House of Commons
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
The Government are committed to providing a gold standard of support for veterans. The additional £5 million announced on 6 September followed a meeting of the Defence Secretary, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, me and the service charities to discuss measures to mitigate the impact of events in Afghanistan. That is on top of the £20 million already going to armed forces charities this year.
Lee Anderson
Sadly, some veterans end up living on our streets. The solution is not just to give them a bed, a job or a roof over their head; what they need is real, targeted mental health support. Will my hon. Friend please advise me what the Government are doing to make sure that our brave veterans get the targeted mental health support they richly deserve?
Leo Docherty
I am pleased to confirm that, in the form of Op Courage, we have bespoke mental health provision in the NHS, now running at £20 million this year. But this is not just about money; it is about ensuring that veterans are part of that care, and as peer support workers in Op Courage, they are.
Paul Howell
Will the Minister explain specifically how these announcements will help the veterans community hub recently opened in Newton Aycliffe by the lord lieutenant, Sue Snowdon, and veteran Scott Robertson? That fantastic facility provides mental health support, occupational rehabilitation and sports therapy. Will the Minister commend all those involved with the project, but specifically veterans Scott Robertson and Tommy Lowther? While I am about it, will the Minister also thank 100-year-old RAF veteran William Cooksey, who completed a 100-mile walk—10 miles for each of 10 days —to support County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, raising over £3,000? If the Minister would like to come and visit, he would be very welcome.
Leo Docherty
I am delighted to put on the record my thanks to veterans Scott Robertson and Tommy Lowther, and to the 100-year-old RAF veteran William Cooksey. They are clearly the best of us. If the Newton Aycliffe hub needs support, it should consider applying to the armed forces covenant trust fund. Of course I would be delighted to visit.
Gary Sambrook
I know that my hon. Friend’s top priorities are the health and wellbeing of those people who have sacrificed so much for our country, especially in respect of mental health. Can he confirm that, if people who require specialist help were to reach out to NHS Operation Courage, they would get the bespoke care packages that they need and desperately deserve?
Leo Docherty
I can confirm that, and I am pleased to do so. The provision is first class. However, we are also after a change in culture, so that those who have served know that it is the soldierly thing to do to ask for help.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Minister must know that 79% of charities believe that the responsibility to support veterans should lie more with the Government and the armed forces themselves. Will he commit to looking in detail at Labour’s proposed duty of care amendment to the Armed Forces Bill, which aims to do precisely that?
Leo Docherty
I actually commend the long and noble tradition that we have of armed forces charities assisting the Government in their response to supporting veterans, and I am pleased that our support to them this year will top out at more than £20 million.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Ministerial Covenant and Veterans Board is supposed to drive forward and co-ordinate better Government support for members of the armed forces, their families and veterans. The Scottish Government have asked repeatedly for that group to be reconvened. When can we expect its next meeting to take place?
Leo Docherty
I am happy to confirm that that meeting will take place within the next couple of weeks.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Combat Stress, a charity supporting veterans’ mental health, has seen its income fall by £6 million in the current financial year. Will the Minister therefore accept that the Government’s recent announcement of £5 million for the entire sector is simply not enough to support veterans’ mental health?
Leo Docherty
That is a top-up; the provision is more than £20 million. I look forward to discussing that in detail when I visit Combat Stress tomorrow.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
The whole Government are committed to ensuring that those Afghan nationals evacuated under Op Pitting are properly supported in the UK. Defence is supporting the cross-Government effort, Op Warm Welcome, and we are extending a hand of friendship in the spirit of compassion, comradeship and community.
Dr Wallis
I welcome the incredible efforts of our troops undertaking one of the largest evacuations in modern history and now working to extend that hand of friendship to those brought back. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking them all for responding with such professionalism to the challenges faced?
Leo Docherty
Absolutely; I am delighted to put on the record our thanks. Amid the tragic scenes in Kabul, the bravery, professionalism and compassion of 16 Air Assault Brigade, the Royal Air Force and others was a light amid the darkness.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
For those eligible for the Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme, arriving in the UK under Operation Warm Welcome has left friends and colleagues of our armed forces stranded in hotels without contact, support and help at the very time they need it. In the light of the outstanding skills of our armed forces, will the Minister talk to the Home Secretary about how his Department can lead on Operation Warm Welcome for those arriving under the ARAP scheme, so the right connections are made with those who served alongside these brave men and women to build vital bridges at each stage of the resettlement journey?
Leo Docherty
We are extending that warm hand of welcome. Of course, there is the requirement for some people to be in quarantine, but I can assure the hon. Member that a very thorough effort is being put in place to ensure that that hand of friendship is extended to all who have arrived.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Mr Speaker, thanks to your very kind invitation, 120 members of the armed forces who served will be welcomed to Parliament on 20 October, immediately after Prime Minister’s Question Time. I hope all Members of the House will be there to give them a very warm welcome. I very much hope we are giving just as warm a welcome to all the refugees coming back from Afghanistan. There are 100 in my constituency. How can we find a way to give them a warmer welcome? Could local communities, for example, find ways of welcoming them to barbeques or other ways to make them feel at home?
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for that question. I would like to put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend’s good offices for making that happen. Of course, there will be a very significant role for the wider community and the third sector to play in welcoming our Afghan friends. I recently visited an Afghan cricket team that had been put together by a local pastor. The whole community is quite demonstrably coming together.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Scottish Refugee Council recently called for the UK Government to extend Operation Warm Welcome to Afghans who are still stuck in the asylum process waiting on decisions or who have previously been declined protection. Can the Minister confirm what discussions he has had with colleagues across Government on extending the programme in such a way?
Leo Docherty
I will, of course, pass that question on to the Home Office, but my expectation is that Operation Warm Welcome will run for as long as is necessary.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for hosting the G7 in Chorley at the weekend, and for the warm welcome you gave to many of my colleagues from across the House in that excellent showcase of both Lancashire and the United Kingdom.
The UK plays a leadership role in the global coalition, which is working to secure the enduring defeat of Daesh in Iraq and Syria. We also remain committed to supporting counter-Daesh efforts beyond Iraq and Syria. The UK continues to work to counter Islamic State in the Khorasan province through means other than military presence in Afghanistan, working with partners in the region to diminish the threat it poses. We will continue to do what is necessary to protect the British people, our allies and partners.
Mark Logan
May I give the Secretary of State a big warm welcome back to his place as Secretary of State at the Ministry of Defence? Does he agree that it is in the interests of both Pakistan and China to ensure security and to combat radicalisation in the wider region around Khorasan and neighbouring provinces? To that effect, what discussions has he had with counterparts from both those Governments?
Mr Wallace
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. I am also delighted that my whole team has remained together on the Front Bench. I cannot remember that happening in any other Department in my time in politics, but it is a good thing to have continuity. It does, however, limit our excuse to say, “We are just getting on top of our brief.”
This is why Afghanistan matters. It is often the keystone or lynchpin in that part of the world. What happens in Afghanistan can ripple throughout the region and further along, as we saw with al-Qaeda in 2001—it is really important. The Minister for the Armed Forces and I will be setting off to the region this week to discuss that with a number of neighbouring countries. Pakistan and China are significant countries in the international community that we have to engage with to make sure that Afghanistan does not go from bad to worse, and that we reverse radicalisation where it appears.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is right: the biggest threat from Afghanistan is the country becoming once again the base for extremist terrorist groups. The biggest risk is that the British Government give that the same lack of attention and preparation they gave to Afghanistan in the 18 months ahead of the NATO withdrawal, so why on earth is the Prime Minister now cutting back, by more than half, on his National Security Council meetings?
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Member will be referring to a report by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy that he has commented on previously. The report makes a number of those points, some of which I disagree with because, as I have said at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister often chooses that, on national security, Departments can generate their concerns and come together with national security Ministers to discuss the issues. It does not always have to be done in a formal NSC meeting; it can be done in a sub-committee, where we sometimes get across even much smaller issues.
The report also makes the point that Afghanistan is not mentioned much in the integrated review, but the right hon. Member will notice that in the defence Command Paper it is mentioned nine times—it is incredibly important. We did not neglect it in the lead-up to the fall of Afghanistan; in fact, we were investing more troops and more people in the last few weeks until we got to the point.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The replacement warhead programme will allow the UK to maintain our independent minimum credible nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future. The UK’s sovereign nuclear deterrent exists to deter the most extreme threats to our national security and will remain essential for as long as the global security situation demands.
Laura Farris
I have the privilege of representing the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston, which has been tasked with developing the new nuclear warhead. Of course, I welcome the announcement last week of the AUKUS security pact, but can my right hon. Friend confirm that it will not undermine the strategic importance of the new warhead and that the AWE will remain at the forefront of our critical defence of this country?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to make something very clear about the agreement with Australia and the United States. This is not a programme about nuclear weapons; it is a programme about nuclear propulsion, to give the Australians the strategic capability that they have decided is the right capability to meet the threat. That aside, Aldermaston is an incredibly important part of the defence establishment, and the amazing workforce contribute and have contributed over the decades to ensuring that Britain has a nuclear deterrent that is credible. I am delighted to say that we continue to invest in those people, their livelihoods and the science base that is so important to ensure that we have that capability.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Secretary of State talks about the workforce. The reality is that the Government have just outsourced the fire service to Capita at both Faslane and Coulport. Capita is now, shamefully, cutting jobs—it has cut eight posts. The fire service has unanimously voted for industrial action and currently has an overtime ban on. When will he get a grip on the situation, end the outsourcing experiment and give the fire service the support it needs to keep the bases safe?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Member has obviously missed the point that we have nationalised Aldermaston recently in completely the opposite direction.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
Alongside the Department for International Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, we are hugely supportive of defence export campaigns to our friends and allies, a posture reinforced by the defence and security industrial strategy. I have conducted regular meetings on exports in Poland, Finland, Ukraine and Greece over the course of the summer. Tomorrow, I will engage in meetings in Tokyo before joining potential international partners on Type 31 in Rosyth, Babcock having announced only last week a frigate deal with Indonesia.
Sir Robert Syms
I congratulate the defence team on all the work that they are putting in to get more defence exports: not only is it good for British defence, but it is good for jobs. I have one concern, though: the licensing system seems to have slowed down, not only because of covid, but because it is very bureaucratic. Could the Minister take that up with the Department for International Trade, which deals with the matter, and have a word with it to try to speed this up? I fear that some of my local companies are losing business.
Jeremy Quin
I think that 11,000 licences were granted during the covid period, but I note my hon. Friend’s concern, which I know is a real concern shared elsewhere in the House. DIT attempts to say that 70% of cases will be dealt with within 20 days and 99% within 60 days, but as we set out in DSIS, we need to get better both in transparency and in speed. We will be taking the matter up. I thank him for the question.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
As the gap between ally and systemic competitor narrows, we heard last week that China is planning to join global Britain in the sunlit uplands of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. Given all that we have heard in the integrated review about the UK having a more joined-up foreign, security and trade policy, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s opinion on this strange news and what it is about such a trade deal that the Chinese Communist party finds so attractive.
Jeremy Quin
I am not actually in a great position to speak on behalf of the Chinese Communist party, but I can speak on behalf of the Government. I am delighted that we have a tilt to the Indo-Pacific, and that is coming through in so many different ways in the policy of this Government. It is a part of the world that will have 40% of global GDP in the not too distant future. We need to be properly engaged, and that is what we are doing.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I welcome the new nuclear alliance with Australia and the United States, but I wish we would use a bit more robust language and say why we are doing it. It is to stand up to China’s current behaviour in the South China sea; let us not continue to be in denial about that. However, the timing and the manner of this announcement are not without diplomatic consequence, and prompt further questions about the cohesion, purpose and, indeed, leadership of NATO after the bruised departure from Afghanistan. There is no doubt that France has overreacted to losing a major procurement deal, but does the Minister recognise that China’s authoritarian behaviour cannot be defeated by military means alone? We need all the tools and all the alliances working towards a common strategic aim, and if we do not resolve a sense of unity in the west and, indeed, NATO—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Chair of the Select Committee should know better. He cannot make a speech; it has to be a question. I got him in deliberately because of the job he holds, but he cannot take complete advantage of the Chair: it is not fair.
Jeremy Quin
All the questions were excellent, Mr Speaker, and I will try to deal with them. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Why is the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) shaking his head?
Mr Speaker
Right. I am in charge, and I am not trying to abuse my position, so do not abuse yours.
Jeremy Quin
First, let me make it absolutely clear that the agreement with the United States and Australia is a requirement—an Australian requirement—for their strategic purposes. It is a decision that they wanted to make in order to enhance their strategic capability and their strategic defence. We have very strong contacts and a relationship with Australia and the United States, quite transparently. It will be a pleasure to work with them, and to help to deliver this important strategic capacity for Australia.
As for France, again, we work very closely with the French. My right hon. Friend is well aware of that, and of the Lancaster House treaties. There are ongoing discussions about incredibly important joint defence initiatives that we run together. I was in contact with my opposite number over the weekend, and I am looking forward to our working very closely with the French in the years ahead, as we have always done in the past.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Given that Babcock’s Arrowhead 140 frigate has been selected by Indonesia in an outstanding endorsement of Scottish engineering, will the Minister ensure that the Government expend all available effort to assist in future foreign orders, both for licensed build in-country and for foreign Governments to have their ships built in Scotland?
Jeremy Quin
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I said in my substantive answer, I have been working in Poland, Ukraine, Greece, and many other parts of the world where Babcock has aspirations. The United Kingdom has a great belief in the Scottish yards—far more belief than the Scottish Government appear to have, given some of their recent contracts.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I, too, welcome the AUKUS deal, which gives great form to global Britain and could be very good for jobs in both Barrow and Derby. Can we remind the Australians, when they begin their 18-month assessment, that the UK’s Astute submarine is arguably even more capable than the United States’ Virginia class? And, by the way, it is cheaper.
Jeremy Quin
My right hon. Friend is a great advocate for British engineering and British defence jobs. There is an awful lot that is good about our Astute programme, but I am not going to second-guess the Australians’ 18-month assessment. They will work that through, but both we and the United States are there to support them in the delivery of this extremely important strategic capability.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is good to see you back from “Coronation Street” in such fine form, and to see the defence team still in its place.
When the Government presented the integrated review to the House, we were told that this Indo-Pacific tilt would not undermine interests in the Euro-Atlantic area. Can the Minister tell the House exactly how engaging in secret diplomacy against the mutual security and against the trust interests with one of our closest European allies helps our interests in the Euro-Atlantic area?
Jeremy Quin
I think that that would be an accidental misunderstanding of the situation on the part of the hon. Gentleman. The reality is that a close friend and a close ally decided that they had a different strategic need and wanted to do something differently, and approached us. It would have been very strange not to have engaged in very constructive talks with Australia in those circumstances. That is not being seen to be going behind people’s backs; it is responding to a request.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
But that was exactly what it was. Let us not muddy the words here: Paris was deceived, was it not? Are common challenges not better faced when liberal democracies trust each other and understand each other’s mutual interests? Whether it is on the rise of authoritarianism or on issues of climate change, terrorism or migration, we must be aligned with our Euro-Atlantic allies first. Has the fallout from AUKUS not taught us all that we need to pursue a comprehensive defence and security treaty with the European Union? Can the Minister tell us why France was excluded right from the start?
Jeremy Quin
We have a number of close relationships, including through the Five Eyes, that we pursue on a global basis. We have an extremely close relationship with France, with whom we are doing so much around the world and with whom we enjoy extremely close relationships on equipment and support, as well as actively in the field. The bedrock of our relationships inside western Europe is of course NATO, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree with. That is absolutely vital, and it is the cornerstone of our defence. It is an area in which we work closely with our European allies, including France.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
The armed forces are one of this country’s biggest providers of apprenticeships. They have around 21,000 apprentices on programmes at any one time, ranging from engineering and digital to construction and driving, showing that if you join the armed forces, you get skills for life.
Robert Halfon
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that the Ministry of Defence is doing on apprenticeships. Can I confirm that his Department will continue to meet the public sector target of 2.3% for the hiring of apprentices? Will he also ensure that any company that gets a procurement contract with the Ministry of Defence employs a significant number of apprentices, and that otherwise it will not get the contract?
Leo Docherty
I am delighted to confirm that. Over 90% of recruits are offered an apprenticeship, and I am pleased to confirm that recent statistics show that 7.9% of our headcount are new apprentice starts, exceeding the Government public sector target of 2.3%. We have ongoing discussions with the Department for Education to increase that figure.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I routinely engage at all levels, both nationally and internationally, in order to tackle the threat of terrorism across the middle east, north Africa, and the wider region. We continue to work with allies and regional partners to promote a safe and secure Afghanistan and to prevent the terrorist groups from gaining any foothold in the country in the future.
Chris Law
What assessment has the Ministry of Defence made, in collaboration with the security and intelligence services, of the impacts of the cuts to UK bilateral aid to Iraq and Afghanistan on the increasing potential for international terrorism?
Mr Wallace
The reduction in conflict, stability and security funding, which is effectively what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, is partly because if it were to continue it could end up in the hands of the Taliban. Given that the fall of Afghanistan was happening, I do not think that that would have been a wise thing for anyone to do. Secondly, he should not rule out the fact that counter-terrorism funding both for here and abroad has increased significantly since 2015, with well over 30% of funding both to civilians such as the police and the intelligence services and to special forces and the armed forces. The direction of travel is increasing not decreasing and the capability that we are procuring, including the drones that we have recently signed up to, will give us extra capability that we did not have all those years ago in 2001.
Patricia Gibson
Can the Secretary of State indicate when an update will be given to the House on the terror threat that the UK faces following the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan and the attendant heightened potential for terrorism being harboured there?
Mr Wallace
The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre sets the threat levels for this country, and it does so independently of Ministers. When those levels are changed, it will make a statement and the House will be informed. As far as a bulletin or update to the House is concerned, the hon. Lady is obviously free either to apply for an Adjournment debate or to table written questions, and we will be happy to ensure that we respond. On top of that, we have periodical updates on Afghanistan and the counter-Daesh strategy, and we will continue to provide them from time to time.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given that long-term nation building from the ground up is not a feasible option in the future, and given that terrorist attacks could happen again, will the Secretary of State institute a serious review of counter-terrorism strategy, possibly based on pre-positioned forces in regional bases, to follow an active containment strategy?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend highlights an important point: when there is no partnership on the ground, how do we deal with imminent threats to the United Kingdom? I cannot speak for the whole Government on a review of the counter-terrorism strategy, first of all, because Contest, in its many iterations starting under the last Labour Government, is probably a world-leading counter-terrorism strategy. It is periodically refreshed, which will always be done in time to meet the changing situation. What I can tell my right hon. Friend is that, even before the decline in Afghanistan, I had instigated work on how we deal with changes to the environments in which we fight terrorism and on what capabilities we will need in future.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
Will the Defence Secretary update the House on the work of French and British forces in Mali and the wider Sahel region?
Mr Wallace
The United Kingdom supports the French forces and Operation Barkhane in Mali with a squadron of Chinook heavy-lift helicopters. At the same time, we also have some 300 British forces deployed on the UN multi-dimensional integrated stabilisation mission in Mali, which is one of the most dangerous UN deployments, to help nation building and peacekeeping. We also talk about the threat through intelligence channels, and we are both concerned about the Russian mercenary group Wagner, which is now appearing in many parts of west Africa.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
Since 28 August, 7,900 applications have been made to the ARAP scheme, of which 900 appear eligible from the MOD’s perspective. Obviously, there are Home Office checks that need to follow, and 50 applicants have thus far completed their Home Office checks and are being advised on how to proceed.
Clive Efford
I thank the Minister for that answer, but I have cases of people who worked for the Afghan supreme court, the Afghan Government or the Afghan armed forces. Clearly, they assisted in our operations in Afghanistan. Surely the Minister accepts that these people are at severe risk and should qualify under category 1 of ARAP, yet they have been refused. In the figures he has just cited, how many people who clearly qualify for ARAP have been turned down?
James Heappey
I have just given the numbers for those who have applied since 28 August. I completely accept that there will be interpretation but, having looked at a number of cases that we have been invited to review at ministerial level, I am satisfied that the right judgments are being made. I know that is a disappointment to many hon. Members who are working hard to support people in Afghanistan whom they consider to be at risk but, under the ARAP scheme, it is not possible for us to bring out everybody who has had a connection with UK armed forces. That is why the terms were set as tightly as they were. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to look at any particular cases, I look forward to having that in writing and I will do what I can.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
There is increasing confusion about the Government’s administration of the ARAP scheme. In response to a written question, the Minister said that 1,194 locally employed staff had been relocated by the end of August, yet in a further answer he suggested that only 850 applications had been processed in the same timeframe. This means that at least 344 people are unaccounted for. The Prime Minister says the figure is 311. Will the Minister, therefore, tell the House here and now how many applications were received between April and August, how many were accepted and how many have been left behind?
James Heappey
I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the exact detail he requests. Some 15,000 people were brought out in the airlift, as I think he knows. The discrepancy he thinks he has found in the numbers he quotes relates to the fact that 311 people had been called forward—they had successfully applied and been cleared by UK Visas and Immigration for travel—but we were unable to get them on to a plane. That is different from the number of people who had applications in process at the time but had not been called forward for travel.
I know from all my engagements with colleagues on both sides of the House that they will understand that those two and a half weeks in Kabul were somewhat hectic. It will take some time for the dust to settle on exactly who is out and who we have yet to bring out, but we are still working very hard to do so. The security situation is dynamic and our partnerships in the region are being developed, but we have every confidence that we will be able to help those who need help.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
The final contract for the manufacture of the fleet solid support ships will be awarded to a UK business, either solely or as part of a consortium. We have been clear that a significant proportion of the build work will be carried out in the UK.
Mr Jones
In spring, the MOD invited international companies to collaborate with UK firms to build the fleet solid support ship contract. Earlier this year, it awarded a £5 million design contract for the project. I have tried in numerous questions to the Minister to get the answers to these questions, and I have to say to him that his answers should be getting creative writing awards for the ways in which they avoid answering questions. May I ask him a direct question: who are the design contracts with—are they with the consortium or with the individual companies? Secondly, will he confirm that the prime contractor who wins this contract will be a UK company?
Jeremy Quin
We are engaged with the consortium as a whole. I would have to check for the right hon. Gentleman on the finer points of where exactly the contract lies within that consortium, but it is the consortium that is being appointed to conduct the design work and it is the consortium that will be expected to do that work. It is then the consortium that we will be turning to for the next stage. As he knows, four awards have been made and, from memory, they are for £5 million each. They go to each in that consortium, all of which have a UK component, and they will be presenting not only their design but their views on the next stage and the build programme. I will come back on the precise point he makes, as it is a fair question.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
It is a bit rich of Labour Members to be nit-picking on this contract, given that the competition that they were calling for, whereby shipyards in the UK were to be required to build these ships, is precisely what the Minister has engineered. Will he confirm to the House that following last week’s outstanding Defence and Security Equipment International exhibition in docklands, where, as he has mentioned, there were further contracts for British shipbuilders, and following the announcement of the establishment of the National Shipbuilding Office and AUKUS, the opportunities for defence shipbuilding in this country have never been greater?
Jeremy Quin
I was so flattered to be awarded the creative writing award by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that I was perhaps too kind. There is an awful lot that is great going on in British shipbuilding at the moment. He has been calling for the design contracts to be awarded, and they have been awarded; we are getting on with the fleet solid support ships. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) says, there is also great news on Type 31. There is a lot of good news in the sector.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
The Defence Medical Services provides a responsive and comprehensive treatment service for personnel requiring medical intervention. We have improved access to mental healthcare and given armed forces personnel greater choice with the introduction of new ways of working, including digital triage and remote video consultation.
Dame Diana Johnson
As the Minister knows, the armed forces covenant states:
“Those injured in Service, whether physically or mentally, should be cared for in a way which reflects the Nation’s moral obligation to them”,
but the Government have missed targets on all mental healthcare for veterans across all services in England. Unless that changes, does it not risk rendering the covenant, which I know the Government want to strengthen, meaningless? They need to get their act together on mental health services for veterans and the armed forces.
Leo Docherty
On the contrary, we are giving teeth to the armed forces covenant by passing the Armed Forces Bill, and we will ensure that no veteran, in whatever circumstances, is ever disadvantaged.
Gerald Jones
As we know, charities across the UK, including many that have supported veterans, have been hit hard during the pandemic, impacting on the services they provide, so what additional support are the Government offering charities, in order that they can cope with demand? What more can the Government themselves do to support veterans, given that their record so far is pretty poor?
Leo Docherty
On the contrary, we are putting an additional £3 million into Op Courage, which makes a total of more than £20 million this year, and an additional £5 million into armed forces charities, which means that more than £25 million will go to them this year. That shows that the Government are putting their money where their mouth is.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
Last week was a good week for defence jobs: I announced investments in laser and radio-frequency weapons, which will sustain 249 jobs and create 49 more, including 30 in Northern Ireland, and investment to enhance the capabilities of C-17 and Chinook, which will support 200 UK jobs and create 50 at RAF Brize Norton; and on Friday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a £170 million investment in next-generation submarines, which will support 250 jobs at Barrow and 100 jobs at Rolls-Royce Derby. The UK sector more broadly already directly and indirectly supports more than 200,000 jobs throughout the UK.
Bob Seely
First, I thank all the service personnel involved in Operation Pitting and pay tribute to the as-ever impressive leadership of Brigadier James Martin.
Radar is vital to our nation’s defence, and the Royal Navy’s radar is made in Cowes on the Isle of Wight. Do the Government have a plan for the development of next-generation radar?
Jeremy Quin
We absolutely do. My hon. Friend is an assiduous proponent of the Island’s defence sector. In the summer, I visited GKN Aerospace in Cowes, which is one of a number of great companies on the Island. On radar, my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we are working closely with BAE Systems on the potential spiral development of the existing maritime radar.
Nicola Richards
My constituency of West Bromwich East boasts great skills and is only 30 minutes away from the Telford production hub for the British Army’s Boxer fighting vehicle. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that UK small and medium-sized enterprises, including our fantastic businesses in the Black Country, get proper access to contracts in defence supply chains?
Jeremy Quin
MOD spending on equipment and support with SMEs exceeded 21% last year. We are determined to push that proportion higher and I will publish a revised SME action plan later this year.
On Boxer, to which my hon. Friend referred, over 60% of the contract is expected to benefit UK suppliers. Following the integrated review, we are considering expanding the purchase, which will create even more opportunities for SMEs, including those in the Black Country.
Dr Johnson
Lincolnshire is rightly proud of its RAF links. The future combat air project will support jobs and bring crucial capability. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is on track, with both our international partners and our industries?
Jeremy Quin
It is absolutely on track. Further progress was made last week with our international partners Italy and Sweden, both of which I have been in discussions with over the summer, and it is on my agenda for my meeting tomorrow with the Defence Secretary in Japan. Our £2 billion investment in the future combat air system is benefiting from the co-investment of hundreds of millions of pounds from our industrial partners.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Of course, jobs in the defence industry depend on contracts, so may I come back to the question about the fleet solid support ships posed directly by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), which the Minister has tried to slide by? Why does the Minister not give a clear message to the industry and the workforce that the Government will prioritise British jobs and the design contracts will clearly go to a British firm? Why not make a proper decision and send that message, which should also go to the steel industry?
Jeremy Quin
I am hoping to send an exact message. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that, as I have said, we have made it absolutely clear that the contract will go to a British company, solely or as part of a consortium. We have introduced the social-value model, which is included in the defence and security industrial strategy, and it will play a significant part in the overall assessment phase. The right hon. Gentleman has pushed for this competition for a long time; it is ongoing and is going to happen, and I am looking forward to it. I am certain that British companies will be absolutely embedded throughout the process.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know that companies in the defence industry have been subject to a spate of takeovers. Many familiar names, such as Cobham and GKN Aerospace, are now in foreign hands, while Meggitt has recently been subject to a takeover bid from a US-based company. Even though the companies involved have promised to protect jobs and research and development, that has not prevented them from selling assets and closing factories. Workers at GKN Driveline at Erdington in Birmingham are going on strike to protest against a proposal for 500 redundancies next May. What are the Government doing to ensure that when British companies are taken over, promises to keep jobs and research and development in this country are kept?
Jeremy Quin
As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, the legislation that we passed broadening the scope in which intervention can take place was cleared through this Parliament and is ready to be introduced. We take very seriously our responsibilities under the Enterprise Act 2002. This is a matter for the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy acting in his particular capacity, but guarantees can be sought and enforced as part of that process.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Ministry of Defence conducts a range of operations, domestically and overseas, both independently and jointly with allies, including with the United States. We keep our operations and our broader military posture under continuous active review.
Sir Edward Leigh
Now, following the debacle in Afghanistan, we know that we cannot rely on America, will the Secretary of State make his commitment clear to our closest and traditional ally, France, which is vital for our interests, particularly in regard to migration and many other issues? Will he commit himself to working with the French to improve relations and perhaps involve them in this new relationship in the Pacific?
Mr Wallace
I listened to my right hon. Friend’s points. First of all, the United States and France are our closest allies. The United States is the cornerstone of NATO and by far outspends and out-contributes any other European nation. It has been the guarantor of European security for decades and we should not forget that. When it comes to France, I have an extremely close relationship with my French counterpart. I met her only a month or two ago and I had a dinner with her in Paris a month before that. We speak regularly. Britain and France are joined at the hip on many issues, including on complex weapons; counter-terrorism; Africa, both west and east; and indeed Iraq and Syria. There is absolutely no intent here by the United Kingdom Government to slight, upset or drive a wedge between us and France. Members may like listening to the media, but, fundamentally, we have more in common than we have things on which we differ. There was no sneakiness involved, and we did not work behind France’s back. Fundamentally, it was Australia’s right to choose a different capability and it did.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Despite NATO’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, the middle east and the wider region remain a major source of threat to the UK. We will continue to engage and to invest to keep us all safe. We remain in NATO’s training mission in Iraq and fly missions under Operation Shader. Most recently planes from the RAF conducted a strike against Daesh on 6 September. Syria remains a cause of concern, with 900,000 civilians still trapped in Idlib province. It is now the Government’s view that Turkey’s presence is providing stability and averting a catastrophic humanitarian crisis there. That is something that the UN representatives also made clear to me when I visited some months ago. We continue to work to update our defence and intelligence assessments and work across Government identifying options to support our NATO ally, Turkey.
Mrs Drummond
Mr Speaker, I am sure that you are as pleased as I am with Operation Warm Welcome. What a warm welcome are we giving to those members of the Afghan armed forces and intelligence officers who have come to the UK from Afghanistan through Operation Pitting, many of whom have trained in our military establishments such as Sandhurst and the Royal College of Defence Studies, which I was involved with last year. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to identify them and perhaps integrate them into our own armed forces?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. The Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), is leading the charge here. Some of those people who are arriving here are finding the outlook strange and confusing—they have literally taken off one uniform, got on a plane and arrived in the United Kingdom. We in the Defence Department felt that it was incredibly important that the veterans’ community, local government, the Home Office and so on reach out a hand of friendship and support them as they integrate into society. We are looking at those who have already qualified, including those who have been through Sandhurst into the armed forces, to see what we can do for them. All the way through, we shall mentor them and put our arm around them.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I want to ask the Defence Secretary about the Ajax armoured vehicle, the biggest defence procurement failure since the Nimrod. What did the Defence Secretary know about the Ajax flaws when he published the integrated review in his Defence White Paper in March, scrapping Warrior, scaling back Challenger and fully backing Ajax?
Mr Wallace
I know that this was a troubled programme; I have never resiled from that at all in this House. In fact, as the right hon. Member will know, since I took over this job we have been determined to open up the programme and get to the bottom of its failings. We will shortly come to the House with more detail on that. Going right back to March 2010, this has been a troubled programme that needs to be fixed. Can it be fixed? That is what we are working to do. It is nothing to do with linking Warrior and the others, which the right hon. Member is trying to make the case for.
John Healey
This is not just another troubled programme or another piece of Army kit. The Secretary of State’s defence White Paper confirms that Ajax is fundamental to the future of British ground forces. Our NATO allies in Europe already see a Prime Minister with the hots for his Indo-Pacific tilt. Now Ajax, alongside the AUKUS nuclear propulsion pact, raises serious concerns over Britain’s sustained contribution and commitment to NATO. What is the Secretary of State doing to settle those concerns?
Mr Wallace
First of all, what the right hon. Member has missed is that I committed to and brought forward the buying of Boxer, which is a German-British-Dutch project that will be made in Telford, providing jobs. I also brought forward the Challenger 3 upgrade, with Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land—a German company partnering with a British company to provide jobs. That is a strong, solid, metallic commitment to Europe. At the same time, we press forward with the future combat air system with Italy and Sweden.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
I am pleased to be able to confirm to my right hon. Friend that the High Barnet Army reserve centre has a continuing defence use and there are currently no plans for its sale.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Mr Wallace
No, I think I would just say that I have it on better authority than those academics that we have not.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Department use the combination of our EU exit, the Enterprise Act 2002 and the new social value rules from Her Majesty’s Treasury to ensure that more British ships are built and with more British content?
Mr Wallace
Yes, it is really important that we seek to build more British ships, but we should also recognise that there is an international collaboration on shipbuilding. I recently signed with the Indonesian Defence Minister to buy the design of the Arrowhead Type 31. That design originated in Denmark, but the intellectual property was shared with us, so we and British jobs now profit from that sale. International collaboration is important and it unlocks investment. We are now going to indicate the longest shipping pipeline for many decades so that British companies can invest knowing that there are ships in the pipeline.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Mr Wallace
The hon. Member should have listened to my answer. He was making a point about privatisation and I was making the point that Aldermaston had just been nationalised by the Government, which was the opposite ideological scene than that which he was trying to imply.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
As a veteran, I know of the hard work, dedication and often sacrifice of our great armed forces. There are many families in Wolverhampton who live and support what the great armed forces do. Will the Minister do everything that he can to ensure that all serving and former service personnel have all the support they and their families need?
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Service families are at the heart of the defence community. Our assistance to them includes wraparound childcare, which is currently being piloted, and support for partner employment. We will shortly bring forward the armed forces families strategy, which will deliver choice and flexibility to service families, because people must be able to serve their country while also supporting a family.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Mr Wallace
We published a consultation on a number of proposals for the visa system around Commonwealth soldiers. We will be publishing a response very soon and the hon. Gentleman will get the answers he requires.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
My hon. Friend has already referred to the great economic benefits resulting from the £400 million investment in enhancing C-17 Chinook capability, but does he agree that it will also help us to ensure that we can continue to undertake complex operations like the recent withdrawal from Afghanistan, where C-17 transport aircraft played a key role?
Jeremy Quin
Absolutely; it did play a key role. It is a very valuable asset, alongside others, including the A400M, which also has a connection with my hon. Friend’s constituency. I have visited his constituency, where there are great skills in the defence sector. I was delighted to make that announcement and I am delighted to see that investment going into that part of our country.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact of the introduction of operational MGS—MOD Guard Service—employment contracts on levels of staff fatigue and security at UK military bases?
Mr Wallace
Whenever we examine new arrangements for services for our military, of course we examine all the impacts on security, accountability and indeed performance.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State inform the House what Members should do when they are contacted by people who have been of assistance to our armed forces in Afghanistan but whom they have reason to believe the Taliban are hunting? Is there any help that we will be able to give them, and how should we go about approaching the Government to secure that help?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
In the first instance, my right hon. Friend could advise them to go to the ARAP website and apply to the scheme, but it does no harm at all to write to me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in parallel, as many colleagues have done, and we are working through those cases at best speed.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
When people who are pursuing successful careers in the armed forces go back to their old schools and say, “Look, this is what I have done; this is what you can do”, that can be a real incentive to recruitment. Does the Secretary of State agree that this would be a good way for him to co-ordinate with the Secretary of State for Education in future?
Mr Wallace
That is an incredibly important way to inspire young people about the careers that are ahead. When politics do not get in the way of that recruitment, it is much better. I remember being banned from a school in Dundee when I was doing military recruiting—[Interruption]; not me personally—because ideologically it did not fit with some narrative.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Following on from the question from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) about those individuals who are working with British military forces in Afghanistan, what is going to happen to those who find that they have been refused under the ARAP scheme? Will they then be referred to the Home Office or to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, or are they being left in limbo just now?
James Heappey
They do not automatically get referred to the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme; instead they are invited to apply to it. In letters from the MOD to colleagues explaining that people have not been eligible for ARAP we are providing the details of how to apply to the ACRS.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State able to update the House on any plans to renew the Red Arrows’ Hawk aircraft, which are now quite old, in the near future?
Mr Wallace
There are no plans to renew them. The taking out of service of the non-Red Arrows Hawk T1s will provide a significant amount of spares and support for the current Red Arrows fleet going forward. There are currently no plans in the immediate future, or even the medium term, to review the Red Arrows.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), the Secretary of State stated that the fire services of the naval bases in Faslane and Coulport had been nationalised, yet Capita won the contract last year to provide the fire services for those naval bases. Would the Secretary of State like to come to the Dispatch Box, perhaps to rectify that anomaly?
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I think the best way to rectify this, Mr Speaker, is to read Hansard, where you will see very clearly, in black and white, that I referred to the Atomic Weapons Establishment.
Mr Speaker
It is on the record and we are not going to continue the debate.
UK Gas Market
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
With permission Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the UK gas market. As hon. and right hon. Members will be aware, over the weekend I held discussions with Ofgem and energy companies, and this morning I held a further roundtable discussion. Today I will set out the Government’s approach to managing the impact of high global gas prices affecting the UK and countries across Europe.
To begin, I want to make two points extremely clear. First, I must stress that protecting consumers is our No.1 primary focus and will shape our entire approach to this important issue. Secondly, I reassure the House that while the UK, like other countries in Europe, has been affected by global prices, Britain benefits from having a diverse range of gas supply sources. We have more than sufficient capacity to meet demand, and we do not expect supply emergencies to occur this winter. There is absolutely no question of the lights going out or people being unable to heat their homes. There will be no three-day working weeks or a throwback to the 1970s. Such thinking is alarmist, unhelpful and completely misguided.
To begin, I would like to set out some of the context for the global situation we are now witnessing. As the world comes out of covid-19 and economies reopen, we are seeing a dramatic uptick in global gas demand—much faster than many had anticipated. High demand in Asia for liquified natural gas, transported globally by freight, means that far less LNG has reached Europe. Weather events in the US have also affected LNG exports to Europe. Increased demand, coupled with reduced variety of supply globally, has put upward pressure on the price of gas traded globally. High wholesale gas prices have subsequently driven an increase in wholesale power prices, with a number of short-term markets trading at, or near, record levels. While we are not complacent, we do not expect supply emergencies this winter. This is a very important point. It is not a question of security of supply.
The Great British gas system has delivered securely to date and is expected to continue to function effectively, with a diverse range of supply sources and sufficient delivery capacity to more than meet demand. The National Grid electricity system operator has the tools within it to operate the electricity system reliably and to balance that system, and we remain confident that electricity security can be maintained under a very wide range of scenarios. We are not reliant on any one particular source for our gas, unlike many of our friends in Europe.
As right hon. and hon. Members should know, domestic production is our largest single gas supply source. It accounted for about 50% of total supply last year. However, the UK also benefits from an excellent relationship with Norway, one of our most important and reliable energy partners, which delivers nearly 30% of our total gas supply. In the last half hour, I was privileged to speak to the Norwegian energy Minister and welcome today’s announcement from Equinor that its gas production will significantly increase from 1 October to support UK and European demand. Our remaining supply is sourced from global markets via two interconnectors to the continent, and also through our LNG infrastructure, which is, as many hon. Members know, the largest in Europe.
The global gas situation has obviously had an impact on some energy suppliers. We have seen four suppliers exit the market in recent weeks and we may expect to see further companies do so in the coming weeks. I must say, having been Energy Minister for nearly two years before I became Secretary of State, that we often see companies exiting the market at around this time of year ahead of the renewables obligation certificate payment. There may well be more of them this year, but I want to make it clear that it is not unusual for smaller energy suppliers to exit the market, particularly when wholesale global prices are rising. The sector has seen regular entry and exit in the last five to 10 years; indeed, that is a feature of a highly competitive market.
The current global situation may see more suppliers than usual exiting the market, but that should not be any cause for alarm or panic. We have clear processes in place to ensure that all customers are supplied with energy. When an energy supplier fails, Ofgem typically appoints another supplier to take on serving its customers and there is no interruption to supply. I reiterate that our primary consideration is for the customer.
I will stress three principles that are guiding the Government’s approach. First, the Government will not be bailing out failed companies. There will be no rewards for failure or mismanagement. The taxpayer should not be expected to prop up companies who have poor business models and are not resilient to fluctuations in price. Secondly, customers, and particularly vulnerable customers, must be protected from price spikes. Thirdly, we must ensure that the energy market does not pay the price for the poor practices of a minority of companies and that the market maintains the competition that is a feature of the current system. We must not simply return to the cosy oligopoly of years past where a few large suppliers simply dictated conditions and pricing to customers.
I reassure all right hon. and hon. Members’ constituents that the energy price cap, which saves 15 million households up to £100 a year, is staying. It is not going anywhere. As I said earlier, our priority in this situation has to be the consumer—the Great British public—and the cap effectively protects, as it has protected, millions of customers from sudden increases in global prices this winter. We are committed to that price cap and it will remain in place. Meanwhile, our warm home discount, winter fuel payments and cold weather payments will continue supporting millions of vulnerable and low-income households with their energy bills. It is absolutely vital that the energy supply sector remains a liberalised competitive market in order to deliver value and good service to consumers.
As a result of high global gas prices, right hon. and hon. Members will perhaps have read that two fertiliser plants in Teesside and Cheshire shut down last week. They suspended the production of CO2 and ammonia. That decision has surely affected in the short term our domestic supply of carbon dioxide, which, as everybody knows, is used in the food and drink sector, as well as in the nuclear and health sectors. Yesterday, I met Tony Will, the global chief executive of CF Industries. We discussed the pressures that the business is facing, and we have explored quite thoroughly possible ways to secure vital supplies. Work is ongoing across Departments in Whitehall and across the Government to ensure that those sectors impacted and affected by this announcement have appropriate contingency plans in place to ensure that there is indeed minimal disruption. To maintain our domestic supplies of CO2, we are in constant contact with the relevant companies that produce and supply CO2, and we are monitoring the situation minute by minute.
Over the past few days, as has been widely reported, I have held several discussions with chief executives of the UK’s largest energy suppliers and operators and also with Ofgem to discuss this vital issue. Just this morning, I chaired a roundtable with UK energy companies and the representatives of consumer groups, in which I reiterated, as I have on the Floor of this House, the need for all of us in Government and across the industry to prioritise customers—in short, to protect the consumer. Meetings are continuing across Government today and throughout the course of this week. In terms of further actions and statements, this afternoon, shortly after the statement presented here, I will be making a joint statement with Ofgem, setting out the Government’s next steps following the healthy and in many cases illuminating discussions with it and suppliers.
Our security of gas supply is robust, but it is the case that the UK is still too reliant on fossil fuels. Our exposure to volatile global gas prices underscores the importance of our plan to build a strong, home-grown renewable energy sector to strengthen our energy security into the future. Thanks to the steps we have taken as a Government, renewable energy sources have quadrupled in gigawatts of capacity since 2010—far more than quadrupled, in fact—but there is still clearly a lot more we can do in this area. That is why we have committed to approve at least one large-scale new nuclear project in the next few years and are backing the next generation of advanced nuclear technology with £385 million, helping to attract billions of pounds in private capital and to create tens of thousands of jobs.
To conclude, consumers come first, and we must protect our constituents.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Before anybody bothers to raise the matter, I say to the Secretary of State that it is totally unacceptable to take so long—almost 13 minutes—and not to have warned the Opposition. I would have thought that the people who put the statement together would have timed it. It is 10 minutes for a statement, and we need to get back to the rules of the House—not the rules that I make, but the rules that this House makes. I say to the shadow Secretary of State that I am sorry you did not know the statement would take so long, but by all means take an extra minute or whatever to compensate. But, please, in future, we should get this right and not take advantage of Members who are here to question the Secretary of State.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and agree that we should not be alarmist on the issue of security of supply, but I fear his statement was much too complacent on the price and economic impacts of the current situation.
First, on continuity of supply, we support the Secretary of State taking all necessary measures to ensure that families and businesses continue to have access to energy and that we secure the issue of CO2 supplies. The Secretary of State says that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that customers of failing companies get taken on, but the scale of the problems in the market will provide an unprecedented test of those mechanisms, so does he believe that taxpayer support will be necessary to deal with the problem? If it is, we must ensure value for money. I welcome his caution about outcomes that lead to taxpayer subsidy for big companies to further concentrate their market share, but can he therefore explain the alternatives and what he proposes happens to the customers of suppliers that do not get through this crisis? He is making a statement later this afternoon, and it would be good to know what he is going to say.
Secondly, on the impact of price rises on businesses and industry, can the Secretary of State set out his plans to support businesses, particularly energy-intensive industries? Has he considered with his colleagues the provision of Government support, including possibly loans, to help businesses facing difficulties? On consumer support, he is right to keep the price cap in place—it is a measure I have long supported—but the rise in the price cap of £139 means half a million more families will be plunged into fuel poverty. At a minimum, he should be looking at making the operation of the £140 warm home discount automatic and possibly extending it, but even that will not be enough. Families are facing a triple whammy: rising energy prices, national insurance rises, and, at the end of this month, the £1,000 cut in universal credit. These energy price rises turn the indefensible decision on universal credit into an unconscionable one. If he really wants to put consumers first, if he really wants to help working people, and if he really wants to tackle fuel poverty, is it not time, even at this late stage, to cancel this terrible decision on universal credit?
Thirdly, we need to learn longer-term lessons from this crisis about the lack of resilience in our energy system that has contributed to very large price spikes. The Secretary of State is right that there are global issues, but the UK is facing particular difficulties. Let me give some examples of Government decision making. In 2017, the gas storage facility, Rough, then 75% of our storage, was planned for closure. The Government could have acted to keep it open but did nothing. Our lack of gas storage was raised by industry, the GMB union and the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in 2019, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). A Minister said in reply that
“the UK’s gas system is secure and well placed to respond effectively to unexpected changes in supply and demand”.
Were the Government not, then as now, far too complacent on the issue of gas storage?
Next, energy efficiency could significantly cut the demand for gas, but we have had the fiasco of the green deal followed by the fiasco of the green homes grant and then the delayed heat and buildings strategy, and emissions from buildings are today higher than in 2015. When is the Secretary of State going to have a proper retrofit plan?
Our new nuclear programme is stalled, and while the Secretary of State is right that we have made progress on renewables, the truth is that we need to go further and faster, with a more diverse supply. Above all, there is not yet enough of a clear plan from Government for how we meet net zero with affordability and security. People have read what the Climate Change Committee said in its most recent progress report this summer:
“It is hard to discern any comprehensive strategy”.
Is not the truth that there is a direct line from the delay, dither and failure to the issues we face today?
I therefore urge the Secretary of State in the midst of this crisis to use this autumn’s net zero strategy—delayed—the net zero review, also delayed, and the comprehensive spending review to finally put in place a proper plan. Households, businesses and energy suppliers are looking to the Government for support and direction as we face this crisis; it requires not words but action and delivery. It is long past time for Government to get a grip.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I apologise, Mr Speaker, for issuing such a lengthy statement.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about a plan, but we have plans and strategies galore. We have the energy White Paper, which was widely well received and which I was very happy to present as Energy Minister, and we also have the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan. I was struck by the fact that when former US Secretary of State John Kerry came to the UK he publicly said that the UK’s plans for decarbonisation were more advanced than those of any other country.
The right hon. Gentleman has a legitimate concern about vulnerable customers, and I have made it very clear to the industry and to Ofgem that they are absolutely our No. 1 priority. We are looking at the warm home discount. As a Government, we have always focused on protecting the vulnerable and people in fuel poverty, and we will continue to do so.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State is entirely right that the UK is far better placed than most other European countries when it comes to the sources and diversity of its gas supplies, not least thanks to the two major liquefied natural gas terminals in my constituency at Milford Haven. Will he join me in paying tribute to the teams working at the South Hook and Dragon LNG terminals and also make a commitment today to work with me, the port authority and the industry on the Haven to make the transition to the next stage of our energy development and see a new generation of floating offshore wind and other renewable energy sources there?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My right hon. Friend will be well aware that there is a commitment to floating offshore wind in the energy White Paper and the 10-point plan. We have explicitly set a 1 GW target for 2030 and I fully expect and hope that that will be exceeded. I am also very pleased to be able to tell him that I am very keenly focused on Dragon LNG. I have not yet visited it in my two years as Energy Minister and Secretary of State, but I would be very happy to accept his invitation.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The Secretary of State almost brought himself to say it. Decades of underinvestment in renewable technologies, the barriers put in place by Brexit, 11 years of Tory austerity, a national insurance tax hike, the plan to rob £20 a week from those claiming universal credit, rising food prices, emptying shelves and now energy consumers facing skyrocketing, eye-watering bills—let us call this what it is. It is a cost of living crisis, and one created on the watch of this UK Government.
