Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
The pandemic has shown us just how important and world-leading the UK’s life sciences sector is, and our Government are committed to making it go from strength to strength.
Jason McCartney
As a fellow rugby league fan, Mr Speaker, you will know the brilliance of Rob Burrow on the pitch and now his inspiration off the pitch. Rob is in Parliament today with his friend Doddie Weir to raise awareness of motor neurone disease and of the campaign calling on the Government to invest £50 million in MND research over the next five years for a virtual MND research institute. Will the Secretary of State please commit to meeting the MND Association to discuss this funding proposal further?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I thank my hon. Friend for the work he is doing in this area. He will know that in the last fiscal year, UK Research and Innovation spent £15.9 million on MND research. In the previous Parliament, 2017 to 2019, we announced £20 million to support the work of medical research charities which have now been impacted by covid.
Karl Turner
It has been said already, but rugby league fanatics like you and I, Mr Speaker, have long been inspired by the brilliance of Rob Burrow on the field, but I think we have been blown away by his tireless determination off the pitch to campaign to raise awareness of motor neurone disease. Does the Secretary of State agree with Rob and Scotland’s rugby union star Doddie Weir, who are both watching us, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) said? We need to act now, Secretary of State—now—to increase research funding into this devastating, debilitating and life- limiting disease.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I pay tribute to the hon. Member, who raises an extremely important point. I do not know Rob, but I am very pleased that his tireless work has been raised today. As I said, in the last fiscal year UKRI spent £15.9 million on MND research. We have had a wider offer for medical research charities—we announced £204 million for Research England in the fiscal year 2020-21—but I am very happy to meet him and see what more we can do to pursue this important topic.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Lucy Lintott from Moray was Scotland’s youngest person to be diagnosed with MND, aged 19. Eight years on, she is living with fiancé Tommy Smith. They have an 18-month-old, LJ, and, on Hogmanay, they are expecting their second child, a little girl. It is believed that Lucy is the first person in the world to have had two pregnancies after diagnosis. Will the Secretary of State meet Lucy and other campaigners to see what we can do to support her family and so many others in Scotland and across the UK?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I thank my hon. Friend for raising in this House such an inspiring story. I would, of course, be delighted to meet Lucy and him to discuss how we can pursue further progress in this area.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
As I am sure the Secretary of State will appreciate, there are very many of us in this House for whom this is a hugely important issue. He has already mentioned the research, but the key to the £50 million over five years is that it is not spread over other research—it is completely targeted on motor neurone disease. Will he take that to the Government and bear that in mind please?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Absolutely right. UKRI is responsible for the budget and I am in frequent conversations with UKRI. We have to work to see what we can do to focus, with laser-like attention, on this debilitating illness.
Mr Speaker
Thank you, Secretary of State. May I just say that everybody in rugby league is aware that Rob Burrow is an inspirational person? He really is that great man and great character.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (George Freeman)
It is very good to be back as the newly appointed Minister for Science, Research and Innovation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) for his tireless work on levelling up and the importance of innovation in supporting left-behind communities. Science and innovation are not the same thing. We are committed to being both a science superpower and an innovation nation, and that is why I am looking hard at what we can do, through the business innovation forum, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, Innovate UK and UKRI, to drive levelling up.
Ben Bradley
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and welcome him back to his new position—congratulations. There is an oven-ready package available in the east midlands, with key projects set to boost private investment in the region. The Government’s backing for those projects this autumn is vital. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are supportive of our plans for an east midlands freeport, our development corporation and the importance of Toton in the integrated rail plan? Does he agree that this is a huge opportunity to attract private investment into a region that traditionally is at the bottom of the table for attracting that kind of money?
George Freeman
In a word, yes. My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Freeports and regeneration corporations are vital to our innovation strategy. Not only are we determined that there will be funding for the golden triangle, but we want to harness science and regeneration to drive growth around the country.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
We have been clear that threats to fire and rehire as a tactic to pressure workers during negotiations are totally unacceptable. That is why we have asked the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to produce guidance to help employers to reach negotiated outcomes with their workforce. We continue to keep the issue under review.
Ian Lavery
While Members across the House were munching away this morning at the country’s favourite breakfast cereal, Weetabix, they will have been blissfully unaware that Post Holdings, which owns Weetabix, has turned its guns on its workforce with fire and rehire. Employees at Weetabix are set to lose £5,000 per annum, and of course if they refuse they will lose their jobs. That is quite simply not good enough. Minister after Minister, including the Prime Minister, has stood at the Dispatch Box saying how abhorrent fire and rehire is. Will the Minister please tell the House what he intends to do about fire and rehire? Can he confirm that the Government will support the Second Reading of the Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill—the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner)—on 22 October?
Paul Scully
The Government take fire and rehire very seriously. Obviously there are occasions when businesses need the flexibility to change workers’ terms and conditions to avoid mass redundancies and insolvency, but there have been examples of its being used as a bully boy tactic. I know that the Labour party understands that, because as recently as July, it made a load of its own employees redundant and hired workers on temporary contracts with worse terms and conditions to keep the party afloat—unless that was a case of one law for the Labour party and another for UK businesses.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I think that every Member of this House shares concerns about the practice of fire and rehire, but does the Minister agree that taking a sledgehammer to the delicate ecosystem of redundancy laws contained in the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is fraught with danger and that there are levers that we can deploy instead that would strongly disincentivise such conduct? Will he meet me again to discuss the issue?
Paul Scully
I always thank my hon. Friend for her interventions in the matter, because with her experience as an employment barrister she has seen it from both angles. The Government do not currently plan to legislate, but because of its obvious importance we are keeping the matter under review. I recognise the wealth of expertise on employment law and related matters in this House; I have met MPs on both sides of the issue and am glad to continue these conversations with my hon. Friend.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
We hear lots of talk of levelling up from Ministers at the Dispatch Box, do we not? Well, here is a genuine opportunity to improve terms and conditions for employees up and down the land, including at Weetabix, and legislate through the private Member’s Bill. Stop the reviews, get on with it and legislate!
Paul Scully
We introduced the national living wage. We have enabled workers to carry over more annual leave because of the pandemic. We have increased the reference period that employers use to calculate holiday pay, to improve seasonal workers’ wages. We are continuing to improve workers’ rights over this Parliament. We are indeed the workers’ party, so we will continue to make sure that we tackle fire and rehire when it is used as a bully boy tactic.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (George Freeman)
I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a distinguished Minister in the Treasury and the Department for Transport and a champion of innovation. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the Government are completely committed to unlocking this country’s global reach as a science superpower and an innovation nation. That is why we are committed to spending £14.9 billion this year on research and development, and to increasing the total R&D budget to £22 billion and 2.5% of GDP.
Andrew Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and congratulate him. It is good to see him back at the Dispatch Box.
One of the largest employers in my constituency is Labcorp, a business that is at the heart of new medicine development both in the UK and across Europe and has played a role in the life science industry response to covid. It is considering UK expansion over the next five years at a number of sites across the UK. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss that opportunity, and also some of the obstacles that may get in the way of it, with a view to securing expansion in the UK as a whole but in Harrogate in particular?
George Freeman
I should be delighted to meet my hon. Friend soon to discuss that. Labcorp is a major global corporation whose investment in the new clinical pharmacology site is vital. It is in such companies that we need to be investing to drive private investment in research and development.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Time and again I have raised with the Government the opportunity to invest in BioYorkshire, which will create 4,000 jobs for my constituents, upskill 25,000 people, and deliver £5 billion in gross value added to the Government. Will the Minister meet me to discuss it? COP26 is just six weeks away, and not pursuing projects like this is holding back the improvements that we can make to our environment.
George Freeman
As I have said, I am wholly committed to ensuring that science innovation drives levelling up and regeneration, and I should be delighted to meet the hon. Lady. I shall be on my way to County Durham on Thursday, so perhaps I can meet her next week or the week after.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lee Rowley)
The Government remain firmly committed to securing gigafactories in the UK, and have demonstrated that commitment through the automotive transformation fund. As many Members will know, the first site in Sunderland was announced in July, and will see an unprecedented 100,000 battery-electric cars produced annually by Nissan and Envision AESC from 2024.
Alun Cairns
I congratulate the Minister on his appointment, and pay tribute to the Secretary of State and his team for facilitating investment in gigafactories in the UK. Britishvolt is making excellent progress in Blyth, but was originally intended to come to my constituency. These large-scale projects have both devolved and reserved functions. When similar projects arise, might a Minister be dedicated to lead them, looking after both the devolved and the reserved functions and working with the Welsh Government in securing that investment?
Lee Rowley
I am extremely grateful for my right hon. Friend’s question. I know that he is a huge champion of Wales, and that he has huge experience in this regard. I should be happy to meet him to discuss his suggestion. As he will know, the automotive transformation fund is a UK-wide programme, and we will welcome applications for support throughout the UK. I look forward to talking to my right hon. Friend about that.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his position.
The Prime Minister’s climate change spokeswoman recently announced that she would not be buying an electric car because of the lack of charging infrastructure and battery capacity. In 2018 the UK produced a quarter of Europe’s electric vehicles, but that is set to fall to just 4% by 2030. Motor manufacturers predict that tens of thousands of good jobs will be lost.
Will the Minister confirm that even if he meets his own targets, by 2025 the UK will have only 7% of the battery production capacity of Germany? Germans receive grants of up to €9,000 to buy an electric car, three times what he is offering. What will he do to deliver the battery capacity that is needed to secure British jobs, and make electric cars affordable? Does he understand what affordable means?
Lee Rowley
We absolutely understand what affordable means, and we are absolutely committed to building an industry that supports batteries in the United Kingdom, ensuring that the transition to electric vehicles will take place within a short period. I am happy to talk to the hon. Lady more about that if she wishes.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
The Government are committed to introducing statutory leave and pay for parents of babies requiring neonatal care, and we will do that as soon as parliamentary time allows.
David Linden
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, but I am afraid it is not good enough. Every year 100,000 babies are born premature or sick, and parents like me then have to take time off work to be with their child in hospital where, perhaps, it is fighting for its life. When will the Government get a grip on the issue? This is something that they have committed themselves to doing, and parents of premature and sick babies across these islands are desperate for action. Do we have to wait for an employment Bill? Why are the Government taking so long?
Paul Scully
I appreciate the work that the hon. Gentleman and his all-party parliamentary group on premature and sick babies are doing in this area. The Government are committed to ensuring that all workers can participate and progress in the labour market and that we build back better as we recover from covid-19. We will bring forward the employment Bill when the time is right. In the meantime, we will continue to take the necessary action to support businesses and protect jobs.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Millions of workers are denied maternity pay and parental leave, as well as other basic rights and protections, because the Government allow only some workers to have full rights, and only after two years in the job. Is it not the case that working people are paying the price for the Government’s broken promise to bring in an employment Bill? Does the Minister not agree that all workers should have full rights from day one on the job?
Paul Scully
As I say, we are expanding workers’ rights and delivering based on qualitative and quantitative evidence. That will be seen when the employment Bill comes through, when parliamentary time allows. What we cannot do, though, is work on a whim. Last week, the Labour party announced that it wanted a £10 minimum wage, yet this week it is reportedly recruiting stewards for its conference at £9.75 an hour. We say what we mean and we will deliver.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Hands)
Ahead of COP26, we will publish a net zero strategy. This will set out our vision for transitioning to a net zero economy and outline our path to meet net zero by 2050. Ahead of this, we have already published important sector strategies and made major green investments in key technologies, including a £240 million net zero hydrogen fund and a £1 billion fund for carbon capture.
Robert Largan
I am delighted to welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role, although he will be much missed from his previous role in the Department for International Trade where he played a crucial role in building the Department from scratch since 2016. Reducing emissions in the heat sector is vital to decarbonising our economy, and the Government have set an ambitious target of installing 600,000 heat pumps a year by 2028. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government’s anticipated heat and building strategy will include a pathway for reaching that target, including measures to make heat pumps more affordable for working households?
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. As he has pointed out, the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution sets an ambition to grow the market to 600,000 heat pump installations per annum by 2028. The heat and building strategy, due soon, will set out the policies that will deliver this target in a fair and affordable way, including for his High Peak constituency.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Experts have concluded that to reach net zero by 2050, there should be no new oil and gas fields approved for development and no new coalmines or mine extensions from the end of this year. Does the Minister agree with that assessment by the experts, and if so, does he agree that the Cumbrian coalmine and the Cambo oilfield surely cannot go ahead?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Of course, we look carefully at what the Climate Change Committee has recommended at all times, and we are in the process of meeting last year’s recommendations very well. I can tell her that the climate checkpoint will apply to all future licensing rounds. Cambo is of course already licensed, and projects that are already licensed are already accounted for in our projection of emissions from future oil and gas production. So those emissions are already accounted for in our plans.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I would like to welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position, and I wish him well. May I also welcome the Government’s new target to cut our carbon emissions by 78% by 2035? Does he agree that this ambitious world-leading target puts us on track to get to net zero by 2050 and shows how we are leading the world in building back greener?
Greg Hands
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Referring back to the Climate Change Committee progress report, I read an interesting comment in it at the weekend while I was learning into my new brief. It states:
“The rate of reductions since 2012…is comparable to that needed in the future.”
That is not a reason for complacency, but I would point out, as my right hon. Friend has done, that the UK has an enviable record in this space. We have grown the economy by 78% since 1990 and reduced our emissions by 44%, showing that the right way forward is to grow our economy while simultaneously reducing emissions.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Household energy bills are set to increase by £400 a year as green costs escalate and energy-intensive industries are leaving the UK, with the loss of thousands of jobs. We are becoming increasingly reliant on hostile and unstable states, as we refuse to give licences to exploit our own oil, coal and gas in the United Kingdom. This week we found out that emergency electricity supplies have had to be bought in because the wind did not blow. All that is a result of the policy of aiming for zero CO2 emissions by 2050. Does the Minister not have even the tiniest doubt that these policies are economic madness?
Greg Hands
I always enjoy my engagements with the right hon. Gentleman on a number of topics, whether in relation to Northern Ireland or to these kinds of issues more broadly. First, on jobs leaving the UK, overall we have fantastic economic growth at the moment, 4.8% in the last quarter.
We have also done an incredible job of making sure that we have diverse sources of supply that do not leave us vulnerable to the actions of hostile states. Actually, 48% of our gas is taken from the UK continental shelf and an additional 30% comes from Norway. Norway is one of our greatest friends and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced yesterday, it is increasing its production.
On renewables, our ability to diversify shows the strength of the UK’s ability to generate energy and electricity that is both sustainable and diverse.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
In addressing the energy trilemma of cost, security and decarbonisation, what account is my right hon. Friend taking of the 10,000 MW, 4,500 km power link between Australia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations? Does he feel that there is any read across for what the UK might do to address the problems we will likely face, if not this winter, in the very near future?
