through the dedicated schools grant.
Local authorities will continue to use that funding to determine final allocations for all local mainstream schools. In parallel with the changes being implemented for 2022-23, the Government are in the process of consulting on how we complete our reforms to the schools NFF in the longer term—whereby funding allocations for individual schools are determined by one single national formula, rather than 150 separate, different, local authority formulae.
[HCWS200]
Covid-19 Vaccines
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment (Nadhim Zahawi)
The independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has published its advice on the vaccination of children and young people. Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) has accepted this advice and all four parts of the UK expect to follow the JCVI’s advice and align their deployment in each nation.
JCVI’s advice is based on currently available data and is kept under review as new data emerges, the JCVI has advised that the Government:
Maintains the existing eligibility criteria for 16 to 17-year-olds;
Offers vaccination (for operational flexibility) to all 17-year-olds who are within three months of turning 18;
Offers vaccination to 12 to 15-year-olds with the underlying health conditions specified below:
severe neuro-disabilities,
Down’s syndrome,
underlying conditions resulting in immunosuppression, and
those with profound and multiple learning disabilities, severe learning disabilities or who are on the GP learning disability register.
Offer vaccination to 12 to 15-year-olds who are healthy but are household contacts of individuals (adults or children) who are immunosuppressed. The purpose of this is primarily to protect the household member who is immunosuppressed (16 to 17-year-old household contacts are already offered vaccination).
Through the covid-19 vaccines programme, we have administered over 80 million vaccine doses in the UK, with recent Public Health England data suggesting that this has prevented between 6.4 and 7.9 million infections and between 26,000 and 28,000 deaths in England alone. The vaccine is the most effective way of protecting the most vulnerable and minimising hospitalisations and deaths. An early estimate from PHE suggests that in adults under the age of 40 a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine is 61% effective against symptomatic disease, and 72% for a single dose of the Moderna vaccine.
For children and young people, the risk of serious outcomes from covid-19 is much lower than for older people and we recognise that decisions on vaccination for this group are therefore much more finely balanced than for adults. The JCVI has been clear that for those children and young people with specified health conditions the balance of evidence is that they will benefit from vaccination.
With the deployment to these new groups of children and young people those out, I am now updating the House on the liabilities HMG has taken on in relation to further vaccine supply via this statement and attached departmental minute containing a description of the liability undertaken. The agreement to provide indemnity with deployment of further doses to the population increases the statutory contingent liability of the covid-19 vaccination programme for the only vaccine currently authorised for use in those aged under 18, the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.
It has been and remains the Government’s strategy to manage covid-19 until effective vaccine/s have been deployed at scale. Willingness to accept the need for appropriate indemnities to be given to vaccine suppliers has helped to secure access to vaccines with the expected benefits to public health and the economy alike much sooner than may have been the case otherwise.
Given the exceptional circumstances we are in, and the terms on which developers have been willing to supply a covid-19 vaccine, we along with other nations have taken a broad approach to indemnification proportionate to the situation we are in.
Even though the covid-19 vaccines have been developed at pace, at no point and at no stage of development has safety been bypassed. The MHRA approval for use of the currently deployed vaccines clearly demonstrates that this vaccine has satisfied, in full, all the necessary requirements for safety, effectiveness, and quality. We are providing indemnities in the very unexpected event of any adverse reactions that could not have been foreseen through the robust checks and procedures that have been put in place.
I will update the House in a similar manner as and when other covid-19 vaccines or additional doses of vaccines already in use in the UK are deployed.
HM Treasury has approved the proposal.
[HCWS201]
Developing Countries Trading Scheme: Consultation
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
This morning, the Department for International Trade will be launching a public consultation on its new Developing Countries Trading Scheme (DCTS). Post-Brexit Britain can now take a more ambitious, generous, and pro-growth approach to trading with developing nations. The proposed scheme aims to grow trade with lower-income nations, supporting jobs and growth across the globe and at home.
This consultation will make sure that the public, business, civil society, associations and other interested stakeholders can have their say on the Government’s approach to preferential market access for developing countries.
We intend this new scheme to be best in class, and have studied programs in Canada, the US, Japan and the EU, before designing a uniquely British offer which backs growth, enterprise and ambition.
This is a major opportunity to grow free and fair trade with developing nations, allowing them to diversify their exports and grow their economies, while British households and businesses benefit from lower prices and more choice. The new UK scheme will mean more opportunity and less bureaucracy for developing countries, for example by simplifying rules of origin requirements for the least developed nations.
The UK currently operates a similar scheme rolled over from the EU, but as an independent trading nation can now take a simpler, more generous, pro-growth approach to trading with developing countries. It would apply to 70 qualifying countries currently and include improvements such as lower tariffs and simpler rules of origin requirements for countries exporting to the UK.
For example, this could mean lowering tariffs on products including rice from Pakistan and trainers from Nigeria. Bangladesh and Vietnam demonstrated that increasing trade through schemes like this one have helped them grow their economy, improve living standards, and drive down poverty.
For instance, Vietnam’s exports to the UK more than tripled between 2009 and 2019 while poverty rates plummeted from more than 20% in 2010 to an estimated 5.9% in 2020. Today, it is a fully-fledged FTA partner. We want more developing countries to follow in their footsteps.
The online consultation opens today on www.gov.uk and will be live for eight weeks. It will be accompanied by an information note that sets out details of the existing UK preference arrangements. The new Developing Countries Trading Scheme will take effect in 2022.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/designing-the-uk-trade-preferences-scheme-for-developing-nations.
[HCWS193]
Independent Reviewer of National Security Arrangements: 2020 Report
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
The role of the independent reviewer of national security arrangements in Northern Ireland is to monitor compliance with annex E of the St. Andrews agreement, reviewing the relationship between MI5 and PSNI in handling national security matters. a: All Security Service intelligence, relating to terrorism in Northern Ireland will be visible to the PSNI. Clear evidence of successful collaboration. There is compliance b: PSNI will be informed of all Security Service counter terrorist activities relating to Northern Ireland. Regular and effective top-level meetings. There is compliance. c: Security Service intelligence will be disseminated within PSNI according to the current PSNI dissemination policy, and using police procedures. There is compliance d: The great majority of national security CHIS in Northern Ireland will continue to be run by PSNI officers under existing handling protocols. There is compliance e: There will be no diminution of the PSNI’s responsibility to comply with the Human Rights Act or the Policing Board’s ability to monitor said compliance. The new leadership of the Policing Board is now in place and the human rights advisor has been asked to investigate and provide reassurance to the Board. I look forward to a good working relationship with the new HR advisor.
His Honour Brian Barker CBE QC, the independent reviewer of national security arrangements in Northern Ireland, has sent me his report for 2020. What follows is a summary of the main findings of the report covering the period from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020.
His Honour Brian Barker states:
2020 was a most difficult year, overtaken by, and then submerged under, the covid-19 pandemic. It opened with good news: a functioning Executive and Assembly re-emerged after a three-year gap, in parallel with the publication of “New Decade, New Approach”. It closed, still under the shadow of the virus, with the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union.
The dominant focus faced by the community throughout was to cope with the uncertainties of lockdowns, and the consequences of the unpredictable spread of the pandemic; a combination that led to considerable unforeseen pressures and understandable anxieties in all quarters.
The last visit to Northern Ireland that I was able to make was in February for a Northern Ireland Committee on Protection (NICOP) meeting. The subsequent lockdown, the medical and social emergency and no predictable future pathway made any subsequent planning and conducting of the usual types of personal briefings and interviews impossible. The alternative approach adopted was to receive regular briefings from members of MI5 and PSNI during virtual NICOP meetings.
Dissident republican activity during the year was somewhat reduced due to enforced life pattern changes and continuing pressure from the security forces, as their leadership took stock. The number of incidents fell slightly compared with 2019. The overall picture in this area, sadly, had changed little. The threat from both dissident republican groups and loyalist paramilitaries remained, and some areas of the community continued to be subject not only to terrorist activities but also to unacceptable criminal acts and attitudes at a level which has almost come to be regarded by many as normal.
Nevertheless, a number of operations were successfully concluded and were marked with high profile court appearances of senior participants and the imposition of significant sentences. A major success was the co-ordinated arrest in mid-August of 10 individuals who have since been charged with a variety of terrorist offences following a long running and carefully co-ordinated joint operation between MI5 and the PSNI. Incarceration of key individuals will be a serious blow to dissident republican operations with the resulting loss of leadership and planning capability.
My meetings with senior members of MI5 and PSNI were restricted to virtual contact through secure links in the latter part of the year. It was apparent that the many extra health and operative difficulties faced by MI5 since April, in order to continue to function at the expected level, had been overcome. Benefits gained from regular meetings at senior level with PSNI and the continuing strides made in overall co-operation with a variety of agencies had led to significantresulting successes in the field. The overall impression was of effective co-operation having gone up a level, as working partnerships were strengthened and respective responsibilities better understood.
The dire circumstances faced by the PSNI on the ground, coping externally with administering changing regulations and internally with infection and shielding, had required a change in posture; but adaptation had been impressive and results and control overall had been encouraging. The decrease in activity had led to a sharp decline in arrests under terrorism legislation, compared with the previous year, but there had been an increase in the recovery of ammunition and explosives. The traditional marching events, following leadership advice and public appeals, were severely curtailed.
I was pleased to note that the Policing Board were able to appoint a new chair and vice chair in April and I look forward to the opportunity of meeting them. In the course of the year the Board published their new corporate plan and the new stylised policing plan 2020-2025. Their human rights advisor was asked to examine the challenges and response of PSNI to community activity (including Black Lives Matter demonstrations). The conclusions were generally positive given the difficulties, although with some reservations.
The annual statistics published in November for 2019-20 show that the powers of stop and search under section 47a of the Terrorism Act 2000 were not exercised. There were 179 premises searched under warrant under section 37 Schedule 5 of the same Act. There were 128 (down from 146) persons detained under section 41 of the Terrorism Act and 125 (98%) were held for 48 hours or less. 17 persons were charged with a total of 39 offences including two charges of murder, one charge of attempted murder, 15 charges of firearms offences, eight charges of drug offences and six charges of explosive offences.
A total of 26 (down from 34) persons were disposed of by non-jury trial, 18 of whom were found guilty of at least one charge. A total of 13 (down from 17) non-jury trial certificates were issued by the DPP. There was a total of 14 (up from six) persons convicted in the Crown Court under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Terrorism Act 2006 or the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. There were 465 (down from 1515) examinations carried out by police officers under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, all of these were examinations of persons, 34 of which resulted in a detention. No compensation or agency payments were made under section 38 schedule 4 of the Justice and Security (NI) Act 2007 where property was broken, destroyed or damaged or other private property rights interfered with.
The extent of my investigations, regrettably, have had to be extensively curtailed. However, in coping with extraordinary difficulties, I have good reason to believe that both MI5 and PSNI have maintained high standards and motivation and have achieved commendable results. The two major dissident republican groups undoubtedly suffered severe setbacks in what was a very successful year for the security forces. The danger remained of some sort of reactive show of strength, which fortunately did not materialise; and the minor groups continued to maintain a low profile. Police and prison officers continued to be regarded as legitimate targets and still had to face unacceptable risks. In pockets of the community intimidation continued, and although the figures for paramilitary shootings and beatings dropped, it continued to be concerning.
My conclusions, restricted by the exceptional conditions, in relation to annex E of the St. Andrews agreement are as follows:
Further to reinforce this comprehensive set of safeguards, the Government confirm that they accept and will ensure that effect is given to the five key principles which the chief constable has identified as crucial to the effective operation of the new arrangement:
[HCWS196]
Petition of Concern Mechanism: Third Report
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
I am laying before both Houses of Parliament the third report by the UK Government on the use of the petition of concern mechanism in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
As part of the New Decade, New Approach deal upon which devolved government was restored in Northern Ireland on 11 January 2020, the UK Government committed to undertaking such a report every six months.
This report covers the period from 12 January 2021 to 11 July 2021, during which no petition of concern has been lodged against any motion in the Assembly.
The fact that there have been no uses of the Petitions of Concern since the restoration of the political institutions is a positive reflection of the conduct of business within the Assembly. However, I want to take this opportunity to reinforce the importance of a stable, mature, functioning Executive and Assembly that is focused on addressing the issues that really matter to their daily lives.
The next UK Government report on the use of the Petition of Concern will cover the period from 12 July 2021 to 11 January 2022.
The UK Government are standing by their commitment to bring forward legislation that provides the necessary reforms to the petition of concern mechanism. The Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill has reached the Commons Report stage in its passage through Parliament. Once this legislation has completed its passage through Parliament and received Royal Assent, it is crucial that the Assembly reflects the detail of these reforms in its Standing Orders to ensure the full implementation of these aspects of the New Decade, New Approach deal.
[HCWS198]
Light Rail: Financial Support
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Light rail is a lifeline for many communities across the UK. During the pandemic, the Government have provided significant levels of financial assistance to the light rail sector through the Light Rail Revenue Grant and the Light Rail Restart Revenue Grant, supporting six light rail operators and local transport authorities in England outside of London, with over £200 million in funding since March 2020.
To date, Light Rail Restart Revenue Grant has funded up to 100% of pre-covid service levels, ensuring key workers have continued to be able to travel easily and safely as well as ensuring the public could access necessary amenities. Critically, as restrictions are lifted and passengers return, the light rail sector is important in helping local economic recovery, thereby supporting the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
To encourage passengers back, light rail services should be as available as they were prior to the pandemic. Without support, however, it may not be possible for operators to maintain the services they have provided up until now.
I can therefore announce that a further £56 million in financial support in the form of recovery funding has been made available for the light rail sector. Funding operators and local authorities from 20 July until the end of this financial year, this will succeed the Light Rail Restart Revenue Grant which ends on 19 July. This funding will support operators in adapting their commercial offerings to ensure the longer-term viability and self-sustainability of the sector and is intended to be the final tranche of covid-related support.
[HCWS195]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally.
Today, the social distancing requirements in the Chamber have been removed, but I strongly encourage Members to continue to wear face coverings while in the Chamber, except when speaking, and to respect social distancing in relation to the staff in the Chamber.
Royal Assent
Monday 19th July 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2021 View all Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, 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.
Cash Infrastructure
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have (1) to designate the United Kingdom’s cash infrastructure as critical national infrastructure, and (2) to introduce a universal service obligation for the provision of cash.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, designation of the United Kingdom’s critical national infrastructure is sensitive and, as such, not made public. However, the Government have committed to legislating to protect access to cash and to ensuring that the UK’s cash infrastructure is sustainable in the long term. On 1 July, the Government published a consultation which sets out proposals for new laws that seek to ensure that people need to travel only a reasonable distance to pay in or take out cash.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the future of financial services is digital, and that that future must be inclusive, accessible and empowering? At least until that future arrives, cash still matters materially to millions.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend. In fact, cash remains the second-most used payment form in this country. That is exactly why we have made this commitment to legislate and launch the consultation on our specific proposals, which we look forward to taking forward.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]
My Lords, cash is essential to many people’s ability to budget. I am sure the Minister is aware that cash machines that charge for use are often found in communities that have fewer alternatives for accessing cash. Can she assure this House that the proposed legislation will contain a requirement to ensure that cash is both accessible and free of charge?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, industry is best placed to develop the most efficient and sustainable solutions for access to cash. However, the legislation is proposed to set out geographic requirements so that people do not have to travel too far for access to cash. It will also make the FCA the lead regulator on consumer access to cash, ensuring that access to cash is reasonable—that should take into account vulnerable users and factors such as costs when looking at the provision in the country.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, the data tells us that cash usage is higher among higher age groups, those with mental health issues, those on lower incomes and other categories. Does the Minister agree that what works in terms of digital payments for some groups in society and proves financially viable for major banking institutions simply does not work for large numbers of people in a diocese of 3 million such as Southwark, and many others?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government believe that we need to make digital payments as accessible as possible, but we also acknowledge the continuing role of access to cash, particularly among some of the groups that the right reverend Prelate mentioned. That is why, as part of the consultation, reasonable access considerations will be given to the FCA to regulate, as I have said, so that people can have access to that cash. LINK, the UK’s largest ATM provider, has taken action to protect the distribution of free-to-use ATMs, including in deprived locations and more remote locations.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, as an independent non-executive director of LINK, I recognise the valuable work being done to help ensure that cash remains readily available right across the UK. What analysis have the Government made of the declining acceptance of cash by retailers, particularly in the hospitality sector, and are any measures planned to reverse that apparent trend?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, analysis has been done by the Bank of England which showed that 40% of people had visited a store that did not accept cash in the six months prior to January 2021. That is an increase on the January 2020 figure of around 15%. We are taking forward several measures; as part of this consultation, we will help businesses continue to accept cash by ensuring reasonable access to cash depositing facilities, as well as cash ATMs and withdrawal facilities. There was also an amendment to the Financial Services Act 2021 to allow for cashback without purchase, which will also support local cash recycling and continued cash acceptance.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, access to cash is part of the broader financial inclusion crisis. Will the Government empower the FCA and other regulators to set aside competition rules where it would lead to co-operation by financial institutions to fill the gaps—for example, with shared premises and staff and potentially shared machines and software?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I understand that a number of industry-led pilots are already under way which are taking forward the kinds of initiative that the noble Baroness is talking about, and they have been able to take place within the current competition framework.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Holmes that, for those without bank accounts, access to cash ATMs and to retailers which accept cash is crucial, and both are becoming rarer. Is there a role for the Department for Work and Pensions in helping pensioners who do not have bank accounts by issuing them with a prepaid card, topped up monthly, as it already does for universal credit claimants? This would give them financial inclusion and independence.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that all individuals have access to financial products, including a bank account, but the DWP recognises that some customers may be genuinely unable to open or manage a bank account. For those customers, payment is made via the payment exception service. My understanding is that this may already be available to a wider set of customers than the noble Lord referred to, but I will take up this point—as it is a very good one—with the DWP and get back to him.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, today another 12 sub-postmasters have had their convictions for fraud overturned, so would this be a good time for the Post Office to salvage its reputation by relaunching as a mutual with a cause of providing cash and the other services that communities need? Would the Minister agree with me that the “people’s bank” could be a useful step towards levelling up?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I think I join noble Lords across this House in being shocked at the outcome of these cases and the ongoing issue. The Post Office has an incredibly important part to play in the provision of access to cash and free-to-use access to cash. The Government’s intention is that that role will continue.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, cash is essential for all sorts of reasons—for children, charities, savers and budgeting, or just for some people wanting to split a bill at the end of an evening. But as it is a critical infrastructure, would the Minister confirm that it is covered by the National Security and Investment Act, such that a beady eye is kept on the IT behind its provision so that that does not fall into hostile hands? Could she also outline the steps the Government are taking alongside industry to ensure the security of the IT systems which underlie that access to cash?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as I said in my initial Answer, designation of the UK’s critical national infrastructure is sensitive. However, financial services more broadly are an area of infrastructure covered by CNI. In terms of operational resilience, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. In March, the Bank of England, the PRA and the FCA published a joint policy statement on operational resilience for the finance sector. This clarifies and sets new expectations for firms to improve their operational resilience and comes into effect from March 2022.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am much encouraged by my noble friend’s answers to date. But is she also aware that many companies appear to be quite actively discouraging the use of cheques and that many people wish to see them maintained?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government have committed to financial inclusion in all its forms. As I said, we are taking forward this action on access to cash. We also want to look at more modern methods of payment and make sure that those who may have trouble accessing them have help and that they are made as accessible as possible to everyone in the country.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that the Financial Conduct Authority should be given overall responsibility for maintaining a well-functioning cash infrastructure as part of its proposed new duty of care to consumers? Can the Government provide details of what discussions they have had with the regulator about it taking on this role and the additional powers it may need in order to do so effectively?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government propose that the FCA is the lead regulator for the provision of cash withdrawal and depositing facilities. There are other regulators that have a role to play in access to cash—for example, the Payment Systems Regulator and the Bank of England. The Government convene all those regulators together on a regular basis to make sure that they are all working together properly.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.
Covid-19: Aligning UK and Foreign Entry and Return Requirements
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blunkett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the governments of countries with (1) low levels of COVID-19 infections, and (2) a traditionally high number of visitors from the United Kingdom, to seek to align the requirements for (a) vaccination, and (b) testing on entry and return.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
I hope for the last time virtually, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and draw attention to my declaration on the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Government are working with a range of international partners to ensure a safe return to international travel while managing public health risks. We are taking a phased approach to amending requirements for passengers fully vaccinated through the UK programme and exploring plans to remove quarantine for non-UK residents arriving from amber countries from later this summer. The purpose of our inbound travel—[Inaudible]—while ensuring that our route out of the international travel restrictions is sustainable.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, at home and abroad, freedom day is in danger of turning into confusion day. Surely people should not be punished in any way for wanting, for business or for pleasure, to leave and return to our country freely. Clarity, consistency and some sort of understanding of the impact on our foreign relations would surely not only help but save our aviation and travel industry. Would the Minister agree that discussion with our friends could have led to an understanding of the constitution of the French Fifth Republic and avoided the need to invent amber-plus, thereby enabling us to be able to treat the French as they would treat us, given that our infection levels are pretty much at amber-plus?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Lord that we should be utterly committed to the route to sustainable, open borders. However, we cannot hide from the threat of infection from abroad. That infection comes from higher rates from abroad—the positivity rates of some countries have been in the high teens—but also the threat of variants of concern, particularly the vaccine-evading beta variant, which is highly prevalent in some countries, including, increasingly, France.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, the lack of co-ordination of regulations and announcements between the four Governments of the United Kingdom has been one of the worst examples of incompetence throughout these past 16 months. That is now particularly true in relation to international travel. Why is it impossible for these four Governments to agree one set of rules for people travelling in and out of the United Kingdom? What will the Government do to try to improve the situation, even if it cannot be resolved for the summer-?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am not sure whether I agree with the premise of the question. I pay tribute to the collaborative spirit in which the four nations have worked together. I have regular meetings with my counterparties—in fact I have one this afternoon—in order to talk about exactly this sort of co-ordination. The answer to the noble Lord’s question is, in the framing of the question, that it is not in my or the Government’s gift to manage this on our own; we depend on collaboration in order to have co-ordination.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the director-general of the International Air Transport Association has said that the Government now have
“no coherent policy on international travel.”
To prove him wrong, can the Minister state what data the Government are using to determine the positivity rate for the beta variant on mainland France, and what that data shows for the cases of the beta variant on mainland France?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord’s question has behind it a genuine dilemma. The amount of genomic sequencing in countries around the world is limited. No other country has the degree of genomic sequencing that we have here in the UK, and we do not have perfect vision of what variants of concern are present in other countries, including even in France. We work very closely with Governments, including that of France, to have access to whatever data they have—but, to an extent, we are operating with imperfect data.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, clearly, as international travel restrictions ease, co-ordination of travel rules will become imperative. In that regard, will the Minister impress on colleagues in government the good sense of Britain leading the way internationally in ensuring that vaccination records are carried in passports, to demonstrate the vaccine histories of those travelling? This will speed checks, make them secure and promote an international approach to vaccine-secure travel.
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that co-ordination of vaccine certification is a massive priority. We are working extremely closely, particularly with our close friends in America and the EU, to have mutual recognition of certification. Whether that certification is tied to the passport is up to the tastes of local countries. In the UK we are putting certification in the NHS app, and it feels right that that should be contained and limited to health records rather than national identity documents. However, each country will have its own approach.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has previously promised to look at the cost of tests for travel purposes, yet the very wide variation in price from the 402 providers the Government list on their website—most of them well over £100 per test—is surely quite confusing for the public when, essentially, we are talking about the same product, even if the details of provision may vary, and critically so. Will the Government look at this, and indeed at the costs themselves?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
My Lords, I do look at the costs and have regular meetings with the team to look at this. I pay tribute both to officials and to the industry for standing up an enormous number of tests. I believe that, between 30 June and 7 July, 182,137 tests of people quarantining at home were registered and processed, and 18,946 by those who manage quarantine. That is an enormous number and pays tribute to the industry. A variety of costs reflects a variety of different services and in itself is not a problem—but we are driving the costs down and the industry is responding accordingly.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, regrettably, we see the Covid border restrictions descend into further chaos with the last-minute U-turn on self-isolation requirements for fully vaccinated people returning from France. Once again, we see the travel industry and the British people paying the price. Will the Minister agree to publish the full data behind the traffic light system, and could he give his views on the stance of the World Health Organization, which has reaffirmed that it believes that proof of vaccination should not be required for international travel?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
My Lords, we are working with our partners to try to open up borders. There is a growing consensus that vaccination is an important component in opening up borders, and the Government generally support that. The virus itself chops and changes; we have to adapt in response to the growth of variants. I cannot promise that we will not act promptly and emphatically when the health of the nation is threatened.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
What advice can the Minister give to those who wish to travel to or from South Africa, or any other African countries which are popular with tourists?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
My Lords, as I mentioned earlier, we take the threat of the vaccine-evading beta variant extremely seriously indeed, therefore we are extremely cautious about travel to areas with a high prevalence of that variant.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My noble friend just stated in a previous answer that that Her Majesty’s Government aim to recognise the certificates of those who have been double vaccinated in other countries, notably the US and the EU. Surely, if we want other countries to recognise our own NHS certificates, it should be reciprocal. Can he give me any idea when this might happen?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
[Inaudible]—are engaging with a range of international partners, including the EU and the US, on mutual recognition. Ministers have agreed to begin the formal process of reaching a technical agreement with the EU on mutual recognition of vaccine certificates. This would allow the digital verification of vaccine certificates between the UK and the EU. We believe that this process could be complete within a month, pending the Commission’s acceptance of our application.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, have the discussions with these countries involved the question of herd immunity, bearing in mind that countries with low levels of vaccination which have closed their borders will have fewer Covid infections? That could result in less herd immunity in the long term in countries such as New Zealand and Australia, which have closed their borders.
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
The current data suggests that the vaccine certificate is the most emphatic indicator of reduced infection and therefore transmission. That is the basis on which we are currently looking to try to open the borders. The noble Lord makes the good point that in countries that have had high infection rates some form of antibody recognition might be possible—but that is not the route that we are looking at at the moment.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
Hydrogen Economy
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to create an office of the hydrogen economy in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, there are no plans to create an office for the hydrogen economy. We have a governance framework that supports close working across BEIS, other government departments and with external stakeholders as we develop a hydrogen policy. This includes the Hydrogen Advisory Council, chaired by my Secretary of State. The forthcoming hydrogen strategy will set out what is required to build a hydrogen economy fit for 2030, for carbon budget 6 and beyond while maximising the economic benefits.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s view that green hydrogen is preferred to blue hydrogen? Does he agree that there needs to be clear messaging and policy confidence and coherence in the sector, hence the need for a dedicated hydrogen office in BEIS; and will he further state when the strategy will be published?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I can certainly tell the noble Baroness that the strategy will be published in due course. We need to develop both blue and green hydrogen if we are to meet the ambitious targets that we have set out.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, in our current Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry, we have heard evidence that fuel cells are under-invested compared with battery technologies. Not only do fuel cells have the potential to play an important role in the hydrogen strategy for heating, power and heavy transport, we have a number of excellent UK fuel cell researchers and companies. Without the right level of investment at this relatively early stage, however, those technologies will not scale in time to play the necessary role in our energy mix. Will the Minister say whether this imbalance in investment is a strategic decision; and, if not, what steps he intends to redress it?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend is right to highlight that we have a number of world-leading UK companies in this field. I can tell her that the DfT is working with Innovate UK to invest up to £20 million in feasibility work for possible future hydrogen fuel cell truck demonstration as part of the zero-emission road freight trials. This will support UK industry to design and develop trials of cost-effective, zero-emission heavy goods vehicles, including hydrogen fuel technology.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, regarding more research and innovation related to hydrogen and fuel cells. Does the Minister agree that for the UK to be competitive globally in the hydrogen economy, the challenges that need to be addressed are: regulatory uncertainty, including public safety; lack of coherent common technical standards; a skills gap in the workforce; and a lack of developed supply chains? How and when do the Government intend to address those issues?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is quite right: it will be a considerable challenge. Meeting our 2030 ambition for 5 gigawatts of low-carbon hydrogen production will indeed require rapid and significant ramp-up. The forthcoming hydrogen strategy will ensure that the necessary regulation, policies and incentive mechanisms are put in place across the 2020s to lay the foundation for the economy that he highlights.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in the absence of a hydrogen office or the proposed heat and buildings strategy, and given that so-called hydrogen-ready replacement boilers are already being marketed, is it the Government’s current view that for the majority of host households currently dependent on gas for heating, some form of hydrogen-based gas heating will be the most likely longer-term future; or will other constraints on the production of green hydrogen mean that priority is given to heavy industry and transport, so that hydrogen for heating will probably be available only in the close vicinity of hydrogen-using industrial hubs?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes some good points, but the reality is that we do not yet know what the best make-up for heating will be further into the coming decades. It will likely be a mix of fuel pumps, hydrogen heating and heat networks.