So what now? What is the plan? I do not, with all due respect, think that the Secretary of State’s warm words quite cut it. He mentioned the energy price cap, but what he failed to acknowledge was the fact that in just a matter of weeks the cap will be at its highest level ever. Will he therefore back new financial support for those in the lowest-income households, and of course, will he call on the Chancellor to scrap his cut to universal credit?
The Secretary of State acknowledged that, of course, it is not just households that are being hammered by these rising gas prices but businesses, too, particularly those that produce and transport goods. He did not say what specific support he intends to provide to those businesses.
On renewables, one of the key solutions to our supply issues lies not in nuclear—of course not in nuclear—but in the Scottish Munros, with hydropumped storage. When will the Secretary of State finally introduce a mechanism to make that technology come to the fore?
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to ask the Secretary of State what message he would have for the likes of the Prime Minister, who of course told us in 2016 that if we voted to leave the European Union energy bills would be reduced.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman is still re-litigating the so-called Brexit wars. This is a serious issue, and it is not the time to re-fight the battles of five years ago.
I am fully conscious of the outstanding contribution of hydroelectric power. In fact, I was just speaking to the Norwegian Minister, and that country has 96% of its electricity derived from hydropower. The geography of our country means that we cannot reach that level, but I have absolutely asked officials to look into it, and the hon. Gentleman will know, given my record both as Energy Minister and as Secretary of State, that I am a very keen supporter of renewable energy. As I have always said, and as I said to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the Government’s focus on safety, consideration and protecting vulnerable customers is absolute.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to reassure consumers that energy security in the UK is safe, but does he agree that, as we transition away from fossil fuels towards renewables, we need to move urgently towards far greater electricity market reform? We urgently need an independent system operator, and we need much more local generation and local energy pricing to encourage consumers to use plentiful wind and solar energy, when they are being generated, for their optional energy use.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I thank my right hon. Friend very much. I remind the House that when I was appointed as Energy Minister, she was the Secretary of State in the Department, and she pushed a great deal of reform and innovation in this area. I reassure her that conversations about an independent system operator and how we can modernise the way we balance the electricity system are happening all the time, and I would be very open to hearing her suggestions about how we can bring that about. I think that energy security in this country, thanks in part to her efforts when she held the post I currently hold, is good. We have a diversity of supply, we have considered a wide range of renewables, and in fact we are pioneering and leading the world in the development of renewable technology.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement. There are, of course, a whole range of important questions to be answered to ensure that we do not face similar energy crises in the future. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee will be asking Ministers to answer those questions over the coming days and weeks, but may I ask the Secretary of State a specific question today? Can he guarantee that the warm home discount rebate will continue to be paid to consumers who are forced to change energy supplier?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman tempts me on to dangerous ground. Of course, any guarantee of that kind has a fiscal implication, which, as he will no doubt be aware, is also a matter for the Treasury. We are in constant discussion about that. I look forward to seeing him in his usual place at the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee on Wednesday. I know that he takes these matters very seriously, and I am sure that we will have a fuller discussion of these subjects then.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State talk to the industry urgently about having more gas storage capacity? We have tiny capacity compared with most advanced countries, and that would provide a buffer to smooth supplies and keep prices down if this turns out, as we hope it will, to be a short-term interruption to supply from Russia and America.
Kwasi Kwarteng
My right hon. Friend, with his characteristic acuity, hits the nail on the head. Gas storage is definitely an issue, but the fact he points out is that we do not know how long this spike in the gas price will last. We must not precipitate a rush or, through any alarmism, instigate panic. There is no cause for that at all, but clearly this is a situation that needs to be reviewed. I am very happy to speak to him about particular solutions. I know that he has various views on interconnectors, and I look forward to discussing with him very frankly the way ahead.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) referred to our “tiny capacity”. The UK cut its strategic gas storage to 1.7% of annual demand, when a former Government adviser suggested that it should be closer to 25%. In the light of that, why did the Government allow the Rough storage facility off the Yorkshire coast to close without taking action?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I have said repeatedly, we have a wide source of energy supply. We have by far the largest offshore wind capacity in the world. There is no reason why we should be inducing panic because of the closure of gas storage facilities. It is something that I said we should look at, but I do not think it is right for hon. and right hon. Members to stoke alarm simply by focusing on questions that are not really relevant to today’s debate.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I declare an interest as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on energy security. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the action he is taking to protect consumers and to calm the concerns that some commentators and some Members have expressed. Does he agree that diversity is key to reducing the long-term risk of such volatility in the markets? That means diversity of supply, diversity in energy generation—be it wind, nuclear, biomass, hydro or other sources—but also diversity in the location that the energy is generated. Some nations, regions and even countries have an excess supply on some occasions and a shortfall on others. The greater the diversity, the less the risk. Is he sufficiently reassured that Ofgem is sufficiently proactive in this field?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My right hon. Friend spoke about three distinct categories. I can assure him that on all three we have a degree of robustness. On the spread of the gas supply, I said that we have a wide range of sources for gas. On electricity generation, I can reassure him that with our work on renewables—onshore wind, offshore wind and solar—there is a much wider range of electricity generation supply in the UK than in practically any other country. On geographical spread, he will notice that a lot of installations and a lot of that capacity are spread very evenly across the United Kingdom. I happen to know that because I spent a large part of the past two years visiting those sites.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
CF Fertilisers, based in my constituency, is one of the plants that has had to close down in the light of cost pressures. There are obviously many impacts on consumers as a result of this decision, but the employment prospects of my constituents are at the forefront of my mind at the moment. I am pleased to hear that the Secretary of State met the company yesterday. I wrote to the Department over a month ago pointing out the need for urgent action on the cost pressures the company was facing, not just in terms of global gas prices but a number of other factors. I hope that discussions prove fruitful, and not just for my constituents’ jobs. We do not want to get into a situation where we are relying on importing carbon dioxide from other sources, because that will not help us to reach net zero and will put us risk of other fluctuations in world prices.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his ongoing interest in and passionate support for employment in his constituency. I spoke to him considerably about Stellantis over the last few months. I am very focused on the two CFF plants, one of which is very near or in his constituency. The other, of course, is in Billingham on Teesside. We are looking at both sites and trying to do what we can to support ongoing production in both those places.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his interest in renewables, hydrogen, new nuclear and CCS. He has already referenced the incredibly difficult situation facing CF Fertilisers in Stockton, which has been forced to suspend production because of gas prices. Is he aware of the knock-on effect that that can have on businesses that CF Fertilisers supplies, such as Huntsman in Wilton, and the further knock-on impact to the rest of Teesside’s chemical industry? Can I impress on him just how interconnected our industry is and how losing one player could lead to a domino effect?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He and I have visited a number of those sites together. He is quite right to say that there is a chemical cluster reliant on the ammonia produced out of the CFF plant in Billingham. I say that that is a good cause to argue for the sustainability of the site. It is something we are very aware of and it was brought up in the discussion with the CEO yesterday.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I listened very carefully to what the Secretary of State had to say, which was that protecting consumers, particularly vulnerable consumers, was the Government’s No. 1 priority. Will he then seriously reconsider his position and lobby his colleague the Chancellor to reverse the £20 universal credit cut? Many of my constituents who are in receipt of universal credit are hard-working people on low wages, and they need that money to meet spiralling energy costs and the increased cost of living.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. and learned Lady is aware that we are entering a comprehensive spending review process at this moment. I am speaking to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor all the time about all sorts of things and all sorts of measures that we can bring in to make sure that people are protected from this gas price hike.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
It is absolutely right that we continue on our energy transition to net zero. I welcome the Government’s ongoing commitment to increasing renewable and low-carbon capacity across the UK, not least in the form of carbon capture and storage, for example, as proposed by the Acorn Project at St Fergus in my constituency, where, at the moment at least, about 30% of the UK’s gas comes ashore. Does my right hon. Friend agree that while we still have a demand, albeit a declining demand, for natural gas, we must ensure that that demand is satisfied by domestic sources as far as reasonably possible?
Kwasi Kwarteng
What my hon. Friend says is entirely reasonable. I pay tribute to him in his role as Under-Secretary of State in the Scotland Office, where he and I spoke about these issues almost continually, it would appear—we spoke about Acorn and we spoke about carbon capture. He will know that I am passionately committed not only to carbon capture but to ensuring that we have a decent domestic supply of natural gas.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Natural gas is a fossil fuel, and we all know that fossil fuel extraction and consumption have to end by 2050 at the latest. What is the Government’s precise timeline—not a 10-point plan, not imprecise promises, but their precise timeline—to phase out the national gas grid and replace it with renewables, in which case we would not be here in the first place?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady will know that to answer that question we would have to have a much clearer view, in terms of the safety and applicability of hydrogen, for example, in the national gas grid. That is clearly a big part of our ability and the speed with which we can decarbonise the gas grid. She also knows that I am committed to decarbonisation; I am committed to the hydrogen strategy that was published six weeks ago, and there are ongoing trials to see whether we can use hydrogen to decarbonise the gas grid.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
To what extent is the UK collateral damage in a European-wide crisis caused by the Kremlin’s weaponising of gas supply and its attempts to intimidate the EU into accepting Nord Stream 2, potentially as a precursor to more violence in Ukraine? Should we not see this hybrid war for what it is and plan long term accordingly?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As my hon. Friend knows and has expressed, there are geopolitical elements to this in terms of the reliance of a large part of Europe on Russian gas. I am here to reassure people about a common misconception. We are not dependent at all on Russian gas. The gas sources are as I have described—50% are local, 30% are from Norway and about 18% are from LNG, which comes from all around the world—so I want to minimise the notion that we are somehow at the mercy of Russian gas policy.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
This crisis is causing steelmakers across the country to suspend their operations during periods of the day when the costs of power are peaking at thousands of pounds per megawatt-hour. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that he is engaging with the steel industry to ensure that this crisis does not end up crippling our steel industry, which of course underpins our entire manufacturing sector?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Member knows that I am constantly engaging with the steel sector—in fact, I resuscitated the Steel Council as one of my first acts when I was appointed Secretary of State—and I am always in ongoing conversations with it. I have, I feel, made a contribution to making sure that we can have this industry on a sustainable basis, but I am very happy to talk to the hon. Member, among other colleagues.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Unlike the Opposition parties, my right hon. Friend knows that we cannot just keep spending billions of pounds every time there is a major problem, but I have to say that he also knows that the keys to prosperity through production are prices, profit and loss. May I ask him now to prioritise affordability and security of supply by removing all fiscal and other disincentives to oil and gas exploration, including shale gas, to increase domestic production levels?
Kwasi Kwarteng
We have rehearsed the shale gas issue many times on the Floor of the House. As Energy Minister, I was confronted with a situation in which the experiments with shale gas induced a reading of 2.9 on the Richter scale and people’s plates were falling off their walls. They wrote to me to say, “We’ve got to stop this,” and there was a moratorium. There is a moratorium, and I have said very explicitly that when the evidence changes we will look at it, but for now there is a moratorium on shale. However, my hon. Friend knows that I understand and fully appreciate the effect of supply and demand as well—perhaps not as well as he does, but better than the Opposition.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am very glad to hear the Secretary of State say that protecting consumers is now his Government’s primary focus; it is just a great shame that it has not been in the past. He continues to expose people to high energy prices by refusing to look at the demand side. I do not think that the words “energy efficiency” or “home insulation” have passed his lips once this afternoon. When will he properly learn the lessons of the failed green homes grant, the green deal and the scrapping of zero-carbon homes? When will he put in place the comprehensive street-by-street local authority-led insulation scheme that we know will get emissions down, fuel prices down and jobs up right across the country?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady knows that we have discussed the heat and building strategy, and I have discussed it personally, on a number of occasions. We have said that it will be published very soon, and I look forward to her response when it is.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s hard work over the weekend to secure our gas supplies and protect consumers. Does he agree that the long-term solution to energy price spikes is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and accelerate the transition to a more cost-efficient and resilient energy system based on renewable energy and nuclear power, through projects such as Wylfa Newydd in my constituency?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s indefatigability on this issue. There never seems to be a moment when Wylfa is not on her lips, and I fully appreciate her passion for it.
Nuclear is clearly a big part of the answer to this, which is why—as Members who have read it will know—it is the third point of the 10-point plan. It is clearly an essential part of our energy mix for the future.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I, too, am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement, and specifically for meeting representatives of CF Fertilisers, which has stopped production in my constituency, with a knock-on effect on industries needing the carbon dioxide that it generates as a by-product. He will remember my many meetings, letters, parliamentary questions and points made in the House about the perfect storm brewing for firms such as CF Fertilisers—rising fuel prices, a bizarre funding mechanism from Ofgem for gas transportation costs, and the lack of appropriate support for energy-intensive industries to mitigate high carbon emission prices. He says that talks are ongoing, but can he say a little more about what he is doing to get CF Fertilisers producing as soon as possible, and when we can expect policies to make our energy and related costs competitive against Europe?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I would say that our prices are very competitive. Offshore wind, for example, started off at about £150 per megawatt-hour, and at the last auction round it was £39 per megawatt-hour. We have seen the cost of renewables fall considerably over the past 10 years. As for CF Fertilisers, it would be premature of me to say exactly what the Government are going to do. A range of options are being considered, and I hope that the Government will be able to update the House shortly.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
How long does the Department expect these elevated global gas prices to remain at their current level? May I also press the Secretary of State a little on nuclear? I agree with him that it is an essential part of the energy mix, but in relation to large-scale nuclear, what are his plans beyond the one plant that has already been agreed?
Kwasi Kwarteng
It would be foolhardy of me to speculate at the Dispatch Box on what the gas price will be even tomorrow. If I were in a position to know what the prices would be at a later date, I would probably not be a politician; I would probably be a gas trader. That aside, however, I think we have to accept that the prices could be high for longer than people anticipate, just as they could fall very quickly. The marginal dynamics of these markets can shift extremely rapidly. Those of us who followed the oil price last year will have seen that we had an oil price of $20 a barrel, and that in the same year it reached nearly $80. There is a considerable amount of volatility in these markets, and it would be rash of me to predict their course.
As I said earlier, we are committed to nuclear, which is the third point in the 10-point plan, and that means not just large-scale nuclear, but small modular reactors as well.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
It is beyond doubt that Scotland is an energy-rich nation, but a quarter of our people live in fuel poverty. If the Secretary of State is a free-marketeer and is not prepared to see taxpayer support go into the market, does he not think it is time for a publicly owned energy company to be brought into being to help us through such difficult times?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I do not really follow the hon. Gentleman’s question. On the one hand, he is saying that I am a free marketeer, but then he is asking me whether I think there should be a state-owned energy company. I think I would avoid the latter outcome, in so far as I can, but as I always say in these things, we are looking at all options. I think that there are market-based solutions. I think that the industry will come together and that, with the Government and Ofgem, we can plot a course through this.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Alongside the increasing gas prices, consumers are facing a double whammy through increasing petrol prices, which, as FairFuelUK has pointed out, have gone up by 9-to-10p over the past six months. Will my right hon. Friend maintain the fuel duty freeze, which is vital for motorists and businesses? Will he also look at reducing VAT on energy bills, which is something that was indicated during the Brexit referendum debate? That would make a big difference to hard-pressed consumers.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I would like to thank my right hon. Friend, but he has been in the House long enough to know that VAT and the fuel duty freeze are beyond my remit. However, as I have said many times, I speak to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about these issues on a regular basis.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
The decision to raise the energy price cap to its highest-ever level will push half a million people into fuel poverty next month. At the same time, an additional 800,000 people will be pushed into poverty by the £20 a week cut to universal credit. On top of that, the national insurance hike will hit low-paid workers the hardest. These are political choices, so rather than relentlessly attacking the working class, will the Minister avert a worsening winter poverty crisis by cancelling the cut to universal credit, raising taxes on the richest and bringing energy companies into public ownership and running them for the public good, not private profit, to slash bills and cut carbon?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I appreciate that these are talking points that have been given to the hon. Lady by the Whips—
Kwasi Kwarteng
I totally understand where that is coming from, but I have said repeatedly that universal credit is an issue across Government and there is no way that I can commit to anything on that in the House. We are absolutely focused on protecting people in fuel poverty. All our policies have been focused on that, and I would suggest that she reads our 2019 manifesto to see the extent of our commitments to help those in fuel poverty.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Interconnectors are vital for our energy security and for reaching net zero, for both gas and electricity. In a White Paper last year, the Government aimed to get 80 GW of interconnectors in by 2030, which is three times what we have now. However, Ofgem, which is leading on this, seems to be dragging its feet. What can this Government do to get these interconnectors going and increase our energy security?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The issue of interconnectors is very important. There were clearly incidents with a couple of the interconnectors last week, so we need to guarantee that they are safe, but my hon. Friend is quite right to say that the 80 GW target is still very much something that we intend to achieve, and I am working with and speaking to Ofgem to be able to get there.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
As you know, Mr Speaker, this is a bit personal for me because the village of Altnaharra is the coldest place in the UK every year. With the cut to universal credit, far too many people are going to have to make the hellish choice between switching off the electricity and paying for food. Did I hear the Secretary of State correctly? Will he maintain the fuel price cap where it is at the moment? Secondly, will he look positively at a Northern Rock-type of enterprise to pick up the customers of those companies that, perish the thought, might go under?
Kwasi Kwarteng
There are two issues there. I have said that I have committed to the price cap mechanism, but it is not up to me as Secretary of State to determine what the level of the cap is. That is an issue for Ofgem. Secondly, we have made some progress on protecting customers and there is an ongoing need to do that, but I would be happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman and to discuss his ideas on this.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
On Friday, I visited the National Grid gas compressor station at Churchover in my constituency, which is at the centre of both the UK and the network of a resilient system that is distributing a diverse and flexible supply around the UK. Does the Secretary of State agree that, in terms of supply, we are in the fortunate and strong position of having built up a network to supply the current circumstances and to be adjustable for the future introduction of hydrogen?
Kwasi Kwarteng
An excellent question from my hon. Friend. All the conversations I have had over the weekend and today have stated clearly and unambiguously that security of supply is not an issue. That is thanks to the hard work that people in his constituency, in National Grid, in Ofgem and across the system have put in over many years.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said we have to wait for his plan to find out what he will do to retrofit buildings and reduce dependence on carbon fuels, but local authorities across the country are way ahead of the Government. My local authority in Greenwich is experimenting with air-source and ground-source heat pumps. When he produces his report, does he think local authorities will be front and centre in creating local plans so that we can drill down into local communities to bring about the change we need to achieve zero carbon?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman is right that I welcome local initiatives. Only a month ago, I spoke at a forum at which representatives of local government were enthusiastic about getting behind net zero. I welcome all initiatives where local leaders are driving the push to net zero.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
We have heard a typically reliable and reassuring statement from my right hon. Friend. He mentioned the Ofgem guarantee for when a supplier fails. Will that guarantee protect customers’ credit balances, and how soon will they be able to access them? Will fixed-term deals that customers have negotiated with their current supplier always be respected through the transfer?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend did not mention it in particular, but we have a supplier of last resort process, which has been relied upon over the past few years and involves a transfer of customers in the way he describes. We may well have an updated version of that process in the light of the threats posed to a number of suppliers. I look forward to discussing the details with him when the statement is made.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says he is working on contingencies, but the meat industry says its CO2 supplies will be depleted within a fortnight. Is he sure that pork and poultry will not be the next items to disappear from our supermarket shelves?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am working very closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We have spoken to the Treasury, and we are keen to push forward plans very soon to make sure there is a consistent and regular supply of CO2.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As Russia completes its sinister Nord Stream 2 pipeline and tightens its stranglehold on gas supplies to Europe, why are we not fully exploiting Rolls-Royce modular nuclear reactors to decrease our indirect dependence on Russian gas and our direct dependence on French and Chinese nuclear technology?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My right hon. Friend knows that coming up with a fleet of small modular reactors cannot be done overnight. It takes about 10 years to develop the technology. As I have said repeatedly, it is a key part of our nuclear strategy and is the third point of the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan. I frequently speak about this to Warren East, the chief executive officer of Rolls-Royce. As a consequence of the spending review period, it is something that we hope to be able to commit to on the UK balance sheet.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The question my constituents will have today is what the cost will be to them. As we know that serious costs are coming on to some of the poorest people in our constituencies, will the Secretary of State commit to speaking to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about cancelling the cut to universal credit and will he speak to the Chancellor about putting additional measures in place to avert fuel and food poverty?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady will appreciate that I speak to colleagues across Government all the time, particularly in respect of alleviating and lessening the burden on very vulnerable constituents.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Secretary of State spoke of the challenges facing CO2 supply, which is crucial to the food and healthcare industries. What work are the Government doing to ensure there is supply, and can he confirm that there will not be any deficit of CO2?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I spoke to the CEO of CF Fertilisers yesterday, and a number of hon. Members have raised that concern. We are trying to see how we can secure a constant supply of carbon dioxide.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The loss of the IFA interconnector last week saw the UK lose two fifths of its capacity to import electricity from Europe, further increasing our dependence on natural gas. What pressure are the Government bringing to bear on National Grid to speed up these repairs and to invest the 19% increase to its pre-tax profits to better secure the UK’s energy network?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue. Clearly, to have interconnectors fail in the way they did last week, in the midst of a global gas price spike, is very concerning. We are looking at what went wrong and seeing what we can do with National Grid to hold it to account and to make sure that the risk of this happening again is minimised.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
The rise in the wholesale price of gas began back in January, with it rising by 250% since then. Why did no one in the Department anticipate this scenario?
Kwasi Kwarteng
We have anticipated many scenarios. I alluded to the fact that the oil price went from about $20 a barrel to $80 a barrel within just one year, and we have always been aware that commodity prices, particularly where demand can be very volatile, can be extremely volatile indeed. We look at that on a very regular basis.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Secretary of State has just talked about the volatility of the market, but there is no denying that the Prime Minister assured us that energy prices would fall post Brexit. As many of my constituents are set to fall further into fuel poverty and as 10,406 of them face a cut of £20 a week in their universal credit, can the Secretary of State tell us what he thinks of the Prime Minister’s irresponsible and wildly misplaced assurances about the future of energy prices?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I said to one of the hon. Lady’s colleagues, I am not here to re-fight the 2016 battle of Brexit; it should be accepted, in her case with good grace. We have moved on from the Brexit debate, and I am extremely focused on ensuring security of supply and ensuring that vulnerable customers are protected from undue increases in the price of gas.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
May I just take the Secretary of State back to his statement, where he said he is going to be making a joint statement with Ofgem this afternoon? Assuming that that has in it some announcements that he has not covered in his statement just now, may I ask for an assurance as to when he is going to come to the House to update us? Perhaps Mr Speaker could arrange for that statement to take place tonight at 10 pm, so that we can question the Secretary of State. I ask that because, as he will know, 15% of energy consumers are off the gas grid, with a bigger proportion in constituencies such as mine. They do not benefit from the price cap, so will he set out at the Dispatch Box for those local consumers of mine in the Forest of Dean how he is going to be helping them with this very significant rise in gas prices?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I cannot make any assurances of that kind to my right hon. Friend. As a former Chief Whip, he knows the practices of this House very well. In fact, I seem to recall that in those coalition days we frequently made statements, not necessarily on the Floor of this House. I would be very happy to update him. I do not think—[Interruption.] I have a different memory of it, but we can discuss that later. I would be happy to talk to him about the measures that are being put forward; it is an Ofgem-led thing, but it is also something the Government have worked on—this has been done together.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Given that Wales is a major net exporter in electricity and came second in the UK growth index for the potential for green development, what are the British Government doing to ensure that the Welsh Government have all the levers they need to reach their potential and ensure that the people of Wales get a dividend from our strength in electricity production?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am not sure whether we have scheduled this in, but one action point is that I want to do a call with the devolved Administrations this afternoon. After this statement, I will be very much looking forward to seeing some of his colleagues and people in the Welsh Government, as well as those from some of the other DAs.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
I welcome the steps this Government have already taken to protect energy supply in the UK, specifically the warm home discount scheme and the winter fuel payment scheme. Will my right hon. Friend expand on the ways in which he is working with colleagues across Government to protect the most vulnerable, in Clwyd South and the rest of the UK, during this winter?
Kwasi Kwarteng
We have consistently, in our discussions on net zero and in our attempt to decarbonise the economy, sought to protect the most vulnerable of our constituents. He will know that I am seeking to protect the schemes he mentioned and, if possible, to enhance them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Gas users in towns and rural areas throughout Northern Ireland face a 35% increase in the cost of gas. One in five families in Northern Ireland is in fuel poverty. It is clear that this is fast becoming a cold and long winter for the working poor on the poverty line. How will the Secretary of State and the Government give the assistance that will surely be needed for those who need it the most?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) mentioned the warm home discount and the winter fuel payments; we try to protect the most vulnerable with lots of such schemes. On the call I had earlier, I was delighted to see Citizens Advice, which is particularly aware of such issues. I am very prepared to engage with the hon. Gentleman to see how his constituents and Northern Ireland can withstand what may well be a long and difficult winter.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. On a practical level, will he ensure that Ofgem recruits more customer-facing advisers and has a fully functioning helpline and easy-to-use website, so that those consumers whose energy supplier does go bust, whether in Kettering or elsewhere, do not face a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency-type customer service experience?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend can rest assured that I will raise those precise points with the chief executive of Ofgem when I speak to him tomorrow.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The fluctuations in commercial gas prices particularly affect energy-intensive sectors such as ceramics, and the high price of commercial electricity does not encourage the transition from gas. Will my right hon. Friend look into what more can be done to support energy-intensive sectors and to support jobs like those in the ceramics sector in my Stoke-on-Trent South constituency?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I was pleased over the summer to see the advanced ceramics manufacturers and the great work that is done in my hon. Friend’s constituency and neighbouring constituencies. Having worked with the steel industry, I am conscious that we need a plan to reduce electricity costs.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
With threats in the grey zone increasing, is Russia playing ball with its gas prices?
Kwasi Kwarteng
It is not for me to comment on Russian energy policy or strategy here, although we can speculate about its motives. My job, and that of the Government, is to ensure that, whatever Russia does, we have security of supply and can protect our most vulnerable consumers. That is exactly what we are doing.
Edward Miliband
Yes, Mr Speaker.
To follow on from the point made by the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), I submit that it really is not good practice for the Secretary of State to come to this House and say that he will make a joint statement with Ofgem this afternoon to set out the Government’s next steps, but refuse to tell Members what is in that joint statement. The point of his coming to the House is for him to be questioned on Government policy—including policy to be announced this afternoon.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am happy to answer the right hon. Gentleman. He will appreciate that this is an extremely fast-moving and dynamic environment. As of 4.32 today, we have not finalised the statement, so it would be premature of me to make an announcement right now. There will be subsequent House of Commons events—we have oral parliamentary questions tomorrow and I am to appear before the Select Committee on Wednesday—so we can discuss these issues in full detail in the next few days.
Mr Speaker
Can I just say that the ministerial code says that Ministers are answerable to this Chamber, not to anybody outside? It is about being here. I do not think this is acceptable. It is continual. I thought we had got the message through to the Prime Minister when I had a meeting with him, but it is obviously not reaching Secretaries of State and Ministers.
If you want to make some statement afterwards, Secretary of State, I hope you have it covered by somebody making a statement at the same time. This House deserves its respect. People here, on all sides, are elected to hear from you and to be told here first, not to be told second hand by the media and that somebody might come to the House tomorrow if they feel like it. What would have happened if it had been Thursday? It is not right, it is not acceptable and we are going to have to get this right. I am telling you now: I will begin to change the course of what you think the direction is.
Mr Harper
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The reason that I raised this matter is that, if announcements are made this afternoon by Ofgem about the Government’s policy, which is what it says in this statement, I need to be able to ask the Secretary of State questions about consumers who are off the gas grid, who are not protected by the price cap. About a third of my constituents are in that position. It is no good saying that those questions can be asked by the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; I am not on that Committee, and I need to be able to ask them in this House. I just ask the Secretary of State: when will he come to the House?
Mr Speaker showed last week that, when the Government want to make an urgent statement, he was willing to facilitate it. The House is sitting late tonight. The Secretary of State could come back tonight, make the statement and we could ask those questions that our constituents want us to ask at the earliest opportunity. That was the point of the question that I asked during the statement, and Mr Speaker has given his very clear steer.
Mr Speaker
I go out of my way to ensure that this House hears, but I cannot work on my own; it works two ways. I am saying to you that this House needs to hear. Ofgem is very important, but it is not elected. The people here are elected to serve constituents. The ministerial code needs to be sent to every Minister and every Secretary of State, with the point about where responsibility lies underlined.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I hear what you are saying, but I have to remind the House that this is part of a cross-Government approach. It is quite right that we are speaking to Ofgem and I cannot tell my right hon. Friend what time that statement will be published.
Mr Speaker
Can we make sure, through the Clerks, that the Secretary of State gets a copy of the ministerial code? Have it underlined and then we will have a discussion. Right, let us see if we can move on a bit.
International Travel
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I have to say that I enjoy Mondays, but this has been a bad one. I do not like being tested.
Before I call the Transport Secretary to make a statement, I want to put on record my disappointment and frustration that, despite repeatedly making it clear that Ministers should make important statements to this House first, the media apparently knew the contents of the Transport Secretary’s policy announcement at the end of last week, before Members of this House. The Government’s own ministerial code says that that must not happen. It is not acceptable for statements to be made to the media before being made to elected Members of this House. It defies belief that the Government only decided the policy on Thursday night after the rise of the House. In other words, this statement should have been made last week before the media were told.
I have raised this before with the Government and with the Transport Secretary. I sincerely hope that I will not have to do so again. In any event, there should be no doubt that, if the media continue to hear about important policy announcements before this House, I will ensure that hon. and right hon. Members will have every opportunity to hold Ministers to account.
I do not want to have to do this, but if we have to grant an urgent question on the areas of those Departments that continue to make statements outside this House, I will have to come to a view that something must be coming before we are told. That is a silly position in which to get ourselves. The Government need to get their business through, but the Government also have to respect the Members who are elected here. This is the second time. It is not personal against the Transport Secretary. We need to get our act together. We need to show the due respect that Members deserve. They matter to me. They matter to the constituents. They should hear it first, not the media, and it should not be trailed elsewhere. In the end, constituents knock on the doors of Members, not the Secretary of State’s.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on international travel. I will start by apologising because I do share your frustration. It is the case that the meeting that decided this policy did not take place until Friday, and I put in immediately to make an oral statement off the back of that. I appreciate how frustrating it is to read speculation in the newspapers, much of which turns out to be incorrect, and I bring new information and the correct statement this afternoon.
The past 18 months has been hugely frustrating for everyone wishing to travel abroad and, of course, for the travel industry itself. In 2020, the only weapon that we had to fight the spread of covid was simply to keep people apart and prevent them from making all but the most urgent of journeys.
However, this year has seen very significant progress. In February, the Prime Minister asked me to reconvene the global travel taskforce to develop a plan for safe and sustainable travel—to return to international aviation. It is a framework that allows us to co-exist with endemic covid-19 and live with the virus on our travels while still protecting us from the most dangerous variants.
Through the work of the taskforce over recent months, we have instigated gradual reopening of international travel to allow families and friends to reunite, and businesses to get moving again. Over the summer, we implemented a number of improvements. We took advantage of the progress of the vaccine roll-out here and abroad by starting a pilot to allow passengers who had been fully vaccinated in the UK, Europe and the US to travel to the UK from amber list countries without the need to self-isolate or take a day 8 test. We also increased the number of countries and territories on the green list to 43 and allowed for the full restart of international cruises in line with the traffic light system.
At this final checkpoint, I am pleased to be able to ease restrictions further while still safeguarding public health and providing confidence to travellers. We are one of the world’s most vaccinated countries, with more than eight out of 10 people fully jabbed, and we must use that to our advantage to restore freedoms that were, by necessity, lost over the past 18 months. In August, we launched the pilot to exempt from quarantine those who had been fully vaccinated in the US and Europe. That pilot has been successful. I am delighted that it provided a much-needed boost to international travel during the summer.
Throughout the crisis, I have remained in regular contact with my opposite number, US Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg. As the Prime Minister has arrived in the United States of America, I am delighted to announce to the House today that the Government there have agreed that vaccinated Brits will be able to travel into the US from early November, reciprocating the policy that we introduced this summer. This is testament to the hard work and progress made by the expert working group set up at the G7 to restart transatlantic travel—the flagship route of international aviation.
We will now expand the policy to an array of other countries, including Canada and Japan, from 4 October for those who can demonstrate their fully vaccinated status. That will bring the number of countries and territories in scope to 50.
The UK will now set out certification standards that it expects other countries to meet so that their citizens can benefit from this change. We will happily work with anyone who applies and can meet those standards, and will onboard them. I can tell the House that we are in the final stages of doing this with our friends in the United Arab Emirates. Recovery is the best way to support the aviation sector, and as one of the world’s most vaccinated countries, we can now use our advantage to liberalise travel further while protecting public health.
Let me now update the House on the next phase of reopening international travel more broadly. When we did not have a substantially vaccinated population, our focus was necessarily on considering countries and territories based on risk—hence the traffic light system. However, vaccines mean that the emphasis can now shift to an individual’s status instead. I am pleased to announce that we will introduce a new, longer-term framework for testing and health measures at the border that will remain in place until next year at the earliest.
First, from 4 October, we will replace the traffic light system with a single red list of countries and simplified travel measures for arrivals from the rest of the world, depending on vaccination status. Secondly, we will remove the requirement for fully vaccinated passengers to take a pre-departure test if not travelling from a red list country. Thirdly, by later in October, we will have moved away from day 2 PCR testing to a new system of lateral flow tests for fully vaccinated passengers arriving from non-red list countries. If passengers test positive, they will be required to take a confirmatory PCR test, which will be genomically sequenced to identify and mitigate the risk of variants entering the UK. That PCR test will be at no further cost to the traveller. Those changes will reduce the cost to passengers, simplify the process of international travel and remove a significant source of frustration.
I would like to take this opportunity to confirm that the policy on children remains as now: they are quite simply treated the same as vaccinated adults, regardless of their own vaccination status, whether they are resident in the UK, or from one of the 50 countries and territories whose vaccinations we recognise. Unvaccinated passengers and passengers with vaccines not authorised or certificates not yet recognised in the UK arriving from non-red list countries will still be required to take a pre-departure test, a day two and a day eight PCR test, and to self-isolate.
I can tell the House today of another significant easing of the rules for those who change flights or international trains as part of their journeys here. This change will ensure that passengers who remain in airports and in railway stations will only be required to follow the measures associated with their country of departure rather than any countries they have transited through as part of their journey. That will make a very substantial difference to travel by unlocking transit routes across the world. In advance of transitioning to our new international travel framework, I can also confirm that Kenya, Oman, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Maldives, Sri Lanka and Egypt will be removed from the red list at 4 am on Wednesday 22 September.
The changes we are making mean a simpler, more straightforward system—one with less testing and lower costs, and allowing more people to travel, see loved ones and conduct business around the world. Our judgment is that these changes are the right ones for this moment, making travel significantly easier for people while retaining crucial protections against variants of concern, which remain the largest threat. They will provide a much-needed boost for the travel industry. However, it is certainly not the end of the story. We will further review these measures early in the new year, when we hope to be in a different context that will allow us to go that step further ahead of booking windows for the spring and the summer of 2022.
Above all, the changes I have announced today demonstrate that through vaccination there is a path back to normality after a torrid 18 months in which many of the things we take for granted have been put on hold. Now is the time for us to get our country moving once again. I commend this statement to this House.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on putting the historic county of Lancashire, and particularly Chorley, on the international map over the past week.
I thank the Transport Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Following the Government reshuffle, I look forward to continuing to work with him as he stays in post.
Labour called for this simplified international travel system back in May, but even after this announcement, no one should believe that the travel industry is back to normal, or that our borders are any safer from new variants coming into the country. Although we support scrapping the confused traffic-light system, we still have not seen the country-by-country assessment that would give us confidence that the decision to allow travel is based on sound science and not politics. It is disappointing, after making repeated representations at this Dispatch Box, that the Government have still only published assessments relating to 15 countries. Will the Secretary of State now finally publish the full list of every country, including a clear direction of travel, rather than just those that are changing from one category to another?
The requirement to carry out pre-testing and testing on arrival to the UK for Brits returning has put a heavy financial burden on families, with the UK overseeing the most expensive testing regime in the whole of Europe. Over the summer it was estimated that tests had cost British travellers £1.1 billion. Yet about 300,000 people did not adhere to the quarantine rules, and only a fraction of those coming from green and amber list countries were actually checked on arrival, as border staff were clearly overwhelmed. We have a serious concern that of the 11,000 positive cases tested over the summer of international travellers returning, just 3,000 were sent for genomic sequencing, leaving us potentially open to new variants. Can the Transport Secretary confirm, as his statement seems to indicate, that now all positive PCR tests will be sent for that testing for new variants?
In addition, it appears that from the end of October travellers will have to pay for a lateral flow test when returning to the UK. How will that work in practice? How much will travellers be expected to pay for those tests, and, importantly, will they be in place for the October half term?
We have long called on the Government to work with international partners to introduce an international vaccine passport. Although we hear reports that progress is being made, as we have heard today too, the truth is that it has been very slow in coming and many plans still have not come to fruition. Can I ask why it has taken so long to make the progress set out so far?
Importantly, when Eurostar and the aviation and tourism sector needed financial support from Government, the promised sectoral deal never came. There was a stand-out omission from the statement: it beggars belief that there was no mention whatever for the 81,000 workers on furlough. They face a cliff edge in just 10 days’ time, but there was not a single mention of them in the statement. In the absence of a clear plan, clear communication and sustained industry support, jobs have been lost that could well have been saved. We now hear that the next review will not take place until the new year. Some of those people will be lucky if they have a job at the end of October. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that those jobs are safeguarded and that we give those workers the respect and dignity they deserve?
Grant Shapps
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I was somewhat surprised not to hear him refer to the stand-out announcement in my statement, which is that the world’s busiest, most profitable and most important airline route—the transatlantic route—is about to be reopened. I would have thought he would welcome that from the Front Bench.
It is hard to know exactly what the Opposition think on this subject. Last year, they backed our self-isolation measures. By last summer, the hon. Gentleman was calling for quarantine to be lessened. Come February, they changed their mind again and wanted every single traveller to go into hotel quarantine. By March, they were back saying that it should be done on a case-by-case basis. Fast-forward to May, and the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), called for a complete pause on international travel—I am curious how that would help the aviation sector restart—only to be contradicted a month later by the hon. Gentleman, saying that more countries should go on to the green list. In June, he called for the amber list to be scrapped, and by August he was back to saying that there should be no loosening of international travel whatever. What he seems to be saying is basically what a stopped clock says. It is right at least twice a day—in his case, at least twice a year—but I am not clear how his approach would help in any way, shape or form.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Joint Biosecurity Centre assessments. They will be published in the normal way for the additional countries. He asked about the cost of testing. I thought he was calling for PCR tests for everyone—at least, he was at one of those points in the past year and a half. The cost of a lateral flow test will obviously be much less and provided by the private sector, with the PCR provided by the NHS.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the vaccine passport. Again, I reiterate that there are 50 countries where we will recognise their vaccination progress. I described in my statement how we are introducing a system so that we can onboard and add other countries who meet our level of requirements. As I say, the most important country of all in terms of international aviation, the USA, has confirmed today that we will be added to the vaccine passport approach as well. We are making progress. If we had listened to the Labour party—I do not know, perhaps we would have closed down the whole of aviation by now.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I welcome the milestones announced by the Secretary of State for Transport. I recognise his hard work as well as that of the aviation Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in unlocking us further. I know you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will be as excited as me about the ability to visit the United States, for loved ones to reunite and for business to expand. This is more welcome news. With all this fantastic news, can I ask the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that we have the resilience, through border control, at arrivals to ensure that all this demand that is about to be unleashed can be delivered?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is an excellent Chair of the Select Committee on Transport—always tough, but fair. He has rightly pointed out that there is likely to be a big expansion in the amount of transatlantic and other aviation. Things such as the pre-departure test form will be greatly simplified by not having to prove a pre-departure test at check-in. On the other side, coming back into the UK, it is Border Force that runs those services. It has spent a lot of time over the summer integrating pre-departure tests, vaccine status and other information into its e-gates. It is now trying to incorporate that. I will certainly be reflecting his comments in discussions with the Home Office, which runs Border Force and will want to make things as smooth as possible as the numbers pick up.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
For months, the sector, airlines, airports, unions and politicians from all parts of the House have called for an extension of furlough, which ends in just 10 days’ time, having essentially given up on the sector-specific support deal promised by the Secretary of State and the Chancellor. The Government again refused to listen, but, miraculously and coincidentally, the scientific evidence arrived to allow the UK Government to relax the rules just four days later. Will the Secretary of State outline what clinical advice he has received on removing pre-departure PCR tests and on the change to lateral flow testing from PCR testing on day two?
Testing international travellers before and after travel is an important part of Scotland’s border health surveillance to minimise the risk of importing variants of concern. The Scottish Government, and indeed the Welsh Government, want to maintain a four-nations approach to international travel restrictions, but they will need to consider carefully the risks associated with the proposed changes to testing before aligning with the UK Government. The First Minister will provide a further covid update to the Scottish Parliament later this week.
The Scottish Government’s changes, with sensible safeguards built in, recognise the success of the vaccination programme and will provide a welcome boost to Scottish tourism. A four-nations approach is obviously preferable, not least because Scottish travellers, as we have seen, will travel down to English airports to fly, and that may affect routes and could further job losses at airports such as Glasgow airport in my constituency. However, the Scottish Government are absolutely right to look at the evidence in detail before making such an important decision.
Moreover, the last time that there was a divergence in policy, the UK Government went against the scientific advice that the Scottish Government followed, and the result was the importation of the delta variant with huge numbers of passengers arriving in England from India. In many cases, they went on to Scotland. If there is to be a divergence, however temporary, will the Secretary of State work with airports in England and the Scottish Government to ensure that the correct checks are carried out on passenger arrival paperwork, so that passengers cannot arrive in England to travel on to Scotland to circumvent the different rules?
Grant Shapps
I think it would be wrong not at least to acknowledge that the delta variant has got to every single country in the world—including Australia, which does not allow its own citizens to come back freely into the country, even with quarantine. By throwing that in, the hon. Gentleman rather weakened the rest of his argument. The Joint Biosecurity Centre is so called because it works with the devolved Administrations. The chief medical officers work together as part of that set up and, as he surely must know, provide us with the same advice to consider.
The hon. Gentleman’s first point was on the furlough scheme, which has been of enormous assistance to aviation everywhere, including in Scotland. The very best help we could give to Scottish aviation workers and others would be to stop curtailing aviation and travel industries in the recovery. Those are not my words. Edinburgh airport said that the Scottish Government’s
“decision to diverge yet again…further”
curtails
“Scotland’s aviation and travel industries in their recovery”.
It leaves travel agents in Scotland, led by LAH Travel’s Linda Hill Miller, saying that it will be a “very bleak winter” in Scotland if the policy does not shift.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that Kenya will come off the red list on Wednesday. Does he agree that we must continue to make travel between the UK and Kenya even easier, such as through fewer restrictions for those who are fully vaccinated, to increase trade and boost business between the UK and Kenya?
Grant Shapps
I pay tribute to the excellent work that my hon. Friend does as trade envoy to Kenya. I am delighted that Kenya has come off the red list. As I mentioned, we will provide details for how countries can onboard themselves to meet our requirements, and I look forward to adding to the list of 50 countries where people who are fully vaccinated will be able to come and go very much more easily. I look forward to working with her on that plan.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
We all hope that our vaccines will prove effective against any new variants so that we can all get back fully to normal, but we also have to be incredibly vigilant against any possible new variant that develops and that is resistant to our vaccines. The Secretary of State will know that in previous waves—at the beginning or with the delta variant—we have not had either sufficient surveillance or a fast enough response from Government to prevent those variants from spreading. What can he say about his new surveillance regime, both in terms of testing and response, that will prevent those problems from happening again, especially when it looks as though the testing and genomic sequencing is being downgraded?
Grant Shapps
I thank the right hon. Lady, who approaches this from a very wise perspective. The first thing I would say is that of course everybody will appreciate that we now have over nine out of 10 adults with at least one jab and over eight out of 10—83%, I think—of adults fully vaccinated. Of course, as that picture has been replicated around the world, that makes it easier to allow and open up international travel, and it is part of the balance.
The second thing to say is that using lateral flow tests, which provide virtually instant results, means that people may not be out and about for an extra day or perhaps more before they get their results. That of course has to be factored against the fact that a lateral flow test is known to be less observant—with different specificity and sensitivity rates—than a PCR test. The scientists have taken all of that into account in providing ideas for this regime. Of course, it is critically important that a lateral flow test is then backed up by a PCR. It will be, and we will also be talking more about requirements for ensuring that the lateral flow test has been properly taken.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I very much welcome this statement, with a pragmatic approach to covid-19 testing for international travel and recognition of vaccines, and also, on the day that the Prime Minister is in New York, the news that the US Administration—this has taken a lot of work from the US-UK taskforce to achieve—are opening up to fully vaccinated passengers. Can my right hon. Friend say when slot allocations will be reviewed, particularly with a view to the spring and summer season next year?
Grant Shapps
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on the future of aviation all-party parliamentary group, which has not gone unnoticed by Ministers throughout the difficult 18 months. He is right about the sensitivities of things such as slot allocations. It is quite a technical issue to do both with the way that allocations at busy airports are granted and—I suspect he is getting at this—with something called the 80:20 and 50:50 rules, which are about the amount of usage on allocations. He will know, because he has a major airport in his constituency, that there is a difference of opinion, quite rightly, between the airport operators and the aviation companies—the airlines themselves—about where the correct balance should lie. The aviation Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), who is sitting right next to me, is keeping these matters under constant review and is doing an excellent job with it, and I invite the two of them to have a meet-up.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
It took half a dozen letters, two ministerial meetings, bilateral talks and endless questions, but as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Britain-Pakistan trade and tourism, I am pleased that the Government finally listened to calls to remove Pakistan from the red list.
Last year, Virgin Atlantic began running direct flights from Manchester airport to Islamabad, much to the delight of my constituents. However, this route has now been suspended for months. Given that Ministers in this Government are always so keen to highlight their pursuit of levelling up, what support is being given to regional airports such as Manchester to reopen important routes for the benefit of local people?
Grant Shapps
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and he is absolutely right. Like me, he was very keen to get Pakistan back on to the list. After the previous review, when it was not successful, we did indeed set up an officials level working group intergovernmentally, and it has come to fruition, as I think we are all delighted to know.
The hon. Gentleman asked about support for airports. Obviously, we have effectively provided the rates free for most airports in this country over the period, except that this will not have covered the full costs of the very largest airports. We are also doing work through the future of aviation all-party parliamentary group, which my hon. Friend the Member for Witney is working on. I apologise to my hon. Friend for setting up a lot of meetings, but again, the hon. Gentleman may like to meet the aviation Minister to progress his ideas on that further.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
A few moments ago the Scottish National party spokesperson said while explaining the Scottish Government position that that was a welcome boost to tourism. That is the exact opposite to what we are hearing from tourism bodies today. The Scottish Tourism Alliance has said that the SNP plans to diverge from the UK plans just announced
“could destroy any hopes of recovery in 2022”,
and earlier today 40 tourism organisations, including the Scottish chambers of commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses Scotland, wrote to the First Minister saying:
“Scotland has now become one of the most uncompetitive destinations globally.”
The decisions taken by the SNP in Holyrood are having a huge impact on our tourism industry and airports; what can the Secretary of State do to convince the Scottish Government to follow the lead of the UK Government and ensure these industries are not put at risk?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to express concerns. The SNP spokesman has set out its opening position—or maybe a couple of different positions. I encourage all parts of the UK to come together on this. It is incredibly confusing for passengers, who could now travel to Newcastle or Manchester according to an Edinburgh spokesman, and, as has been pointed out, that takes money out of the Scottish economy; it threatens jobs in Scotland and threatens airline capacity, and the faster we can get this resolved, the better.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State explain why my constituents suffered immeasurably from the punitive measures imposed by his Government? Many of them were unable to be with family members at their time of greatest need or to attend the funerals of their loved ones, and many could not afford the hotel quarantine rates and furthermore that was then increased. The criteria for keeping Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list were made up on a daily basis, and the facilities in the hotels that many of my constituents returned to were abysmal. There was no justification for punishing the British Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, who lent their votes to the Conservative party at the last election. Will the Secretary of State now apologise to them for the punitive measures imposed on them unjustifiably?