Greg Hands
I take a keen interest in both Australia and ASEAN, having recently come from the Department for International Trade. There is a new Australia trade agreement and we have dialogue partner status at ASEAN. My right hon. Friend refers to an interesting project and, of course, the UK is always looking to make our energy supply more secure and to make our sources of energy more diverse. These are the sorts of things on which we are keeping a close eye as a potential model for the UK.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
If the closure of the GKN plant in Erdington goes ahead, it will be a blow to the automotive industry’s transition to an electric future and a betrayal of the British national interest, with 519 workers sacked in an area of high deprivation and with production exported to Poland and France. I welcome the statement made by Ministers as early as April 2021 on their preparedness to contemplate investment in both skills and plant as part of keeping the factory open. As talks reach a critical stage, will the Minister confirm that the Government stand ready to continue to play an active role in seeking a resolution?
Greg Hands
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s engagement as the constituency’s Member of Parliament. I do not buy into his idea that we are neglecting the national interest. This Government and this Department have the national interest very much at our core, as he will have heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the rest of the ministerial team. We are engaging with GKN—my right hon. Friend has met GKN—and we will continue to engage with it at this difficult time.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the issuance this morning of the UK’s first sovereign green gilt, which saw a record £90 billion of orders in the first hour? Does he agree that we should now seek to get more corporations to issue corporate green debt?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend raises a good point. Having worked in futures markets, I think the first sovereign green gilt is a great step forward for this country. I am sure that Her Majesty’s Treasury will be working very closely with the market and will be advising issuers to make sure this important sector grows in the years ahead.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Soaring gas prices have plummeted the UK into an energy crisis, with fears for vulnerable households and for the wave of energy firms folding. We have relied far too heavily on gas most recently, and it did not have to be this way; the Government could have foreseen it. We see that countries that have prioritised low-carbon energy are far more insulated from shocks such as this, and protect those vulnerable families as we head into winter, and meet climate objectives, which we know the Government are failing on. So will the Secretary of State commit to demanding that the Chancellor this autumn delivers a Budget that can ensure that we in the UK deliver an efficient, diverse, secure green energy sector, at speed?
Greg Hands
As a former Treasury Minister, I have to advise the hon. Lady to wait and see on the Budget. We have set out clear actions in relation to the wholesale gas price problems, outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday, reassuring the public that the consumer always comes first. We have been absolutely clear that the energy price cap will remain—it protects 15 million households. On her accusation that we have done nothing for renewables, I can tell her that under this Government they are up sixfold and that since the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was the Energy Secretary in 2010 they have quadrupled as a share of our energy generation.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that ceramics is an energy-intensive industry, and companies such as Churchill China and Steelite are desperate to find a green solution that will enable them to fire the plates that we are lucky enough to dine on here in the House of Commons. So will he meet me and representatives of the ceramics industry to hear how we can help them to achieve net zero?
Greg Hands
We, of course, deliver relief schemes to reduce the cumulative impact of some energy and climate change policies on industrial electricity prices for eligible energy-intensive industries and sectors, such as steel, chemicals, cement, ceramics, paper and glass. I know the sector well from my previous role at the Department for International Trade, and of course I would be ready to meet my hon. Friend, the brilliant Stoke Conservative team of other MPs and the British Ceramic Confederation.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Does the Minister intend to back the Acorn project as a track 1 cluster?
Greg Hands
We recognise that this project has good potential, but obviously we need to work through these kinds of projects in a proper and methodical way, to make sure that all of the questions people would expect the Government to look at—value for money, viability and so on—are properly met.
Stephen Flynn
We cannot understate the importance of the delivery of carbon capture and underground storage to the UK’s and Scotland’s journey to net zero. Let me be clear: the Acorn project should be in the vanguard of that process. I hear the warm words from the Minister, but warm words only go so far, particularly when we frame them within this Government’s record on sustainable projects in Scotland. If we look at the likes of offshore wind, we see that SSEN—Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks—has produced another report highlighting the fact that Scottish renewables projects continue to pay the highest grid charges in not only the UK, but the entirety of Europe. What is he going to do, as the new energy Minister, to end that renewables robbery?
Greg Hands
The hon. Gentleman’s talk of Scotland being short-changed on renewables is entirely wrong. Scotland is a massive part of our renewables offer, today and going forward. Secondly, this is a competitive process. Carbon capture, utilisation and storage is a key plank of the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution. So of course we look at CCUS and the potential it offers, but this is a competitive process and it would not be right at this point to pass specific comment on the project.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Northern Lincolnshire and the wider Humber region are playing a major part in our reaching zero emissions targets in the next few years. The Minister will have been made aware of a number of projects that the Department has supported. Will he assure us that that support will continue? May I urge him to build into his schedule a visit to the region as quickly as possible?
Greg Hands
I look forward to a visit to Yorkshire and the Humber region as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend will know how Yorkshire has delivered incredibly for the UK as a whole, particularly in respect of offshore wind. The world’s largest operational offshore wind farm, Hornsea One, spans 400 sq km off the Yorkshire coast and generates enough power for 1 million UK homes.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has talked a lot about what is going to happen ahead of COP in respect of net zero, but will he look back at the green homes grant voucher scheme that was delivered in September last year? It was set up in 12 weeks, from announcement to delivery, and was axed six months later without having delivered the jobs or the green homes measures. What is the Minister’s Department doing to reflect on that? Is he thinking about longer-term planning to the benefit of both the industry and our net zero targets?
Greg Hands
The hon. Lady will know the course of that scheme through her important work as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. She will also know that we are committed to publishing a heat and buildings strategy in the run-up to COP, and she will just have to wait and see what is in it. It is incredibly important that we take strong action to make sure that our public and private building stock remains sustainable for the future and makes its contribution as we move forward to net zero and our chairing of COP in November.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend and the other new BEIS Ministers to their places.
Perhaps uncharacteristically, I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) in backing the Acorn project, which is in my constituency of Banff and Buchan. The hon. Gentleman and other SNP Members often like to talk about the Scottish Government’s recent commitment to £500 million of support for a so-called just transition in the north-east of Scotland, but as far as I can tell no actual plan of action is connected to that funding to deliver the energy transition that we need. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister inform the House of what this Government actually plan to do to deliver net zero and how much investment has been and will be available through, for example, the North sea transition deal?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend will know about the North sea transition agreement, which we announced earlier this year. I share his concern about the Scottish Government’s approach to all these things. It is still very early days for that coalition, but we are watching carefully. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that Scotland has benefited enormously from UK Government investment in renewables. On the contract for difference scheme, for example, 20 of the 58 projects that have been awarded CfDs to date are in Scotland. That represents 34% of all CfD projects and 21% of total CfD capacity. My hon. Friend is right that the UK Government are delivering for Scotland.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Hands)
The Government are carefully considering the Climate Change Committee’s progress report and will respond to it in full as part of our forthcoming net zero strategy ahead of COP26. That strategy, which will outline our path to meet net zero by 2050, will contain policies and proposals that will allow the Government to respond substantively to the report’s recommendations.
Jeff Smith
Well, it needs to, because the report was pretty damning. The Environmental Audit Committee recently made a number of recommendations to support community energy projects such as Greater Manchester Community Renewables in my constituency. Will the Minister emphasise the importance of community energy in the upcoming net zero strategy, as recommended specifically by the Committee, and put in place some practical measures to harness the potential of community energy, including support to enable groups to get investment for energy transition projects?
Greg Hands
Yes, of course we take community renewable initiatives very seriously indeed. We also take the Environmental Audit Committee very seriously indeed and I look forward to appearing before its Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), in due course.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the CCC progress report was damning. For example, the report says:
“The UK has a leading record in reducing its own emissions”,
and:
“The UK has been a strong contributor to international climate finance”.
Recently, John Kerry himself, the President’s special envoy on climate, praised the UK approach.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I too welcome the Minister to his new post, my opposite number in the Department, and hope that he will last a little longer in the post than his immediate predecessor.
The Climate Change Committee’s report to Parliament highlights how little progress has been made with the upgrading of insulation in buildings and points out that
“insulation rates remain well below the delivery achieved in 2012 before key policies were scrapped.”
Does the Minister accept that, had those insulation policies been pursued, energy customers would have been in a much better position to cope with the energy prices rises and the cost of living crisis that we have currently. Does the Minister now take responsibility for the abject failure of the Government’s home insulation policies, and, most importantly, what will he now do about it?
Greg Hands
The hon. Gentleman has managed to pack a lot into that question. Let me try to answer it in three ways. First, when it comes to the heat and buildings strategy, he will just have to wait until we publish it. We are doing the right thing. Secondly, when it comes to energy price rises, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out at great length the action we are taking to protect customers, including vulnerable customers, with the rest of the support that the Government provide. Thirdly, when it comes to the Climate Change Committee, we have done very well on achieving, for example, last year’s recommendations. Actually we have achieved in full or in part 40 of the Committee’s 92 recommendations last year; 32 are already on their way. We are looking forward to responding as well to this year’s recommendations.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Kettering constituency generates enough wind power to power all local homes, but if we are to meet our net zero target by 2050, we need to develop more offshore wind power. Can the Energy Minister confirm that we are on track to increase the capacity of offshore wind from 30 GW to 40 GW by 2030?
Greg Hands
I always call my hon. Friend Mr Kettering, Mr Speaker, as he has been a councillor there for a long time and the Member of Parliament representing Kettering so diligently and astutely in this House. He is right: the UK currently has 10 GW of offshore wind capacity, which is around a third of the world’s total. We are looking to grow that to 40 GW by the year 2030.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
Successful resolution of supply chain pressures will be a joint effort between stakeholders and the Government, and we will continue to engage with industry stakeholders and other Departments to find practical solutions to these challenges, which are not unique to the UK.
Mike Kane
Will the Minister join me in congratulating companies such as Cardon Energy and Maritime Transport in my constituency on keeping the country fed, fuelled and supplied? However, they tell me that there is a tsunami of HGV drivers reaching retirement. Unite the Union says that terms and conditions are not good enough and lengthening the working day will not improve that. NG Transport has offered to resettle six Afghanistan families with the requisite skills. Will the Minister not stand in the way of companies trying to innovate to plug the gaps while we tackle these structural problems?
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. Indeed, that is exactly why we are engaging with industry because the solutions will likely come predominantly from industry. We will continue to work with stakeholders on this so that we are able to innovate to tackle this incredibly intractable—at the moment—problem.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
For months, the Government have ignored warnings about supply chain issues from the Food and Drink Federation, UKHospitality and other businesses. August saw Nando’s temporarily close 50 stores. McDonald’s ran out of milkshakes and now the HGV shortage has been compounded by a CO2 crisis that the Government should have foreseen. With Iceland warning of food shortages in days, jobs at risk as businesses deal with this utter chaos, and looming costs for consumers who are now paying the price, will the Minister now tell the Chancellor that universal credit must not be cut? Is Professor Haszeldine not right to say today that, with only two to three days’ of methane stored rather than months’ of supply that other countries have, we should have been far better prepared?
Paul Scully
The hon. Lady started talking about supply chains and ended up talking about welfare, but let me tackle the supply chains issue. We are working closely with sector leaders to understand how we can encourage more people to work in these areas. Through our plan for jobs, we are also giving people the skills and qualifications that they need to quickly take up roles in key sectors. That is why we are inviting employers from a range of sectors, including farming and hospitality, into local jobcentres, as one of the most effective ways to promote vacancies is for employers to come out and market their opportunities directly to our work coaches and jobseekers
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lee Rowley)
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) asks a timely question; he may be aware that the United Kingdom recently published a hydrogen strategy outlining the Government’s comprehensive package to incentivise low-carbon hydrogen, and a broader plan to help the wider hydrogen economy to develop.
Andy Carter
The recent increase in wholesale energy prices strengthens the case for investing in hydrogen in the north-west of England. May I urge the Minister to come to Warrington and see the businesses that rely on intensive use of energy, and rapidly progress hydrogen and the HyNet scheme to produce carbon capture and storage in the UK, so that businesses such as Novelis Recycling and Solvay Interox are able to decarbonise rapidly?
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for the north-west and his constituency of Warrington. The Secretary of State has said to me that one of the ministerial team would be happy to visit. I think the Secretary of State would be happy to do that—indeed, I think he has already visited. As my hon. Friend is aware, many of the decisions around this matter are currently under way, so I am not going to comment on them at this point. At the end of the process, we will have a low-carbon hydrogen economy to be proud of.
Peter Gibson
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. Teesside already produces more than 50% of the UK’s commercially viable hydrogen. What assessment has he made of the benefits of the recently signed deal between BP, the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company and Masdar for the Tees valley? Does he support the phenomenal work being done locally by Ben Houchen to revolutionise our green energy sector?
Lee Rowley
The benefits will be huge. This work is another example of the fantastic Conservative Tees valley team led by my hon. Friend, supporting Darlington, and the Mayor, and it demonstrates what we can do in an area to level up and improve it for the long term.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
Yesterday I updated the House on the UK gas market. As I said in my statement, protecting consumers is our primary focus and is shaping our entire approach to the issue; they must come first.
I welcome the new members of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy ministerial team. We had a great team before the reshuffle, but I am pleased that we have a good team with us today.
Over the summer, my Department has been abuzz with activity. We have introduced our innovation strategy and the hydrogen strategy, and outlined the new round for our contracts for difference scheme. It has been an excellent way to start and I look forward to continuing in that vein.
Mr Betts
Thank you, Mr Speaker; for a minute, I thought you were going to miss me out!
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State launched the Government’s hydrogen strategy in my constituency at ITM Power, which is a leading green hydrogen producer. The German strategy is totally committed to green hydrogen alone, and of course the Germans have put substantially more funding in than we have into this country’s strategy. The Government have an aspiration to replace all fossil fuel boilers in this country by the 2030s. That ambition is important for reducing carbon emissions and for the security of our energy supplies. Does the Secretary of State agree that we can deliver on that ambition only with a much more significant commitment from the Government to develop and install green hydrogen boilers across the country?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I make no apology for the fact that we have a twin-track approach in the hydrogen strategy. We have endorsed the production of green hydrogen, as he has described the German Government have done. We have also endorsed the production of blue hydrogen, because in the first instance, as he will understand, blue hydrogen is much cheaper than green hydrogen. In order to kickstart a hydrogen economy, we need a cheap source of decarbonised hydrogen. As such, blue hydrogen represents a transition to an economy that can be driven more by green hydrogen. The twin-track approach that we have outlined is certainly the best one.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Kwasi Kwarteng
I know, as a former Treasury Minister, that my hon. Friend is very focused on making the green transition as economically successful as possible. I and others in the Government are very focused on getting a proper electric vehicle charge roll-out, and I would be happy to speak to her to discuss the plans that we have adopted.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Families looking at soaring gas prices will be deeply worried about how they will pay their bills. One of the reasons UK households are particularly vulnerable is the Government’s failure on home insulation. Emissions from buildings are in fact higher today than in 2015. I am afraid to say that the Secretary of State’s record is abysmal, with the fiasco of the green homes grant, cuts to spending, a heat and buildings strategy originally promised for spring 2020 which is still not published, and no proper plan for retrofit. Will he admit that families this winter will be paying the price of the Government’s failure on home insulation?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I will not admit that at all. The right hon. Gentleman got the date wrong—it was to be published in quarter 1 of 2021. I was the Energy Minister who said that.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Yes, it is still late, and I want to publish it as quickly as possible. I can admit that candidly.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the green homes grant. I remind him that of the £3 billion that was sequestered—ringfenced—for the green homes grant, £1.5 billion was disbursed through Salix for public buildings, and that worked very well, while £500 million was disbursed by local authorities, and that was successful. The owner-occupier bit of it was a six-month programme—a short-term fiscal stimulus—that we have closed, and we are going to have a replacement imminently.