Lord Oates (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has told us that the Government are pursuing a twin-track approach between green and blue hydrogen, but they have allocated nearly £200 million to five blue hydrogen projects and none for green, despite the fact that the Government do not anticipate blue hydrogen projects coming onstream until the mid-2020s. What immediate steps do the Government intend to take to develop our green hydrogen industry and ensure we do not squander the competitive edge we currently hold in green hydrogen technology?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the reality is that we need to develop both. The UK has expertise and assets to support both electrolytic and CCUS-enabled hydrogen production, and by enabling multiple low-carbon production routes, we can drive cost-effective supply volumes through the 2020s—in line with the 2030 strategy that I mentioned earlier of 5 gigawatts of hydrogen to be produced.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
The Prime Minister said that in our decarbonised future, we will cook breakfast using hydrogen power before getting into our electric car—although perhaps a hydrogen fuel cell bus or train would be preferable. Can my noble friend update us on how soon the Prime Minister’s ambition may be realised of cooking breakfast using hydrogen power? What progress can he report on the first houses to be built with hydrogen boilers and hobs?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend asks her question at an excellent time, because I visited a demonstration hydrogen home last Thursday and, despite some scepticism from the Opposition Benches, I was able to cook an egg using a hydrogen hob, and I confirm that the person who ate it has so far survived satisfactorily.
Lord Grantchester (Lab) [V]
Can the Minister confirm whether the promised hydrogen strategy will include support for the steel sector to enable a long-term shared vision to develop between industry and government on the pathway to net zero?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point, in that low-carbon steel production will be one of the areas that we will need to look at. Hydrogen is one of the fuels that could offer us an option in that area, alongside others. All of those matters will be addressed in the hydrogen strategy.
Lord Birt (CB) [V]
It is clear that hydrogen is a possible option for decarbonising maritime travel, heavy vehicles and the heating of buildings, but the likely cost of clean hydrogen as a fuel and the scale of investment needed to convert national gas infrastructure and home and building heating systems for hydrogen is not at all clear. Will the Government consider publishing an early assessment on the feasibility and cost of the hydrogen option, to ensure that the lobbying does not run ahead of the reality?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I can understand the noble Lord’s scepticism, and he is right: we need to take a hard-headed, practical, cost-effective look at hydrogen production. The costs of producing it are, of course, highly uncertain. They will depend on a variety of factors, which will evolve over time as it is deployed, but in the forthcoming strategy, we will indeed take a detailed look at the cost of producing hydrogen at the moment.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my declaration in the register, specifically as an adviser to JCB. Batteries have their place, but they also have their limits. They cannot power planes, trains, ships or HGVs, and 73% of them are produced by China, which controls the rare earths. We have huge advantages as the leading country in hydrogen technology. Will my noble friend commit to an expeditious publication of a national hydrogen strategy to ensure that we retain our global dominance?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes extremely good points. We have a number of world-leading companies in these fields. Indeed, I was able to visit JCB a few weeks ago, and drive a hydrogen digger—also without apparent accident, which is quite amazing. A number of other companies are also developing excellent, innovative products in this field. We have some world-leading companies but, as I said in a previous answer, our hydrogen strategy will indeed be published in due course.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, the energy White Paper pledges to establish the UK as a world leader in the deployment of carbon capture and storage and clean hydrogen. This clean hydrogen is, in fact, blue hydrogen, which is a by-product of the fossil fuel industry. Does the Minister believe that CCS, the process that is supposed to render blue hydrogen clean, is proven at scale and, if so, can he name just one example?
Lord Callanan (Con)
There are a number of demonstration projects around the world on CCS, but we need to demonstrate it at scale and, as the noble Baroness will be aware, we will shortly be announcing our first CCUS clusters in the UK.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests, as in the register. Many industry responses to the recent consultation on the renewable transport fuels obligation suggested that green fuels, such as hydrogen, produced using nuclear energy should be eligible for this scheme to help the UK meet its targets. Can the Minister confirm what further engagements the Government will hold with industry to make a decision on the role of nuclear energy in the RTFO, and when they will make a final decision?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We believe that nuclear will have a role in low-carbon hydrogen production in future. The details of the hydrogen business model will be set out in the forthcoming strategy. At this stage, our aim is to remain technology-neutral. As the noble Lord indicated, under the existing RTFO, the hydrogen must be produced from renewable energy to be eligible. Changing that would require primary legislation.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
Brexit Opportunities Unit
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Adonis
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what salary attaches to the new post of Director of the Brexit Opportunities Unit at the Cabinet Office.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con)
My Lords, the Cabinet Office has advertised the post of director of the Brexit opportunities unit with a salary range of £93,000 to £120,000. That is within the Cabinet Office’s pay scale of £93,000 to £162,500 for a director-level appointment and appropriate for the calibre of candidate that the role requires. The director of the unit will lead an ambitious programme of reform and address many of the most important questions facing the UK.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I am thinking of applying for this job because it is such an exciting opportunity. I would be prepared to do it for nothing; I was wondering what the Minister might think of my application. May I give him my pitch for the job? The biggest opportunity for the director of the Brexit opportunities unit is the opportunity to reapply to join the single market and the customs union so that we can eliminate trade barriers with the European Union, eliminate the need for any trade barriers north-south or east-west in respect of Northern Ireland and extend once again to the British people the great opportunity to be able to travel, study, work, settle, live and form relationships across the whole of their continent and not be locked up in Boris Johnson’s Brexit Britain. Does the Minister find that an exciting prospectus?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his job application. Of course, it is open to him to apply if he wishes, although it will not be for me to judge whether he meets all the criteria for the job. It will not surprise him to know that I disagree with his assessment of where we stand as a country. Brexit will be hugely in the interests of everybody in this country as we take forward the exciting opportunities to reform our rules, take back control of our legislation and run our country as we wish.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, quite in contrast to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I see one of the great opportunities of Brexit as the opportunity to diversify our trade away from its artificial and risky dependence on the European Union. In that light, can my noble friend the Minister say what plans the Government have to sponsor and support new and existing industry-led export promotion agencies, which can help in hunting down sales around the world?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to set out the trade opportunities now available to this country after leaving the EU. I and many of my Cabinet colleagues work closely with industry organisations of all kinds to help them in their export plans, understand any difficulties that they face and resolve those difficulties. We continue to do that expeditiously.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I urge the Minister to look favourably on the application of my noble friend Lord Adonis. In contrast to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the Prime Minister claimed that his deal—the TCA—would allow our companies and exporters to do even more business with our European friends. Will it be part of the job of the Brexit opportunities director to achieve increased trade with our nearest and biggest market, particularly in the light of the disruption and loss of trade that we have seen over recent months?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, we support expanded trade of all kinds wherever it is to be found. We are confident that British industry will be able to deliver on that. The figures for exports so far this year show that exports to the EU are back to normal—that is, at 2019 levels—which is what we expected. The opportunities for this country as a trading country are very great, and I am sure that it will be part of the role of this individual to get behind them.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister ensure that central government works as a single unit over a common set of objectives? Somewhat in the same vein as the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will he also ensure, building on a strategy of free trade and tariff-free access to our markets from emerging and frontier markets, maximum commercial and political buy-in from those Governments to reinforce the global Britain vision? If he agrees, what does he have in mind to achieve this?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, as one would expect, the Government have a single voice on these questions. We are all focused on the ability to deliver the opportunities of Brexit. It is my job to make sure that many of those things happen with this new director when we appoint him or her. On trade, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade is focused on the issues that the noble Viscount mentioned. In particular, we have applied to join the CPTPP; we have published our prospectus for that and look forward to continuing those negotiations this year.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
One of the problems that the Minister has is that he cannot even guarantee free trade within the United Kingdom at the moment. However, let us be positive. In referring to his new unit, the Minister said that he is fully behind making things happen and is prepared to look at government procurement. I welcome that. He will know that Keir Starmer recently launched a “Buy British” campaign, which included giving more public contracts to British companies and requiring public bodies to report how much they buy from British companies. To ensure that his new unit has an impact and is not all hype, will the Minister back our proposals for a “Buy British” campaign?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is of course right to underline the importance of procurement reform for our objectives. We have made clear that we wish to take forward a procurement Bill, which will radically simplify the arrangements that we have inherited from the European Union. We are bound by the Agreement on Government Procurement at the WTO as well as any procurement arrangements in our free trade agreements; our procurement policies have to fit within all those agreements.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, it is surprising that the Government need not just a new director but a whole unit paid for and tasked with searching for Brexit opportunities. For the Minister and his like-minded colleagues, surely these opportunities are self-evident. Can he therefore list those Brexit opportunities for me now—specifically, not with some grandiose global Britain rhetoric—and say whether they are sufficient to outweigh the very specific Brexit losses, such as the difficulty of working in the EU, the hassle in exporting and importing, and the shortage of workers in a range of sectors?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I am very happy to do so. For example, we have already brought in a new points-based immigration system. We have also brought in new arrangements to support our farmers, replacing the common agricultural policy. We are beginning to agree free trade agreements with a range of countries around the world. We have brought in a new global human rights sanctions regime, which has been used extensively. In the Queen’s Speech, we set out future opportunities, including the Subsidy Control Bill, a procurement Bill, the free ports programmes, the Professional Qualifications Bill and a planning Bill. The Chancellor has also set out our road map for future financial services; I could go on. There is a long list of opportunities that we will be able to take advantage of.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson claimed this morning on “Good Morning Ulster” that the Northern Ireland Assembly not having any role whatsoever in the operation of the protocol undermined the very standing of devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. What plans do the Government have to give Northern Ireland elected representatives meaningful engagement in and scrutiny of decision-making about the evolution and implementation of the protocol and the trade and co-operation agreement as they impinge on areas of devolved competence?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the day-to-day arrangements in the protocol for the democratic scrutiny of laws in Northern Ireland are democratically anomalous. We have said that before and it is why we had to negotiate the consent arrangements in the Northern Ireland protocol to ensure democratic support, or not, for these proposals. We will be setting out our approach to the Northern Ireland protocol more generally later this week.
Lord Strasburger (LD) [V]
While the benefits of Brexit remain so elusive, should we not instead be tackling the serious downsides of the EU trade deal, such as the huge hit to our £111 billion creative arts sector? British performers now face major obstacles to touring in Europe, including prohibitive costs and mountains of red tape. Meanwhile, musicians from Tonga and other third countries can tour freely in the EU. Since their negotiators were so much more successful than ours, should not this new director be recruited from Tonga?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, we stand fully behind our great creative industries and support them in touring around the European Union. As is well known, we have launched a campaign in the small minority of member states that do not allow relatively easy touring. We are actively lobbying the member states concerned and will continue to do so, in the hope that they change their arrangements to make them as liberal as ours.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [HL]
Monday 19th July 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 View all Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text
Divorce (Financial Provision) Bill [HL]
Monday 19th July 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Divorce (Financial Provision) Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Divorce (Financial Provision) Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Draft Online Safety Bill Committee
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on the draft Online Safety Bill presented to both Houses on 12 May (CP 405), and that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 10 December.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Transport Decarbonisation
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The Climate Change Committee recently commented on the need for a proper plan from the Government to deliver on their net-zero targets. Britain is behind on its goal for a 78% cut to greenhouse gases by 2035. Transport is now the biggest contributor to UK emissions. In the decade 2009-19, transport emissions fell by 1% only and there is no detail in this delayed decarbonisation plan to show how it will address the problem in the transport sector of the ever-greater pace that is now needed.
The Government now appear to be further upgrading targets on which they are already behind. Diesel and petrol lorries are to be banned in Britain by 2040 and all types of transport will be decarbonised by 2050, yet zero-emissions heavy lorries are still an aspiration rather than a reality, according to the Road Haulage Association. It is not clear who is going to meet the bill for this transition or what it is likely to be.
The Government have committed themselves to net-zero internal UK flights by 2040 but, once again, there is a gap between aspiration and reality with regard to sustainable aviation fuels and hydrogen aircraft delivering by 2040, and overcoming the need to fly less to achieve targets. Again, there is the issue of who will foot the bill for the transition and what it is likely to be. Rather than take urgent action to electrify rail, the Government cancel or defer electrification schemes. Rather than support consumers to purchase electric vehicles and create a nationwide network of electric vehicle charging points, the Government, once again, delay key decisions on all these crucial issues.
The Commons Public Accounts Committee said that the UK faces a “huge challenge” to get to 100% electric car sales by the target date, and commented on the lack of any kind of government plan to manage this major transition. That includes a plan for charging infrastructure, in particular to address the serious disparity in charger availability across the regions, and for sufficient publicly accessible chargers across the country, as a third of UK households with cars park on the street.
We will not be able to reach net-zero emissions without properly supporting the shift to electric vehicles, yet the amount given out to local authorities to fund charge point installation more than halved last year. What are the Government doing to ramp up the rollout of charging infrastructure in the UK? Will they support our plans to provide interest-free loans to help drivers purchase electric vehicles? Why are the Government allowing the sale of new polluting hybrids until 2035, which means they will be on our roads for many years to come?
During the pandemic, large numbers of people took advantage of quieter streets to take up cycling—many for the first time. Surely, we want to embed this behavioural change in seeking to reduce emissions, so why have the Government been so slow to release the funding for active travel they promised last year?
There is also little that is new in the plan to promote walking or cycling, or to help our public transport services recover after a devastating 16 months, during which the Government seem to have done their utmost to revive travel by car and supress travel by bus and rail. The continued wearing of face masks would help restore confidence in travel by train and bus. Instead, the Government say there is no longer requirement to do so and it is just tough on other people who are deterred from travelling as a result. It is contradictory of the Government to talk about reducing emissions from aviation when they are looking at reducing air passenger duty and have instigated inflation-busting increases in rail fares, and to say they are serious about reducing road traffic emissions when they have been promoting a £27 billion road-building programme.
Road transport in the UK releases the same amount of greenhouse gases as it did in 1990. A recent analysis by the consumer group Which? also found that train fares on eight out of 10 popular UK routes were some 50% more expensive than plane fares, despite 80% lower carbon dioxide emissions. The cross-party Environmental Justice Commission has published a manifesto for hitting targets for net-zero carbon emissions, which includes a recommendation to upgrade local public transport. What is the Government’s policy on the future level of rail fares compared to other more polluting forms of transport? What is the Government’s decarbonisation policy on local transport fares? Do the Government agree with the Climate Change Committee that investment in roads should be contingent on their compatibility with the UK’s net-zero target? If so, why are they pressing ahead with their £27 billion road-building programme, or are they now reviewing it?
The decarbonisaton plan refers to numerous consultation exercises on achieving the targets, which would appear to be an admission in itself that there is as yet no clear and credible policy on what exactly needs to be done and by whom, and at what cost and to whom, to deliver these targets. On the transport front, the Government surely also have to create an acceptance across the nation as a whole to walk, cycle and use public transport more and to drive less if we are to play our part in limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees centigrade. The Secretary of State said in the Commons last week:
“We want to make public transport, cycling and walking the natural first choice for all who can use them.”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/21; col. 406.]
The plan does not spell out how this objective will be achieved, what needs to change or how to bring it about.
Recent catastrophic climate events in Canada, America and across the channel in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands have shown the true urgency of the need to address climate change now, not tomorrow. Setting dates and making assumptions about the pace and extent of technological advances to deliver in line with aspirational target dates does not constitute a carefully thought-through policy that sets out hard and credible evidence in support of the plan’s projections and assumptions or a realistic assessment of the welcome increase in British jobs that should be created. Government rhetoric and aspiration are no substitute for firm, specific and credible policy. We have again had the former in this decarbonisaton plan; we still await the arrival of the latter.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, there is no doubting the need for this transport decarbonisation plan and for that reason it is welcome. Transport is now the biggest single source of CO2 emissions in the UK. Other sectors have managed significant reductions over recent decades, but improvements on transport have been marginal. That is the worrying thing about this plan, because it relies far too heavily on technological solutions. I looked in vain for reference to some of the more difficult choices that are needed.
The Statement reminds us that we are running out of time to tackle climate change and refers to the need to
“take decisive and radical action now”.
Then it goes on to promise that we can all carry on doing the same things: we can still fly to go on holiday, for instance, and technology will come to the rescue by 2050. The events of the last few weeks should surely have taught us that this is a climate emergency. As Canada burns and hundreds drown in Germany and Belgium, surely we must wake up to the need for rapid change.
The Statement has an almost fairytale quality to it, with far too many vapid “world-first” and world-beating references, which undermine the genuinely good aspects of this document. When it comes to transport decarbonisation, we are not in the world’s top tier. Noble Lords need not believe me on all this; the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has complained of too many long-term targets and a lack of short-term milestones, which are essential to make them meaningful.
The Rail Delivery Group makes the point that, if the Government want people to make greener travel choices, they must make use of the levers they have at their disposal to motivate public action. Rail, for instance, carries 10% of passenger miles but only 1.4% of transport emissions, so it is a climate-change winner; but only 38% of the network is electrified. Amazingly, the Government are currently consulting on cutting domestic air passenger duty. The RDG estimates that just a 50% cut in APD would lead to almost a quarter of a million fewer long-distance train journeys, with people shifting to flying as the cheaper option, leading to an additional 27,000 tonnes of carbon emissions.
The Government should use tax levers to make flying less attractive, not more. Funding for railways needs to concentrate on cheaper tickets, simpler fare structures and on making it easier to walk up and go. France has legislated to prevent short-distance flights for journeys under two and a half hours by rail, and the UK should follow this lead. The Government’s first priority must be to use taxation and their own policies to get us back on the buses and trains, which are by far the most carbon-efficient means of transport. That means subsidies, ending the ridiculous 10-year freeze on fuel duty and a change in taxation.
The Government need to look beyond the transport industry to taxation on sources of power. The rail industry is being penalised for moving from diesel to electric and now pays 40% of its electricity costs in taxes, whereas 10 years ago it was only 12%. Meanwhile, air passengers pay a much smaller proportion of their fares as climate-related costs. The Government still have a £27 billion road-building programme, which simply must be reviewed if their plan is to be credible. With their current targets, there will still be many petrol and diesel cars on our roads into 2050 and beyond. The pandemic has encouraged us all back to our cars and we need the Government to be bold to reverse that.
Technology has its place, and there may well be occasional bonuses to be derived from unexpected advances, but it cannot be the sole answer. The Government cannot shirk from grappling with the difficult behaviour change in choices. They can dream up all the targets they like, but they are meaningless unless the Government develop a sense of urgency, stop promising us lots of goodies and start actually doing something.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their input into this crucial moment in transport decarbonisation. It is the first time that any Government have taken a holistic and cross-modal approach to transport decarbonisation. It is the first plan of its type in the world. We have set out what we need to do and how we will end transport’s contribution to climate change in the next three decades.
As the Secretary of State for Transport said in the other place, this is not about stopping people doing things, banning things and all those things that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is so keen on. It is about doing things differently. The plan is very much about taking the abstract—getting carbon out of our economy—and putting it into reality with actions, commitments and timings. Of course, there are many co-benefits to decarbonisation—we can have healthier and greener streets—and those too are very important.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, seemed to imply that consultation was somehow a bad idea. He complains that when the Government consult on this they have not made a decision. If I stood here and said that the Government had made a decision on something without consultation, I can imagine the response from your Lordships’ House, and it would not be good. Consultation is key for so many of these elements, and when we published the plan it was really heartwarming to see it widely welcomed by stakeholders from all across transport. That is because the strategic themes set out therein are so important.
As noted by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the first strategic theme is to accelerate
“modal shift to public and active transport”.
That is precisely what he said we were not doing, but we are—it is our number one strategic theme. The second is decarbonising road transport. We know that in transport itself, roads and road vehicles are the source of the greatest amount of emissions. The next theme of decarbonising how we get our goods—whether rail freight or road freight—will be really key in the future, as is establishing the UK
“as a hub for green transport technology and innovation”.
It is often omitted, but place-based solutions will be key. National Government cannot do this on their own; they will be reliant upon interventions from local transport authorities. Finally, on reducing carbon in a global economy, we are a leader, particularly for maritime and aviation. With those strategic themes in mind, I think the plan is a good one.
I will turn to a few more comments that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, made. We recognise that charging infrastructure will be one of the biggest challenges of our time, which is why we have committed £1.3 billion to ensure that we can decarbonise charging at home, in businesses and in public places. The Government will publish an electric vehicle infrastructure strategy later this year. That will set out exactly how we plan to take charging forward. We have also published our response to the consultation on smart charging, so we will lay regulations in the autumn. Therefore, all private devices will be required to be smart devices. That will benefit the energy network as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about how he was not entirely happy with the transition between the 2030 phase-out date for petrol and diesel and the 2035 one for zero emissions at the tail-pipe. That is exactly why we published the Green Paper on the carbon dioxide regulatory framework, because we want to engage with people as to exactly what that transition will look like between 2030 and 2035. We have two big options. We could tighten efficiency-based regulations to align with the petrol and diesel phase-outs, or we could do that and make a zero-emission mandate. It is the case that carbon dioxide targets alone do not guarantee the take-up of zero-emission vehicles, or indeed that the 2030 target can be enforced. We would welcome feedback from all noble Lords on that. Within that, there will be a consultation on what vehicles should be in scope—what does it look like between 2030 and 2035? We want to hear feedback, because then we will set the most ambitious targets that we can.
The noble Lord seems not to have been reading my Twitter feed recently, which is disappointing. He said that we were not supporting public transport as we come out of the pandemic. Again, that is not entirely right. I have managed to secure well over £200 million-worth of funding for buses—that will take the bus network through to April next year—and only last week a further £56 million for the light rail sector, which will make sure that our really important tram and light rail systems can continue to operate and provide the really important services they do.
More widely, upgrading local public transport is really important. Again, buried in the small print of the transport decarbonisation plan is something that made me very excited as the Minister for Places in the Department for Transport. We will ask local authorities to provide quantifiable carbon reductions as part of their local transport planning and funding. That is game-changing; it really is. It sounds very dull but it really is not, because when local transport authorities look to do their long-term transport plans they will need to put decarbonisation at their heart. If they do that alongside their bus service improvement plans and all the other transport planning they do, it will be really key for the future.
Before I sit down I will address the phrase that is so often bandied about: the “£27 billion road-building programme”. I do not know what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are talking about. It is a programme that provides for the operation of the roads. Therefore, traffic officers, maintenance of the roads to ensure that they are safe for users, and the renewal of our bridges, a lot of which are now about 50 years’ old and need a lot of work, are included in all that. Then there is some money for enhancements. I again press the noble Lord and the noble Baroness: if they have any particular enhancements they wish me to scrub off the list, I will be very happy for them to mention them in the House next time and I will consider them.
To go back to roads—this is about not just the strategic road network but all roads—the point is that carbon is a key consideration for all road enhancement projects. When I receive the business case about whether to invest taxpayer funding into a road, we always look at carbon alongside safety, the economic case, air quality and biodiversity. All those things are taken into account when we make decisions on road investments.
I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments. I look forward to talking about this in greater detail in the coming months.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (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 Greenway (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s long-awaited transport decarbonisation plan, which includes shipping and aviation, but I have to ask them why they are spending less on innovation and research in the maritime sector than in automotive and aviation. The plan contains no headline commitments and no money to get on with the task confronting the marine industry. It is all very well to set ambitious targets, but the plan does not set out a clear way to meet them. There are elements of jam tomorrow. For example, the plan recognises the need to install shore power points around the coast, but why delay? Why not start now? Other countries have done it through joint investment by industry and government. Converting trucks to run on electricity will not help reduce congestion on our—
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for his many questions. Maritime is absolutely critical to our decarbonisation. At the moment, maritime is, unfortunately, very polluting. This is why we already have a lot of work under way. We published the Clean Maritime Plan in July 2019. We have committed £20 million for the clean maritime development competition. We are consulting on steps to support the uptake of shore power and, if necessary, we will mandate it. Clearly, the consultation needs to take place before we go around putting lots of plugs in ports.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the Government may congratulate themselves on making “a world-leading pledge” on the sale of non-zero-emission road vehicles by 2040, but the people of this country will mainly be interested in the costs of achieving it, both to them individually and to the Exchequer. When will the Government publish a detailed plan answering this question, including the many costs to consumers, drivers and the 6 million businesses in the UK?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government have, of course, published the 2035 delivery plan for electric vehicles. The costs will vary significantly over time. We know what they are the moment. The Government are providing grants to people when they purchase their zero-emission vehicles. Over time those costs will change because innovation will lead to an overall reduction in the cost of electric cars. We will of course keep those costs under consideration.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, why is there no frequent flyer levy and why does the decarbonisation plan say nothing about demand management for flying?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, as I said, the Government do not want to set a demand cap because it sends entirely the wrong signal. We are anti-emission, not anti-flying. We believe there will be a rapid development of technology. The more we can set out our stall as to what our expectations are, the more we expect that development to increase.