Grant Shapps
I am really sorry the hon. Gentleman has gone down this route. I was following him at first, particularly when he talked about the sadness of not being able to see friends and close family in Pakistan, Bangladesh and elsewhere on the red list, but to come here and claim that the Joint Biosecurity Centre’s work is somehow based on politics dishonours his argument and I encourage him to consider whether that is appropriate. I know there has been a push to politicise this, but the JBC has to look at all the numbers; it has to look at the level of infection, the amount of vaccines administrated and the capacity of different countries to carry out sequencing of the genome, and I have to say that is a disappointing argument to hear.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for everything he has done through this positive statement and his hard work, but I would ask him to clarify two points. Are the lateral flow tests to be taken now instead from day two to be administered at home or at the airport? I wasn’t quite clear on that. Also, now that people can either go to another country or it is on the red list, what will be the lead time in turning a country into a red list country? That is important for the tourist industry.
Grant Shapps
On lateral flow tests, the Department of Health and Social Care will set out more details on what exactly will be required, how they will be taken and so forth. On red lists, I must repeat the general warning that we have always had to live with in terms of coronavirus that one never quite knows what is going to happen with the virus, but 18 months in we are now in a world where we know that vaccinations make a very big and sustained difference, and I hope we move away from a world in which instant changes are required. I cannot absolutely guarantee that, but I think we can see by the direction of movement that things are coming on to a more sustainable footing at the moment notwithstanding whatever the virus decides to do.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
A deterrent to international travel is the cost and conditions of the quarantine hotels. My constituents have talked about poor food, being held with poor mental health and being in grief from losing loved ones. My constituent who had rats in his room not just once but twice is still being charged the full cost for quarantine. Will the Secretary of State ensure that my constituent does not have to pay for that experience of sharing his room with rats?
Grant Shapps
I should say to the hon. Lady that the quarantine hotels are the same hotels that people would be staying in if they were on holiday, on business or anything else. There should never be rats in a room, regardless of anyone’s reason to travel to that hotel. The local environmental health would certainly be interested, as would my colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care, who run the managed quarantine scheme. That is never acceptable under any circumstances. I should just point out to the House and to the hon. Lady that people should not be travelling from red-list countries without very good reason indeed. I am pleased that we have just taken eight more countries off the red list and I hope that that number will be able to continue to reduce, but people should try to avoid travelling from those countries at all.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Transport Secretary help me with two cases? The first concerns a family living in Kettering who were fully vaccinated in South Africa with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The second concerns a gentleman in Kettering who is a fully vaccinated participant in the Novavax vaccine trial. Will the people in these two cases be able to travel from the UK and if they do will they have to self-isolate on their return?
Grant Shapps
That is an excellent question from my hon. Friend. First, on other countries, South Africa being one, coming into the programme that 50 are already in, we will publish the criteria and are working with other countries to be able to recognise their vaccinations. On the trials, we are absolutely clear that people who have volunteered for trials should not be in any way, shape or form disadvantaged by this policy. While I am mentioning them I want to mention people who cannot medically be vaccinated, who will not be disadvantaged by this policy. In both cases, they will be treated as if they are fully vaccinated travellers. I know that my hon. Friend the aviation Minister would welcome a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) to discuss the specifics of those cases.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Many people continue to feel that the decision to keep Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list for longer was based on politics not science. If the Secretary of State denies that, let him bring forward the evidence.
The Secretary of State referred to quarantine hotels. Many of my constituents, including one with kidney failure, another who had suffered a heart attack and another who was at risk of miscarrying, along with others suffering from serious health issues, were denied exemptions against the medical evidence and professional opinion of their doctors. Will the Secretary of State therefore launch an urgent inquiry as to why those appalling decisions, which put many of my constituents lives at risk, were allowed to happen?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman is effectively accusing the Joint Biosecurity Centre of politicising decisions over countries. It just isn’t on. Fortunately, we live in a society in a country where these organisations are able to make decisions and recommendations based on the facts. Those facts were presented to Ministers, and Ministers acted on those facts. To do anything else would have been absolutely wrong, and although I do not suppose that he is going to, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the accusations that these institutions, made up of professionals, medical people and scientists, are somehow politically biased.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
The high costs of PCR tests have meant that many families in Wolverhampton North East will not have felt able to book a family holiday, so I welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced today. Can he give those families an indication that the measures will be in place in time for the half-term holidays and any indication of how much lateral flow testing will cost for a family?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the crippling cost of a whole family going away during coronavirus, particularly before we had the protection of large-scale vaccinations at a high level throughout communities and countries. It really has been very punishing for families, and I recognise that. The cost of lateral flow tests is clearly much lower, and I believe that a competitive market will make them lower still. I know that our colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care will have heard what she had to say and I am sure that they will have had half-term in mind.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The aviation sector has significant concerns about its ability to survive the winter, particularly with furlough ending. In the August Eurocontrol figures, Gatwick, Manchester and Heathrow found themselves at the bottom of the league, with the biggest percentage declines versus 2019 in Europe. British Airways is flying fewer flights as a percentage of that year than its German or French competitors, and easyJet fewer than its Irish or eastern European competitors. What steps is the Department considering to help the industry and its specialist workforce to take advantage of the winter to upskill and retrain, to ensure that the UK is ready to reclaim its place as a great trading nation served by a world-beating, environmentally leading and economy-serving aviation industry?
Grant Shapps
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm for the aviation sector, which was genuinely world-beating prior to the pandemic. That is exactly where we want to get it back to. That is why I am delighted by what has happened with the US route, which will reopen later this year, and the announcements that we have been able to make to simplify and reduce the cost of travel. I know that the hon. Lady is no longer part of the governing party in Scotland, but it would be very helpful if she could assist in bringing pressure to ensure that, throughout the UK, aviation companies are able to benefit from the massive advantage of the huge vaccination programme that Her Majesty’s Government have managed to progress across the whole UK, and that the aviation sector is opened and allowed to get not just back on its feet but back in the air.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Many Aylesbury constituents were distressed about Pakistan’s being on the red list for many months because of the delays that meant for their precious family reunions, but they welcomed the detailed scientific explanations that were provided for that, even if those brought unwelcome news. On their behalf, I thank my right hon. Friend for removing Pakistan from the red list. Does he agree that that reflects the efforts of Governments in both countries, working together to enable safe travel, which represents another important step in our return to normality?
Grant Shapps
That’s how to do it, Mr Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend appreciates the science, he appreciates that when we were not able to move Pakistan on to the amber list, the level of vaccination was, from memory, about 20%, and he appreciates that we deliberately set up an intergovernmental working group so that officials could work together to overcome those issues. I would have thought that the whole House wants to welcome Pakistan’s coming off the red list, as my hon. Friend has done.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
As international travel resumes, a growing number of constituents who live or work abroad in places such as Australia and Zambia, to name just a couple, are having difficulty with travel if they received their vaccinations in those other countries. Obviously, that impacts not just their travel here but their ability to get on with their life when they are in the UK. I heard what the Secretary of State said earlier, but will he give more detail on the progress that the Government are making on recognising vaccines of a similar standard, strength and efficacy so that we can have more reciprocal agreements with other countries?
Grant Shapps
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that sensible question. There are already 50 countries using vaccines that we recognise through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. From this point forward, we will both assist other countries on the regulatory requirements to come on to our list—our requirements to on-board them—and look at how we can potentially recognise vaccines that we do not yet recognise. The MHRA is looking at that process the whole time, and I am sure it will have more to say about that type of thing in due course.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I welcome the decision to remove Pakistan from the red list on Wednesday. As the Secretary of State will know, I wrote to him about this issue. Many of my constituents have family links in Pakistan, and I know that he is well aware of how important those links are. It is shocking that Opposition Members have made this into some sort of political issue. I know that many of my constituents will see right through that. Will my right hon. Friend agree to work hard with the industry to restore those important links to Pakistan by restoring flights as soon as possible?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One feature of the coronavirus pandemic has been how this country and many others have been led by scientists and the evidence—chief medical officers and scientific officers—to do the right thing throughout. That has been the consensus on both sides of the House, more or less, so it is extremely disappointing to hear politics thrown in. No one—no one—wanted to see Pakistan added to the safe list of countries more than I did. That is why we set up inter-ministerial groups and why we brought it on board the moment the Joint Biosecurity Centre said it was safe to do so. The idea that we should have ignored all the science and done it some other way is, I am afraid, for the clouds.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his very welcome statement. Opening up the United States of America is particularly good news for my constituents. Some grandparents have not been able to see their grandchildren for over year, so it is good news. It could well provide the boost needed by the tourism sector. Will he confirm that vaccinated travellers will not have to go to the expense of a PCR test, and that if a test is needed, a lateral flow test will be sufficient?
Grant Shapps
I thank the hon. Gentleman and he is absolutely right about the USA route. I have had many conversations and a lot of communication with my opposite number, Pete Buttigieg, the US Secretary of Transportation, in the US Cabinet. We have all wanted to work towards this point. It makes a very big and notable difference to the entire aviation sector, because so many routes are dependent on the US transatlantic route. To answer his question about the non-PCR, this will reduce the cost of a confirmatory PCR. I should mention that it is a devolved matter, so it will depend on the Northern Ireland Administration, but I have every reason to believe that we will all move in line, more or less, on this issue.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
I warmly welcome the simplification of international travel, which will help the industry to get back on its feet and protect jobs. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no way back to burdensome restrictions?
Grant Shapps
As I said a few moments ago, we have learnt so much in this last year and a half. We have vaccinated so much in this last year and a half. Even in the last week or so, we have seen new therapeutics become available to people in hospital. We know how things like dexamethasone, which my father was given when he was in hospital—it probably saved his life—have made such a big contribution. These were all things that we did not know 18 months ago when we went into this crisis. I very much hope that my hon. Friend is right that we are on an upwards path to a higher trajectory and that we will not be going back.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
I listened to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) talk about the difference between the Scottish rules and our rules. My constituency is served by two nice north-eastern airports. I do not know whether to thank the Scottish for leaving things as they are, helping demand in our airports, or to complain because I do not want opportunities for our residents to be frustrated. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is so important that we remove any confusion where we can, and that the sooner the Scottish Government allow their residents to fly at the same time, the sooner we will all be in a better place?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Tempting as it would be, I am sure, for him to welcome all the extra business, in the end we are all better when we are together. As Edinburgh Airport said, the decision to diverge yet again and further curtail the recovery of Scotland’s aviation and travel industries is incredibly regrettable.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend and welcome this great news today: great news for people living in Runnymede and Weybridge; great news for businesses; great news for people who need to see their families; and great news on the reciprocal arrangements with the US. Of course, it is all about those reciprocal arrangements. I welcome his laying out a standard to go to other countries and say, “This is how we should do things.” Will he be promoting that with his Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office colleagues as the best way, so that we can truly usher in international safety standards?
Grant Shapps
Yes, we absolutely will. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that what we need is international standards through the International Civil Aviation Organisation, so that we are all working off roughly the same playbook. That is part of what we have been doing, and the House will be interested to hear that I will chair a further meeting of G7 Ministers later in the autumn to try to ensure that we spread an international approach to launching international travel.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for Transport for his statement and for responding to 20 questions. I am sure that I shall be booking my next flight to America in early November, or shortly.
Points of Order
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to raise a point of order about ministerial correspondence. Over the weekend, I received an email from Lord Tariq Ahmad of Wimbledon. It said:
“To date, we do not have any record of correspondence relating to Afghanistan from you or your office.”
I seek your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, on what on earth I should do. My office has contacted the Foreign Office directly on four occasions regarding a constituent and his family; the first of those contacts was on 20 August, a month ago today. We have contacted the Home Office about the case on five occasions. We have contacted the Ministry of Defence about the case twice. The SNP’s foreign affairs spokesperson also raised the case on my behalf with both the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary.
My constituent’s family were visited by the Taliban on 17 August. They were warned, and they were threatened. My constituent is a Chevening scholar and his father is a public prosecutor. How can I ensure that I receive a response to my queries so that I can give my constituent and his family appropriate advice? As you can imagine, I am deeply concerned for their wellbeing. They are literally living with the threat of death hanging over them every day, as they have been for the entire month since I was first in touch with the Foreign Office about this.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
This is an urgent matter, and I thank the hon. Lady for giving me forward notice of her point of order. I am sorry to hear about the stress that her constituent is now facing and the circumstances in which they find themselves. I am also concerned by the response that the hon. Lady has described from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Mr Speaker has said repeatedly from the Chair that responding in a timely and accurate way to Members’ representations is of the utmost importance, especially in the case of Afghanistan, which, as I have said, is urgent and critical. The hon. Lady has put her point on the record and I trust and expect that Ministers will respond to it quickly. If not, I know that she will pursue the matter; I am sure that the Table Office will be able to help and to suggest ways in which she might be able to do so.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) delivered her point of order with all sincerity, but the letter from the Foreign Office also said that it had received more than 200,000 emails in a very short period of time. The letter from the Member of the House of Lords also gave MPs a direct email address to which to send any further information that might have been missed. For people watching these proceedings, I think it is important to explain the entire letter, not just the selected points from the hon. Lady.
Mr Deputy Speaker
That is definitely not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record, but in the case of Afghanistan, clearly these are life and death matters. The correspondence, irrespective of how it has come, has got to be addressed properly.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask your advice regarding the Elections Bill, which, as you know, is probably one of the most important Bills to come through Parliament in the past 50 years or more. I act as the Opposition Whip on the Bill, and it has been very difficult to sort things out with it, particularly now. The Bill Committee has already had four evidence sessions and we are due to start line-by-line scrutiny on Wednesday. We learned over the weekend not only that the Minister and the Government Whip have been moved to a different Department, but that the Cabinet Office will no longer have responsibility for the Bill. I ask what advice you can give me to ensure that we have the appropriate pieces of the jigsaw in place for the Bill Committee to sit on Wednesday and begin going through the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. Fortunately, the Chair has many powers, but determining which Minister responds to which piece of legislation happens not to be one of them. However, the hon. Lady has made an important point. I am certain that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard it, and will ensure that she is informed as quickly as possible of which ministerial team happens to be in place, so that some progress can be made on the Bill, and indeed so that the dialogue that takes place behind the Chair on many occasions can take place in this instance.
Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill: Business of the House
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Sir Peter Bottomley, the Father of the House.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I seldom speak on these procedural motions. I do not think that they are always justified, but I think that this one is. It is not a time to go into the merits of the Bill, but I will say that many of us would like to use it as a Christmas tree. I am thinking of, for example, the frozen overseas pensions, while others may be thinking of universal credit. I consider that in this case it is justifiable to try to get a major and, in my view, necessary change through Parliament under a quick guillotine, and then get on with doing what we can to help pensioners in other ways.
Question put and agreed to.
Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill
Monday 20th September 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2021 View all Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 20 September 2021 - large print - (20 Sep 2021)
19:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 59 / Noes: 303 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 300 / Noes: 55 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Each year I am required to undertake a review of social security rates to consider whether benefits have kept pace with inflation or an increase in earnings. I will undertake that review shortly, and will report to Parliament in November. The Bill refers to how I will undertake the review.
As set out in the Social Security Administration Act 1992, there are four benefits for which there is a direct link with earnings: the basic state pension, the new state pension, the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit, and survivors’ benefits in industrial death benefit. That last benefit is devolved to Scotland, and I can confirm that we have received the legislative consent motion that is necessary. I must emphasise that the Bill does not extend to other benefits, including universal credit, where the uprating review is linked to prices.
Normally, I have a specific reference period to consider earnings growth as part of my review. That same earnings reference period has been used for the last decade. In preparing for the review last year, with regard to that reference period, we anticipated and saw an unprecedented fall in average earnings as a result of the covid restrictions that we introduced to protect lives—especially those of the most vulnerable, including many pensioners—and to protect the NHS. That was why we changed the law for one year to set aside the earnings link. Otherwise, state pensions would have remain frozen. I then made the assessment, and awarded an uprating of 2.5%, which was higher than the then inflation rate of 0.5%.
As I prepare for this year’s review, the economic context is very different from last year’s, as our economy and businesses have reopened following our successful vaccination programme and unprecedented support for businesses and households. Millions of people have moved off furlough and back into work, and we are witnessing a surge in the labour market, with over a million job vacancies. The combination of those factors has resulted in a distorting effect on wages, with a statistical anomaly.
Confirmed figures will be published in October, but provisional figures from the Office for National Statistics show an increase in earnings of 8.3%, more than two percentage points higher than at any time over the last two decades. Given that this statistical spike in earnings is due to a covid-related distortion, I am seeking the agreement of Parliament to again set aside the earnings link for just one more year, 2022-23. I have put provision in the Bill to award the higher of inflation or 2.5%, applying in effect, again, a double-lock policy. The triple-lock policy will be applied in the usual way from next year for the remainder of the Parliament. This approach has been strongly recommended by external commentators, including Sir Steve Webb, who was the Liberal Democrat Pensions Minister for the lifetime of the coalition Government. While it has come as no surprise to most of us in the House, I was disappointed by the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats, finding their latest bandwagon to jump on. They really should listen to Sir Steve, who probably knows more about pensions than anybody in the Liberal Democrats.
This Government are committed to ensuring that older people can enjoy their retirement with security, dignity and respect, and since 2010 the full yearly basic state pension has increased by more than £2,050 in cash terms. There are now 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty, both before and after housing costs, than in 2009-10. I am proud of our record on support for pensioners and of the action we took last year to ensure that pensioners’ incomes continue to increase. This Bill will ensure that a temporary statistical anomaly in wages does not unfairly track across into pensions, while also preserving the spending power of pensioners and protecting them from increases in the cost of living. I commend the Bill to the House.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
While this Bill seems to be a technical piece of legislation, it raises fundamental questions about this Government and the trust that they enjoy among people across the country. I want to address a number of issues today: the substance of the Bill; how it is part of a pattern of behaviour; the changes we would like to see to protect pensioners; and the context of wider Government policy towards the most vulnerable in our society.
Turning first to the substance of the Bill, we are being asked to vote today for a change in the law to suspend the earnings-related part of the triple lock for one year while retaining the link to prices and the commitment to raise the state pension by a minimum of 2.5%. This is an important issue that directly affects millions of people today as well as the value of state pensions for future generations. Labour supports the triple lock. Indeed, all the major parties committed to maintaining it in the 2019 general election. I should add that it was a Labour Government in 2002 who committed to raising the state pension by the higher of 2.5% and inflation. It is also important to note that, taking inflation into account, state pensions rose more on average under the last Labour Government than they have under the coalition or the Conservative Governments.
Of course, the covid-19 pandemic distorted the earnings growth figures for this year, and the impact of the furlough scheme and the distribution of jobs lost in the crisis has artificially inflated the headline earnings growth figure. The Government have said that they expect earnings to be above 8% as a result of this anomaly. We have been clear that the Government cannot be allowed to use the current crisis as a smokescreen to break their word to pensioners and to abolish the triple lock by the back door. We accept that the pandemic has distorted the earnings data, but we knew that this problem was coming and it was surely not beyond the wit of the Treasury to find a solution to the anomaly in wage data that maintained the link to earnings and offered certainty to pensioners.
I am afraid that the Government have failed to be open about the earnings data they are using. They have also failed to show that they are concerned about low-income pensioners. They are asking us to vote on trust alone, but that is something I am afraid this Government do not enjoy much of. By downgrading the triple lock, they are breaking a manifesto promise. Trust in the Government has been badly damaged. I should not have to say this, but given the history of the Prime Minister and his Government, I want to set out what the House and the public have a right to expect. Over the last months we have seen a series of actions that show that the Government do not understand, and that in some cases they just do not seem to care. This should be obvious, but sadly it does not seem to be, to the Prime Minister and his Administration.
Today’s broken promise is the third breach of trust in just a few months. This is starting to become a pattern of behaviour. First, there was the cut in overseas aid that the Government made despite a wide range of opposition. We are the only G7 country to cut aid, breaking a manifesto commitment to support the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people, and this Conservative Government are retreating from our moral duty. This has already weakened the UK’s position at the G7 summit and it will continue to do so at the upcoming summit on education and COP26. Parliament has repeatedly made it clear that it does not support aid cuts and that Britain must not turn its back on the world’s poorest. I would add that a Labour Government will build partnerships with other Governments, civil society groups and communities to overcome global challenges by using the aid budget to tackle poverty and inequality.
Secondly, there was the breach of trust we saw last week when the Government broke their promise not to raise national insurance. The Government had already weakened social care and our NHS, cutting £8 billion and leaving us with long accident and emergency, cancer and mental health waiting lists even before the pandemic. Their solution, when finally pushed to act by the coronavirus pandemic, is an unfair tax on jobs—the biggest tax rise on families in over 50 years.
With a cut to universal credit in the Government’s sights, it seems that they are going after the same people time and time again. A tax rise that hits less well-off areas—so much for levelling up. The CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce have all criticised the national insurance rise as illogical and harmful to businesses and our recovery.
Now we face the third broken promise, on the triple lock, which Ministers have consistently said they would protect. I repeat that the Government must not use this crisis to leave the door open to scrapping the triple lock altogether. We recognise that the pandemic has caused an anomaly in the earnings data and, crucially, we are not calling for an 8% rise in the state pension, but the Government must come clean and show why they cannot calculate underlying earnings growth over a longer period of time. They have not adequately made the case for why an earnings link, with this year’s anomaly resolved, cannot be maintained.
At the very least, Ministers should maintain an earnings link, explain their decisions, offer binding commitments to protect the triple lock and protect the incomes of less well-off pensioners. There is nothing in the Bill that seeks to increase the uptake of tax credits or, indeed, to set out other steps the Government will take to protect low-income pensioners.
The public, and we as the Opposition, expect the Government to look at this thoroughly, to be diligent and to treat people fairly. When the Secretary of State first informed the House of her decision, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) asked the Government to publish their reasons. That is the least pensioners could expect. Governments should explain the evidence used to make key policy decisions, as evidence-based policy making has been a central plank of good governance for a very long time. Sadly, no answers were forthcoming, but perhaps we will see some actual evidence in this debate. The Government’s track record on the use of evidence, however, does not offer much hope.
Finally, I pay tribute to the right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Ashford (Damian Green) for tabling their amendment. Opposition Members are deeply concerned about the cut to universal credit and the devastating impact it could have. It will hit thousands of families and many people in work, including nurses, teaching assistants and supermarket workers. I know from experience that 9,000 people in my constituency will be affected. Like colleagues on both sides of the House, I have spoken to residents who are desperate and who do not know how they will cope.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Although the temporary increase in universal credit has come to an end, surely the hon. Gentleman would welcome the permanent increases to the local housing allowance and the work allowance, the above-inflation increase to the national living wage and the changes to income tax thresholds. Does he welcome those?
Matt Rodda
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, as I understood that the Government had frozen the housing allowance. I look forward to discussing that further in this debate.
The Government have left it late to do the right thing and end the cut, but it is not too late. There is clearly a strength of feeling on both sides of the House on the universal credit cut and the state pension uplift. I think we agree that trust is important and is the basis of good government. The Government will be letting down pensioners and the country if they plough on with these unfair changes without any explanation or reassurance about the future and without any assessment of the impact on many pensioners. We have now seen three successive breaches of trust in just a few weeks, and the last two were only days apart. Trust in this Government has fallen dramatically, and it will fall even further if they fail to listen.
We are making a very important decision today, but the Government can still correct some of their mistakes if they listen to their own Back Benchers as well as to the advice of the Opposition.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I am grateful to be called so early in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am a huge admirer and supporter of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, as she knows.
I have some personal views on this subject, which I will explain. I tabled my amendment because I felt we needed to debate what the right level of investment in universal credit is. I have to say from the beginning that I otherwise support the idea that the Government have to make changes to the triple lock. What goes missing in a lot of these debates is the fact that we have just suffered the biggest blow to the economy as a result of covid—I accept that fully. We debate these things without realising that, but I recognise it and it changes the terms of the debate. It also changes the terms of the debate on the manifesto, because no manifesto could have predicted the kind of crisis we have just been through.
We need to get a rational and stable debate about these things. It is important to recognise the huge amount we have done for pensioners since the arrival of the triple lock; increases for pensioners have been remarkable, and so many more pensioners have been lifted out of poverty. These are success stories the Government should be able to talk about and recognise that there has to be some flexibility, so I am not going to end up at odds with the Government on this—quite the contrary, as I recognise all that fully.
However, I want to speak to the amendment that I tabled alongside the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green). I do feel it is necessary for us to re-examine the investment levels in UC. I recognise that the Government made the right decision at the beginning of the pandemic to invest in universal credit to ensure that those who were naturally going to be falling unemployed as a result of the problems that came from the pandemic would receive a higher level of support.
When I resigned from the job that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State now holds, I did so on the basis of two or three things. My No. 1 basis was that the Treasury took a significant sum—much the same as the uplift—out of universal credit. I always made the point very early on that when we put money into universal credit we are investing in a dynamic process. It is one that by its very nature reduces the overall cost, because the more we get people into work, the lower the overall cost of the money we put in.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. You will remember that your amendment was not selected. A passing reference to it is fine, but please do not go into it in detail.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I understood that as the amendment is on the Order Paper, I have at least a right to speak to it, even though it was not selected.
Mr Deputy Speaker
No, you have got that wrong. You are not allowed to speak to an amendment that has not been selected. You can make passing reference to it, in the generality, in a Second Reading debate—that is fine—but you cannot go into it in detail.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
In that case, I am going to make passing reference to it, and I will leave the Chair to decide whether or not that passing reference is more substantial. I shall pass through universal credit carefully and make full reference to the statement that has been made or the passing of this on Second Reading.
I want to make a simple point, and I am not going to hold the House up for too long. The point of the amendment I tabled but which was not selected and the purpose of today’s debate is to ensure that those of working age who are receiving security, support and benefit from this Government get the right level of support. We know that the changes made to the triple lock will ensure that a saving is made to the Exchequer against what was unpredictable at the time and resulting from the increase in pay that will happen as a result of the easing of the covid restrictions and the bounce back that is taking place. I also recognise that one problem we have as a result is that those of working age are going to have to pick up a bigger burden, which is why the universal credit uplift should be reviewed, and reviewed very quickly.
The point I simply make, in line with the idea that the pensioners are taking some of this burden, is about universal credit itself: if that money, or some of it, is moved towards the tapers, we will have a reality where more people move into work. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in her discussions with the Treasury on these matters, will make the point that it needs to make sure that those on universal credit are able to move through it faster and that therefore investment in the tapers would benefit both the Treasury and those who are seeking to get work, by making that pathway easier. That will complement what is being done for pensioners at the moment under the terms of ending of the triple lock for one year. Such a move will almost certainly be beneficial; this winter and into the spring, while we see the effects of the fall-out of moving from the furlough scheme and of the other difficulties on energy pricing and some food pricing, which is going to rise, it will protect those who are most vulnerable, while giving people an opportunity to work, with work being the very best way out of poverty.
I am going to finish by simply saying that this is an important matter and I hope my right hon. Friend will take our amendment, which was not selected, as justification in her negotiations with the Treasury to secure a better investment in the taper.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).
I rise to speak in favour of the reasoned amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), and commit the SNP to voting for it when the House divides this evening. As well as speaking to that amendment, I wish to comment on the broader principles of the Bill. I am conscious that those watching our proceedings will perhaps be unaware of the consequences of the passing of this legislation, and especially of rushing it all through in the space of a couple of hours.
In short, as we all know, the Bill facilitates this Tory Government’s breaking yet another manifesto commitment —namely, by breaking the pensions triple lock, to which all parties in the House committed themselves at the election less than two years ago. The breaking of that manifesto pledge follows on from the Government’s scrapping the commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on the world’s poorest through our international aid budget, and now comes on top of the new Tory poll tax, which sees hard-working Scots having to endure a hike in national insurance to pay for the sorting out of the utter mess of England’s health and social care system. The Prime Minister is not known for keeping his promises, and the decision to suspend the triple lock will have dire consequences for pensioners.
As constituency MPs, we all know that the state pension is by far the largest source of income for UK pensioners, and the triple lock has kept it secure throughout the pandemic. To be blunt, the British Government’s decision to break its triple-lock promise is a betrayal and an unacceptable attack on pensioners’ incomes. What is more, this change will do nothing to stop recent indications that more pensioners are living in poverty. The proportion of pensioners on relative low income—that is, the percentage of pensioners in the UK living in households with net disposable income below 60% of the national median, after housing costs—rose from a historic low of 13% in 2011-12 to 18% in 2019-20.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise in his analysis that we took notice of pensioners’ needs last year? The triple lock is reliant on earnings being positive, and last year they were negative, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took the opportunity to raise pensions, despite the fact that the terms of the triple lock were not met at that time.
David Linden
If the hon. Lady pays attention to the rest of my speech, she will understand that I am developing my argument because the UK state pension is so pitiful. That is the point I am addressing and I am sure she will make it in her speech, too.
The rise in the proportion of pensioners on relative low income followed a period of more than a decade during which the measure had been trending downwards from a high of 29% in 1998-99. The passing of the Bill will undo all that work.
Although the state pension is the biggest source of income for pensioners, House of Commons Library analysis shows that UK state pensions are the lowest as a proportion of pre-retirement wages of all our European neighbours. Pensioners throughout these islands receive around just a quarter of the average wage when they retire, whereas pensioners in Luxembourg and Austria receive 90% of the average working wage. According to the OECD’s latest analysis, the UK has an overall net replacement rate of 28.4% from mandatory pensions for an average earner. That is well below the OECD average of 58.6% and the EU average of 63.5%. It is simply not right that the UK devotes a smaller percentage of its GDP to state pensions and pensioner benefits than most other advanced economies.
The triple lock betrayal is yet another Tory-imposed austerity cut. The Commons Library briefing for this debate estimates that the British Government will take away £5 billion from pensioners in 2022-23 if the triple-lock elements of the state pension are uprated by 2.5% rather than 8.3%. Investment in the state pension is crucial, especially as many are still excluded from automatic enrolment in workplace pensions—although I acknowledge that some, but nowhere near enough, progress has been made on auto-enrolment.
Let me briefly develop that point a little further. The British Government’s failure to extend automatic enrolment to low-income earners and young people disproportionately impacts women, thereby worsening the already massive gender pension gap on these islands. That is before we even come to the issue of the Department for Work and Pensions’ maladministration with regard to 1950s-born women who, quite rightly, await to see what stage 2 of the ombudsman’s process will conclude. I very much hope it will do so soon.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I echo what my hon. Friend is saying about 1950s-born women. Is the decision to abandon the triple lock not a double injustice to those women—and to the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign—because not only are they now being denied the rise in their pension that they might have expected, but they were denied a pension at all at the time they originally expected their pension?
David Linden
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and he is right. I am sure that, like me, he receives regular representations on that matter from Rosie Dickson from WASPI Scotland. I am glad that he has put that on the record on Rosie’s behalf.
Before I move on, let me touch on frozen pensions, to which the Father of the House made reference when we were considering the business of the House motion. Members will be aware that the UK has a series of historical reciprocal arrangements to provide for the uprating of state pensions in certain countries. Most recently, the Government committed in the Brexit trade deal to uprating the state pensions of UK pensioners in the European economic area. UK pensioners in other countries such as the USA, Philippines, Israel and Jamaica continue to receive their full payments. However, the arbitrary system means that pensioners in other countries—and, indeed, even in British overseas territories such as the Falkland Islands—have their pensions frozen, despite their having paid in the same dues. More than 90% of affected pensioners live in Commonwealth countries with close cultural ties to the UK. The UK is the only country in the OECD to take this two-tier approach to state pensions; I ask the Minister to reflect on that.
There is opposition to the Bill from various parts of the House, but that opposition does not stop in this Chamber. TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady has said:
“The UK has one of the least generous state pensions in the developed world. The triple lock was introduced to close this gap and lift pensioners out of poverty. Suspending it will only halt our progress. This is a dangerous precedent. If the government is allowed to pick and choose when to apply the triple lock, the result will be lower state pensions for future generations and more pensioners experiencing hardship. This decision will hit old and young alike. A race to the bottom on pensions helps no one.”
She is absolutely right.
Let me finish with a quote from even closer to home: something I found on the Better Together website, which advocated Scotland voting against independence in 2014. The Better Together campaign said:
“Our pensions are safer as part of the UK…We are living longer and working longer than ever before. People want to know that their pensions are safe. The UK State Pension means that everyone in the UK can get the same basic State Pension. It is a great example of how we share good things across the UK.”
David Linden
Not at the moment. The campaign went on:
“We all pay in when we are working, and we all benefit when we retire. This means we can support all our pensioners in the same way whether times are good or bad. Scotland’s people are getting older at a faster rate than the rest of the UK. This is good but it means that if we leave the UK we could have a difficult choice to make”,
including on “Cutting the state pension.” On that, I give way to the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross).
Douglas Ross
Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the state pension would be in an independent Scotland and what currency it would be paid in?
David Linden
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for finding the time to come to the House of Commons this evening; I know he will be balancing his obligations—
David Linden
The Minister chunters from a sedentary position. I outlined earlier in my speech that we want pensions much more in line with those of, for example, Austria and Luxembourg. I hope that that answers the question.
The SNP will vote to reject this legislation, but in the passing of this Bill tonight we will see yet another Better Together myth burst: that pensioners are somehow protected by Mother Britannia. To be blunt, to allow the Bill to proceed tonight will not only violate the contract offered to voters by the Prime Minister in 2019—and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Moray—which won a handsome majority in this place, but make a mockery of the no campaign’s claim that Scotland remaining in this broken Union is the best deal for UK pensioners when it is patently not.
The SNP will vote to reject this legislation, but in truth we all know that the democratic deficit throughout these islands means that Scotland’s MPs will be outvoted when we try to protect pensioners’ incomes. That is why the only way to truly tackle the plight of pensioner poverty is with Scottish independence, because Westminster is not working and we need to retire from this United Kingdom.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Fundamentally, this is about fairness. When the triple lock was conceived, no one anticipated a pandemic that would lead to mass redundancies of people predominantly on lower pay, which, in turn, would lead to wage inflation, through those people losing their jobs, and a cash bonanza for pensioners. Most pensioners believe that having an 8% or more rise would be fundamentally unfair.
I want to respond to some of the points about trust. We earn trust by being open and straightforward about difficult decisions that have to be made. We need to explain where we are and why we are doing the things we are doing. Ploughing headlong into this and upholding our manifesto commitment would be clearly ludicrous in the face of the current situation. That would be the way to lose trust in the Government and to lose trust in their competent administration.
None the less, this should be the start of the debate on the broader utility of the earnings component in the triple lock. At the moment, this has been distorted twice now by earnings in the past year. We need to make sure that we are correctly measuring the cost of living and tackling inequalities and pensioner poverty. While we cannot have that extensive debate today, a debate on that is sorely needed.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House, while recognising the extraordinary circumstances of the covid-19 pandemic, declines to give a Second Reading to the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill because it represents a broken manifesto commitment made by the Government at the last General Election, fails to address the impact of the pandemic on the two million pensioners living in poverty and fails to increase key benefits, such as making permanent the uplift to Universal Credit.”
The Government are on track to break yet another of their manifesto promises. It is another example of how this Government are willing to turn their back on people living in poverty—now it is pensioners, but next month it will be those on universal credit.
The Liberal Democrats want Britain to be the best place in which to live and to retire, but, frankly, we all accept that it is far from that. People who have worked hard and paid taxes all their lives deserve a comfortable retirement when the time comes. It was our party that was instrumental in putting the triple lock in place, providing a lifeline to millions of pensioners who had seen increases as derisory and as low as 75p per year.
When pensions were only pegged to price inflation, their real value shrunk to one of the lowest in the developed world. We all deserve to live in dignity, to be able to afford food and heating, and to be able to live a life with some meaning or enjoyment, and reaching retirement age does not and should not change that.
There are more than 18,000 people in my constituency claiming the state pension, which is over 20% of the local population. They have worked, paid taxes, raised families, and built communities, and I want them to know that they are visible. The Conservative party clearly does not feel the same about their local pensioners, with the 20 hardest hit constituencies all being represented by Conservative Members. The Secretary of State’s own constituency is the fifth most affected by this broken manifesto commitment.
We all accept that we have lived in exceptional times over the past 18 months, and that earnings growth this year is out of the ordinary, but the big picture here is that this Government are refusing to take any action to lift any group out of poverty. The refusal to do so highlights the hollowness of the phrase “levelling up”. They are cutting universal credit, taking away vital income from 5.5 million households, and pushing thousands of families further into poverty. They have refused throughout to increase legacy benefits at all, ignoring the needs of recipients who are disproportionately disabled. Technical issues were given as the reason for this, but, 18 months on, a lack of appetite seems to be the more obvious case.
The decision to increase national insurance is a further tax on young people, on working people—those who have already been hit the hardest by the pandemic. We know that people are willing to make sacrifices when it is needed—we have seen that during the pandemic—but a part of that must be seeing that we all follow the same rules. There must be a fairness in what is being asked of us. There cannot be one rule for them and one rule for us, which, sadly, is what we see time and again from this Government.
This Government’s habit of breaking their promises makes me very wary of this Bill. We might be told that this change is just for one year, but they also promised no increase in tax in their manifesto and they have just increased national insurance.
Guy Opperman
I am listening with great interest to the hon. Lady’s speech. I just want to know whether she agrees with Sir Steve Webb, the esteemed former Pensions Minister, who, for five years, represented her party in this House and who indicated on 16 June that he strongly supported the sort of change that the Government propose tonight, but that she opposes.
Wendy Chamberlain
I thank the Minister for his intervention. I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond to him, especially as the Secretary of State did not give me that opportunity.
I agree that we have seen extraordinary circumstances over the past 12 months, including significant increases in wages, causing this anomaly, but what this Bill fails to do—I will have this conversation with my friend, Steve Webb—is help those of working age in poverty through maintaining universal credit, or pensioners themselves.
The Bill has only two clauses and five subsections. It fails to address any of the problems with the state pension, or to assess the impact of suspending the triple lock. There are already 2 million pensioners living in poverty, the majority of whom are women and/or from black and Asian communities. This Bill ignores them and the disproportionate impact that suspending the triple lock will have on people already struggling. The promises made by a party in their manifesto matter. It is the essence of the mandate that they claim.
Just last week, during the urgent question on transport, the Transport Secretary welcomed increases in wages and hoped that they continued and were sustained. That is the whole point of the triple lock; it is about helping pensions to keep up with the cost of living.
Women have already been left behind when it comes to the state pension, with those born in the 1950s—the WASPI women—being unfairly penalised by the Department for Work and Pensions’ failure to properly notify them about the change in pension age. Women who had worked hard and planned for retirement suddenly found themselves without either. With women more likely to rely on the state pension than men, this policy is another damaging blow.
Last year, I talked about the importance of the triple lock for intergenerational fairness. This Bill is not just of interest to those of state pension age. Unless we truly trust that this Government will keep their promise—and there is no evidence to show that this will be any different from the other broken promises over the past two years—this will impact everyone. Jobs for life and final salary pensions are a thing of the past. It is harder than it has been in recent memory to get on to the housing ladder. It is fair and right that young people today are able to look ahead to a state pension, but if we return to the days of minimal increases to pensions, they will be impacted, too.
I am asking the House to support the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats for all the reasons that I have outlined. While there is no doubt that the pandemic has required exceptional measures, this Bill was an opportunity for the Government to support poorer pensioners and to right previous wrongs, and it is an opportunity that they have ignored. Why is there no impact assessment on how this will affect groups already disadvantaged under the pension system? I hope the Minister will address that in his closing remarks. Why do the Government continue to ignore the needs and wants of ordinary people, and why do they think that anyone will trust their word given what has happened over the past few weeks?
The public deserve better than these broken promises, better than this Government, and the 2 million pensioners living in poverty certainly deserve better than this Bill.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. May I start by paying a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who is in his place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) who left the Department in the reshuffle last week? We may have had our robust scrutiny sessions, but all of us would recognise that both Ministers were fully on top of their brief, keen on the issues and very competent. We wish them both luck in the important jobs that they will have in future, and we welcome the two new Ministers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley). I have enjoyed him being my Whip even more than he enjoyed being my Whip. [Interruption.] To be fair, I think I was the first person to make their Whip vote against the Government during the covid proxy period, so perhaps he really will be glad to have a different job, rather than having to go through that again. None the less, I wish both Ministers all the best in their new roles and look forward to seeing them soon.
I rise to support this Bill. I have been calling on the Government for about a year to fix what will obviously be a problem with the earnings blip due to the reductions at the start of the pandemic and then the hopeful rebound this year. I think it is right that the Government have taken this step and to do it with more than six months’ notice, so that pensioners will not be expecting an 8% rise and then have their hopes dashed in March. Those pensioners now have plenty of warning that that huge rise will not be happening. I think that most people are clear about this given what we have seen over the pandemic, with people losing their jobs, being put on furlough, and losing their earnings. All that insecurity has hopefully passed, but with furlough ending in a few weeks’ time, we may have a further round of that. The idea that a promise that was put in place to ensure the state pension kept pace with earnings would deliver an 8% rise in the state pension, on top of a 2.5% rise the previous year, is not remotely in the spirit of what this promise was meant to be. Most Members who, like me, strongly believe in the triple lock and want it to last a very long time, recognise that it needs to sustainable and reasonable. Had the Government tried to plough ahead and retain the 8% rise, that would have been the biggest threat to the triple lock in the future. It would mean that the Treasury, with its eagle eye, would think that this was a promise that could not be sustained for the long term. I hope we are now clear that this is a one-year suspension and that the triple lock will then be retained in its current form in the long term. That is the right policy and it is what we promised in our manifesto.
I was slightly confused by the Opposition’s approach. They appeared to say that the Government are not being transparent and are breaking a promise, but then accepted that 8% is too high. They therefore seem to be suggesting that the Government should go away and try to find a new definition of earnings that is different from the one that has been used for the 10 years of the triple lock, and that they should come up with a number that is a bit lower than 8% and a bit higher than the 3% or so that inflation would probably give to pensioners. The Opposition seem to think that it would somehow be fairer, more transparent and more honest to say to pensioners, “We aren’t breaking a promise; we’ve just contrived a new definition that gives us the answer that we think is acceptable.” That is clearly nonsensical.
Either we say that we will stick with the 8% that the law puts in place, or we do what the Government are doing here and say, “Look, we can’t stick to that measure. Let’s do something reasonable and have inflation or 2.5%, whichever is higher this year.” That is a clear policy. It is a calculation that we can all see and scrutinise, rather than asking the Government to contrive something that would necessarily be rather odd and artificial, and through which I suspect we would end up in a whole load of court cases while the Government tried to defend why they had picked one arbitrary earnings measure rather than another just to produce a number they were happy with in the first place. I do not see how we could produce a robust process in that situation.
I would have had some sympathy with the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), had it been selected, because I believe that the Government should retain the universal credit increase, at least for the next six months until we can be sure that the pandemic is finished. That amendment was not selected, so I cannot face the quandary of voting for it. I will happily support the Government tonight in a sensible measure that saves the public finances an unsustainable increase in the state pension that was never in keeping with the spirit of the promise and which in the long term will preserve the triple lock as the right way of protecting state pensions.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who makes an important contribution to the work of the Work and Pensions Committee. I echo his words of appreciation and good wishes to the hon. Members for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and for Colchester (Will Quince).
The Bill reduces an increase in the state pension that the Government’s triple lock policy would have delivered. I understand why it has been done, but let us not kid ourselves; we have a growing problem with pensioner poverty, after a quite long-sustained improvement following the introduction of pension credit 18 years ago. The charity Independent Age has analysed the Government’s households below average income statistics. Its analysis shows that pensioner poverty has started to increase again since 2012, with 18% of pensioners—more than 2 million people—in 2020 living in poverty after paying housing costs, of whom more than 1 million are in severe poverty. This is a significant challenge and it is getting worse. Of the English regions, the problem is particularly acute in London. There is no room for complacency about pensioner poverty.
The Bill will increase the standard minimum guarantee of pension credit by 2.5% or inflation—whichever is the greater—next April. When the Minister responds, will he tell us what the Department will do to increase take-up of pension credit so that more people can benefit from the increase? The most recent figures show that only six in 10 of those who are eligible for pension credit are claiming it, and that only 76% of the total amount of pension credit that could have been claimed is claimed. That is quite a significant reason why the problem of pensioner poverty is rising.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Member for making that important point. In preparation for this debate, I read an incredible stat: in Wales alone, about £214 million of pension credit is not claimed. Increasing take-up would be an easy way to deal with the growing tides of pensioner poverty, but the key thing with pension credit is that it is also a gateway to other support.
Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why Independent Age has called on the Government properly to research who is not claiming pension credit, and to draw up a plan to increase take-up over five years.
Research by academics at Loughborough University found that maximising pension credit uptake could lift three in 10 pensioners out of poverty and reduce the number living in severe poverty by half. When the Secretary of State came to the Select Committee in July, I asked her whether the Department would bring forward an action plan. She replied that there had been a “media day of action” in June to encourage take-up of pension credit, and told the Committee:
“We will continue to advertise it in a different way but I am not anticipating a big action plan, no.”
That is disappointing. Given that the Bill will deny pensioners an increase that the Government’s policy appeared to promise, I ask the Minister to look again at further steps to increase pension credit take-up.
My name was also on the reasoned amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), which, as he reminded the House, was not selected. However, I want to comment on the reasoned amendment that was selected, which states that we should reject the Bill because it
“fails to increase key benefits, such as making permanent the uplift to Universal Credit.”
Let me pick up that specific point. As the amendment drafted by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green pointed out, the money that the Bill will save the Government next year would almost deliver the £20 a week uplift to universal credit next year. Many Members across the House are deeply worried by the plan to remove the uplift next month. The Select Committee’s call to at least postpone the removal of the uplift was unanimous. There are lots of different kinds of worry, which I will outline.
First, this is not the right time, because the furlough scheme is about to end. We are told that Ministers’ intention in introducing the uplift was to protect people who were becoming newly unemployed, but there will be a surge of newly unemployed people when furlough ends. Ministers told the Select Committee last week that the Government have no estimate of the number of redundancies that will follow the end of the furlough scheme, but the most recent figures showed that 1.6 million people were furloughed at the end of July. Surely the consideration given to people who became unemployed at the start of the first lockdown should be given to those losing their livelihood next week as well. What justification could there be for treating them differently?
Secondly, since the decision to introduce the uplift—especially in the past month—we have seen a surge of price rises. September’s inflation figure was a record, reflecting increased food prices in particular, and earlier this afternoon the House was considering the current steep increases in energy prices. This cannot be the right time to take £20 a week away from everyone receiving universal credit. The Select Committee recently heard evidence of people having to skip meals before the uplift was introduced. Well, their position will be a good deal worse if the uplift is taken away in a couple of weeks, because the prices they now face are so much higher, and have become so much higher in just the last few weeks.
Thirdly, what justification can there be for reducing universal credit to a historically low level? If the uplift is taken away, support for unemployed families will be the lowest in real terms for more than 30 years. The economy has grown by more than 50% in real terms over that period, but we are being asked to agree that support for unemployed families should be no higher at all in real terms than it was 30 years ago. As a proportion of average earnings, support for unemployed families will be the lowest since the modern welfare state was introduced in 1948. The Library tells me that it will be lower as a proportion of average earnings than it was when unemployment benefit was first introduced in 1911.
We are told that the Government’s priority is levelling up. This policy is not levelling up; this is a policy of grinding down. Social security has a job to do—an important job that we all recognise needs to be done. Pushing it inexorably downwards when prices are surging upwards means that it cannot do that job. People cannot focus on getting a job if they are worrying about whether they can afford to eat their next meal.
Speaking to the Committee last week, Ministers from the Department could give no reason at all for the Government choosing to set the rate of universal credit so low, other than as a consequence of historical accidents. They said that the Government had made no assessment of the impact of ending the £20 a week uplift on people claiming, nor of how many people would be pushed into poverty as a result. The Legatum Institute has today published research suggesting that the number of people in poverty will go up by 840,000, including 290,000 children, if the uplift is removed. The Government have also made no new estimate of the annual cost of keeping the uplift.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that often in the briefings used there is a kind of mistake in that they talk about this as being an unemployment benefit? It is not, because it combines tax credits, so putting investment into this is more likely to get people through and into work than taking it out. That is the point I was going to make but was not able to.
Stephen Timms
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point that I agree with. It is a vital fact, often not understood, that universal credit is an in-work benefit as well as an out-of-work benefit. I think that 40% of universal credit claimants are in work. We have taken evidence in the Select Committee from working parents receiving universal credit who are having quite a hard time at the moment and are going to have a very hard time indeed if they lose the £86 a month that they will if the uplift is removed.
The cost of keeping the uplift, the figure that we are given, is £6 billion a year, but—the hon. Member for Amber Valley drew attention to this in the Select Committee last week—that figure was calculated when lockdown was still in place and job vacancies were much lower, so presumably the cost would be less if the uplift was kept.