Edward Miliband
It is a complete fiasco. The Secretary of State actually cut the money that was supposed to be allocated to homeowners.
At least half a million families are going to be thrown into fuel poverty by the rise in energy prices. On top of that, along with national insurance rises, millions of families are facing a £1,000 a year cut in universal credit in just 10 days’ time. It is a Tory triple whammy made in Downing Street. Will the Secretary of State stand up for the millions of people who are deeply worried about their bills and tell the Prime Minister that he should cancel the universal credit cut?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I have a sense of déjà vu, as we addressed this issue directly yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman knows with his experience—I was going to say in government but I mean and in opposition—that universal credit is a matter for the Chancellor, in discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (George Freeman)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been a phenomenal champion of science and technology in space. I am delighted to say that the Government are very shortly to publish our national space strategy, into which we put a huge amount of work. In addition to the £1.4 billion that we spend on defence space activities in our innovation strategy, we are looking to make sure that we boost the wider science and technology applications of our £16.4 billion space sector.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Kwasi Kwarteng
Absolutely. In relation to this question, I pointed out that UKRI spent £15.9 million in the last fiscal year. The UKRI portion of our Department’s spend is being negotiated in the course of the spending review. I would be very happy to follow the guidance of the hon. Gentleman and make sure that we properly fund research into motor neurone disease.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Hands)
My hon. Friend is absolutely tireless in promoting Truro and Falmouth. The project she mentions is very interesting. Last year, the new Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), made a successful visit to the site. Subject to diary commitments, I or the Secretary of State would be delighted to visit to see the latest progress, which is supported, in part, by our Getting Building fund.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Stockport has a vibrant high street with excellent retailers and independent businesses, but in recent years, and particularly since the pandemic, many have had to shut up shop and, like lots of other high streets, we have lost beloved names such as BHS and Debenhams after they went into administration and moved online. What steps is the Minister therefore taking to ensure that large online retailers do not undercut our high street stores?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
The hon. Gentleman will know that his area has received £14.5 million from the future high streets fund, which will bring local projects to life to help revitalise the high street. In the meantime, we will work with the sector and across Government to ensure that we get the balance right between online retail and bricks and mortar, which bring community spirit and social value to areas such as his constituency.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Kwasi Kwarteng
That is absolutely right. I fully recognise, as my hon. Friend appreciates, that we have had huge success in decarbonising our power sector, but we need to accelerate the decarbonisation of our homes and buildings. As I pointed out to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), we have had some success in decarbonising public sector buildings—particularly through Salix—but we now need to focus on decarbonising our dwellings and other buildings.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Minister can play accounting games over the Cambo oilfield, arguing that it was licensed 20 years ago, but essentially its emissions will still drive climate change. New research shows that 60% of existing oil and gas reserves must stay in the ground if we are to stay within 1.5° C, and the International Energy Agency has said that there must be no new oil and gas development of any kind. With COP26 in just six weeks, with the Secretary of State trying to have international diplomacy, what message does he think is given out by the Government going ahead with more oil and gas?
Kwasi Kwarteng
With regard to Cambo, the hon. Member will appreciate that the decision has been scrutinised in the normal regulatory way. As an energy Minister I helped to negotiate a North sea transition deal, and key to that was the word transition. We need to transition our existing oil and gas sector to a decarbonised platform. What she and others like her want to see is a complete eclipse and shutting down of oil and gas, with 250,000 jobs vanishing overnight. That would be completely irresponsible.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is a real champion for his area, often talking about family businesses such as Strickland and Holt, which was established in 1854, and the contribution of such places to the economy. We expect the fundamental review of business rates to conclude in the autumn. Businesses benefited from 100% business rates relief until 30 June 2021 and they continue to benefit from 66% business rates relief until 31 March 2022.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Many people applying for jobs have to jump through a series of stages in the recruitment process before they find out what the salary would be were they to be successful. Is it not time that Ministers sat down with job application platforms such as LinkedIn and told them to require minimum salary levels in adverts?
Paul Scully
We speak to the recruitment sector on a number of occasions. I will happily sit down with the hon. Member to discuss the matter further.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The resilience of our energy sector and our journey towards net zero are key matters for the House. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that nuclear power forms an important part of our future energy mix?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend is right. Nuclear power is a vital part of our future energy mix. We have committed to trying to achieve at least one more gigawatt power plant during this Parliament and we have set out plans for small and advanced nuclear reactors.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
May I press the Secretary of State further on blue hydrogen? The source of blue hydrogen is natural gas, which is a fossil fuel, so how can a Government committed to net zero invest millions of pounds in new technologies based on fossil fuels? The Secretary of State has said several times that it is a “transition”, but since this is not a net zero technology, a transition to what?
Kwasi Kwarteng
We have spoken about this issue many times in this House, and the hon. Member will appreciate that carbon capture is a key part of our net zero strategy. I think that is widely accepted, particularly by the Climate Change Committee. With her knowledge of chemistry, she will also know that carbon capture works hand in hand with the production of blue hydrogen and that blue hydrogen is not particularly carbon intensive. The reason why countries such as Germany have not pursued a blue hydrogen strategy is that they do not have the physical infrastructure in the North sea to do it.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Renewable energy depends on increasing our grid capacity, so what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to do that?
Greg Hands
There are robust processes in place for bringing forward new grid upgrades to meet demand. Smart electric vehicle charging and other smart technologies of course reduce the need for new infrastructure, and the recent smart systems and flexibility plan sets out the actions the Government will take in an area in which I know my hon. Friend takes an ongoing interest.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
UK steel producers face dramatically higher electricity costs than our European competitors. How can the sector attract the investment needed to decarbonise when it faces a £50 million a year barrier to investment?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I have discussed with the sector the ongoing issue of electricity prices or energy prices for the steel industry. That is why one of the first things I did as Secretary of State was to resuscitate the Steel Council. We are coming up with ideas to try to create a sustainable steel sector on a decarbonised basis.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I welcome the Minister back re-energised to his place in the Department, and as today is Gloucestershire Day, can I ask him to look very closely at the bid made by Gloucestershire to support the development of a vital new technology—nuclear fusion?
George Freeman
On Gloucestershire Day, it is a great pleasure to take that question from my hon. Friend, and the answer is yes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Renewables are very important everywhere across the United Kingdom, but one of the problems for renewables is getting access to the grid. The Electric Storage Company in Northern Ireland has told me that if that was improved, energy could be stored for access to the grid. Can the Secretary of State tell us what he could do to make that happen?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I would like to hear more from the hon. Gentleman about this, and I am very happy to meet him to talk about it.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
It seems that legislation is the only way that the hundreds of postmasters and postmistresses who have had their lives destroyed by the Horizon scandal will get sufficient compensation in a timely manner. Will the Department look at legislation to deliver this?
Paul Scully
I thank my right hon. Friend not only for his question, but for his meeting last week with my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) as well as Tracy Felstead, Janet Skinner and Seema Misra, and we cannot help but be moved by the harrowing tales that the sub-postmasters tell after 20 years of suffering. Yes, we will look at everything that is required to make sure that we tackle the issue of how all sub-postmasters can seek justice and request compensation.
Data Breach: ARAP Applicants in Afghanistan
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the data breach exposing ARAP applicants in Afghanistan.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I understand the strength of feeling on this subject, and this question gives me the opportunity to set out where we are with the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and yesterday’s data breach. I would like to place it on record that I had offered a statement for when we return from conference recess, as the investigation I have ordered will be able to report fully by then, and I still expect to make those details available.
As you know, Mr Speaker, I have taken the obligation we have to the Afghan personnel who have supported us throughout extremely seriously. Despite this disappointing event, we should pay tribute to the armed forces for Operation Pitting and the that we have managed to evacuate 8,800 people and families eligible under the ARAP scheme since April, in addition to the 1,400 who had already been relocated prior to that date. However, worryingly for me, over the last few weeks lapses from the highest standards in the management of those people remaining in Afghanistan have been brought to my attention by both hon. Members of this House and others. For that reason Ministers raised concerns both last week and yesterday, and sought assurances that these problems would be rectified. Those assurances were given. However, it was brought to my attention at 2000 hours last night that there had been a significant data breach. To say I was angered by this is an understatement and I immediately directed an investigation to take place.
Initial findings show that an email was sent at 17.44 hours as part of the “weekly contact” we maintain with ARAP currently remaining in Afghanistan. This had been copied to all the 245 applicants, rather than blind copying them. The email was immediately recalled on identification of the breach and then a subsequent email was sent advising people to delete the email and change their addresses, which many of them have done.
So far, one individual has been suspended pending the outcome of the investigation and processes for data handling and correspondence processing have already been changed. I have directed that extensive steps are to be taken to quantify the potential increased risk to individuals in order to take further steps to protect them. The Information Commissioner has been notified and we will co-operate fully with any of its own enquiries.
I apologise to those Afghans affected by this data breach, and we are now working with them to provide security advice. As I speak, the Minister for the Armed Forces is in the region speaking to neighbouring countries to see what more we can do with both third country and in-country applicants. This is an unacceptable level of service that has let down the thousands of members of the armed forces and veterans, and on behalf of the Ministry of Defence I apologise.
I offer the reassurance that the scheme will continue to operate and bring people back to the United Kingdom for however many are eligible and however long it takes.
John Healey
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker.
There is rightly cross-party concern about this very grave security breach, with names, email addresses and in some cases photographs of 250 Afghan ARAP applicants, all still in Afghanistan and in danger, shared in a mass mailing. This needlessly puts their lives at risk.
I welcome the Defence Secretary’s presence here this morning and welcome his apology, inquiry and commitment to a statement when the House returns after its short recess, but it is not the apology but the action which matters most now. These Afghan interpreters worked alongside our British forces and the Government rightly pledged to protect them. Ministers must make good on those promises now, so can the Defence Secretary answer the following questions: when will he complete that assessment of the increased risk these individuals now face as a result of the data breach; what action is he taking urgently to evacuate them and their families; and why on earth is the MOD mass emailing people who face life-or-death situations?
I know from ARAP evacuees in my constituency who have separated family members still in hiding in Afghanistan that their social media has been blocked. Is there any evidence of email surveillance or interference from the Taliban? How will the MOD remain in contact with these people if they follow the advice to change their email addresses?
Yesterday, Ministers confirmed that 7,900 applications have been made to the ARAP scheme, with 900 so far approved since the end of August. Have there been any data breaches linked to other ARAP applicants?
This is the third known serious defence data breach in as many months. Each time, we have the same response: public apology, internal inquiry, then silence—no report on the inquiry results, no confirmation of action taken to tighten up the system. The Secretary of State rightly started by paying tribute to all involved in Operation Pitting. Our forces were totally professional in that extraordinary evacuation from Kabul, but they must be asking now: how can we trust our back-up at the MOD?
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Member makes some points that I would say are deservedly landed, and I hear what he says. First, yes, we mass email individuals, but we also email individually. This was a weekly catch-up email that was sent to over 250 people to make sure that they were kept in touch, because, quite rightly, as many Members have pointed out on a number of occasions, they need to be engaged and know that there is someone out there keeping it going and trying to get them through the country.
This was a mass email. It did not contain individuals’ home addresses or anything. The photo profiles that the right hon. Member mentioned were ones that were in profiles of the email addresses as opposed to the individuals’ names. Indeed, having looked at all the email addresses, I can say that the vast majority were not specific names, necessarily; they were email addresses rather than particular names. However, that does not change the fundamental impact that the email could have had and could still have.
I have asked Defence Intelligence to go through all the cases and assess the risk to the individuals. That will be ongoing. I can of course get an update, and I will be happy to share with the right hon. Member where we are with those updates on intelligence. I can certainly also give a Privy Council briefing to both him and, indeed, the Scottish National party if it wishes, on the greater security situation on the ground in Afghanistan.
This group was not the wider cohort that the right hon. Member referred to—the people who have applied since ARAP. To put it in perspective, some 68,000 have applied for ARAP. Obviously, when that number is scrubbed and worked through, it reduces significantly, but that is the number of emails that have been sitting in email boxes and have been worked through—and are being worked through—to try to make sure that we find the right people with the right criteria and then, obviously, communicate with them.
This matter relates only to the number of people who had been called forward under Op Pitting, had been security checked and were ready to go but either never made it to the Baron hotel or never made it on to a flight. That number started at 311, as hon. Members will remember. Of the 311, there are 260 principals left in Afghanistan—that is 1,232 people if we include their families—43 principals, or 163 pax in total, in third countries, and eight with whom we have still not been able to establish communications despite trying numerous times. That is the cohort that this relates to. We will do everything we can.
As far as getting those people out of the country, as I said, the Minister for the Armed Forces is now in one of the neighbouring countries and will continue to do that. I have spoken to my defence sections and offered to increase resource and to give reassurances to those third countries. The MOD funds the flying of those people back to the United Kingdom. We have already done so, and I will be happy to update the House as we go about how many people come out of the country.
Some of the other challenges, obviously, relate to security, and we have to have that balance in bringing people back who sometimes turn out, eventually, to have the wrong record; we want to protect the British public from that. But fundamentally, that is the cohort of people that these emails relate to.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I welcome the statement. I hope that the necessary oversight protocols are now in place to make sure that this does not happen again. The Taliban have not changed. They seek to exact revenge on anyone who worked for NATO. We must get these interpreters out or they will be hunted and killed. If the usual methods, via the ARAP scheme, are not available, may I invite the Secretary of State to take advantage of the chaos in the country to find clandestine means of leading these people to safety?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend will know that I cannot talk about the broader means, but all means will be explored.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his apology. I do not doubt the sincerity of it, and I do not doubt for a second the anger that he will have felt when he got the news of this unacceptable and quite dangerous leak yesterday. However, I have a few questions to follow on from those asked by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), and the Chair of the Select Committee on Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood).
Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Taliban have the capability to monitor these people’s emails? I do not want to know if they are monitoring them—I suspect that he would not tell the House even if he did know—but do they have the capability to do so? How long will the investigation take? Who will carry out the investigation? Is the person who has been suspended an employee of the Ministry of Defence or of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office?