Lord Oates (LD) [V]
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the potential for green hydrogen in decarbonising the maritime sector?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord is quite right. Hydrogen will have many uses, mostly where batteries simply cannot reach. That will include heavy road freight, maritime and aviation. Therefore, we are looking very closely at what we can do for the hydrogen sector as a whole. We are funding the refuelling network and demonstration trials. I would have thought that some of the £20 million for the clean maritime demonstration competition might well go to hydrogen projects. It is really important that we remain technology agnostic. We believe that hydrogen could have a key role to play.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Government’s transport decarbonisation plan rightly recognises that hydrogen has the co-benefits of reducing CO2 emissions and creating jobs and growth. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the Government will take ambitious action on the renewable transport fuel obligation? Can she confirm that the bus service operator grant to stimulate millions of pounds of investment in hydrogen production will apply only to green electricity and green hydrogen to accelerate the introduction of zero-emission buses, trains, trucks, ships and planes, all of which can be made in the UK?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness mentioned the bus services operator grant, which is key. Within the transport decarbonisation plan we set our plans for a green BSOG, an intervention that we believe will come into place in April 2022, but we will have a wider consultation on BSOG as a whole because at the moment it is a fossil fuel subsidy. It does not do what it is supposed to do, and therefore we need to make sure that it does in future and does not support fossil fuel use but encourages zero-emission buses.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I warmly congratulate the Minister and her colleagues on putting the strategy together. Does she agree that net zero HGVs by 2040 is aggressive? Can batteries ever be the complete solution given range restrictions versus the trade-off of the weight of the batteries versus the truck payload? I understand why it makes sense to use hydrogen to store excess electricity and manage peaks and troughs, but building in an assumption that it replaces a large baseload volume of energy, which is currently taken up by diesel, by 2040 is surely another stretch.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I have not addressed the HGV issue as yet, and it is important. That is why we are consulting: we believe there needs to be a date from which non-zero HGVs will not be able to be sold. There is another issue which we want to consult on—increasing the permissible weights for zero electric and alternatively fuelled HGVs down the road—but HGVs produce 16% of carbon emissions and we must do something about it. We are looking 15 to 20 years in the future. Leyland DAF already manufactures a 19-tonne battery electric HGV. We expect development to continue apace. That may well include hydrogen.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, despite the maritime sector being economically larger than aviation and rail combined, it appears to be the poor relative in the Government’s net-zero drive. If we are to level up our coastal communities and bring shipbuilding home, we need the Government to invest in research and innovation on a scale similar to the automotive and aviation sectors. I hope something can be done in the autumn spending review to put the investment in place to do it. I shall push the Minister a little further on shore power points, which, after all, are very straightforward. How many are currently planned to be put in place? Can she confirm that they will be funded by industry and government together?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Unfortunately the noble Lord is pushing me beyond my knowledge, but I will write to him about shore power points, how many there will be in future and who will fund them. On maritime as a whole, it is worth saying that the conversation has only just started. We must work with stakeholders on a course to zero for the maritime sector. We will increase our ambitions at the IMO, particularly when there is a review of greenhouse gas strategy in 2023. There are all sorts of things that we can do. This is the start of the story, not the end.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
In view of what is likely to be a chronic shortage of HGV drivers that will persist for years, will the Government urgently look again at investing in rail-freight schemes, particularly electrification schemes, which would replace road-based journeys with rail?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government recognise how important rail freight is and we will be doing more work on it. We will be looking to introduce a greater target for rail freight. The noble Lord will know—we have had this conversation many times—that the Government have already invested significant sums of money in rail-freight building, and we will continue to build on the £235 million that we invested in the strategic freight network in the five years to 2019. Work is under way and there are already grants to help the shift from road to rail where road has a slight financial advantage.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, how many gigawatts per annum of battery production will be required to supply the UK automotive industry by 2030, when all new cars will be battery powered, and how does this number compare with current and planned domestic production capacity? Can the Minister also tell us whether the Government have a strategy for sourcing the critical raw materials for domestic battery production in the face of competition from other countries?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, this is rapidly turning into “Mastermind”. I cannot give the noble Lord the numbers he is after. I will go back to the department and see whether I can find any further information. It is important to understand that the Government are already investing significantly in the area of batteries. We have the £330 million Faraday battery challenge and the automotive transformation fund, which is £500 million focused on the supply chain. It has already invested in 50 feasibility projects. It will look at all elements of how we are going to make our electric vehicle production more effective.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con) [V]
My Lords, James Bond’s next car will be the Aston Martin Valhalla, a plug-in hybrid supercar, but since 007 has no off-street parking and there are so few charging points available, he might have no choice but to ask Q for his petrol-engined DB10 back. Huge numbers of people cannot contemplate buying even a plug-in hybrid, let alone a fully electric car, even when they really want to, because we do not have anything like the necessary number of public charging points. With only eight and a half years to go before a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars, what plans do the Government have for serious acceleration in the delivery of the necessary charging infrastructure?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the Government empathise with James Bond and indeed with all people who do not have access to off-street parking. It is one of the challenges that we face. That is why the Government introduced the on-street residential charge point scheme—the ORCS. It is available to all UK local authorities to provide public charge points for their residents. So far it has awarded money to 120 local authorities to install nearly 4,000 charge points. I reassure my noble friend that the electric vehicle infrastructure strategy will be published later this year, and I think that will provide more reassurance to James Bond and everyone else.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s build back better strategy acknowledges the UK’s persistent technical skills shortage. The Automotive Council estimates the current need for upskilling at 10,000 workers, rising to 50,000 in four years and 100,000 by 2035. The Statement and plan today merely talk about building a skilled workforce for the transport industry, but how? Where is the action plan? Where is the sense of urgency? Can the Minister tell us what she and her department are doing to galvanise the production of an action plan to address these catastrophic shortfalls?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness is quite right. In many areas, and as we shift to a decarbonised economy, we will need greater skills. The Department for Transport is working very closely with our colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education to build that strategy.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
My Lords, the two big blocks to people adopting electric vehicles, now that so many are available at high quality, are access to a charger and cost. The Minister mentioned the on-street charger support given to some local authorities, but not all have taken it up. For those with off-street parking, there is a subsidy for the charge box, but people are not guaranteed any help for on-street charging through, for example, a lamppost. Can the Government speed that up? At the same time, can they give certainty to businesses that there will be continuing support for electric vehicles through support for low levels of benefits-in-kind tax?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I think I have gone as far as I can on charging. We recognise that it is one of the greatest challenges facing the take-up of electric vehicles. My colleague the Minister for the Future of Transport is working diligently on making sure that we have the right plan in place for the £1.3 billion we will be investing in it over the next four years. That will be set out in the electric vehicle infrastructure strategy.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, one option for reducing CO2 emissions, of course, is to travel less. The Government could make it easy for people not to travel—that is, go into the office—if they do not want to, by making sure they have a high-quality internet connection. Is that something the Government are stressing at the moment?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness is quite right: we want people to travel the right amount, whatever that may be. The Government certainly have very ambitious plans when it comes to broadband connectivity. We want to roll it out to as many places as possible so that people can work from home if it is right for them and their employer.
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is entitled to a slightly more detailed response. Can the Minister tell us what the Government’s plans are for the encouragement of the development of gigafactories in all parts of the United Kingdom and what the optimum number of electric vehicles would be by 2035 in order to meet the targets?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I will provide more information to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and share it with all noble Lords with an interest. The Government are dedicated to securing gigafactories, working with investors within the UK. We hope to have seven 20-gigawatt gigafactories—I am not sure I have that right—very soon. It is absolutely key to the future for electric vehicles.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister confirm whether hydrogen will be prioritised for hard-to-abate sectors such as shipping or heavy goods vehicles, rather than for areas that are relatively easy to decarbonise?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
This entire plan has tried to recognise that there is no one size fits all when it comes to decarbonisation. As I have already set out, hydrogen will be absolutely key when it comes to heavy road freight, maritime, aviation and maybe rail. We will also look to battery to decarbonise much of the traffic currently on the road. We recognise that to do this we need the right supply of batteries, all the components that go into batteries and the skills to produce the vehicles.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, that concludes the list of questions.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, we come now to day three in Committee on the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request.
The groupings are binding. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in the group to a Division must give notice in debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments.
When putting the Question, I will collect the voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]
Monday 19th July 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 View all Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 5-IV(Rev) Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (19 Jul 2021)
Lord Clarke of Nottingham
“Provision of opportunities for education and skills development
(1) Any person of any age has the right to free education on an approved course up to Level 3 supplied by an approved provider of further or technical education, if he or she has not already studied at that level.(2) Any approved provider must receive automatic in-year funding for any student covered by subsection (1), and supported by the Adult Education Budget, at a tariff rate set by the Secretary of State. (3) Any employer receiving apprenticeship funding shall spend at least two thirds of that funding on people who begin apprenticeships at Levels 2 and 3 before the age of 25.”
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I tabled Amendment 76 in collaboration with the noble Lord, Lord Layard, and I am glad to see that my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has added his name in support.
In moving this amendment, I hope to get a reasonably sympathetic response from the Government—I am sure the Minister will endeavour to provide one—because it is very much in the spirit of the Government’s policy of trying to address the skills gap in this country and enable individuals to develop skills relevant to today’s labour market in their area. I therefore hope I can get a sympathetic and even positive response to what I propose for the category of people covered.
The Government’s policy so far, based on their excellent White Paper—to which they are slowly adding some substance as they develop it—is to concentrate particularly on the higher levels of skill to make sure we have an alternative to the traditional route through school and university for the academically able that gives equal status and value to technical and engineering skills. I very much welcome that. This amendment is tabled for a slightly different target, which does not have adequate attention: people who unfortunately did not take advantage of opportunities when they were young and should have devoted at least some of their time to their education and training, who realise that they need to improve their skills to get better career prospects and move to a more sensible job pattern in future.
Teenage angst takes a whole variety of forms, but it leads to some people completely failing to take advantage of the opportunities they had at school or wherever. There are people who have intrinsic intelligence and ability but drop out of school or the labour market because of whatever phase of the world they are going through. They even join the category given the dreadful jargon name of NEETs—people not in education, employment or training. By the time they get to the age of 25, as people begin to mature and face up to the realities of life, quite a lot of them wish to address it. I think society as a whole wishes to give them an opportunity to make themselves better opportunities in the labour market.
For that reason, we are concerned with those seeking skills at level 2, which is the equivalent of GCSE, and level 3, which is the equivalent of A-levels. Anybody who failed to take their opportunities when they had them should have a lifelong opportunity to do so in order to improve the contribution they can make to the local economy and their life prospects.
As I said, the Government are producing quite substantial proposals in the Bill, but so far there is much more support for levels 4, 5 and 6 up to degree level. This is not in any way challenging that—I support all that—but there is a gap that we seek to address in this amendment. The first component of the amendment says:
“Any person of any age has the right”
to free tuition if they wish to make up for what they have omitted so far and to take a level 2 or 3 qualification of some kind. The Government have not covered that. A statutory right would be extremely valuable.
Some financial support will be required. The Government are developing a lifelong loans entitlement for people who at any stage wish to improve their skills, but that is confined to those seeking skills at levels 4, 5 and 6. I hope I have made the case for making available some equivalent to those at levels 2 and 3. The form can be settled, but the legal entitlement would give substance to the Government’s policies. In due course, the Government could provide the sort of funding that should be made available to persons who make the sensible decision to gain qualifications at that level.
It is no good offering people government funding for courses of any kind if the providers are not supplying such courses and if the budgets of the relevant institutions do not allow them to make those courses available. This is all part of a much wider problem in the further education college and sixth-form college sector, which has been the Cinderella of our education and training system for several decades but will have to play a vital part in supplying a response to the skills gap at every level, and will certainly be very important at this level.
The problem at the moment is that, while further education colleges do try to provide relevant courses—I welcome the fact that they will be working much more closely with local employers for relevant local skills and I am not remotely hostile to the broad brush of policy—they are, of course, funded on a quite different basis from other parts of our education system. Every school gets a guaranteed sum of money for every pupil it persuades to stay on in the sixth form. Every university gets a very generous sum of money guaranteed for everybody it can entice into any sort of course. Colleges of further education, however, work to cash-limited budgets, which have not been treated generously in recent years; there is a finite limit to what they can offer and they have to make a choice.
This is why the second component of our amendment suggests:
“Any approved provider must receive automatic in-year funding for any student”
who, as we have already said, is seeking a level 2 or level 3-type qualification at a tariff rate to be
“set by the Secretary of State”.
I hope that there will be much wider moves than that to get further education funding, further education college status, and the attractiveness of employment and careers in the further education service made more attractive by the Government—but this proposal would provide automatic funding for all those courses that are taken up by an adequate number of people seeking level 2 and 3 qualifications.
Finally, on a slightly broader point, the amendment addresses the uses to which the apprenticeship levy is being put at the moment. Again, I am not just trying to persuade the Minister to be forthcoming; I very much welcome the apprenticeship levy system, the development of apprentices and the way the Bill addresses very important things, such as the quality and variety of qualifications, trying to sort out the maze of them, and so on—and the levy system has had some extremely beneficial effects. However, in its current form, it has had some unintended side-effects. In recent years, there has been a steady drift in the use of levy money towards higher-level qualifications, and towards existing employees of companies seeking to refresh or modify their skills, go through management training and so on, and a decline in the number of young people getting apprenticeships and in the number of people getting more ordinary-level training in skills.
Management trainees, middle-ranking managers and quite senior managers can be described by large employers as apprentices—most of them are utterly unaware of the fact that they are apprentices—for the purpose of claiming levy money to cover the costs. Public sector bodies do this—as, I suspect, do government departments when they are training civil servants; some high-flying civil servant is probably being described somewhere as an apprentice, in order to recover the levy. In answer to questions from the Select Committee on Youth Unemployment, another Minister told us the other day that they have stopped funding MBA courses out of the apprenticeship levy. However, the whole thing has drifted away from its essential point.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I warmly support the amendment moved by my colleague and noble and learned friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham. We are both members of the House of Lords Select Committee on Youth Unemployment, as are the noble Lord, Lord Layard, who is a supporter of this amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, who speaks for the Liberals. We are exploring all ways in which we can improve skills training in our country, which is pretty dismal at the moment and compares very badly with many European countries.
One aspect that the Government boast of is the lifetime guarantee. This affects in particular those people who do not have A-levels and decide in their 30s, 40s or 50s that they would like to take an A-level course. To do that they will have to pay a course fee of about £5,000 to £6,000 a year, for which they may require a loan. As they are studying, they could not apply for the minimum wage or universal credit so, if they are unemployed, they would almost certainly have to take out a maintenance loan of another £6,000 or £7,000. So we would be asking unemployed people to pay £12,000 to acquire an A-level qualification that, had they stayed at school, they would have got for free. It is simply outrageous and unacceptable, and it makes a complete farce of what a lifetime guarantee is.
I am very hopeful that the Government will accept this amendment. Why am I hopeful? Well, about four weeks ago, the Government announced a skills fund on which they are going to spend about £2.5 billion. They suggested four items on which the fund could be based, the first of which was £93 million for free A-levels. They have now said that they want to go into consultation on the skills fund, which means that those original four proposals are on ice. I suggest that they should think very carefully and put the first item back in. That would be a way for the Government to fund this. Can the Minister tell us whether the four items of expenditure on the skills fund are on ice? They have spent most of the £2 billion among them.
I would go further than my noble and learned friend has done. If you go to an FE college at 18 and you get to level 3, you will want, if you are able enough, to go on to level 4, the higher national certificate, or level 5, the higher national diploma. This is where the main skills gap in our country is. If you analyse the skills gap in digital, in engineering or in the creative industries, you see that it is greatest at levels 4 and 5. These are two qualifications just below degree level—you would describe those taking them as high-quality technicians—and we have a huge skills gap in that area. We should be promoting levels 4 and 5.
A course at level 4, which currently costs about £6,000 or £7,000, should be free. If an unemployed person is doing that, they will not be able to claim the living wage or universal credit, so they will need a maintenance grant of probably £6,000 or £7,000. So someone who wants to study at level 4 today for whom the alternative is unemployment has to find a loan of £12,000, which by the time they finish will be £15,000. I do not think that is at all reasonable. Strangely enough, neither did the Department for Education about nine or 10 months ago, because it put to the Treasury the proposal that level 4 should be free for unemployed youngsters, as should level 5, the higher national degree, which is just below level 6—a degree. The Government should consider this proposal and I hope our Select Committee will consider it as well. We have to stimulate real growth at levels 4 and 5. If we do not, our country will fall behind technologically.
I am sure the Government will accept my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke’s proposal today because it would be totally illogical and unfair not to accept it, but I hope they will think a little wider and broader because we have to upskill our country and catch up with Germany, Austria and the Netherlands. We are so far behind. This is a moment at which we can make significant changes for generations of young people to come.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I support both amendments in this group. I put my name down mainly to speak on Amendment 76, which has been so powerfully moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, and to focus on Section 3, about apprenticeship funding for young people before the age of 25, which is badly needed.
The question I am asking myself is, how will this affect the overall funding of apprenticeships and how will it help to deliver, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, a stronger focus on levels 4 and 5 as well? Where are those apprenticeships going to come from, and what is going to persuade employers to provide those opportunities? Many employers, of course, have limited capacity to take on new staff, particularly young people coming directly from education without previous working experience, however much they might wish to do so if they could. The result has been that those employers tend to use their levy funds to upskill or reskill existing employees—although, as I have mentioned before, even that may use up only a limited proportion of their available levy funds. That creates yet another incentive for them to recast what training they need in the form of apprenticeships where they can.
So, I strongly support the amendment. My question is, where are those apprenticeships going to come from and what impact are they going to have on the ability of employers to focus on reskilling and upskilling at the same time? I suspect that a significant number of apprenticeships for young people are likely to come from SMEs, yet many are put off from offering apprenticeships because of the bureaucracy involved and a lack of time and resources to manage the process, despite the generous incentives available. I encourage the Government to look at offering specific, more generous incentives to SMEs to take on young people aged 25 or under for level 2 or 3 apprenticeships, including help with their administration and simplified arrangements for fee-paying employers to transfer part of their levy funds to SMEs for this specific purpose. There are such arrangements but they do not seem to be as effective as one might hope.
I always fail to understand why there cannot be more specific support and encouragement for apprenticeship training agencies to run apprenticeship programmes for SMEs, perhaps as a specific element of the local skills improvement plan for a particular area. That would seem a useful way in which an LSIP could contribute to the take-up of apprenticeships in its area, specifically among SMEs and new entrants to the job market, and maybe with a slight slightly broader applicability of the apprenticeship levy than it currently has.
I very much support the provisions in Amendment 80 putting the lifetime skills guarantee on a statutory footing. One of these days, I look forward to hearing an explanation of why the skills guarantee is “lifetime” and the learning entitlement is “lifelong” and what the difference may be; it would make many lives much easier if we just used one term. I hope the Government will accept the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, in particular and explain how they want to achieve a better balance between younger apprenticeships and level 4 and 5 apprenticeships, for example.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is an honour to speak in this group with many noble Lords who have made an enormous and outstanding contribution to the education system in this country. I support both Amendment 76, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, and Amendment 80, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. Both amendments seek to provide skills training for those who do not hold level 3 qualifications, and I thank both noble Lords for tabling these important amendments to the Bill, which I believe really enhance it.
The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, would ensure that a person of any age has the right to free education on an approved course up to level 3, supplied by an approved provider, if they have not already studied at that level. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has a similar intention but would provide this training only to people between the age of 19 and the state pension age. Given the number of people who continue to work over the state pension age, and given that the Equality Act 2010 makes age discrimination illegal, I prefer the wording of the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke. I also support the work of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, on level 4 qualifications.
The issue of skills training at all ages is important in our changing economy. It is estimated that 35% of current jobs are at high risk of being replaced by automation by 2040, if not earlier. This impacts on workers of all ages, but we must understand that for people who have been made redundant the situation is very difficult. According to figures from the Centre for Ageing Better, over 1 million people between the age of 50 and state pension age are not working but would really like to. One in four men and one in three women in that age group have been out of work for over five years. Many older workers find it very difficult to participate in skills training, and much more so if they left school without gaining qualifications. We must do all that we can to support older workers to participate in training.
The other component of the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, is that an employer receiving apprenticeship funding shall spend at least two-thirds of that funding on people who begin apprenticeships at level 2 and 3 before the age of 25. This specifically encourages the training of younger workers at a time when we know that the youth unemployment rate is 13.2%, compared with 4.7% for the whole population. Many young people struggle in our school system and, at the age of 16 and 17, may not yet be in the right mindset to complete their level 2 or 3 qualifications. A few years later, when doing an apprenticeship in an area where they are interested and see the potential to progress their career, is a much better time to gain the qualifications that they were unable to get at school.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 76 and 80, for the obvious reason so clearly set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, and others that unless full funding is available, many students who could benefit from and would in turn benefit society by attending these courses will simply not be able to do so through poverty. This applies to a significant proportion of those from the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities, and no doubt to other minority-ethnic students, as well as to the rest of the NEETs referred to by the noble and learned Lord. I hope that the Government will respect the powerful arguments in favour of these amendments.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, this is a hugely important debate for the future of not only our education system but our society, because unless we have a properly trained workforce in the future and young people have real prospects and qualifications, we are in for a terrible time. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, said, there cannot be levelling up unless we have qualifications, skills and opportunities that level up. It is good that he and my noble friend Lord Watson have tabled these amendments, which give us an opportunity to explore this broad issue and to hear from the Government what their intentions are.
Amendment 76 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, and my noble friend Lord Watson’s Amendment 80 are superficially similar. But I notice that as soon as you start probing them, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said, there are significant differences. I wonder whether my noble friend might elucidate, because his amendment is much more circumscribed then that of the noble and learned Lord, and I wonder why. I find the noble and learned Lord’s amendment very appealing: it has a broad statement of policy objectives, which looks to be absolutely correct for the future of our workforce and society. The bold statement in the noble and learned Lord’s amendment is:
“Any person of any age has the right to free education on an approved course up to Level 3 supplied by an approved provider of further or technical education”,
whereas my noble friend’s amendment says:
“All persons aged 19 or older and under the state pension age have the right to study a fully-funded approved course”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, asked whether that eliminated all people who are over the retirement age. By the way, we need to eradicate from society the concept that once you get to the age of 60, 62 or 65, you are now unemployable and should not be eligible for proper training and the full opportunities that we extend to other people. If the House of Lords—average age 72—does not stand up for those beyond the statutory retirement age, who in this country is going to do so? The noble Baroness’s point is very well made and I look forward to my noble friend Lord Watson, speaking on behalf of my party, making it clear that we are fully in favour of people post retirement being eligible for these benefits as well.
My noble friend’s amendment also does not specify whether this is to be a right, which must go with funding, or simply an entitlement. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, says:
“Any person of any age has the right to free education”,
whereas my noble friend’s amendment says:
“All persons aged 19 or older and under the state pension age have the right to study”.
The big question is: who is going to pay for that? I know that we are having a policy review at the moment. The noble and learned Lord is a former Chancellor, so he is well aware of the forms of words that need to be used when you can give no commitment that involves any spending at all. I fully appreciate that may be why my noble friend’s amendment does not extend, so far as I can see, any rights that go with funding. but it would be as well to make that clear.
In the policy review which my party is conducting, it is essential that we put the rights of those who are on a path to technical and vocational education on a par with those who go on to university. We keep mouthing these platitudes about equality of opportunity but we never deliver it. When we look at the priorities facing the country, there is none more important than seeing that those on a technical education track, who at the moment too often do not get those opportunities, have them extended to them. These two amendments give us an opportunity to explore the terrain in this area.
However, the noble and learned Lord’s amendment also raises the very important issue of the apprenticeship levy. In all the instances of major acts of public policy which have delivered the exact opposite of their stated intention within the last generation, I cannot think of a more significant example than the apprenticeship levy. George Osborne, the late lamented Chancellor of the Exchequer who introduced it in his Budget speech of July 2015, said about apprenticeships that the then Government were
“committed to 3 million more”,
and that,
“while many firms do a brilliant job training their workforces, too many … leave the training to others so we are going to take a radical and, frankly, long overdue approach … an apprenticeship levy on all large firms”—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/15; col. 328.]
to ensure 3 million more apprenticeships. Very few policies which came out of the Government during the past 11 years, which have been a bit of a wasteland for public policy at large, have I applauded more warmly than the apprenticeship levy. It looked to be, and I think George Osborne intended it to be, a bold step forward to raise significant additional funds that would have been available for training. The CBI was not wild with excitement when that policy was announced because it thought that was to be the case.
What then happened is what always happens when there is no one in government who really gets a grip on these things: the policy was essentially abandoned and became an orphan. As we know, Mr Osborne left the scene a year later—one of the many casualties of the Brexit disaster, which has managed to consume all its children during the last five years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer who had been behind the policy vanished and there was never an Education Secretary who was behind it. The noble Lord said that vocational education is the lesser priority of the education department, but among recent Education Secretaries I am hard put to see that it is a priority at all. As I said during the first day in Committee, there has been one Minister of Further Education each year since 2010 and the only one who showed any interest in apprenticeships, Robert Halfon, was promptly sacked because he was becoming too enthusiastic, and was shunted off to become chairman of the Select Committee in the House of Commons. There was nobody taking a grip on this policy and, as a result, two fatal flaws developed in its evolution.
The first, which the noble Lord highlighted, was that firms themselves were allowed to define what constituted training—as he said, it was anything up to and including MBAs. This is why there has been a massive decline in entry-level and level 2 and 3 apprenticeships, while all the emphasis has been on high-level apprenticeships. It is only large firms that pay the levy and that is how they best use the money which they have hoarded for apprenticeships.
The figures speak for themselves. The number of apprenticeships actually being provided is far from George Osborne’s 3 million extra. In the last four years it has declined from 213,000 to 161,900. This is a decline of nearly 50,000 apprenticeships from a policy that was supposed to increase the number by hundreds of thousands: it has moved in exactly the opposite direction to the one intended.
These figures are all taken from a House of Commons research paper from 30 March this year. For the under-19s, the fall has been catastrophic: the fall over that four-year period is more than one-third. The number of under-19s going into apprenticeships has declined between 2018 and 2021 from 66,000 to 39,000. That is a colossal tale of human deprivation and misery, because this means there are 17, 18- and 19-year olds who are basically going on to no proper training whatever.
That leads to the second flaw of the apprenticeship levy. It was a design flaw that I put to George Osborne at the time; he said he was prepared to look at it but, again, things moved on. The apprenticeship levy is not, in fact, a levy. Again, I look to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, as a former Chancellor. When the Government introduce a levy, normally—in almost every other case that I can think of—the levy is Her Majesty's Government by Act of Parliament requiring other bodies to pay a contribution to the Government or a public body for the delivery of a service, or to go into the Exchequer.
This is not a levy of that kind; it is a requirement on large firms to undertake training up to a certain level, which is the amount of the levy as a percentage of their turnover. Only if they do not provide training up to that level is the money then supposed to be volunteered under a scheme, which is very haphazard, and go to the Treasury or a designated public authority.
That was a fatal flaw in the design of the levy. It is like stamp duty being given to estate agencies, which have to pay the money to the Treasury only after they have paid all their expenses, paid into every imaginary marketing scheme that they can think of and paid vast salaries to all the agents. It was a fatal flaw and was done as a concession to business because the deal was that, if the money was first made available to the employers, this would be less of a burden on the employers. As a result, it was a huge incentive to the employers only to train their own workforce—which, by definition, was the existing workforce—so there were not many of those at entry level. This included training up to level 4, MBAs and bespoke training courses at vast expense.
There was no incentive to increase the number of apprenticeships and no mechanism for taking any of the money away from them and distributing it more fairly, nor, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, so rightly said, a provision for small and medium-sized enterprises to get the money either because they do not pay the levy. It applies only to large employers, and SMEs only get any of the proceeds by the process of redistribution if money is returned to the Treasury over and above what companies spend, which is virtually nothing. SMEs are the major employers in this country and should be providing an army of new apprenticeships.
The apprenticeship levy is a complete catastrophe of a policy. It has significantly reduced the supply of apprenticeships, even though it was meant to increase them. It has particularly done so in respect of small and medium-sized enterprises and young people. Therefore, the third part of the amendment of the noble Lord and learned, Lord Clarke, which states that any employer
“receiving apprenticeship funding shall spend at least two thirds of that funding on people who begin apprenticeships at Levels 2 and 3 before the age of 25”
is vital. I would take it further and take the funds out of the hands of the employer and see that they are distributed on a fair, national, basis including to SMEs.
I look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly on what steps the Government are proposing. It is a very basic question: what steps are the Government going to take to ensure that the number of apprenticeships in this country goes up rather than down? Each year at the moment the numbers are going down and we need them to go up.
What I would most like to see is the Minister accept the amendment put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke. It is an excellent amendment and comes with the great pedigree of a former Chancellor; he was not a notable high spender as Chancellor but was quite discriminating in the object of his affection when he was in charge of the national money bags. If he thinks that this should be a big imperative national priority, then we should think so too. I very much hope that something like his amendment becomes the law of the land.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in such fine form, but I am going to argue with his conclusion on degree apprenticeships and other higher apprenticeships. They have been a great boost to the quality of British management. We have needed for a long time to put more effort and skill into that level of business. We needed better management; we needed more and better managers. The money going in that direction has not been a waste—it is just that we needed rather more money in addition to go towards young people.