The Bill misses the chance—the Liberal Democrats’ reasoned amendment gives us the opportunity to reflect on this—to address this very serious flaw in the Government’s current intentions. We are heading into an extremely difficult period for both working families and unemployed families who depend on universal credit, because of price rises across the board.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
The triple lock has been a successful policy that has seen the basic state pension increase by 35% since 2011—£2,050 in cash terms, and, importantly, the highest level of the basic state pension in relation to earnings for 34 years. My political interest and awareness about this grew when the last Labour Government were in power, because they came into power when I was 15. I well remember the outcry over the 75p a week increase in the basic state pension early on in their term and the outcry over the 25p a week increase for older pensioners towards the end of their term. So it is important that we get these things right, and the triple lock has been a considerable advance in how we support pensioners.
We are now faced with the interplay of two things: an anomaly in earnings, as has been touched on, where wages have fallen as a result of furlough and the economic conditions of the pandemic and then sharply risen; and over £400 billion spent on protecting people’s jobs and livelihoods that will need to be paid back. On the triple lock, often, a lot of the commentary pits young against old. As someone whose pre-politics career was entirely spent supporting young people, one might expect me to take a particular side on that, but actually, on this, I think that it is the wrong characterisation, because pensioners are not a group of people who just sit there worrying solely about the value of their pensions. They will have children and grandchildren whose job prospects they are concerned about. They will have relatives who were furloughed who might have otherwise lost their jobs or who work in the public sector where unfortunately pay has been frozen. They will be concerned about international aid, where we have taken another difficult decision. Although I have had emails from people who are not happy about the decision that has been made about the triple lock, I have had emails right up until this debate and from quite a while ago saying that, in the context of all the difficult decisions that have been made, it would not be right to make an increase to the basic state pension that is so far above what other people can expect.
It was right of the Government to introduce the triple lock in 2011, it was right to change the legislation last year so that instead of getting no increase pensioners still got a 2.5% increase, and it is right to move to a double lock for a year where in all likelihood pensions will still rise by at least 3% thanks to prices growth. Most people, including most pensioners, understand why we are making that decision, and I support the Government in doing so.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Finally, in this Bill, it is official: the Government will break their triple-lock promise to pensioners. The state pension will not increase with earnings in 2022-23 after all. Well, well, well: we can hardly be surprised. The betrayal of the commitment to the triple lock can be filed under the same heading as the broken pledge not to raise national insurance and the pledge to maintain the commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development.
Those broken pledges fly in the face of yet another pledge from the Prime Minister:
“to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2020; Vol. 669, c. 1019.]
I wonder whether anybody on the Treasury Bench can tell me how that is going. We are discussing the Elections Bill later this evening, but we do not need to look at that to see what restoring trust is worth. With the contents of the Elections Bill, even the Government realised that the assault on democracy that that constitutes meant they could not call it the electoral integrity Bill any more, because that really would be taking the mickey.
This particular broken pledge of abandoning the triple lock is an attack on the largest source of income for UK pensioners, on which they rely. Recent indications show that the number of pensioners living in poverty is rising. I wonder whether those on the Government Benches can even begin to imagine the anger, fury and sense of betrayal of those women born in the 1950s, some of whom have only just qualified for their state pension after so many years of being robbed of it, only to find a new betrayal—the abandonment of the triple lock. That is why SNP Members seek to require the Secretary of State to assess and to be held accountable for the impact that this legislation will have on poverty among pensioners in each of our constituencies. I will stand up for pensioners in North Ayrshire and Arran, just as all of my SNP colleagues will stand up for pensioners in their respective constituencies. This is what we have committed to do and that is what we will do.
It is a cause for shame that this cut is taking place fully in the context of the fact that we in the UK have the lowest levels of proportion of pre-retirement wages of all our European neighbours. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) pointed out, UK pensioners receive about a quarter of the average working wage when they retire, whereas pensioners in Austria and Luxembourg receive 90% of the average working wage. When will the UK Government devote a percentage of GDP to pensioner benefits that is similar to that in other advanced economies?
The other element to this scandal is that it takes place in the context of too many workers being excluded from automatic enrolment into workplace pensions. The failure to extend that impacts low earners and disproportionately impacts women, widening further the gender pensions gap. Why has that not been fully addressed?
The state pension remains an important source of income for pensioners living in or at risk of poverty because of the very low uptake of pension credit. I ask those on the Treasury Bench: what steps have been taken to increase uptake of pension credit—something I first raised four years ago? What has been done about that? I suspect—I fear—that nothing has been done about it. So much for levelling up.
The Government say they are breaking the triple-lock pledge because this year’s earnings measure is “skewed and distorted”. Well, I have heard people say the same thing about this Government’s priorities. Age UK has expressed real concern that this may not just be a one-off measure but a sneaky way of ditching the triple lock altogether. That might explain why there has been no impact assessment. Where is the impact assessment, given we have 2 million pensioners living in poverty and the triple lock is abandoned? That is a staggering oversight and complacency on stilts towards pensioner poverty.
For all those reasons, I support the reasoned amendment from the Scottish National party. This cut, falling on pensioners, will push more pensioners into poverty. The Government know that. The cut disadvantages women, who are more likely to be poorer in retirement. The Government know that. It is yet another kick in the teeth for WASPI women. Just like with the universal credit cut, this Government are imposing cuts that they know will cause real financial distress, but they go ahead anyway. What does that tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, about their vision of society? The only conclusion that can be drawn is that they do not care about the people they are supposed to serve. No other conclusion can be drawn. This Government have no interest in the greater good, only in sectional interests. That is why inequality is rising and will continue to rise. No wonder support for independence is rising. Increasingly, the people of Scotland want no more of this Government. Scotland needs a Government who govern for all the people with all the powers of an independent country. That is what the people of Scotland will choose.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Across the country, the British people are waking up to the fact that a Tory promise is an empty promise. From tax hikes on the lowest earners to drastic reductions in our food and environmental standards, and now the triple lock on pensions, this Government have made it absolutely clear that their manifesto commitments just are not worth the paper they are written on.
This latest U-turn could hardly have come at a worse time. Having endured immense suffering during the pandemic, retired people are now being forced to grapple with the fallout of the Government’s incompetence, from rising inflation to food shortages, and now we have soaring energy prices just as we enter the coldest months of the year. Pensioners are being told they must survive on the lowest state pensions in all of Europe.
The last Labour Government proudly set themselves the goal of ending pensioner poverty in our country, and when they left office, the number of retired people in poverty was at a historic low. After more than a decade of Conservative Governments, nearly a fifth of pensioners are languishing in poverty, with women and black and minority ethnic pensioners disproportionately affected. As the nights draw in and temperatures begin to fall, many older people in my constituency of Birkenhead will be forced to choose between putting a hot meal on the table and heating their homes. As they do, they will undoubtedly be asking themselves how they can ever trust this Government again.
The Secretary of State has justified this measure as a temporary response to the extraordinary conditions created by the pandemic and said that it is impossible to accurately estimate underlying earnings growth. She must now commit to publishing the advice she has been given on this issue.
Millions of people across our country are filled with a sense of dread at the prospect of the coming winter, from overworked and underpaid healthcare workers to families struggling to get by on universal credit. Pensioners are not being and will not be spared from a cost of living crisis that is engulfing our poorest and most vulnerable communities, but that will be nothing compared with the suffering that will be inflicted on retired people in winters to come if the triple lock is not reinstated again in 2023.
As Age UK has warned, we have simply no hope of tackling pensioner poverty without an absolute commitment to the triple lock. As many of my retired constituents look fearfully to the future, I call on the Secretary of State to reaffirm her commitment to the triple lock and to guarantee to the House that this Bill will not be the first step in doing away with this vital safeguard altogether.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said in his excellent speech from the Front Bench, the UK lags far behind most other industrialised countries when it comes to what its Government spend on its older people and their pensions. Most of the EU spends more. The US spends far more. The vast majority of OECD countries spend more.
It should be clear that that is not an accident of history or just an outcome of circumstances; it is the result of decades of deliberate policy decisions by Governments here, including the current Administration. I must ask the question: what exactly is the point of a triple lock, if at any time the Secretary of State and her Cabinet colleagues can jimmy it open and bust open promises that were made not just once, but multiple times over many years?
Just three months ago the Prime Minister’s official spokesman told us,
“we are committed to the triple lock”,
when asked a direct question about its removal. That pledge existed only for as long as it actually meant anything—as soon as actual expenditure on pensions was involved, those promises disappeared quicker than a Prime Ministerial bridge.
This attack on pensioners’ living standards should not be looked at in isolation. As the families of many pensioners are being hammered by rising energy prices, soaring food prices and shortages, regressive tax raids, the scrapping of free TV licences and the shameful cuts to universal credit, this Bill is just the latest attack on the social contract and the welfare state. Those rising energy prices threaten to put more pensioner households into fuel poverty, and removing the triple lock will magnify that impact. Already more than half of single pensioners live in fuel poverty, while 13% of older households live in extreme fuel poverty. Those numbers will undoubtedly grow if today’s Bill is passed. In a wealthy, energy-rich country such as ours, that is an absolute disgrace.
The Bill is not only a betrayal of older people around the country, but economically illiterate. The Government are reducing the spending power available in our economy at the very time our industries need that consumer spending as part of the recovery from covid. The same argument can be said for the shameful cut in universal credit, which could be happening at scarcely a worse moment for all the reasons I have outlined. Moreover, we know that almost every penny of that uplift went directly into the economy, because people had to keep food on the table, clothe their children, keep the lights on and stay warm. The Government will look back on this moment with deep regret, I guarantee it. The political consequences will only be outweighed by the social and human consequences.
The £4.5 billion that the Government propose to keep from pensioners is money that could be circulating in our economy, supporting jobs and businesses on our high streets, stimulating demand in our producers and manufacturers and supporting the recovery. With this change, that money will be lost from our economy and from the job-creating cycle. Pensioners in this country, as has been outlined already, should know that what is offered by the UK Government, and the system they have created, is far below almost every EU country. This Bill is another attempt to decouple the UK from the European and global mainstream, in social security as in so many other areas of life.
Attacking the welfare state has been this Government’s hallmark since the current Prime Minister came to office, since his predecessor came to office, and since her predecessor came to office. Indeed, one can look through the books of Tory Prime Ministers going back decades and pick out one ideological attack after another, not least the disgraceful way that successive UK Governments have treated the WASPI women. If this cut saw the money saved kept in the DWP budget, the Government could at least argue that they were diverting money to different priorities—I do not accept that that would be necessary, but it would at least have some logic to it. However, that is not what is happening. Instead, the Government’s social security policies, combined with the more general havoc they are wreaking on the economy, will leave millions of pensioner households worse off.
In conclusion, the Bill is more evidence of how the UK’s welfare state is becoming something for the history books, rather than a living system. We are a long, long way from the days of Beveridge and the five giants. It is not a route we in Scotland wish to continue down. The UK is sowing the seeds of its own demise by providing its own contrast between an island that forces pensioners and millions more into deeper and deeper poverty while the fat cats continue to collect the cream, with a Europe where security of retirement is a fundamental right supported by the state. In case you have not got the gist yet, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be voting for the amendment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow others who have made points very clearly. I support trying to get our finances on an even keel after the massive unexpected expenses of covid, yet something within me balks at what again seems to be a raid on pensioners’ incomes. Is it not so that the Library statistics outline that the potential costs of uprating the triple-locked elements of the state pension by 2.5%, instead of 8.3%, saves £5 billion in state pension expenditure in 2022-23? That seems to be the greater consideration, rather than fairness and equity. Perhaps the Government should be giving more indications of the effect, especially on pensioners.
I spoke to the Minister before the debate. He was kind to come to confirm some matters with me. When he winds up the debate, will he confirm the impact, how this Bill will affect Northern Ireland and how the process will go forward? Northern Ireland pensioners are paying more for products due to the intransigence of the EU perhaps, and they need this additional funding to pay sharply rising costs. Items that cost £1 just a while ago now cost £1.29. We must address the deficit, but that cannot be done fairly through overly taxing those who have paid all their lives and having them shoulder more of the burden than those who can afford to pay more.
I endorse the comment of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on the WASPI women; my constituency very much falls into the category of others. I think her words were “poorer in retirement”, and I see some of my constituents in that same place.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I want to raise the plight of the 4% of UK pensioners who are excluded from the Bill and have had their state pensions frozen because they happen to live in the wrong country. All pensioners who have paid their dues should be entitled to the full uprated state pension, yet half a million British pensioners living around the world have been left behind year on year. Does the hon. Member agree that it is disgraceful to be leaving our pensioners in that situation without dignity, financial security and respect and that the Government must address those frozen pensions?
Jim Shannon
I wholeheartedly endorse that. It is always good to have these debates to which others bring their knowledge and information, and the hon. Lady highlights something that clearly needs to be addressed. Perhaps the Minister can give us an indication on that when he concludes the debate.
We should be cementing, investing and encouraging business growth that pays into the Treasury in a natural manner. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) referred to her reasoned amendment, which I think shows what those of us on the Opposition Benches are thinking. This is a difficult topic, and I am aware of the pressure of covid-19 on the economy and how my grandchildren—and perhaps their children—may be paying for it throughout their lifetimes. However, I am concerned about how we recoup the money. It cannot be through overly taxing those who have paid all their lives and seeing them shoulder the burden more than those who can afford to pay more. We need—this seems to be a slogan—to stop squeezing the middle class. We should be investing in and encouraging business growth.
Others have referred to pension credit. When I am on the doorstep or at a social occasion, there is not an occasion when I do not speak to someone in that bracket and ask them, “Are you getting all your benefits? Are you getting your tenant’s allowance? Are you getting your pension credit?” Unfortunately, more often than not, many of those people are not getting their benefits. The Government have a role to play in ensuring that those who are not aware of a benefit know that they should be getting it. Will the Minister remind us of where we stand on that?
The figures for Northern Ireland are quite scary: 15% of pensioners—some 43,000 people—are in fuel poverty and overall poverty. That concerns me. Perhaps the Minister can address that. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) when referring to universal credit mentioned in passing his reasoned amendment, which was not selected. He also said that, whenever furlough ends, many families will find themselves in a difficult position. I subscribe to that view, as does probably everyone on the Opposition Benches. In Northern Ireland, we are facing gas bill rises of some 35% as winter comes in hard, and those who live in Housing Executive or housing association accommodation that has been converted to gas heating face the double whammy of not just how their pensions are affected but by the cut to universal credit, and they will be squeezed more than ever. Pensioners will therefore be impacted unfairly. This winter will see increasing pressure on pensioners and many more than the 15% will fall into that category.
The right hon. Member for East Ham also referred to those in work, and I will give one quick example from a constituent. This lady said:
“You make a third of your money when you do overtime for the benefit you lose, so I am paid £3 an hour in real terms. While I do take the overtime offered to me if I am able to do it, I can also understand why others don’t. Making up £20 a week is not as easy as many would have us believe today.”
I have long opposed the cut to universal credit, especially as we are coming into winter, when there are additional costs. For the sake of working families in my constituency, I must add my voice to those calling for the money saved by this uprating change and other methods to be factored into the ability of families to afford the gas price increase. We are thinking of capping the pension increase for the most vulnerable sector of people without a real review of how their living costs will increase this year. I do not feel that we can comfortably do that with the limited information provided. Given the increase in the cost of living, as I think the right hon. Member for East Ham said, many will face the stark choice of whether they have a meal or turn the heat on. Those are cold realities for many people.
As we see rises in the cost of living in Northern Ireland, with 20% rises in the cost of food and fuel in the next few weeks, I say with great respect to the Minister and the Government that I must support my pensioners and stand with them. I will support the reasoned amendment and oppose the Bill. The Bill is not right, so I cannot support it.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to close the Bill’s Second Reading for the Opposition. We have heard many good speeches, but, before I turn to them, I want first to deal with the central case that the Government have made for the legislation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) set out in opening for Labour, Opposition Members accept that there has been an anomaly in the earnings data due to the pandemic, and we recognise that a solution is required. I have listened carefully to passionate speeches from colleagues across the House, but I simply do not believe that anyone in the UK believes that wages are rising at 8.3% in real terms across the board. If I were to put that case to my constituents, I think they would very much question my judgment. However, as we said since the announcement was made, the duty is on the Government to explain why their preferred solution—a move to uprating by inflation or 2.5%—is the right one. That duty is particularly important because the triple lock was a Conservative manifesto commitment and, as many hon. Members pointed out, the announcement to break it has come after a series of decisions to break other Conservative manifesto commitments. It is therefore reasonable that the burden of proof lies on the Government and that the threshold for support should be high.
We have had some valuable contributions. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) was right to highlight the trust in the Government stemming from the decisions of the last few months. He was also right to point out figures that show that the number of pensioners living in poverty taken by the measurement that he indicated—those living with an income below 60% of the median after their housing costs—is rising. Given that we know overall spending on pensions is going up every year by quite considerable numbers, why are we also seeing that rise in poverty? That is a question for us all and one on which we may need more time in future.
The hon. Member favours auto-enrolment, and I very much agree. The question is about how to do that in a post-pandemic environment. He will understand, however, that I cannot agree when he posits that Scottish independence might be the solution to some of those problems, because an independent Scotland would clearly face some difficult economic decisions in its own right. I do not think it is necessarily helpful to put that across.
David Linden
Yes, an independent Scotland would face difficult economic decisions, but does the hon. Member accept that the central point of independence is about people in Scotland—the people who live and work there—making those economic decisions?
Jonathan Reynolds
I understand the basis of any nationalist claim for any sense of self-determination, but—this debate may be taking us a little away from the pensions uprating discussion, Madam Deputy Speaker—we all live on these islands together and, when we look at difficult economic decisions, the strength that we have by being a Union is of benefit to us all. [Interruption.] I will come to the speech by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), but I do not think there is time for a debate on Scottish independence as part of our discussion of pension upratings.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) made a brave case that the Government might actually lose trust if they held to their manifesto commitments, and I admired the style in which he did it. He wanted a wider debate on the earnings lock, but I would respectfully have to disagree with him on that. I do believe there is a need to maintain the value of the state pension and the objectives of the triple lock are ones we should keep to—many of the reforms in Parliament since I have been here have been based on a provision for the triple lock to take place—but I did appreciate his speech.
The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) made, as ever, a thoughtful contribution. He questioned the ability—my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East raised this in his opening remarks—to analyse the underlying wage trend taking away the impact of the pandemic. The hon. Member for Amber Valley will know that that has been an open question, and several organisations have tried to do a piece of work on it. Ultimately, I do agree that it is challenging to do so in a way that is unchallengeable, and that is a fair point to make when looking at possible alternatives.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the Chair of the Select Committee, pointed out that pensioner poverty is rising, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East did, and I think that has to be central to our discussions. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham made the point repeatedly that the question must be how we can increase the take-up of pension credit. He has raised this point consistently, and I know there has been some engagement with the Government Front Bench on it, but I think there is strong support for his words from all sides whenever he raises it. Of course, I believe he was absolutely right to raise the juxtaposition of the decision today with the cut to universal credit, and I believe the case is getting stronger every single day not to proceed with the Government’s cut.
The hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston) raised pension upratings in the past. He will not, I think, mind my saying that if we look at the position say in 1997, when the Labour Government came to power, we see that a third of all pensioners back then lived in poverty. There was a very strong correlation in those days between growing old and being in poverty, and that was reduced to record low levels by the end of that Labour Government, so the record has to be considered in the round. However, I do agree with him, and I have said this myself, that I reject discussion of pension uprating as an issue of intergenerational conflict. I think it is very much about the value of the state pension when today’s workers do retire, and we should never forget that.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran also highlighted the lack of trust stemming from recent Government decisions to break successive manifesto commitments. She obviously strongly opposes this measure. I think what is required is more engagement with the issue of whether the data we have before us is a true and accurate reflection of what we believe is happening in our constituencies. I have said very clearly to her that I do not believe that level of wage growth is the real picture, certainly in a constituency such as mine. Where I do agree with her is that coming, as this decision has, after other manifesto commitments have been broken, that is the context in which our constituents will look at what is happening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) also reflected on the run of broken promises and how this has come across to the public. He is absolutely right on pensioner poverty and absolutely right to demand transparency from the Government on this decision and commitments to reassure his constituents.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) raised the cost of living, and I think that case is getting stronger every day. Again, we will not dwell on it, but I do not believe his analysis of independence as the answer to that is the right way forward.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was not convinced of the Government’s case either. He was also right to raise particular issues in Northern Ireland about the post-Brexit trading situation and the impact on his people as a result—something about which I think all the House shares concerns. Of course, he is again absolutely right about the impact of the universal credit cut.
However, there is no doubt that the most valuable contribution and perhaps the one of most interest was from the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). Again, we have heard in the debate, and it is something I have said myself, that the triple lock is not a straightforward question of an intergenerational clash, and I know some people have concerns about linking the two issues together. However, I do believe he was right to raise—and to attempt to have his own amendment on—the impact of that universal credit cut, which we discussed in depth last week. I believe that the case against it gets stronger with every single day, and I would appeal to noble Lords in the other place to give this matter the due consideration that has not quite been possible today, but is still very valid.
On the reasoned amendment moved by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), this is an opportunity to discuss the wider context in which this decision has been taken and it makes reference to the universal credit cut that is imminent. However, while the amendment makes passing reference to that, its main argument is that there has been no anomaly, which is not the position of the Labour Front Bench. I can tell the House that I have had my own discussions with the Office for National Statistics, and I am very satisfied that the case for the 8.3% figure is, frankly, unsound.
I know there is an argument for simply insisting on a rise of 8.3%, but I do not believe that that is a responsible course of action. We make the case for the Government to change course on the universal credit cut, but that is because the Government can do so, it is the right decision and it is very much in the national interest, but I do not think, frankly, that the same factors apply to the decision before us today. Again, it goes back to whether we ultimately believe that that is the correct rate of wage growth or earnings growth across the economy as a whole.
For that reason, I will not be supporting the reasoned amendment, and I do not see much merit in dividing the House on Second Reading. However, we will be seeking to interrogate the Minister during future stages of the Bill, and we will be looking for the reassurances and that transparency we have sought since the original decision and announcement were made. Therefore, we look forward to the remaining stages of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I thank the 13 colleagues who have contributed to a wide-ranging debate. The Bill makes technical changes to set aside the earnings link for 2022-23. We will instead increase the relevant pensions and benefits by at least the higher of inflation or 2.5%. This approach will ensure that pensioners’ spending power is preserved and that they are protected from the higher cost of living, but it will also take into account the difficult decisions elsewhere across public spending.
The practical reality is that many issues were raised tonight, not least pensioner poverty. I would respectfully remind the House that pensioner poverty is going down, not up. As a result of the triple lock since 2010, the full yearly basic state pension has increased by £2,050 in cash terms. There are 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty, both before and after housing costs, as compared with 2009-10, and material deprivation—an alternative way of measuring poverty—is at an all-time low of 6% of pensioners.
Guy Opperman
One second.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the spending on state pension used to be £99 per person, and less than £60 billion in total—when in fact the right hon. Gentleman was the Pensions Minister under the Labour Government. Those figures are now up to £137 or to £179, and to £105 billion.
Stephen Timms
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I am delighted he is still in his post. He talked about pensioner poverty, but rather idiosyncratically, he is using the absolute measure. The much more widely used measure is the relative measure of poverty, on which the analysis of Independent Age is based, and on that much more widely used measure, pensioner poverty is of course going up.
Guy Opperman
I am not going to repeat the points I have made, but I manifestly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I would point out that we could add on the £24 billion of top-ups that this Government put forward over and above the £105 billion of state pension, so with respect we are in disagreement. There is also a significant degree of support for winter fuel, NHS prescriptions, free eye tests, the over-75s free TV licence and a variety of other matters.
Guy Opperman
No, not for the moment.
SNP Members raised many points, and I want to address them. No mention was made, surprisingly, of the powers under sections 24, 26 and 28 of the Scotland Act 2016, which give the Scottish Government the ability to intervene on such matters, should they wish to do so, including the WASPI matters. No mention was made in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), who asked what currency an independent Scottish pension would be paid in. No mention was made of the ability to pay Scottish pensions upon independence, because of course answer there is none.
Reference was made to pension credit take-up, and I want to address the points made.
Guy Opperman
I am about to answer the points the hon. Lady raised specifically, if she will bear with me.
Pension credit take-up was raised. We are doing a variety of things on that, including the pension credit awareness day in June, the engagement with the BBC—I met its chief executive only last week—the stakeholder roundtable in May, and the working group established with all the key partners in this matter, let alone the various other ways in which we have changed things and the over 11 million communications to pensioners up and down the country. The Government are proud of their record.
Guy Opperman
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman for the last time, because I respect him so much.
Jim Shannon
I appreciate the Minister’s response tonight in relation to pension credit, but in Northern Ireland 15% of pensioners are consistently in fuel poverty and poverty overall. Is the Minister prepared to give extra emphasis to Northern Ireland and help us beat that pensioner poverty?
Guy Opperman
I am reminded by the Secretary of State that that is a transferred matter, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that pension credit take-up is increasing, as is the amount of pension credit going to individuals.
I must turn briefly to the reasoned amendment, which was put forward by a solitary Lib Dem—admittedly, there are not many of them in 2021 so I understand that. It used to be a serious party—a party that understood the fiscal pressures facing Government. Now, to be blunt, it is being reduced to a party of protest, with, it seemed to me, about 15% of its MPs conducting their party conference in the backroom of a Travelodge somewhere on a business park. The practical reality is that the party of Asquith, Gladstone, even Ashdown, is now putting forward something devoid of ideas. It is a party of protest. and we do not agree with it in any way.
We are proud of the fact that last year, when we had no obligation to do so, we took the dramatic and important decision to raise the state pension by 2.5%. We will be raising the state pension by prices or 2.5% when this Bill passes, and pensioners will be protected on an ongoing basis, so I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill
Monday 20th September 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2021 View all Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 20 September 2021 - large print - (20 Sep 2021)
19:46 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 58 / Noes: 304 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:04 - The House divided: - Ayes: 303 / Noes: 52 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I ask the Clerk to read the title of the Bill, I should explain that although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair during a Committee stage, I will remain in the Speaker’s chair while we still have the screens around the Table. I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker, but Chairman of the Committee. The occupant of the chair during the Committee stage should be addressed as the Chair of the Committee, rather than as Deputy Speaker.
Clause 1
Up-rating of state pension and certain other benefits following review in tax year 2021-22
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 2 stand part.
New Clause 1—Review of public health and poverty effects—
“(1) The Secretary of State must review the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the effects of the provisions of this Act on the levels of relative and absolute poverty in the UK,
(b) the effects of the provisions of this Act on socioeconomic inequalities and on population groups with protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010,
(c) the effect of uprating benefits in line with price inflation instead of earnings growth under this Act on inter-generational income distribution and fairness,
(d) the effects of the provisions of this Act on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy in the UK, and
(e) the implications for the public finances of the public health effects of the provisions of this Act.”
This new clause would require a review of the impact of temporarily linking the state pension and other benefits covered by this Bill with price inflation rather than earnings growth.
New clause 2—Review—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than 6 months after the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the impact of this Act on levels of poverty among pensioners in—
(a) Scotland,
(b) Wales, and
(c) England.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the uprating next year by price inflation instead of earnings growth on levels of pensioner poverty in Scotland, Wales and England (the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland).
Guy Opperman)
This is a short, two-clause Bill that sets out the way in which we will go from a triple lock to a double lock. I have set this matter out on Second Reading in great detail and I respectfully beg to move.
Matt Rodda
I want to speak to the new clauses tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden).
As we heard on Second Reading, there are a number of important areas that the Government seem to have overlooked. Those failures and omissions are part of a pattern of behaviour by the Prime Minister and his Government. They show a casual approach to their responsibilities. As a result of that behaviour, they are undermining trust in the Government. The Government’s approach could have a damaging effect on millions of pensioners and indeed on the public as a whole.
Before turning to the amendments, it is worth considering the fact that the Government have still not offered any reassurance on their commitment to the triple lock in the long term. It is still not clear whether Ministers are leaving the door open to scrapping this important policy. I ask the Minister and the Secretary of State to set out a meaningful commitment to the triple lock, justify the decision to remove the earnings link, and explain why the Government have not found a way to keep the link, such as by providing a link to earnings over a longer period of time. With three broken promises in just a few short weeks, the Government have little credibility left and they now need to rebuild trust in this important area of policy, and in their work as a whole.
On the new clauses, colleagues from across the House are right to raise concerns about pensioners, particularly those on lower incomes. Recent research published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reiterates this. While there was a “dramatic reduction” in pensioner poverty between 1997 and 2012, the last few years have seen that progress “unravel”. House of Commons Library research shows that before housing costs, 19% of pensioners were living in poverty. After taking housing costs away, 18% were living in poverty. The problem is much worse for women than for men. Women make up—
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Dame Eleanor. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am just a little puzzled. I understood, looking at the Annunciator, that we were discussing clause 1 stand part, rather than amendments to clause 1. I just wondered precisely what we are doing here.
The Chairman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very reasonable point of order. Although each part of the Committee stage stands separately, I have decided that, as laid out in the selection list which should be available in the Lobby, we will discuss all matters in one group, especially as this is a short Bill with only four separate matters for discussion. The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) is therefore absolutely in order to refer to any part of the Bill during this part of the proceedings.
Matt Rodda
In conclusion, these are sensible amendments which recognise the risks in the approach being taken by the Government. They offer a way of providing important information to Ministers and they could indeed alert them to potential problems with the Government’s approach. The new clauses also offer important safeguards for pensioners, and I hope the Government will consider them thoroughly. Given the Government’s dreadful record of playing fast and loose with manifesto commitments, it is the very least we can expect from them.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 1 in my name and on behalf of my colleagues.
New clause 1 compels the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the Bill on poverty, inequality and, subsequently, our health. In particular, I request that a report be laid before the House within six months of the passing of the Act, and that the effects of the provisions in the Act on socioeconomic inequalities and population groups with protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010 are considered.
We have heard a lot in recent months—it seems like many years—about levelling up and building back better. We even heard from the Prime Minister himself that he supports Professor Sir Michael Marmot’s call to build back fairer. To do that, however, we need the Government to be able to assess whether their policies will actually do that. We heard, in the Work and Pensions Committee, that that is difficult to do. I argue very strongly that that is not the case and I know there are many others who would argue similarly.
The House will recall that, in February 2020, Sir Michael published his review of health equity in England 10 years after his initial study. In it, he revealed that instead of narrowing, health inequalities, including how long we are going to live and how long we will live in good health, have actually got worse. Most significantly, his analysis showed that, unlike the majority of other high income countries, our life expectancy was flatlining. For the poorest 10% of the country it was declining and women were particularly badly affected. We heard earlier that 2 million pensioners live in relative poverty today; among women of state pension age it is one in five. For women of colour, the figure is even higher. Black and Asian pensioners are also twice as likely to be living in poverty as white pensioners.
Sir Michael also emphasised that it is predominantly the socioeconomic conditions that people are exposed to, not the NHS, that will determine their health status and how long they live. Analysing the abundant evidence available, he attributed the shorter lives of people in poorer areas, including in parts of my constituency in Oldham and in the north-west as a whole, to the disproportional Government cuts to local public services, including cuts in social security support that they have experienced since 2010.
And then the pandemic hit. As a former public health consultant, I can say this with absolute certainty: it was always a question of when, not if there was going to be a pandemic. The lack of pandemic preparedness, going back to the Cygnus report and before, as well as the woeful pandemic management, laid bare the pre-pandemic structural inequalities that are rife across the country.
Many believe that the structural inequalities driven by the Government cuts that I have referred to, including social security cuts, will be found responsible for the UK’s high and unequal covid death toll, with the fifth worst covid mortality rate in the world and the worst in the EU. In an early analysis of the reasons for that, Sir Michael’s Covid review last December summarised four key pre-pandemic factors.
The first was pre-existing and widening inequalities in social and economic conditions, particularly in power, money and resources; Sir Michael stated that those inequalities in life had led to inequalities in health. The second was our governance and political culture, not just before the pandemic but during it, which he described as divisive, damaging social cohesion and de-emphasising the importance of the common good. The third was Government austerity over the last 10-plus years; he referred particularly to cuts to social security and local authority budgets, including in adult and children’s social care, public health and education. The final factor was our pre-existing poor and declining health.
Sir Michael makes a number of recommendations to build back fairer, including increasing the adequacy of social security spending. Our focus in this debate has been on state pensions, but the cuts of £36 billion to working-age social security support over the past 11 years and the impact that they will have on increasing poverty rates—including as a result of the universal credit cut that we are expecting—must not be underestimated.
Improving our health and wellbeing must be a priority for this Government and an outcome of all our policies, including our economic and public spending and social security. My new clause is about ensuring that the Secretary of State recognises that and publishes a review of the impact of social security spending on poverty, inequality and, ultimately, our health. Given that the Prime Minister and Health Secretary have already stated that they support Sir Michael’s recommendations and that this is a means to implement levelling up, I hope that the Secretary of State will adopt my new clause in the Bill.
David Linden
I do not seek to detain the Committee for long, not least because I spoke on Second Reading and because there are only two amendments before us.
In speaking to my new clause 2, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends, I also offer support to new clause 1, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). In truth, the two new clauses, although worded differently, seek to do much the same thing: hold the Tory Government’s feet to the fire, not simply allow them to stick their head in the sand when it comes to pensioner poverty.
I bitterly regret that the Bill got a Second Reading, particularly with the help of Scottish Tory MPs, but as the Bill will soon be an Act, it is now incumbent on us to ensure that at least Ministers fully understand the sheer impact of such bad legislation on our constituents and the consequences of this Government’s ditching yet another manifesto pledge to pensioners about the triple lock.
Patricia Gibson
Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment with the Minister, who talked earlier about how the Scottish Government should top up the income that pensioners would be deprived of? The Minister knows full well—if he does not, it is worrying— that section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016 forbids the Scottish Government from topping up pensioners’ benefits except
“by reason of old age.”
I am sure that the Minister is well aware of that.
Does my hon. Friend also share my view that rather than expecting the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to continually clean up the injustices of this Government, we would be far better off having all the powers to prevent injustices in the first place?
David Linden
I would caution the Minister that my hon. Friend, a former teacher, is not someone whose office or classroom he would want to be summoned to for a telling off. She has quite eloquently set him right on what I am sure was inadvertent misleading of the Committee.
I will return to new clause 2, because I would not want to stray too far from matters before the Committee. My new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before the House an assessment of the impact on levels of poverty of the uprating of state pensions next year by price inflation instead of earnings growth.
During the Brexit referendum, we were repeatedly told that Parliament would be taking back control. My new clause would merely require Ministers to be transparent and lay before Parliament an impact assessment of poverty, which I am sure any responsible Government would undertake. If indeed Parliament is taking back control, I am sure that agreeing to the new clause will be no problem at all for the Minister; I therefore hope that he will not oppose it. I commend new clause 2 to the Committee.
Guy Opperman
The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) is that this is a one-year-only Bill and that the triple lock will resume after its duration. In respect of the requirement for a report, he and the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) should be aware that the Department already collects and publishes a wide range of data in this policy area, which is published annually in the HBAI—households below average income —series of reports. In fact, I have a copy here, which is available on gov.uk; the most recent report is dated 25 March 2021. I can assure the Committee that the Government will continue to publish actual data on public health and poverty as it becomes available, but no specific data would be available by May 2022, as is sought.
I will not go into what the powers are under sections 24, 26 and 28 of the Scotland Act 2016, but I can assure the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) that I disagree with her view. I maintain that the powers are there under the Act.
In the circumstances, I ask hon. Members not to press their new clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 2
Review
“(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than 6 months after the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the impact of this Act on levels of poverty among pensioners in—
(a) Scotland,
(b) Wales, and
(c) England.”—(David Linden.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the uprating next year by price inflation instead of earnings growth on levels of pensioner poverty in Scotland, Wales and England (the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland).
Brought up, and read the First time.
David Linden
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I know that the hon. Members who suspended proxy voting and brought back in-person voting will be very keen to vote tonight, so I would like to divide the Committee on the new clause, which stands in my name and in that of my hon. Friends.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
Matt Rodda
As we start this debate on Third Reading, I want to reflect on what we have discussed so far in this important piece of legislation. The House has considered a number of issues relating to the Bill, and we will soon pass it over to the other place. Before we do so, we still have an opportunity to improve the legislation and to stand up for the interests of pensioners. Even at this late stage, I would like to ask the Government to consider a series of sensible, helpful points made from across the House. Taken together, these measures could make a substantial difference to the Bill.
The Government are breaking a manifesto promise. Parties across the House supported the triple lock in their manifestos in 2019, and this is a question of trust. Breaking their promise on the triple lock is the third time the Government have broken a manifesto commitment in just a few weeks. Trust in this Government has fallen dramatically, and I am afraid to say that their reputation is in tatters. We understand the difficult situation with the anomaly in earnings. However, it is down to the Government to find a way to protect the triple lock and deal with the anomaly in the earnings data.
We have asked Ministers to take a few simple steps to address the issue. First, we have asked them to be honest about the data showing a temporary increase in earnings. Secondly, we have asked them to find a way to address it while maintaining the earnings link. We have suggested using an average rising earnings over a longer period of time. Thirdly, if the Government are to address the anomaly, will they report back on the impact on pensioners’ incomes and take a real interest in the difficulties faced by millions of pensioners on low incomes? Those are all sensible measures that should be part of the good governance of this country.
We have discussed this issue in some detail today, and the Government must be clearer with pensioners. However, there is no need to take it further today and we would not want to divide the House on Third Reading. I remind Conservative Members that trust in the Government is wearing very thin, so let us hope that they will now listen to the House and to the public and show that they are concerned about such important matters.
David Linden
I have already outlined my view of the Bill on Second Reading. I am disappointed that the Government chose to reject our new clause 2 in Committee, but in the interests of brevity I will not go over old ground, not least because I am conscious that we have more legislation to consider this evening.
As is customary, I want to thank all hon. and right hon. Members for the good-natured if robust debate that we have had during proceedings on the Bill. I also want to thank and pay tribute to the ever helpful Clerk of Legislation for their support and advice to me and our lead researcher on the Bill, Zoe Carre, who will be leaving Westminster for pastures new next month. I hope you will indulge me for a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I say that Zoe has been a pleasure to work with on the inclusion and wellbeing team and will be sorely missed by all of us in the SNP group in this place.
By passing this Bill unamended tonight, the House will be agreeing with the very legislation that allows the Government to break their promise to our constituents that there would be a triple lock on pensions. The SNP will continue to stand firm against this Tory Government’s attack on the pensions triple lock, because we believe that an adequate state pension is essential to ensuring dignity and fairness in retirement. It is clear that the British Government will continue to ride roughshod over our pensioners and that the only way to protect Scotland’s pensioners from more Tory austerity is with the full powers of independence. I look forward to making that case during the upcoming referendum, which we all know is on the horizon. I just wonder whether those in the no campaign will be as misleading this time when it comes to pensions, because if they are, they will need plenty of polish for their brass necks.
Guy Opperman
I want to put on record my thanks to my private office and the policy teams at the Department for Work and Pensions. I also want to make it very clear that this is a one-year Bill, by reason of the pandemic, and that the triple lock will resume after the Bill’s duration. We increased the state pension by 2.5% last year and we will increase it by 2.5% on prices this year. We spend £129 billion on pensioners—that is £105 billion on the state pension and £24 billion on the top-up benefits—and this Government will continue to support pensioners now and on an ongoing basis. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Elections Bill (Instruction)
Monday 20th September 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 20 September 2021 - (20 Sep 2021)
20:49 - The House divided: - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 186 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the Minister to move the motion, I should confirm that the amendment has not been selected.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Christopher Pincher)
I beg to move,
That it be an instruction to the Elections Bill Committee that it has power to make provision in the Bill about the use of the simple majority voting system in elections for the return of—
(a) the Mayor of London;
(b) an elected mayor of a local authority in England;
(c) a mayor of a combined authority area; and
(d) a police and crime commissioner.
The motion seeks to widen the scope of the Bill to provide for these measures to be introduced. I do not intend to outline the purpose and effect of the proposed amendments in detail, because the House will be well versed in parliamentary procedure and will doubtless remind us that this debate focuses on the motion before us. If the motion is agreed tonight, we will have the opportunity to debate the substantive issues fully as the Bill progresses through Committee and its other remaining stages.
However, it may help hon. Members if I briefly set out the Government’s reasons for the change, without prejudice, of course, to the outcome of any substantive debate we may subsequently have on the amendments themselves.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I congratulate the Minister on his achievement in arriving at the Dispatch Box to move this instruction motion. Will those of us who are on the Committee enjoy the pleasure of his company as we seek to scrutinise the Bill, or will one of his hon. or right hon. Friends be taking that spot?
Christopher Pincher
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman thinks my eloquence, or otherwise, would be of benefit to the Committee. I assure him that the Committee will have sufficient expertise to properly scrutinise the Bill, not least because he is also on the Committee. Her Majesty’s Government speak with one voice.
Supporting first past the post is a long-standing Conservative commitment. It is in our manifesto and it reflects the view of the British people, as expressed in the 2011 referendum, when 67% of them voted for first past the post. The House will of course want to know that in my constituency of Tamworth 77% of electors voted for it. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in March that the Government intended to introduce legislation to change the voting system for all combined authority Mayors, the Mayor of London and police and crime commissioners to first past the post, as soon as parliamentary time allowed. We now have before us an opportunity to consider and make this change in its proper context—the wider electoral law system. The amendment I propose to make to the Elections Bill will, for consistency, also extend the change to include directly elected mayors of local authorities in England. I am therefore today inviting the House to agree that parliamentary time be allowed for this important measure and by agreeing to the instruction before us, that it may make provision in the Bill about the use of the simple majority voting system in elections for the return of the Mayor of London, an elected mayor of a local authority in England, a mayor of a combined authority area and a police and crime commissioner. I commend the instruction to the House.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Minister is telling us that we will have time to scrutinise and debate the amendment he is proposing tonight, but he might not be aware that this Bill has already started; we have already had Second Reading, where all Members of the House were able to debate the merits or otherwise of the contents of the Bill, and the Bill Committee has already met four times. We have already finished our evidence taking. I say to the Minister that on page 114 of the transcript of the Committee he can see that, as a member of that Committee, I made a point of order to the Chair, asking whether or not we could take evidence from witnesses on the issue of electoral systems. The Chair was very clear in saying that that was out of the scope of the Bill and so Committee members were not able to take evidence on electoral systems. So I have to question why this was not included already in the legislation. On 16 March, the Home Secretary announced that the Government planned to change the voting system for all PCCs, combined authority mayors and the Mayor of London from the supplementary vote system to first past the post. If the Government had wanted this to be in the Elections Bill, surely they should have put it in the Bill from the beginning, allowing Members to scrutinise it on Second Reading and in Committee.
The supplementary voting system that is used for all those different types of elections—
Patrick Grady
Does the hon. Lady agree that we should find a way, through the usual channels, to make sure that the Bill Committee can take some supplementary evidence and we can schedule in some additional sessions so that, assuming the instruction is passed tonight, the Committee can have that level of scrutiny that has so far been denied to the House on Second Reading?
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
On PCC elections, is my hon. Friend as staggered as I am to learn that the Conservative party’s PCC for Cleveland, Steve Turner, who was elected earlier this year, was sacked in the early 2000s for systematic theft of merchandise from his then employer, Safeway supermarket, at its Norton store? Does she agree that it is totally untenable for someone who was engaged in such criminal behaviour to hold the position of PCC and that he must resign from his role with immediate effect?
Cat Smith
I am as staggered as my hon. Friend to learn that the Conservative party’s PCC for Cleveland was sacked for theft from a Safeway supermarket. I would certainly agree that it is totally untenable for a criminal to hold the position of PCC, and if what my hon. Friend has shared with the House tonight is true, I would expect a resignation and some kind of by-election for that PCC role with immediate effect.
Turning back to the instruction, the supplementary vote system has been used to elect the Mayor of London since 2000, so it is certainly not a new system of voting. The instruction on the Order Paper suggests that it is somehow something that has come to light since the Bill has been published, but if we have been using this system of voting for the London Mayor for well over two decades, it seems inconsistent for the Government not to have been able to see fit to put this in the Bill before this late stage.
The Minister said that this measure was in his party’s manifesto, and indeed the 2017 manifesto stated:
“We will retain the first past the post system of voting for parliamentary elections and extend this system to police and crime commissioner…elections.”
However, if he reads his party’s 2019 manifesto, as I have done, he will not see it anywhere there. So this was not in the last manifesto and it has not been in the Bill since the beginning. Is this not just another example of Tory arrogance and some kind of apparent allergy to scrutiny and accountability? This Bill has been utterly chaotic and it seems increasingly likely that we are going to get a new Minister on the Bill Committee, although we do not yet know who it will be, and a new Government Whip mid-Committee. To top it all off, we are now not entirely sure whether the Bill sits within the Cabinet Office or the newly renamed “Department for Levelling Up”. So let me level with the Minister tonight: this instruction motion stinks of gerrymandering and we will vote against it.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I thank the Minister and welcome him to his place, temporarily or otherwise. I was incredibly surprised by the length of the introduction he gave on this important change to this Bill. During my time in this Parliament, the first occasion we have had an instruction motion was last week, when the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) moved one. To his enormous credit, he was thorough, considered and detailed, and he gave a lengthy explanation as to why he wanted his instruction to take place. The Minister has absolutely failed to do that this evening. It is astonishing. Just when we thought the Government could not be any more obvious or blatantly self-serving or go further than what is already contained in the Elections Bill, here they are trying to change the rules for their own electoral advantage. Not content with silencing judges, stripping power from the Electoral Commission, privatising critical media, banning public protests and cleansing the register, the Government now want to do away with an electoral system that promotes plurality of voice, encourages participation and, more importantly, delivers a fair result. It is pretty obvious that the Conservative party has absolutely no interest in fairness, plurality or the extension of participation; the Conservatives seem interested only in retaining power, and they are prepared to change the rules and game the system to make that happen. In short, the Conservative party is quickly becoming a danger to democracy.
Patrick Grady
My hon. Friend says that the Conservatives are prepared to game the system; they are gaming the system not only by changing the electoral system but by using this instruction to change the way the House is supposed to scrutinise the Bill. It is totally outrageous that they are changing the scope of the Bill once we have already begun its consideration.
Brendan O’Hara
I absolutely agree. If this was a casino, we would demand that it be shut down and the owners arrested for loading the dice, marking the cards and allowing the croupiers or whoever to have an ace hidden up their sleeve. Why should we accept that a party in power can get away with giving itself every conceivable unfair advantage to remain in power, including by changing the voting system on a whim? The Tories are undermining the electoral watchdog and introducing barriers to voting, particularly among folk who would see hell freeze over before they would vote Tory. Throughout our discussions of the Bill, we have been told, “It was in our manifesto—that’s why we’re obliged to do it.” It is remarkable that Government Members can ignore the absurdity of that argument, given the manifesto commitments we voted on earlier.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The voter ID pilots suggested that 0.16% of people who tried to vote were sent back to get identification, but in the London mayoral elections 5% of ballots were rejected because of confusion. Is that not the loss of franchise?
Brendan O’Hara
I share the confusion of the 5%, because I have absolutely no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Confused on what point—that they could not understand how to use proportional representation? Just because people cannot get it right the first time round does not mean that we should bin an entire system. Elections have to be fair and people have to trust the election system in place. This instruction is a retrograde step. It is about turning the clock back to an outdated, past-its-sell-by-date voting system.
As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) asked, where was this proposal when all the experts spoke to the Bill Committee? For four sessions over two days, countless experts came and talked to us about the Bill. The Government must have known that, like the dodgy croupier, they had this idea up their sleeve, waiting to come out; where was it? Why was it not presented before now? Why was the Bill Committee not allowed to investigate this topic and question experts on it? The Government had ample opportunity to float the idea but decided to wait until the Committee had started to sit and not allow a single opportunity for us to question expert witnesses on why it was appropriate. I would love to say I am shocked by this behaviour, but let us be honest, none of us are shocked by it. It has become par for the course.
Are Conservative Members really going to allow this to happen? Is a healthy, robust democracy really worth sacrificing on some vague promise of achieving short-term personal electoral gain? Are Conservative Members really going to meekly acquiesce and turn another blind eye to another full-on attack on our democracy? If they do, it will confirm what many of us on the Opposition Benches have suspected for quite some time: that in its deal with the devil, the Conservative party has given itself over completely to the UK Independence party and retained only the naming rights. Unfortunately, the rest of us will have to live with the consequences of that Faustian pact.
Dr Jess Garland, director of policy and research at the Electoral Reform Society, has said that this is a backward step, and she is of course correct. Is anyone surprised? Everything that this Government do is a backward step. It is like they are indulging in a desperate search for a better yesterday, to the extent that on the same day as they introduced this piece of ridiculous jiggery-pokery they announced that we would all be able to buy our spuds by the stone—assuming, that is, that we can find a supermarket with any tatties left. If it was not so dangerous, it would be laughable. This is opportunistic populism: give the punters what you have told them they want and you can pick their pockets and rob them of their democracy at the same time.