Will the Secretary of State outline in a bit more detail, if he is able to, the additional resources that he intends to commit to ensure that people are not exposed to any more danger than they already are as a result of the leak? I understand entirely the point that he makes about using mass email as a communications method, but who signed off on that as an okay way to make that communication?
The shadow Secretary of State is right that when these breaches happen, we get these apologies and then there tends to be silence, so more broadly, what is being done to arrest this worrying trend of data leaks from the Secretary of State’s Department? Is he going to order a broader investigation? I think the House would welcome that.
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his series of questions. First, the investigation will be carried out by Admiral Sir Ben Key, the commander of joint operations at PJHQ—permanent joint headquarters—who also led the planning and the evacuation from Kabul.
On data leaks, the hon. Member is right that these are a concern. The previous leak obviously involved a senior official who deliberately broke the regulation, in so far as he took something out the Department. If the regulation had been followed, that would not have been the case. However, although I cannot say too much, I have instigated changes to improve information security within the Department, and I am happy to brief the hon. Member on that.
The “Manual of Protective Security”, the modern rules that govern information security, is, I believe, fit for purpose; it is really the training and the adherence to it that must be improved. I am graduate of something called the classified documents handling course from the early ’90s—I think I am the only saddo who actually knows what type of lock should be on what type of cabinet that links to different types of security classifications. Nevertheless, information security is not something that western Governments are good at, which is why our adversaries seem to be. We have to improve it, and we have to stand by it.
The Taliban, or obviously any Government that control a country, have control of the telephone network. I cannot say too much about what they can and cannot do; suffice it to say that the method we used to communicate with those people is a way of minimising that risk. One of the reasons we involve emails rather than telephone calls is to try to do that, which is important.
On resource, right from the beginning of this process, way back in August, or in July, I was very clear with my senior military commanders and civil servants that they would have whatever resource they needed to process emails and carry people out, for example. We will fly these people back from third countries out of the MOD budget. It is my view that we should continue to stand by them, including using married quarters, for example, in military establishments to look after them if they cannot get places elsewhere. There has not been a resource problem; the challenge is whether people have been asking for the resource within the system to do this.
The individual concerned was a member of the Ministry of Defence, but I am very keen that it is not just the poor person who drafts the email who is held to account, but the chain upwards, to ensure that this does not happen again.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I am delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend just now that Admiral Key has got a knighthood. There has not been one earned by anyone better for many years.
The challenge of this event is not the accident, the mistake, that we can see happened. I think we all sympathise with the Ministry of Defence and indeed the Secretary of State; accidents do happen. The challenge is that there are people still there and that the co-ordination for getting people out is still complicated. Will my right hon. Friend commit to working to get a single point of contact for all those in Afghanistan who are seeking to leave? The system whereby some have to apply to the MOD, and others to the Foreign Office or through the Home Office, is excessively complicated and is leading to obstacles, including on at least four different occasions that I can speak of. People are stuck in Lashkar Gah, Kabul or Mazar-e-Sharif, trying to get out, but they are still not getting the smooth transfer that we need.
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a really important point. I would ask colleagues to have some understanding of this. The MOD, which is of course charged with defending the nation, has in very short order had to turn part of itself over to processing visas and doing the job that traditionally we would have done in the Home Office. We have taken that on ourselves because of the pace, urgency and, in the earlier time, danger.
As I have said, 68,000 emails arrived, many of which are speculative, concerning refugee status, so not even for the Foreign Office. It is a very big enterprise to take on, which is why I was determined to give all that resource. However, I would ask colleagues to remember that, at the same time, we are doing that in an Afghanistan that we have no control over. We are doing it in what for many is a dangerous environment, with the Taliban clearly in some cases actively seeking out people that they wish to deal with—murder, or whatever they are up to. At the same time, we are dealing with an ever-moving situation on the ground, and not everyone who comes out communicates back.
When I look at the spread of where people have gone to third countries, we find people in Australia, people who got on the next flight, people in other parts of Europe and people in the United States. The United States brought some people back to Germany who immediately claimed asylum to the United Kingdom. We find, when we contact people, that some are saying, “Thank you very much, but I am quite happy to stay where I am in sunny California or Australia or somewhere like that.” Some have been here for a very long period of time and have not engaged.
The next stage, which I commissioned today, is, quite rightly, a full and detailed survey of the people we have brought back to know even more about them. Obviously, there are data protection issues we have to cross, but it is really important that we get to the bottom of that.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
This is another in a long line of serious errors regarding the Government’s Afghan relocations that will cost lives. Can the Secretary of State please advise us how many of the 260 interpreters the Government have been unable to make direct contact with since the breach?
Mr Wallace
Of the 260, there were eight we have not had comms with since the end of Operation Pitting. We have continued to try. The data breach happened at about 5.30 yesterday afternoon and we have engaged with as many of them as possible. I can give the House a rolling update of how many of the 260 have responded. A number have already changed their email address. There is a link in the email that allows them to communicate that securely, but I will keep the House updated on exactly the number as we go. The other point is that the numbers are changing every day, either because people crop up and say, “Actually, I’m in London or Australia,” or because of what is happening on the ground and they make it across the border. Often, when they are travelling, they are not in communication.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
Between 2001 and 2014, UK forces employed 2,850 interpreters. From 2014, they were on sub-contracts, so we are looking at 300 or 400 more. The relocation programme up till April this year relocated 440 interpreters. I can account for about 99 interpreters who were rescued during Operation Pitting. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of how many interpreters—not families, but interpreters—the MOD has been able to rescue from Afghanistan? It jars slightly with numbers in the low hundreds that he is presenting to the House today.
Mr Wallace
I am listening to my hon. Friend. Where I take issue with him is that it is not 99. Some 650 principals, not families, came out through Operation Pitting. There were: 850 under categories 1 and 2; 836 under category 4; and 50 under other categories. Some 650 of those were interpreters either through contractors or directly employed, or supporting in the contractor role.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Secretary of State’s anger at hearing the news is not in any way misplaced, and I thank him for coming to the Chamber and making his statement. It seems to me that there is a wealth of difference between a mass email and individual one-to-one contact. Can I seek an assurance that every one of the people we know about is in proper one-to-one contact, either by text or other means, with somebody in the Ministry of Defence or the FCDO who can mentor them, talk to them and help them face this huge problem?
Mr Wallace
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that they have all replied, but we have absolutely taken a view that they should be case managed, on top of the weekly update. To do that, we find it is best through email because of the security issues. Earlier on I was pushing for voice, but actually—I made the point about the Taliban being in control of the telephone network—we are probably better doing it through other means, so it is important that we do that. He is absolutely right. Only today, I pressed on unlimited resource. How many people have we got working on this? Why do we not have more? We have, in total, 50 people dealing with the ARAP scheme. One of our biggest challenges in the past two weeks was clearing or separating away the 68,000 to focus on the people who come within the criteria that we can put the resource on to. The hon. Gentleman’s ambition and my ambition are the same: we are there, but it is often in slow time because of the delay in the response to our emails.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Internet banking constantly asks customers if they are sure they wish to proceed. Surely it would not be too difficult to have an automated reminder or check, if it looks as if an email of a sensitive nature is going to be sent to multiple recipients? In that connection, I have here a printed list of 70 former long-term employees on British contracts in Afghanistan. I propose to hand it to the excellent new Parliamentary Private Secretaries to the Defence ministerial team. When I am informed of a secure address to which I can send it electronically, I will be happy to do so.
Mr Wallace
The base at PJHQ is open to all manner of communication to those individuals, whichever way best keeps them safe and secure. I welcome my two new PPSs, my hon. Friends the Members for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb) and for Bracknell (James Sunderland), to the role. What a day to start, but I look forward to working with them. The key here is to engage throughout the process with parliamentarians to make sure that I can keep them as informed as possible.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Following on from the question from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), pretty much every MP uses a caseworker system, a piece of simple software that costs a few hundred pounds per year which ensures that mistakes of this nature cannot happen. Is the Secretary of State looking at using similar, and if not, why not?
Mr Wallace
I am looking at that, both in case management—some case management should already be being used—and in mailing provision. If we do a mass mail, how can we improve that—Mailchimp or that type of thing.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Our nation owes a huge debt of gratitude and honour to the people who helped our forces when they were deployed for 20 years in Afghanistan. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the offer to relocate and assist in bringing them back is open-ended, and we will do whatever we can, even if it takes years to do it, to open up and offer that assistance and help?
Mr Wallace
Yes, the ARAP scheme is open-ended. It will continue and it is an obligation we will stand by. I suspect that, given the nature of that part of the world, people will come through in dribs and drabs. We may find that in four and five years’ time, people come across the border. There is also a challenge when we have the principal in the UK though their families, who are not British citizens, are in Afghanistan. They are eligible; they will be able to come forward. We have to make sure that they are managed. I am hopeful that they are at lesser risk than the principals, because they are often the women and children, but that does not mean to say that we should not have the same urgency and anxiousness for their safety.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
First, we had secret documents on Afghanistan left at a bus stop in Kent. Now, we have this latest breach of security. I say to the Secretary of State that it has become a little habit forming in his Department to have information leaks. Can I ask him directly: does he have confidence in his Department’s ability to handle sensitive and secret information? He says he has instigated a review. How can he ensure the lessons learned go all the way through the chain of command so it does not happen again?
Mr Wallace
I think the best way to do it is by personal supervision. I fundamentally agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s point. We are in a world with even more data and we have to be even more careful. Our adversaries are even more aggressive in finding it. Where there was a breach recently, I took action: that individual is no longer in the Department. In this case, the individual is suspended. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right. Information security should go to the fingertips of organisations, from the most junior to the most senior. I have to say, having been the previous Security Minister, that I have seen some pretty bad examples in the last few years.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
There is no doubt as to the frustration and the heartache of the Defence Secretary about this situation. In the correspondence we are having with those still on the ground, recognising that the situation is changing and that we are not on the ground, can he reassure us that extraction advice or advice on how to get to borders is being given to those still on the ground who do not have intel themselves and are too scared to move from where they are currently in hiding?
Mr Wallace
In answer to the question from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) about how we communicate one-to-one versus mass, the one-to-one communications are the place where we dispense advice, depending on their situation and geography.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I have been contacted about the harrowing case of a man who worked as a UK contractor on a UK project for many years and had a specific directed threat from a senior Taliban official. He fled his home with his family, but when his wife returned to the house to collect some belongings a few days ago, the Taliban arrived and she was shot in the head. She died a couple of days later.
The man applied twice for the ARAP scheme and has still not had a reply. Please could the Secretary of State make sure that this case is pursued? Could he also make sure that everyone who has applied gets a personal response? Will he confirm that contractors on UK projects whose families and who themselves are at mortal danger from the Taliban are eligible for the ARAP scheme?
Mr Wallace
On the criteria for the ARAP scheme, I point the right hon. Lady to the website, but what I can say generically is that contractors and the directly employed, if they come under that umbrella of the ARAP scheme, are eligible. I would be very happy to look at that case.
We assess that, despite the huge number of extra applications that have come in since we left, there are approximately 900 credible further cases of ARAP to bring forward; we are processing them at the moment, on top of the 311. We have already brought back 50 from that cohort and we will continue to bring those people out or from third countries where we find them.
The case that the right hon. Lady raises is the most worrying part. Despite the warm words of the Taliban when they started their effort to run the country, we have seen significant numbers of such incidents occurring, which only adds to my sense of sorrow about what happened today.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State for his response to the urgent question, for the action that he has taken and for all his efforts throughout Operation Pitting. Quite a few numbers have been cited around the Chamber; I think he said that there had been 68,000 email applications to ARAP, and I believe that the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), said that 7,900 had been processed and 900 had been approved. Could we have a definitive list of the applications received, those being processed and those approved?
Mr Wallace
If my hon. Friend accepts that it will be rolling, because it is moving, I will be happy to write to him with details of a fixed period of time. Obviously those vast amounts were from a range of people and were speculative about potential refugee status as well as ARAP; part of the resource has been taken up trying to separate the two.
The other thing to say is that the Department and I started on ARAP when I went to see the Home Secretary in September 2020. That was when we realised that the previous scheme was not working, and it was why we took the steps that we needed to take. It was signed off by the National Security Council in December 2020. It is a scheme that is in large parts mature, but the final collapse in Kabul has clearly been the biggest test. That is why we will do everything we can for the people left behind.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
This is the fourth data breach this year. Does the Secretary of State agree that his Department has a systemic problem with data security? What steps will he take to fix the issues and ensure the safety of the thousands still waiting to be evacuated? What assurances can he give to the families in my Liverpool, Riverside constituency who are very concerned about the safety of their loved ones who are still waiting to be evacuated?
Mr Wallace
The assurance that I can give is only limited, I am afraid, given that we are no longer in Afghanistan and given the actions of the Taliban. I think that to give a 100% assurance would be misleading.
On data, as I have said to other Members, it is not good enough. It is not a unique MOD thing, but information security across the board has to improve. We are investing billions of pounds in improving our computer systems and our encryption, which is incredibly important to keep one step ahead. Unfortunately, I cannot talk about a lot of it in public, but it takes significant commitment, funding and British know-how.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s characteristic candour in addressing the issues. The sad fact is that we will probably see another Operation Pitting at some point in our lifetime. Can he assure me that he will work across the board, particularly with our allies, to ensure that information security standards are improved and that we continue to be at the forefront of protecting the most vulnerable in the world?
Mr Wallace
I think that the lesson learned is that this was an evacuation in the 21st century in which emails, WhatsApp, Twitter and Facebook were a running commentary, but the inboxes of serving officers and soldiers in Kabul on the operation were also filling up with emails from former colleagues in the hundreds, saying “Can you get X and Y out?” It would not have happened in my day, because we did not have that type of network. It is a new phenomenon; today I met the Five Eyes chiefs of defence staff, for example, and we discussed the change.
We will have to take into consideration how we do many operations in the full glow of social media, with people out there who can communicate but who might not be safe. Usually, we equate being able to communicate with being safe; now we are in a very different world. I think that that is a lesson for all militaries around the world to learn.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
An Afghan family I saw at my surgery yesterday told me that a relative working with coalition forces had been literally blown to bits by the Taliban in a targeted assassination two days before they took Kabul. Other relatives are similarly at risk, but the response that I have had from the MOD says that they are not eligible for ARAP. We are assembling more evidence in that case, but as I have had only four replies to more than 100 live cases, I am not hopeful. Even if they are accepted on the scheme, what do I tell them to do next?