I am not sure whether the pattern of apprenticeship that we dreamed up, and now have some experience of, has really proved itself. If I understood the Minister aright on a previous day, we are going to make a serious attempt to provide apprenticeship-style funding and opportunities for people in the creative sector where the pattern of employment has so far precluded apprenticeships. We are going to look at, I believe, something much more akin to a series of shorter-term training opportunities, with something that glues it together into a career progression, such as a relationship with a learning provider or someone else independent of an employer.
That is a much better pattern for a lot of young people than an apprenticeship. They can get the skills they need to get into a job and to regularly have opportunities to upskill, not a year or three years at a time, but two or three months at a time. It is a pattern that has evolved quite successfully in the IT and creative industries. The lack of support and effective government funding has had some unfortunate socially exclusionary consequences—people have to be able to afford the training themselves rather than having support. I am delighted that the Government are coming into that area.
I do not think we should assume that, just because we dreamed up apprenticeships at levels 2 and 3, in a lot of cases they have proved themselves. They have in some places, but it would suit young people in particular and employers better to have something made up of shorter-term elements with the pastoral care—particularly for small companies—being provided by experts rather than randomly through an overstressed corporate HR department.
That would provide quite a good structure for looking after the interests of returners and career changers. We ought to be providing these people with a real opportunity to contribute to the economy in the way they can. That will involve a degree of retraining. There should be no hurdles as to the level someone has reached previously. They might well have a degree in Greats but want to retrain as a motor engineer, and it does not help if they are not able to access the right level of provision for that change. We ought to be supporting that.
We ought to do it through grants initially. I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke that for someone coming out of education and into their early years of economic life with no substantial qualifications, to have a chance to get something under their belt is important. However, it should be what is necessary to get on the ladder for the career they are looking at. That may well be a level 2 or 3 qualification, or it may be something much shorter.
If you are looking at doing something more substantial than that, I do not think that we need do more than make sure that people can access the loans system to get themselves on track. However, we ought to be being fair. I like the spirit of these two amendments, and I hope that the Government will move in their direction.
Lord Layard (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 76. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, has argued so powerfully, we are, as a nation, very good at producing graduates and pretty bad at producing skills for the other 50%.
I start with a quite extraordinary statistic: if you ask what proportion of all the 18 year-olds in our country are not in any form of education or work-based learning, the answer is 30%. That is an absolutely incredible situation, and it really is time that we addressed that problem. It is a problem for our national productivity and, of course, it is a big problem for the subsequent incomes of those people. If we are looking for priorities, which is what this is all about, the central aim of post-school policy development must now be to deal with that problem and get more of our young people up to level 3—or at least level 2.
The lifetime skills guarantee is of course a very welcome proposal towards that end—giving a first level 2 or 3 to everyone, free of charge, irrespective of age—but it should be put into law. If the Government are serious about it, they should have no reservations on that point. That is covered in the first bit of this amendment. However, the more substantial issue, to which my noble friend Lord Adonis referred, is how to deliver that guarantee. Unless the places are there, there is no point in a person feeling that they have the right to free education if, when they look around, they see nothing that they like. They would not, in effect, have a right—they have that right only if the money automatically follows their choice.
What we are saying to the Government—I hope that the Minister will reflect on this—is that there is actually no chance that the guarantee can be delivered through the existing system of contracting with the colleges. In that system, each college has a capped budget, the size of which it negotiates annually with the Education and Skills Funding Agency. That agency, in turn, has a capped total budget, which, currently—even taking into account recent increases—is half of what it was in 2010. So that is what our present funding system enables us to do for the other 50%. We can do whatever we will, but, unless we do something about that funding system, we will not be able to deliver the right to a lifetime skills guarantee.
The contrast between what faces those people and what faces people going down the academic route is extreme because if you go to university or sixth form, the money of course follows you automatically. That is why our academic education is among the best in the world. It is difficult to think of anything more completely unjust in our social arrangements in this country than the comparative treatment of people going down the academic route and of those wanting to go into further education.
We have to dynamise the system of further education in the same way that we have dynamised universities: by enabling any institution that thinks that it can attract the people who are entitled to put the course on, knowing that the money will automatically follow. It is very nice that we have the “lifetime skills guarantee” expression because we can say that any student who is accepted by a college should automatically be funded for exercising their guarantee. What is a guarantee if the money does not come with it? It should be a guarantee of free education, funded in an automatic fashion. We want our colleges to lead in transforming the skills of our non-graduates, which, as I say, is more important than any problem relating to graduates. Let us take the colleges off the leash and pay them for any eligible student who they can attract—that is the only way that we can implement the lifetime skills guarantee. I hope that the Minister can reflect on how that guarantee could be implemented in any other way.
I turn finally to apprenticeships. Again, as many noble Lords have already said, we have to be clear about what the really big problems are, as opposed to other things that would also be desirable but are not of the highest priority. As I said at the beginning, the biggest problem is that so many young people are entering adult life without any proper training—we absolutely have to address that. The key moment occurs before people are 25; we must do better for people at that stage. To put that in context: 30% of people have had no form of work-based training or education. This is a problem of opportunity and of places. We are still trying to get the figures, but we know that there is huge excess demand from young people for places on apprenticeships. There are people who want apprenticeships and cannot get them. Finding a mechanism to generate those places is absolutely critical. At the Youth Unemployment Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Baker, referred, we constantly have evidence of this huge excess demand. We are trying to get the numbers; we do not have them yet, but everyone says that that demand is there.
We can only solve that problem if we use the apprenticeship levy to generate those places. One could imagine all kinds of subtle ways to incentivise employers to spend the apprenticeship money on younger people, but I do not think that they would work. That is why this very simple rule—two-thirds of apprenticeship funding going to people under the age of 25—is the most direct approach. Of course, it has to be for people taking apprenticeships at levels 2 or 3 because, if we said “under 25” but not the second part, we would see that they would want to fund degree and graduate apprenticeships. They would want to recruit bright young graduates and not bother about the other half of the population.
I stress the need to focus not just on the places but on the money for the places, because places for younger people are cheaper than those for the older people. As the amendment says, two-thirds of the money should go to people starting at levels 2 or 3 when aged under 25. Of course, I am very keen on degree and graduate apprenticeships but, if employers want to do those, they should come from the other third of the money or their own resources.
This whole amendment is about how to generate the places for young people to get the proper start in life that we want them to have and, thereby, earn a decent wage and contribute to national productivity. Such things do not happen just by saying, “You’ll have a guarantee”; you have to put it into law, as the other amendment also says, and then have proper ways of funding both the guarantee and the apprenticeship.
It is true that the Government now have the right aspirations. We are in a new situation with huge opportunity, and the skills White Paper absolutely heads in the right direction, but this amendment is, in a sense, a test of how serious the Government are about actually realising their admirable aspirations. I hope that the Minister will find the amendment helpful.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 80 from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, but I also strongly support Amendment 76 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, and the noble Lords, Lord Layard and Lord Rooker. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Layard; we are among some of the giants of the education world here.
If the Government are serious about wishing to reskill and upskill the nation, lifelong learning is an absolutely essential component. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that “lifelong” is the word we are more used to—but I agree with him that we should sort out before we go much further whether it is lifelong or lifetime. As we shall discuss later, adults are much less likely to wish to take on repayable loans, so the right to free education up to level 3 is a very positive measure.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, again, we have had a stimulating debate, with many insightful contributions. I have to say that we support Amendment 76, in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, and my noble friends Lord Layard and Lord Rooker. It is similar in its first provision to ours, which references
“All persons aged 19 or older”,
while theirs states:
“Any person of any age has the right to free education … up to Level 3”.
Below the age of 19, that right is already there through school or college or via an apprenticeship, although I accept the points made by my noble friend Lord Adonis about apprenticeships since the levy was introduced.
I acknowledge the important point about the pension age made by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, reinforced by my noble friend Lord Adonis. As they rightly said, many people now have no alternative but to work beyond—perhaps in some cases far beyond—that point in their life. That has given food for thought for these Benches, if we decide to return to this at Report. It is a valid point.
We also support the other two provisions in Amendment 76, the first concerning funding through the adult education budget. Of course, what happens to the adult education budget is a great unknown, as much of it has been devolved to the metro mayoral authorities, which we know the Government, probably for political reasons, want to keep at some distance from this Bill. We think that is a great shame and is quite wrong, but perhaps the Minister can clarify the Government’s view of the role of the adult education budget going forward.
The third provision in Amendment 76 relates to the apprenticeship levy and attempts to right a wrong that has developed since the levy was introduced in 2017 that not enough of it has been used to pay for apprenticeships for young people. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, highlighted some of the anomalies that have resulted, for instance, with MBAs. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the points made in the amendment point to a more important misuse of the levy. I really do not think that MBAs were anybody’s intention when it was introduced.
We also support the stated objectives of the Bill as a whole to
“make it easier for adults and young people to study more flexibly - allowing them to space out their studies, transfer credits between institutions, and take up more part-time study”.
The Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee was a central plank of the Queen’s Speech and the build back better and levelling-up agenda. Last week, we hoped to find out more about levelling up and what it actually meant, when the Prime Minister made a speech, but I have to say that, having heard that speech, we are still waiting. The lifetime skills guarantee forms an integral part of this legislation but, to the disbelief of many people across your Lordships’ House and the FE sector, the Government’s flagship policy is not in the Bill. Our Amendment 80 aims to rectify this oversight by placing the lifetime skills guarantee on a statutory footing. As the Federation of Awarding Bodies has said:
“Support for adult education in future could be as comprehensive as access to the NHS, but only if we get the passage of the legislation right.”
The lifetime skills guarantee is welcome, but it needs to be a much wider guarantee, supporting retraining and learning in a range of levels. It is beyond my comprehension why the Bill is silent on qualifications below level 3, as other noble Lords have said. At present, 13 million in the UK do not have a level 2 qualification, and around 9 million adults lack functional literacy and numeracy skills, leaving them more vulnerable to job loss and making it harder for them to secure alternative work if that happens—yet they are being offered no support in this Bill. Why?
There is no recognition of the value of qualifications below level 3 in creating progression pathways for students. The report from the Department for Education, snappily titled Measuring the Net Present Value of Further Education in England 2018/19 and published two months ago, revealed the return on investment of these qualifications and concluded that the net present value of qualifications below level 2 is actually higher than for level 3. Why have the Government ignored their own evidence?
Six million adults were identified in the Augar review as not having qualifications at level 2, yet the total number of adult learners has fallen in recent years. If we want people to reach level 3 and above, surely more of them need to achieve level 2. To repeat: we are particularly concerned that no support is provided for any qualifications below level 3, despite lower level qualifications offering many adult learners key progression routes.
Nor do the proposals support subjects outside a narrow band of technical disciplines. A list of 400 qualifications is too restrictive; 1 million priority jobs will be excluded from the lifetime skills guarantee in sectors facing a major skills shortage, including retail, hospitality and the arts. Jobs in sectors such as veterinary care, building and architecture, as well as computer programming, which have been designated by the Government as priority for work visas, are also excluded from the guarantee offer.
Last week, we saw the Government’s response to the level 3 qualifications reform. Despite all the consultation responses that the Department for Education received, it was disappointing to see the Government continue to focus on the number of regulated qualifications instead of supporting course diversity and real careers choices for young people post-16. The suggestion that the number of qualifications made available can be reduced from around 75,000 to a mere handful is surely fanciful. If the Government listened to college leaders, learners and parents as much as they do to employers, they would know that. As the Federation of Awarding Bodies also said
“The outcome of this particular review”—
that is, the level 3 qualifications reform—
“is taking the country in the wrong direction. It will not help level up across the regions of England and it will result in less opportunities for disadvantaged learners in future.”
We are seriously concerned by the Government’s intrinsically flawed conception of how to measure value in post-16 education and that it will prevent the proper funding of socially useful and valuable, if lower earning, professions and paths in life. Our Amendment 80 ensures that all adults aged 19 and over without an A-level or equivalent qualification, or who hold such qualifications but would benefit from reskilling, can study a fully funded approved course, and requires the Secretary of State to consult on and review the list of approved courses to ensure that they are compatible with national skills strategies.
We also believe that the lifetime skills guarantee should be extended to include subsequent level 3 courses to unlock retraining for even more people. Eligibility for retraining is all the more important given the impact of the pandemic and ever-changing market needs. This is why the amendment allows for flexibility for a provider, perhaps on the recommendation of a Jobcentre Plus work coach or a qualified careers adviser, to allow for a subsequent level 3 course of study if the person would benefit from retraining in an area where there is a demand for skills. This is more important than ever before, given rapidly changing market needs and to support industrial decarbonisation goals.
The entitlement to a first full level 3 qualification for those under the age of 25 was introduced by a Labour Government in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. As things stand, the Bill would do away with it. The Augar review recommended an all-age level 3 entitlement, and the Government have now put this into effect with a guarantee, but only to a limited list of level 3 qualifications and only for those who do not have one. An adult who is made unemployed and needs to retrain but already has a level 3 qualification—an A-level perhaps, or BTEC equivalent—will not be able to access the entitlement.
Why are the Government shutting the door on people who want and need to retrain for the future needs of the economy that the Government tell us the Bill is intended to prepare for? It simply does not make sense. These amendments are necessary if, as my noble friend Lord Layard said, the Government’s stated aim of parity of esteem between the academic and technical routes is to be meaningful. I look forward to the response from the Minister.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the opportunity for this important debate on the provision of skills to those who may not have got them earlier in their lives or who are seeking to retrain. I hope I can give noble Lords quite a bit of comfort in that the Government broadly concur with many noble Lords’ ambitions around lifelong learning in this area. That is backed up by some clear policy statements and funding commitments. It is not necessary to specify such requirements in the Bill.
Amendment 76, tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham, seeks to provide free access for approved courses up to level 3 for any person if they have not already studied at that level, including automatic in-year funding to providers to cover these students. It may help if I explain the current position. Up to the age of 18, participation in education and training is fully funded. For adults aged 19-plus, the adult education budget fully funds or co-funds provision from pre-entry to level 3, to support adults in gaining the skills that they need for work, an apprenticeship or further learning. This includes a significant amount of fully funded provision, including English, maths and digital courses, the first full level 2 and level 3 for learners aged between 19 and 23, and fully funded training up to and including level 2 where learners are unemployed or in receipt of low wages. The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, referred to this category of learner, which includes learners who have already achieved level 2 or above but need to retrain to improve their job or wage prospects. I will cover my noble friend’s final but important point about level 3 funding for those aged 24 and above, which I have not covered yet, when dealing with Amendment 80, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson.
A number of noble Lords spoke to the part of the amendment relating to apprenticeships. From August 2020 to January 2021, 16 to 24-year olds accounted for 53% of apprenticeship starts. In the same period, level 2 and level 3 starts made up over two-thirds of starts, so across the programme we are already meeting the aims of this amendment by focusing on younger and entry-level apprenticeships. However, that does not mean that every employer should meet that goal. Legislating in the way proposed will reduce employers’ ability to meet their individual skills needs, and reduce opportunities for individuals, including older workers who may need to retrain or want to progress in their career.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness said that there was now a scheme for enabling large employers to transfer part of the proceeds of the apprenticeship levy to SMEs. What is the incentive for them to do that? It was not clear to me why they would do it, apart from just good will—they may do it for good will, but it is good to have some incentives. Also, although she issued a lot of warm words about younger apprenticeships, she did not—unless I missed it—directly address the third part of the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, which requires employers receiving apprenticeship funding to spend
“at least two thirds of that funding on people who begin apprenticeships at Levels 2 and 3 before the age of 25.”
What is the Government’s view on an actual requirement that two-thirds of the funding be spent on those who are under 25?
Baroness Penn (Con)
As noble Lords will be aware, when large employers pay the apprenticeship levy, those funds stay in their account for up to two years and, if unspent, return to the Government. They fund wider apprenticeship provision, such as the provision of maths and English tuition, the administration of the scheme and other aspects of it. However, we know that large employers have unspent funds. They may, for example, want to transfer those to other businesses in their supply chain that would benefit from taking up apprenticeships in that form. That is one incentive they may have to transfer the levy funds.
On the point about obliging employers to have two-thirds of their apprenticeships filled by young people, while we want to ensure that young people and employers are incentivised to take up apprenticeships and are working towards that, one piece of feedback we get from employers about the unspent levy is a lack of flexibility on how to spend it. There is always a balance in ensuring that there is sufficient flexibility for how employers can use their levy while making sure that it delivers on the aim: high-quality, technical apprenticeship schemes that deliver the skills that employers need.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received no further requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the mover, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I asked specifically about the skills fund. When it was published, the fund said that it had four items of expenditure—it is a huge fund of over £2 billion, and the first item was £93 million to pay for free training for A-levels. The Government are consulting again on the skills fund; is that proposal on ice or has it been withdrawn?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I will have to undertake to get more detail for the noble Lord on that specific point. I can confirm two things: the current consultation on the skills fund does not mean that existing funding committed under that fund for this year has been put on ice. I referred to the national skills guarantee for level 3 qualifications—of course, a full level 3 is equivalent to A-levels—and the skills bootcamps, which are also funded this year. I undertake to write to him to address his specific point about A-levels.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I believe I have no further requests to speak after the Minister. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Baker; I am afraid the message arrived rather tardily, but I am sure that that was the technology. I now call the mover, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply, and I realise the constraints a Minister has in replying to a debate of this kind in the Lords. She was obviously trying to be helpful. I was very grateful for the wide level of authoritative support that the amendment received. I hope that, before we return to this subject on Report, she will try to come back with a little more substance in response to the points that were made.
Very briefly, on the first point in the amendment, that we should put the Government’s lifelong learning guarantee on a statutory basis, my noble friend’s only reply was that she saw no need to put it in the Bill. Well, given the problems that often arise between Governments announcing noble intentions and the actual delivery of things on the ground, I beg leave to doubt that. Of course, one can ask the opposite question: what exactly is the reason for resisting putting it in the Bill if the Government are all in favour of it? Given that I so welcome the lifelong learning guarantee, perhaps the Government would consider signing up to it—not in blood exactly, but at least putting themselves under a legal obligation to those who should be entitled to it.
On the questions of expenditure that we have been asking, it is certainly the case that noble Lords kept referring to my being a former Chancellor. I am also a former Minister of Employment and Secretary of State for Education. As a former Chancellor, I am quite traditional; I am fiscally responsible—a bit of a fiscal hawk, sometimes—but I do think there are two subjects on which it is unavoidable for the present Government to spend more money. That means I would probably be at least as hawkish as the present Chancellor in resisting all the other lobbies which are inevitably piling in as the atmosphere of free money prevails. Social care and skills training—filling the skills gap—are irresistible things to which we must devote more resources.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 76A. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 22: Further education in England: intervention
Amendment 76A
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that the role of an institution in the further education sector is to ensure that there are no gaps in local provision, and that the Secretary of State must take account of provision from other providers that can reasonably be accessed locally e.g. online.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, the question I ask with Amendment 76A is: who is making sure, in this new world that we are creating, that the overall educational provision at sixth form and beyond is as it should be? I hope we are not dividing the world into academic and technical; there is such a broad stretch across that divide. I hoped that we were trying to heal that divide, but we seem to be creating new structures for driving technical education that do not obviously or easily fit into the structures we have for driving academic education.
On technical education, the Minister told me last time we were here that the Sussex Chamber of Commerce would be a trailblazer. That is an area that is not obviously different from the South East local enterprise partnership. The main differences for the constituent parts of Sussex are that this is a new entity unused to this sort of responsibility; that it has none of the old associations, familiarities and relationships that go with, in this case, either of the local enterprise partnerships that cover the area; and that it is not congruent in any way with the providers of ordinary education, which are, at that level, East Sussex and West Sussex. It is not clear how they will have a co-ordinated voice in dealing with academic provision, because a lot of the academic provision in our part of the world is provided by further education institutions.
If we look at what is happening in Eastbourne, where I live, we are a town of 130,000 people with no substantial academic sixth form provision. There is one fine free school, but it is small. There is an excellent FE college, whose A-level provision consists of business studies, English, history and sociology. In this new arrangement that we are looking at, who will be responsible for making sure that the young people of Eastbourne have the educational opportunities they deserve? It is not clear to me that there is anyone effective to do that without making a change, such as I have suggested in this amendment, to ensure that the FE colleges sweep up where the schools have failed to provide. I beg to move.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the points from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, are very well made regarding the need to see adequate local provision of technical education, including, as his amendment would provide,
“academic qualifications, taking into account other provision accessible locally”.
I would like to raise one very specific matter. I do not expect the noble Baroness to be able to answer me immediately, but I would be very grateful if she could write to me about it. A very significant aspect of further education—by which I mean post-16 academic education—is the availability of the international baccalaureate. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could write to let me know what the recent trends are in the availability and provision of the international baccalaureate—availability in terms of how many providers there are in the state system, and provision in terms of the take-up of places over recent years.
I see this as a very important part of academic further education provision. There is a bit of history here that I would like to draw to the attention of the House, because this may be an issue we wish to return to on Report. One issue being debated in respect of this Bill, and which is a live debate in the whole of the post-14 education arena, is what should happen to GCSEs and whether we should move to a more baccalaureate-type system. I am sympathetic to the argument in both respects: that we should conceive of the phase of education from 14 to 18 or 19 as a single phase and that we should move to a broader provision of subjects as part of the mainstream academic curriculum—and indeed the vocational post-16 curriculum—rather than the very traditionally narrow curriculum we have had, with the emphasis typically on three A-levels or technical subjects.
A generation ago, the introduction of the international baccalaureate sought to deal at the post-16 level with this very narrow academic subject focus by introducing a now well-established international course, which is taught in international schools and many schools within national jurisdictions. The international baccalaureate requires six subjects to be taught and studied between the ages of 16 and 18, leading to the diploma of the international baccalaureate, which must include mathematics, a science and a modern foreign language besides, obviously, the language which students study as a matter of course.
It is my view—and the view of a large number of educationalists—that the international baccalaureate is a superior course to A-levels. When I was the Minister responsible for these matters, the judgment we reached was that it was too difficult a reform to carry through, for all kinds of reasons, to replace A-levels entirely with a baccalaureate-type system. It was our policy to make the international baccalaureate much more widely available—and available in state schools as well as private school. As the Minister may know, the international baccalaureate is quite widely available in the private sector but, going back 15 years, it was hardly available at all in the state system.
At the time, we provided a significant incentive for the teaching of the international baccalaureate by requiring that each local education authority area should have at least one provider of the international baccalaureate in either a school, sixth form or further education college. This led to quite a big take-up of the IB, which was a positive development in the education sector and led to a raising of the skill level and an extension of choice.
However, after 2010, the requirement for there to be at least one IB provider in each local education authority area was dropped—not, I think, because the then Education Secretary, Michael Gove, was against the IB but because of funding cuts and insufficient funding in the system to provide for it. My understanding is that the number of providers offering the IB and the number of students studying it have plummeted. I see this as a retrograde step and a significant denial of choice in the education system, particularly for students in the state system because, as I said, there are providers in the private sector and parents can choose to pay for their children to study at schools or colleges that provide the IB.
Can the Minister provide—either to the Committee now or, if she unable to do so, in writing to me and other Members; I perfectly understand that she may not have the figures in her brief—an update on the actual position with the IB in terms of numbers of providers and students and how those numbers have changed in recent years?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, on Thursday—day 2 of Committee—I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, about the need for the new section to be introduced by Clause 5. It states:
“The governing body of an institution in England … must … from time to time review how well the education or training provided by the institution meets local needs, and … consider what action the institution might take … in order to meet those needs better.”
I said that I did not think this necessary because, to me, it is self-evident; that is what local further education colleges are about. I asked on what basis the Government felt it necessary to draft Clause 5 if there were many failing FE colleges. The noble Baroness made it clear to me that that was not case.
I feel the same about Clause 22 because, again, it seems to be based on the assumption that, for some reason, a number of colleges are operating on a day-to-day basis oblivious to what is happening in their own back yard. I just do not think that is the case. I repeat what I said on Thursday: not every further education college is perfect, does everything it has to do and does everything well, but there seems to be an impression by the Government that there is an attempt to undermine what the FE sector does—quite apart from the fact that, as we heard in the debate on the previous group of amendments, that sector has been seriously and serially underfunded, which can only inhibit what it is able to deliver for its local area.
I find myself a bit uncomfortable with this clause because, if a further education college does not ensure that there are no gaps in the local provision, as this amendment seeks to ensure, then what does it do? I cannot believe that such colleges just turn a blind eye. I cannot argue with Amendment 76A but I must say something to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He used the example of Eastbourne, which he mentions, along with its 130,000 inhabitants, often. I must visit it some time; it must be a very attractive place. However, even in that local example—and, by all means, use local examples in these debates—I do not think he made the case for there being widespread failure. I repeat the point I made on Thursday: the vast majority of FE colleges know what they need to do for their locality and do it well.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, before I call the Minister, I remind Members that, for this week at least, they should send an email to the Table if they wish to speak after the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 76A relates to intervention in FE college and sixth-form college corporations and designated institutions.
The measures that we set out in Clause 22, to which the amendment relates, will enable the Secretary of State to intervene where the education or training has failed adequately to meet local needs. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, outlined, a new duty under Clause 5, and the corresponding change to the enforcement powers comes in response to putting that duty on local providers. This builds on the existing intervention powers under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 by enabling the Secretary of State to direct the governing body to restructure. This measure is part of a package of reforms, including the introduction of local skills improvement plans and the new duty under Clause 5. However, I can assure noble Lords that the statutory intervention powers are intended to be used only as a last resort—that is, when all other alternative courses of action have failed to secure the improvements necessary to deliver for local learners.
The amendment from my noble friend Lord Lucas seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State takes into account academic qualifications and other local provision when considering how well local needs have been met. I join the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in being fascinated by my noble friend’s descriptions of Eastbourne. I can confirm for him that, at East Sussex College, 118 students are enrolled on A-level courses as their core study course, which is more than 50 in each of the two years. He also mentioned Gildredge House, a free school with around 65 students on level 3 academic programmes. I understand that East Sussex College is undertaking on each of its campuses a review of the specialisms offer that it makes to ensure that it best fits with local needs, and that it is considering enrolment activity and the level of demand from young people.
The assessment we envisage under the Bill will therefore not be restricted to a particular type of provision. Although the Secretary of State must consider the priorities set out in any LSIP, this does not exclude other provisions that are relevant to local needs—including academic provision specifically—also being reflected in the assessment. If there is a failure to meet needs in a local area, there is a responsibility on all the providers serving that area to work together to agree the changes required to bring about improvement. Every college involved in meeting the needs in a local area should be accountable for how well those needs are met.
I hope that these brief remarks provide some reassurance to my noble friend, and I ask him to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that answer. I would be delighted to entertain her in Eastbourne for a day or two, particularly in this weather; I think she would enjoy it.
I understand that there are processes that are supposed to deliver what a local area wants, but they seem to be becoming ever more remote and fractured under the arrangements in this Bill. I remain unconvinced that what we are setting up in this Bill will deliver better provision than we have at the moment, but I will read my noble friend’s answer carefully and with interest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 76B. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 76B
Baroness Berridge
“Relevant date for purposes of fee limit for certain higher education courses
In paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 2 to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (the fee limit where the provider has no access and participation plan), omit “before the calendar year”.”Member’s explanatory statement
Certain fee limits for academic years of higher education courses depend on whether the provider had a high level quality rating on a particular date. This new Clause changes that date to 1 January in the calendar year in which the academic year begins from 1 January in the previous calendar year.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I speak to government Amendments 76B and Amendment 101 in my name. They relate to the high-level quality rating, which is currently the teaching excellence and student outcomes framework, known as TEF, for providers without an approved access and participation plan.