Let us be in no doubt that to resurrect a regressive and antiquated electoral system that belongs in the dustbin of history is nakedly and brazenly partisan. This motion to allow the Committee the powers to introduce first past the post has not been parachuted in because the Government think it will make democracy better or elections fairer, or be more representative—no chance. The only reason it is before us is because it will make it much easier for the Tories to win, while at the same time shutting out small parties on those few occasions when they can make an electoral impact.
Let us not pretend that this instruction to the Bill Committee is anything other than a tawdry attempt by this Government to ensure that, even if they fall out of favour with the public, the Tories will not fall out of power. When the Minister gets to his feet, I hope that he explains when it was decided that this provision would be put in the Bill. Who decided that? At what point and at what level was it decided, after the Committee had met and after the experts had been dismissed, that it was appropriate to parachute this in? How does he expect the Committee to be able to function under the circumstances in which it now finds itself when a colossally important piece of the Bill and an addition to the scope of the Bill has been introduced at this stage after the experts have gone?
Quite remarkably, this makes a thoroughly rotten Bill even worse—something that I never thought possible. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of exactly how and why this was allowed to happen.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara).
Today, we are faced with yet another example of a Government with absolutely no respect for democracy, demonstrated both by this process and by the use of it in relation to a policy change of such huge electoral importance.
Ironically, the Minister who tabled this instruction—the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith)—was the very Minister who recently criticised the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for using this little-used mechanism himself. The irony is compounded not least because the hon. Gentleman used it as a Back Bencher, with few other options at his disposal, faced with a Government blatantly leaving the issue of suspending Parliament out of a Bill that should have included it. By contrast, in this case, the Government of the day are abusing parliamentary process in two ways: first, they did not give notice of this extension of the scope of the Bill; and secondly, there is no good reason for using this instruction mechanism in the first place.
That raises questions as to why this attempt to foist the undemocratic and unfair first-past-the-post electoral system on mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections was slipped in as quietly as possible. For example, why was this silently published on the day of the reshuffle? More substantively, why did the Government not include this issue in the Bill in the first place so that the principle could have been debated on Second Reading?
Frankly, the disrespectful nature of this instruction is compounded by the fact that this is an Elections Bill—a Bill of constitutional importance, which requires those in power to behave with the highest respect for due process in order to protect our democracy and trust in Government. Anything else looks like rigging the system to the Government’s own electoral advantage. Extending the use of first past the post, and stripping out the proportional aspects of mayoral and police commissioner elections are not changes that should be bounced on MPs of other parties with no pre-legislative scrutiny or discussion.
Since 1997, every new representative body in the UK has been elected using an electoral system other than first past the post. We have had two decades of experience with PR systems in devolved Assemblies, mayoralties and local government. Now, suddenly, we have this blatant abuse of parliamentary procedure to allow the Government to scrap the PR systems that we have. Instead of the surreptitious use of this last-minute instruction, we should have had pre-legislative scrutiny so that we could properly explore on a cross-party basis the serious concerns that first past the post is unfair, unrepresentative and undemocratic. It is unfair and unrepresentative because it regularly delivers powers to those who win only a minority of the popular vote, ignoring the number of votes cast for smaller parties, and undemocratic because it promotes voter inequality, giving disproportionate power to swing voters in marginal seats and encouraging the belief that voting never changes anything, which is dangerous for participation in our democracy.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady, my friend and neighbour, is making a very good set of points around why we need a more proportional, not less proportional, system in our voting system more broadly. Does she share my concern that Ministers have been grilled, questioned and interrogated over a number of years on the clauses in the Bill in the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee, on which I sit, and the fact that this has been brought in without PACAC being able to consider the issue beforehand with the Minister is an example of this Government undermining the Committee system as well?
Caroline Lucas
Of course, I absolutely agree with my constituency neighbour; this just smacks of deceitfully slipping it out so that the provision cannot have the proper scrutiny that it deserves.
When we teach young people about what the suffragettes went through to get the vote for women and how important it was to vote, it really would help if we could tell them that we had a system now where their vote actually counted. That means that the Government of the day should be treating any change in the law on our voting systems with the respect that it deserves. The fact that the Government are not going to through the normal due legislative process with this change rings major alarm bells. Second Reading debates exist for good reason; they are a high-profile part of the scrutiny process, and I can see no good reason why we were not allowed to scrutinise this outrageous proposal then. How different it would feel if we had a Government who were pluralist, open, willing to engage in dialogue with all people and parties, and willing to improve our democracy with a commitment to fairness and to increasing wellbeing for all citizens.
In May, the Tories lost 11 of 13 mayoral elections, all under the supplementary vote system, which allows voters to express their top two preferences. Now they want to change these elections to first past the post, but without any normal scrutiny. We can only conclude that they are seeking to do this unfair thing in an unfair way because they understand that when elections are fair, they tend to lose.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a generally accepted truth—and, indeed, a fundamental truth of politics—that just because a Government can do something does not necessarily mean that they should. It is quite a while since we saw such a clear and clamant example of that truth as we have before the House tonight.
The Government appear to have been caught on the hop, suddenly noticing, after 20 years, that the Mayor of London is elected using a second vote. I think we have to have some sympathy for them—we know that there are some on the Government Benches who would never claim to be speedy learners—but it is still quite important that this House should be allowed to do the job that we are all sent here to do. I remind the Government that the day will come when hon. and right hon. Members currently sitting on the Government side of the Chamber will be sat on the Opposition side, and they will then find the truth of the way in which they seek to treat this House today; and that is a fairly tawdry truth, I have to say.
There is a lot more to the various devolved offices mentioned in the instruction than simply the electoral system. One reason why these offices were to be elected using a proportional or semi-proportional system was that it was felt necessary to have proper protections because significant powers were being devolved. Indeed, had it been known at the time that these offices would later be elected by first past the post rather than an alternative system, the House may have taken a different view at that time. Due to the way in which the Government have gone about this, it will not be open to the House to take a different view, because instead of re-examining and reopening the powers of these offices as a whole, we will be looking only at the manner in which they are elected. It is for that reason that the road the Government have gone down tonight is ill advised and will ultimately provide the citizens with poorer representation as a consequence, which is why my hon. and right hon. Friends and I will be opposing the motion tonight.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I think there has been some grumbling on the Conservative Back Benches that the House has been detained by this motion and there have been all kinds of Divisions this evening. Well, we on the Opposition Benches wanted to keep reforms such as call lists, remote voting, remote participation and proxy voting. The Government were the ones who were determined to bring all of this back and to have the House in its full glory, so they are not really in any position to complain about that kind of thing.
We wait ages for a cognate motion to appear and then two come along at once. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said, it was just last week that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) tabled one of these motions, but he did it before Second Reading—right at the start of the scrutiny process of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill, which we considered that day.
In this case, the Government were already well out of the traps. The Elections Bill is on its way. The House has approved the principles of the Bill on Second Reading, but that did not include what the Government are now trying to shoehorn into it. This is a further demonstration of what we warned of on Second Reading; it is significant and radical constitutional reform that is generally undermining the democratic principles that are supposedly enjoyed on these islands, and it is being done in a very sleekit and piecemeal fashion in the hope that nobody will notice. Well, we are noticing it and we will call it out.
I would be grateful if the Minister could reply to the various points that have been made by my hon. Friends and in my own interventions about precisely how this will work. Who will lead for the Government on the Bill now that the Department has changed? How do we pronounce the name of the Department, by the way? Maybe he can tell us how the new acronym is supposed to be pronounced, because no one else seems to understand. How will the Government bring forward amendments? Are they going to table amendments in Committee and then we have to table amendments to the amendments in order to try to achieve some kind of scrutiny? Are they going to bounce it through the House on Report, because according to the current programme motion we only have up to an hour before the moment of interruption on whatever day it comes forward? Or maybe they will just put it all through in the House of Lords, because frankly that would be about as democratic as everything else they are trying to do.
This is yet another power-grab by this Conservative Executive and people can see absolutely right through it. While they are going backwards with their introduction of first past the post for local elections in England and Wales, the devolved institutions, of Scotland in particular, will continue to increase democratic participation by increasing the franchise and increasing the accountability and proportionality of the representation in the electoral systems that we have. The Minister asked in a sedentary intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) what system elected us. Well, yes, we were all elected under first past the post, and the first thing that our leader at the time, Angus Robertson, said when he got up in this House was to recognise the disproportionate result that was achieved in Scotland in 2015, 2017 and 2019. Our amendment has not been selected, but I will tell the Government this: if they want to introduce proportional representation for election to the House of Commons, bring it on.
Christopher Pincher
With the leave of the House, I will respond briefly to some of the points that right hon. and hon. Members have made.
I remind the House that this motion to instruct is to make a technical change to the Elections Bill Committee to allow it to consider the options before it. It is for Members of the House, across the House if they so wish, to bring forward amendments to the Committee that it can consider. I have no doubt that there is sufficient expertise on the Committee to consider these questions, which are pretty well-aired: they have been in the Conservative party manifesto, one way or another, over three consecutive elections. I think the Committee is properly disposed and well able to consider these matters, and if it feels it is not, there are other parts of parliamentary procedure that the House can employ. We will have Report stage. We will have Third Reading. There will be ample opportunity for the House to consider these matters.
It is rather rich for the SNP, the Greens, the Liberal Democrats and Labour to say that we are abusing democracy. I might remind them that in 2011 the country voted for first past the post by 67%, and yet the Greens seem to want to ignore that. I remind them that in 2016 the country voted to leave the European Union, but the Opposition parties tried every trick in the book to undermine the decisions of the British people. We will support the view of the British people that a simplified first-past-the-post election system is best, and we want the House to consider it. The House and the Committee will be able to consider it in the normal way. It is for the usual channels to determine whether further time might be given to the Committee for consideration. However, I am confident that when all is said and done, this House will have the opportunity to debate these matters frankly and fully, recognising what the Home Affairs Committee said in 2016—that first past the post is the best way to elect police and crime commissioners. With respect to the Opposition, I commend this simple technical motion to the House.
Question put.
Business without Debate
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, I will take motions 4 and 5 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Marine Pollution
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 6 July, be approved.
Financial Services and Markets
That the draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 12 July, be approved.—(Steve Double.)
Question agreed to.
Tram Safety
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
At about 6.7 am on 9 November 2016, a tram travelling from New Addington in my constituency towards East Croydon station overturned as it approached the Sandilands tram stop. The tram was travelling too fast as it approached a notoriously sharp bend on the track. Sixty-nine people were in the tram, most on their way to work. They had no idea what was about to happen, although many people have subsequently said they felt trams often went round that corner too fast.
The Rail Accident Investigation Branch report sets out what happened: the tram
“reached the maximum permitted speed of 80 km/h as it entered the first of three closely spaced tunnels, which together extended for about 500 metres. When leaving the tunnels, the tram should have been reducing speed significantly as it was approaching the sharp curve round to Sandilands junction, where there is a 20 km/h limit. This was marked by a speed limit sign at the start of the curve. On the day of the accident, the tram was travelling at 73 kilometres per hour when it reached this sign.
The excessive speed caused the tram to overturn as it passed through the curve. Passengers were thrown around inside the tram and the tram slid along the ground on its side.”
The horrific crash took the lives of seven people: Dane Chinnery, Donald Collett, Robert Huxley, Phil Logan, Dorota Rynkiewicz, Phil Seary and Mark Smith. They were mothers, daughters, fathers and sons, and the loss to their families is insurmountable.
The tram crash at Sandilands junction was the worst tram accident in a century and the worst rail tragedy in 17 years.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate. In this staycation year when many people from across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are having holidays here, it is important that the trams are safe for both the hon. Lady’s constituents and all the tourists; does she agree that there is an onus on Government to make sure they are safe for everyone?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One lesson from the tram crash is that we must make sure that all tram networks across the country are safe. Trams are an in-between mode of transport; they are not quite railway and not quite road, so they often miss out on national safeguarding measures that might exist for other forms of transport.
Our community was completely devastated by the accident, and Croydon will forever mourn the loss of our loved ones. I want to pay tribute to the families, who have been so strong in the face of such pain. I want to pay tribute to all those who were the first responders on the scene—the British Transport police, the police, the firefighters, the paramedics and the ambulance service—and I want to pay tribute to those in the Rail Accident Investigation Branch who arrived on the scene that morning to start their investigation. I also pay tribute to the legal team that has worked hand in hand with the families throughout the process of the inquest, some of whom are here tonight.
On 7 December 2017, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch published a detailed 180-page report into the crash, which made 15 important recommendations to improve tram safety across the country’s tram networks. The Rail Accident Investigation Branch was established 15 years ago following the terrible accident at Ladbroke Grove in 1999 that led to the deaths of 31 people. Its job is to independently investigate accidents, improve railway safety, and inform the industry and the public. Its investigations are focused solely on improving safety. As its website says:
“We are not a prosecuting body and do not apportion blame or liability. Possible breaches of legislation are dealt with by other organisations, usually the police and safety authorities.”
The RAIB investigations were very thorough. Among many other things, it talked to everyone who was on the train and survived, and surveyed the 146 drivers who work on the Croydon trams. Recommendations were broad and included the following measures. One was having technology such as automatic braking, which no tram system had—the Croydon tram now does—and systems to improve driver alertness. It also recommended having a better understanding of the risks associated with tramway operations; there was a woeful lack of a proper risk approach to when accidents might occur and how to prevent them. It recommended improving the strength of doors and windows—one of the horrific outcomes in the crash was that the windows all shattered so people were literally dragged under the tram because the windows were not as strong as those on trains. It recommended improving safety management systems, particularly encouraging a culture in which everyone feels able to report their own mistakes—if someone feels tired or has done something wrong, there is a culture that encourages reporting that. It recommended improvements to the tram operator safety management arrangements to encourage staff to bring up safety measures, and a dedicated safety body for UK tramways. The Government have set that up, to their credit, and it is funded, but there is not enough funding and we would like to make sure it is long term. That is a really important body to make sure the lessons apply in Blackpool and all the other places around the country, as well as in Croydon. So I am extremely grateful to RAIB for its investigation and thank it for its work.
There has been significant progress, as I have outlined, and changes continue to be made. In the year ending March 2020, there were 28 injuries on trams, metros and other non-Network Rail networks in the UK, compared with 45 injuries in the year ending March 2019. That is the lowest number of injuries since the first data were published in the year ending March 2006. All the Transport for London-specific recommendations have now been completed, including better signage and warning systems, additional speed restrictions, and the automated braking system that I talked about. An in-cab driver protection device has also been fitted. That sounds peculiar, but basically it monitors the driver’s eyes and if they close them, they get a jolt to make sure they do not fall asleep. That sounds slightly alarming when we first hear about it, but it has worked in the system and is helping. The only question I have for the Government on the RAIB recommendations is to ask them to commit to continuing the work RAIB is doing and to ensure that those improvements carry on across the country, not just in Croydon.
I want to focus the rest of my remarks on two key issues. They are entirely non-political and quite complicated, so I hope that the House will forgive me. I will try to be as brief as I can. The first is about the legal precedent set by the inquest into the tram crash, which the legal team, the families and I believe will have far-reaching policy implications for inquests in the future. The second is the loophole in the law that restricts what the British Transport police were able to consider when it came to charging anybody in their investigations.
Let me turn to the inquest first. After the RAIB review and the British Transport police investigation that concluded that a charge of manslaughter could not be brought, a date for the inquest into the tram crash was set. It was delayed several times, largely because of covid, which caused more trauma for the families as they expected it to start only for it not to do so. They felt that as the Grenfell inquiry went ahead during the covid period, theirs should have too.
In July this year, the inquest into the crash ruled that the deaths of seven passengers in the Croydon tram crash were accidental. I want to set out what happened. The inquest took evidence at length from RAIB, and it also took three days of evidence from the British Transport police. As Members know, an inquest has a coroner and a jury, and I am grateful to the jury of people of Croydon who gave their time to this very difficult inquest.
None of the evidence in the first few weeks, from RAIB or the British Transport police, involved hearing from anyone who was there at the crash, or from anyone who was involved—witnesses, people who train tram drivers, the people who ran the tram operating company or TfL, which is responsible for the tracks. RAIB did a brilliant job and had spoken to many people as part of its investigation, but no one was named. The way that the body is set up means that it does not name who has said what; it just publishes its conclusions. Everything was at second hand. The same applies to the British Transport police—everything reported in the inquest was at second hand.
The coroner then adjourned for three weeks to consider whether or not to take any further evidence, which they would normally be expected to do. The coroner concluded that no further evidence would be taken, based on what is called the Norfolk ruling. The Norfolk ruling concerns the inquest into the deaths of four men killed in a helicopter crash in Norfolk in 2014. There was a dispute as to whether the Air Accidents Investigation Branch should reveal the contents of the black box. The judge added three paragraphs to the end of the ruling, saying:
“Unless there is credible evidence that the independent investigation”—
in this case by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, and in our case by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch—
“is ‘incomplete, flawed or deficient’, the better approach is”,
and it goes through a series of options. They include:
“To treat the findings and conclusions of the independent body as ‘the evidence as to the cause of the accident’ supplemented, if necessary by, short additional evidence from the inspector.”
The ruling is effectively saying that unless what RAIB or the AAIB had concluded was “incomplete, flawed or deficient”, the inquest should just take its evidence and no one else’s.
After three weeks of talking to people, the coroner decided to apply the ruling to the Croydon tram inquest, so the accident investigating body was the only one, apart from the British Transport police, to give evidence. This took away the opportunity for the jury to hear from people who were there, or people who worked for Tram Operations Limited, which runs the trams, or TfL, which runs the network.
After three weeks of being away, the jury were brought back and told they had to retire to make a verdict. The implications in a policy sense are very significant. There is now case law, given Norfolk and its interpretation by Croydon, that in any similar inquest into significant accidents where we see deaths—on trains, or on aeroplanes, helicopters, buses, or trams—a jury of ordinary people will never get to hear evidence from people who have first-hand experience or are experts in their field and can help the jury come to a sensible rounded decision based on their conclusions of the facts.
Ben Posford from Osbornes Law, who is here today, is lead solicitor for five of the seven families. After the verdict, Ben said that the ruling was “far too broad,” meaning future inquests into public transport accidents will be
“rubber-stamping exercises...which renders the inquest an expensive farce...The families feel deeply let down by the inquest process and can see no point in having such an inquiry and then calling none of those responsible to give evidence to the jury.”
Jean Smith, the mother of Mark Smith, who died in the crash, said after the verdict:
“I am bitterly disappointed as justice has not been done today. It has been a total farce as we have only heard half of the evidence and no one who could potentially have been responsible for the crash has been called as a witness.
It’s morally wrong that we haven’t been able to hear from anybody from TfL, TOL or the driver during the proceedings…It feels like they have been able to hide from giving evidence and it simply isn’t fair or just.”
It is really important to say that we do not know whether the outcome would have been any different if evidence had been taken from other people, but the principle is crucial when we look at our legal system. Inquests are a vital public function. When something so horrific happens, people want to know how it happened, and they want to hear directly from those involved. If the accident investigation branch gives evidence but the families and the jury do not get to hear from the individuals involved, they do not get the same sense of what actually happened.
Those potentially responsible need to have their say; without that, families are left with a sense of cover-up. It was incredibly important for the families to hear from the company directors, other drivers and trainers. I will give an example. The dashboard in front of the tram driver, as hon. Members might imagine, is very complex, and there is something on it telling him where he is going. For people trying to understand what happened, it would be useful to hear evidence from someone who trains tram drivers about how that dashboard is looked at, how it works, and how likely the driver might have been to have seen it, to understand the context in which the jury are being asked to make a decision.
I want to place on the record, as I have already, my thanks to RAIB. It did a brilliant job, and its witnesses did their best at the inquest. However, the families of the victims do not feel it was sufficient to hear from RAIB instead of the individuals present. Similarly, Detective Superintendent Gary Richardson, the excellent senior investigating officer for the British Transport police who led the investigation, gave evidence for three days, but again, he had to summarise the witness statements that he had received. He did that very well, and he managed to include very many of them, but it was his decision what to include and what not to include; the inquest did not hear directly from the witnesses.
RAIB is prevented by statute from expressing an opinion about wrongdoing. The jury in Croydon were being asked to make a ruling on unlawful killing, which inherently includes wrongdoing, but the RAIB witnesses, the only people the jury heard from, were prevented from expressing an opinion on that. How can a jury possibly ever make a verdict of unlawful killing when they have heard only from a body that is not allowed, by law, to express an opinion? The jury are the arbiter. They clearly needed to be able to go further and ask individuals for other evidence. It is not for human behaviour experts at RAIB, excellent though they are, to determine what is right and wrong.
It is hard for the families to feel a sense of justice. As I said, we do not know whether the outcome would have been different, but the policy implications of this case are significant, and the Government should look at it. The families have a real sense of unease. I know that this is a complex issue, but it is genuinely important. If this decision stands, the accident investigation boards are now all-powerful. They are the all-seeing experts, dispensers of justice, determiners of fact, and curtains behind which defaulters will be kept from the public eye. Inquests and juries are made irrelevant.
I would love for the Minister to agree to meet me and the families, and perhaps the legal team, to talk about this situation. The Norfolk ruling could be overturned by judicial review—that is possibly a route that the families could go down—but it could also be clarified by legislation. We have the power in this place to set this muddle, which I think has wide-ranging implications, straight.
The second point that I want to make, more briefly, is about a loophole in the law that needs changing. The offence of causing death by dangerous driving is committed, under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, when the suspect’s driving is a cause or factor in the death of another person and the driving was dangerous. By “dangerous” we mean within the meaning of section 2A of the 1988 Act, so the standard of driving
“falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and…it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.”
The offence of causing death by careless driving is in section 2B of the 1988 Act, and it is committed when the manner of the suspect’s driving causes the death of another person. The definition of that offence is linked to the provisions of section 3ZA of the Act, which specifies:
“A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention”
if the way he or she drives
“falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.”
For causing death by dangerous driving, the standard of driving must fall far below what would be expected of a competent driver, whereas for death by careless driving the standard of driving must merely fall below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.
This is the key point: the law on death by dangerous driving and death by careless driving does not apply if the tram is off-road. It applies if a tram is going along a road, but it does not apply if a tram is off the road. Some 97% of the Croydon tram network is off-road, on old railway lines. The British Transport police were therefore unable to charge someone in this case, as the charges did not exist. The Road Traffic Act sets out that causing death by reckless driving or death without due care must happen in a mechanically propelled motor vehicle on a road or other public place. Safety legislation relating to roads may sometimes apply to trams, but the stretch of track on which the Croydon tram crash occurred was a dedicated tramway, not a road.
This is a very small but really obvious loophole in the law, and it would apply again if the same thing happened. We therefore want to bring the law on trams in line with the law for other vehicles for which offences of death by dangerous driving apply. I have had positive conversations about this with the British Transport police, who are very keen, as one would imagine, and Transport for London, which wrote to me and said it would in principle support such a law.
I need to stress that if British Transport police had been able to charge someone with death by dangerous driving, it does not mean that they would have done. It does not mean that the tram driver would have been charged with anything at all. It means that the British Transport police would have had that as an option. The only option they had was manslaughter, and the criteria for manslaughter are much higher—the threshold was too high. As I say, we do not know whether it would have applied or not, but that is a loophole in the law. I hope the Minister can meet us to talk about it. We would only need a tiny piece of law—I could draft it—but it would need Government support to get through.
Britain’s tramways have a proud history. The first horse-drawn tram was the Swansea and Mumbles Railways in Wales in 1804. Trams still help to connect our greatest cities and regions. A report out today on how we level up the country calls for more trams, because they are environmentally very clean and they help people to get from A to B very quickly. They are very efficient, and I would love them to be extended in Croydon. Our community in Croydon absolutely loves the trams and we were completely devastated by the crash. Ever since, we have been very keen to make sure that nothing like it can ever happen again. The Government must do everything possible to implement all the safety recommendations for tram systems across the country. They should look to fix the loophole in the law on dangerous driving on tramways and ensure that the families of those who die in any such dreadful situation know they have the justice they need and deserve.
Passengers on our tram networks across the UK deserve to feel safe and to know that the right systems are in place. I hope tonight that the Government will help me to make that a reality.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) on securing this very important debate on tram safety and on her speech this evening. She is absolutely right to pay tribute to those who assisted at the scene and thereafter. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contribution.
What happened at Sandilands was truly tragic. I know that this accident has particular significance to the hon. Lady and her constituents, as well as to those in the tram sector. The recent inquest must also have bought back painful memories for many people. Our thoughts remain with those who lost their lives or were injured in the tragedy at Sandilands, and with their families and friends. I am absolutely confident that Baroness Vere, the Minister with responsibility for light rail, will be very happy to meet the families.
After the incident, the rail accident investigation branch carried out an independent investigation to establish the causes, making a total of 15 recommendations in December 2017, with an addendum published in October 2018. The recommendations included setting up a new joint industry body to enable UK-wide co-operation on safety matters; developing tram standards and good practice; and providing authoritative, impartial advice for the industry to better understand, identify and foresee risk.
Subsequently, the Government provided funding to set up the Light Rail Safety and Standards Board, which the hon. Member for Croydon Central referred to, to ensure safer journeys for tram passengers and to help implement the recommendations of the RAIB’s investigation report across the industry. To date, the Government have provided more than £3 million of funding to the board to spearhead sustainable improvements in the management of safety risk in the industry and to allow more effective UK-wide co-operation.
I concur with the hon. Member’s comments that the tram industry and the LRSSB have made good progress in implementing the recommendations. I would like to cover several areas of that progress. First, the board set up an industry risk model, as well as the tram accident and incident reporting database, which is now implemented and embedded across the UK tram network. It has developed an assessment tool that helps the sector to understand risks relevant to individual networks and identifies potential gaps in design, processes and people. I am pleased to say that the research and development programmes run by the board have been able to identify potential sector-wide solutions to elements in the Sandilands report, and that those programmes have been recognised internationally.
Importantly, the tramway principles and guidance are now under the custodianship of the board. Previously administered by the Office of Rail and Road, they are now the cornerstone of the new digital reference library and are continually updated online with the latest best practice. Finally, the board continues to explore new and emerging technologies to bolster tram safety, drawing from different industries both nationally and internationally.
I understand that there are some recommendations that need to be fully implemented across the whole system, but I assure the House that the board will continue to update the Office of Rail and Road on its progress and that my Department will continue to monitor that progress and push for the recommendations to be implemented as soon as possible.
To address the specific points that the hon. Member raised, I am desperately sorry to hear that some of the families are distressed by the senior coroner’s verdict, and I have listened carefully to the potential implications of the Norfolk precedent. I know that the hon. Member understands that coroners and inquests are rightly independent of Government, and given that families are preparing for a potential judicial review, it is not appropriate for me to comment any further. However, I reiterate the offer of a meeting with Baroness Vere; it is absolutely right and proper for the hon. Member to call for that, and I am sure that it will happen.
I thank the hon. Member for bringing to my attention the potential loophole in transport legislation. My Department will investigate it thoroughly.
Safety on our tramways is paramount for the Government. That is why we have provided more than £200 million in emergency funding to allow trams to keep running during the pandemic so that key workers could travel, and why we build on the vital work of the independent Office of Rail and Road, the Light Rail Safety and Standards Board and all tram systems across the UK to ensure that we have the very highest standards of public safety on our public transport systems.
Let me end by reiterating that light rail systems have an integral role to play in the economic and social recovery of this country post pandemic. Light rail boosts connectivity, improving access to jobs, healthcare and local services, all while improving air quality, but the tramways should also be as safe as possible. I hope that the actions that I have highlighted today reassure Members across the House that the Government are taking tram safety extremely seriously. The Sandilands incident should never be allowed to happen again.
Question put and agreed to.
Help to Grow: Digital
(3 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking. This is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Members should send speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Similarly, any officials in the Gallery should communicate electronically with the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (George Freeman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the motion, That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, compensation to digital technology product vendors in respect of a proportion of the costs of providing digital technology product to SMEs as part of the Help to Grow: Digital programme up to a limit of £296 million over three years.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir George, and to be back as Minister for Science, Research and Innovation.
The UK has a long-standing productivity challenge. We are home to some of the world’s most innovative firms, but we also have a long tail of less-productive firms compared with other G7 countries. In 2019, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy/Her Majesty’s Treasury business productivity review found that a key reason for the UK’s level productivity gap is the low adoption of basic digital technologies and weak digital leadership and management practices. While we excel at innovation, being eighth in the world, we are only 31st for ICT adoption. Our small business sectors are lagging in adopting digital technologies, and our tech adoption rates are far behind leading competitor countries.
That trend has been identified widely, including by the CBI, Be The Business and the Bank of England, and in developed economies 55% of productivity gains, according to McKinsey, could come from closing the gap between low and hight productivity firms through the adoption of existing best practice. We know from research commissioned for the European Research Council that adoption of tried-and-tested technologies can have a big impact on business productivity of between 7% and 18% as a minimum. Such technologies are not groundbreaking and include customer relationship management tools, online accounting and e-commerce products.
To turn the trend around as part of our plan for growth, the Chancellor announced at Budget 2021 two new Help to Grow schemes. The first, “Help to Grow: Management”, is supporting 30,000 UK small business leaders to undertake practical management training at our world-class business schools. The second, “Help to Grow: Digital”, is a new UK-wide digital adoption programme for our small and medium-sized businesses.
Our small businesses have been hit particularly hard during the pandemic, but they have also grasped new opportunities, particularly digital technologies, to survive and thrive. We want to build on that momentum. The new scheme will launch in autumn 2021, and we aim to support 100,000 small and medium-sized businesses across the UK over the next three years to adopt technology and to boost productivity and international competitiveness.
The scheme will consist of a new online platform through which businesses can access learning and advice on software to help them save time and money, and the platform will provide guidance on selecting software and how to embed them into their business successfully. The scheme will also provide an up to 50% discount on the costs of buying new software for the first year up to a value of £5,000. SMEs that have been registered in the UK for more than 12 months and have between five and 249 employees will be eligible for funding.
In the first wave, we will focus on e-commerce, accounting and customer relationship management software. We want to ensure that SMEs are accessing high-quality software products, which is why vendors will need to apply for them and their products to be accepted on to the scheme. Applications will be assessed for meeting functionality and quality standards. Vendor applications closed on 8 September with a strong field, and we will be reviewing them to ensure that we have a strong offering to present to small businesses at launch.
SME engagement is key, and we recognise the challenge of reaching 100,000 small businesses over three years. I am pleased to have the support of many business organisations, including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, Be The Business and others. My officials have engaged extensively with organisations representing the software market, as well as with individual vendors, to design eligibility criteria that will ensure SMEs have access to high-quality products from reputable companies. Engagement with the wider business community is being conducted across numerous channels, with a view to raising awareness of the scheme even, and especially, among those SMEs that are hardest to reach, namely those that have not previously taken up Government support or introduced digital technologies into their operations.
“Help to Grow: Digital” is an ambitious programme—100,000 businesses over three years—but we are confident that it will provide significant benefits to small and medium-sized businesses, helping them to seize every opportunity to grow. The initiative is an important part of the Government’s wider plan for jobs, promoting opportunity, boosting employment and helping level up the economy as businesses recover from the impacts of the pandemic. I commend the motion to the Committee.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir George. I welcome the new Science Minister to his position; I hope he stays around long enough to ensure that we have a long-term plan for science, which has been sorely missing.
I thank the Minister for his opening remarks, in which he laid out some of the challenges and problems in productivity and supporting business growth. As he said, we are debating a motion to approve £296 million of compensation over three years to digital technology product vendors for some of the costs of providing technology to SMEs as part of the “Help to Grow: Digital” programme. The programme will provide advice on how technology can boost a business as well as discounts of up to £5,000 on approved software for boosting sales and for day-to-day management.
Support for SMEs is essential to rebuilding the economy after the pandemic. Britain has almost 6 million SMEs, and many need help to grow. They drive innovation, take risks and collectively employ 16 million people—nearly two thirds of the workforce. Growing SMEs means growing the economy, more jobs and more choice for consumers, so Labour believes strongly that small businesses should be at the heart of the recovery from covid.
We are worried by the drop in new start-ups, which are down 11% since 2016. In April, Labour promised £1 billion of funding to support the creation of 100,000 start-ups across the country in the first term of a Labour Administration. Unfortunately, the Government have used the pandemic to give away taxpayers’ money for little return, often without a proper tendering process and in some cases to people with direct connections to Ministers. For that reason, we should all be hyper-vigilant about how the Government are spending money.
The motion refers to one part of a two-part programme of support. “Help to Grow: Management” was approved in May. Will the Minister up the Committee on the scheme’s progress? How will “Help to Grow: Digital” work with the previous programme, or are they completely separate? Can companies take advantage of both? I hope that all SMEs will take advantage of the new programme, and it will come as no surprise to the Minister that Labour will not oppose the motion. We support funding to help SMEs be successful. We want the programme to be successful and to deliver on its aims of supporting productivity and growth while providing value for money for the taxpayer.
It is on the latter point that the Government have been reticent of late, so I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, I want to ask about the limits of the programme, and specifically whether it extends to charities, mutuals, co-operatives and other organisations that need to grow and have significant economic outputs and make a significant contribution to our economy. As this is taxpayers’ money, it seems reasonable for the scheme to cover all manner of organisations that taxpayers are engaged with. Charities in particular have taken a hard hit from the pandemic, with reduced fundraising and many taking on vital local government functions following years of funding cuts.
Secondly, what has been the take-up of the scheme? It has been open for registration since March. How many SMEs have registered, and how many do the Government expect to register in future? What measures are being applied to ensure that businesses that are under-represented by sector, female-led and ethnic minority-led businesses, or businesses led by disabled people, are accessing the programme? Furthermore, given the Government’s commitment to levelling up—we have a new Department with that in its title—what provisions are there to ensure that this funding makes its way across the country rather than focusing on growth in London and the south-east? What is the Minister doing to encourage regional take-up?
I was so impressed by the speed at which Grainger Market in my constituency responded to the lockdown, with many traders moving online within three weeks of lockdown to ensure that their businesses survived. It is not to be expected that, in those three weeks, they managed to obtain all the digital skills they needed. Yet, according to the online guidelines, many market traders can be excluded if they have fewer than five employees. The Government may want to go back to the past of imperial weights and measures, but the market traders in my constituency are looking to the future, and digital, and they will not be happy to find that the Government are not interested in helping them.
Thirdly, will the Minister inform us of the procurement process for the technology that the £296 million is for? He has spoken a little bit about the success of the vendor process so far, but how were the digital technology vendors selected and how were the particular technologies selected? Are the technologies purchased at the high street price or have discounts been achieved? I asked a written question last week about what the marketing budget for the programme was, but was told only the total budget in response. Can the Minister tell us what proportion of this budget is for the technology and what proportion is for other costs such as marketing? He mentioned the need to get to hard-to-reach businesses, and I have talked about the need to reach businesses across the country, so is there a marketing budget, and if so, what is it?
Fourthly, I would like to ask about sector-specific digital technologies. Does the programme make provision for digital technologies that specific businesses may need to grow? These include, for example, those in our wonderful creative industries, which were so successful at last night’s Emmys. I worry that there is something of a one-size-fits-all approach. While there are many things that are common to SMEs, such as basic accounting, others may need more tailored support. What is the Minister doing on digital inclusion for businesses? The Government seem very happy to leave it to Google and Facebook, and their programmes, which I support, but they do require businesses to use Google and Facebook products. What are the Government doing more generally on digital inclusion?
On the value-for-money point, can the Minister set out how the impact of this spending will be measured? Does the Minister have an estimate of the multiplier effect of the spending at this stage? How are the Government intending to measure the productivity impact of a programme? Over what timeframe would we expect to see a return on the spending? Will the Minister report to the House on the impacts of the programme?
Finally, there is a wider question on the conditions for success external to this programme. SMEs have had a difficult time during the pandemic, with many, such as those in hospitality, having to effectively go into hibernation during lockdowns. With cases of covid-19 still very high, there is always a chance of further impacts in the future too. Many SMEs are in debt having taken out Government loans and so on, or are facing rent arrears and even problems hiring staff because of the double impact of the pandemic and leaving the European Union. If businesses do not have support on these fundamental features of any business, my concern is that spending money on digital may prove fruitless or more likely that the programme will be taken up by businesses that are already doing well while others suffer.
What are the Government doing to ensure that there is a suitable business support environment enabling the Help to Grow scheme to have an appropriate impact? Will the Minister say a little bit about the scope of that impact? As I have said, there are 6 million SMEs in this country. The maximum number of SMEs that may be impacted by this programme will still be a relative drop in the ocean among the SMEs we have. How does he expect that to truly make a difference to our economic success and productivity?
I look forward to the Minister’s response. As I said, we will not oppose the motion.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir George. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment; it is always an honour to take up such a position in any Government.
I join the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central in saying that we, too, will not oppose the motion, but will support it. I would like to echo much of what has been said about some of the challenges that small and medium-sized businesses have faced in the last 18 months.
I wish to address my comments specifically to cyber-security and the issues faced by small and medium-businesses in respect of online and other platforms. The hon. Lady mentioned businesses that suddenly went online after three weeks, but do not have expertise to deal with the cyber-security issues that they will face. As a member of the Defence Committee, I am keenly aware that cyber-security is a state issue of national security. That is not just a military expression; it is about a whole-state approach. That must include small and medium-sized businesses, to ensure that they have both the strength and resilience to sell online in an effective manner.
Will the Minister advise Members whether his Department has had or will have a discussion with the National Cyber Security Centre about how it can inform how the grants are utilised? If there is not a specific grant, are there any new grants to ensure strength and resilience for small and medium-sized businesses working online?
George Freeman
I thank hon. Members for some very intelligent questions. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central for making it clear that the Opposition will support the motion, which speaks volumes about the sense of this initiative. Notwithstanding her pessimism about the UK economy, we are the fastest growing economy in the G7, and it is quite clear to most people up and down the country that the Government’s response during the pandemic to support businesses, and to make sure that the damage of the pandemic is minimised, has been widely recognised.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for giving way. I did not express any pessimism about our fantastic businesses and economic opportunities. I was talking about some of the figures for business start-ups in the last few years, which I hope he recognises.
George Freeman
Having a run a few myself, as colleagues here have, I am all for them. I simply make the point that we are the fastest growing economy in the G7, so we must be doing something right. The hon. Lady is right to highlight, as this measure does, the importance of SMEs.
This is a targeted measure. We are not trying to boil the ocean; we are trying to target specific funding at businesses for which all the evidence shows that the uptake of digital technologies such as those I have described will have maximum impact in terms of productivity and competitiveness. A number of us have started companies. Very often in the first three, six, nine or 12 months we find that digital technology is not necessarily the biggest barrier to getting going. It is important, but we are doing here is focusing where all the evidence from the business community suggests that support for digital uptake will have the biggest.
I will take the questions in turn. First, this is designed specifically for businesses, so charities are not eligible, but I am delighted to say that all social enterprises—businesses that recycle their profits back into good causes—are eligible, which sends an important message.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Will a social enterprise that is also a registered charity be eligible, because most social enterprises, at least in my constituency, are registered charities?
George Freeman
Many social enterprises are not charities, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good point, because many charities also have an operating arm as a company. I will come back to him on that point.
Secondly, on take-up, I am happy to say that there have been a series of meetings, roundtables and engagement projects over the spring and summer. I do not have the exact figures, but hundreds of companies have already registered to take up when this opens shortly.
Thirdly, the hon. Lady mentioned the importance of this being across the whole UK, and I could not agree more. This project is not just for the golden triangle, golden and important though it is; it is absolutely about reaching companies across the Union, in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and all the regions of this country. On her point about monitoring, one of the key assessments will be to ensure that we are reaching all across the country, so take-up will be monitored in that way.
Fourthly, the hon. Lady asked about procurement. I can assure her that Her Majesty’s Treasury, which is not quick to hand out taxpayers’ money, has been through this with a fine-toothed comb and is satisfied that the procurement process has been done properly. She asked about marketing, and I am delighted to confirm that the marketing budget for this is currently £7.5 million, which is a substantial sum, with £1.5 million in the first year to ensure that we are reaching out and raising awareness among those companies. With Her Majesty’s Opposition onboard, perhaps I can take this opportunity to encourage her and others to highlight the link on the gov.uk website, and to encourage businesses and social enterprises to apply.
Fifthly, on value for money, the Treasury and the business sector calculate that this £260-odd million, if we can get it out to these companies over the next three years, can produce a £7 billion boost to productivity. I think that speaks to the importance of digital productivity and competitiveness in our small business sector. Yes, I am incredibly proud that we are ranked eighth in the world for innovation, but we are 31st on digitalisation in the small business sector, and the level of digitalisation in that particular segment of companies is where Denmark was 10 years ago. That gives a sense of how important this is. I am sure that many of us know businesses in our constituencies that are very successful and doing well, with five to 50 or 100 employees, but that still use paper invoices and some very basic management systems. This is a very targeted scheme that is designed to help those businesses adopt digital technology.
Finally, turning to the very sensible point made by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire, from north of the border, I completely agree that this is, as he called it, “a state issue”, which is why we are absolutely determined to ensure that it goes across the whole UK, in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England. His point about cyber-security was well made. It was one of the issues considered in the assessment of how the scheme would work, and the system for making sure that only authorised procurers are part of the scheme. However, I will raise his point with the National Security Council, because one of the ways that cyber-security can be threatened is by getting into the software in small businesses at the bottom of the supply chain. It is a very good point, but I am delighted to know that the project also has support north of the border.
Question put and agreed to.
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (Ninth sitting)
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few announcements. I encourage Members to wear face coverings except when speaking or if they are exempt. That is in line with the Commission’s recommendations. Hansard colleagues would be extremely grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please remember to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. I also ask Members to declare any interests before we resume line-by-line consideration.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I wish to place on the record the fact that my wife works at a university.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I am an honorary fellow at Birkbeck College, University of London.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
My partner works at the University of Hull on the degree apprenticeship programme.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I am a trustee at the University of Bradford union. I have received payment from the University of Sussex to provide educational opportunities, and I have received money from the University and College Union.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for friends of Durham University
Clause 3
Civil claims
Amendment made: 4, in clause 3, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(aa) a constituent institution of a registered higher education provider, in respect of a breach by the governing body of the institution of any of its duties under section A1, or”. —(Michelle Donelan.)
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
Clauses 1 and 2 strengthen freedom of speech duties on registered higher education providers and extend them to students unions at approved fee cap providers. Clause 3 plugs an identifiable and substantive gap in the current legislative framework by providing individuals with a route of redress for loss suffered as a result of a breach of these freedom of speech duties. Clause 3 therefore creates a new statutory tort. This enables civil proceedings to be brought against a higher education provider in respect of a breach of the new duties under section A1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, or against a student union in respect of a breach of the section A4 duty.
Individuals can still complain in the first instance—for free—to their higher education provider or student union if they consider that there has been such a breach. They can subsequently complain for free to the new complaints scheme that will be operated by the Office for Students, and students will still be able to complain for free about their provider to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education. However, the statutory tort will also be available, although we are clear that it is intended to be a route of last resort.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
If that is to be a last resort, as the Minister claims—I take her at her word on that, because she is an hon. Member—someone could as a first step go to the courts. Will she ensure that they can do that only if they have exhausted all the other opportunities?
Michelle Donelan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment. The problem is that if someone is a visiting speaker at a university, there would be no internal process that they could follow. We want to be as comprehensive as possible and allow this option to be available.
Michelle Donelan
I will make some progress and then give way.
As individuals will be able to seek redress for free via the OfS or the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, we expect individuals to make a complaint to the OfS or the OIA before relying on the tort.
Emma Hardy
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way.
I refer the Minister to the Office for the Independent Adjudicator’s written evidence, where it said:
“It is generally accepted that it is not good practice to have multiple routes of ADR redress for the resolution of a complaint because it can make the landscape difficult to navigate and make it harder for individuals to make the right choice for them—particularly if they are vulnerable.”
I wonder how the OIA’s concerns can be satisfied by the clause the Minister is moving?
Michelle Donelan
I thank the hon. Member for their comments. It is a good point that students, academics and visiting speakers all need to know the routes available to them. That will be a fundamental part of the new director’s job; I fully anticipate that they will not only set out comprehensive guidance, but communicate with all the different individuals so that they know the options available.
Emma Hardy
Going back to the evidence, one of the points made by the OIA is that
“if a student isn’t fully informed or does not understand”—
bearing in mind its previous point about vulnerable students—
“all the consequences of their choice, the decision they make may not be the most beneficial for their particular circumstances.”
The evidence points out that people rarely make a complaint relating just to freedom of speech; rather, it often involves many other different aspects, which the director of freedom of speech would not be able to address. This is a highly complex and difficult procedure for an individual student to be able to understand and navigate, and I am not sure that written guidance from the Office for Students would fully address that.
Michelle Donelan
One thing we must be clear on is that the current system is not working. It is failing individuals who are having their freedom of speech breached, as we also heard from multiple sources in the evidence. At the heart of this Bill is unlocking a greater choice for individuals, whether that is going down the OIA route or the one-stop shop of the director who will be responsible for free speech and academic freedom. While it is true that at the moment not many cases that are brought forward are purely to do with freedom of speech, I argue that that is because we need this Bill in place and the new director in their position.
Given that individuals may not want to incur the legal costs and risks associated with bringing a claim before the courts, we do not expect this provision to give rise to many claims. It will operate more as a backstop for complainants, to cover claims by individuals who may feel they have no other recourse.
Michelle Donelan
I will, but we are going to have to let me do more than two lines at a time or we will never get through the Bill.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I am grateful to the Minister. She talks about last resort, and in response to my last intervention she said that that could not be put in legislation because external speakers will need it. Is she therefore saying that external speakers have no form of redress apart from the tort—that they do not have access to the other forms of redress?
Michelle Donelan
To clarify my comments, I believed that the hon. Member was talking about going through internal processes before addressing the tort.
Michelle Donelan
There will be a variety of options available. Going to the director will be the free option and the first instance, but we cannot mandate that they have to have gone through the internal processes of an institution, because those will not be available to everybody that the Bill seeks to represent.
For example, this clause will provide a means of redress for individuals who do not have employment protections, such as visiting fellows—the point I was making earlier. Let us bear in mind that the purpose of the tort is to bolster the enforcement of the new freedom of speech duties on higher education providers and student unions, so that there are clear consequences for those who breach those duties.
The clause will ensure a clear route to individual redress for all who have suffered loss where freedom of speech duties have been breached, and will give those duties real teeth. This is therefore a vital part of the Bill, as part of a suite of measures to strengthen free speech in higher education.
Michelle Donelan
I am afraid I am going to end there, and give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity after that.
Matt Western
I was not expecting to speak so soon; I thought the Minister might speak at greater length on this.
John McDonnell
May I ask my hon. Friend the same question, then, and maybe the Minister can intervene on him?
John McDonnell
I want to know who has standing in this matter. In my hon. Friend’s interpretation, is it the same person or people who have standing in the complaints process, or is it anybody? I might have got this wrong, but I cannot identify the breadth or narrowness of who has standing in these cases.
Matt Western
I am sure the Minister has heard my right hon. Friend’s question. It is certainly not clear to me who has standing, and I hope she will come to that. It is quite clear from the questions that have been posed by my colleagues that there is so little clarity about how this is going to work. I have not seen any reference to the Charity Commission, for example. Where does the Charity Commission fit into this? Surely it is part of the process for students to refer a complaint to that organisation, but there has been nothing about it in any of the papers from the Government that I have seen, nothing in debate, and nothing, so far, during two days of debate in this Committee.
Emma Hardy
It is worth pointing out that what is proposed in the Bill does not come cost-free. The impact assessment estimated that the cost of compliance with the Bill would be around £48.1 million. Bearing in mind the points I have made previously about the overlap with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education and the confusion that some students will have, it seems fairly ludicrous that the Government wish to spend £48.1 million replicating something that already exists in another form.
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and she is absolutely right: this is not just something that already exists, but something that exists relatively cost-free. The cost of £48.1 million that she has mentioned—which is the Department’s estimate of what the Bill will cost student unions and universities across the country—should not be ignored.
We sought to remove the whole of this clause through amendment 30. We are of course disappointed that it was not accepted—although I sort of understand why that was the case—but I am sure that the House of Lords will be extremely interested in the clause. While we do not believe this Bill is necessary, we have been doing our very best throughout this process—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said last week—to be constructive about mitigating the problems and costs of what we think will be a disastrous piece of legislation, in terms of its impact on our students, student unions and universities. However, we feel that this clause is a huge mistake, because as we have heard, it enables individuals to seek compensation through the courts if they suffer loss as a result of a breach of the freedom of speech duties.