Mr Wallace
I understand the hon. Member’s desire to manage his individual cases, but we are doing everything we can with the people who are referred to us, either via Members or directly through the application process. We are putting all our resource into dealing with them. We will keep colleagues and Members up to date as much as possible, but if he wants specific advice for each case, I urge him to make sure that it is delivered by the people who are co-ordinating it. If there are people who are not eligible and who he thinks should be eligible, I will be very happy to look again at their cases, if he writes to me with the details, and make sure that we see what we can do.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his commitment to update the House after the recess. When he does so in five or six weeks’ time, will he please ensure that he gives an accurate assessment of the additional threats and intimidation that Afghan nationals face as a result of the data breach? I am concerned less about the technical nature of the failing, however important that is, than about the lives of the individuals and their families.
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Member puts his question very well. I will be happy to update the House on the threat situation, both for Afghans who worked for us and for us in the United Kingdom overall, and on any growth in the terrorism threat from Afghanistan.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Asking people simply to change their email address seems woefully inadequate, given that names can be extracted from email addresses. What additional security advice has the Secretary of State given to the interpreters on the email list and their families?
Mr Wallace
As I have said, they will be contacted or have been contacted. Where, on a one-to-one basis, there is a case management process, we will try to tailor advice on counter-intelligence methods, on how people can protect themselves and on locations that we think are safer.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Although the breach is in his Department, will the Secretary of State outline what discussions he is having with his counterparts in the Foreign Office and the Home Office? Are any specific measures being taken now to secure information on all cases processed? What assessment can he give of how the Ministry of Defence ensures that the correct information goes to the correct part of Government so that we can help those we have a duty to help?
Mr Wallace
Among the 50 personnel working on the ARAP scheme in PJHQ, there are a number embedded in other Departments whose main job is to liaise on everything from Parliament all the way through to the Home Office and the Foreign Office, to ensure that information is cross-checked. Some of it is cross-checking, because some of the applicants have applied to all schemes, but I hear what the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), said about the demand for a single point of contact, which might help going forward.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I have a constituency case about which I have written to the Home Office. It relates to an 18-year-old woman who married a British constituent of mine. Her father worked as a translator for a number of allies in Afghanistan, albeit not the UK. Her parents and siblings may be evacuated, but she will be left behind, alone and vulnerable. This data breach is only exacerbating the worry and distress that she feels, still stuck in Kabul. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with colleagues about how such vulnerable citizens will be supported?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Lady has raised a challenging case. The person concerned is probably an adult, she is not herself the interpreter, and he worked for a third country. However, if the hon. Lady sends me the details, I shall be happy to approach that third country to see whether we can assist in the case, or get them to assist in it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his dedication to the job in hand, and for answering these questions as well.
In Northern Ireland, the Royal Irish Regiment, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, prison officers and elected representatives are only too well aware of the awful feeling of knowing that one’s safe haven—one’s home—is endangered What has been done to help those who responded with personal details to enable them to relocate quickly and safely in the interim?
Mr Wallace
The first thing to do is establish contact with as many of them as possible, which we are doing, and I have offered to update the House on how many we have contacted. I will see what I can do by the end of today, or certainly by the end of this week. We need to establish new contact details and get some assurances about them, but at the same time we need to start or continue the one-to-one management of their cases.
Salisbury Incident 2018: Update
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I should tell the House that I have reached a special agreement with the Home Secretary to extend the length of the statement, because I was given advance notice. I believe that the Opposition have been informed of this.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on today’s announcement by Counter Terrorism Policing that the Crown Prosecution Service has authorised charges against a third individual in relation to the 2018 Salisbury attack, an appalling event that shook the entire country and united our allies in condemnation. I thank the Opposition for their courtesy and support in allowing some of their parliamentary time to be used for the statement. The House will of course understand that this is an ongoing investigation, and that we are therefore limited in terms of what can be said about these three individuals.
In March 2018, Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia, commonly known as Novichok. Two officers from Wiltshire police who were involved in searching the victims’ home were also poisoned with the same agent. In July 2018, a further two members of the public were found unwell in Amesbury, both of whom had been exposed to Novichok. Tragically, one of them, Dawn Sturgess, died. An inquest into her death is ongoing. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the loved ones of Dawn today.
This House has profound differences with Russia. In annexing Crimea in 2014, igniting the flames of conflict in eastern Ukraine and threatening western democracies by, for instance, interfering in their elections, it has challenged the fundamental basis of international order. Although attacks such as the one in Salisbury are uncommon, this is not the first time Russia has committed a brazen attack in the UK. Today the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that it was responsible for the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko; that supports the findings of the independent Litvinenko inquiry. However, as the then Government made clear following the Salisbury attack in 2018 and as I reiterate today, we will not tolerate such malign activity here in the United Kingdom.
The UK, under successive Governments, has responded with strength and determination. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), then Prime Minister, announced in 2018, 250 detectives were involved in the Salisbury murder investigation, working round the clock to discover who was responsible. On 5 September 2018, the independent Director of Public Prosecutions announced that there was sufficient evidence to bring charges against two Russian nationals for conspiracy to murder Sergei Skripal; the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal, Yulia Skripal and Nick Bailey; causing grievous bodily harm with intent to Yulia Skripal and Nick Bailey; and possession and use of a chemical weapon, contrary to the Chemical Weapons Act 1996.
The two Russian nationals were known as Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, but the police believed these to be aliases. The then Prime Minister announced that the Government had concluded that the two men were members of the Russian military intelligence service, the GRU, and that the operation had almost certainly been approved outside the GRU at a senior level of the Russian state. I want to recognise the exemplary work of our emergency services, intelligence agencies, armed forces and law enforcement staff who led the initial response to this despicable and outrageous attack; I also pay tribute to the ongoing work to bring the perpetrators to justice. We will not let this go.
As Deputy Assistant Commissioner Dean Haydon has said, this investigation has been extraordinarily complex, and our country is fortunate that so many brave people do such outstanding work to keep us safe. As a result of those efforts, the police have evidence that Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov are aliases for Alexander Mishkin and Anatoliy Chepiga, and that both are members of the GRU. The CPS has now authorised charges against a third individual, known as Sergey Fedotov. The Counter Terrorism Policing investigation established that Fedotov had entered the UK on a flight from Moscow to London Heathrow, and had stayed at a hotel in central London between 2 and 4 March 2018 before returning to Moscow. While in the UK, he had met Petrov and Boshirov on more than one occasion in central London.
The CT Policing investigation has established that Fedotov is in fact Denis Sergeev, that he is also a member of the GRU, and that all three men previously worked together for the GRU as part of additional operations outside Russia All three are now wanted by UK police, and arrest warrants are in place for them. The police have applied for an Interpol notice against Fedotov, mirroring those already in place against the other two suspects. Russia has repeatedly refused to allow its nationals to stand trial overseas. That was also the case following the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, when a UK extradition request was refused. This has only added to the heartache of those hurt by these attacks, and, inevitably, has further damaged our relations with Russia.
As was made clear following the Salisbury attack in 2018, should any of these individuals ever travel outside Russia, we will work with our international partners and take every possible step to detain them and extradite them so that they face justice. After the attack in Salisbury, my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) put in place the toughest package that the UK has levied against another state for more than 30 years, consisting of diplomatic, legislative and economic measures. We continue to take robust steps to counter the threat posed by the Russian state. In 2018, 23 undeclared Russian intelligence officers were immediately expelled from the UK. In solidarity, 28 other countries and NATO joined us, which resulted in the largest collective expulsion ever—of more than 150 Russian intelligence officers. That fundamentally degraded Russian intelligence capability for years to come.
The Government will continue to provide the security services and law enforcement agencies with all the additional tools that they need to deal with the full range of state threats, which continue to evolve. In direct response to the Salisbury attack, we introduced new powers to enable the police to stop, question, search and detain individuals at the UK border to determine whether they are spies or otherwise involved in hostile activity. These vital powers are already helping the security services and law enforcement agencies to protect the UK from the very real and serious threat posed by states that seek to undermine and destabilise our country.
In July 2020, we published a full and comprehensive response to the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report, which addressed point by point all the key themes and recommendations raised by the Committee, but we are going even further and have committed to introducing new legislation to counter state threats and protect the United Kingdom. Earlier this summer, we held a public consultation on the Government’s proposals, to improve our ability to detect, respond to, and prevent state threats, keep our citizens safe and protect sensitive data and intellectual property. Responses to that consultation are currently being considered and we will return with comprehensive legislation.
Another crucial strand of this work is combating illicit finance. To secure our global prosperity, squeezing dirty money and money launderers out of the UK is our priority. We are at the forefront of the international fight against illicit finance, combating the threat from source to destination. We have introduced a new global human rights sanctions regime and a global anti-corruption sanctions regime. The National Crime Agency continues to lead UK efforts to bring the full power of law enforcement to bear against serious criminals and corrupt elites and their assets, including through increased checks on private flights, customs and freight travel.
In July and September 2020, working in tandem with the EU, we announced sanctions against the Russian intelligence services for cyber-attacks against the UK and her allies. We have also taken robust action in response to the poisoning and attempted murder of Alexei Navalny, enforcing asset freezes and travel bans against 13 individuals and a Russian research institute involved in the case. The Government will continue to respond extremely robustly to the enduring and significant threat from the Russian state. We continue to make huge strides to counter this threat and to increase our resilience and that of our allies to Russian malign activity. We respect the people of Russia, but we will do whatever it takes—everything it takes—to keep our country safe. We will work actively to deter and defend against the full spectrum of threats emanating from Russia until relations with its Government improve.
I would like to end by paying tribute to the resilience of the people of Salisbury, who suffered a sickening and despicable act in their community, and to the people of Amesbury, who lost one of their own in the most dreadful circumstances. Our Government will be relentless in our pursuit of justice for the victims of these attacks and continue to do whatever is necessary to keep our people safe. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
The sub judice resolution means that, other than when legislating, the House does not discuss issues that are active in the UK courts. However, where in the Chair’s opinion cases concern issues of national importance, reference to them may be made. I am prepared to allow such references during the course of this statement.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her statement and for giving me advance sight of it. I am also grateful to the Minister for Security and Borders, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), for the advance briefing yesterday.
The use of a nerve agent, a chemical weapon, on British soil was an outrage and we unite across the House in our condemnation of it. We also unite in our praise of our emergency services, whose response was nothing short of remarkable. At the time, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), was clear that, based on intelligence, this was not a rogue operation, given the GRU’s well-established chain of command, and that it was almost certainly approved outside the GRU at a senior level of the Russian state. Let me be direct, as shadow Home Secretary—as I was then, as shadow Security Minister, and as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), Leader of the Opposition, also was—that Labour is clear that the Russian state was responsible for this appalling act using a chemical weapon. Today, as the Home Secretary has said, the European Court of Human Rights has also confirmed the Russian state’s responsibility for the killing of Alexander Litvinenko.
I thank counter-terror policing for their dedicated work, as well as the wider law enforcement community, our security services and the Crown Prosecution Service. The additional information we have today is the result of many hours of careful investigation that identified a third suspect, their membership of the GRU and the real identities of these men. I shall of course choose my words carefully, Mr Speaker, but I appreciate the barriers that still lie in the way of those people facing justice in the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary has mentioned the arrest warrants and the Interpol notices, but will she give us more detail on what she said about ensuring that everything possible would be done through diplomatic channels with our friends and partners around the world to ensure that if those men ever leave the Russian state, they will be apprehended?
The consequences of this appalling act have been profound. We think of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, who spent weeks in hospital in a critical condition. Our thoughts are also with the two police officers who were poisoned. It is the most sobering reminder of the unknown dangers our police officers face every time they work a shift. I have met Sergeant Nick Bailey and thanked him and all his colleagues in Wiltshire police for their service, and I thank them once again for their bravery, as I am sure the whole House does. Today we remember Dawn Sturgess, who died after coming into contact with the Novichok, and her family. We also think of the illness it caused to Charlie Rowley. A life lost and lives badly damaged by this terrible act. We also remember the people of Salisbury and of Amesbury who, in the face of despair, came together. I also want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who helped his constituents during that terrible period.
This all underlines the continuing importance of the NATO alliance as fundamental for our security in the 21st century. It also underlines the imperative of implementing each and every recommendation in the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report, which was published in July last year. That report must be taken with the utmost seriousness by the Government. Can the Home Secretary update the House on the progress on implementing its 21 recommendations? Can she further confirm that the forthcoming counter-state threats Bill mentioned in the Queen’s Speech will put all those recommendations into law, without exception?
The report of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, published in recent days, raised deep concerns about the National Security Council, the cross-government machinery that supports it, and the Prime Minister’s level of attendance. The Government’s response is due by 19 November, but in the circumstances will the Home Secretary confirm today that that response will be speeded up and made urgent? She also mentioned the issue of illicit finance. The Government imposed the first Magnitsky sanctions in July 2020. She mentioned 13 people in her statement who had been made subject to travel bans and asset freezes, but how many in total have now been subjected to Magnitsky sanctions? Can she also confirm that resources will be dedicated to ensuring that the cyber-threat posed by Russia can be effectively dealt with? Finally, let us unite in condemnation of this vile act committed at the behest of another state on our own British soil, and make it clear that we will do all we can to ensure that such a thing never happens again.
Priti Patel
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and for the reflective way in which he has responded to today’s statement. It is correct that the charging announcement is the result of the tireless work that has been undertaken over the past few years, and of the ongoing work by policing, counter-terrorism policing, security partners and our intelligence agencies. I think that everyone in the House is fully reflective of that. Today’s statement and the charges are a sobering reminder of the threats that our country has been exposed to.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, first and foremost, the use of the Novichok nerve agent on British soil was an utterly reckless act. Of course, all our thoughts remain with those whose lives have been changed or lost. This was not a rogue operation but a shameless and deliberate attack, as we all recognise, and it has concentrated the whole of Government in how we not only respond to but prepare against such attacks to protect our country, our domestic homeland, in every single aspect of our national security work in the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Home Office, the national security apparatus and the entire UK intelligence community.
I reassure the House and the right hon. Gentleman that our resourcing is always there. Along with the whole-system approach, the resourcing effectively governs the entire UK intelligence community covering cyber, hostile state activity, the diplomatic aspects and the Magnitsky sanctions. We have applied our diplomatic levers internationally, working with our NATO allies and counterparts, as the right hon. Gentleman and I have both mentioned, in the expulsion of former intelligence officers.
None of that changes. We continue with absolute resolve and resolute determination to do everything possible to protect British citizens and our domestic homeland. Naturally, on the back of today’s announcement, there will be further investigations and, inevitably, more law enforcement work with our allies. I assure the House that all that work is under way, as all hon. and right hon. Members would expect.
The right hon. Gentleman also touched on forthcoming legislation against hostile activity, as well as the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee. We will update the House in due course, and I hope he will respect that there is cross-Government work on the recommendations. We have already consulted on future legislation, and there is further work taking place. We will, of course, share further information on the national security element with the House, the right hon. Gentleman and other colleagues.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am sure the whole House welcomes the fact that the Home Secretary has chosen to come here today to volunteer this statement. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that the links firmly associating these murderous activities with the Russian state have been made clear. Does my right hon. Friend recall that, a few days after the death of Alexander Litvinenko in November 2006, the BBC published an account of how the upper House of the Russian Parliament, the Federation Council, had adopted a new law in the previous July that the BBC said
“formally permits the extra-judicial killings abroad of those Moscow accuses of ‘extremism’”?