Higher education providers with a TEF award currently benefit from an uplift to their fee limit, meaning they are able to charge a higher level than higher education providers without a TEF award. Despite the best efforts of noble Lords and the Government, there is an error in the legislation that could prevent a timely link between TEF awards and a provider’s fee limit. For example, currently, where a provider does not have an approved access and participation plan, whether the provider is entitled to the TEF fee uplift in any academic year is dependent on whether it had an award on 1 January in the calendar year before the relevant academic year. This means that a provider seeking to charge the TEF fee uplift in academic year 2022-23 would be able to do so based on an award in force in January 2021, rather than January 2022, which was the original intent of the legislation. This amendment will correct this and ensure a more timely link between fee limits and TEF, helping to further incentivise excellence in higher education. These amendments are of benefit to the institutions that I outlined.
Amendment 101 is a related consequential amendment to Clause 27, which sets out that the proposed new clause in Amendment 76B will come into force two months after Royal Assent. I beg to move.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, in the previous group on Amendment 76A, the noble Baroness did not reply to my point about the international baccalaureate at all. I fully accept that she may not have the data I was after, but I would be grateful if she could put on record a commitment to write to me about it.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, having had a look at this amendment, I really put my name down to speak to ensure we can thank the Government when they correct things on the go. It is a precedent that should be encouraged as we go through this, so I thank them for doing it. The description of the amendment the noble Baroness gave made sense to me, so more power to their elbow. I hope they will correct things as they go, with great rapidity.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of these amendments. From what she said, this appears to be a minor change to Schedule 2 to HERA. I gather it will apply only to providers that have a TEF award but not an access and participation plan, which therefore can charge only the basic fee plus a TEF supplement. The legislation currently says that they have to have held the TEF award on 1 January in the year before the course starts, but I presume it should have said on 1 January before the course starts. That is a good lesson to all of us on the importance of careful drafting. Although it went through in 2017, I am glad they have now been able to correct it.
I take this opportunity to ask the Minister a couple of quick questions. First, will any current providers be affected by this? I imagine that none will be, as the last TEF assessment exercise was in 2018-19. All TEF awards had been due to expire this summer, but were extended to 2023 to give the Government time to create a new TEF scheme and make assessments under it. I imagine that means that the only people who will be affected by this amendment, any time soon, are new providers applying for provisional TEF awards. Could she confirm that? Since that provisional award process has only just opened and the awards will not be confirmed until September, I imagine it will only affect courses starting in 2022, but it seems a sensible move.
We are now in the strange position of most providers having a TEF award but being told by the Office for Students not to advertise it, because the assessments that led to them are now out of date. This is a rather sad state of affairs for a system launched with such fanfare, so could the Minister take this opportunity to give the Committee a brief update on what is happening with TEF and when we can expect to see proposals for a new TEF system?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions, particularly the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and his thanks for this technical amendment to fix an error in the existing legislation. In relation to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, as far as I understand it, the most recent TEF assessments were from 2017-18. This is a change to make the legislation fit for purpose for when the new round of TEF is announced. I will write to her with any update of the course for the new TEF.
I had hoped, given that these amendments would not affect any underlying policies, that noble Lords would be able to support them but, in the circumstances, I beg the leave of the Committee to withdraw Amendment 76B.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
At least I am consistent in forgetting twice. I beg the noble Lord’s pardon. We have no intention not to fund the IB going forward, but I will write to him with the statistics.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 77. Anyone wishing to press this to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 77
“Offence to provide or advertise cheating services
(1) A person commits an offence if the person provides, offers to provide or arranges for a third person to provide an academic cheating service to a student enrolled with a further, higher or post-16 education provider on—(a) a course of study at such an education provider in the United Kingdom, or(b) an overseas course of study provided at such an education provider in the United Kingdom, and the academic cheating service is for commercial purposes.(2) A person commits an offence if the person advertises or causes an advertisement to be published, either directly to a student enrolled with a further, higher or post-16 education provider, or through an intermediary.”
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I bring apologies from my noble friend Lord Storey, who is in foreign parts but assured us, before he went, that he would be able to get connectivity and come in and join us on this and other amendments. He self-evidently is not here, so my noble friend Lord Addington and I will try desperately hard to fill the gap he leaves.
I support this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Storey and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. He has been assiduous in his efforts to tackle cheating in all its forms. His research has resulted in a “Panorama” programme following foreign student colleges that collected large sums of money to accredit bogus students with qualifications, which were awarded by reputable awarding organisations that had taken their eye off the ball in their scrutiny of candidates and processes. It was horrifying to see how much money changed hands by falsifying student records and buying certificates with no shred of competence. We saw classes of foreign students who could barely say their names in English, with no language or professional ability, yet who, on payment, could obtain genuine certificates with utterly false credentials. Those awarding bodies have now been tasked and scrutinised, and had their processes significantly tightened.
This amendment is aimed at those who seek to part students from their money in return for validation that has no reality. Cheating has become easier in the technological age. It was more arduous when you had to go to a library and photocopy material—literally cut and paste—but there are those with money and very few brains who aspire to qualifications. It is in the interests of those of us who admire our education system that cheating is stopped, at all costs. If this is not already an offence, it should be. This amendment will ensure that those who seek to cheat in this way can be taken to task and it surely has a place in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I speak on the subject of cheating partly because I have a son who is an academic and I know what agonies this creates for conscientious tutors. I offer two insights. First, cheating at universities and elsewhere is made much easier by the prevalence of coursework, which means there could have been an increase during Covid, to add to our woes.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, rightly said, it is easier in the technological age. The safest thing is to base assessments on exams in person and, if that is not possible, to have tight turnaround times for papers, because that makes cheating harder. The penalties should also be clear—whether being chucked out of university or made to do another year—and whether they apply to essays, which are under examination with this amendment, or to exams only.
Secondly, it is an international problem. An amendment banning services in the UK, which this seeks to do, will just move these services overseas. It is an important issue and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how it is best tackled. I very much thank those who have brought the amendment to the House today.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, these essay mills are getting ever more sophisticated and are employing in some cases quite high levels of artificial intelligence to disguise what they are creating based on existing sources so that the cheating software cannot find it. I suspect that there is no reasonable solution if we are to continue with a system where essays produced in unsupervised conditions count towards a qualification. However, there is some hope, and I encourage the Government to look down this avenue in the work that has been done, for instance, by FutureLearn on analysing the pattern of keystrokes made by a particular individual typing an essay and working on that essay while they are in the course of preparing it. That sort of analysis is very difficult to duplicate and defeat. If we use technology to defeat technology, we can again be confident about the quality of essays.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend—despite the fact that he has been defeated by the wonders of technology—here addresses one of the other problems we have. Something went from students who knew certain essays would come up in certain courses at certain times, and vaguely plagiarising them—that went on just about everywhere—to an industry that means students can gain a qualification. Continuous assessment is reckoned to be quite a good way of learning or of assessing somebody’s ability, or has been in many cases. That is particularly vulnerable to some of these services. The sums of money involved are considerable, because people are paying for it. Furthermore, a student who does this is then open to blackmail for the rest of their professional career. Their qualification, which is the way they make their living for the rest of their life, could be invalidated or they could have a black mark against them. They might not have to pay just a few hundred pounds but could end up paying tens of thousands over the course of their lifetime.
I hope that the Minister will give us a positive answer. My noble friend is quite assiduous on this—he has a Private Member’s Bill going through. If I may appeal to those who are planning government business, it might be a quicker and easier way to accept this amendment or one like it than to have to have an entire Bill go through Parliament. There is not much hope of that but let us try.
Can we find out what the Government are planning to do about this? Technical checking of every essay might be possible—I do not know the state of play of the technology—but everything will have to be entered to be assessed by it, and I am not sure how long that takes. We will have to look at this and at things such as dissertations, or studying by oneself, which are a traditional part of long-term studies in further and higher education. These cannot really be done in any other way than a person working independently, unless there is a lot more monitoring or a lot more time spent on it by staff.
We will have to deal with this problem, or at least learn to live with it and minimise its impact. I hope that the Minister can tell us that there is a coherent plan to at least display the dangers of blackmail and coercion that people are exposed to throughout the rest of an academic career. This is a real problem, and if we can solve it or at least make it slightly better now, surely we should.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has withdrawn from this group so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for stepping into the breach and introducing this amendment and thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I may try to fill in some of the gaps left by the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I should say at the start that we fully support the outlawing of cheating services.
The Minister needs to address three questions: is there a problem, is it getting worse, and what is the right policy response? I think we now all agree there is a problem. We discussed this recently at the Second Reading of the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. In responding to that debate, the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay—acknowledged the growing availability of cheating services and said that this
“puts vulnerable students at risk and threatens the reputation of our world-class higher education sector … it is reprehensible for essay mill companies to profit from a dishonest business that exploits young people’s anxiety and can undermine our world-class institutions.”
Yes, we have a problem. Is it growing? Again, yes, it is. The QAA believes there are now over 1,000 essay mills in operation.
In that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, told me that he had not read the paper by Lancaster and Cotarlan published this year in the International Journal for Educational Integrity. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has read it or that at least she has been given a summary in her brief. It cites the 2015 work by Ardid et al which found no difference in the results students got when they took exams in person or online, provided that both types of exams were supervised. But when students took an exam online and it was not supervised, they got higher marks. That raised the obvious question as to whether students were using contract cheating in online exams. Lancaster and Cotarlan took up the challenge raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and analysed how one website, Chegg, was used during the pandemic by students in five STEM subjects.
They found that students were using it to request answers to exam-style questions and that these could be put live and answered within the duration of an exam. The number of student requests posted for those five subjects increased by almost 200% between April and August last year compared with the same period the year before. Of course, that was exactly the time when many courses moved to being delivered and assessed online. They conclude that
“students are using Chegg for assessment and exam help frequently and in a way that is not considered permissible by universities.”
In 2016, the QAA said it that would approach the main search engine companies and ask them not to accept adverts for essay mills and to block them from search engines. That does not work. This week I did a search, and loads of them appeared. I visited the Chegg website today and it still says:
“Ask an expert anytime. Take a photo of your question and get an answer in as little as 30 mins.”
There is even a website which acts as a comparison site for essay mills. I went mystery shopping on one website before the Second Reading of the Private Member’s Bill, and last week I tried another one. This time round I priced up an undergraduate essay on Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God, with three sources and Chicago referencing. With a new customer’s discount, I could have had 750 words in just three hours for £72. A full 2,500-word essay could be mine in 12 hours for £193. I did not even have to subscribe to find that out.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is quite right: if I were a student and I succumbed to this, as well as risking my academic career, I could be putting myself at risk of being blackmailed. The HE blog wonkhe.com has given examples of students who had problems either because they felt the quality of the work was not good enough or they got cold feet, and were told that if they did not pay the fee, and sometimes pay more money, the site would tell the university that they had used an essay mill.
We accept that we have a problem and that it is growing. What is the policy solution? In the past, Ministers have insisted that legislation was not needed, and they would get sector bodies to get tough and issue guidance and penalties. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said that the Government have been working with the HE sector and tech companies but concluded:
“Despite that work, cheating services remain prevalent.”
That takes us to legislation. It is now three years since 46 vice-chancellors wrote a joint letter calling for these websites to be banned. Meanwhile, other countries have banned essay mills, including New Zealand, South Africa and, most recently, Australia and Ireland.
On 25 June, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, mentioned emerging evidence from Ireland and Australia which
“suggests that those laws are deterring essay mills from providing services to students, and regulators there have reported that having the legislation has provided them with more tools to engage students, higher education providers and cheating services”.—[Official Report, 25/6/21; cols. 536-37.]
Can the Minister tell the Committee why the Government do not think British students deserve the same protection from being preyed on as students in those countries? Contract cheating is a growing problem which puts students at risk and threatens academic integrity. If it keeps growing, it will start to disadvantage students who will not cheat, and that is a problem for all of us. We need to know that our doctors, engineers and lawyers have qualified based on their own merits, not on those of strangers on the internet.
So when will the Government act? If the Minister does not like this amendment, fine: she can bring her own back on Report. But if she does not, how long will we have to wait for another legislative opportunity to deal with a problem which even Ministers acknowledge is real and growing? I look forward to hearing her reply.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for moving Amendment 77 on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. It would make it a criminal offence to provide or advertise academic cheating services in connection with post-16 education. I pay tribute to the tenacity and detail with which the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has given your Lordships examples of the situation, which the Government accept is a growing problem. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, is obviously to be commended for his unstinting efforts to clamp down on essay mills, where unscrupulous online operators write assignments and other pieces of work for students for financial gain.
The Government have consistently made it clear that using these services is unacceptable. Research indicates that cheating services are prevalent, and the evidence suggests that higher education is the area of greatest risk. This is despite the Government working closely with the higher education sector to clamp down on the cheating services, and we have worked with the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, the National Union of Students and Universities UK to produce guidance for providers on how to combat contract cheating. On a specific point raised by several noble Lords, we have worked with the National Union of Students, which has also provided advice for students so that they are aware of the consequences of contract cheating, sending a clear message that these services are not legitimate.
The use of plagiarised assessments is, of course, unacceptable and, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said, it devalues the hard work of those who succeed on their own merit, as well as potentially undermining the reputation of our world-class higher education sector.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, will know, that is why the Government welcomed the principles set out in the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, the Higher Education Cheating Services Prohibition Bill, at its Second Reading, and we agree that we should put an end to the scourge of essay mills.
However, the noble Lord’s amendment would make the provision and advertising of cheating services to all post-16 further education and higher education a criminal offence. Although we support the principles behind the amendment, there is little evidence to suggest that cheating services are a problem in post-16 and further education providers, as they are for higher education. We are therefore of the view that this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for this important policy.
To note the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the amendment lacks sufficient legal detail and precision to demonstrate how it would work in practice. We shall, however, be working with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on his Bill, which covers much of the same ground. It is important that, when we legislate in this area, we legislate correctly and make clear the implications for those who use these services. Sometimes, that can be a response of support for vulnerable students; but, in certain situations, that will be a sanction. We need to make clear, as the amendment does not, what will be the penalties for either advertising or being a service that offers cheating services, or essay mills, and what sanction will follow. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, will feel comfortable in withdrawing the amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that positive reply, and those who supported the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for their contributions—and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, not only for filling in the gaps but for her substantial research and powerful reasons for legislating on these matters. I come back to the point made by my noble friend Lord Addington about how cheating can completely blight your future career, making you open to blackmail and the like.
I sort of accept the reasons that the Minister gave for not accepting the amendment, particularly with her encouragement that my noble friend’s Bill may receive government backing, because I do think this is an incredibly important issue. We are at risk of undermining our higher education and further education systems if cheating continues at this incredible level. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 78. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 78
Lord Addington
“Further education colleges: careers advice
(1) In carrying out inspections of further education colleges, Ofsted has a duty to take into account the careers advice provided to students by colleges, including for the delivery of LSIPs.(2) Ofsted may only give a good or outstanding rating to a college if it considers that the careers advice provided by the college is of a good or outstanding standard.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that young people are supported in their career choices with good careers guidance by making poor careers provision a limiting factor for grading in inspections.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendment refers to careers guidance. They are very appropriate to go into the Bill, and many different options run through them. The one tabled by my noble friend is more compact, but with more information than we find in some of the others. Any one of these approaches is valid, because we need to get something in the Bill that gives some guidance through our system of education.
At the moment, our teachers have gone through a series of exams—GCSEs, A-levels and university—and know what they are doing there. The system knows what it is doing. If we can provide a better service that takes people through the various aspects of what is on offer to various people—particularly in further education—they will get a better idea of what their options are as a student or person going through training, and can go back to refer to it.
The principle has had almost universal agreement; it is just about how we implement it. How will we make sure that somebody knows this quite complicated series of routes? It is further complicated by the fact that, at the moment, further education is the thing you do if you are not academic. The Bill suggests that there are ways forward for which a degree of academic rigour will be required but which are actually training—they are level 4 and 5 qualifications.
As has already been stated today, I have heard that we have been short of people qualified at technician level for 30 years—and I think the shortage goes back further than that. We have always had this problem. There has always been this approach of “Well, you can if you want to”, or “If your A-levels aren’t quite good enough to get to university, you can take on this.” There are myriad qualifications lower down—justifiably, because you have myriad training paths to go down. We will need somebody who studies the options to explain to students and parents how to proceed. I hope that we will get an idea in the debate about the Government’s thinking on this and how they will change the process because, at the moment, it does not matter what you do in the other sector if you do not let anybody know about it in a coherent and planned pattern.
If I remember correctly, my noble friend’s amendment would introduce interventions in certain years before students make decisions, which may well be a valid approach; certainly, it is as good as any I have heard so far. We must make sure that people understand, know, make decisions and plan their lives and the various steps so that they are taking these options on board—or at least are not ruling them out.
Most people generally know where they are headed in education by the age of about 14, so some form of intervention from about then onwards would be sensible, but it will be a difficult job and will require specialist, trained people with a great deal of knowledge to do it properly. It is something we should have done a long time ago, and I hope that, when she replies, the Minister will give us at least a coherent steer as to where the Government’s thinking is. At the moment, we are dealing with something that simply does not work and should have been dealt with a long time ago. I beg to move.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, first, I owe an apology. Normally when I speak in this House I ad lib from a handful of notes and do not read out a written speech. The last time I read out a written speech that I had written myself was 29 years ago, when I was a Minister. So I am breaking my record, and I am reading it out only because this matter involves the law. Not being a lawyer, I remember some advice my father gave me a very long time ago. He said, “When you grow up, be careful what you say to a priest, a doctor or a lawyer”. So I ask noble Lords’ forgiveness.
I declare my interest as chairman of the Baker Dearing Educational Trust. In 2017, the Government accepted my amendment to the Technical and Further Education Act to allow providers of alternative education, such as FE colleges, apprenticeship providers, private learning and training course providers, and university technical colleges, to go into secondary schools and explain to students the various alternative education pathways for their education and training. At the time this was looked on as a breakthrough in careers guidance.
When my old department was devising the legislation, I asked it to make it a statutory duty for schools to provide such meetings, but I was told that the Department for Education would depend on giving ministerial guidance to all secondary schools, and the secondary schools would follow. The advice was largely disregarded by schools and, when complaints were made to Ministers about schools refusing access to specific providers, such as university technical colleges, the department did not act on these complaints to insist that the meetings should take place. There has been no help from the department for the last three years.
This amendment would make it a statutory duty for all secondary schools to provide meetings with their students between 1 September and 28 February in each academic year. These dates are essential because school recruitment lists end on 31 March. By then, students will have selected which school/education pathway they wish to attend. The amendment specifically provides for years 8 and 9, year 11, and year 13, which means that 13 and 14 year-olds, 15 and 16 year-olds, and 18 year-olds will be advised of the various alternatives available for their education and training.
The amendment has secured cross-party support from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, from the Labour Party, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, from the Lib Dems, and the noble Lord, Lord Field, from the Cross Benches. I have taken separate legal advice and I am assured that this amendment would work satisfactorily.
I acknowledge that improvements to implement the Baker clause have been taken by Ofsted and the Government. Ofsted has said:
“If a school is not meeting the requirements of the Baker Clause, inspectors will state this in the inspection report. They will consider what impact this has on … CIEAG and the subsequent judgement for personal development.”
That is most welcome, although it does not directly say whether this would influence the inspectors’ judgment of the overall position of the school.
Robert Halfon, the chair of the Education Select Committee in the Commons, has said that, if a school has not implemented the Baker clause, it should not be rated either good or outstanding. I understand that he has support from members of his committee on that position. This is putting Ofsted’s judgment very close to the judgment on safeguarding, which merits inevitably an “inadequate”. It should also be remembered that only a relatively small number of schools get inspected each year, and some heads may be encouraged to delay a meeting so that it does not take place and risk whether that will be noticed. One should never underestimate the determination of heads of secondary schools to prevent their students knowing about alternative pathways and so keep them in their school’s sixth form, even knowing that several of them would do much better in alternative education.
The Government have also significantly improved the guidance, which was issued only on Friday in a document of 43 pages. I might be the only Member of the House who has read it from beginning to end. I do not recommend it for light reading. Page 7 confirms that the Baker clause has not been implemented; page 14 makes it clear that any complaint against a refusal of access should be heard locally and made to the governing body of the school, which will make a decision on it. This could be a lengthy and expensive process.
The case can then be referred to the Department for Education, but the department recognises that it cannot change an academy’s decision about a complaint—it does not have that power. The role of the department is solely to ensure that the complaint has been handled properly. This means that it is clear that the Baker clause does not impose a statutory duty to provide a meeting, because if it did the department could tell the school that it must arrange a meeting forthwith. No such direction has been given by the department over the last three years. So the present law is defective, and the Government recognise in this document that it has to be changed.
Page 35 makes it very clear that the department wants to see the Baker clause implemented. It says it will “consult on policy proposals” and announce these in September, and it plans to change the law for January 2022. I, of course, welcome that.
My amendment would provide a solution to this problem. I invite the department and the Minister to study it very carefully, as it would clearly create a statutory duty for a school to provide a meeting for all students of the appropriate ages between 1 September and 28 February. Those dates are very important as school admission lists close on 31 March. Therefore, a meeting in the summer term would be futile. Moreover, in the summer term schools are preoccupied with revision, and in June and July, as a result of exams, they are half empty.
I am also glad that the Government make it clear that heads cannot select to attend these meetings those students they want to off-roll and send to other schools. That is an improvement on what they have said in the past.
The guidance, which is good, goes on to say that all students must be able to attend to hear post-16 and post-18 options. This seems to exclude university technical colleges, studio schools and FE colleges that wish to recruit at 14. Year 8 students at the age of 13 must also hear these options. This is recognised in the guidance document on page 41, which says that events for UTCs should take place in the autumn term for year 8 students—a quite specific statement. That should also apply to studio schools and FE colleges—I hope that the Minister or the officials are noting that—because they also recruit at 14. I very much welcome that clarity. I am satisfied that it does make quite clear that UTCs can apply to have meetings in the autumn term, but I suggest that this could be extended to the spring term as well. It is a matter of logistics for the local school as to whether it is more convenient.
This is a very clear statement of the policy that the Government want to pursue, but it must be backed up with a statutory duty that schools must comply with the guidance. I suggest to the Government and to the Minister that, during Recess, I could meet with her—I have not had the chance to meet with her personally, which I am sure I would enjoy—and her officials, as they have made it clear that they would welcome views. When we return in September for Report, we will know what the legal position is. If it is satisfactory and the duty of the school is clearly defined, it will not be necessary to submit this amendment for debate. But if it is not clear and there is not a very clear duty for the schools to arrange these meetings, this amendment will be retabled and put to a decision of the House.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, and I support his amendment. If he has to bring it back, I will support it and join him in the Lobby.
I will speak to Amendments 83 and 84, which would ensure that there is always an up to date careers advice strategy in England. I referred to this in my short Second Reading speech, saying that simply offering more further education and training courses alone, although clearly important, will not deliver on the levelling-up agenda and improve the UK’s skills picture. I made the point that advice and guidance on how to access courses and the pathways into certain careers are central to the Government’s ambitions and to the ambitions of the Bill.
In 2017, the Government published a careers strategy, which acknowledged that careers advice had for some time been unevenly distributed across the country, hindering opportunities for some groups to gain insights into different career options. Its aim was to make Britain a fairer place and promote social mobility by ensuring that everyone, regardless of their background, has the opportunity to build a rewarding career. It also promised to assess the breadth and effectiveness of current careers provision in schools and colleges on STEM subjects, and test new approaches if necessary.
The strategy provided a central role for the Careers & Enterprise Company—CEC—tasking it with co-ordinating support for schools and colleges across all the Gatsby benchmarks. It asked schools and colleges to meet the standards set out by the eight Gatsby benchmarks, and introduced the National Careers Service. Assessments of the impact of the careers strategy to date have highlighted the progress made in terms of careers provision in schools and colleges in England as a result of the strategy, and the impact it has had on young people.
A recent report published by the Careers & Enterprise Company, which looked at the impact of schools following the Gatsby benchmarks on post-16 destinations, found that there is a positive relationship between schools using Gatsby benchmarks and where young people end up post 16. The report asserts that improvements made in relation to the Gatsby benchmarks have led to fewer young people becoming NEET—I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, that that is a terrible acronym—saving the Government about £60 million a year in lifetime NEET costs alone.
A different report, by EngineeringUK and seven other STEM and careers organisations, and the Royal Academy of Engineering report, which I mentioned at Second Reading, also highlighted the importance of good careers provision in schools and colleges in England in the drive to encourage more and more diverse groups of young people to choose a career in STEM, and in particular engineering. For example, it praised the positive impact that careers hubs have had on STEM careers provision in schools and colleges. I will come back to that point in relation to Amendment 84. However, the report from the Royal Academy of Engineering also highlights some of the challenges that still persist. It shows that Covid-19 has had a profound impact on how schools can—and do—deliver employer engagement, for example, and it draws attention to the capacity and funding issues hampering the ambition to provide insights into the kinds of careers on offer in the STEM sector to all young people, rather than a select few.
For the Government to succeed in making the UK a science superpower, to achieve net zero and to experience economic success, they need young people and adults to know what careers are on offer and how to get there. As it stands, many pupils leave school unaware of the exciting career opportunities available to them, for example, in the STEM sector. A misunderstanding of STEM professions among many young people and a lack of awareness of the pathways that can be taken into STEM careers mean that many pupils, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, still do not visualise themselves being successful in these roles. In order for the Bill to succeed, we need to sort out the loans system, and make sure that the lifetime skills guarantee is truly that—but we also need to make sure that young people and adults have access to information, advice and guidance and are inspired to go into the careers that this country needs.
The 2017 careers strategy came to an end in 2020 and there is as yet nothing to replace it. Although the White Paper implies that the Government will continue with this strategy, I would like to know from the Minister what the plans are. My amendment aims to ensure that careers provision will continue to be considered an important piece of the education and skills puzzle, and will have the status and funding it requires to succeed. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, also mentioned schools and, although my amendment does not include schools or secondary education for skills advice, I think that should be included.
I will now move on very briefly to Amendment 84, which follows on from Amendment 83. The proposed new clause looks to ensure that all further education providers in England—and, through that, by default, all secondary education providers—will be able to access the support, training and guidance that careers hubs can offer. As defined on the CEC website, a careers hub is a group of between 20 and 40 secondary schools and colleges in a dedicated area which work together to deliver the Gatsby benchmarks. Collaborating with business partners, the public, education and voluntary sectors, they help deliver the Gatsby benchmarks and improve careers outcomes for young people.
As I mentioned in my earlier contribution, career hubs play a pivotal role in the careers provision landscape. Schools and colleges that are part of a careers hub generally perform better in the Gatsby benchmarks. They also fare better on certain aspects of STEM careers provision than those not in the hub. For example, among schools and colleges in careers hubs recently surveyed by EngineeringUK, 80% said their pupils received at least one STEM employer encounter every year, compared with 53% among schools and colleges not in the careers hubs. The Skills for Jobs White Paper, which predates the Bill, made a commitment to continue with the rollout of careers hubs in England. However, the White Paper was much less clear on timelines and the extent to which the network will be expanded. The Bill itself makes no mention of careers hubs, so I ask the Minister: is it the Government’s intention to continue with the careers hubs, and will they support the CEC in rolling out this programme? Will it be rolled out by the end of 2022?
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 83 and 84 in this group, from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and it is a pleasure to follow him. I will also speak in support of Amendment 78, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and Amendment 82, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Baker. My approach tends to be the opposite of that of the noble Lord, Lord Baker; I tend to start with a written speech and then have to try to update it in line with what people have said before—which sometimes results in a greater degree of incoherence than might otherwise have been the case.