In its submission, the Russell Group—as so many have said—puts it like this:
“The lack of clarity over how a new statutory tort offering a route to civil legal claims around free speech will interact with existing internal and external complaints procedures”
is absolutely—well, it did not say “shocking”, but I think the Russell Group is very frustrated and concerned about it. It also said:
“At present, internal grievance and complaints processes offer staff and students significant opportunities to seek redress when they feel their right to free speech has been infringed. These include comprehensive rights to appeal. In the event internal processes do not conclude in a way that satisfies an individual, then students can take their grievance to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA)”—
a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle. The Russell Group also said:
“Where free speech concerns interact with employment decisions, university staff have recourse through employment law and tribunals.”
It is pretty clear that the system was working. Perhaps it could have been tightened up—maybe there could have been better practice across different institutions—but I see that as a failure by the Government to engage with the sector and the OIA, and to work with the Charity Commission and all the other representative bodies to bring about a better or a tighter system, rather than resorting to this clunky Bill, which is so onerous, burdensome and potentially hugely costly to the sector.
We are against this clause for three reasons. First, as I have said, we believe it is unnecessary. Secondly, we believe it could create a culture of lawfare, as it is described in legal circles, that will take vital money away from students and researchers. Thirdly, we believe that it will ultimately restrict free speech, rather than the opposite: it will be the inverse, an unintended consequence, as we have talked about on so many occasions.
Let me start with the point that this clause is unnecessary. The creation of the tort, as has been said in the opening interventions, duplicates other avenues for complaints. Students and staff have already raised complaints with their institution, which will be dealt with via an internal complaints process. Students can then complain to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. So far, so good.
Emma Hardy
It is worth pointing out what the remedies are when somebody brings a complaint forward. If the OIA upholds a complaint, it has a variety of remedies at its disposal—academic appeal, or disciplinary or fitness to practice procedure. Under the Bill, if the complaint related to freedom of speech, the OfS can offer a remedy to the student only for the freedom of speech concerned, as opposed to the OIA, which can offer a remedy for any aspect of the complaint that is upheld. Basically, the OfS is offering a narrower source of remedies than is currently available under the OIA. If anyone is confused listening to me, then, my goodness, just imagine how an 18-year-old undergraduate would feel trying to grapple with what the best route forward is for them.
Matt Western
Exactly. Where is the flow chart to help someone navigate through this? It is certainly not clear to any of the representative bodies—the student unions and so on—and it is going to be impossibly difficult for the average 18-year-old or 19-year-old to comprehend.
Emma Hardy
In its evidence, the OIA gave an example where a group of students may have the same complaint regarding freedom of speech, but go down different routes: one down the OfS route, one down the OIA route, and one down the court route—maybe because they have enough finances behind them. Each of them ends up with a slightly different solution to exactly the same problem. That is the reality of the Bill. I fail to see how enough guidance could provide clarity for each individual student. We could have a very varied system, where individual students do not know where to go and complaints are not upheld properly. Alternatively, in the case of the OfS, students make a number of complaints and only the freedom of speech issue is dealt with, not the other, resulting issues that could be to do with the way that the course is being taught. It is as confusing as anything.
Matt Western
I will address those points in due course. It is the possibility of students going through different bodies that is quite alarming and that will cause even more complication and complexity.
To go back to the point I was making about the processes, the then Secretary of State for Education himself said during the Second Reading debate that although
“this legal route is an important backstop, we do not want all cases going to court where they could otherwise be resolved by other means.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 50.]
I think that is what we all want, but it is certainly not clear to any of us how that is going to work in practice, particularly given the several bodies that can advise and take cases from students. The Bill as it stands does not ensure that the legal route is a backstop. During the evidence sessions, we heard from Smita Jamdar of Shakespeare Martineau—the only lawyer—who was called on by the Opposition. She gave striking and clear evidence and advice. She said:
“Built into certain types of court proceedings—judicial review, for example—is the expectation that you will first exhaust all alternative remedies, and that would include any internal remedies available under the complaints process. However, that is not the case in statutory torts; you could bring a claim outside the processes”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 50, Q93.]
That must be a real concern: the simple fact that you can bypass all the processes and go straight to court. The clause should therefore be removed or at least amended to reflect the Government’s own views on how they wish the tort to operate.
My second point is on facing the prospect of “lawfare”. We have wider concerns that the Bill will create a culture of lawfare against universities. Clause 3 does not restrict the tort to those who personally feel that their speech has been restricted or those who have been directly affected. It therefore risks opening up vexatious claims against universities from those who seek to do them harm. As Dr David Renton and Professor Alison Scott-Baumann said in their written evidence, the Bill means that,
“any lecture, seminar or guest speech could lead to a lawsuit.”
They pointed out that the statutory tort element of the Bill will open the floodgates to civil litigation and forms of lawfare, most likely from well-funded American groups on the hard right, or perhaps groups such as the Chinese state Communist party.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I find the hon. Gentleman’s argument—I am being polite—paradoxical, or perhaps even contradictory, if I am being slightly less polite. On one hand, he and other critics of the Bill say that there is not a problem and that the Bill is not necessary, because these matters are not as numerous or severe as some suggest, despite our witnesses claiming that there is a culture of fear and a climate of silence. If there is not a problem, where does he imagine this welter of complaints will spring from? If there is not a problem and universities are dealing with these matters satisfactorily internally and settling people’s concerns, it will be hard to imagine the effects he set out in his remarks.
Matt Western
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will come on to a few examples of how that might play out, because I have given a lot of consideration to the extent of this issue. Given the evidence of certain witnesses in the evidence sessions, there are concerns out there—certain concerns are greatly exaggerated, but there are concerns. We have to take those on board, which is why we are approaching this in a constructive way.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, the real concern, which I would like to believe that the right hon. Gentleman would accept, is that we will see ambulance chasers, for want of a better term. There will be people putting their cards around student campuses who are looking for opportunities to be mischievous and to make money out of situations that can be manufactured on our campuses.
Emma Hardy
Further to my hon. Friend’s point about the “no win, no fee”, “where there’s blame, there’s a claim” culture we have in other areas of law, there is no limit on how long ago a perceived breach of freedom of speech took place. The clause refers to a “person”. There is no definition of who that person is. Does it relate to academic staff or students? How long along were they at the university? Are they someone in the vicinity who happens to feel infringed by something that has happened on the campus? It is such a broad definition. There is no limit on how long ago something could have happened and who could bring these claims forward.
Matt Western
I will come on to that. We have an amendment to that effect, which would ensure that this is not some kind of free-for-all and that we do not open the floodgates, as described by Dr Renton and Professor Scott-Baumann.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been involved in litigation, but I have—not in a professional capacity, as a solicitor, which I am, but as the subject of litigation. It is traumatic and personally debilitating not only for the individual but for their family. We need to remember that most people do not enter into litigation lightly, and it is unlikely that these young people will do that. I think they will think very seriously and carefully before going to court to make their claims.
Matt Western
I absolutely take on board the hon. Lady’s point. I can answer her question honestly, and say that I have been involved in litigation at least once. I agree that young people would not enter into it lightly, and nor would academics of older years. It can be utterly corrosive to the individual and quite self-destructive; it is the sort of thing that people would want to avoid. My point is that some people will, through organisations, seek to engineer circumstances that play into their machinations on campus. We have to be extremely careful of that, because those people can be incredibly well-funded, as was made clear in the point I mentioned earlier.
John McDonnell
I am sympathetic to what the hon. Member for Congleton has said. However, we have been there in the past, with organisations and rich individuals funding cases. I can remember cases being funded by the late Sir James Goldsmith—I was involved in one—in which action was taken against a range of individuals and organisations, to step up to the plate on a number of issues of his concern which, at the end of the day, I do not believe had any merit. His son is a definite improvement on that, if nothing else.
Matt Western
Yes, that is a good example of what can happen where individuals or organisations are so well funded. It can be really overwhelming and frightening to an individual or organisation when they are faced with that. Universities will be extremely concerned about this. Local government is shying away from taking on developers or other organisations because it does not have the funds. It cannot justify to the public defending whatever position it has had to take for good, democratic reason. However, it then finds itself up against it because the developers have much deeper pockets.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
In a lot of cases, won’t the universities settle anyway just to stop litigation, so money will be going out of the university sector? But my concern, which I raised with the witnesses, is that state actors such as the United Front, which is active on our campuses promoting the Chinese Communist party’s philosophy, have very deep pockets to fund whatever they want to fund.
Matt Western
I thank my right hon. Friend for his point. I know that he is very well informed on that issue. There are bodies out there that would wish to do institutional harm on our campuses. But there is also the reputational damage that these actions can cause. Many will seek resolution out of court, and that will become more and more obvious. It is a real concern that this will see haemorrhage much-needed funding away from our universities and student unions.
Universities UK made the point that these measures will bring about a “compensation culture”, and it was not the only one. Many have said that the great fear is that they will lead to the rise of spurious or vexatious claims and that the Bill provides little protection from a funded and co-ordinated campaign, which could be launched against several institutions, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham alluded to.
Many universities and student unions are concerned that they will spend significant time and money fighting these battles. They have just emerged from the pandemic; funding is challenging, and the viability of student unions, in particular, is threatened. The prospect of the £48.1 million cost—of providing information to students, of the reporting and of the potential claims—is extremely concerning.
Emma Hardy
I did not have time to table an amendment, but I hope that the Minister and other Government Members will look at whether we should include in the Bill FE student unions as well, bearing in mind the resources of FE college student unions. I refer the Committee to the evidence given by the Association of School and College Leaders. I hope this is something that the Minister will take away to look through, because if the legislation is too complicated for junior common rooms, surely it is too complicated for a small FE college.
Matt Western
Costly and burdensome, is what we were told on Thursday.
Institutions and student unions would therefore become risk averse and avoid inviting speakers, for fear of financial repercussions if they are subsequently cancelled. As a result, there would be fewer speakers, fewer debates and, we believe—not just us, but the whole sector believes—an overall reduction in free speech.
Let me give some examples and come back to the point put to me by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings about what that might mean. I was reading about the former Home Secretary, the former right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye—I never had the opportunity to speak to her in the Chamber, although I spoke to her outside it, and I had time for her. She was due to speak at the UN Women Oxford UK society in March 2020, and I remember her response when she was barred from speaking, following a vote in the UN Women Oxford UK committee on her role in the Windrush scandal. The invitation was withdrawn an hour before she was due to speak. Those sorts of things have happened through the decades on campuses and across our universities. It was the society’s decision. Would I have done it? I would not have done that; I would have seen it through. I would much prefer to hear from someone and to put the point to them face to face. Sadly, that was the society’s decision.
What would happen with the tort in the Bill? What would Ms Rudd, the former right hon. Member, do? Would she take the society through some legal process, or threaten to do so, or would she just walk away? Rather than getting involved in some sort of complex legal process, which might have damaged her reputationally and made everyone look stupid, I imagine she would have walked away. Certainly, that is what I would have done. What happened, however, which I think is telling, is that the University of Oxford deregistered UN Women Oxford UK from its affiliated societies and asked it to apologise to Amber Rudd. The university concluded:
“We have determined that the cancellation of this event was not carried out in accordance with university procedures, codes of practice and policies, in particular that of the freedom of speech.”
I believe that was handled very well by the university and perhaps not so well by the society itself.
What damage was caused to Ms Rudd, other than in terms of her time and her train fare or whatever it was? Was her reputation damaged? I do not think that it was. In fact, even her daughter tweeted:
“Can not believe mum was ‘no-platformed’ at my old Uni yesterday. Mum doesn’t need the platform and travelled to talk for FREE”—
good for Ms Rudd, travelling to talk for free. It is a shame that the society did not allow her to speak on campus—though of course that was their prerogative.
Let me speak next to the case of the academic Selena Todd, who was dropped from the Oxford International Women’s Festival hosted by Exeter College for her views on transgender rights issues. That decision prompted the OfS to warn that there is a legal requirement on universities to take steps that are reasonably practicable. Again, I think it was a shame that she was dropped—these sorts of debates should be had—but it was the organisers’ decision. I believe, as I think do most of us, that there is good practice out there; we keep citing it. We heard about the work of Professor Jonathan Grant of King’s College London, who has created a collaborative, co-operative process between the students’ union and the university to ensure that all the steps are gone through before the invitation goes out, so that there is no subsequent problem and the person can be heard.
The third example that I want to raise—
Sir John Hayes
Before the hon. Gentleman gets into his third example, I would like to go back to his second example; otherwise, I shall lose count of his examples. The point about the former Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, is not the inconvenience to her. Of course, one regrets the fact that it might have wasted her time and cost her her train fare, but that really is not the point. The point is that her opinions, which, broadly speaking, we take to be mainstream, were, in effect, prohibited. That is not compatible with a university environment that is, one would hope, there to stimulate debate, discussion, challenge and argument. It is not compatible with a free and open society.
Matt Western
We have tabled amendments proposing how universities and student unions should find their way through that, and we will come to some of them later.
To finish, I want to raise the much-cited case of David Irving, who was uninvited from speaking to the Oxford union as long ago as 2001 because of pressure from academics and members of the student union, who were furious that he was being given a platform for his views on the holocaust. A High Court judge had previously described him as “racist” and “antisemitic” during a libel trial. During the evidence sessions, one of the witnesses hypothesised:
“If I am disinvited because I am David Irving—I have published a book and then I was disinvited because people read the High Court judgment—what is the material loss to David Irving? I suspect that it is quite small, but we do not know. That is the level of detail that the legislation does not take us to.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 102, Q211.]
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The contradiction in using that example is that the Bill would not make any difference, because it excludes the Oxford Union. The very thing that Government Members are worried about will not be dealt with, because the Bill excludes the bodies that have done this in the past and includes bodies that have never done it, such as further education college student unions. It is a blunt implement pointing in the wrong direction.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The examples that are being cited by lobbyists—perhaps more on the Government side—of where there is perhaps an issue are centred around those bodies. Currently, as we debated on Thursday, they are not included in the Bill.
We believe the tort should be scrapped. We believe it is unnecessary, encourages lawfare against universities and will ultimately end up restricting discussion and debate on our campuses. At the very least, we believe it should be amended with maximum fines. A threshold of harm should be introduced, and it should be restricted to those who are directly affected.
Emma Hardy
FE colleges would love the luxury of having a high-profile, well-known speaker come to visit them; that would be a wonderful problem for them to have. As I am sure the Minister is aware now that she has both briefs in her grasp, however, that is often hugely difficult for them. To exempt JCRs and not FE colleges—I am not aware of a single incident involving free speech ever having been raised at an FE college—seems slightly absurd.
Matt Western
Indeed. It is important to repeat just how burdensome the measure will be for colleges. For decades, they have rarely had issues, but the burden is now being placed at their door.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The difficulty with the inclusion of FE colleges is that, broadly, they are regulated by Ofsted; they have a completely different framework; and they have no relationship with the Office for Students, except in relation to some of the courses that they may run, although they usually do that via other affiliated institutions. Including FE colleges therefore brings into their sphere a whole new regulator that they have never dealt with before, creating even more bureaucracy and confusion.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is yet another body to stir into the mix. We have not heard from the Government about how that will play. It further underlines the extraordinary complexity that the legislation will bring to our campuses, colleges, student unions and HE providers across the UK.
I repeat that all bodies mentioned the need for an exhaustive process, so that every sinew is strained to ensure that any complaint goes through the university, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator and perhaps the Charity Commission before it is escalated. There is an absolute desire—it has been demanded—that the tort should be a backstop to the existing grievance process. Otherwise, people will rush to lawyers’ doors, or the lawyers will rush to them, to seek damages at great expense to individuals, and to SUs and institutions in particular. On Second Reading, the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), claimed that the tort would be a backstop, but the Bill, as drafted, does not make that clear.
We believe that the clause is unnecessary. We fear that it will encourage vexatious claims and create additional bureaucracy, and we have talked about the £48 million that it will be incumbent on universities and SUs to fund. We believe that the clause will cause confusion to claimants about their various routes to redress through Ofsted, the Charity Commission, the OIA, the OFS and the universities themselves. The clause will also undermine existing disciplinary procedures. For those reasons, we oppose it and wish it to be removed in its entirety.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
We have heard why the clause is dangerous, and I will talk briefly about two reasons why it should be opposed.
First, I will touch on the real chilling effect that I believe the measure will have on institutions. It is a lawfare charter, or an ambulance-chasing lawyer’s charter. Lawyers will go around knocking at institutions’ doors, and they will say to those three students who did not fill in the paperwork correctly to register their student club, “Do you think you’ve been slighted?” because the clause gives them the right to seek damages if the club is not registered. Those people, not the students or staff, will push the boundaries in all different directions.
There are people out there who look to make a quick buck when law is bad. In the past, we have had to rewrite law in this place and remove such opportunities because we had allowed massive loopholes. The easiest and cleanest way to stop that from happening is by following the evidence that we have heard, according to which the tort should be a backstop, not a front foot. At the moment, the Bill allows it to be a front foot.
The Amber Rudds of this world may not go running to the lawyers, but lawyers may come knocking on the door of a poor student or someone on a casual contract who is struggling to pay their rent. Large numbers of university academics struggle to pay their rent day in and day out, because their occupation is a very poorly paid one with low job security, except at the very top. We all have experienced something similar after car crashes, and it drives people crazy. It drove me crazy when I had a little prang at Bradford airport, which did not even cause a dent on either car, because for months afterwards I had lawyers ringing me and saying, “Do you want to claim compensation for whiplash?” The crash caused no damage to me whatsoever, but if I had been struggling to pay my rent or make ends meet, that would have been a temptation. I am afraid this clause opens up that possibility.
The first way to stop that happening is by requiring people to pursue the complaints procedures internally. I do not understand the Minister’s point about an external speaker being unable to complain using an internal process. In fact, we heard how an hon. Member in this room had managed to complain, although it was difficult. Perhaps external people should be able to complain internally. I think most people would like there to be a clear complaints process for external speakers as well.
Fiona Bruce
I remind the hon. Gentleman that even though the complaint that I made was upheld, it was futile, because only a year or two later there was an attempt to no-platform me again by the same group, in the same college. That is why this Bill and the recompense—this tort that we are talking about now—are so necessary.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The hon. Lady is exactly right that it is necessary to clarify that process to ensure that it is streamlined and clear, but under this Bill she might have complained first to the institution, the next time to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator and the next time to the person for free speech. There is no process for creating case law, for want of a better word, and setting a decent precedent. There is no precedent to be set here.
In fact, there are so many ways to complain that it will frustrate the process even more. It would be better to say, “This is the process you have to go through,” so the regulator can see that there is another complaint coming through about the same thing and can escalate it. One way would be to require people to go through a single process; first a free process in the institution and then a free process with one of the regulators. I am easy about whether it is with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator or the director for freedom of speech, as long as it is clear what powers they have.
If all ends are lost or the complainant feels that those offices have come to the wrong decision, they can take it directly to tort. That would allow a quasi-appeal process. At the moment, the director for free speech does not have an appeal process, so if someone thinks that it has come down on the wrong side, they will be stymied and unable to do anything. If it were clear that after going to the director for free speech, people could go to courts for tort, there would be an appeal process.
We do not know who the director for free speech is. Although I trust lots of people who are experts, everyone is fallible and will sometimes make the wrong decision. It seems wrong and unfair to rely on the director for free speech alone to make decisions that people will always be happy with. The director will not rely on case law or precedent, because they will be a law unto themselves when it comes to precedent.
The other way of making this tort section half-decent would be to limit costs. Most student societies have probably about £100 in their bank account. Are we asking a student society, which we have been told will be covered by this provision, to have a liability that is beyond what is in its bank account? Or are we saying that the student union should hold the liability for every single private student association?
Let me make the situation very clear. A student club in a university is a private association of private individuals, which sits under the university and chooses to affiliate to the union. In this Bill, we are proposing, as a Parliament, to include such associations and make their actions a liability of the student union. I know of no other organisation that is liable for the actions of a group of private clubs that happen to affiliate to it. It would be like making working men’s club associations or Conservative club associations—I cannot remember their detailed names now—liable for what happens in every single constitutional club or working men’s club in the country. It is absolutely bonkers, wrong and beyond the pale to engage in giving institutions this level of liability for small clubs that have very little to do with them, apart from an affiliation with them and the fact that one or two students might be members.
Another simple thing that could be done with the tort is to make it very clear that damages can be sought only if damage has been caused directly by the institution or the student union, not just by some of its affiliate bodies, over which it might have no regulatory role. The other way to make the tort sensible and limited is to put a cost cap on it. At the moment, unlimited liability means that institutions and student unions will settle, because there is a risk. If there is no cap, they cannot go to court and say, “We think we might have a bit of an argument here, and we think we have made best endeavours.” As the Minister will say, it is about best endeavours, and there is no case if the university has done its best and things still could not go ahead. That argument will be irrelevant, because if there is unlimited liability, there is a real danger that the university will say, “Okay, we’ll pay out £1,000 out here, and we’ll pay it out there.” Soon, those thousands of pounds will be tens of thousands of pounds.
That could cripple a student union in one go. I know that Government Members might not really understand this, but most student unions are small institutions that have only a few thousand pounds in their bank account. They do not even have £10,000. This idea that student unions are some big organisation that people can draw some sort of tort from is so out of touch with the sector.
It is so disappointing. I might disagree with the need for this measure to be in a Bill—I think that the same thing could have been done through regulation or by bumping up the Office for Students within its framework, but we can agree to disagree on that, and it is the Government’s right to introduce legislation if they wish—but bringing in a tort destroys the whole point of trying to secure people’s free speech. It will mean that student unions will say, “No, we can’t have your societies registering with us at all. We can discriminate against all, or we have to regulate every single thing that you do, so now you just cannot affiliate.” With all those student societies—including the student politics society that I will speak next week or the week after at Sussex University, or the Labour club at Bradford University where I plan to speak in a few weeks’ time—the universities will just say, “It’s too complicated. We’ll shut them down.”
It will be the same for Government Members. They consider free speech societies to be so important, and I agree; they are important for a student’s educational experience. Those societies and the Conservative clubs, or Conservative Future clubs—whatever the youth wing of the Conservative party is called nowadays; I can never keep up—will all be automatically disaffiliated. We have already seen that happen in Oxford; I am not making this up. Oxford University student union did it with the UN women’s society. The student union just disaffiliated that society, which still exists and still meets. The society can be as rude as it was with Ms Rudd, because it is no longer affiliated.
John McDonnell
The arguments have been cogently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown. I have one simple question. Clause 3 states:
“A person may bring civil proceedings against”,
but who is that person? Who has standing in this? The schedule, which sets out the complaints scheme, it is very specific about who has standing in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, and in paragraph 4 to a certain extent. It designates that an eligible person means,
“a person who is or was…a member or member of staff of the students’ union, or…a student, member or member of staff of the provider, or…a person who was, or was at any time invited to be, a visiting speaker.”
That is not set out in clause 3. I might have misread it; perhaps it is written down somewhere, but I cannot find it in the legislation at all.
If there was a link between the appeals process as a process that was exhausted and then an individual went on to the tort, they would probably be able to rely on the definitions set out in the schedule, but at the moment there is no definition at all. That is why I ask the question. I am not being obstreperous. I simply cannot find it in the Bill.
I will give an example. If I buy a ticket to attend a lecture or speech that is then cancelled, am I a person who is eligible to bring civil proceedings as a result of the damage—no matter how slight—caused to me by not hearing that person? Do I have standing? Can I sue the provider, the student union, or whatever? I just want clarity on that. Whenever we introduce a tort, it is a bit like that American baseball film—“If you build it, they will come.” If we create a tort, the lawyers will come, as will other organisations that wish to make money, or in some way frustrate the process of trying to secure freedom of speech, The clause as it stands could be counterproductive.
I want to make a simple point. People volunteer to be elected to student unions, and the president, vice-president and those on the executive committee are the ones who usually have the political fight to get on there. It is largely around the nature of the students and what activities they want to pursue. However, there are some people who altruistically become the trustees. It is completely altruistic and goes beyond making a political point by standing for president or to be on the executive committee.
What worries me is that, as soon as we get into litigation like this, the student body does not have the resources to settle the claim. One way around that is expensive insurance, but even that might be beyond some of these bodies. I am fearful of it then falling onto the shoulders of those trustees, who could incur quite significant financial costs. Even the fear of that may well prevent people coming forward as trustees. By inserting this into the legislation, we are building a dark hole for people to fall into, and I think it could cause considerable problems.
I do not understand why we cannot rely upon the complaints procedure set out in new schedule 6A of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. If that does not, as the Minister says, cover visiting speakers and such, I do not understand why can we not amend the schedule to make it all-encompassing?This is abysmal legislation, and here we are—the Opposition—virtually rewriting it for the Government. I suppose we are trying to mitigate the damage that will be done if it passes the whole House unamended. If we are going to legislate in this way, let us at least not undermine the ability of young people to participate in the structures that actually do develop their concept of what democracy is all about.
That is what we are doing here, I think. We are putting large numbers of people at risk, and if they are not at risk, we are putting them off participating in bodies that perform a service, not just for students but wider society.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Hayes
I beg to move amendment 73, in clause 4, page 6, line 8, at end insert—
‘(2A) The OfS will compile an annual review of registered higher education providers, ranking their compliance with their duties under sections A1 to A3; to be made publicly available by such means as the OfS considers appropriate.”
In moving the amendment, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which details my role as an academic at Bolton University.
I was speaking at the weekend at a dinner with a group of friends who are academics. We addressed in conversation how we could ensure that universities will comply with the terms of the Bill, should it become an Act, as I expect it to do. I talked about the amendment we debated earlier––I will not seek to do so again, Mrs Cummins, because you would not let me––in which I recommended a periodical report. I suggested quarterly, but I am open-minded about what that period might be and its precise terms.
There is an alternative that I now suggest in the form of an amendment to this clause, which is for the OfS and, in particular, the new director, to provide information annually about compliance with the duties in new sections A1 to A3 and to make that publicly available. It would be less onerous, so it would pass the test that the Minister set of not being excessively bureaucratic, which was the argument that she used—in my view rather surprisingly—in resisting my first amendment, although she said that she would give it further consideration, for which I am grateful. It would certainly pass that test, but also give reassurance that universities will be expected to respond, and respond consistently.
My doubt about the legislation is not about its principles––I agree with them entirely. It is not about the practice, which I expect to be effective. It is more about the universities and how they respond. I suspect that, if we are not careful, it will be a variable response. Some will feel that they can comply with these duties more straightforwardly than others and some may even be reticent to do so. I am very keen to avoid creating what might be described as a littered landscape of all kinds of universities acting in all kinds of different ways.
Emma Hardy
I recognise the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making about how when a list is compiled, it can be influential on students choosing a university. They often look at rankings. My concern about the amendment is with the resource implication. I have mentioned before about higher education provided by FE. How much resource would student unions have to comply with this duty by putting on these kinds of events? Could smaller universities or colleges be downgraded in the ranking he referred to because they do not have the resources to offer the greater breadth that, for example, Oxford or Cambridge would be able to offer?
Sir John Hayes
It was at Cambridge that I had the discussion with the academics that I mentioned, by the way. I am involved with some postgraduate work there, which is not registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests because it provides no financial reward, so it is not a pecuniary interest, but I mention it in passing for the benefit of the Committee and others.
The hon. Lady is right that there is a challenge in respect of smaller providers, and I accept that. A good point was made in the earlier part of our consideration about FE colleges and about thresholds. There does seem to me to be an argument around thresholds. I would hope that that would become clear in the guidance. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington made a good point about that. Good practice will necessitate the new director establishing some protocols that do not allow the free for all that he suggested might be the consequence of not being clear about the sort of things that would stimulate his interest and lead to further steps. To be honest, I think that the good practice detailed in the Bill would include the director making clear his expectations of universities. The Minister will no doubt confirm this when she speaks, but I find it inconceivable that the director will not set those expectations out in guidance. He is missioned, after all, to provide advice, and it is inconceivable that that advice will not include some mention of the kind of circumstances in which universities might want to draw matters to his attention.
Matt Western
I wish to grab the amendment with some enthusiasm, but maybe in the wrong direction from what the right hon. Gentleman is hoping for. I do worry about bureaucracy, particularly among smaller institutions, and the general cost and responsibility and burden that falls with it. As I said the other day, I believe that the demands that the Government are looking to place on institutions through this legislation is just another example of the head office wanting yet more reports from various institutions. It will be another form to fill in, and the Government will do what they want with it—maybe just sit on it, like so many reports.
I struggle with the amendment, because I think it misjudges the benefit of bureaucracy. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have tabled amendments on looking for best practice. We want to understand what is good out there, as well as examples of events being cancelled unduly. That is of interest to all across the sector, it is right and it is proportionate, but ranking universities according to their obligations under the Bill would be impractical and undesirable. I will expand on those two points in just a moment.
Emma Hardy
I understand what the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is trying to do. Would it help him to know that there were consultations on the national student survey—the annual review of student satisfaction—and that one of the questions looked at related to free speech? Might that satisfy his aim, without having a negative impact on smaller providers, which will end up further down the rankings because they lack the resources to put on the events that wealthier institutions can?
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion.
What the amendment proposes is impractical. In evidence, we heard about the undefinable nature of the chilling effect. One of the Bill’s stated aims is to erode that effect, but how can the OfS be expected to rank universities on how they do that? As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham put it:
“Getting your head around the idea of self-censorship is like having blancmange in your hands.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 95, Q194.]
How is it substantive? How is it made quantifiable and therefore a true measure?
Sir John Hayes
On that point, I want to get to the bottom of this issue of good practice. As the hon. Gentleman knows, clause 4 already states:
“The OfS may…identify good practice relating to the promotion of freedom of speech and academic freedom”.
As well as giving advice—dealt with in the next paragraph—the identification of good practice will end up ranking universities, because where good practice is identified it will be clear, and where it is absent it will be equally clear.
Matt Western
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point of clarification, but even where good practice is identified, that is a qualitative judgment being made, in this case, by an individual or perhaps a small team of people; and while that is accepted and understood, and most people recognise good practice when they see or hear it, how it is quantified into some measure is a concern. Is it a matter of giving five points for this and three points for that? How is a genuinely substantive and transparent ranking system that people can understand to be arrived at? I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s intention, but I believe there are better ways of under-standing where there is good or bad practice. One of the witnesses, Sunder Katwala, said:
“self-censorship and chilling effects are cultural points”.––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 103, Q214.]
When you need to do some quantitative analysis, how do you quantify what is essentially a cultural phenomenon?
The point made by the chief executive of the OfS was that
“Regulatory burden is not necessarily a bad thing,”
unless “it is disproportionate.” She added:
“The way through this is to ensure that our response is proportionate and risk-based”.––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 113, Q245.]
I would say that what is coming from the OfS is some direction. They might want some sort of reporting, but it has to be proportionate to identifying risk, rather than some sort of beauty parade showing how different universities are performing.
In their impact assessment, the Government claimed that non-legislative work, including the OfS-led review and guidance is not sufficient to solve the problems identified. Non-legislative proposals would not have the desired effect because they are based on a voluntary approach. The amendment is fundamentally illiberal, putting the OfS in the position of an ombudsman that sits above the sector. Dr Greg Walker, the former chief executive officer of MillionPlus, was concerned about the OfS becoming an arbiter. He described it as being much like the British Board of Film Classification. How would that work? The Association of Colleges reminded me in our meeting that the OfS is provider-blind. How, then, can it be expected to rank institutions? The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), said on Second Reading:
“The OFS will also play an important role in identifying best practice and providing advice in relation to the promotion of these rights.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 50.]
Why have not the Government put that in place more, rather than potentially wasting thousands of pounds on implementing this legislation?
The amendment goes beyond identifying best practice and advice and into intrusive review and value-based judgments on a university’s attempts to navigate freedom of speech issues.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. What he describes is not uncommon when we look at universities. We heard earlier that student satisfaction is measured. Student satisfaction is, by its nature, a subjective judgment: students gauging their view of their university—the teaching, care and stewardship. Of course those judgments are subjective, but they are none the less valuable.
Matt Western
I understand that. My understanding of that student survey is that they complete it and assign a score, on different categories and measures, to how the university has met their expectations, to try to quantify that experience. It covers teaching, accommodation and how the curriculum has been delivered compared with their expectations. That is a positive thing.
The Opposition do not believe that there is a need for ranking. It is a qualitative measure and I think it is a stick to beat and bully those the Government may not like. I have real fears about the Bill. Increasingly, I sense that it is the work of the McCarthyite tendency, and the amendment would simply aid them in their subjective assault on the sector.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Cummins. I say to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that God loves a tryer. He has come back with another amendment to try to quantify the need for the Bill. As I said last week, I feel uncomfortable with the Bill’s intervention in areas where it should not go.
I look back, possibly with rose-tinted spectacles, to the halcyon days when Conservatives argued for smaller states, less intervention and less red tape. The Bill—and the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment—puts more red tape and bureaucracy on institutions. We have just had a discussion on tort. I look back fondly to great Conservative speeches that argued for less regulation and how we should keep lawyers out of things wherever possible. Today we have a Government who argue for giving a freedom charter to lawyers, which I have never been in favour of.
There is a—perhaps inadvertently—useful part to the amendment: it might produce the evidence for the need for the Bill in the first place. One of the problems with the Bill is that we have seen very little evidence, in terms of figures, for why it is required. If the amendment is an attempt to provide that, it seems to put the cart before the horse. One problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington said, is how we quantify this, because these will be value judgments that vary from year to year for institutions. Let us be honest: the institutions themselves will have no control over them at all, because student unions and other organisations will invite speakers and get challenged, which will be problematic.
Michelle Donelan
As discussed, the amendment seeks to introduce a requirement on the Office for Students to publish an annual report that would assess and rank higher education providers on their compliance with their freedom of speech duties. Schedule 1 to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 sets out existing reporting requirements placed on the OfS. Paragraph 13 of that schedule requires it to prepare a report on the performance of its functions during each financial year. That annual report already summarises the regulatory activity of the OfS as undertaken in that year. Following the Bill, that report will be able to include the regulatory work that the OfS has undertaken in relation to the new registration condition on freedom of speech and academic freedom, as well as information on the operation of the new complaints scheme.
In that context, proposed new section 69A in clause 4(2) of the Bill also provides that the Secretary of State may, by direction, require the OfS to report on specific freedom of speech and academic freedom matters in its annual report, or in a special report. Both those reports must be laid before Parliament, so they will be subject to scrutiny and can be considered by the sector itself. Members should be aware that another provision of the Bill—paragraph 12 of proposed new schedule 6A in clause 7(2)—requires the OfS to conduct a review of the complaints scheme or its operation and to report the results to the Secretary of State at the Secretary of State’s request. To impose further reporting, as required by the amendment, could be overly bureaucratic. However, as previously discussed, I am happy to reconsider the reporting requirements. I hope that that will satisfy my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings. I will take the matter away and continue to consider it.
Sir John Hayes
The Minister is becoming increasingly characterised by her willingness to listen, and that is the mark of any good member of the Government. All people who have been Ministers know that Bills improve through scrutiny—I am thinking of the right hon. Member for North Durham, and I am looking around for others. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington was an aspirant Minister—an aspirant Chancellor, indeed. Governments that listen usually end up with better legislation, so it is of great credit to the Minister that she is listening to the scrutiny and responding with the tone that she is.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington said that freedom is hard to quantify and that the measures in the Bill will be hard to measure. Freedom is like happiness. Neither is absolute, both are hard to define, but the pain of the absence of either is keenly felt and better cured. That is what the Bill tries to begin to do. I am anxious that it has the effect that the Government desire, and keen that we produce some means by which we measure that effect. The amendment may not be the ideal way of doing so, but I am grateful for the comments that have been made from across the Committee recognising that my attempt is to make the Bill as consistent in its application as possible, and as clear to those who will have to work with it.
On the basis of the Minister’s welcome willingness to listen and respond subsequently, and with one final caveat, I am minded to withdraw the amendment. The caveat is on my point about universities being obliged to report to the new director in those instances where there are matters of contention, such as changes to the curriculum, courses that are not run, or events that are stopped in some way. I have no doubt that that might form an amendment when this matter comes to the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Michael Tomlinson.)
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (Tenth sitting)
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
The Office for Students, as the regulator of the higher education sector in England, provides a valuable independent service that helps to ensure that our universities are institutions to be proud of. Universities have historically been centres of inquiry and intellectual debate and bastions of free thought from which new idea can emerge to challenge the current consensus. The OfS is therefore ideally positioned to positively impact on our universities. Our aim is to strengthen freedom of speech and academic freedom in higher education.
The clause strengthens and extends the current legislative framework on the duty of the OfS, enabling it to fulfil that role. The clause amends the general duties of the OfS in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 to include that, when performing its functions, it must have regard to
“the need to promote the importance of freedom of speech within the law”
and
“to protect the academic freedom of academic staff at English higher education providers”.
The clause also inserts section 69A into the 2017 Act, with the provision that the OfS “must promote the importance” of freedom of speech and academic freedom in higher education. That is central to the Bill’s aim of changing the culture on campus so that freedom of speech can thrive. Section 69A sets outs provisions about OfS advice on good practice in relation to the promotion of freedom of speech and academic freedom, and gives the Secretary of State the power to require the OfS to report on freedom of speech and academic freedom matters.
I believe that the clause is essential to extending the general duties of the OfS to ensure the promotion and protection of freedom of speech and academic freedom within higher education. It is therefore a necessary and important part of the Bill.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My only comment, which has been made throughout the debate, is about how much responsibility goes to the OfS and how much should remain with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education. We still have profound concerns about how the measures will work between the various bodies, but we will not divide the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Regulation of duties of registered higher education providers
Matt Western
I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 5, page 6, line 39, at end insert—
“(4) The OfS must ensure that the ongoing registration conditions of each registered higher education provider that is eligible for financial support include a condition requiring the governing body of the provider to report to the OfS each year on the number of events that have been cancelled following a complaint about the opinions held by a person due to speak at the event.”
This amendment would require higher education providers to report to the OfS each year the number of events that have been cancelled following a complaint about the opinions of the speaker, as part of OfS registration conditions.
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Sir Christopher. The amendment is straightforward. It is a shame that the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is not present, because I know that such amendments are quite close to his heart.
In the debate on amendment 73, we expressed concern about the burden and responsibility being placed on the sector, which we felt was inappropriate because that measure could not be applied. [Interruption.] I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to his place. We believe there should be some means of quantifying data, which is important to understanding the scale of the issue. One of the problems has been in trying to recognise the nature and extent of the claimed problem. Our amendment seeks simply to ensure an annual registration or report detailing the number of cancelled events following a complaint.
As I mentioned in debate on amendments 72 and 73, we have to be careful about the burden of bureaucracy being placed on the sector, and appreciate that institutions already have a similar duty—the Prevent duty—as part of what is termed the “accountability and data return”. On that, I point out that the last results of that input showed that 99.8% of external speaker events went ahead, which suggests that the system is working largely as planned.
It reminds me of that great commercial many years ago from one of the beer companies. An individual passing through the offices hears the phone ringing and thinks, “That’s strange. It sounds like one of those old Bakelite phones. I’d better look in the office to see what’s going on.” He walks in and sees dust-covered furniture there. He finds the phone, dusts it off and answers, saying, “You’ve got the wrong number.” As he leaves the office, the sign reads “Carlsberg Customer Complaints Dept.” There is a little bit of that with this. How many will we actually see go through this office?
The data has been cited so often in our debate, but we have to ask how much of a problem this is in terms of events. There are increasing claims of self-censorship from witnesses and Government Members, but the data shows that 99.8% of external speaker events go ahead and suggests that the system is working. That leads directly to the quantifiable evidence of no-platforming issues. Professor Grant, whom we heard from in evidence, made it clear that
“It is not about the process of inviting people on to campus and worrying about no-platforming and cancel culture. The data there says that it is a non-issue.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 120, Q259.]
The events data will also help to rebut claims made by the likes of Professor Kaufmann, who, oddly, claimed:
“The no-platforming incidence is really the crux of the issue, which the Bill will address.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 90, Q184.]
It is hard to address something that, clearly, hardly exists. The Government’s own data from the Office for Students shows only a tiny percentage of cancellations. That is the only report that was available. In 2017-18, it showed that of 62,000 events, just 53 were rejected, or about 0.1%. The cancellation of some of those events had nothing to do with people’s views.
Where evidence is available, there is little evidence of a big problem. According to the Russell Group, the figures were 0.09% of all events cancelled in 2017-18, 0.23% in 2018-19 and 0.21% in 2019-20. The organisation Wonkhe did its own survey of 61 student unions, which showed that just six of 10,000 events were cancelled.
The amendment would also have the benefit of addressing the concerns raised by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s regulatory policy committee, which said:
“The evidence underpinning the proposed intervention and its intended effects is not strong.”
The committee supported the Department presenting
“concrete and well-founded examples of the ‘chilling effect’ and the consequences in those circumstances.”
That is what we want to see from the Government.
In the evidence sessions, a couple of witnesses talked of the effects of the Bill becoming apparent over the next 10 years. I am thinking particularly of Professor Goodwin. Well, 10 years is a long time to wait for something to appear. I do not think that any of us have the patience for that. Members will see from our amendments that we wish to review this regularly and within a period of time after the Bill becomes law to see its progress and whether it is doing any good or the burdens are causing considerable financial costs and other issues on campuses.
Of course, it takes time for Bills to embed and for change to be seen, but we do need to see some sort of evidence to support the approach. We are proposing amendment 54 for that reason. We believe that it is vital and in all our interests that there should be quality data to illustrate the nature of any issue, if there is one out there, and perhaps also its scale. As I have said, the numbers we have so far suggest that there is not. That is why we believe that it is important that amendment 54 is agreed to.
Michelle Donelan
As we have heard, the amendment seeks to ensure that registered higher education providers who are eligible for financial support are required to report to the Office for Students each year on the number of events that have been cancelled following a complaint about the opinions held by a person due to speak at an event. I agree with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington that we need to be careful about the bureaucratic burden that would potentially be placed on the sector. However, I have already made a commitment to this Committee to take away the point about reporting and whether we need to go further in terms of our ask on the face of the Bill. We do, however, have to ensure that we are not duplicating existing information requirements under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. Under section 8 of that Act, the OfS must ensure that the ongoing registration conditions of each registered provider include certain conditions relating to the provision of information to the OfS. This section has been implemented by the OfS through registration condition F3, which applies to all registered providers, not just those that are eligible for financial support from the OfS, commonly called approved fee cap providers.
Matt Western
I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being very generous. Can she explain why the OfS does not appear to have been reporting regularly in the last few years?
Michelle Donelan
The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the previous activities of the OfS, whereas today we are focusing in this Bill on freedom of speech. This is a new set of requirements, with a new director, that will be coming into force, and they will be doing an annual report, as we have already discussed.
Matt Western
To come back on that point, this is a genuine and sincere question, and it would apply to anyone in the Minister’s position—I appreciate that she has been in the role for 12 or 15 months or so; I cannot remember, but it would apply to her predecessors as well. Since 2017-18, there has been a rising concern in certain circles about an issue. If it was possible to get that data in 2017-18, why has it not been asked for since? I would have thought that that was incumbent on the Department for Education, and on the Minister and her predecessors.
Michelle Donelan
The OfS did publish data around no-platforming, but as we heard from several of the witnesses who appeared before the Committee, no-platforming is just the tip of the iceberg. It is the chilling effect that we are dealing with in the Bill. To minimise that, and focus just on no-platforming, is to fail to understand the gravity of the issue that we are trying to tackle.
The governing body of the registered provider is required to provide the OfS with such information as it may specify to assist the OfS in performing its functions. The registration condition also requires providers to take such steps as the OfS may reasonably request to co-operate with any monitoring or investigation by the OfS, which may include providing explanations or making staff or documents available. In addition, following Royal Assent to the Bill, we will fully expect the OfS to consult on the detail of the new registration conditions relating to freedom of speech, in accordance with the statutory provisions on consultation in section 5 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.
This process will enable the OfS to best understand what is required from the providers in order to comply with the new conditions, including by way of reporting and information. Adding a further separate information requirement to the 2017 Act would cause duplication with section 8 and the existing registration conditions and could also increase bureaucracy. As I have said throughout the Committee stage, I will commit to take away the issue of reporting and seeing how we could go further.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I had hoped to speak for a moment against the amendment but, before the Minister concludes, I draw the Committee’s attention to the written evidence that was submitted by Professor Kaufmann, I believe after he gave his verbal evidence. He confirmed that the number of cancelled events is tiny—just a handful among some 10,000—and he gave us some very interesting survey data about the much deeper and widespread crisis in our universities of the chilling effect of self-censorship.
Michelle Donelan
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That point was laboured by many of the witnesses we saw in evidence. As I said to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington a moment ago, this is much more than an issue of dealing with no-platforming; we are trying to address the chilling effect.
Emma Hardy
I am slightly confused. The Minister is saying that the OfS has been collecting the data, but why has it not been reporting on it? The difficulty with the chilling effect is how quantifiable it is. This is about hard data and events that have been cancelled or no-platformed. The amendment would provide hard data, rather than reliance on some mystical ability to mind-read or judge how chilled someone feels in a particular environment.
Michelle Donelan
I heard the hon. Lady, but yet again the Opposition are failing to grasp the severity of the problem we are trying to deal with, and so honour our manifesto commitment to squash the issues with free speech on our campuses. Those issues are much more entrenched than simply no-platforming. We have heard that from various sources, academics and students alike, who have told us that they have felt curtailed in their ability to speak out on certain issues, to teach certain topics, and so on.
Matt Western
I will be delighted to hear more. I hear the Minister and the point made by the hon. Member for Congleton. I want to repeat the words of Professor Kaufmann, who was a star witness for the Government, if we may use terms like that:
“The no-platforming incidence is really the crux of the issue, which the Bill will address.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 90, Q184.]
Those are his words, not my words, which is why I am asking—as was put differently by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle—why that data has not been available for the past few years. The reason it was not being reported was that there was clearly no issue.
Michelle Donelan
I think it is quite clear, from my own words, that the Government do not feel that no-platforming is the crux of the issue; the issue is a chilling effect. We have been very open about the fact that the number of no-platforming incidents is low, but the Bill is about the broader issue of the chilling effect.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on the issue of the chilling effect, which I described earlier as the fear that pervades many of our universities. That was made clear by the witnesses who came before the Committee. Dr Ahmed said:
“You can distinguish between hard censorship and soft censorship…Soft censorship is where there is not any regulation, but people know—people sense it themselves, because they know that if they say this, or they say that, or if they present these views, they will be regarded adversely. If they are a student, they might be ostracised.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 9, Q13.]
That fear affects academics and students, and it is damaging the calibre and quality of our universities across the land, which is why the Minister is right about the chilling effect.
Michelle Donelan
I agree with my right hon. Friend, but I fear that we are slipping into a debate on the necessity for the Bill itself, which we have already had at great length on Second Reading. I close my remarks on the amendment.
Matt Western
I hear the Minister. I believe that the amendment was a constructive suggestion, and we would have liked it to have been formalised in the Bill, but I will not press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Michelle Donelan
The Office for Students is the regulator for higher education in England and as such it has a vital role to play in ensuring that our universities and colleges continue to be spaces where views can be freely expressed and debated, without fear of repercussions. The OfS regulates English higher education providers by way of registration conditions. The current registration condition requires higher education providers registered with the OfS to ensure that their governing documents uphold certain public interest governance principles. Those include principles that relate to protecting academic freedom and taking reasonably practicable steps to secure lawful freedom of speech. Therefore, the OfS already has experience with freedom of speech and academic freedom.
To protect freedom of speech and academic freedom to the fullest extent, we need to create a new mandatory initial and ongoing registration condition in the Bill. Clause 5 amends the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 to provide the legislative framework for the creation of the new registration conditions. Proposed new section 8A of the 2017 Act requires the OfS to ensure that the registration conditions of higher education providers include certain specific requirements. They must include a condition that the institution’s governing documents are consistent with its freedom of speech duties and that it has adequate and effective governance arrangements to secure compliance. They must also include a requirement that the governing body of the higher education provider complies with its duties under new sections A1 to A3 of the 2017 Act, as inserted by clause 1 of the Bill. Finally, in the case of approved fee cap providers, a particular category of registered providers, the ongoing registration condition must include a requirement to keep the OfS informed of their student unions.
Clause 5 will ensure that the registration conditions relating to freedom of speech and academic freedom are aligned with the duties imposed on higher education providers by the Bill. The OfS will be able to ensure compliance with the new registration conditions by using its powers of enforcement, such as the power to impose monetary penalties. The creation of these new, stand-alone registration conditions will highlight the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom. It will make the obligations of higher education providers more up front and it is therefore a central part of how the Bill will work. I urge that clause 5 stand part of the Bill.
Matt Western
Sir Christopher, I do not wish to say any more on this clause; I am willing to let it pass.