As we know, one of the suspected killers later became a Russian Member of Parliament.
In the light of this brazenness and shamelessness, does my right hon. Friend agree that we ought to be very careful not only of Russians who come to this country with poison but of Russians who come to this country with funds with which they hope to make investments that allow them to get a handhold on our critical national infrastructure, which we should resist at all costs?
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know that the Russian state targets its perceived enemies at home and abroad, and we have seen far too much of that. We will always continue to work closely with the relevant law enforcement agencies to protect individuals. He is also right to highlight critical national infrastructure and other vulnerabilities, which is exactly what our future legislation will aim to address.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement and for the opportunity to have a briefing from the Minister for Security and Borders, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).
I welcome the ongoing investigation into the Salisbury poisonings and the charging of a third suspect. Every avenue and every effort must be made to bring these killers to justice.
I also welcome this morning’s judgment by the European Court of Human Rights on the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. For those remaining few who apparently still needed convincing, this judgment is firm and final confirmation of Russian state murder on this island. There are no ifs, no buts and no maybes. Whether the Litvinenko murder or the attacks in Salisbury, these were acts of state-sponsored terrorism on the streets of the United Kingdom.
We are still uncovering the level and depth of Russian interference across liberal democracies, because the Litvinenko murder began the process of lifting the lid on the sheer scale of Russian money laundering, political interference and, ultimately, violence that had gone either unseen or, worse, unchallenged. The attacks in Salisbury in March 2018 show that the lid may have been lifted but that the state-sponsored terrorism continues to this very day.
I have a number of questions for the Home Secretary on how we meet all the layers of this Russian threat. The Foreign Ministers of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council will meet tomorrow. What stance and what sanction will the Foreign Secretary take with her Russian counterpart at that meeting so that these suspects are forced to face justice?
The Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russian subversion found that successive Governments welcomed the oligarchs and their money with open arms, with allies of the Kremlin easily laundering illegal Russian money in what they refer to as “Londongrad”. Will this Government finally launch a full independent investigation into where this illegal Russian money has gone, including money that has been funnelled into companies, assets and, indeed, political parties? As part of this, we need to tighten up the legislation on Scottish limited partnerships.
Finally, it is self-evident that co-operation with NATO allies is crucial to our defence against the Russian threat. The Prime Minister assured me last week that the AUKUS arrangement had the blessing of NATO, which clearly is not the case. Are the Government now willing to open up the agreement to include other NATO allies?
Priti Patel
The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of important points, including on today’s ruling from the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko. He is correct that, as we have always made clear, the murder of Alexander Litvinenko was a blatant and unacceptable breach of international law and civilised behaviour—he used similarly strong language. Successive Governments have taken a robust approach, including following the publication of the Litvinenko inquiry, and this Government will always pursue every available means to bring those responsible to justice, and we will not let go of that. We will continue to deter such reckless and malign actions in future.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the UN General Assembly is meeting this week, and obviously there will be security meetings with our P5 partners. I assure him and the House that the Foreign Secretary and the FCDO are undertaking a range of diplomatic engagements in UN forums right now, as everyone would rightly expect, in relation to this and other associated matters. I also highlight the wider bilateral and diplomatic work and handling on the AUKUS agreement, which he also mentioned.
The right hon. Gentleman and I both mentioned the serious and important issues of dirty money, money laundering and the facilitation of Russian money that comes through the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware and has sight of the Government’s work on unexplained wealth orders, investigations with law enforcement and the work with the economic and financial institutions, which takes place in a very detailed and strategic way. That work continues, and the Security Minister and I will be meeting many of our counterparts within financial institutions tomorrow to continue to up the ante and focus on what more can be done on money laundering, following the money in every way and dealing with the routes and where that money leads to assets being purchased and investments being made in the UK, all of which, clearly, we need to change.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s response today, which I have to say contrasts with the responses of previous Governments to the Litvinenko murder on Putin’s orders, including that of our own Government under David Cameron, who tried to prevent an inquiry and I am afraid subordinated justice to trade interests. They were overruled in 2014 by the High Court, which is how we end up today with the European Court of Human Rights ruling against Putin’s Russia on this killing. After that, the Skripal attempted killing happened. The lesson is very clear: if we do not act very firmly, they will do it again. So we should act, not just against the GRU officers the Home Secretary has properly highlighted, but against all the manifestations of the Russian mafia state. I am afraid that that includes some of the oligarchs in London who act as proxies for Putin’s Russia; whether they own property, companies, newspapers or football clubs, it does not matter; we should act to make sure they do not corrupt our state. The Home Secretary is doing the right thing pursuing the perpetrators of this evil crime, but will she talk to other members of the Cabinet to find other ways in which to punish this evil Government who gave these orders? If our Government do not act more firmly now than we did after the Litvinenko murder, this will happen again.
Priti Patel
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and suggestions. He is correct in the proposition he has spoken of; there is much more to do. That is partly the purpose of my statement today, not just in providing the wider update, and rightly so, but in illustrating that the Government will not tolerate these types of malign activity—state sponsored terror that has taken place on the streets of the UK. Importantly, as a Government we have to do the right thing in protecting our citizens and our domestic homeland. He is right about this and that work will continue across the whole of government.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for this statement, and for the work of the police and of the intelligence and security agencies to have brought us to this point. The Salisbury attack was a truly appalling attack on UK soil, with charges now laid against the agents of a foreign state. It should be unthinkable that this could happen and for it to come at the same time as the ECHR confirmation that Russia was behind the murder of Alexander Litvinenko is further disturbing evidence of Russia’s willingness to use dangerous weapons in other countries. I support the work the Government have been doing on this, but may I ask her specifically about the review launched three years ago into the so-called “golden visas”, the tier 1 visas, to look at oligarchs with close links to the Russian state who might be using criminal money and others? We have not heard any update on that review, so will she update the House now on what work is being done?
Priti Patel
I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions and remarks. She is right to point to the whole area of the tier 1 investor visa route, which, historically, as the whole House is well aware, has led to a range of the wider issues we have just been speaking about—investments, illicit finance, corruption and a lack of transparency. The purpose of the review was to look at exactly that. I cannot provide the full update right now, but I want to reassure the House and to let it know that the whole of government is acutely aware of how these routes have previously been used. I would go as far as to say they have been abused for malign purposes—for entry into the UK to do us harm and to harm our country. That is why we will never rule out changes, which we constantly make to our immigration system and to our visas.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept my congratulations on her mentioning the ECHR judgment on the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, after which many of us thought such events would never occur again. Will she welcome the calls I have made this morning, as the leader of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, for an urgent debate on this issue next week at the full meeting of the Council of Europe, both to gain support for our move against Russia and to make sure we can address the Russians face to face, to show them down?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is correct in the case he is making. There has to be a fair degree of openness, honesty and transparency on the acts that have taken place; lives have been lost and today’s ruling is significant, so he is absolutely right in the way in which he has been making the case, and I hope he achieves the outcome he is seeking.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and join her in thanking the security services and all those involved. The judgment sends a clear message that even though these individuals are outside our jurisdiction, we are not going to give up pursuing them. Will she share the intelligence behind the latest developments with the Intelligence and Security Committee? I welcome her commitment to implement the recommendations from the Russia report, particularly in respect of the registration of foreign individuals pursuing other states’ interests. Those recommendations are important, but there are existing weapons in her armoury that need to be used, including against the facilitators of these acts—the estate agents, lawyers, accountants in London. If she grasps that, and her new Security Minister grasps it, she could make some great progress and hurt the Russians very hard.
Priti Patel
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions and the points he has made. He is right about the tools or levers that exist across government and across law enforcement—many strong laws are in place. As ever, this is about the application of the law and the levers that could help to denude capability further, so he is absolutely right on the point he makes. On the ISC, we will be in touch directly with the Committee after today’s statement, even on the basis of how information and intelligence is shared.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Home Secretary mentions the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, of which I am a member, has pathetically allowed Russia back into the Assembly and has done so for one reason only—money. These Putin thugs strut around there and ignore any motion passed by the Assembly. Russia does not care a damn about the ECHR and will simply ignore it, but this same court is constantly invoked by human rights lawyers when we try to save lives at sea, when dealing with migrants, or when we are trying to run our prisons. This is just a fig leaf for tyranny. Perhaps the time has come to replace the Human Rights Act with our own British rights Act and get out of the ECHR altogether.
Priti Patel
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. Today’s judgment and ruling from the ECHR is important and significant, particularly in the context of what we are speaking about. He is also right to touch on some of the other issues he has mentioned, which obviously link to our work in the Home Office in dealing with illegal migration. There is always more we can do and we would welcome greater support, through some of the courts, to help us in how we tackle some of these very challenging issues.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. We now know that not one, not two, but three Russian agents were able to get into this country by basically just walking into the airport. In the statement, the Home Secretary talked about
“new powers to enable the police to stop, question, search, and detain individuals…to determine whether they are spies or otherwise”.
Does she believe that those new powers would have prevented the three individuals from getting into this country?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point with his question. The fact of the matter is that those powers were introduced as a direct response to the Salisbury attack, as part of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, to enable the police to effectively stop, question, search and detain individuals. Those powers came in after the attack and there is no doubt that they would have made a difference at that particular time. The fact of the matter is that those powers are now being used in the way we have spoken about and to which I referred in my statement. On a day-to-day basis people are being stopped, detained and asked significant questions. As I said in my statement, we will look at everything—all measures—in terms of how we not only protect our border but prevent individuals with malign intent from coming to our country.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I commend the Home Secretary for her statement and the action that she and the Crown Prosecution Service have taken. To follow on from the previous question, state-sponsored terrorism in the UK cannot happen if state-sponsored terrorists are blocked from entry. This case was made worse because they were carrying poison. Regardless of any new powers, people travelling on false passports should not be allowed into the country. Is the Home Secretary confident that the requisite changes have been made at the passport entry desk to prevent GRU agents—they used to be known as the KGB—from coming into this country when they want, leaving when they want and doing all sorts of things that we do not want them to do in the United Kingdom?
Priti Patel
Yes. My hon. Friend raises an important and serious point about wider security and how we keep out those who should not come into our country. As I mentioned, the changes introduced in 2019 speak exactly to that, but not only that: they also speak not just to the primary control point at the border but to the level of information exchanged behind the scenes among intelligence agencies, law enforcement operatives and Border Force, way before individuals even come towards our country. Those significant changes have been made over a period of time.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I do not disagree with anything that was in the Home Secretary’s statement and commend every word of it, but will she explain something that I am perhaps just not understanding? Why is it that we were able to identify the two individuals so swiftly after the event but it is has taken three years to identify the third individual who was involved in the Salisbury poisoning? I know it is a complex investigation, but I would be grateful if she could outline something that I am perhaps not picking up.
Given that we are talking about a breach of the chemical weapons convention, why has the Home Secretary not announced a single new sanction or diplomatic response, given that we know that the crime involved more people than we initially thought who came to this country and left? Why were there not more expulsions or sanctions? Does the range of threats emanating from Russia, whether in Ukraine, Salisbury or Syria, not underline the need for greater Euro-Atlantic defence and security co-operation, not less?
Priti Patel
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. There are a number of points to make. First, the hon. Gentleman himself referred, as have I, to the fact that the investigation is complex. A great deal of work has been done by the security and intelligence agencies and counter-terrorism policing, but I am not in a position to speak of the details at the Dispatch Box today, because there are a lot of sensitivities, including in terms of how much of that information has come together. I know that the hon. Gentleman and the entire House will respect that.
On the wider threats, it is fair to say that from this Dispatch Box and across the House and its various Committees, including the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Defence Committee—across all aspects of national security—we see Russia at the heart of not only the many threats that some of us see on a near-daily basis, but the type of threats that do not manifest because of the brilliant, exemplary work done by those who are employed to protect our homeland.
The hon. Gentleman referred to some of the wider work that could take place; we rule nothing out. As I said earlier in response to the questions from his colleague, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), discussions are taking place. The UN General Assembly is taking place and the Foreign Secretary is currently at the UN. All such discussions with our allies and many of our bilateral counterparts are absolutely in flight. We are constantly having discussions—more so now, at this particularly pressing time—to consider the other levers we have and what the next steps should be.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I join the Home Secretary in extending our gratitude to all those who responded to this terrible crime, to all those who are working to keep our country and its citizens safe and, of course, to those who are seeking to bring those responsible to justice.
It is clearly essential that we do everything possible to respond to the investigations and learn from the attack. Will the Home Secretary say a little more about the progress that has been made and outline how many of the recommendations in the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report have already been implemented?
Priti Patel
If I may, I refer the hon. Lady to my earlier comments on that. Work is taking place across Government—not just from a Home Office perspective but involving the FCDO, too—and much of it involves our national security apparatus. There will in due course be an update on the report and its recommendations. I ask the hon. Lady and all colleagues in the House to persevere and we will obviously come back in due course.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Today is a sober reminder of the scale of the security threats that we face as a country. I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. While we reflect on the terrible events in Salisbury three years ago, it is right to remind ourselves of the cyber-threats that the country faces. Will the Home Secretary say a little more about the work her Department is doing to deter the investment that countries such as Russia are putting into breaking our cyber-security?
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, as have been many other right hon. and hon. Members, to touch on the cyber-security threat to our country. Of course, cyber-threats manifest themselves in many forms and guises, from attacks on key and critical national infrastructure right down through attacks on local government, financial institutions and retail outlets. Extensive work takes place across the entire UK intelligence community. The National Cyber Security Centre is led by incredible individuals with whom we have the privilege to work on a daily basis, and there is work across the Cabinet Office as well. Extensive work is taking place in the cyber space, and not just Russia but other countries are involved in the cyber-threat. When it comes to cyber, all Members have a responsibility to ensure that we take all the necessary measures and steps, and our local authorities and the organisations that we come across on a daily basis should also make sure that they are doing everything to enhance their cyber-security.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Among those in and outside the House, there can be no doubt about the Secretary of State’s determination to catch those responsible for the murder of British citizens on British soil by subversive Russian agents. Will the Secretary of State confirm what discussions she has had with other countries regarding the parameters of diplomatic immunity and whether we need to and should reconsider them?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the need to work with other countries and, as I said earlier, to use every diplomatic lever we have. Post the appalling Salisbury incident in 2018, we saw the work led by our then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and the collective diplomatic effort in terms of expulsions and sanctions. I touched on the fact that the Foreign Secretary is currently in New York at the UN General Assembly, and we are in no doubt that we are pressing every single lever. The FCDO and the Foreign Secretary will rightly lead on the key discussions.