A comprehensive, well-informed and properly funded system of careers information, advice and guidance for people of all ages and stages should be an integral part of our education and skills system. Such a system needs to be based around professional advisers who, firstly, have a very good awareness and information about the opportunities and skills available in their area and, therefore, should be properly engaged in the local skills improvement plan process; and, secondly, are capable of giving personal advice to the individuals they work with. That means, firstly, being able to understand the interests and abilities of those individuals and, secondly—by no means the lesser part—understanding the different pathways and approaches to pursing those interests and achieving the aims that the individual seeks.
The Bill is designed to create the framework for the post-16 education system going forward. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, it would seem extraordinary if such a framework made no reference to careers guidance. The four amendments in this group seek to ensure that the proposed new arrangements under the Bill include essential provisions relating to careers guidance. The one I would perhaps add to those—or at least to the planned guidance on LSIPs—is a requirement for careers guidance professionals to be fully involved in the development of local skills improvement plans, along with the other partner organisations.
Amendment 83 would introduce a duty to publish a careers strategy for England, with updates every three years. As my noble friend said earlier, the careers strategy launched in 2017, which expired at the end of last year, has played an important part in improving the quality of careers guidance over recent years, largely through the efforts of the Careers & Enterprise Company, the National Careers Service and other bodies, including LEPs, careers hubs and the Career Development Institute, representing careers professionals. One of the key elements of that was including a requirement for employer engagement and workplace experiences, which again links to the Bill’s aims.
Careers guidance nationally is now less patchy than it was, and schools are making steady progress towards achieving the eight Gatsby benchmarks of good career guidance. I hope the Minister will indicate in response how that momentum will be maintained, with a careers strategy that properly integrates national and local needs and provides the resources and professional support to schools and colleges to deliver careers guidance in line with those needs.
Local careers hubs have been a central feature of the strategy and currently cover 45% of secondary schools and colleges in England, with a focus on areas of disadvantage. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned, they have proved highly effective in careers education delivery, with results better than those in areas that do not have careers hubs, and should be available to all education providers across England, as required by Amendment 84.
Other aims of a new careers strategy might include ensuring lifelong availability of personal, face-to-face, professional careers guidance for everyone who needs it; boosting the pipeline of qualified careers development professionals to provide that personal guidance—the Government have put resource into the National Careers Service, but other professional advisers need funding as well; increasing co-operation between the Careers & Enterprise Company and the National Careers Service—I would be interested to hear when we are going to hear some of the results of the work that Sir John Holman is doing in that area; and including the role of careers guidance in initial teacher training, so that new teachers are fully aware of the importance of that role.
Of course, the strategy would also need to ensure that there is adequate funding so that schools and colleges can access the support they need to deliver high-quality careers guidance. A while ago it was the responsibility of schools—it still is—but they do not have all the resources or skills they need to deliver it.
Amendment 78 would require Ofsted to take into account the careers advice provided by FE colleges in conducting its inspections, and further would make it impossible for a college to receive a good or outstanding rating unless its careers advice were also rated good or outstanding. This would provide an important incentive for colleges to give proper focus to their careers guidance efforts. I hope the Minister will either accept it or at least explain what other mechanisms the Government might use to ensure that careers guidance in colleges meets required standards.
Finally, Amendment 82 from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, provides another vital brick in the construction of a strong careers guidance system. As he said, the Baker clause inserted into the Technical and Further Education Act 2017 is honoured more in the breach than the observance, so Amendment 82 would make it a statutory duty for secondary schools to provide such access and is more specific about the precise form it should take.
The great majority of apprentices I encounter still have not learned about apprenticeship opportunities from their schools. This amendment could make a real difference in making more young people aware of the technical education, training and employment opportunities available to them, including apprenticeships, and I strongly support it. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government will ensure that high-quality career guidance will be an integral part of the system created by the Bill.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, particularly the detail of Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, because of its focus on the years before further education comes into play. These are the years when choices are determined and motivation aroused. If we want to make a success of further education and produce the skills our economy would so much thrive on, we need to extend the reach of these opportunities to all our children and attract those who might not otherwise have the confidence or aspiration.
This is particularly important in light of the Covid pandemic. The Bill could have been brought before the pandemic, so little account does it take of the effects on education. Indeed, it probably was worked out before the pandemic—but Covid mattered to education. Its damaging effects on achievement, participation and morale mean that many young people have quite lost sight of what careers they might strive for, so these amendments are all the more important, quite apart from their general value to access to higher technical education.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests as a non-executive director of the Careers & Enterprise Company. It is a pleasure to follow noble Lords in speaking to these four amendments. As others have said, their overall purpose is to ensure that all pupils get the best possible advice about future careers that may be open and attractive to them—that they get information about all types of education establishment, including those offering technical education, and the steps needed to get there, and are inspired about their futures.
As I said in the last Committee session, although the Bill looks particularly at post-16 education, careers education is vital right the way through, even from the earliest stages, including the upper levels of primary school. Indeed, that inspiration about the future is why I wanted the Careers & Enterprise Company to be set up: to bridge the gap that had emerged between the world of work and employers and that of education. It was based on a model I had seen operating in Loughborough called Bridge to Work.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and other noble Lords for their remarks about the Careers & Enterprise Company. In November 2020 the company published a report, Careers Education in England’s Schools and Colleges. It said:
“England now has the foundations of a coherent and well-established careers education system, driven nationally by the internationally recognised Gatsby Benchmarks, and delivered locally through The Careers & Enterprise Company’s strategic partnerships with Local Enterprise Partnerships, Mayoral combined authorities and Local Authorities.”
Previously in Committee we have discussed the importance of involving mayoral combined authorities, local authorities and others in the local skills improvement plans.
In relation to the amendments before us, I urge noble Lords to look at the research reports on the Careers & Enterprise Company website, in particular one dated 23 June this year, Careers Leadership in Colleges. I also encourage noble Lords to find out more, perhaps locally, about the work done by the magnificent careers leaders in our schools and colleges across the country—particularly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, just reminded us, in the face of the Covid pandemic.
I welcome the mention of careers hubs in Amendment 84. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, has already set out the significant improvements, and the success that careers hubs are having. His amendment calls for the Secretary of State to ensure that all further education providers give enough access to the support offered by careers hubs. That should already be happening—careers hubs provide a central plank of the skills for jobs White Paper and are designed to bring together employers, schools and colleges, apprenticeship and training providers and others aligned with national skills and local jobs—but clearly there is some way to go, so the sentiment of Amendment 84 is absolutely right.
Noble Lords have mentioned the importance of the eight Gatsby benchmarks. The measurement that schools and colleges are doing against those Gatsby benchmarks is the reason why we are able to say that over the last five years, we have had the strong foundations and coherent careers strategy that we have not had before.
I listened with great interest to the speech by my noble friend Lord Baker. Although he has not met the current Education Minister, he met me several times when I was Education Secretary and I enjoyed our conversations very much. I absolutely understand the rationale behind his amendment. I would just draw attention to what he is proposing with Gatsby benchmark 7, which is about ensuring that schools and colleges make sure that there are encounters with further and higher education providers, including independent training providers. Schools and colleges are not able to show that they have achieved that Gatsby benchmark if they have not ensured that their students understand the full range of learning opportunities available to them, both academic and vocational routes to learning. Schools have to satisfy six criteria, including providing information on the full range of apprenticeships, encounters with further and higher education, including independent training providers, and university visits. My noble friend might say that if colleges and schools are aiming for that Gatsby benchmark, Ministers should accept his amendment, which would enable them to fulfil it. I will listen to with great interest to the Minister’s response.
My noble friend Lord Baker also rightly drew attention to the Department for Education’s very recently updated statutory careers guidance that it has just issued, drawing attention to schools’ and colleges’ legal requirement to provide an access duty, commonly known as the Baker clause, and to make sure that they have put arrangements in place to comply fully with the law, but also with the Ofsted school inspection handbook. Ofsted has made it a legal requirement to comment on the careers guidance at the further education colleges that are at the heart of the Bill.
Lastly, although we are talking about careers advice and guidance in education settings, we should never forget that some of the most influential people in helping young people to find their future inspiration are the adults around them—parents, families, carers and others. Who knows? For some, it may even be a visit to Westminster that leads them to decide that a career in politics is for them.
There are undoubtedly valid points in all these amendments and I hope the Minister will reflect on them. However, I also hope that noble Lords will appreciate that much is now working in careers provision in England, thanks to the consistent approach over recent years. The need now is to keep up the momentum and to ensure that any extra asks of the careers system are rooted in evidence.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes and to hear of her practical support for career hubs.
I support those who have emphasised the importance of careers guidance in schools and colleges, particularly technical options and employer engagement. These are one of the issues that I always mention when I do Speakers for Schools. I make a point of visiting the arts, crafts, music, photography and other non-academic facilities because the creative sector is hugely important to individuals and to UK success.
The issue is particularly difficult for those who do not have parents who know much about career options. You can find yourself on the wrong path unless you talk early on to a knowledgeable adviser. Funnily enough, I know this from my own experience. Having been to Oxford University, I wanted to set up a landscape gardening business but discovered that I would have to go back to an educational institution to fill the science gaps in my convent education before I could do the necessary training. Eventually I joined the Civil Service instead.
Many people less fortunate than me fall through gaps in the education system. So I should add that I very much endorse the thrust of what my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham said earlier, in a brilliant speech, about the need to find a way of helping those who missed out, particularly at levels 2 and 3—some of them no doubt because they did not receive careers advice at the right stage of life.
I am not sure that the answer to the problem is yet another strategy, as proposed in Amendment 83. We just need Ministers to require all pupils to be given careers advice—for example, a minimum of twice in schools, once before they start GCSEs and once before A-levels or, in either case, the equivalent. Technical colleges and universities should also be required to have career hubs of some kind, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has argued. Visits from businesspeople and other role models should be positively encouraged as part of a rich curriculum. Such a system might also require some extra funding.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plans. I will listen carefully to her responses to the various options, including the mechanisms that would be needed for enforcement, particularly the idea of a statutory duty that was put forward by my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking, who has given us a lifetime of educational innovation and achievement, for which are most thankful.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s remark that she wanted to become a landscape gardener but ended us as a civil servant could make the brilliant first sentence of an autobiography, with us all intrigued as to how the intent to become the one ended up in the more humdrum reality of the other. I only hope that, maybe by utilising all the opportunities of lifelong or lifetime learning, she is able to indulge her passion. She has great artistic genius and this may be the moment when she could set up a new enterprise.
There are two issues here. The first is the careers guidance to students in schools and colleges about what should happen after they leave that institution. The second is the more specific issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, of advertising options to students in secondary schools for moving to alternative providers, including between the ages of 11 and 16—when they might be better served by, for example, one of the noble Lord’s university technical colleges—and seeing that that advice is made available to them.
We need to accept that, as is the experience of all of us in the House, careers advice and guidance has never been done well. The truth is that schools with a more academic bent—which I am glad to say is now most schools, but even until quite recently, they were in the minority—have always been pretty good at giving advice and guidance on universities. That is because teachers are graduates and know about universities, and schools are judged on the university destinations of their more able students. However, those schools have traditionally been poor or worse at providing options for technical and further education. That is partly because they are not incentivised to do so, since public authorities and the inspectorate mostly do not notice whether they do or not, but also because teachers by definition have very little experience of these areas. There are almost no teachers who themselves have done apprenticeships or gone on to further education.
So we need to accept that this has never been well done. I suppose that in all areas of policy there is golden-ageism—“30 years ago it was done brilliantly and it has all degenerated since”—but we must accept that the old-style careers service was not great. It did not turn up in most schools, and when it did it was pretty haphazard. It was not regarded as a high priority by local authorities, and schools’ engagement with it was generally a low priority too.
The various incarnations of the careers service—up to and including the Careers & Enterprise Company, which came partly from the wholesale privatisation of the old careers service and the requirement that it be disbanded, which was a draconian step that I would never have taken—have not led to great careers guidance in schools. All those who do good work in this area should be applauded, and the Gatsby benchmarks are great. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the Careers & Enterprise Company, which I hear some good accounts of and some accounts that it barely infringes on the work of schools at all, are to be encouraged. However, there is a systemic problem that we have never properly addressed, which is how we ensure that within each institution there is a facility—which in my experience always means a person—responsible for delivering careers guidance, including technical education guidance.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I start with the areas where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and principally join in his praises for Sir Kevin Satchwell, a truly extraordinary, outstanding head; there are only ever a very few people like him in the system. The more we can listen to and learn by him the better. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that the core to getting careers education right is to have someone strong in each school charged with that responsibility. The focus of parents’ interest in schools is: where am I sending my child in life? What is their future? Where will they end up? What am I equipping them to be able to do? University is just a stepping-stone; it is the quality of insight and advice available in school that is really important, as is the status given to that within the school. Taking an interest in a pupil’s career has to be a high-status activity—up there with sport in some schools and mathematics in others. It is just as important. The people doing it should be painted wearing just as much purple as their academic colleagues.
This is something that ought perhaps to be secured by making it clear that Ofsted will take a real interest in the quality of the advice being provided in schools. None the less, looking at the history of careers advice, something has always been greatly lacking, because, unless they have had an extraordinarily broad career, someone working in a school has access only to a pretty partial view of what is going on in the world; certainly not a broad view of what areas are developing and how things are changing. It would be good to use the opportunity of this Bill. I hope that others will agree on an amendment for Report that puts careers advice and guidance right at the centre of this process.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, as furlough ends, no community will be untouched by unemployment. It is vital, therefore, that a joined up, place-based employment, skills and careers system offers adults and young people the recovery they deserve by providing access to quality education and training opportunities. We know that all FE colleges and sixth-form colleges have been required to secure access to independent careers guidance since 2013. However, the quality of careers advice has been subject to frequent criticism and reforms have been made since that time including, as mentioned, the establishment of the National Careers Service and the government quango the Careers & Enterprise Company.
In 2019, the Local Government Association called on the Government to
“end the patchwork of careers activity in England”,
and hand funding and control of employment schemes to local authorities, as they were responsible for providing a careers service prior to the Education Act 2011. It fell on deaf ears. In 2019, the Augar review of post-18 education stated that it believed secondary school careers support to be “still underfunded” and recommended that every secondary school become part of a careers hub run by the Careers & Enterprise Company to work with schools. My noble friend Lord Adonis has taken that idea much further and talked about individuals within schools. I was very lucky to work for 20 years with an inspirational careers teacher called Helen Lima about whom, in our last inspection, an Estyn inspector said, “That is the best careers lesson I have ever seen”. So we were able to give the best hands-on, quality careers advice to our pupils.
My first question for the Minister is: why are schools not already allowing a range of providers to have access to young people as part of their careers education? The Government introduced something similar to this a few years ago in an earlier amendment to the Technical and Further Education Act 2017, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who got the Government to accept his new clause as an amendment. However, having to bring this back again clearly demonstrates that it has not worked in practice, and that is why we caution so assiduously about so many parts of this unrefined Bill.
Many assurances have already been given by Ministers on previous days in responses to proposed amendments, saying that we should not be probing about this and seeking to improve the glaring deficits that can be changed only by further legislation. However, let us pause and look at what happened here with careers education. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, has had to revisit his earlier work from four years ago because, unless instructions are on a statutory footing, advice will be ignored.
This clause mandates schools and colleges to give training providers the opportunity to talk to students of certain ages about technical qualifications and apprenticeships. As mentioned by my noble friend Lord Adonis, UTCs have this is problem because they only start recruiting at the age of 14.
In a report published in May this year, the universities admissions service warned that one-third of students are not told about apprenticeships, despite this being a legal requirement for schools. It claimed that only around half of those currently studying in FE colleges receive their entitlement. A survey by UCAS found that three-quarters of students said that it was “easy to find information” about higher education, compared to only a quarter who said the same about apprenticeships. Is this acting in the students’ best interests? I think not.
The UCAS report states:
“While most people appreciate that apprenticeships are there as an option, they are not sure either how to get information … or indeed where they can lead.”
Oli de Botton, the chief executive of the Government’s careers quango, the Careers & Enterprise Company, told the AELP conference recently that it was
“true historically that there hasn’t been enough access for ITPs or enough information about apprenticeships and technical routes for young people”.
The eight Gatsby benchmarks have been mentioned by several noble Lords. The first is “A stable careers programme”. Despite assurances, I believe that we are some way off this stability.
On 16 June 2021, in the other place, the Member for Workington presented his Private Member’s Bill, the Education (Careers Guidance in Schools) Bill, which would extend the duty to provide careers guidance in schools. Mr Jenkinson stated that the Bill would extend the requirements to provide careers guidance to children in year 7 and would also implement the proposals in the skills White Paper.
Therefore, the key here is to ensure that the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and others in the Bill are as good as they can be after proper and considered scrutiny by Her Majesty’s Opposition. The key is also to ensure that the Government take full account of past mistakes when legislating in this area, ensure that it is properly put into practice this time and act in the best interests of students, instead of an ideology that serves little purpose or is not rooted in the reality of actual practice in education.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government strongly believe that young people and adults at all stages of their careers need to be equipped to make informed choices and able to gain the qualifications they need to progress in their chosen field. That is why we already have a legal framework in place that requires schools and colleges to provide independent careers guidance to all 12 to 18 year-olds.
My noble friend Lord Baker’s amendment, which led to the commencement of the Baker clause in 2018, referred to by several noble Lords, also means that schools now have a statutory duty to provide opportunities for pupils to meet apprenticeship providers and learn about technical education options.
We are investing over £100 million in 2021-22 in careers provision. This includes funding for the National Careers Service to provide careers guidance to people of all ages, and funding for the Careers & Enterprise Company, to support schools and colleges to meet the Gatsby benchmarks, the Government’s framework for young people’s careers guidance.
I turn first to Amendment 78, so well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on behalf of his noble friend. Section 125 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 already requires Ofsted to consider the quality of the careers offer at further education colleges when conducting standard inspections. Ofsted also comments on it in the inspection report. This applies to all 16 to 18 year-olds as well as students aged 19 to 25 for whom an education, health and care plan is maintained and who attend institutions in the further education sector.
Ofsted’s grade descriptors set out an expectation that a good FE and skills provider will provide high-quality, up-to-date and locally relevant careers guidance and unbiased information about potential next steps to everyone.
Local skills improvement plans will provide a source of independent information to strengthen Ofsted’s monitoring and inspection of providers’ performance and outcomes, including their contribution to meeting the skills needs of the local area. FE colleges will be able to take the plans into account when delivering high-quality careers guidance. We will encourage careers leaders in colleges to interpret data on emerging and changing skills needs for their students.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked about the reverse interaction, with careers leaders in colleges being able to input into the local skills improvement plans. We will explore that through the trailblazers, as we discussed in earlier parts of the Bill, and, depending on what we learn from that process, it may be best placed in the statutory guidance that will be put in place to guide the development of LSIPs.
My noble friend Lord Baker’s Amendment 82 seeks to make it a duty for schools to allow access to alternative education providers. As my noble friend set out, we are committed to implementing and strengthening the Baker clause, which is already in place, so that all pupils receive information about apprenticeships and technical education qualifications.
In the Skills for Jobs White Paper, we announced a three-point plan to strengthen the clause. First, we are introducing a new minimum requirement, covering
“who is to be given access to which pupils and when”.
Secondly, we are introducing
“tougher formal action against non-compliance”.
Thirdly, “government-funded careers support” for schools will be made conditional on complying with the Baker clause. We want to make sure that any changes that we make are the right ones, which is why the department plans to consult on proposals to strengthen the legislation, with the intention of then introducing secondary legislation.
I do not think that now is the right time to introduce new primary legislation here, when we are still working to strengthen and ensure compliance with the first Baker clause and have a legislative route by which we can do so. I would love to meet my noble friend to discover more about this; however, I go on maternity leave on Thursday, so I might have to make provision for officials to reach out to the noble Lord to discuss our new proposals and make sure that, ahead of Report, we have had full engagement with him on what our plans are.
Amendment 83 from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, seeks to ensure that there is always an up-to-date careers strategy in England. The Government have already taken steps towards this—for example, in the Skills for Jobs White Paper, we announced measures to deliver our long-term vision of a high-functioning national careers system. Professor Sir John Holman has been appointed as the independent strategic adviser on careers guidance. He is advising on greater local and national alignment between the National Careers Service and the Careers & Enterprise Company and will advise on the development of a cohesive careers system for the long term. I am afraid I do not have an update for the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and other noble Lords on Sir John’s work at this time. However, we continue to make progress on delivering our careers commitments.
This leads me to Amendment 84, which seeks to ensure that “all further education providers” in England can access careers hubs. In the same skills White Paper, we confirmed our ambition to extend access to careers hubs to all secondary schools and colleges in England, including special schools and alternative provision. This year, we expect to increase the number of schools and colleges in careers hubs by 1,050, taking the total to at least 3,300.
This has been an important discussion on the provision of careers guidance and advice in our education system. The Government are in the middle of delivering some wide-ranging reforms in this area and, as noble Lords have noted, delivery is really the name of the game on a lot of these measures. I therefore hope that noble Lords are reassured that the Government are taking steps towards this, that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is able to withdraw the amendment on behalf of his noble friend, and that other noble Lords will not feel the need to move their amendments when they are reached.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I have received notice from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who wishes to speak after the Minister.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, is the noble Baroness able to give us any information about the provision of apprenticeship options through UCAS? I appreciate that she may not have that information available, so could she write to Members of the Committee about it? There is quite an important issue about actual availability and pathways for young people going through vocational and technical education routes.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am aware that that was one option being looked at to improve the way that young people can navigate their next steps, post school. I do not have the specific outcome of that investigation to hand, so I will happily write to the Committee on that matter.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and one which brought, I am afraid, horrible reminders for me about the situation on special educational needs. Something should happen, and we have done something that should correct it, but it has not. The noble Lord took us through the appeals process. I felt that most pupils would have left school by the time it had finished, which does not give a parent or the person driving it that much incentive to follow it through, to be perfectly honest.
Will the Minister take on board the intentions behind this, because at the moment it is not working? We do not have that breadth of knowledge going in to inform pupils and parents about the options. We just do not have it and, although it might be slightly better under this direction of travel—the Minister said “In a little while”—there will still be lots of holes, judging by the past record. We are going into a culture that does not want to change because it is quite comfy with where it is, thanks very much. It quite likes getting people X grades and on to X institutions, then forgetting about it.
If we are talking in the Bill about giving a broader aspect to what people can get out of this—I come back to levels 4 and 5, the underplayed bit of the education system—we are going to have to educate pupils and teachers, and everybody else, that they have something that can give them a career pathway that may well be more rewarding than, for instance, higher education. It has to go a lot wider than apprenticeships; apprenticeships have been the silver bullet that has successfully missed the mark. We have even run out of ammunition because we are not getting people there. We have got to do better.
If I had to choose a favourite from this little pack of amendments, I would probably run with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Baker. With his level of experience on this, I do not suppose that is any surprise to anybody. I would suggest that we will have to look at this in further detail on Report. There is no disagreement here about the fact that more work needs to be done. There is disagreement only about what progress and what weight has to be put behind the process of change. Bearing that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 78.
“Credit transfer arrangements
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision to facilitate credit transfer arrangements to allow students to move between education providers.(2) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument, and a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to facilitate credit transfer arrangements to allow students to move between education providers.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, credit transfer relates to the assessment and recognition of prior qualifications and credit by institutions and their transferability between institutions. Currently, they make their own assessments of a student’s previous study by comparing it with their own curriculum and awarding credit. Credit is common but not universal in the UK. Not all higher education institutions are modular or make extensive use of credit; the exceptions, perhaps unsurprisingly, include some high-profile universities. Even so, thanks to the credit framework, degrees from these institutions can be confirmed as similar in overall size and form—if not necessarily in content or learning approach—to the sector standard, with at least a quarter being at the highest level of learning for that degree. This is why a permissive approach was adopted in the credit framework for England, which describes rather than prescribes how credit can be used.
There are already national frameworks for credit in the UK. The national credit transfer system covers accredited qualification in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It comprises all eight levels—nine, including entry level—from secondary education to vocational and higher education qualifications, with every level consisting of qualifications of similar difficulty. The regulated qualifications framework includes qualifications which have been accredited by: Ofqual in England; the Council for the Curriculum Examinations and Assessment in Northern Ireland; and the Department for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills in Wales. In these three countries, higher education qualifications validated by universities and other HE institutions are covered by the framework for higher education qualifications, which sits beside the RQF.
Scotland has its own credit transfer system, which is known as the Scottish credit and qualifications framework. It covers all qualification levels in Scotland; unlike other systems, the one used in Scotland has 12 levels. In terms of strengthening pathways between further education and higher education, Scotland has an effective system of articulation, where students who gain sub-degree qualifications in college progress to degree-level study at university, and go straight into the second or third year in recognition of their prior learning.
The UK Government consulted on this in 2016, seeking to gauge demand from students for more switching between universities and degree courses. One result of the consultation that noble Lords may recall was the legislation on accelerated degrees, introduced when the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Marylebone, was the Universities Minister. Since 2019, the OfS has had a statutory duty to monitor and report on the prevalence of student transfers and to encourage the development of such arrangements. This was set out in the Higher Education and Research Act.
Our Amendment 79 would allow the Secretary of State to facilitate credit transfer arrangements to allow students to move between education providers to ensure consistency. As more flexibility is introduced into the education system, particularly modular funding, can the Minister say what frameworks and incentives the Government intend to introduce to ensure that lifelong learning has what might be termed a “common currency”? Given that England lacks an integrated credit and qualifications framework, how might developing one be balanced against institutional autonomy in curriculum design?
The lifelong loan entitlement implies that people will want to adopt a “hop on, hop off” approach to their learning throughout life, which makes it essential that all learning counts for something. I would like to probe what steps the Government are taking, or intend to take, to consult on this. I understand that the Cabinet Office was considering this last year. I am not clear why it was the Cabinet Office, rather than the DfE, but can the Minister also clarify the Government’s intentions there? Do they envisage a UK-wide approach in the shape of a universal credit transfer system? As well as supporting credit transfer within higher education, what are the implications of supporting it between further education and higher education?
A universal credit transfer system would have significant benefits to many students, especially from a widening participation perspective. It would help them to study flexibly by making it easier to break study into bite-size chunks, bank that credit and top it up elsewhere at some point in future. Such a system would certainly support lifelong learning, giving students confidence that they could pause their studies and/or change provider if they needed to, for whatever reason. It would also incentivise innovative models of provision that could be better tailored to students’ needs. An example of this would be the Open University’s OpenPlus programme, where students initially study at one institution before completing their studies at another.
The benefits of credit transfer are many, while other developments could follow the establishment of an effective and accessible scheme. For instance, there could be guarantees that students would be able to progress from a higher technical qualification to a degree course in a similar subject without having to start again from scratch. This is the articulation method, mentioned earlier with respect to Scotland. Students could also be assured of being able to exit easily from institutions that are not providing good value for money, without having to go back to square one, which would be a powerful disincentive.
Any future methods of allowing students to use credit flexibly need to enable transferability across the UK and internationally. The international context is important, because international perceptions of a coherent UK sector are influential in attracting international students, academics and researchers to the UK and in exporting services through transnational education. There are similar advantages in retaining alignment with European and other international frameworks. Were that to be lost through quality being diluted following the progress of this Bill, it would be damaging to the higher education sector. I will be interested to hear the Government’s intentions with regard to maintaining a UK-wide approach, not least because of the perception that the shape of the new system that emerges will project to those beyond our shores.