The Chair
I am sure the Committee will be delighted.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Regulation of duties of students’ unions
Matt Western
I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 6, page 7, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) Any monetary penalty will be limited to a maximum amount set out by the Office for Students decided in consultation with representative bodies of universities and of students’ unions.”
This amendment would ensure that there is a limit on the penalty to be paid by an individual or institution as a result of this legislation.
With the amendment, of course, we have clause 6. The concern that we have throughout the Bill is the additional burden that it will place, as we have said so many times, on the universities, colleges and others that will be covered by it, as well as the student unions. We have to put this in the context, which I have cited before, of what is going on and what the Government seem to be doing, which is centralising powers in bodies that are not necessarily independent in the way that they are suggested to be. I really am very worried, like my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, about how this really centralising and very authoritarian Government are introducing red tape and placing more burden and more cost on institutions and student unions. We see this in other fields as well.
What is clear from this legislation and what we have heard in evidence is just how much responsibility will fall to student unions. The regulatory burden that they will face is really disproportionate. They are already subject to the regulation in this area by the Charity Commission. However, in the Bill, there is no mention of it, even in the schedule, as far as I can see; perhaps the Minister can point it out to me in due course. I cannot see anything about the Charity Commission, which is the regulator of student unions. Looking at the Bill, we would not even know that the Charity Commission existed or had any remit over student unions. It is not in the body of the Bill; it is not even in the schedule—it is nowhere. Perhaps it is the case that the Government want to leverage out the Charity Commission from any say in what goes on in our universities. Perhaps the Minister could address that point specifically. As has been said before, how will the Office for Students and the Charity Commission engage? Student unions are unincorporated associations, so it is not clear how these penalties will apply in practice. Also, the proposals covered in the Bill do not recognise the devolved nature of student unions’ governance, as we have said before. For example, a chair of a society may not follow an agreed procedure, which could result in an invited speaker needing to be disinvited once due process was followed.
Emma Hardy
I will continue to make this point, because it is an important one that needs to be made: not all student unions are wealthy institutions. As I have already mentioned, the Bill includes higher education organisations and further education colleges that might not even have any full-time officials working for their student union, but will have to comply with this heavy piece of legislation.
The problem with the Bill is that it has been written in the belief that every university is like the Russell Group universities, forgetting the many York St Johns and Liverpool Hopes out there, which are much smaller institutions but still part of the higher education landscape. How on earth would some of those student unions be able to afford to comply with the legislation, as the Minister is asking them to?
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is right, and that is a point I was going to come on to. I was just looking through my notes about the Office of the Independent Adjudicator and I saw that it said its membership has increased from 150 providers in 2014 to almost 800 providers in 2021, and that is an absolute plethora of universities, colleges, and so on. They are all of different sizes. An agricultural college might have a couple of hundred students, or as could a specialist performing arts college, a music college or drama college. What on earth will this measure do to such institutions, in terms of their liability and responsibility? They will certainly not be able to afford and sustain societies in their student unions.
It is incredibly concerning and there is almost a failure in the Bill to accept the burden that will head the way of these colleges from Government. I think we heard that really clearly from Hillary Gyebi-Ababi, the vice president of the National Union Students. She talked about the huge financial impact on the sector, saying:
“If I am being completely honest, a lot of stuff in the Bill is really, really concerning, such as measures under which people could get monetary sanctions for breaches of freedom of speech.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 128.]
In another evidence session, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made the point to Professor Kathleen Stock that
“The Bill itself lays a huge range of conditions on student unions and university and academic institutions, and then it brings in potentially draconian sanctions, but we do not know what the sanctions are”.
Professor Stock replied:
“I can see that it is a risk.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 14.]
Professor Layzell of Universities UK also gave evidence, saying:
“Again, we would want the sanctions to be proportionate. I think I would look at it in the context of us all wanting to do better in this space.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 126.]
On Second Reading, a point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy):
“In fact, Durham University has informed me that, far from encouraging a wider range of views, the threat of sanction could actually result in a more risk-averse speaker programme.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 106.]
A great many more people from across the sector, including from student union bodies, have registered that concern about how they see the Bill having the reverse impact to the one intended, and having a chilling effect of reducing free speech and debate on our campuses, irrespective of their size.
Emma Hardy
I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend. Going back to the point regarding student unions, a one-size-fits-all fining system could find that for a student union with a much lower income and smaller resources, the proportion as a percentage would be much higher, which is why, as my hon. Friends propose, we need consultation with representative bodies of universities and student unions. If we want to impose the same punishment in relative terms, that could then be done accurately.
Matt Western
The frustration from right across the sector is that there has not been more consultation, discussion and engagement about the issue and how to address it, and how to deliver legislation that might be workable across the sector with the representative bodies, the Government and so on.
My concern is that this measure is another example of how the matter has been left wide open, and that is problematic for the bodies—in this case, the National Union of Students and the various student unions. In the short time that I have had in terms of exposure to the sector, I say to the Minister that it has a profound and growing distrust of the Government because of this legislation. It feels as though the sanctions have been designed to damage or nullify student unions. On that note, I will sit down.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I make this simple point. Like my hon. Friend, I have met the National Union of Students to talk about the legislation. One question asked was, “What have the Government got against young people?”, because this seems to be an attack on an organisation that young people rely on. I do not understand it. If the legislation is to act as a deterrent against poor behaviour, the Government need to set out what the deterrence is. If there is an element of risk if procedures are not adhered to, that needs to be set out. Normally when introducing sanctions, at least there is a tariff system of some sort. In this legislation, there is no tariff. We are completely in the dark.
The obvious solution is to simply consult people about what the levels should be and how they should relate to certain types of behaviour. In normal circumstances when we impose sanctions, that is what Governments do. Even when it comes to criminal sanctions, there is extensive consultation. Certainly when they introduce civil elements of a sanction, there is detailed consultation throughout with the relevant parties, but that has not taken place in this case. All the amendment would do is ask the Government to sit down with the relevant bodies that will be affected so that they can agree, or at least be consulted on, the nature and level of the sanctions that will be introduced, and—we have referred to this in previous debates—a realistic maximum that does not break the institutions that the Government seek to work with.
When the Government introduce contentious legislation such as this, it is best to take people and the organisations that will be affected with them. The best way of doing that is to engage them in consultation and discussion about the detail of the legislation as it is rolled out. I hope the Minister can give us some assurances—
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
It is important to set out in this Bill the thresholds of the compensation that can be paid because that will also help the court process. We heard in evidence that a large amount of the cost to the court could come from arguments and wrangling about what the actual damage cost is. If that is laid out by the OfS, that reduces the burden of the cost to the courts.
John McDonnell
There is the process of the tort, the process of the civil actions that will take place and the process of the monetary penalties imposed by the OfS. The courts eventually, after precedents have been set, will arrive at some level of compensation. Unless we can set out a legal tariff early on, it will be up to the courts and anything could happen.
Emma Hardy
Maybe I am unfairly anticipating what the Minister will say, but I assume it will involve the words “guidance”, “waiting” and “after the Bill”—perhaps not in that order. Therefore, if this will be looked at in guidance after the Bill in consultation, does my right hon. Friend agree that it should be put in the Bill right now?
John McDonnell
Confidence in legislation is secured through engagement, consultation and, where there is disagreement, an understanding to disagree. Then when the Bill is taken to the Floor of the Commons, the confidence of Members has been gained because there has been that thorough consultation. Unless that is done, Members are voting for a pig in a poke. Unless the detail of the regime is set out—in particular, the tariffs and what the maximum will be—how can people vote for this legislation, knowing what its implications are?
To go back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown made, let us distinguish between what the courts will do—they will set the level in due course through precedent and so on—and the scheme. The sanctions, the tariffs and the maximum monetary penalties are to be set by the Government. I therefore make the very simple point that when Governments set tariffs in this way, to gain the confidence of the House it is usually best to explain what the tariffs will be.
Emma Hardy
Again, to stress the point about consultation, as I was trying to explain previously, if this is not done in consultation with student unions, especially small student unions at smaller higher education institutions, this will bankrupt them. I am sure the Minister does not wish to be the person responsible for the bankruptcy of a number of student unions up and down the country. I therefore advise that the consultation and guidance be done before Members of Parliament get to vote on the final Bill.
John McDonnell
It is just the simple approach of talking to student unions and saying, “What effect would this tariff have on you? Would it push you over the edge? Would it bankrupt you? Is this an appropriate sanction? Would it act as a deterrent? Would people appreciate the risk that they are undertaking by non-compliance with the OfS’s requirements on these individual bodies?” Universities and student unions will almost certainly be consulting their insurance providers about the potential risk and the level by which they have to insure themselves to ensure that they, quite properly, exercise their fiduciary duty of protecting their organisation in the light of that risk. How can they do that if they do not know what is coming at them down that tunnel? The light that is coming at them could be a huge train hitting them with a huge fine.
Matt Western
I could not agree more. As my right hon. Friend described it—he has years of experience in this place—the concern is about how we go through the process of devising and constructing legislation by using a collaborative approach. If we do not pursue that, it could readily be interpreted as wishing to intimidate student unions, which is my real fear. The Bill is designed to act as a big, stamping foot and say, “We’re not going to tolerate this kind of behaviour any longer.” The Government could simply have created a schedule and worked with the student union bodies to devise what the implications might be for insurance, as my right hon. Friend describes, and what would be a proportionate way to introduce some kind of sanctions scheme.
John McDonnell
That is what generated my question. Why are the Government targeting young people in this way? It would not take much for the Minister to go away and to come back and give the House an indication, at least before Report, of the types and level of sanctions the Government are considering. When the Bill goes to the other place, there will be some insistence on that.
It is very rare for this House not to have some indication of the scale of a sanction that is being introduced in criminal or civil law, because it is seen as unfair. In both the Commons and the other place, there has been a consistent standard of behaviour: when the Government impose sanctions they undertake considerable consultation, so that people have confidence in the legislation that is passed, and in the institution that will adjudicate on the monetary penalties levied. I speak as someone who has been trying to amend Government legislation for about 23 years, even when my own party was in Government. It is a very simple point—nothing more than that—but it is important and is at the heart of the legislation.
Michelle Donelan
Under the amendment, that the monetary penalty that the Office for Students can impose on student unions for breach of their duty to protect freedom of speech will be subject to a maximum amount, set by the OfS and decided following consultation with representative bodies of higher education providers and student unions. However, the Bill already provides that the amount of the monetary penalty is to be decided by the OfS, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State; the regulations will of course be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This mirrors the approach taken in section 15 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 on monetary penalties imposed on higher education providers.
Matt Western
Given what the Minister was just saying about the promise from the previous Secretary of State, will she say precisely when that will be? She is obviously aware of something that I am not. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington says, we would like to see that before Report.
Michelle Donelan
I am not going to set out a detailed timetable, but I assure the hon. Member that there will be sufficient consultation with both the sector and student unions.
Emma Hardy
Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, the Minister mentioned parliamentary scrutiny, and I want to press her on this issue. She should be able to give us at least an outline of whether we will know about this before Report, before Third Reading and before it goes to the Lords. When will parliamentary scrutiny happen? On something as important as this, surely we should have some indication from the Government.
Michelle Donelan
This is in line with how we have done legislation before, and to have in the Bill the details of the exact things that the hon. Member is asking for would not be appropriate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michelle Donelan
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but if I can then make some progress, I might actually answer some of the Opposition’s questions.
John McDonnell
What would be helpful—before Report, at least—is to have some discussion on the draft regulations. I understand that it is not possible to publish the regulations formally, but we could have a discussion on the draft regulations before Report, so that Members can at least be assured of the range that the Government are thinking about with regards to the monetary penalties.
Michelle Donelan
Our process here is in line with section 15 of the 2017 Act. It is suitable for secondary legislation that will be subject to sufficient parliamentary scrutiny.
The regulations will make provision about the matters to which the OfS must or must not have regard when imposing the penalty. We intend to ensure in that way that the penalty is set at a reasonable and proportionate level. In making the regulations, careful consideration will be given to student unions’ status and financial position, and their varying sizes,.
Matt Western
I hear the Minister, and she is a decent individual—I am sure that she means well and I trust her—but one cannot say that a speeding fine is proportionate to the driver when one person can afford it and another can ill afford it. We have repeatedly made the point that there is an absolute diversity of institutions, so there is real concern about the measures.
The Government are on a bad wicket already, and given the way that they are going about this, they will lose the faith and trust of the sector, particularly of student unions. I urge the Minister to take on board the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington to bring the draft regulations as early as possible before Report, to give us an indication of where the Government are heading with the measures.
Michelle Donelan
I think what is actually important is to have sufficient time for engagement and consultation with the sector and student unions, for the very reasons given about their varying size, financial assets and so on. Rushing the regulations would have an effect contrary to what Opposition Members are arguing for.
It is important to note that the power of the OfS to impose a penalty will be subject to the safeguards set out in schedule 3 of the 2017 Act. That reflects the approach taken to the monetary penalty under section 15 of that Act. We see no reason to deviate from that tried and tested approach.
Emma Hardy
I thank the Minister for giving way again—she is being generous. To make it as simple as possible, we would like to know when we will find out what the maximum penalty will be. She talks about parliamentary scrutiny and the need for consultation. To be as clear as possible, will we know before the final vote on Third Reading?
Michelle Donelan
I think that I have been quite clear, but I shall be even clearer: the regulations will be passed via secondary legislation, when there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to scrutinise those decisions. We want to ensure adequate time for consultation with the sector and with students unions to get that right.
Matt Western
The Minister is being incredibly generous. She said that the Government do not want to rush the regulations and need time to go through the proper process. I remember that in March last year, when former Home Secretary Amber Rudd was no-platformed at Oxford, the previous Secretary of State—bless him—said, “Right, that’s it. We’re going to bring forward this legislation.” Here we are, 18 months later. There has been plenty of time, and this has been on the cards for some time, particularly because the legislation has been driven by the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson). It would have been possible to produce the draft regulations if the proper consultation process had been gone through. I really fear that they are being held back for political reasons, and that student unions are going to be hit hard.
Michelle Donelan
I have reiterated many times, as Hansard will show, that it is not our intention to hit, penalise or alienate student unions. We are talking here about proportionate measures to protect freedom of speech. We will ensure that there is a consultation and that the voices of student unions are heard so that the regulations are right.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The Minister mentioned “proportionate measures”, so will she commit to ensuring that the regulations reflect the size of the institution or student union, and the ability of the student union to comply? I am worried because if, after consultation, there is a flat rate, that would be disproportionate.
Michelle Donelan
Before I finish, I will repeat what I said a moment ago. In making the regulations, careful consideration will be given to the status and financial position of student unions and their varying sizes. I hope that having that confirmation on the record will satisfy hon. Members.
Matt Western
I hear what the Minister says. It is so frustrating because we want to be constructive. We want to mitigate the damage of the Bill, but it has been so badly conceived, with so many gaps in it, so much information lacking, and so much left to guidance, it is really problematic. It should be for all of us across the Committee, to accept this. We will vote for our amendment, and hold back on the clause.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Michelle Donelan
We know the important role that student unions play in ensuring that freedom of speech can thrive on our university campuses. We therefore know how vital it is for the current legislative framework to be extended to student unions and approved fee cap providers—a category of registered higher education providers—as provided for by clause 2. It is necessary to have mechanisms in place to ensure that the freedom of speech duties of student unions are monitored effectively, and that action is taken if the freedom of speech duties are infringed.
Clause 6 extends the regulatory functions of the Office for Students so that it can regulate the student unions. It does that by inserting new section 69B into the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. That new provision will require the OfS to monitor whether student unions are complying with their duties under proposed new sections A4 and A5, as inserted by clause 2. If it appears to the OfS that a student union is failing, or has failed, to comply with its duties, the OfS will be able to impose a monetary penalty. That will enable the effective regulation and enforcement of the freedom of speech duties of student unions by the OfS.
The power to impose a monetary penalty is based on the existing enforcement regimes for higher education providers, and is intended to encourage compliance. Proposed new section 69B will also require the OfS to maintain and publish a list of student unions and approved fee cap providers. That will make it clear which student unions the OfS has been informed by these providers are subject to the duties in new sections A4 and A5. It will also require those student unions to provide the OfS with information that it may require for the performance of its functions.
These new regulatory functions are intended to support the new duties in clause 2. Together with clause 2, clause 6 will ensure that freedom of speech is protected not just by higher education providers but by student unions and across campus. I believe it is a necessary and important part of the Bill, and I beg to move that it stand part.
Matt Western
It was not just our amendment 77. The nub of the problem is how student unions are being muscled by the Government to do certain work for them. I cannot help but use the word “authoritarian” throughout, but this heavy jack-boot seems to be stamping down on student unions across the country, particularly the smaller ones, which will not have the scale, finances or resource to sustain the obligations that the Government are putting on them—particularly if that is the Government’s aim. Maybe their intention throughout all this is to see the demise of student unions and maybe some alternative structure to replace them.
Emma Hardy
I found this the most disappointing part so far because we are talking about issues of equality. The Minister said she had the higher education and further education brief because they wanted to bring more equity into those areas. We know what will happen under the Bill: the student unions with money and resources will be able to comply and continue, and the student unions without them will not; they will not be able to offer what they have been able to offer so far. It is incredibly disappointing for the Minister to say that secondary legislation will be where the consultation happens. That is an incredibly disappointing response from the Minister. I hope she will recognise that what the Bill actually does is create a system where only the elite universities have functioning student unions and the rest of the students can do without.
Matt Western
Labour cannot support this clause in its entirety. There are many points that could be highlighted. New section 69B(9) states::
“If a students’ union fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (8) and does not satisfy the OfS that it is unable to provide the information, the OfS may enforce the duty to comply with the requirement in civil proceedings for an injunction.”
God, the heavy hand of Government! It is like the opening credits of Monty Python with that hand coming down from the clouds and stamping on the little person, and that is the case for student unions across the country.
Matt Western
I stand corrected. The hon. Member obviously misspent more of his time than I did watching that. Whatever part of the anatomy it was, it was coming down rather heavily on the small person. That is what the Government are seeking to do. It is quite clear that the intention in No. 10 and its policy unit is to drive out student unions in this case and change the representation on how bodies may be affiliated on our campuses.
Too much of the clause is down to guidance and none of it has been done in collaboration with student unions. Student unions are not professionally organised with huge resources behind them to counter this and take the Government on. I would have thought the Government would be much more willing to work with student unions and with the National Union of Students and say, “We want to collaborate with you. We do understand there is this issue, and you perhaps appreciate there is a bit of an issue in certain places. How is it that we go about best addressing this issue across certain campuses?”, realising that it is not the case across 98.9% of events. We cannot support this. The obligations and duties on student unions are far too onerous, and we will be voting against the clause.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
As we have heard, this is one of the most worrying parts of the Bill because it seeks to regulate private associations even further. It is a very dangerous step because it starts to undermine freedom of association and the ability of people to do what they wish. Student unions, of course, came under the regulation of their institutions through the Education Act 1994. That Act also allowed students to opt out, which was widely touted to be an attempt to bring in an Australian-style opt-in for student unions, in the hope that it would destroy them, as happened in Australia. That failed, and more than 25 years later this is the next attempt to try to undermine and obliterate student unions and to obliterate the poorest or most fragile parts of our HE sector.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
It does possibly explain a lot. He was also clerk to one of the parish councils that I served on, so our lives have been intertwined.
That case said that student unions are excepted charities. As a result of the Charities Act 2011, student unions are not only excepted charities and therefore exempt, but regulated directly by the Charity Commission. As charities, they have a duty to be non-partisan, to be balanced and to ensure that they fulfil all the requirements of the Charity Commission, and we know that the commissioners have great powers to step in if charities are being partisan. So we have a great deal of regulation for student unions already.
Of course, in the HE sector, which this clause covers, student unions are part of that broader assessment that Ofsted has to make when assessing the student unions of the further education college, so now we have a fourth piece of regulation.
Emma Hardy
I want to give a tangible example, just in case the Minister has missed this. This regulation, as written here, will apply to Basingstoke College of Technology’s student union. By dint of the college being OfS-registered, because of its HE provision, its student union, which is currently governed by some 17-year-olds keen on running Rag Week, will have to comply with the regulations written here and, as we have heard from the Minister, there will be a fine of an undisclosed amount if they do not, yet still JCRs will not have to comply. Does the Minister not accept that applying this to every single student union, regardless of whether it forms part of an FE college or an HE college, is a little over-bureaucratic?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
My understanding is that this relates not just to the student union’s activities be in the HE sector, but to the whole of the student union’s activities, even in the FE part of the institution, so student unions in that sector may face more administrative and regulatory burdens than their parent institutions. It is a bizarre situation. That is why this whole provision must be withdrawn, or voted against, or at least rephrased. The Minister must make sure that this is restricted to only that part of the activity that is HE, and that the regulation is light-touch, and she must make reference to how this relates to Charity Commission regulation. That does not apply for higher education institutions, because they are not regulated by the Charity Commission; they are exempted charities. Since 2010, student unions have not been exempted, so they have to register. They are regulated charities, and this measure is totally contradictory to the current regulation.
Michelle Donelan
It might be useful if I clarify for the hon. Member that, where student unions are registered charities, charity law will still apply to them. The OfS will only regulate student unions on freedom of speech matters.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Of course I understand that, but a complaint is not simple and will not be simple. For example, a charity that is seen to prejudice one part of speech, particularly political speech, would be in breach of charity regulations already, because we cannot privilege one part of speech or one part of activities as a charity because it is political speech. That is quite right, excepting the ruling of Baldry v. Feintuck, which says that political party associations of students can be supported within the student union if it is self-organised, because it is not the political activity it is supporting but the educational activity of students mocking up being in a political party, so they can hold mock elections and so on.
There is detailed case law and detailed legislation. The danger is that this Bill runs roughshod over that. People would have two places where they could complain. The complainant can go to the Charity Commission, where there is a basis of case law that is already very nuanced, and they can go to the OfS, where there is no case law and no such basis. Because we know the OfS will not necessarily be built with lawyers or making its decisions based on case law, the danger is that we will end up getting semi-contradictory decisions.
Baldry v. Feintuck says that student unions are free to support a Conservative club, for example, and to give money to that student Conservative club for its operations, as long as it offers the same amount of resources to the Labour club, the Lib Dem club or whatever different clubs might come along. There is a danger, however, that free speech regulation will say, “Actually, the regulations need to be different and will require the clubs to accept a broad range of views.” That is different from the basis on which those clubs have been set up.
I ask the Minister to reconsider ensuring that there is a direct reference to the Charity Commission and to the order of priorities in which someone would make a complaint to a student union. Currently, they could make a complaint to the institution, to the Charity Commission and the OfS.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
And the OIA. I would appreciate the Minister doing that, because it is a minefield. We heard as much from the representative of Universities UK, who said that they were deeply worried that this would confuse the matter and make things more difficult in terms of regulation.
Before I finish, I will touch on the finances. Universities effectively have the powers to raise finances through their recruitment of students and the research grants they get. Universities live and die, in that sense, in their corporate actions. Student unions, for the most part, raise no money themselves. Gone are the days of the student bar and the student club. If Conservative hon. Members think that student unions get money from those, I am afraid they are misguided. The vast majority of student unions rely solely on a grant from the university. They are solely dependent on the university, higher education institution or further education institution.
Michelle Donelan
Listening to the debate, I am quite perplexed. On the one hand, the Opposition argue there is no problem with free speech, but on the other, they argue that once the Bill is introduced, virtually all student unions will be fined because they will be breaching it, and they will not be afford the fines. I am a bit confused about the argument here.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
My argument does not necessarily only deal with fining; I am talking about regulation as opposed to fining, and we have had a debate on that. The point on fining is that we are worried that we will end up seeing a chilling effect and people coming forward vexatiously. That is a real concern—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North West Durham groans, but he should stand up and say why he groans—give a speech or make an intervention supporting the Bill. He has said very little.
Mr Holden
I think that is a bit unfair. I do not quite understand where the hon. Gentleman thinks all of these vexatious claims will come from, and why they are about to happen. Why, in this instance, with student unions specifically, does he think that there will be millions of vexatious claims trying to close them down at the drop of a hat?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
We have heard that “where there’s a blame, there’s a claim”. We have seen it in road traffic, and we have actually seen an increase in litigation in the higher education sector, which is deeply worrying. Government witnesses talked about the commercialisation of the HE sector and students demanding that they get the results that they want.Those demands have actually led to universities being more restrictive in what people can say. This will increase that.
Mr Holden
The evidence that the hon. Member is pointing to is on students and their universities, and I can quite understand that. This point, however, is all about student unions, so I would like to understand why he thinks that student unions will be targeted, rather than education providers.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Because, so far, student unions have not had that contractual relationship, with the ability of students to take them to court for failing to fulfil a service. That is my point about where the money comes from. At the moment, the student gives the money to the university. The contract for a basic service is between the student and the university. This extends that, so the student then has a direct contractual relationship with the student union.
If the hon. Member thinks that every single student will agree with what their student union is doing, and that no student will try it on, then I am afraid that his university experience was far too bland. My experience was of debate and contestation, and of people arguing and wanting to push the boundaries—quite rightly. This will not help that, because it will regulate student unions in a way that means they cannot then defend themselves properly. The reason for that is the financial point, which I was trying to come on to.
The university gets money from the student. They then give a grant—usually a small one—to the student union, which then spends, effectively, the university’s money. My understanding is that, according to the Education Act 1994, the university has an oversight role for how that money is spent. Yes, the student union can spend it how the students want, but within a framework that the university sets out and lays down. If the student union is liable, whose money are they liable with? That is what I am trying to get at.
If the OfS puts forward financial sanctions, whose money are they sanctioning at the student union? The student union’s money is just the university’s money, held in trust and spent on behalf of the university. Would student unions need to raise unrestricted monies, somehow? We know that most student unions do not raise unrestricted monies any more, because gone are the days of the bars. Or would student unions, if they were fined by the OfS, need to use their restricted university grants on this? If so, that clashes with the concept that that university grant is restricted to only the educational activities of the student—not for liability claims against the union. It seems strange that they would face this double regulation, and money able to be drawn from all different quarters, when they have no money themselves.
Mr Jones
It is a bit unfair to call the hon. Member for North West Durham—my neighbour—“bland”, but anyway. Surely, what will happen is that student unions will take out indemnity insurance, whether they need to or not? That, again, is more money going away from education and into the coffers of insurance companies.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Either they will get indemnity insurance, or they will find a way to be covered by the institution’s indemnity insurance, which, again, defeats the whole point that student unions are regulated directly. We might as well regulate the institution, which would then have a duty—as they already do—to ensure that the student union is following the rules.
Emma Hardy
Another alternative is, of course, based on examples like the one I gave of Basingstoke College of Technology’s student union, and the other smaller student unions that exist out there. They simply stop having a student union and stop engagement, because some of these smaller colleges and institutions, which I have drawn attention to several times, could not afford the insurance. Those unions do not get much money from their colleges, which are their main providers, and therefore might not exist in the future. It would be a devastating impact of this Bill if we ended up with fewer student unions around the country.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
We have talked in great detail—possibly too much for some Members. The point is that, in regulating the institution, where it is institutional money and resources, the regulation already flows down to the student union. That is the argument that the Minister has used for the junior common rooms. That already exists.
Double regulating the student unions actually confuses the matter. It makes it more difficult for complainants to seek redress, because student union premises are usually university premises. Who are they seeking redress from? Also, it potentially produces financial settlements that student unions would not be able to pay and that the university would effectively have to bankroll, but it would not allow the university to make representations to the OfS, in this case because the representations are directly with some 17-year-old who is the president of the union. It makes no sense whatever.
The legislation should be, as with the Education Act 1994, in the institution, which then supports the students to get it right. That is why the clause should be withdrawn. It would be a better Bill for it.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matt Western
I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 7, page 8, line 20, leave out “or was”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 37.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 36, in clause 7, page 8, line 24, leave out “at any time”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 37.
Amendment 37, in clause 7, page 8, line 25, at end insert—
“(2A) An eligible person specified under sub-paragraph (2) may not make a complaint if more than five years has elapsed since the date to which the claim relates.”
This amendment narrows the eligibility requirements for the free speech complaints scheme so that an eligible person may not make a claim if more than five years has elapsed since the date to which the claim relates.
Matt Western
Clause 7, of course, is about the complaints scheme. In that constructive vein that we have spoken of many times before, we want to make some small detail improvements and changes that clarify, or are more appropriate than, what is currently referenced—hence amendments 35 and 36. The amendments are intended to address the scheme and seek to introduce tighter, but not unreasonable, requirements for someone to go through the complaints scheme.
Amendment 37 stipulates the narrowing down of the eligibility of someone who comes forward to seek redress. The Bill seems to appear to remove any minimum requirements for standing. As it stands, the OfS scheme is open to anybody who is or was a member of staff, of the students’ union or of the provider, or who was at any time invited to be a visiting speaker. That opens up a can of worms. Just think, through the aeons of time, how many people could be eligible to make claims against universities and students’ unions through the scheme. It would really widen the scope of eligibility with two significant consequences.
The first consequence is regulatory. A broader standing has the potential to overrun the OfS scheme with a flood of complaints, much like the issue of tort, as we discussed earlier. What is to stop the 43 people mentioned in the examples given by the witness Bryn Harris all lodging freedom of speech complaints under the scheme the day the Bill passes? Nothing. As it is written, they are all eligible for it, even though some date back to—I am trying to recall the earliest I can recall—2013 or 2015, and certainly before the five years we propose.
The second consequence is the effect on administrative justice. Could the Bill, as written, introduce an element of retrospective administrative decision making? Given that the legislation is so clunky and full of holes, it is disappointing that we heard from only one lawyer. I am pleased that we put forward one, but I regret not putting forward a second in order to get a broad perspective on the Bill. I am sure that two lawyers would have picked the whole thing apart. However, Smita Jamdar from Shakespeare Martineau—the one lawyer we heard from—said,
“Until quite recently I would have been confident that, as a matter of rule of law, you could not retrospectively apply conditions in that way. However, I am less confident about that than I have been in the past. I think there are regulatory trends that say that people do sometimes try and retrospectively shift the goalposts.”
In such cases, judicial review could step in—or so the Minister may claim. However, Ms Jamdar said,
“Normally, you would then potentially be able to go for judicial review, and say that this is a decision that is in breach of public law principles, either because it is irrational or in some way procedurally flawed. However, under the Bill you would not have that right because you cannot challenge the decisions of the free speech champions.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 58, Q112.]
My colleagues and I will address the concept of appeals later, during the next grouping of amendments.
However, although it may be true that the scheme has the power to weed out some vexatious claimants, if “eligible persons” is expanded too broadly, it will be left to the Office for Students to sift through numerous complainants. That could have the effect of taking away resources from the operation of the scheme, undermining its effectiveness and therefore the purpose of the Bill.
We are still none the wiser about the scale of the operation under the Office for Students. How many people will it employ, and will they be full time? Will the director of free speech be full time? The chair of the Office for Students is not full time. How much of that director’s professional time will be devoted to this matter? How many people will they have within that, and at what budget? As it stands, we are concerned that the measure will open the floodgates. That is why, under amendment 37, we propose that the period should be limited to five years, counted from the date to which the claim relates.
Michelle Donelan
Amendment 35 would allow only current students, members or staff of a provider to make a complaint to the Office for Students complaints scheme. A key aspect of the Bill is that it provides new routes of redress to individuals who have suffered loss as a result of a breach of the new freedom of speech duties. That includes where students have been expelled from courses or where staff members have been dismissed from their jobs. The amendment would prevent former students, members and members of staff accessing the new complaints scheme.
Of course, the duty will have been owed to such individuals while they were at the provider. In circumstances in which they have subsequently left the provider, however, it is also important that they are still able to access the complaints scheme. For example, we must ensure that, if a provider breaches its freedom of speech duties in a way that leads to a staff member leaving their role, that staff member is still able to access the complaints scheme, otherwise the Bill would be fundamentally undermined.
Matt Western
May I explore that a little further to understand that? Are we saying that the former Secretary of State could go back to the University of Bradford, a fabulous institution, which I was delighted to get the chance to visit, and say, “I had this particular issue” whatever number of years ago—I assume something like 15 years, but perhaps longer—would he be able to do so under the Bill as drafted?
Michelle Donelan
The time limit refers to amendments 36 and 37, which I will proceed to, but indeed we are not setting a time limit. It would depend on what had happened and the facts that were available. It would be investigated. I am not convinced that getting into a speculative hypothetical will help today’s discussion.
Amendments 36 and 37 seek to impose on the face of the Bill a time limit of five years as to who may bring a complaint to the OfS complaints scheme. As drafted, proposed paragraph 5(2)(a) of new schedule 6A in clause 7 sets out that the complaints scheme
“may include provision that…complaints…must be referred under the scheme within”
a specific time frame. That reflects similar provisions in the Higher Education Act 2004, enabling the Office for the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education to set a time limit for its scheme. The OIA only considers complaints made within 12 months of the date that a higher education provider told the students of its final decision. That is considerably shorter than the five years in the suggested amendments. To refer back to the point made by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, that needs to be decided by the director and in the guidance and regulations. We are not setting out a timeframe in the Bill. That would come in the detail.
Emma Hardy
May I clarify whether a time limit will be set out, if not in the Bill, in the guidance produced later?
Michelle Donelan
To clarify, in the Bill there is no time limit, but our full expectation is that there will be one in accordance with precedent, such as that of the OIA. There will be a reasonable time limit, set in conjunction with the voices that have been heard, of the sector and of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, who made his suggestion today. Accordingly, when the OfS sets out the details of the complaints scheme, it will be able to set an appropriate time limit. It is not necessary to set that out on the face of the Bill, as I have stated.
Matt Western
I hear what the Minister has said and I absolutely take her at her word. I therefore very much look forward to seeing that specified in the guidance. So, there will be a time limit, otherwise there will be an almighty problem, not just for universities and student unions, but for the OfS. It could become a ridiculous situation. Given what has happened with claims in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, for example, as the Government have sought to introduce limits there, I imagine some consistency from them in applying a limit here. Will the Minister confirm whether she is considering amendment 35—likewise amendment 36—for inclusion in the Bill, rather than letting the matter be dealt with in guidance, otherwise we will press it to a vote?
Michelle Donelan
Amendment 35 would seek to allow only current students, members and staff of a provider to make a complaint, which would rule out those who had been expelled or lost their job as a result of free speech so, absolutely, we will not consider it for inclusion.
Matt Western
I hear the Minister. I take on board her comments on amendment 37. The matter will be considered and the result issued in guidance. However, we will press amendments 35 and 36 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ethnicity Pay Gap
(3 years, 3 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)
Before we begin, may I encourage hon. Members to wear masks when they are not speaking? This is in line with the current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give one another and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 300105, relating to ethnicity pay gap reporting.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for expressing an interest in this afternoon’s Petitions Committee debate. The e-petition is entitled “Introduce Mandatory Ethnicity Pay Gap Reporting”. Let me begin with the text of this petition, which states:
“Much like the existing mandatory requirement for employers with 250 or more employees must publish their gender pay gap. We call upon the government to introduce the ethnicity pay gap reporting. To shine a light on race/ethnicity based inequality in the workplace so that they can be addressed.
Currently there is a lack of data available in gauging the ethnicity pay gap in the workplace. Introducing these measures will allow employers to be held accountable in closing the gap where there is disparity. In order to achieve a fairer workplace publishing this data is one of the next steps to knowing how extensive the issues are from a race and ethnicity perspective and not just through the lens of gender.”
The petition closed with 130,567 signatures, including 355 from my Carshalton and Wallington constituency. At the outset of today’s debate, I thank the petition creator for taking the time to talk to me about why they started the petition. I also thank organisations such as NatWest, Lloyds and Barclays, which took the time to speak to me about their experience of ethnicity pay gap reporting in their own organisations—I will talk about that later. I also thank the independent statistician Nigel Marriott for his very helpful briefing note and his thoughts, which Members can view on his website.
There have been many calls in support of ethnicity pay gap reporting, and that request is not something new or born out of this petition; it has been around for some time. Reporting in March 2021, the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities also found that pay gap reporting is a potentially useful tool. But if we cast our minds back to 2018, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was Prime Minister, she launched a consultation on this issue, and the stated aim of the consultation at that time was to help employers to identify barriers and enable a fairer and more diverse workplace. That move was welcomed at the time by both the CBI and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, along with businesses, charities, academics and others.
All of these, including the petition creator and those who briefed me prior to today’s debate, made the case that ethnicity pay gap reporting, much like gender pay gap reporting, could help businesses to understand their workforce better, identify barriers to equality and create action plans to tackle those barriers. And of course it would help to inform Government as to the reality of pay gaps and enable them to consider the actions that they can take if needed.
I am sure that colleagues from across the Chamber will go into greater detail about the benefits of pay gap reporting throughout their contributions, so I will not steal everyone’s material in my opening speech, but I would like just to draw attention to an example of an existing system of pay gap reporting in the UK, which of course relates to gender. In a blog post published by the London School of Economics in March of this year, it was found that gender pay gap reporting has been effective in its aim of narrowing the gap. The difference between men’s and women’s pay had shrunk by just under a fifth during the relevant time. It has affected employers because, according to the blog post, female workers
“show a strong aversion to high pay-gap employers, suggesting that organisations have felt compelled to make changes in order to attract and retain workers.”
One would hope that the same would apply in the case of ethnicity pay gaps. When speaking to some of these organisations, such as the three large banks that I mentioned in my opening remarks, it is very clear that this reporting has taught their businesses a lot and has helped to inform their action plans to create more equal workplaces. However, as the Government identified in their response to this petition, it is true that there are some complications to the reporting that will need to be overcome before proposals can be brought forward. Those have been very ably explained by Nigel Marriott in his briefing note, and I will touch on a few of them. I must stress that they are not arguments against ethnicity pay gap reporting, but an identification of what the Government will have to consider before making any proposals.
The first thing to mention is that, while it might seem easy to go straight to gender pay gap reporting as the template for ethnicity pay gap reporting, it is not as simple as replicating that, for several reasons. Gender pay gap reporting is supported by the fact that it is largely binary—not exclusively so, but given how big that discussion is, we will save it for another day—and more or less evenly distributed across the country, whereas the ethnicity breakdown in the population can alter drastically depending on where someone lives and can be made up of a much larger number of categories. That then presents a number of data protection issues, because data of that kind must never inadvertently reveal the identity of the person it reports on. For example, a small business in a predominantly white community could inadvertently reveal information about employees’ pay for just one of their employees.
Then there is the difficulty of how to disaggregate the data in the first place: what categories or descriptions should be used, and how do people truly reflect their employees’ wishes and how they prefer to be identified? That is made all the more difficult when we consider the issue of disclosure, as it is estimated that something between 5% and 40% of employees do not disclose their ethnicity.
Again, these are not arguments against ethnicity pay gap reporting, but it is important to raise these problems here and consider how we can overcome them in order to bring forward proposals. It may be that we look only to businesses with more than a certain number of employees, or report on an industry rather than at individual employer level. As my hon. Friend the Minister and I are both London MPs, I might suggest to him that London is the perfect place to trial such a scheme before rolling it out countrywide.
Either way, I hope the Government are considering this matter carefully. I note from their written response that they will look to publish their analysis of the 2018 consultation later this year, so any further information on the date of that publication and any plans to bring forward proposals would be very welcome. I will end my remarks there, Mr Hosie, and hand over to the rest of my colleagues.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and to follow the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn).
It saddens me to say that structural racism still pervades and permeates our society. Over the decades, progress in addressing racial inequalities has been too slow, and we continue to see the impact of that in inequality in the jobs market, particularly towards those groups from minority communities. It should shame all of us to know that ethnic minorities in the UK are less likely to find career-type, sustainable work than their white counterparts, even when born and educated right here in the very same United Kingdom.
While we know that ethnic discrimination in hiring is pervasive and enduring, it is not clear how much of the labour market disadvantage experienced by ethnic minorities can be attributed to employer discrimination. Overall, just two thirds of black, Asian and minority ethnic people are in work in the UK—68%, compared with 78%, or nearly four fifths, of their white counterparts.
Once fortunate enough to be in work, black, Asian and minority ethnic people are also more likely to be in lower paid employment than their white counterparts, which largely reflects long-standing occupational segregation and often intersects with other characteristics such as gender and class. People from minority ethnic groups are over-represented in a range of lower paid jobs such as care workers, security, hospitality, customer services and taxi drivers.
Racial inequality in the labour market has persisted for decades. We all must play our part in addressing it, especially those of us in Government, and this Government can do more. For an example of the employment inequality divide, we need look no further than this city of London. Data gathered by the Office for National Statistics shows that minority ethnic employees in the capital earn 24% less than their white counterparts—quite a shocking statistic in the 21st century, in which we are to believe we live in an equal society. That statistic will only continue to increase without swift action by this Government.
We must introduce a mandatory reporting requirement, modelled on the 2017 gender pay disclosure requirement. That would be one of the most transformative steps a company could take to address racial inequality at work and overcome practical difficulties in the workplace. We have a Government with a very large majority, that have indicated their desire to build
“a fairer economy…ensuring the UK’s organisations reflect the nation’s diversity.”
Why, then, has it taken so painfully long for this Government to respond to a report that was commissioned in 2018, more than two years after they released their consultations on the plans? No further developments have materialised.
In Scotland, on the other hand, we have made great progress. In March 2020, a commitment was made by the Scottish Government to implement the key findings of the Scottish Parliament’s Equalities and Human Rights Committee. In doing so, the Scottish Government will take responsibility for assessing the prevalence of institutional racism, and proactively challenge and change practices that disadvantage minority ethnic communities and, more importantly, ensure those communities are involved in shaping that change. The Scottish Government of course recognise that taking these recommendations on board in no way represents a final step, but it is a step in the right direction and a step more than has been taken by this UK Government, or that they seem willing to take.
Pressure is now increasing on the Government, and an agenda for change was already set out in 2018 by the independent McGregor-Smith review of race relations in the workplace. That report showed a lack of access to training and promotion opportunities for black and ethnic minority employees. It also showed low numbers of top-paid black and minority ethnic employees, and high proportions of black and minority ethnic people in poorly paid jobs. We currently lack data with which we can gauge the ethnicity pay gap in the workplace. Introducing a mandatory reporting requirement will enable employers to be held accountable for closing that gap where there is disparity. Publishing that data is one of the next steps we can take to achieve a fairer workplace —something we all wish for—in order to know how extensive the issues are from a race and ethnicity perspective, not just through the lens of gender.
The Prime Minister has already faced criticism for saying:
“What I want to do as prime minister is change the narrative so we stop the sense of victimhood and discrimination”.
Perhaps if he had paid attention to the tragic and brutal killing of George Floyd, which led to widespread outrage and protest across the globe, he would realise that Governments are now facing increased pressure to remove the societal injustice faced by blacks, Asians and minority ethnic communities. In October last year in this place, I advocated for mandatory gender pay gap reporting. I am now asking the same thing of this Government: to deliver what they have already promised in their 2017 manifesto, and implement compulsory ethnicity pay monitoring.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on having opened today’s debate. This is a really important issue, and I stand here in a somewhat privileged position as chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, because I have the opportunity to talk on a regular basis with those who seek to champion the rights of people with protected characteristics across the country.
Going back to when I was very newly in post, I remember a fantastic meeting that I had with a group of black female entrepreneurs. The first thing that they said to me was, “We must have mandatory pay gap reporting.” There was a very good reason why they wanted it to be mandatory: they had spoken to over 100 FTSE companies that all wanted to report, but were nervous about how. They were nervous about the metrics they should use and whether their ethnicity pay gap reporting would be comparing like with like with other comparable organisations, which is why those entrepreneurs said to me, “We need you to put pressure on Government. Unless it is mandatory, it will not happen in a coherent way, or in a way against which companies can be measured.”
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The right hon. Lady is making some excellent points. Does she agree that, as well as an obvious equality imperative for the reporting, there is a really strong business imperative, and that the Government would do well to acknowledge that?
Caroline Nokes
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, some of the leading banks already do such reporting, but we wish to see other organisations doing more. Earlier this year, I was pleased to receive an email from Zurich, one of the country’s biggest insurers and the first insurance company to introduce ethnicity pay gap reporting.
There are no good reasons not to do such reporting, but there are reasons why it is complex. One of those reasons is the size of the business. With gender pay gap reporting, that is dealt with by making only the larger companies report, and I would argue that exactly the same should be instituted for ethnicity pay gap reporting: make only the larger companies do it.
My hon. Friend was right to point out that we do not want individual employees to be identifiable, so we need to find a way for the reporting to be done on an aggregated basis so that those employees do not have their personal salary details revealed. Just because something is difficult or complicated, that does not mean that we should not do it.
Gender pay gap reporting has shone a light, and as a result, that pay gap has been reduced inch by inch—perhaps I should say centimetre by centimetre, as that is all very topical at the moment. It has been reduced not as much as I would like—I would like to see it at zero—but we know there are also challenges around intersectionality. A woman in this world, in the 21st century, is still stuffed. A disabled person—or, heaven forfend, a disabled woman—has additional challenges. A black woman will have more challenges. It is time that we were honest about that.
As the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) said, reporting needs to be data-driven and with granular data. We need massive amounts of detail to see which groups are the most adversely affected because, guess what, until we have accurately identified that, we cannot put in place the measures that will most help them and give them the equity that we all want.
The hon. Gentleman also highlighted something that my Select Committee looked at: the way that BAME people were affected by covid pandemic. We saw from evidence that they were disproportionately represented in public-facing roles in the care sector, in transport and in the NHS, for example. They had to interact with people daily, which put them at more risk. Those roles—particularly in care and transport—are poorly paid and insecure. Intersectionality is something that we have to scrutinise closely.
Ethnicity pay gap reporting is something that companies are crying out for. They want it to happen, but on a mandatory basis. I made that point to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) in her capacity as Minister for Women and Equalities, before she became Foreign Secretary. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us whether we can expect an employment Bill in this Session, despite the fact that it was missing from the Queen’s Speech, because that strikes me as an ideal opportunity to introduce legislation on the ethnicity pay gap reporting that we are all calling for.
I recognise the challenges for small business when it comes to additional requirements from Government. I will not describe the reporting as a burden, because I do not think it is one. It will enable companies to look more closely at their own employment practices, and at leading organisations that have done it regardless of the lack of framework—although they would prefer it if there were a framework. I think it is an opportunity for us to look forward and drive down some of the basic structural inequalities that we still see in our country. I look forward to the Minister saying something positive in his speech.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate with you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the petitioners on bringing the important issue of ethnicity pay gaps to this Chamber so that we can have a good debate about it. I have listened carefully, and thoughtful contributions have already been made. It is not easy, but we are all in politics—I include the Minister in this—not to do the easy thing but to put our minds to the more difficult stuff. Anybody can do the easy thing. I hope we hear a positive reply from the Minister.
Saturday marked the UN’s International Equal Pay Day. In the UK, women make 87p for every £1 earned by men. I mention the gender pay gap because all too often the gaps within the gap are overlooked. We must recognise how financial inequalities disproportionately affect some women in our society, including LGBT+ women and women with disabilities. The right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) mentioned intersectionality and the fact that one disadvantage plus another disadvantage increases the problems that people face. While women in the UK earn 12.5% less than men, ethnic minority women earn an average of 2.1% less than white women. We must ensure that women from all parts of our society are included in our efforts to close the pay gap.
I mention the gender pay gap because we have seen the effectiveness of mandatory gender pay gap reporting. I echo the right hon. Lady’s words about the importance of making it mandatory. Some companies are already doing it voluntarily, of course, but the real need is for it to become mandatory.
I am proud of the Liberal Democrats’ role in introducing that legislation in 2015, and of our first female leader, who fought hard to get it on the agenda in her time as Business Secretary. Before that legislation was introduced, only six companies published their pay gap data under the voluntary initiative. There is no doubt that the policy has driven greater transparency and accelerated progress towards workplace equality.
In contrast, statistics show that the ethnicity pay gap has not significantly improved over that time. Given that recent reports suggest that ethnic minority workers have been worst hit by job cuts during the pandemic, there could be no more pressing time for action. The McGregor-Smith report identifies a lack of transparency in corporate Britain as a key barrier to progress. Without data, how can employers identify the disparities within their own companies and make informed decisions that will improve their recruitment, promotion and management policies? Research shows that most employers believe that ensuring workplace diversity is a priority, but little more than a third actually collect and analyse data to identify differences in pay and progression for employees from different ethnic groups.
The voluntary approach has driven, at best, slow and inconsistent progress. Currently, only 13 FTSE 100 companies report their ethnicity data publicly. Government action is needed if we are serious about tackling the pay gap, its causes and its effects. As with gender pay gap reporting, there is a clear case for introducing mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting. I ask the Government to set out a timetable for getting that into law.
Equality monitoring of the workforce is also an essential step to carrying out ethnicity pay gap reporting. I ask the Minister, when will the Government introduce legislation to ensure that all listed companies and businesses employing more than 50 people publish workplace data broken down by race and pay band? I have listened carefully to the difficulties, but let us tackle them, because the end result will be so much more positive for employers and businesses.