Unauthorised Development (Offences)
Tuesday 21st September 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberUnauthorised Development (Offences) Bill 2021-22 View all Unauthorised Development (Offences) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make unauthorised development without planning permission an offence; to prohibit retrospective planning applications; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that everyone who engages with the planning system is on a level playing field and follows the same procedures. It is not to remove permitted development rights, nor is it to target particular communities. Regrettably, in the current planning system, there are loopholes that are all too frequently exploited and, to ensure fairness, it is important that they are closed.
Under current planning rules, development without permission is not a criminal offence. While failure to comply with an enforcement notice is a criminal offence, getting to that point is rare and is very often an overly long and costly process. Too often, people are gaming the system by proceeding with development work, sometimes on a large scale, without having first received or even applied for planning permission. Those engaging in such practices are gambling that, even if the local authority becomes aware of an unauthorised development, if the development is sufficiently advanced, it will prove too time-consuming and costly for the local authority to do much about it. Evidence seems to suggest that they may be right. While there are a range of enforcement powers open to local authorities, including enforcement, contravention and stop notices, they do not appear to be a sufficient deterrent.
Government data from March 2021 show that, in the previous year across England, just under 3,000 enforcement notices were issued, 3,500 planning contravention notices were served, and 49 injunctions were granted by a county court or the High Court.
There are many examples of unauthorised development to be found across the country, both large and small. I will give one current example that is currently impacting on my own constituency of Orpington. As I speak today, an unauthorised development is taking place on Wheatsheaf Hill, on the border of my Orpington constituency and neighbouring Sevenoaks. Since the turn of the year, much activity has taken place on this greenbelt site, where a large area of wooded land has been cleared, six mobile homes have been installed and further work is continuing—all without planning permission. This has caused great concern both to me and to my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), as residents on both sides of the constituency boundary have been raising increasing levels of alarm on a daily basis throughout the year.
It has been, to say the least, a very frustrating process. The local planning authority, Bromley Council, was eventually able to obtain a court injunction, but work on the site has continued unabated. Despite daily evidence being provided by residents, including written statements, photographs, videos and drone footage, work has continued with no regard to the court injunction, the objections of local people or the local council. I have personally witnessed work taking place, and I am grateful to those constituents who have provided me with reports of activity and supporting evidence. Sadly, I have also received reports of significant levels of aggression being directed by those responsible for this particular development towards local residents, council officers, and even, incredibly, the local police.
Under section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a local planning authority can consider a retrospective planning application for works or a change of use that has already been carried out. This type of application is dealt with in the same way as a normal planning application, although the development has already taken place. In theory, therefore, the amount of work carried out by the local planning authority is approximately the same as an application submitted in advance of a development taking place. However, as is the case in the example that I have just cited, retrospective applications will often be controversial, attracting a lot of public attention and correspondence, which can greatly increase the workload of the relevant case officer.
Planning officers have confirmed that retrospective applications often tend to be invalid upon receipt, and this creates additional unnecessary work for the planning authority to resolve them. However, it is possible that the real cost is the fact that the concept exists at all, as the fact that it is possible to apply retrospectively proactively encourages unauthorised development. The evidence is overwhelming that, on a large number of occasions, developers believe that once a development is in place they are more likely to get planning permission. That is an encouragement for them to take that risk.
In most cases, where retrospective applications are refused, enforcement action follows, which can be lengthy and costly for the local planning authorities. Indeed, some applicants deliberately draw out a situation where they know enforcement action is inevitable, knowing that they will have a right of appeal if it is refused. While enforcement notices can be issued, the right of appeal means that a breach of planning can last very significant periods of time before the site in question can be restored to its former state—if indeed it can be restored at all.
The scope of this proposed legislation is therefore to remove remaining permissible grounds for unauthorised developments. Instead, by making unauthorised developments an offence, both the appeal route and the right of retrospective applications will be removed.
In closing, I wish to express my gratitude to Bromley councillors Tony Owen and Colin Smith, who provided me with much of the original thinking behind this Bill, and to colleagues who are supporting me in the Chamber today. We are acutely aware of the damage that this problem causes, and we are supporting our constituents where such development has blighted their communities.
I recognise the challenges that a private Member’s Bill faces to get onto the statute book, which is why I request that Ministers meet with me and co-sponsors to consider adopting this legislation as part of any forthcoming planning Bill that emerges. Together, we have the opportunity to bring about lasting change to the planning system for the benefit of our constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Gareth Bacon, Lee Anderson, Mr John Baron, Felicity Buchan, Gareth Davies, Ben Everitt, Jonathan Gullis, Tom Hunt, Marco Longhi, Sir Robert Neill, Tom Randall and David Simmonds present the Bill.
Gareth Bacon accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 165).
Working People’s Finances: Government Policy
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 222 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I advise the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Before we start the debate, let me tell Members that if they wish to participate in the debate, it is essential that they are here at the beginning. If they are not, they will not be called. It is also essential that hon. and right hon. Members stay to the end of the debate to hear the wind-ups. If there are those who have not put into speak but wish to do so, please can they bob so that they catch my eye?
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House is concerned about the negative impact of Government policy on the finances of working people, with a growing squeeze on living standards caused by the £1,040 per year reduction to universal credit, the rise in National Insurance Contributions for low and middle income workers, increases in council tax, the freezing of the personal income tax allowance from April 2022, the increasing cost of household energy bills, the highest petrol prices since 2013 and the potential for the largest rail fare increase in a decade, the fastest rise in private rental prices since 2008, successive above inflation increases in childcare costs, and rising prices resulting from the supply chain disruption caused by worker and supply shortages; and calls on the Government to change the direction of its policies on these issues because they have created an avoidable and unacceptable burden on working people.
Before I begin in earnest, I welcome the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), to his new role and congratulate him on his appointment.
In our country today, working families face a sudden squeeze on living standards on a scale not seen for a generation: incomes are coming down; prices are going up, especially energy prices; taxes are going up; rents are going up; childcare costs are going up; fuel costs are going up; rail fares are going up. And with empty shelves in too many shops, restaurants closing because of meat shortages and now refrigerant shortages putting Christmas at risk, it is not just that people can afford less; there is also less to afford.
The people of Britain face an extraordinary squeeze on their living standards this winter—not simply by chance, but because of the choices made by Conservative Governments this year, last year and in the 10 years before. It is not some tragic, unforeseeable series of unhappy accidents that brought us here today. It is a string of choices that this Government have made, sometimes in the face of evidence, sometimes against advice, sometimes through a dogmatic refusal to try, and sometimes simply through a lazy and complacent failure to take the hard decisions that government involves. Time and again, through the pandemic and the long years before it, the Government have left issues to fester rather than taking action to address them, and then rushed at the last moment, only to find that it is too late and the damage is done.
I said at the beginning that incomes are going down, prices are going up, taxes are up, rents are up, childcare costs are up, fuel costs are up and rail fares are up. Let me take each one in turn.
Ten months ago, the Chancellor set out his policy of a public sector pay freeze. Like so much of his policy making, it was a triumph of short-term accountancy over rational economics. Public sector workers—council staff cleaning our parks in lockdown, police officers on the frontline, teaching assistants doing everything they can to give our children the best possible start in life—are not somehow separate from the rest of the economy. They buy food from the same shops as their neighbours working for private firms. Their children go to the same schools as private sector workers. They shop on the same high streets. They visit the same pubs and cafés. Taking money from their pockets while the recovery is so fragile—and it is so fragile—is taking money from our shops, our high streets, our economy. It is pulling demand out of our economy at the worst possible moment.
But the Government have not been content with clobbering those who did so much to keep our country running during the pandemic. In just a few weeks’ time, they are putting their hands in pockets once again: the pockets of the millions of families in our country—40% of them in working households, doing everything the Government have asked of them—for whom universal credit is what keeps them out of poverty. Again, let us be clear: many of the people being clobbered by this hit are the heroes whose bravery in the face of a then little understood disease kept this country running through lockdown after lockdown.
The Government are taking £20 each week from every family who receive universal credit. Government Members may choose to forget what that means. In the years ahead, their voters will remember the choices that they made. They will have heard from their own constituents, as I have heard, the growing worry and anger of the people they represent—the genuine sense of surprise that any Government could do this, mixed with a lasting fury that the Government really are doing this. Twenty pounds each week is not simply a number. It is school shoes, a gas bill, dinner on the table, and decent meals for the children.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Thirty-seven per cent. of children in Lewisham are growing up in poverty. That is the stark reality of the cost of living crisis. Rather than addressing the issue, the Government are cutting those people’s universal credit and putting up their taxes. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not the way to treat hard-working families and their children? Should not the Government keep the £20 uplift, cancel the cut and think again about the tax rises?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is frankly indefensible. We knew that poverty was already beginning to rise before the pandemic even hit, and we know the impact that the cut to universal credit will have on family and household budgets, and on child poverty.
It is bad enough to be taking money out of people’s pockets as the recovery falters, but as price after price goes up for working people, this is unforgivable—because prices are up, and they are up sharply. Madam Deputy Speaker,
“August saw the largest rise in annual inflation month on month since the series was introduced almost a quarter of a century ago.”
Those are not my words, but the words of the Office for National Statistics. Alongside the most recent GDP figures, that is a powerful signal of how fragile our recovery remains.
Rising food prices have been driving upward pressure on the inflation rate, but this week, of course, it is energy prices that are the focus of our attention. That rise is taking money out of household budgets directly, but it will also be taking money out indirectly. Higher prices for energy mean higher prices for industry, and that means higher prices for goods. Already factories are being shuttered by higher prices and already that is driving further problems, such as knocking out the carbon dioxide supplies that keep meat fresh along our supply chains.
Ministers are always keen to blame other people, the weather or bad luck, and to claim that all of Europe has the same problems. That is not good enough and the public know it. To assert that other Governments have faults is not to excuse our own. What we are seeing and what we have seen over the last decade is a chronic failure to take responsibility, and it is hard-working families and struggling businesses who will pay the price.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
On Saturday, I met a care worker on Erdington high street who was close to tears. “I’ve got two kids, Jack”, she said, “I’m on universal credit. I can’t work any longer hours. Now I’m facing a £1,000 a year cut and a tax increase. Why? I worked so hard throughout the dreadful covid crisis to care for the desperate, sometimes the dying. Why are they doing this? I’ve worked so hard over so many years. I feel that they just do not begin to understand people like me and the pain that I will endure at the next stages.” Is it not the simple reality that the Government seem to be utterly oblivious to the consequences of their actions for the poorest in our country?
Bridget Phillipson
Like my hon. Friend, I have heard from care workers and many others in my constituency about the anger that they feel. The average care worker is set to lose more than £1,000 in tax rises and universal credit cuts. Of course, the Government’s much trumpeted so-called plan for social care will do absolutely nothing to help the very care workers my hon. Friend describes.
Let us remember the exact timing of the soaring energy prices: exactly as the cut in universal credit bites. It is about choices. The Government choose not to protect working people. We would choose differently.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The hon. Member is making a number of incredibly important points in an articulate fashion. However, would she not agree that much of what she has covered up to this point is also a consequence of Brexit? Will she therefore condemn the fact that the Government took us out of the European Union during the middle of a pandemic?
Bridget Phillipson
I will shortly come to a section of my speech that deals with the extensive problems that we face as a result of the Government’s Brexit deal; I will say a little bit more at that point.
Resolution Foundation analysis published yesterday shows that four in 10 households on universal credit face a 13% rise in their energy bills in the same month that their universal credit is cut by £20 a week. Earlier this month, we heard a lot of Government Members selectively quoting the analysis of the Resolution Foundation. I hope that they have been paying a little more attention this week, and will be reading that report with the same degree of careful attention.
This crisis may be sudden, but the causes are long standing: dependence on imports; a lack of energy security; inadequate emphasis on storage; a decade of decisions deferred and dodged. This is a crisis made in Downing Street that was caused by a decade of complacency. Gas stockpiles are at their lowest level for 10 years. In 2019, the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves)—who then chaired the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee—wrote to the Government about the impact of closing the Rough storage facility, which provided about 75% of Britain’s natural gas storage capacity. She wrote about gas security and the need for supply resilience. “All is well” was the tenor of the response she received, even though the key report on which Ministers relied did not include any explicit analysis of consumer price impacts. And yet here we are today.
This month, connectivity to the continent for electricity imports is down. It is often high praise to be able to say that something is really on fire, but rather less so when it is the main electricity cable to France, which went up in flames earlier this month and will not be back online until March. As the pandemic showed so powerfully, when crises arise we discover that our country is not prepared, and that only one thing has to go wrong and everything is at risk. The resilience that should be there has long since been stripped out for illusory short-term savings.
Incomes are heading down and prices are up, but, more than that, taxes are already up and planned to go up further. Last November, the Chancellor all but forced councils to put up council tax further to pay for the rapidly rising cost of social care—a challenge the Conservatives did nothing to tackle in 11 years in power. In March, he set out his plans to freeze income tax thresholds, taking a higher chunk of working people’s incomes each year. This month he set out his new tax on working people and their employers, providing £19 in every extra £20 by taxing the earnings of working people and the success of small businesses. As we head towards another Budget, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have repeatedly refused to rule out yet another unfair tax rise on working people. Time and again this Chancellor reaches to take money from the pockets of working people and their employers rather than looking across the system and ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders, who can afford to contribute more, do contribute more.
Incomes are heading down, prices are up, taxes are rising, and what is more, rents are up too. According to the property website Zoopla, private rental prices across the UK increased by 5% in the 12 months to the end of July, adding almost £500 a year to the average tenant’s bill—the biggest jump since its index began in 2008. That might be welcome news for those who have a portfolio of properties and make their living from renting to others, but for working people these numbers are an index not of success but of a decade of Government failure to get a grip on the housing issues of this country.
Incomes are going down, prices are going up, taxes are rising, rents are rising, and, what is more, the cost of childcare is going up too. Labour Members have long warned that a decade of Conservative neglect and the impact of the pandemic could force thousands of early years providers to shut their doors for ever, and it is now clear that those fears are being realised.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
A recent report by Pregnant Then Screwed showed that nine in 10 working families believe that the cost of childcare is severely impacting on their living standards. This is not surprising considering that childcare costs have been rising three times as quickly as wages in the past decade. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government urgently need to put in targeted support for these working families, right now, rather than cruelly withdrawing the universal credit uplift?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I pay credit to her for all the work that she has been doing to highlight these issues and the impact on families and children, and the much bigger economic impact when we do not get our childcare system right in this country.
Three thousand childcare providers have closed since the beginning of 2021 alone, denying families access to the childcare that parents need and denying children access to the early education that sets them up for life. Why is that? One major reason, as the Early Years Alliance has highlighted, is that information released through freedom of information requests makes it clear that Ministers have been knowingly underfunding early years providers, driving up costs while driving down quality. Childcare should be a vital part of our national infrastructure that should help our whole economy to grow and to recover. Yet, as my hon. Friend points out, Britain has some of the highest childcare costs in the developed world. Childcare must be affordable and accessible to families. If more people can work, our collective output will be greater. It is right for children, it is right for families, and it is right for our economy.