It is important to move beyond the impression that leaving a higher education institution without completing a full degree is an indicator of failure, either for the student or the institution. The form that this Bill eventually takes will decide the extent to which people can develop their skills with confidence, at a time and a place convenient to them and their family. I look forward to hearing the Minister articulate—in another meaning of that word—her Government’s ambitions in that regard and describing what credit and qualifications framework they intend to have in place, hopefully before 2025, to support the introduction of the lifelong loan entitlement. I beg to move.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Watson has made a compelling argument for enhanced, nationally recognised and organised credit transfer arrangements. I do not want to repeat the points he made except to note that, in the context of the move towards more degree-level apprenticeships, the issue of credit transfer becomes particularly important because many, indeed, probably the generality of students starting out on apprenticeship programmes leading to degree-level qualifications will start in further education colleges.
Many of these have not conventionally offered higher education but are good apprenticeship education providers and will start providing the level 3 and 4 education which can lead to degree-level apprenticeship programmes. If we want to encourage more students through the apprenticeship route and for them to regard this as something they can progress to degree level, the issue of credit transfer is going to become a still more significant one in the education system in future years. The points my noble friend made are especially compelling.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, this amendment seems such a good thing, but I really doubt whether all the administration it involves is actually necessary or desirable. Governments are not always very keen on looking at what happened in the past, whether it succeeded and the reasons why not if it did not. Of course, that is never a reason not to try again, but it does seem pointless to spend time and money re-enacting things for which the criteria have not changed. This is one of the reasons I deplore the crash introduction of T-levels with no regard for other vocational initiatives—I am thinking of diplomas in particular— that were introduced unsuccessfully without consideration of past mistakes. I am afraid I do have quite a long memory of such things.
In the olden days of polytechnics, all accreditation was carried out by CNAA, the Council for National Academic Awards. In theory it should have been a very simple matter for students to transfer credits between organisations, as obviously there was a level playing field for credits. In practice, very few students ever transferred from one institution to another, and the mechanisms for doing so were by no means straightforward.
In 1992, polytechnics disappeared and were reincarnated as universities. For some this was not a great advantage: Oxford and Hatfield polytechnics, for instance, had tremendous names and becoming universities was certainly not initially a help to their well-earned reputations.
I was working for City & Guilds in the early days of national vocational qualifications in the 1980s. The Government gave permission for a large number of awarding organisations—some with pretty dubious credentials—to award NVQs. All awarding organisations had to agree to recognise any units awarded by any awarding organisation. City & Guilds, as the premier vocational awarding organisation, was not delighted by this, but conformed by spending a great deal of time and money ensuring that its highly protected accreditation mechanisms could accommodate units from another organisation. In practice, this arduous work proved largely unnecessary. There were few, if any, requests to transfer between awarding bodies.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Noble Lord, Lord Watson, for tabling this amendment and have great sympathy with its purpose. The Government know that many learners need more flexible access to courses helping them to train, upskill or retrain alongside work, family and personal commitments, as both their circumstances and the economy change. We also recognise that the current lack of a systematic and widely used practice for building up credit across different providers is a key barrier to flexible lifelong learning.
The Bill will deliver that flexibility, underpinning the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee. This is part of our blueprint for a post-16 education system that will seek to ensure that everyone, no matter where they live or their background, can gain the skills they need to progress at any stage of their lives. We want people to be able to build up learning over their lifetime and have a real choice in how, where and when they study to acquire new life-changing skills. In particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, outlined, this will hopefully lead to an expansion of provision within further education colleges and other providers.
To enable flexibility, learners must, where appropriate, be able to accumulate and transfer credits between providers to build up to meaningful qualifications over time. The Bill and the government amendments tabled on the LLE provide the building blocks of a modular and potentially credit-based loan funding and fee limit system. It is precisely defining what a module is that will ensure consistency across the system.
We are working closely with the sector to understand current incentives and obstacles to credit transfer and recognition. Obviously, the system is not simple or straightforward, as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, outlined. We intend to consult on the scope and policy of the lifelong loan entitlement. We will examine how to support easier and more frequent credit transfer between providers, working towards well-integrated and aligned higher and further education provision, with flexibility that enables students to move between settings to suit their needs.
It is important that we consult and engage closely on this to ensure that we build a system that works. The consultation will be later this year and it is important we get the detail right. Although higher education is a devolved matter, we are of course engaging with the devolved Administrations. It is important that any system in England provides consistency and works alongside the other three nations. We must not pre-determine the outcome of any consultation and pin the Government to a path that the sector and learners may tell us in consultation is not what is needed. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, will feel comfortable withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am not comfortable withdrawing my amendment, as the Minister suggests. The amendment has been rather too easily dismissed by the Minister and by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden. I recognise the experience of the noble Baroness with City & Guilds, but I also recognise her experience as a Minister in the coalition Government—and that sounded very much like a ministerial speech. She was drawing on her experience of those years when she counselled against legislating in this respect.
There is a greater need to give people confidence when they are trying to provide what the Minister called building blocks for a degree or qualification, so they have a guarantee that there is somebody whom they can call on to make sure that they can use those effectively. I noticed that my noble friend Lord Adonis made the point about the degree apprenticeships. Many of us are a bit dubious about degree apprenticeships, but clearly they will have a role in this. He drew the line, and I think he was drawing the dots from a practical apprenticeship and moving it on bit by bit, perhaps banking some of the experience to go to do something else—perhaps raise a family—and then come back to it, ultimately with a degree. That is very important.
The way in which the Minister says that the Government will consult, as I understand it, meant only that they would consult on the scope of the lifelong loan entitlement. There has to be something specific on credit transfer. Like other noble Lords, I have had briefings from organisations in the sector which are very concerned and want to make sure that there is something of a solid nature on which they can build in future. I heard no mention of the international aspect, which was certainly raised with me by the QAA. It is concerned about the international reputation if we do not have a UK-wide structure that people in other countries can look at, understand and then have the confidence to come and use.
The Minister was saying that this was a bit premature and talked about another consultation. We will be inundated by consultations as a result of the Bill. As an aside, let me say that the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, mentioned earlier a consultation that concluded in September, and we have a consultation on initial teacher training in schools which concludes in August. When we have consultations, can we please not have them over the summer holidays? It may help officials, but it does not help those seeking to put together a response to consultation and it surely dilutes the amount of response received.
I hear what the Minister says, but I am not convinced. I shall come back on Report to try to tease out some of the arguments a bit further and invite her to respond in a bit more detail to the points that I put after she has had her chance, with her Ovaltine this evening and a copy of Hansard by her side, to consider them in greater detail.
Lord Touhig
“16 to 19 Academies: designation
(1) The Secretary of State may make an order under section 69(3) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (relating to the designation of foundation or voluntary schools as having a religious character) by virtue of section 124B(1) of that Act in respect of a 16 to 19 Academy as if it were an independent school.(2) Any 16 to 19 Academy so designated is a school. (3) In section 4(1B) of the Education Act 1996, after “16 to 19 Academy” insert “, other than a 16 to 19 Academy designated by an order made under section 69(3) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to allow sixth form college corporations with a religious character to convert to Academies without losing their religious character.
Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is very much a probing amendment, allowing me to highlight a particular unintended consequence in existing legislation and allowing the Minister the opportunity to give what I hope is an encouraging response.
Representatives of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference have been working the Minister’s officials on this issue for some considerable time in anticipation that there would be some education legislation going through Parliament where an amendment can be made to resolve the problem that I will now outline. As things stand today, Catholic sixth-form colleges benefit from several protections set out in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 relating to issues such as governance, collective worship, religious education and many others. These protections are vital for maintaining the Catholic ethos of the colleges and provide a choice for those who wish to be educated in a religious setting.
Any sixth-form college can become a 16 to 19 academy. However, the definition of “school” in the Education Act 1996, as amended by the Education Act 2011, excludes 16 to 19 academies, which means that they are currently ineligible for the protections and freedoms needed to remain Catholic. If a Catholic sixth-form college were to become a 16 to 19 academy, it would therefore lose those protections and freedoms.
Catholic dioceses across England that oversee schools and colleges have strategies to bring the Catholic community together by creating families of schools within multi-academy trusts. This supports the schools to work in partnership and share resources. Many other sixth-form colleges around the country have now converted and are benefiting from the advantages of academy status, and the 14 Catholic sixth-form colleges across England wish to do the same. Without being able to become academies, the Catholic sixth-form colleges are isolated from the opportunities of joining a multi-academy trust. Allow me to quote Danny Pearson, principal of Aquinas College in Stockport and chair of the Association of Catholic Sixth Form Colleges:
“We are disappointed that Catholic Colleges are unable to take part in the school improvement and systems leadership processes that the Academy system champions. Many of our settings are in areas of high deprivation and Catholic colleges do much for social mobility. As leading performers within our sector, we currently cannot use our expertise for the benefit of our communities. As a matter of fairness, equity and parity across our education system it is important that measures are quickly taken to allow Catholic sixth-form colleges to both maintain the statutory protections they currently hold while being able to become academies if they so wish.”
This amendment to the Bill would empower the Secretary of State to allow sixth-form college corporations to convert to academies without losing their current statutory protections. This will guarantee the religious character of the Catholic sixth-form colleges when they convert, and enable dioceses to include these new sixth-form academies within their strategic planning of Catholic multi-academy trusts.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, this issue goes back some time. When I was a Minister, there was an issue about whether voluntary-aided schools—of which a high proportion are Catholic, as my noble friend says—could maintain the protections afforded to them in terms of their designated religious character and appointment of governors with a religious background and associations, and so on, as they transfer to academy status. The case he makes is overwhelmingly powerful. At the time there was also the issue of whether we would allow sixth-form academies at all because, in the original academy conception, until there was a change in the law, that was not possible. Now sixth-form academies are possible and, as my noble friend said, there are quite a few of them. Indeed, there is one just 200 yards from your Lordships’ House, Harris Westminster, a sixth-form academy sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Peckham, and Westminster School. It is an outstandingly successful institution, right by St James’s Park station. Noble Lords will see the students going backwards and forwards every day. It is excellent and exactly the kind of institution that we want to encourage more of, so it seems perverse that it is not possible for a Catholic promotor, including promoters of existing sixth-form colleges, to take advantage of the status.
As my noble friend says, encouraging sixth-form colleges—both the Catholic Church and the Church of England have their own sixth-form colleges; the Church of England is of course a major educational promoter in its own right—to become part of multi-academy trusts seems a very worthwhile step. This seems a straightforwardly technical issue, which perhaps the Minister can resolve with the stroke of a pen.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I briefly add my support to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, which would ensure that any conversion to academy does not mean abandoning the religious affiliation of any colleges. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said, this issue goes back a long way. He mentions only Catholic schools, but I presume this would apply to other faith groups as well.
If we were starting from scratch, we might well decide to divorce education from religion, as many other countries do—the French seem to manage this quite successfully—but that is not where we are. Churches and other faith organisations have long played a very significant part in the lives of our students, to the very great advantage of young people and the country.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 86 in the name of my noble friend Lord Touhig, which would grant the Secretary of State the power to allow sixth-form college corporations to convert to academies without losing their current statutory protections. It would secure the religious character of the Catholic sixth-form college when it converts and therefore enable dioceses to include these new sixth-form academies within their strategic planning of Catholic multi-academy trusts. It will be on very few occasions during the passage of this Bill that I will support the Secretary of State taking back power and centralising control, but this is one of those rare occasions.
The immense change in the education landscape brought about in the English education system by the Academies Act 2010 has required all schools and colleges to consider their future with the Government’s intention to move towards a fully academised system. We have no academies in Wales; we have comprehensive schools run by local authorities. I look forward immensely to the introduction of the dynamic new curriculum—the four areas of learning developed by teachers being introduced to all schools in Wales this September. However, we are talking about England.
While schools and FE colleges can become academies, the 14 Catholic sixth-form colleges in England are prohibited by the current legislation from planning strategically to secure their future. This is a result of the earlier academies legislation, as other noble Lords have mentioned, which failed at the time to address the unique legal structure of these 14 colleges. This amendment would grant Catholic sixth-form colleges the same academy opportunities that all other schools and colleges currently have to strategically plan their future. It is a good example of the unintended consequences of a Bill that is inadequately prepared to work in practice once enacted.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for bringing forward his amendment. Although it is always a pleasure to stand at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Government, it is a double pleasure when—for I think the only occasion in the Bill—the issue falls within my ministerial responsibility. It is a pleasure to speak to it. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made reference to Harris Sixth Form; my old sixth-form sadly closed but was reopened a few years later as a 16-19 academy called Harington school, which is an outstanding school in Rutland.
There has been a really vibrant place in the system for sixth-form academies, but there has also been the situation which the amendment seeks to address: sixth-form colleges with a religious designation, if they were to convert to academies, would not retain that designation and would lose some of their religious character and associated freedoms. The Government are committed to supporting existing sixth-form colleges to convert to academy status. I am pleased that a significant proportion of sixth-form colleges have already taken this step and have made a strong contribution to strengthening the academies sector. It was a pleasure to meet Bill Watkin and James Kewin of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, who mentioned the situation with the other section of sixth-form colleges and expressed their desire to look at academisation.
We recognise that there are currently barriers preventing sixth-form colleges with a religious character from converting to academies. This is because it is not presently legally possible for 16-19 academies to have a religious designation, which is of course necessary for Catholic sixth-form colleges in order to retain their religious character around collective worship, RE, recruitment of staff and so on, as the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, outlined. At present, any sixth-form college with a religious character converting to an academy would lose that designation.
We remain keen to take action to facilitate all sixth-form colleges, including those with a designated religious character, to convert to academies. I know that existing Catholic designated sixth-form colleges are keen to join Catholic multi-academy trusts, and I am sure they would make an excellent contribution. We have received further communication from Bishop Marcus Stock, who is the lead Catholic bishop on education and supports the principle of allowing these Catholic sixth-form colleges to become academies. As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, outlined, if there is any change in the law, it would ensure that other faith groups that establish 16-19 academies can designate them as having a religious character appropriate to them.
The Secretary of State for Education made clear, when speaking in the other place, that we would look at all legislative opportunities to see how this can best be done. We are committed to making this happen at the earliest opportunity. Sadly, however the amendment as drafted could have undesired effects, as it provides that any 16-19 academy so designated is a school in law. This will create legal uncertainty as to the status of 16-19 academies, which are expressly defined in legislation as not schools. A new power would be required to achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, wants from his amendment.
However, we none the less want to facilitate access to academy status for all sixth-form colleges that wish to convert by enabling the religious designation of 16-19 academies. While this amendment is not the vehicle for it, we remain supportive of the principle. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]
I have observed the contributions of Members on a host of amendments in these last hours and pay tribute to everyone in the Committee for their hard work and commitment in making this a better Bill. I thank my noble friends Lord Adonis and Lady Wilcox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for their reasoned, informed and encouraging support. I am most grateful.
I hope the Minister might have something more to say as the Bill progresses. I assure her that, if she does, she will be on my Christmas card list. I await further developments and look forward to working with her and her officials to achieve what we all want from this legislation. I beg leave to withdraw.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 87.
Amendment 87
Lord Addington
“Review of Kickstart scheme
(1) The Secretary of State must review the operation of the Kickstart scheme.(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider—(a) extending the lifetime of the current scheme; and(b) extending the criteria of those eligible to benefit from the scheme beyond those receiving universal credit.”
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, once again I find myself stepping into the shoes of my noble friend Lord Storey. Regardless of how comfortable those shoes are, I will do my best. This is something where we are saying that the Government have done something pretty well and asking if they will carry on doing it—that is the essence of what is in front of me. The Kickstart scheme seems to have started well and at the right time because, when any job market goes into a state of convulsion, the people who are shed are the young and less qualified. You take a chance on people coming into the job market, but you might not want to take quite that degree of chance.
Kickstart seems to have done well. It is not perfect, but it would surprise nobody who has been looking at this for any length of time that, when a new government scheme comes in, smaller firms have trouble accessing it. We would expect that, to be honest. Things like this are smoothed out by planning them, looking at them and making sure they go on. If the Government are not prepared to do that, we need an explanation of why because, with the job market in flux, as I said before, we will need things like this to get people involved. If the Government do not like what they are seeing in this scheme, they should tell us why. It was supposed to end in December, but I think we have 150 jobs promised, from the information I have. The CBI has come out and said that it is a good scheme which it likes, and others have said that before. So why are the Government not taking that on board and improving it? We could use it for a little longer.
The amendment itself basically just calls for the Secretary of State to review and consider the Kickstart scheme:
“The review under subsection (1) must consider … extending the lifetime of the current scheme; and … extending the criteria of those eligible to benefit from the scheme beyond those receiving universal credit.”
The Government had a good idea and did some good work. It seems to be working, so can they now build upon it, not stop it? That is essentially what this is about. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I broadly support Amendment 87, although I will probe rather more on what we could get out of Kickstart moving forward and what some of the issues are. I started off as quite an enthusiast for KickStart, but for me it has failed to live up to its promise. However, there is a chance that by reviewing it, it could be made more positive and make a positive contribution to this Bill. That is why I am keen on the amendment. If the last time I spoke regarding the Bill I worried out loud about the dangers of too short-term an approach to skills and training and too much power being given to employers to define what skills are needed, conversely I now note that sometimes, short-term and immediate issues, from the threat of mass youth unemployment to skills shortages in the here and now, require a degree of urgency and a more central role for employers. Sadly, Kickstart has slightly missed out on this and does neither.
To remind ourselves, the challenges facing young people in the labour market in the here and now have been exacerbated by Covid-19. Policy decisions have effectively closed down whole sectors in which young workers are overrepresented. The highest job losses have been in accommodation and food, wholesale and retail, and arts and entertainment—the three industries with the highest percentage of young people in the workforce. We must recognise that the non-Covid collateral damage of lockdown is indeed young people’s job prospects. In that sense, Kickstart should have been a godsend, but it is rather misnamed. It sounds urgent and dynamic, but the take-up has been sluggish. Despite the promise of a quarter of a million new jobs for the young and claims of 195,000 jobs approved, fewer than 20,000 people have started jobs created by the scheme, and even with scrapping the ludicrous requirement for employers to create 30-plus opportunities, forcing the SMEs into a bureaucratic labyrinth of those gateways, it has not really speeded things up enough.
I would like a review of this because there is still too much red tape. To quote a couple of employers, they are keen to avail themselves of this scheme, but it has been “like pulling teeth” and “extremely frustrating”. They say that the application process is lengthy with a lot of paperwork and an extremely saturated line of communication. I have not given up on Kickstart and I am glad to see, as the noble Lord just mentioned, that the CBI seems to be united with the TUC and a lot of business federations in still seeing Kickstart as useful, but it needs some time. As the amendment argues, I am mystified as to why this scheme would end in December 2021, since it is only just kicking in.
The DWP says that the hiring process will be ramped up as lockdown unwinds, unlocking key sectors, but as unlocking has been constantly delayed, only starting today and even then hesitantly, if the Government close Kickstart in December, they are giving it less than half a year to have any real effect. That is important. The amendment also tries to free up Kickstart and not confine it to those in receipt of universal credit. This is an important point, for a number of reasons. The young, most in need of work and training related to employment progress, are often working, but they might be on zero-hours contracts or picking up part-time work stacking shelves. Therefore, the initiative should not exclude them from Kickstart. We also know from the latest furlough data that the young are more likely to be furloughed. Realistically, when furlough ends, many could be jobless. Why insist on them having a six-month gap on universal credit before letting them access Kickstart for their job prospects?
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I am a believer in the value of the Kickstart scheme and would like to see it extended in the manner suggested by Amendment 87, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Storey—Lord Storey-cum-Addington—and Lord Shipley, following a review of its operation and experience to date.
My own former employability training business was involved some years ago in the delivery of the Labour Government’s Future Jobs Fund, which, like Kickstart, enabled employers to take on young people for six months, with their salary paid by the Government. Many of the young people involved had never worked before and faced significant challenges in entering the job market, including lack of work-readiness and employability skills, poor educational attainment, lack of funds for travel or even suitable clothing, chaotic lifestyles, lack of aspiration, substance abuse, and records of offending and imprisonment. A period of six months’ employment, with employers willing to make initial allowances for their circumstances and much personal support from the organisations delivering the programme—including Barnardo’s and Nacro, by which we were contracted—was enough for many of them to acquire the skills and behaviours needed to become reliable and useful employees, often with those same employers they had been with for six months. This is not a low-cost approach and not for everyone, but I believe it is an effective way of enabling many young people in these specific circumstances to make a successful transition into work.
Kickstart has got off to a rather bumpy start, as we have heard from other noble Lords, with delays and difficulties both in employers being accepted on to the programme—initially through the gateway process, which has fortunately been removed, but there are still quite a few hurdles to get over—and, more particularly, in recruiting candidates through the rules of the Jobcentre Plus scheme. But I believe it offers the right approach for the young people in the target group I have described. I hope the Minister can tell us what plans the Government have to review the scheme so far and to consider whether, and in what form, it might be further extended to perhaps meet the specific needs of the most challenging young people within the overall skills system created by the Bill.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I too am a fan of Kickstart, and I hope that the Government will consolidate and build on it. A review, as proposed in this amendment, seems a timely suggestion. I support a lot of what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said, and I would add only two emphases. First, there are certainly some occasions when a Kickstart six-month placement ought to be combined with a course of training. For instance, if we employed Kickstarters to do environmental work, it would not do them much good if they had not achieved their chainsaw certification and other necessary qualifications to enable them to continue in the industry. Sometimes the Kickstart placement ought to be bundled in with training, and that ought to be made easy.
Secondly, £1,500 for looking after a Kickstarter is really not much. You have to have spare employee time substantially beyond that value to make good use of a Kickstarter and to give them a really good experience. I hope the Government will review people’s experience on that front and consider what it would take to really recompense employers—particularly small employers, who often do not have a lot of spare capacity—for the effort they are making, day to day, looking after a Kickstarter.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, all three noble Lords who have spoken, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, have made pertinent points. I will make a suggestion and ask a question. Unusually, the House has it within its powers to cause an inquiry into Kickstart, because a Select Committee is currently proceeding on youth unemployment. Indeed, my understanding is that it is being chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who is a colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. May I therefore suggest that he asks his noble friend to ensure that that Select Committee examines Kickstart and makes recommendations to the House on its future, which of course will carry weight with both the House and the Government? My question for the Minister is this. I assume that an independent evaluation of Kickstart is taking place. Can she confirm whether that is the case? If not, obviously it is desirable that one should.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to signify our support for Amendment 87 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Shipley, because a review of the Kickstart scheme is certainly necessary. I regret to say that I cannot endorse the view of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in introducing this group, that the scheme seems to have done well. More than nine months after its launch, it has so far failed to have any meaningful impact.
The Kickstart Scheme provides funding for employers to create new job placements for 16 to 24 year-olds on universal credit who are deemed to be at risk of long-term unemployment. Employers can apply for funding to cover 100% of the national minimum wage for 25 hours a week for a total of six months, as well as employer national insurance contributions and automatic enrolment contributions. However, in a Written Parliamentary Answer in June, the DWP Minister Mims Davies stated that the scheme had helped only 20,000 people into work since its introduction last September.
On 16 June I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Penn—I am sure she remembers it will—in an Oral Question what action the Government would take to overhaul the Kickstart Scheme, not just by widening access but by beginning the drive towards equalising its impact on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities and women. In response, she told me that the scheme had been adapted and improved in a number of ways to improve take-up, although all that she mentioned was that in February, the 30-vacancy threshold for a direct application to Kickstart had been removed. She went on to say:
“The figures I have show that there are more than 140,000 approved vacancies under the Kickstart scheme. We hope that take-up will improve as it goes on in delivery.”—[Official Report, 16/6/21; col. 1893.]
I fear that more than hope is needed.
Is the Minister aware of the report from the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House published in December 2020? My noble friend Lord Adonis just suggested that the committee sitting at the moment might produce a report on Kickstart. Just seven months ago, a committee did just that, and recommended that access to Kickstart should not be limited to people who have been on universal credit for six months. My caution to my noble friend is that that committee’s recommendation was not given much weight. The effect of the six-month rule is that a young person who loses her or his job has to wait for as long as nine months before they have the chance of training. Surely that cannot make sense and it must be demoralising for young people. Local authorities and other civil society partners should be able to refer young people who are not on benefits to the scheme.
The charity Mencap told the Economic Affairs Committee hearing that making only young people on universal credit eligible had excluded many with a learning disability, who are still claiming legacy benefits and who are unlikely to move to universal credit in the near future. The Learning and Work Institute said that the scheme should be
“open to young people, including apprentices made redundant, not on benefits”
and that
“partners, such as local authorities, should be able to refer young people in this group to Kickstart”
also.
As I said earlier, it seems that the committee’s recommendations fell on deaf ears, but one step that the Government should certainly take is to build a link between Kickstart and apprenticeships. One means of doing so would be to encourage Kickstart employers, perhaps with incentives, to offer apprenticeships for those completing their Kickstart placement—this may have been what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was suggesting in describing a link between Kickstart and more permanent employment. That would have the extra benefit of increasing the number of apprenticeships, which, as we know, have reduced sharply since the introduction of the levy in 2017.
Perhaps the Minister can update noble Lords on the approved vacancies and say how many of the 140,000 that she quoted in answer to my Oral Question a month ago have since been filled. Whether or not she is able to do so, one thing she cannot rationally do today is to deny that the Kickstart scheme is in need of, well, a kick start—the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, rather stole my thunder with that line. The review must begin as a matter of urgency. I look forward to hearing that, despite this amendment being withdrawn, the Government intend to do as it suggests.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Kickstart scheme was created and deployed rapidly to provide urgent jobs for young people to support their long-term work prospects. Kickstart will help to reduce the long-term effects of unemployment caused by the pandemic.
To be effective, the scheme must be targeted. It is for that reason that Kickstart funds the creation of jobs for people aged 16 to 24 on universal credit and at risk of long-term unemployment. Through Kickstart, these young people have the chance to build confidence and skills in the workplace and gain experience that will improve their chances of progressing to find long-term, sustainable work.
Turning to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, I should point out that, as with other grant funding schemes, the Kickstart scheme is not cited in legislation but exists pursuant to the powers of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions under Section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973. The amendment would not therefore be appropriate as it seeks to make legislative amendments to something not named or referenced in legislation. However, I understand that the point of the amendment is perhaps rather more probing and, in fact, encouraging from some noble Lords; I will seek to address their points about the Kickstart scheme in my response.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and others that the Department for Work and Pensions already keeps the Kickstart scheme under review. It continues to deliver Kickstart jobs to the young people who need them most. However, I am afraid that I must disappoint noble Lords because, at present, there are no plans either to expand Kickstart outside the current eligibility criteria or to expand the length of the scheme.
As I said, Kickstart was designed as a response to the impact of the pandemic and the economic restrictions put in place at the time. As we are phasing out those restrictions, we will transition to a new phase in our response. However, let me say to noble Lords that the Kickstart scheme will run until December; that is the last date for placements on the scheme, which run for a further six months into 2022. After the winding down of the Kickstart scheme at that point, a range of support will continue to be on offer for all young people, including those claiming jobseeker’s allowance or universal credit. This support offer involves placements on the sector-based work academy programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, referred to apprenticeships. Although we do not plan to link Kickstart and apprenticeships formally, he will be aware of the incentive payments that we have put in place during the pandemic to encourage employers to take on young people through the routes of traineeships, work experience, mentoring circles, basic skills training and skills boot camps, in addition to locally available support.
Young people aged between 18 and 24 in the intensive work search regime of universal credit are able to access the DWP youth offer, which offers them wraparound support through the 13-week youth employment programme and is complemented by joined-up local delivery through our youth hubs and specialist youth employability coaches. As some noble Lords will know, we have recruited an additional 13,500 DWP work coaches and established more than 140 youth hubs across England, Scotland and Wales.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, spoke about some young people most in need of employment progression perhaps not being in receipt of universal credit and not qualifying for this programme. She is right: Kickstart is focused not on those who might need progression but on those who are unemployed and at risk of long-term unemployment. We will not seek to amend its criteria in that way.