It is four years since the McGregor-Smith review, four years since the Government committed in their manifesto to ask large employers to publish information on their ethnicity pay gaps, and three years since the Government launched a consultation on ethnicity pay gap reporting. We are still waiting for the results of that consultation. The Government must stop dragging their feet. Only once businesses begin to publicly report the diversity of their workforces will we see the start of real change. As the Black Lives Matter movement showed, action is needed now to build a more inclusive and more equal society. Addressing race equality at all levels in the workplace can no longer be optional.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie. I am grateful to the petitioners for allowing us to have this debate.
As someone with a background in human resource management, I fully support the introduction of ethnicity pay gap reporting as part of the measures we need to tackle pay discrimination. Transparency is essential when we expect organisations to deliver a particular outcome. The Chartered Management Institute confirmed that 80% of managers surveyed agree on the need for mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting for large organisations.
Fifty years of sustained effort to deliver gender pay equality demonstrate the importance of transparency. The Equal Pay Act 1970 decreed that men and women in the same employment, doing equal work, must receive the same pay. In 1993, the Pay Equity Project highlighted that women’s earnings remained significantly lower than those of male colleagues, due to factors such as undervaluing occupations with a largely female workforce and the effects of women’s generally greater caring responsibilities. Those factors were reinforced by institutionalised discrimination, such as by Glasgow City Council, which, after a decade-long battle by women workers and a change in administration, paid out more than half a billion pounds in compensation.
Even if direct discrimination is addressed, other factors will drive the ethnicity pay gap, and those can only be properly understood if the data is captured and analysed. The Office for National Statistics recently reported that in some circumstances, among recently recruited full-time employees, women might now be paid more than men. However, across the whole workforce and the employment cycle, women’s earnings remain below those of male counterparts. We have some way to go.
Despite that, the forces of reaction pounced. Bright Blue, which is backed by the new Secretary of State for what used to be the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—I am not sure of the Department’s new name—and others, says that the policy job on gender pay is done and we should now leave it to business. However, as with other things said by supporters of this Government, that is far from the case. The call for inaction in the face of continued inequality is all too predictable. In fact, the lesson to learn from half a century of pursuing gender pay equality is how enduring entrenched inequality can be.
We can also see the variety of tools and arguments deployed by those who defend the status quo or, as with this Government, wish to drag us back to an earlier age. I was disappointed, although not surprised, to see the findings on ethnicity pay reporting from the Cabinet Office’s hand-picked Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. The commission hid behind data complexity to make recommendations only for organisations that choose to publish figures—“If you think you are doing well, then tell us. If you are doing badly, you can keep that quiet.” The Government have seized on those findings, which stand in stark contrast to the meticulous work and recommendations of Lady McGregor-Smith, one of the few women of colour to head a FTSE 100 company, who got it bang on when she said:
“Until we know where we stand and how we are performing today, it is impossible to define and deliver real progress.”
She has been backed by Peter Cheese, the chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, who said:
“We know that gender pay gap reporting has driven greater transparency and accelerated progress, and we believe the same is needed for ethnicity pay reporting.”
That is why the Government’s delay on this issue—including their failure to publish the responses to their 2019 consultation—is so disappointing.
The combination of Brexit and the pandemic has massively disrupted the world of work and there is more to come, including a likely spate of redundancies when furlough ends. Research by the Institute for Public Policy Research shows that ethnicity has been a major factor in the adverse economic impact of the pandemic. Unless we act now, it may also be a hidden factor in the distribution of reward during the recovery and beyond.
We already know that many on the frontline during the pandemic were among the lowest paid. Ministers have bandied the word “hero” about a lot, at the same time as presiding over the creation of a multi-tiered employment market where many more people stand to lose their status and rights as employees and be treated as freelancers choosing to work fewer hours. Others are simply under-employed and at the beck and call of zero-hours paymasters.
That multi-tiered workers’ rights policy is being used to argue that the labour market is too complex for ethnicity pay gap reporting to be effective—how convenient. Of course, if the Government brought forward their persistently delayed employment Bill, they could sweep away some of these anomalies and return to workers the rights enjoyed by previous generations. They will not, of course, because in addition to returning us to imperial measurements, Ministers want to see the rights of workers across large swathes of the economy revert to the 19th century. Instead of standing in line waiting to be picked for a day’s work, workers now anxiously wait for an email or text to say whether they have a shift.
Even before the pandemic, the CBI, the TUC and the Equality and Human Rights Commission were calling for ethnicity pay gap reporting to help us better understand and address pay inequality. Even the Investment Association recognises the benefits of mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting as a means of helping businesses to demonstrate that they are generating sustainable long-term value. It also identifies lack of transparency as a barrier to change, highlighting that only 27% of FTSE 100 companies publish even the ethnic diversity of their board. That reinforces Lady McGregor-Smith’s comments on the lack of information from FTSE 100 companies available to her inquiry, and really it should end any pretence that significant progress can be made on a voluntary basis.
If we are to tackle the ethnicity pay gap, we need to do so from the root cause of much of the gap, which is continued discrimination. The UK Government need to take a leaf from the books of: Zara Mohammed, the general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, who has a laser-like focus on employment inequality; or the team led by Peter Hopkins of Newcastle University, who examined the experiences and perceptions of young Muslims in Scotland, some from my constituency—most young people from black and minority ethnic communities are proud of their Scottish identity, but that report left no doubt about the extra challenges they face, including in the workplace—or perhaps the Young Women Lead committee, supported by the Scottish Parliament, which examined the transition from education to employment of young ethnic minority women. Those are some of the voices that we need to hear on the issue.
We also need to see action. The difficulty, however, is that many of the powers to act on the issue are held not in Scotland, but here in Westminster. The Scottish Government are doing what they can to provide leadership, in stark contrast to the inaction of the UK Government. The Scottish Government will extend the requirement for Scotland’s public authorities to publish gender pay gap information to include disability and ethnicity reporting, and will ensure that the equal pay statement covers those issues. They are also developing an ethnicity pay gap strategy, supporting employers in Scotland to evidence how different communities are represented in an organisation across different pay bands. They will soon launch an immediate priorities plan setting out actions to tackle structural disadvantages faced by BAME communities, to act as a foundation for a long-term anti-racism programme.
Those are welcome actions, but I will draw to a close by repeating the words of Lady McGregor-Smith:
“Until we know where we stand and how we are performing today, it is impossible to define and deliver real progress.”
That is why we need the UK Government to step up to the plate, to deliver mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting and to do so with the maximum possible coverage. Either that or they should get out of the way and pass the powers to the Scottish Government and let them make progress on delivering the fairer Scotland that we know is possible.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie. I thank the Petitions Committee for making the time for this important debate, and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for introducing it. I also thank the organisers of the petition. As the hon. Gentleman said, 130,000 people signed it, including 470 from my constituency.
I thank all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) talked about structural racism and its impact on society. The right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) talked about how reporting will not really happen unless it is made mandatory, and about her work on the Select Committee on how BAME individuals have been affected during the pandemic. That work shows issues of inequality. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) talked about the effectiveness of mandatory reporting and gender pay gap reporting, and about how that has made a significant difference.
The past 18 months have brought a welcome focus on issues of race and ethnicity in this country and around the world, which is something I am particularly passionate about. In the context of the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd and the rise of the Black Lives Matter protests, we saw the petition take off. I mention that because ethnicity pay disparities do not exist in isolation; they exist within broader structures of racism that affect black and Asian minority people in every part of their lives. I have experienced it myself.
I have previously called for the Government to implement a race equality strategy and an action plan covering areas such as education, health and employment. I feel that would address the structural inequalities that exist. At the centre of that, I believe there must be action to tackle discrimination in the workplace, unequal access to training, finance and opportunities, and the ethnicity pay gap, which brings me specifically to this petition.
The petition calls for the introduction of mandatory ethnicity gap pay reporting. As the Minister will know, this is not a new suggestion or a new demand; people have been calling for it for some time. Can the Minister outline the Government’s proposals to address the suggestion? As the hon. Member for Bath said, the 2018 McGregor-Smith review into race in the workplace said:
“The Government must…legislate to make larger businesses publish their ethnicity data by salary band to show progress.”
We all know that the Government launched a consultation on this issue, which ran from October 2018 to January 2019. I am extremely concerned that we are yet to see anything published about that consultation some two years later. Can the Minister tell us what message that sends to black and ethnic minority people in this country? To me, it comes across that the Government do not particularly care about these individuals, because the consultation has been done and nothing has materialised from it.
I want to talk about issues with mandatory reporting that have been identified and how they can be overcome, but the delay is not about the practicalities of introducing mandatory reporting. Instead, the Government have gone cold on the idea. Despite the prolonged delay, this issue will not simply go away. We cannot settle for voluntary reporting. I hope that the Minister hears loud and clear that voluntary reporting is totally inadequate, and I will tell him why.
Just this week it was reported that only 13 of the largest 100 employers in this country have published their ethnicity pay gaps. As the hon. Member for Bath mentioned, this situation is similar to what happened before mandatory gender pay gap reporting was introduced in 2017. Prior to it becoming mandatory, a voluntary initiative led to only six companies publishing gender pay gap data, yet consultation shows that employers were generally supportive of mandatory reporting because it meant that all organisations would have to use consistent methods and be able to benchmark against each other. In this case too, only mandatory ethnicity pay reporting will deliver meaningful data from a wide range of businesses. This echoes conversations mentioned by hon. Members about the fact that we need to get the data.
A lot of businesses back mandatory reporting and conversations have been had. The CBI has joined the TUC and the Equality and Human Rights Commission in calling on the Government to go beyond the recommendations of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities and bring in mandatory reporting without delay.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will be aware that, without mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting, we do not truly know the full scale of the problem. At the moment people say the gap is about 2.3%, but when we look at individual ethnic groups we see there is a gap of 16% for Pakistani groups and 8% for black groups. Does she agree that until this is made mandatory not only will we not know the scale of the problem, but companies will not take steps forward to address these inequalities?
Abena Oppong-Asare
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Unless we get mandatory reporting, we will not know the full scale of this issue. That is shown by the fact that very few organisations, given the opportunity to do the reporting voluntarily, have taken it up. That leads me to something that I will discuss later—the stats that have been collated, which are quite alarming. We need to make reporting mandatory in order to be able to address the issues that are there—the inequalities that exist.
I want to address the report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, which called only for voluntary reporting, and some of the practical issues that the Government have highlighted. The commission stated that
“many employers around the country simply do not have enough ethnic minorities for the recording sample to be valid.”
That is something I have heard in this debate, but leading experts in this field—including the Chartered Management Institute and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development—have set out practical ways to overcome it. Other concerns, such as the legal basis for collecting ethnicity information or low declaration rates, can simply be overcome with clear guidance from Government. Those practical issues are what the Government have been working on over the past two years, so the information is there for us to be able to do this, rather than kicking the issue into the long grass.
I want to end by saying something about why ethnicity pay gap reporting is so important. We know that, at national level, significant disparities exist between people of different ethnicities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) mentioned. In 2019, the Office for National Statistics found that median hourly pay was £12.49 for white people, £11.50 for black people and just £10.55 for people of Pakistani origin. The ONS study also found that people of Chinese origin earned on average £15.38 an hour and people of Indian origin earned £14.43. That really should lead us to caution against making sweeping statements about ethnic minorities as a whole, but there is clear evidence that people’s race and ethnic background determines how much they earn, and I have seen that at first hand. Sadly, for many people, the colour of their skin, along with their gender and class, determine the opportunities that are open to them. That is something that we really need to change.
I wanted to mention the interaction between race and other characteristics such as gender. A report was done recently by the Fawcett Society, which found that ethnic- minority women are
“almost invisible from positions of power across both public and private sectors”
in the UK. We see that around us. We know that a range of connected factors determine pay disparities. They include age, location and, of course, gender and race. It is for precisely that reason that we need to build up more data on those disparities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham mentioned. Company-specific reporting is important, because it obliges employers to examine their data and to work out why disparities might exist. It does not assume that discrimination takes place, but rather provides information so that employers can make informed decisions to improve recruitment, promotion and pay policies. Without it, we will not be able to see what progress has already been made and where there is more to do.
Let me conclude. To fight discrimination, we must first see it and understand it. The Government have dragged their feet on this issue for far too long. The consensus for mandatory ethnicity pay-gap reporting is broad and the arguments for it are compelling, so I would be grateful if, when the Minister responds to the debate, he would tell us what the Government will do to bring forward legislation to implement this vital measure.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and the Petitions Committee on securing this debate on a really important issue. I am sure that we can all agree that it has been an interesting and informative debate, and I am really grateful to everyone who has contributed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington did an excellent job of opening the debate, as one would expect of him and of a member of the Petitions Committee. As you may know, Mr Hosie, I served on the Petitions Committee for a number of years, and I know from personal experience how important and valuable its work is. My hon. Friend set the scene in a very balanced and comprehensive way and demonstrated the complexity of the issue, showing that it is not simply a binary one. There are a lot of concerns and possible unintended consequences, which I will explore in a second, and we need to put those into the mix in order to make sure we get our consideration of this subject right.
Petitions are a great way to ensure that we do not overlook issues, and that we in Parliament, in Government, and in my Department consider the matters that are of most concern to the people we represent. Today’s debate is no exception to that: the petition was signed by over 130,000 people, including 322 people in my own constituency of Sutton and Cheam, which is testament to the interest there is in ethnicity pay reporting as a means of achieving a fair workplace. I understand that the petitioner, who is here today., the many people who signed the petition, and the MPs who spoke today and others are really concerned that the Government have yet to publish their response to the 2019 consultation on mandatory ethnicity pay reporting. Clearly, the past 18 months have not been what any of us were expecting, but I want quickly to set out the journey we are on in regard to ethnicity pay reporting, giving some background and explaining some of the issues we are juggling as we consider how best to take things forward.
First, I should make it absolutely clear that the Government are committed to building back better from the pandemic, and building back fairer in doing so. People from all backgrounds must have the opportunity to achieve their potential, and a key part of building a fairer economy is ensuring that our businesses and other organisations reflect the nation’s diversity from factory floor to boardroom. That is essential to our levelling-up ambitions.
We know that we face challenges in ensuring equal access and fair representation for people from minority ethnic backgrounds in the workplace, and that we need to do so much better. Although they are improving, employment rates for ethnic minorities continue to be lower than they are for white people. The evidence also shows that once in work, people from ethnic minorities progress less and earn less money than their white counterparts, but the picture is complex, and outcomes vary substantially between ethnicities and by gender within ethnic groups. For instance, over two in five Pakistani or Bangladeshi workers are in the three lowest-skilled occupations, but Indian people are the most likely of any ethnic group to work in the highest-skilled occupations and have the highest average hourly pay.
I said that I would set out the journey that we are on. In 2016, as has been mentioned, the Government asked Baroness Ruby McGregor-Smith to examine the barriers faced by people from ethnic minorities in the workplace, and to consider what we might do to address them. One of her recommendations was that the Government should legislate for mandatory reporting and ethnicity pay data by £20,000 pay band. The Government’s response said that they were persuaded by the case for reporting. Baroness Ruby McGregor-Smith’s report highlighted the fact that equal participation and progression across ethnicities could be worth an additional £24 billion to the UK economy annually, but that we expected businesses to take the lead in reporting voluntarily.
In 2018, the Government commissioned a “one year on” report, which showed that, disappointingly, limited progress had been made. Just 11% of employees reported that their organisations collected data on ethnicity pay. Given that fact, we consulted on mandatory pay reporting in the same year. That consultation sought views on the benefits of monitoring and publishing ethnicity data; what might be reported; and what contextual information should be provided, such as narrative, action plans and ethnicity data classifications. The responses to that consultation raised a series of issues, showing that establishing a standard ethnicity pay reporting framework would be considerably more challenging than was the case even for gender pay gap reporting. There are genuine difficulties in designing a methodology that provides accurate figures and allows for interpretation and meaningful action by employers, employees and the wider public.
To give Members one example, we would expect the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to be leading from the front when it comes to all things relating to workers’ rights in business. The Government website talks about civil service pay and says that
“of civil servants whose ethnicity was known, Asian and White staff had the lowest average annual pay (£27,200), followed by Black staff (£28,400), staff with Chinese ethnicity (£29,500), and staff from the Mixed ethnic group (£29,600), with staff from the Other ethnic group having the highest (£30,000)”.
The problem is that the average median annual pay for all of the civil service was £27,100—£100 lower.
Anyone with a basic grasp of statistics would say, “It’s not possible to have every ethnic group that is recorded above the average median pay for the entire civil service”. That is because 22% of the civil service did not identify, which is clearly skewing the figures. That is just one of the anomalies, or unintended consequences. It is not something that we cannot get around, but it is illustrative of how statistics can be misread and a problem misdiagnosed.
Caroline Nokes
It is interesting to note that Zurich commented that 87% of its workforce had identified which ethnicity they were from, so why is BEIS doing so much worse than a private sector company?
Paul Scully
This is the civil service as a whole. What I am saying to my right hon. Friend is that the figures are clearly skewed by that 22%. We want to get accurate reporting, but everybody, according to this, is above the average median pay. That cannot be the case; that is not possible. If the figures have been skewed, we cannot diagnose the problem from them, so we must work through those figures and work through a methodology, so that we can ensure that we have robust figures.
Kirsten Oswald
I am interested in what the Minister is saying. Can he clarify something: are the Government working through that methodology? What specifically are they doing, and when do they expect to have a system in place that does take account of the complexity that we all acknowledge but which absolutely must not get in the way of our making progress?
Paul Scully
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for letting me progress with my speech, because that is exactly the point that I was coming to.
We have continued to work with businesses and other organisations better to understand the complexities identified through the consultation. More recently, we have been working with the Business in the Community app and race at work charter members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) spoke about people and businesses crying out for reporting. The number of charter members is currently 700, which is up from 300 this time last year, so there is clearly a big push of people signing up to the charter. One of the points in the charter is to collect data on ethnicity and the ethnicity pay gap. This work has looked particularly at action planning and what participating organisations believe to be the key drivers of the ethnicity pay gap: culture and leadership; recruitment; retention; and progression.
In parallel, earlier this year, the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities published its report, setting out a road map to racial fairness in the UK, which made an important contribution both to the national conversation about race and to the Government’s efforts to level up and unite the whole country. In the report, the commission pointed to the statistical and data issues that could affect ethnicity pay reporting and suggested a voluntary approach. It made a further recommendation:
“The Commission recommends that all employers that choose to publish their ethnicity pay figures should also publish a diagnosis and action plan to lay out the reasons for and the strategy to improve any disparities. Reported ethnicity pay data should also be disaggregated by different ethnicities to provide the best information possible to facilitate change. Account should also be taken of small sample sizes in particular regions and smaller organisations.
To support employers undertaking this exercise, the Commission recommends that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is tasked with producing guidance for employers to draw on.”
Abena Oppong-Asare
The information that the Minister has provided is very helpful, particularly on the work that Business in the Community has done and also his quoting the report from the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. I would be grateful if he clarified exactly what the Government have done since they conducted the survey and consultation in October 2018. I have heard what organisations have been working on, which is fantastic, but I would really like to hear what the Government have been working on to address this issue.
Paul Scully
The Government are clearly working towards this and I will continue developing that journey in my speech. What we want to do is to make sure that we are delivering on something that is possible. What I do not want to do is what the Leader of the Opposition did last week, by talking about setting a £10 minimum wage, then this week advertising for stewards for the Labour party conference and paying £9.75 an hour. Politics is the art of the possible. We must ensure we get this right and that we diagnose and solve the problem correctly.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I am still not clear what the Government have done since October 2018. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify and set out what the Government have done since then to address this issue.
Paul Scully
As I said at the beginning of my response, I am developing that journey covering the last two years’ worth of work if the hon. Lady will remain patient. The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) talked about racism, and clearly we need to ensure that we tackle racism in all its forms. However, the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities found that most of the disparities when tackling ethnicity pay do not have their origins in racism. There are other factors that may be at play, such as geography, class, sex and age. However, whatever the cause of the pay gap, it is essential that we get organisations to tackle this.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
The Minister said the issue is not about racism. He also conceded that the data that has been received is not very clear, because a number of different groups are not actually reporting. How can he be so sure that the issue is not racism when the small amount of data he does have shows there is a difference between the pay of ethnic people and their white counterparts?
Paul Scully
I think the hon. Lady is mixing up two things, because the data I talked about was specific to the civil service. It was specifically to make the point that we can read different things out of statistics. What I was quoting about racism is not my view necessarily; it is the view of the report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, which was tasked with looking at this and other issues. We are committed to taking action on ethnicity pay reporting, but we want to ensure we are doing the right things to genuinely help move things forward. Determining what it makes sense to report on and what use that data may be put to is key. It is far from straightforward.
The commission’s report and our post-consultation work with businesses and other organisations identify a wide range of technical and data challenges that ethnicity pay reporting brings. First, there is the challenge of statistical robustness. In 2019, the Royal Statistical Society argued for a minimum sample size per category of at least 100 to draw valid conclusions. Its purpose was to ensure that the calculation of a pay-gap statistic would be reasonably reliable when interpreted by non-statisticians, who would not likely be able to appreciate or measure the extent to which the statistic is affected by random chance.
The second challenge, as we have heard by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, is anonymity. It should never be possible to identify any individual from ethnicity pay-gap analysis. That means a sample size must be large enough so that it is not possible to link a number of individuals of the same ethnicity to a particular pay band. The third challenge is data collection and business burdens. A study of more than 100 organisations by PwC in August 2020 found that almost 35% did not collect any ethnicity data, with half identifying legal and GDPR requirements as barriers to collecting the data. Among the organisations that did collect data, around half said they would be unable to publish their ethnicity pay data due to poor or insufficient data driven by low response rates.
Fourthly, there is reporting on a binary basis. One way to mitigate low employee declaration rates is to combine all individuals from an ethnic minority background into a single group for reporting purposes. However, such an approach risks masking the significant variations in labour market outcomes between groups and therefore the relevance of any action plan. Finally, there is the challenge of skewed results. Reporting at a more granular level risks results being skewed by particularly large or small pay values because of low numbers of particular ethnic groups. If an employer with 300 people employs black individuals in the same proportion as the wider population—3% of England and Wales’ working population is black according to the Office for National Statistics—then their average pay would be calculated from just 9 individuals, and that assumes 100% declaration rates.
The uneven geographical distribution of specific ethnic groups complicates the issues further. In Wales, only 0.7% of the working-age population is black. It is therefore much harder to produce reliable and actionable statistics from relatively few data points. All this create complex challenges when deciding how best to take forward ethnicity pay reporting, but the Government are determined to take steps to help employers tackle race and ethnic disparities in the workplace. I think we would all agree that key to this endeavour is obtaining a good understanding of the issues that may be driving the disparities and, most importantly, developing meaningful action plans, based on that understanding. The Ruby McGregor-Smith report, the Government’s consultation on ethnicity pay reporting, and the commission’s work all make an important contribution to both the national conversation about race and the Government’s efforts to level up and unite the whole country.
The Government are now considering in detail what we have learned from the consultation on ethnicity and pay, our further work and the commission’s report. We are assessing the next steps for future Government policy, and we will set out a response in due course. Once again, I thank hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. It has been a valuable discussion.
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
I call Elliott Colburn for a brief winding-up speech.
Elliot Colburn
I think I have half an hour, Mr Hosie, but you will be relieved to know that I will not take it all.
Elliot Colburn
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this Petitions Committee debate, and I thank the petitioners for allowing us the opportunity to discuss this important topic this afternoon. The key theme in a lot of Members’ contributions was the importance of getting good data and creating evidence-based policy as a result, which is absolutely what we want to see. Of course, skin colour should not be a predeterminate of pay, and that is what we all want to see tackled in this country. I look forward to hearing more from the Department about the response to the consultation and the next steps, as I am sure the petitioners do.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 300105, relating to ethnicity pay gap reporting.
Covid-19 Vaccinations
(3 years, 3 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
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and entering and leaving the room.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 575801 and 577842, relating to Covid-19 vaccination.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I am glad that we have another opportunity to discuss vaccinations in this House. I thank the NHS, pharmacists and volunteers in Carshalton and Wallington, and across the UK, for making our vaccination programme such a huge success. I particularly thank Reena from SG Barai Pharmacy in Carshalton and Wallington for administering my covid-19 vaccinations.
I welcome the Minister to her place; I believe this is the first debate she is responding to as Minister. I have always found her to be nothing but courteous and friendly, so I wish her all the very best in her new role.
I draw the House’s attention to the Government’s responses to the petitions, which set out clearly that they are thinking carefully about such matters as certification and vaccine status, and are considering all issues prior to making a decision. I am sure the Minister will want to elaborate on them in her response to the debate, so I will not steal all her material. This debate gives us the opportunity to discuss vaccinations once again, so I want to use it to urge everyone to book their slot for vaccinations as soon as they possibly can. I particularly welcome the news today that we are beginning our booster jabs programme, which I am sure the Minister will want to touch on.
Covid has not gone away. Although we are unlocking and rediscovering many of the freedoms that we have sacrificed over the past 18 months, people are still being hospitalised and dying from coronavirus. The data speaks for itself: the majority of those hospitalised and dying from covid-19 have not been fully vaccinated. It is clear that by getting vaccinated, we are protecting not only ourselves but others, and are playing our part in bringing an end to this pandemic.
Vaccines truly are a marvel of modern medicine. We can be proud that they were discovered by a Brit, Edward Jenner, who demonstrated that a mild infection with a cowpox virus conferred immunity against the deadly smallpox virus. Cowpox served as the natural vaccine for smallpox until more modern vaccines were brought out in the 19th century, which laid the groundwork for the system of vaccinations that we know today. Smallpox remains the only virus considered to be eradicated internationally since 1980.
Since Jenner’s discovery of vaccines as we know them today, vaccines have been developed and have helped to offer immunity to a whole range of virus, such as measles, mumps, rubella, influenza, tetanus, polio, diphtheria, yellow fever, rabies, hepatitis, poliomyelitis, meningitis, and so many more. It is easy, therefore, to take vaccines for granted, but I invite the House to consider how much of an impact they have had on the world. Those illnesses would once have struck dread, fear and anguish into the hearts of the patients who were diagnosed with them, yet today our lives are quietly unaffected by those horrors. We go about our day unworried by them, thanks to the seemingly simple concept of a jab that is over in a matter of seconds, which allows us to carry on our lives, protected and healthy.
These miraculous vaccines must pass extremely rigorous testing before they are licensed for use in the United Kingdom. According to the Oxford Vaccine Group, the following are just some of the stages that a vaccine has to go through before use: a literature review to look at what has been done before; a theoretical development or innovation, coming up with a new idea or varying an existing one; and laboratory testing and development, involving in vitro testing using individual cells and in vivo testing, which often uses mice. A vaccine must then go through three stages of human trials before licensing and reviews, and then continue to be monitored after their approval for wider use to take note of any new developments.
Covid 19 vaccines have been no different. They have had to meet the same testing criteria. Yes, there have been questions about speed, but Dr June Raine, chief executive of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, has explained perfectly clearly how the UK has been particularly able to approve this vaccine so quickly. So my message to anyone who still has apprehensions about getting their covid-19 vaccine is this: please, please speak to your GP or pharmacist to get the facts. That is an important point: speak to the professionals with the years of knowledge and training.
We have all had a bit of a laugh over the past week and a half about Nicki Minaj and swollen testicles—something that I never thought I would say in the House of Commons—but that story raises a very serious issue. Rates of vaccination drop as we go down the age groups, and it is important that the Government find ways to reach younger people and encourage them to protect not only themselves, but others around them, by getting the vaccine. That is especially the case when they are being fed misinformation, downright lies, and mad conspiracy theories by people with hidden agendas who are in the pockets of well-funded and well-organised anti-vax movements. I agree with Professor Chris Whitty that those people are preventing others from getting their potentially life-saving vaccine, and they should be utterly ashamed of themselves. My message today is to urge everyone to speak to their doctor and get themselves vaccinated in order to protect themselves and those around them, and help to bring an end to this awful pandemic.
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Ghani. I begin by commending all those across the four nations who have signed these two petitions: by signing, they have made their voice heard and are participating directly in democracy. E-petition 577842, entitled “Do not require health and social care workers to take covid-19 vaccination”, has been signed by 59 individuals in my constituency, and e-petition 575801, entitled “Outlaw discrimination against those who do not get a Covid-19 vaccination”, has been signed by 275 individuals in my constituency.
I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for opening the debate. I join him in thanking the NHS, including those across my constituency of Airdrie and Shotts who have been involved in the vaccine roll-out, not just those administering the jag but those in the background who are working equally hard. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) on her recent appointment as Vaccines Minister. There will no doubt be matters on which we disagree, but I extend a warm hand to her in that role.
Evidence clearly shows that the vaccination programme has gone well across the four nations of the UK. Scientists and many politicians from across the political spectrum are in agreement that a strong vaccination programme is the safest way out of the pandemic. Around the UK, on average, 80% of those eligible have been double vaccinated, and 90% have received their first vaccination. Recent statistics demonstrate that the vaccine has had a significant impact on driving down death rates: only 1.2% of deaths in England from covid between January and July were among those who were fully vaccinated. Now, the general plan to save lives and avoid disruption includes vaccination of those aged 12 to 15, alongside the plan for booster jags for people over 50 and NHS staff—because I am Scottish, I say “jag”, not “jab”, in case any Members were confused. However, there remain a million people over the age of 60 in the UK who are not double vaccinated. The number of vaccinated must be increased to minimise further deaths and hospitalisations from coronavirus.
The vaccines used in the UK have been extensively studied and have been proven safe for use. Over 2 billion people around the world have now been vaccinated against covid-19, and the evidence shows us that the benefits of vaccination significantly outweigh the potential risks. It is therefore time to encourage the remainder of the population, who have not yet been vaccinated, to get the jag.
We in the SNP have a position of not voting on issues that do not relate to Scotland. As such, the SNP did not participate in the vote on regulations relating to mandatory vaccinations for English care staff. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) spoke in the debate on behalf of our party. She spoke against mandatory vaccination in that debate and highlighted the impact of vaccine hesitancy. She also highlighted that Scotland has a higher rate of vaccination among care home staff, without the need for mandating vaccination.
Vaccine uptake is vital. The Scottish Government believe in encouraging uptake by informing people about the medical facts and explaining the advantages that vaccination offers them and their loved ones. Requiring the mandatory vaccination of care home workers will not support the vaccine rollout, but it could undermine it. That is why the SNP spoke out against the proposals and supports an informed vaccine roll-out.
The Scottish Government are aware of the ethical concerns around vaccine passports, but accept that they are likely to play a role in keeping the pandemic under control. Scotland’s vaccine passport will be required in nightclubs, live events—with more than 500 attendees unseated indoors or more than 4,000 unseated outdoors—and at any event with more than 10,000 people. The Welsh Government have announced a near-identical plan beginning mid-October. The UK Government have shelved their plans for vaccine passports—for now, but who knows what they will say tomorrow? The Northern Irish Executive have said that they have no plans to implement a similar scheme. The latest estimate for unvaccinated 18 to 29-year-olds in Scotland stands at 25.6%. It is hoped that such schemes will encourage youth uptake of the vaccine.
Proof of vaccination will be important in the post-pandemic world to facilitate travel and tourism, which is of course vital to our economy. It has been used by many countries for various vaccine-preventable diseases for decades. As someone from a Pakistani heritage, I remember being dragged to the doctors to get my vaccines in order to visit my grandparents. Growing up, I was very frightful of vaccines, but I persevered and went with it so I could visit them. This is not something new.
It is important to note that the proposals in Scotland and Wales both fall short of the requirements in place in European countries such as France or Italy, which require the EU green pass or equivalent for trains, cultural attractions, or any indoor hospitality settings. Italy is now even requiring proof of vaccination in the workplace.
Both Labour and the Tories opposed vaccine passports in Scotland, allegedly on the grounds of how it is being implemented, rather than as a principled position against the proposal. The Lib Dems in Scotland have opposed vaccine passports throughout the UK. It is important to say that the Scottish Government have no plans to introduce the requirements for public settings that people need to visit, such as shops or public transport. Individuals will continue to have the right to work, shop and meet people without vaccination.
I conclude by stating an important point, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington in his opening remarks: people have the right to refuse vaccination—yes—but they do not have the right to spread dangerous misinformation. Violence and intimidation are not acceptable. I highlight the case of Marianna Spring, who covers disinformation and social media for the BBC. At the weekend, she shared online a video in which it appears that an anti-vaxxer protestor is calling for her to be tried for war crimes. Marianna explains that she has received death threats and rape threats.
As elected Members, tackling misinformation is a responsibility for all of us. I welcome any advice that the Minister can provide to ensure that people have the full facts and are making an informed decision when deciding to take the jab.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani, and I welcome the Minister to her position in Government and here today. One of the welcome innovations of parliamentary democracy in recent years has been the notion that the public can trigger debates by way of e-petitions, and we are here to debate two e-petitions that commanded significant public support.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) was absolutely right to talk about the development of the vaccines as a remarkable triumph of British science, and all those who have been involved deserve huge credit—not least because the consequence has been to save the lives of tens of thousands of people who would have otherwise have died. We in the Labour party are committed to following the science and, as has been said eloquently, we can see that vaccination is having a dramatic impact, reducing hospitalisation and preventing people from becoming very ill with covid. As the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed) rightly said, it is absolutely vital that everyone who can get the vaccines should do so. We therefore need to send an unmistakable and united message from Parliament: by keeping uptake rates high, we can beat the virus. Anyone who is worried about the vaccine—there are many—should speak to health professionals about their concerns and receive proper advice. They should not be influenced by anti-vaxxer fantasists, whose advice is not just wrong, but dangerous to health and wellbeing.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I agree with the point that my hon. Friend is making. I was talking to a 14-year-old over the weekend, and she said that she had seen on the internet a magnet that was attracted to somebody’s arm because they had been vaccinated. Does my hon. Friend agree that the internet companies and the Government should get such nonsense taken down as soon as they can?
Jack Dromey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some of the propaganda that we have seen, including on the internet, is positively pernicious. If anyone is seduced into believing it and, as a consequence, catches covid and dies because they are not vaccinated, those responsible bear should bear a heavy burden for what they are doing. Everyone with power, including the internet companies, needs to be more proactive and dynamic in ensuring that shameful propaganda is not propagated on social media.
Over the past year, we have seen the tragic impact of coronavirus on our communities. I stress once again that it is absolutely vital that the importance of taking the vaccine is constantly emphasised. I think of Jane Roche in my constituency, who lost her father and, five days later, her sister to covid. Jane remains distraught to this day, one year on. People such as Jane know all too well just how important it is that vaccine uptake remains high, so that no one should suffer the grief that she has suffered. Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I therefore strongly encourage everyone to get vaccinated for their own protection, but also for that of the wider community.
The Labour party calls on the Government to make a more direct effort to vaccinate those from communities in which vaccination rates are low, particularly young people. I hope that in her response, the Minister will be able to update us on the Government’s efforts to tackle the problems of low uptake.
On vaccine passports, in relation to the petitions before us, we understand why the public might be confused or anxious about perceived discrimination against those that are not vaccinated. I have to say that the Government’s approach to covid passports has been chaotic at times. There has not been consistent clarity from Ministers about what vaccine passports are supposed to achieve, how they would work and what would be expected from the public, businesses and workers, and that meant we had a degree of chaos over the summer and no real preparation before the winter. Two weeks ago, the then vaccines Minister, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), stood before Parliament to confirm the introduction of covid passports and stress their importance; days later, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said that they had been scrapped. No matter the measures being introduced, businesses, workers and consumers need clarity from the Government, not conflicting messages and rapid U-turns. We have therefore repeated many times that we would not accept any certification or passport scheme that was vaccine-only.
The Welsh Labour Government have made some interesting progress on this very issue. They followed the data and applied a mandatory risk assessment that takes into consideration the full risk posed, and then recommends a range of mitigations on that basis. For large venues, crowded events and close-contact businesses, such as nightclubs, the NHS covid pass application is mandated for use; that means using familiar mitigations such as masks, social distancing and ventilation in most business settings, based on the risk level. Use of the NHS covid pass gives people the option to present a negative test result as an alternative to full vaccination.
We do not support the introduction of any scheme that provides access to a service for only fully vaccinated people. Free testing should therefore remain widely available so that we can identify and isolate the virus. The approach in Wales has been welcome in other respects, as it makes a clear distinction between venues such as local cafés on one hand and Wembley stadium on the other, where different mitigations for covid are needed.
We also do not support any potential covid pass scheme for access to essential services that does not get the balance right. That includes, but is not limited to, access to doctors and dentists, supermarkets and other essential retailers. We do not agree that vaccine passports should be used for day-to-day, routine access to the office, health services, dentistry or food.
On health and social care workers, we want everyone working in care homes to take up the vaccine—that is absolutely essential. The vaccine is safe and effective. I stress again: do not believe the sometimes poisonous propaganda of the anti-vaxxers. However, we do not support the case for compulsory vaccination. There are serious warnings from the care sector that the Government’s plan could lead to staff shortages in already understaffed care homes, which would have disastrous consequences for the quality of care.
Again, the UK Government should learn from the work done in Wales, which is running the fastest vaccination programme in the world, and has vaccinated a far greater proportion of its care staff than England. The Welsh Government have rejected compulsory vaccinations and have instead chosen to work closely with the care sector to drive up uptake, as well as valuing the workforce, including a proper pay rise. The Government should focus on driving up standards and retention of staff by treating care workers as the professionals they are, with improved pay, terms and conditions and training. We need all care homes and care workers to have proper personal protective equipment, regular testing and good training.
We are now approaching what is likely to be one of the most challenging winters that the national health service has ever faced, and the top priority must be to protect it. We urgently need a plan from Government that sets out the direction of travel in the next stages. Any plan for the winter period must, first, get vaccination rates up in areas where uptake is low; secondly, outline how and by when vaccinations for children will be rolled out; thirdly, finally fix the issues of self-isolation and sick pay; fourthly, provide proper ventilation in schools and public buildings; and, fifthly, provide a clear plan for businesses, workers and consumers. Those are significant steps the Government could take to greatly improve the country’s response to coronavirus. I hope that when the Minister responds, she will be able to outline in more detail the Government’s plan to fix those problems.
Once again, as other hon. Members have done cross party, I emphasise the importance of vaccine take-up. Covid-19 vaccines have saved thousands of lives and been crucial in protecting the national health service. It is critical that we maintain the protection the vaccine affords and send a clear and unambiguous message to all that vaccines work, and that anyone who can, should receive the vaccine.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
I now call on Minister Maggie Throup to respond, and welcome her to the Front Bench; I wish her well.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
Thank you, Ms Ghani.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for introducing this debate on these important topics, and I commend him for setting out the importance of vaccines in combating so many diseases. When we look at the history of vaccination programmes in previous eras, we realise just what impact they have had on people’s lives.
We know that the covid vaccination programme is the nation’s best line of defence against covid-19. Vaccinated people are far less likely to face severe disease from covid-19, to be admitted to hospital or to die from it. They are also less likely to pass the virus to others. More than 93 million covid-19 vaccinations have already been administered, and the latest estimates from Public Health England indicate that the programme has saved more than 112,300 lives and prevented more than 24 million cases.
As other hon. Members have done, I pay tribute to everyone who has played a crucial role in the success of the vaccine roll-out—our brilliant scientists, clinical trial participants, the armed forces, NHS England, frontline healthcare workers, vaccine volunteers and local and central Government. Their life-saving efforts have helped to maintain the rapid pace of the roll-out across the entire country. I also recognise the brilliant work of the former Minister for vaccines, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi). I know that I have very big shoes to fill.
The public’s continued willingness to get vaccinated, to test, to self-isolate if they have symptoms and to follow behaviours and actions that mitigate all methods of transmission has played a key role in the lifting of restrictions. Over autumn and winter, the Government will aim to sustain the progress made and prepare the country for future challenges, while ensuring that the national health service does not come under unsustainable pressure.
In my first debate as Minister with responsibility for vaccines, I join the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and other hon. Members for those not yet vaccinated to take up their vaccine offer and join the around 89% of the UK who have had at least their first dose. I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking them for playing their part in helping us all to live safely.
We will continue to make vaccines easily available to everybody, to maximise uptake among those who are eligible but to date have not taken up the offer. In England, 11.3% of people ages 16 and older—more than 5.5 million people—remain unvaccinated, which heightens the risk of rising hospitalisations, particularly when prevalence is high. Take-up so far varies by ethnicity, age and deprivation, with some groups recording lower rates of vaccine uptake than others.
Building on lessons learned through phases 1 and 2 of the vaccine roll-out, the Government continue to work closely with the NHS to make it as easy as possible to get a vaccine, including through “Grab a Jab” in England, pop-up vaccine sites across the country and easy-to-use walk-in sites found on the NHS website. Pop-up sites include those at football stadiums and shopping centres, reaching out to the whole community. The Government have partnered with transport providers, such as Uber and FREE NOW to ensure access to vaccine sites is easier than ever before.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) asked how the Government have reached out to people who are hesitant to take part in the vaccination programme. Despite having been in post for only a matter of days, I reassure him that the Government and the NHS are working closely together to ensure that we reach out and get the extra 5.5 million jabs into the arms that need them, and fill the gap that is in the community. I reassure him that that is one of my key priorities in my role as vaccine Minister.
The last 18 months have shown that the pandemic can change course rapidly and unexpectedly. It remains hard to predict with certainty what will happen. There are a number of variables, including the levels of vaccination, the extent to which immunity wanes over time, how quickly and how widely social contact returns to pre-pandemic levels, which is partly to do with the return to schools and as offices reopen, and whether a new variant emerges that fundamentally changes the Government’s assessment of the risk. That is why the autumn and winter plan sets out our plan B.
Vaccine status certification is part of the Government’s plan B if the data suggests action is required to prevent unsustainable pressure on the NHS. For venues, certification could allow settings that have experienced long periods of closure to remain open, compared to more stringent measures that may severely reduce capacity or cause them to close entirely. The autumn-winter plan committed to publishing further details shortly on the proposed certification regime that would be introduced as part of plan B.
In this scenario, certification would be introduced in a limited number of venues. Communal worship, wedding ceremonies, funerals and other commemorative events and protests would also not fall under the certification regime. Exemptions would continue to apply for those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons, those on covid vaccine clinical trials and for under-18s.
The NHS covid pass would continue to certify individuals based on vaccination, testing or natural immunity status, with more than 200 events and venues already introducing voluntary certification and the NHS covid pass as a condition of entry.
Care home staff provide a critical role in supporting the health and wellbeing of some of the most clinically vulnerable to the effects of covid-19 in society, and have maintained their dedication and professionalism through highly challenging conditions. Since the start of the pandemic, the Government have committed over £6 billion to local authorities through non-ringfenced grants to tackle the impact of covid-19 on their services, including adult social care. We continue to be committed to supporting the social care sector.
To prevent individual susceptibility to covid-19, from 11 November it will be a condition of deployment for anyone working or volunteering in Care Quality Commission regulated care homes that provide accommodation for persons who require nursing and personal care to be fully vaccinated. Thanks to the incredible efforts of people across the sector, over 1.2 million social care workers in England have now been vaccinated. This is a fantastic achievement and an important step for staff to protect themselves, their loved ones and the people they care for from becoming seriously ill or dying from covid-19.
Graham Stringer
Can the Minister answer the question that her predecessor failed to answer on the Floor of the House on Second Reading of the Bill? Everybody agrees that it would be a good idea if all care workers were vaccinated, but why will it be effective to force reluctant care workers to either have it or lose their employment, when other people entering care homes—hairdressers, musicians and entertainers and such—would not be forced to? How is that an effective policy?
Maggie Throup
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the question. If he will excuse me, I have obviously been in post a short time. As I am led to believe, it is people who regularly go into care homes that will need this. It is not just restricted to the actual carers. If anybody needs to go into a care home in an emergency situation, that is a different scenario. If I may, however, I will clarify that after the debate.
Vaccine uptake nationally in the care home workforce is high, at 85.6% for first doses. This is in line with vaccine uptake in the general population. There is, however, significant variation at a regional, local and individual care home level. Vaccine requirements are designed to level up uptake in the care home workforce. While the majority of care home workers have been vaccinated, the latest published data as of 12 September highlighted that only 81.3% of older adult care homes in England were meeting the SAGE advice that 80% uptake of first doses among staff is the minimum needed to reduce the risk of outbreaks in these high-risk care settings.
While residents in care homes are some of the most at risk from covid-19, the responses to this initial consultation on care homes made a clear case for extending this policy to other settings where vulnerable people receive care and treatments. The Government are therefore seeking views on whether to extend vaccination requirements to other frontline health and care workers—those with face-to-face contact with patients and clients through the delivery of services, as part of a CQC regulated activity. Recent research has shown that people infected with both flu and covid-19 are more than twice as likely to die as someone with covid-19 alone and nearly six times more likely than those with neither flu nor covid-19, so vaccination requirements for both flu and covid-19 are being considered.
I trust that the debate will have helped to dispel some of the myths that hon. Members have raised about vaccinations, and will really reach out to the public to ask them, as colleagues have done, to go and get vaccinated to protect themselves and others. To conclude, I reassure the House that we are doing everything we can to widen and deepen our wall of defence that the vaccine provides. The ask of our NHS colleagues is challenging and complex, yet they have risen to this challenge and do it every day. Once again, I thank them for their dedication.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
Thank you, Minister, and well done on your first time speaking from the Front Bench.
Elliot Colburn
I thank the petitioners, especially those in Carshalton and Wallington, for allowing us to have this discussion about vaccinations. I thank all Members for coming along to participate. I know that the Government are considering certification and vaccination status carefully before making their decisions, and we have heard some of the concerns about those expressed eloquently today, but I would like to end by repeating the message that all of us have sent out today—for people to please get vaccinated to protect themselves and others.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 575801 and 577842, relating to Covid-19 vaccination.
Written Statements
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Draft Revised Energy National Policy Statements
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
Today I am laying before Parliament the draft revised energy national policy statements.
The energy national policy statements were first designated in 2011. They set out the Government’s policy for the delivery of energy infrastructure and provide the legal framework for planning decisions, in key energy policy areas: fossil fuels (EN-2); renewables (EN-3); gas supply and gas and oil pipelines (EN-4); electricity networks (EN-5); and nuclear (EN-6). They each sit below an overarching energy NPS (EN-1) which sets out the need for new energy infrastructure.
The Government announced a review of the current suite of energy national policy statements (NPS) in the energy White Paper: “Powering our net zero future” in December 2020.
The energy White Paper builds on the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan to set a long-term strategic vision for our energy system, consistent with net zero emissions by 2050. It establishes our goal of a decisive shift from fossil fuels to clean energy, in power, buildings and industry, while creating jobs and growing the economy and keeping energy bills affordable. It addresses how and why our energy system needs to evolve to deliver this goal whilst retaining a secure and operable energy system.
We have reviewed all the national policy statements for energy infrastructure and determined that the existing EN-1 to EN-5 documents should be amended to reflect the policies set out in the White Paper and support the investment required to build the infrastructure needed for transition to net zero.
A review of EN-6 has concluded that it will not be amended and therefore it is not part of this consultation. A new technology specific NPS for nuclear electricity generation deployable after 2025 is proposed and will be developed to reflect the changing policy and technology landscape for nuclear and support the transition to net zero.
On 6 September 2021 I launched a public consultation on the draft revised energy national policy statements, supporting habitats and sustainability reports and associated appendices. These are subject to a 12-week public consultation and are all available on gov.uk.
I will place copies of the public consultation “Planning for new energy infrastructure: review of energy national policy statements”, the “Appraisal of sustainability and its appendices: Appendices supporting evidence volumes I and II”, and the “Habitats regulation assessment” in the Libraries of both Houses. The public consultation will close on 29 November 2021. The relevant period for parliamentary scrutiny will be from 20 September 2021 to 28 February 2022.
[HCWS295]
Personal Independence Payments
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I would like to update the House on the Department’s implementation of the Supreme Court judgment from July 2019 in the case of Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v. MM, known as MM. The judgment concerned the way we assess the help that someone might need to engage with other people face to face and whether that help is considered “prompting” or “social support” under the PIP assessment.
The Department set out to the House on 17 September 2020 that, following this judgment, the Department had made changes to the way PIP is assessed for all new claims, award reviews and mandatory reconsiderations.
We have now started an administrative exercise, looking at PIP claims since 6 April 2016 to check whether claimants may be eligible for more support under PIP.
This is a complex exercise that will take some time to complete. We will be contacting claimants who may be affected by this change and will be writing to those we review. If claimants are eligible for more PIP, we will make backdated payments.
It is important to stress that not everyone we contact will be eligible for more PIP, however, I hope this reassures the House that we are committed to treating people fairly and ensuring that they are fully supported.
[HCWS294]