To the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, the Department for Work and Pensions will monitor and evaluate the Kickstart scheme throughout and after its implementation, and will continue to evaluate the longer-term outcomes for Kickstart participants after they have completed their six-month placements. The Department for Work and Pensions will publish the findings of that evaluation once it is complete.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked for more support for employers to take on Kickstarters. The £1,700 is in addition to paying the salary of the Kickstarter for the duration of their placement. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, referred to, we have had great employer engagement in providing these opportunities. My understanding is that 145,000 jobs are currently available. To update the statistic that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, had for the number of young people who have started on Kickstart, as of 30 June that has reached 40,000—so that is a significant ramp-up in delivery. On average we currently have 500 starts to Kickstart jobs per working day. Noble Lords were right to point out that we had to make some improvements to how the scheme ran, but it is now running at a faster and better pace and delivering that support to young people.
Although I am afraid I cannot say that we will extend the duration of the Kickstart scheme or change its eligibility, as I said, we keep it under review at the Department for Work and Pensions. A longer-term evaluation of that scheme will also be undertaken. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is able to withdraw the amendment on behalf of his noble friend.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I am trying to sum up what has been said. Apart from anything else, “Storey-cum-Addington” from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, sounds like a small village in a not very distinguished novel. We will let that one go.
It is a very odd thing. The Government put huge effort into a scheme and there seem to be some signs of hope. I am not sure whether I am much less enthusiastic about the Government, what progress they have made and the promise of jobs than the noble Lord, Lord Watson, so I am being much more optimistic. We can possibly discuss that later.
The Government have said they are keeping things under review. I cannot remember the number of things the Government keep under review. Just about everything is kept under review for a period, officially, so saying they are doing that does not really answer the general thrust of the amendment. Are they going to take it, look at it, study it and develop it, or are they going to say, “We’ll have a look at it sometime, maybe never, and remember that it’s in the archive”? That is the real difference here.
I appreciate that the amendment may well be defective because apparently this is done by regulation, which is in the gift of the Secretary of State—fair enough.
As for the idea from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, suggesting that my noble friend include it in his review, that would not really address the point, would it? Apart from anything else, a committee of the House would quite rightly have my head if I told it what it was supposed to be doing. It having a look at this and making some small assessment for a report that will come out in a period of time would go right beside the Government’s long-term review of something.
If the Government are seriously going to learn about this, take it on board and take some action, I will be surprised but glad. Under those caveats, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
We now come to Amendment 88. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 88
Lord Willetts
“The Student Loans Company communication with graduates
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide that the Student Loans Company must—(a) provide universities with anonymised information about their graduates’ incomes;(b) facilitate universities’ communication through the Student Loans Company with their graduates without passing any personal data to any university, unless a graduate has specifically opted out; and(c) facilitate National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) communication through the Student Loans Company with graduates at the earlier of—(i) the two years preceding the predicted completion of their graduate repayments, or(ii) between the 28th and 30th year of their graduate repayments without passing any personal data to NEST,unless a graduate has specifically opted out. (2) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument, and a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables universities to use the SLC to communicate with their graduates to encourage greater uptake of lifelong learning opportunities. Anonymised SLC data about graduates’ earnings may also be provided to universities to enable them to improve graduate outcomes. It also could nudge graduates into greater pensions investment through NEST.
Lord Willetts (Con) [V]
My Lords, the background to this amendment is that the Student Loans Company has close contact with many graduates, which provides an opportunity to fulfil some of the Government’s objectives that lie behind the Bill. I indicate in the amendment three possible uses of that information.
The first is to give information back to the universities about how their graduates are doing. Everyone wants to see graduates doing well, but evidence is often cited about the difficulties that some graduates from some universities are having. The more information that is fed back to universities about the performance of their graduates—properly protected and anonymised, of course, with any confidentiality requirements that are necessary—the more that universities will have to shoulder their responsibility to do better.
That is communication back to universities, but—secondly—I also think there is a fantastic opportunity for the Student Loans Company to be a kind of post office, enabling universities to communicate with their graduates. That is surprisingly hard at the moment. Very few universities have anything like a database of their graduates, and most lose contact with most of them. But there are good reasons why universities should be able to communicate with their graduates, and it would be fantastic if our universities could match the performance of the American universities in communicating with them. I hope it is not too frivolous if I cite the American remark that “If only Osama bin Laden had been to Harvard, the Americans would have found him within a fortnight”. They are very good at tracking down their graduates, but we do not do that.
A particular reason why it would be great if universities could communicate with their graduates is to enable the universities to offer them lifelong learning opportunities, a cause that is rightly close to Ministers’ hearts. I make it clear that this post office function would not require the universities being given actual email addresses or other data; they would simply provide a message to the Student Loans Company that the company would then communicate to their graduates. There would of course need to be some process for agreeing that the messages were appropriate and approved of.
Still, imagine a university that said, “We completely take to heart Ministers’ strictures. We are very worried that too many of our graduates are not earning what they may have hoped to earn. Here is a message that we would like to send to all our graduates earning less than the following amount of money saying, ‘If you get in touch with us, we will investigate what we can do to provide you with extra skills and training so that you can boost your earnings.’” That kind of engagement with graduates over their working lives should be part of a university offer, and the lack of university information to enable them to communicate with their graduates is a barrier to that.
The third purpose identified in my amendment is rather beyond the scope of education but fulfils another purpose for which there is strong cross-party support. Auto-enrolment in pensions is a great British success, and it is a policy that all parties in their time in government have supported. The problem with auto-enrolment is that the amount of money that people are actually building up in their personal pension pots is very modest. If you look at the opportunities to get people to save more, you see that one opportunity is that, as people advance through their careers and perhaps begin to earn a bit more, they might be able to save more. A crucial moment is when they stop paying back the cost of their higher education, when their graduate repayments cease. I think it would be a reasonable use of public policy—again, without any data actually being handed on—for NEST, the body that currently auto-enrols people in pensions, to be able to communicate through the Student Loans Company to graduates when they are reaching a point when they are likely to have finished repaying their loans, saying, “You have been used to paying 9% of your earnings to pay back your loan. Before you start blowing the money on other things, here is a simple mechanism whereby you can divert it in future into a pensions pot.”
I see these as three practical ways where improved communication with graduates, both by universities and by a government body backing auto-enrolment, could harness a resource without harm to anyone and with proper protections for confidentiality. I very much hope that Ministers will look at this sympathetically. I beg to move.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, as ever from the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, these are excellent suggestions and I strongly commend them to the Government.
I would just like to add to his second proposal, which is to
“facilitate universities’ communication through the Student Loans Company with their graduates without passing any personal data”.
He said that this was so that universities could market to the graduates what the universities can do for them, which is excellent in respect of lifelong learning. However, equally valuable is marketing to the graduates what they can do for the universities, in particular what mentoring opportunities they can provide for current students.
As noble Lords know, students from better-off backgrounds, particularly those who have gone to schools with strong university and graduate traditions, provide a dense web of networks, employment opportunities, advice on employment destinations and so on. Graduates who are not endowed with those advantages, even while they are at university, do not have the benefits of such developed networks. Graduates could be engaged much more systematically in providing mentoring opportunities, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, says, at the point at which universities generally lose contact with their graduates, which is often quite soon after graduation, though the more years that pass, the more they lose contact. When graduates are 10, 15 or 20 years out of university, they are reaching senior positions in their professions and are often in quite niche organisations, such as voluntary organisations. Advertising to them the opportunity to mentor students, which, in my experience, graduates are very willing to do, could be a real and significant benefit to existing students.
Like other noble Lords, I am often contacted by students, just by virtue of the fact that they know who I am, asking for mentoring opportunities and seeking advice. There are very few of us who would not provide that as a matter of course, and I think the same would be true of graduates. If they were harnessed in a systematic way, which this would make possible, it could be transformational for the life chances and career destinations of graduates, particularly those who do not come from graduate families or from schools with lots of graduate connections.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thoroughly support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Willetts and the addendum to it by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
The Student Loans Company is a real treasure trove of opportunity. The long-term relationship it has with graduates is a way of improving our university system over time, improving the lives of the graduates themselves and—my particular interest—improving the decisions taken by potential students as to which courses they should pay attention to.
I would go a bit further than my noble friend Lord Willetts and encourage the feedback to universities from the Student Loans Company to include something that puts some context into the raw earnings figure. Earnings can be a very one-dimensional view of what is happening to alumni. Not everything—not every decision or judgment as to the quality of a course—should be based, let alone entirely so, on the earnings profile of its graduates. You want something much more than that, which is why I absolutely support what my noble friend proposes in the second part of his amendment, in contract with graduates.
As he says, it is really difficult to get universities to tell you what their graduates are up to. I am somewhat relieved to discover that that is because they do not know. This is a vital piece of information for prospective students: if you are going to judge what you should invest upwards of £50,000 and three years of your life in, you want to know what it leads to. Very few historians end up as historians. Few physicists end up as physicists. People go off in lots of different directions, but the skills and the understandings that you have gained as part of your university degree absolutely help shape what you go on to.
To know which courses—even the very academic ones—lead to people becoming professional writers, say, is a really valuable piece of information if that is the direction that you want to take. You have to go back a decade or so to the Next Gen. report from Ian Livingstone, which looked at university courses that had “computer games” in the title, to see his analysis that 85% of those courses produced graduates that the industry would not hire because the courses had been designed not with the industry in mind but just in terms of catching the attention of students. We owe our students better than that.
The real source of information that they ought to be able to see through to is: where do students go on to, where does this lead to and perhaps, beyond that, are they happy? Are the alumni pleased with where life has taken them since university? Do they look back on their courses with pleasure? Coming back to the first part of the noble Lord’s amendment—do they have insights about the courses that they were on that ought to be fed back to the universities so that they can improve their offering?
There is as much potential for the nation in this as there is in the national health data. We are taking, mining and using that seriously, professionally and carefully, and we are setting about that in government and in the legislation to come. We absolutely ought to be doing that in the case of the Student Loans Company.
My noble friend is quite right that there is a lot of value to be offered in return. It took Oxford 40 years to realise that perhaps someone who had spent three years of their life studying physics was interested in physics—and, therefore, if it combined its “Please will you give us some money?” letters with an opportunity to keep up with the latest trends in physics, it might have more success. That should absolutely be extended to looking for opportunities for career support and for ways in which the learning and understanding of the university can be accessed again to make it a lifelong relationship. We need to build that sort of lifelong relationship into learning providers around apprenticeships as well. There is a lot of value for a person in having somewhere that they can turn to in order to refresh their skills and understand what opportunities now lie open to them.
I also very much approve of what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said about mentoring. This is difficult—it is a very tricky relationship—so I would not like to pitch anyone into mentoring without giving them some training first. However, if you have been trained and if you are supported, neither of which come free, it can be a very rewarding experience for both sides—but it needs to be done well. We ought to look at it being done cross-university. It does not seem to me that all the experiences of Oxford graduates ought to be confined to young people at Oxford; we ought to be able to spread these things around a bit to have wider access than that when we are designing the scheme.
However, if we do it with one of the professional mentoring companies, I think we would get something like that, because the focus will very much be on how to help the uncertain and disadvantaged, rather than just compounding the advantage of those who know already what a good thing mentoring can be. So, altogether, this is a really worthwhile amendment. I hope that the Government will take it seriously, and I look forward to my noble friend’s response.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I am always loath to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who generally is a very good thing, but on this amendment I express long-felt reservations that universities should not be rated on the earnings of their graduates. Indeed, they should not really be concerned about the earnings of their graduates.
This is partly because I graduated from Oxford at 21 and immediately married a fellow student and RAF officer, which I never regretted. But we moved 24 times in the next 30 years, so it was impossible for me to have a career. I drifted into teaching, but I could not find any school to employ me. The minute any of them got a whiff that I might be an RAF wife, they lost interest—which was quite often. So I worked as a clerical officer, a filing clerk and a copy typist. That was the real low point of my career, but I was paid six bob an hour and it kept the wolf from the door.
We never had much money. My husband was promoted through nine ranks, each time at the earliest opportunity, but somehow the increased social commitments always took account of the pay rise. When I finally found a proper job, he lost his, when he was told at the 11th hour that it was utterly unacceptable for a commander-in-chief to have a working wife. When he refused to accept this last-minute and pointless condition, his appointment and career were cancelled overnight and a message hurriedly sent up the line to say that this ideal officer, it transpired, was totally unfit for high command because his wife had a job. So that did not go too well.
But I would hate Oxford to think I was a complete waste of space because I could not earn money. I did copious amounts of voluntary work as a mother, an RAF wife, a welfare counsellor, a CAB adviser—even a reluctant unpaid organist, and anything else that would have me. One of my contemporaries went into the Church and has always had a low salary—but why should Oxford be penalised for a wonderful woman vicar?
My mother was awarded a First from Cambridge in the 1930s, but was never allowed to graduate, because it took Cambridge until 1948 to acknowledge its women students as undergraduates. She had to give up her Civil Service job as soon as she was married—so was her degree a waste of space too? My daughter went to teach in Lesotho when she graduated and was paid £5 a week. Should Cambridge have been penalised because of her lack of income?
Women still bear the lion’s share of caring for children, parents and others, and still generally have lower incomes than men, but the amount they contribute to society is no less—some might argue considerably more—so why take it out on universities? Please can we disassociate high earnings from worthwhile degrees? Today’s women have a much better chance of combining family and career, which was impossible for my mother and pretty impossible for my generation—certainly for diplomatic and military wives. But many of us have contributed to society in non-financial and non-quantifiable ways. I hope that universities might value and be valued for that, and not be penalised on our account. Many graduates choose to try to make the world a better place, rather than earn shedloads of money.
On universities not communing with graduates, I would argue that universities are increasingly doing their level best to get hold of their graduates. I would like to think it is because they are genuinely interested in their welfare—and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, mentioned that they could contribute by tutoring and so on, which is good—but I have a feeling that they mainly want to get hold of their graduates to tap them for money.
This amendment is multifaceted, but I regret the suggestion that universities should be recognised for the earnings that their graduates manage to find in life. I do not think that should be the case.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for introducing this amendment and all the noble Lords who have spoken. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for sharing her experiences just then—horrific though one of them was. I am sure Oxford is duly proud of her now, and so it should be. Like her, I am not sure who should be blamed for my career—the institution where I did my first degree, the one that offered me a mid-career MBA or the one where I did my more recent theological training. Anyway, none of them can be suitably blamed.
In general, I am a big fan of data—any data, but especially robust data at scale. I like it being used to inform policy-making and am happy for it to be there as part of a feedback loop. So anything that can help universities get a richer picture of what happens to their graduates after they leave is probably a good thing—but that does not necessarily mean I want a straight line from that to the way the Government fund or regulate them.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I shall first resist the temptation to respond to the noble Baroness’s comment that she has been in opposition too long. I pay tribute to all noble Lords who have outlined the role of the Student Loans Company. It has no statutory functions of its own but exists as the student loan delivery arm of the Secretary of State, exercising powers delegated by him or her. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is correct that my noble friend Lord Willetts is suggesting a fundamental change of role for the Student Loans Company, whether as a post box, a communications agent or a marketing agent. While I thank my noble friend for his amendment, I do not believe it is necessary or wise.
The Government already publish a wide range of data, including earnings information by higher education provider and subject of study up to five years post graduation. It comes from the longitudinal education outcomes database, commonly known as LEO. The database has a wider coverage than the Student Loans Company, as it considers all graduates rather than just those who take out a student loan. Secure access to this data is granted to accredited researchers through the Office for National Statistics, to answer research questions. So while HE providers, although they do some of the best research themselves, cannot access LEO data to look at individual graduate outcomes, the data that is already published is sufficient to meet those research needs. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, the LEO database holds data by subject, provider, gender and region—so it does provide good access.
In relation to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, obviously the data that I have outlined is only one factor in the value of a higher-education qualification. I hope that all noble Lords will agree that we see the value immensely of her education, and the roles that some people undertake for very modest salaries are incredibly valuable. We have seen that a lot during the pandemic.
The second part of my noble friend’s amendment includes a duty to facilitate universities’ communication with their graduates through the Student Loans Company, without passing on any personal data, unless a graduate has specifically opted out. I noticed the Member’s explanatory statement states:
“This amendment enables universities to use the SLC to communicate with their graduates to encourage greater uptake of lifelong learning opportunities.”
As I have outlined, the SLC is not really there to be used by the universities. It is there for the students and to ensure that there is proper finance. The Student Loans Company should hold data only on students who own or are repaying a loan, so not all graduates are captured. Again, the onus is on the graduate to ensure that the Student Loans Company has their most recent contact data after they complete their studies. It will not surprise noble Lords that, unfortunately, not all graduates do this.
To answer my noble friend’s question, are we really looking now to place a duty on SLC to chase down the graduates for contact information when it does not have it? Such a system, as outlined in the amendment, to facilitate communication between the universities and the Student Loans Company, unfortunately would incur up-front and ongoing costs, plus potential data implications, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, highlighted. The roles suggested would involve a considerable burden on the Student Loans Company. It is best left to universities to reach out to their alumni directly through existing communication channels. As I mentioned in relation to the Member’s explanatory statement, if the Student Loans Company were to take on a role of communicating about lifelong loan entitlements, would it be after just one university, or three institutions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, outlined? This is a considerable administrative, communication or marketing task that we would be asking of the SLC.
The final part of the amendment proposes facilitating the National Employment Savings Trust to communicate through the Student Loans Company, effectively encouraging students to consider saving into the NEST pension scheme once they get towards paying off their student loans. Automatic enrolment has achieved a quiet revolution through getting employees into the habit of pension savings, reversing the previous decline in workplace pension participation seen in the decade before the start of the reforms. As my noble friend Lord Willetts mentioned, it has succeeded in transforming pension saving for millions of workers. Since 2012, workplace pension participation rates for eligible employees aged 22 to 29 increased from 35% to 86% in 2019.
While encouraging graduates to work towards future financial resilience is right, the Government do not agree that this amendment is the right means to do so. A graduate or postgraduate would not be able to join the NEST pension scheme directly. NEST was established to support automatic enrolment and operates under a public service obligation to accept any employer who wishes to use the scheme to meet their automatic enrolment duties. Given that NEST is a workplace pension scheme, this means that most people typically would join through their employer but, in some cases such as self-employment, people can enrol themselves. In addition to operating under a public service obligation, NEST also receives a government loan to cover its running costs. This amendment would be seen as giving NEST an unfair advantage in a competitive pensions market. I am sorry to inform my noble friend Lord Willetts that this too would not be possible.
I have to say that I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that this would also take away from the core role. Like any organisation, the Student Loans Company has a limit on what it can deliver at any one time and there is already an ambitious reform programme, including the delivery of the lifelong loan entitlement, which I assure noble Lords will keep all those employees, mainly in Darlington, very busy over the next few years.
Laudable though the aims of this amendment are, the Government’s position is that changing the role of the SLC is not the vehicle to deliver this. It is unfortunately not a treasure trove, as my noble friend Lord Lucas outlined. I thank my noble friend Lord Willetts for his amendment but hope that, having considered these points, he will withdraw it.
Lord Willetts (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for a very interesting debate. I particularly agree, of course, with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and my noble friend Lord Lucas. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, that—although it was fascinating to hear her personal biography, which is indeed a reminder that there is more to universities than subsequent earnings—there is nothing in this amendment that says that is the be-all and end-all of universities. It simply recognises that we have this organisation, the Student Loans Company, in place and that we have a problem, which I very much regret was not acknowledged by the Minister: most universities have no means of communicating with most of their graduates. That is a real barrier to the Government’s own objective of promoting lifelong learning, although there are other objectives as well and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, about mentoring seemed to me very relevant.
Meanwhile, a separate government agency is communicating with graduates—namely, the Student Loans Company. Of course it is correct that, at the moment, it is simply collecting money from them, but I do not see why that is not also an opportunity to do something additional. I am very much aware of the practical operational problems of the Student Loans Company, having wrestled with them myself for several years, but this request would be under ministerial guidance; Ministers and the Department for Education, together with the Student Loans Company, would have the ultimate say on what messages were communicated. It seems to me that the Minister is in danger of missing out on a really important opportunity to achieve one of her own objectives.
This is the kind of debate that we might have had about NHS data 15 or 20 years ago, when some Health Minister turned out to say, “No, it wouldn’t be acceptable for hospitals to communicate with people who have had appointments or been at the hospital”. The fact is that data and communication matter. We have to be imaginative in harnessing the opportunities that we have to communicate.
I very much regret the Minister’s approach. I will, of course, withdraw my amendment now, but I hope it might be possible to consider further ways in which some version of this thoroughly innocuous amendment can be used to achieve an objective that is shared across the House. It should be done only within the capacities of the Student Loans Company, and only for purposes of which Ministers approve but I think that, if Ministers do not take this chance, there will be a moment in the future when they say, “Why on earth didn’t we do this? It would have been so useful”. We could be providing universities with more information about their graduates; we could be enabling graduates to have more information about what their universities can do for them and what they can do for their university. In the light of the debate so far, however, I beg leave to withdraw this specific amendment now.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
We now come to Amendment 89A. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 89A
Lord Willetts
“Access to learner data for research
(1) Key learner data must be shared for research purposes, including longitudinal studies, in accordance with Part 5, Chapter 5 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, or equivalent legislation concerning data not covered by the 2017 Act.(2) What constitutes “key learner data” must be reasonably defined by researchers on a case-by-case basis and may be taken to include, but not be confined to, graduates’ employment and income data. (3) Organisations controlling key learner data must take all reasonable endeavours to make the data available for research in line with subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that administrative data is available for research and longitudinal studies that will inform, and improve, public policymaking.
Lord Willetts (Con) [V]
I will refer to this amendment briefly as well, although it overlaps to some extent with the debate that we have just had. I begin by declaring some specific interests. I am on the board of UKRI, the public agency responsible for funding social science research and administrative data, and I am the president of a think tank, the Resolution Foundation, which has an interest in using and accessing research data.
The background to this is the battle on LEO data, which has already been referred to. I assure the Minister that I am very proud of having fought long and hard to get the LEO data made available—incidentally, in the course of it, overcoming objections rather similar to the ones she just made to my previous amendment. After battles with HMRC, we got LEO data, and it has improved the debate on universities—although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said in our previous debate, we should never think that earnings data are the be-all and end-all.
After long and difficult battles with HMRC, that data was made available to a small group of accredited researchers, and is now analysed closely by, above all, the Institute for Fiscal Studies. However, a lot of weight is placed on the LEO data, and there are other datasets about learner outcomes, not all of which are covered by the Digital Economy Act. I am worried that the debate on graduate outcomes is in the hands of a very small number of researchers with access to the LEO data. Researchers as a whole find it difficult to access data not covered by the Digital Economy Act. For example, health data is not covered by it. It would be very interesting to know—there is a lively debate about this—the extent to which going to university boosts health outcomes and life expectancy, for example.
Of course there must be rigorous standards for the researchers accessing such data: confidentiality, anonymity and a whole host of other requirements all need to be in place. However, we would have a better-quality and more wide-ranging debate about higher education if there were a wide range of perspectives informed by a wider range of empirical data about what is actually happening. After I successfully fought for the LEO data, I never expected that it would become the be-all and end-all. I see it as part of a much wider set of data types and a much wider range of researchers, properly regulated, analysing what happens in education.
The parallel with the previous amendment is that data matters. This Government are bold on science and technology. They understand the importance of data in good public policy. The DfE is not the worst offender when it comes to providing researchers with access to data, but there are certainly clear constraints at the moment on that access, going way beyond the necessary requirements of confidentiality and anonymity. I hope that, in the light of that, the Minister will consider undertaking that there should be a greater range of researchers with greater access to key learner data, so that we can all debate it with more information at our disposal. That is why I move the amendment.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare, Lord Adonis and Lord Lucas, have withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
Ah, a lot earlier than expected, but thank you, Lord Deputy Chairman. As with the previous amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, this recalls debates in which both he and I participated four years’ ago on what was then the Higher Education and Research Bill. This amendment in particular evokes the many considered by your Lordships’ House on the teaching excellence framework. As an aside, I say that the Bill we are considering today has about 100 amendments being discussed over four Committee days. We are fortunate, because in 2017 the Higher Education and Research Bill had more than 500 amendments tabled to it over seven Committee days, most finishing very late into the evening—happy days.
I believe that the connection I drew with the TEF—which has as its full title the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework—is relevant, because both the TEF and the key learner data, which this amendment suggests should be collected, is the same in respect of graduates’ employment and income data. In 2017, I believed that TEF was both intrusive and—not entirely, but largely—irrelevant. I hold the same view about the key learner data. I do not believe the data mentioned in the amendment is key, although it would be for researchers to define it in any way that they saw fit, were this to be adopted. That seems to be much too open-ended, potentially covering subjects that appeal to the imagination of any underemployed researcher.
The amendment states:
“What constitutes ‘key learner data’ must be reasonably defined”.
Who would decide what is reasonable? As far as I can see, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, did not say what, apart from graduates’ employment and income data, it might involve—would it include a person’s socioeconomic background, whether they were state or privately educated, an undergraduate or postgraduate, or a mature student, or maybe even their ethnicity? I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, aims to increase the number of researchers with access to information on graduates, and I support that, but who would act as the gatekeeper? If I did not know and very much respect the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, I would say that he might even be making a rather fanciful suggestion. That said, I do not see the merit that he sees in this amendment and, notwithstanding his opening remarks and explanation to noble Lords, I am unable to signify our support.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Willetts for tabling this amendment. Like my noble friend, the Department for Education is fully committed to facilitating external research and recognises its valuable contribution to the evidence base surrounding the education and skills system in England.
The intended purpose of this amendment, as set out by my noble friend—namely, to ensure that administrative data about learners is available for research and longitudinal studies in the public interest—is something that the department fully supports. However, public authorities, including the department, are already able to disclose information for research purposes under Chapter 5 of Part 5 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, as my noble friend referenced. For example, in line with the National Data Strategy, the department is already working with partners such as Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Higher Education Statistics Agency and the Office for National Statistics. Here the Act is being used to give researchers access to education data linked to benefits, employment and earnings in a de-identified manner via the Office for National Statistics Secure Research Service. This data, referred to as LEO—as my noble friend the Minister has already said—was opened for applications on 7 July this year. This example is one of almost 500 shares of departmental data using existing gateways which were live at the end of March 2021. As part of our commitment to transparency, details of all live shares are published quarterly on GOV.UK.
Given that the department and other public authorities are therefore already able to and do actively share data for research in the public interest, I hope that my noble friend is reassured that this amendment is not necessary and is able to withdraw it.
Lord Willetts (Con) [V]
I am grateful to the Opposition Front Bench and the Minister for their interventions on my amendment. I was slightly surprised by the approach of the Opposition Front Bench on this occasion, because this is intended to inform debates on outcomes for higher education.
On the Minister’s point, first, the initiative on 7 July is very helpful for broadening access to LEO data. One of the aims of this amendment was to promote that broadening of access, so I am very grateful for what has happened. My one disagreement, if I may say so, with what she said is that, being very familiar with the Digital Economy Act 2017, which had a long gestation and undoubtedly has moved things forward a lot, I can say that the Digital Economy Act does not cover all sets of data that are relevant to educational outcomes. This amendment is therefore deliberately broader to enable, for example, health data to be used for educational research; clearly, as the Minister rightly said, with proper security to ensure protection of confidentiality, anonymity where appropriate, and suchlike.
I will of course withdraw the amendment today, but I hope that the Minister will accept that, if we can provide practical examples of any gaps in the current legal and regulatory framework which mean that we are falling short of the objective—the admirable objective she set out: that there should be proper access for all researchers to data relevant to researching learner outcomes—perhaps it might be possible to return to this issue at a later date.