Incomes are going down, prices are going up, taxes are rising, rents are up, the cost of childcare is up, and petrol and diesel are more expensive again too. I represent a seat where there are no passenger rail services. If people live far from their jobs, they drive to work or get the bus. Fuel prices feed fast enough into the squeeze on living standards, and last week petrol was over 135p a litre. It is more than £10 more expensive to fill up the average tank than it was when the spending review was agreed in November. That makes an enormous difference to families when every single penny counts.
Incomes are down, prices are up, taxes are rising, rents are up, the cost of childcare is up, fuel is up, and rail fares are set to rise too. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) has set out the next steps we expect in the Government’s hammering of working people. With rail prices tied to July RPI inflation, and with inflation as high as it is, the cost of season tickets will rocket by almost 5% for long-suffering rail users next year—the biggest single increase in a decade. Again, it is not just the leap now but the decade of complacency before that tells the full story. The average commuter faces paying almost £3,300 a year for their season ticket—50% more than when the Conservatives came to power in 2010. Average fares have risen nearly three times faster than wages, and they are on course to rise again.
It is not just that families can afford less on food, energy, rent, childcare, travelling and commuting but that there is less to afford. Restaurants have closed. Shelves are empty. Shortages are real, and biting not just on families and their weekly shop but on our supply chains for industries too. What lies behind that? Not enough HGV drivers; long queues at our ports; more paperwork at the border; no agreement on food, animal and plant health standards when we left the EU; shortages of refrigerant, putting meat supply chains at risk: on issue after issue the Government were warned and warned again.
It is only three months since Ministers told the industry that concerns over HGV shortages were “crying wolf”. Last Christmas the roads around many ports were clogged for days. I meet businesses that have had to scale back ambitions for global expansion because it is not even worth their while sending goods to Northern Ireland any more. Again, these issues were not just foreseeable; they were avoidable. They were foreseen; they could have been avoided.
People are having less money to spend; having to spend more of what little they have paying more on tax, transport, fuel, rent and childcare; and having less in the shops than they can buy. There is a word for that: impoverishment. More and more people are being pushed into poverty. It is the policy of this Government to stand by and watch, and it will be the policy of the next Labour Government to turn it around.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I have listened very carefully to my hon. Friend’s really excellent exposition of a whole raft of issues that have challenged living standards, and what is interesting is that not one Government Member has got up to challenge any of the assertions that she has made. Does she agree that that demonstrates that they have nothing to say and that the slogans they use to try to describe their actions belie the truth of the increased division and poverty that they are creating?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who did so much in government to tackle issues of poverty and of child poverty in early years, in particular.
Conservative Members will have heard the same from their constituents as I have heard from mine, which is that life is getting tougher and they just cannot understand why, in the face of rising cost pressures, the Government are putting up their taxes, cutting the support that is available and making life harder. My constituents simply cannot understand why the Government are prepared to stand by and allow that to happen.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. You are making the case for why you do not agree with the Government’s position, but I have been listening very carefully to hear what your position is. You have criticised the removal of the uplift in universal, but no Labour politician on the news or interviewed by the press has committed to keep it if you were to be elected.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Lady really must stop using the word “you”.
Dr Johnson
I did not mean to, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I am trying to make is that there is no plan from the Opposition. They are not giving any plan on what they would do instead; they simply criticise. They simply say we must spend more and tax less, but how does the hon. Lady propose to do such a thing?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. The single biggest difference that all of us could make right now would be to cancel the cut to universal credit. That would make the biggest difference to her constituents and to mine, who are facing the single biggest cut to social security since the inception of the welfare state. That is not a choice that a Labour Government would be taking in the aftermath of a pandemic.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Lady says that she would not wish to remove the temporary uplift, which we had always planned to be temporary throughout the pandemic. Does that mean that she is making the commitment that a Labour Government would reinstate that £20?
Bridget Phillipson
We would not be cutting it in the first place. We would replace universal credit with a better and fairer system that supports people into work. If the hon. Member wants to have a discussion about semantics, I suggest she has a chat with her constituents and sees how she gets on, arguing about the distinction between a temporary uplift and a cut. It is more than £1,000 a year from families’ budgets—that is what really matters.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
The hon. Lady has made it clear that Labour wants to keep the temporary uplift. However, given that Labour does not support increasing national insurance, which is a very broad-based tax, how does it propose to pay for a permanent £6 billion a year increase in public spending? How would she pay for a blanket extension of £20 a week for every single universal credit claimant—it is not targeted to families or those with children in particular—in a way that is fair and does not involve raising taxes?
Bridget Phillipson
First, it is worth considering why the increase to universal credit was put in place. It was because, during the pandemic, the Government had to recognise that universal credit had been set at an inadequate level on which families might survive. On the hon. Lady’s wider point, I have a long list of places where we could find some money, if she is interested: the 1.9 million pieces of personal protective equipment, worth £2.8 billion, procured by the Government that were useless; the stamp duty holiday that was a £1 billion-giveaway to landlords and second homeowners—I could be mistaken, but I do not recall her objecting to that—and the hundreds of millions of pounds about to be wasted on the Prime Minister’s vanity yacht. That is before we get to the Test and Trace system that the National Audit Office said had not worked properly and had had a “minimal impact” on transmissions, literally wasting billions. This is about choices. There is always money for the Government’s projects, their friends and their people, yet when it comes to dealing with some of the poorest families in our community—those who have got us through the pandemic—I am afraid they are told that there is nothing for them.
Bridget Phillipson
I will make a little more progress but will happily take another intervention in due course. Having gone from no interventions to a flurry of them, I should probably press on.
The scar of poverty is not just about not having material goods, a roof, warm clothes and warm food. It is about a lack of freedom, having nothing to spend on yourself, having choice exercised for you—either by others or by necessity—and finding your voice and your own choice squeezed out. That is what the Government’s changes do, but it does not need to be like that.
Labour has a clear plan for how we would secure a better future for our country and steer a path for our economy in the months ahead. We would not be pretending that a national insurance rise without a plan is the way to fix the NHS, we would not be cutting universal credit in just a few weeks’ time, hitting working families hard, and we would not have spent 18 long months handing out huge amounts of taxpayers’ money through outsourcing and crony contracts while hitting working people for tax again and again. We would not be telling hauliers that they were crying wolf. We would be taking action day and night with employers and trade unions to fix the supply chain disruption that is leading to higher prices and fewer goods. We would not have sat back for the last decade as rent, childcare and rail fares soared.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
When I wander down Stockton high street or through Billingham town centre, I can see the signs of poverty everywhere in faces that are tired, faces that are anxious and faces that look older than their years. Eventually, poverty kills. The decision to leave thousands of my constituents in this situation is a political one. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we are one of the richest nations in the world, it is time that the Tories’ choices changed for the better?
Bridget Phillipson
Yes, absolutely. These are political choices—who we seek to prioritise, what we do from Government and what matters most to us all.
Aaron Bell
When the hon. Lady’s boss, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), was appointed as shadow Chancellor, she said that not only would all Labour’s policies be fully costed but she would explain how they would be paid for. They need to be paid for on an ongoing basis. It is no use going over incidents from the last 18 months and saying that that would fund the extension to UC forever, that tax credit uplifts would be made permanent and that legacy benefit claimants would also get them, as well as turning the advances we have had into grants, reducing the taper rate and scrapping the benefit cap and the two-child limit. Those are popular policies, but how much would all of that cost and how would Labour pay for it on an ongoing basis? The hon. Lady cannot deny the fiscal reality that we are in a difficult situation because of all the money that the Government have spent on protecting jobs.
Bridget Phillipson
The difficulty with the Government’s approach is that they like to pretend that theirs is the only way to do it, with the only option being to hike national insurance on workers and businesses when our recovery is far from clear. Labour would not be putting up national insurance at this point with the recovery far from secure. We have set out in lots of detail the different options available. Just yesterday, my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor set out further changes that we would make to allow the tax system to become fairer and more progressive. We could say a lot more. It should be shared more evenly across the incomes and across the generations and not through the Government’s approach of hammering working people and their families.
Labour will make more in Britain by giving more public contracts to British companies big and small. We will build a prosperous and resilient economy where every corner of our country can offer decent jobs; where ours is the best country to grow up in and the best country to grow old in. We will use stretching social, environmental and labour clauses in Government contracts to raise standards and to spend and make more in Britain. We will focus on bringing the jobs of the future to Britain by investing in reshoring jobs just as we invest in foreign direct investment. By helping every business access the expertise and support that it needs, we will build a high-skill, high-wage economy, and we will take seriously the challenges that we face outside the EU, fixing the gaping holes in the deal that the Government negotiated.
Let us focus on what the Government can do right now. Earlier this month, the Government felt they just could not wait for next month’s Budget to announce their plan to clobber working people’s incomes through an increase in national insurance, after all that this country has been through. After a pandemic that again and again showed the British people pulling together at their generous, innovative, dedicated best, the Government’s reward was a tax rise on workers and struggling businesses rushed through in less than a week. There is nothing to stop Ministers taking the same decisive action, with the same urgency, to protect the living standards of millions of people. There is nothing to stop them tackling poverty as the scar that it is. I urge the Government to change direction not at their conference, not in October, not at the Budget and not next year but now, as the nights grow cold, the bills mount up and the money runs out. There is no time to spare. The time for action is now.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“welcomes the £400 billion package of support the Government has put in place to protect jobs, incomes and livelihoods throughout this covid-19 pandemic, including a temporary cut to VAT, generous cash grants for businesses, a business rates holiday, and the furlough scheme which protected 11 million people at its peak; notes the launching of the Plan For Jobs to help people back into work and gain the right skills to succeed in the jobs of tomorrow through schemes such as Kickstart for young people, Restart for the long-term unemployed, the Lifetime Skills Guarantee and additional funding for apprenticeships, traineeships and work coaches; further notes the measures taken by the Government to keep costs down for working people, such as introducing and increasing the National Living Wage in 2016 so that a full-time worker is £4,000 a year better off than before, doubling personal tax thresholds giving individuals an extra £1,200 per year, protecting local taxpayers from excessive council tax increases, introducing an energy price cap which protects 15 million households by around £100 a year, and freezing fuel duty for 11 consecutive years which has saved drivers £1,600 compared to 2010; and believes that this plan is working, as evidenced by unemployment forecast to be 2 million lower than previously expected, job vacancies at record highs, household incomes protected, consumer confidence back to pre-covid-19 pandemic levels, and GDP recovering rapidly, with the IMF forecasting the UK to have the highest growth in the G7 this year.”.
It is a pleasure to be back at the Dispatch Box and to have the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson). I thank her for her kind words on my appointment. It is great that the north-east has two representatives in the debate, and I am delighted that the north-east economy is in robust shape, contrary to what we just heard.
In the last 18 months, safeguarding working people’s finances has been the Government’s defining mission, and we have succeeded in that task. Just today, the OECD economic outlook says that it expects the UK to see the fastest growth in the G7 both this year and next. The IMF has described the UK’s policy response as “aggressive” and as one of the
“best examples of co-ordinated action globally”,
helping to mitigate the damage wreaked by the pandemic, and
“holding down unemployment and insolvencies.”
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary begins his speech by talking about growth, which everyone in the Chamber would like to see, but what impact is there on struggling businesses from the clobbering increase in national insurance? That will have an impact on not just individuals but employers and the workplace.
Mr Clarke
We are clear that the right thing to do as we emerge from the pandemic, in which we have spent £400 billion on providing a comprehensive response, is ensure that our NHS is ready to deal with the backlog of cases that has inevitably arisen as well as providing a long-term fix for social care in a broad-based solution, bringing together a progressive tax rise in which the wealthiest pay more and business plays a fair role. I am confident that that is the right thing to do at this time.
Let me remind the House once more of the sheer scale of what this Government have been doing and of our support for the economy. The £400 billion I referenced a moment ago is spending that has been devoted to safeguarding jobs and incomes the length and breadth of the UK. It is spending that has given millions of people financial certainty through a very difficult 18 months.
The furlough scheme has protected 11.6 million jobs—that is equivalent to a third of the entire workforce—and it has paid out £68.5 billion to employers. The self-employment income support scheme has provided £27 billion to almost 3 million people. Businesses have been kept afloat thanks to loan schemes worth £79 billion, in addition to cash grants, VAT cuts and business rates relief, while the most vulnerable have been supported by a temporary uplift to welfare payments. HM Treasury’s own distributional analysis shows that our interventions have supported the poorest working households most as a proportion of income. That list is far from exhaustive, but it shows how the Government have met an extraordinary crisis with an extraordinary package of measures.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
In your constituency of Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Can I just stop the hon. Lady? She must not use the word “your”, but say “in the Minister’s constituency”.
Kim Johnson
In the Minister’s constituency of Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, the child poverty rate is 24.7%, smashing the national average of 19.1%, and up nearly 10% over the past six years. Can the Minister tell us exactly how he intends to justify his own Government’s decisions to hit the pockets of the most vulnerable families and disadvantaged people he represents?
Mr Clarke
I am incredibly proud to be part of the extraordinary transformation of Teesside’s economy, which is taking incredible shape under the work of our Mayor, Ben Houchen. Of course, that was reflected in the fact that the Tees Valley voted by 73% to re-elect our Conservative Mayor just this May. Why was that? It happened because of jobs and growth, and hope and pride in place—all the things that this Government are committed to delivering, and all the things that a Conservative Government are doing after years in which Labour neglected areas such as Teesside and left us with no plan, no options and no future.
Peak unemployment is now forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility as being substantially lower than initially expected. All the evidence now points to a rebounding labour market. Just last week, the Office for National Statistics reported that vacancies are at a record high, while the headline unemployment rate has fallen for seven consecutive months and now stands at 4.6%.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I am a bit concerned that the Minister has not actually read the motion on the Order Paper. This is about people who are in work. I absolutely agree that people have been kept in work as a result of the schemes that are being scrapped—that is the case—but the thing is that if people are not being paid the living wage and are not being paid enough money to actually live on, they are going to continue to be in poverty no matter whether or not they are in work.
Mr Clarke
I can assure the hon. Lady that I have read the motion closely, which is of course why I am celebrating the fact that the ONS estimates that underlying regular wage growth is between 3.6% and 5.1%. It is why I am so proud that we are the Government who introduced the national living wage, which has of course meant more money in the pockets of working people. So this is exactly about bearing down on the cost of living and about supporting families throughout a really difficult time. That is what we have managed to do and what we will continue to do.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The vast majority of people among my constituents who have written to me about the cut in universal credit are in work, some of them doing two or three jobs, yet many of them are going to be pushed into poverty by the cut the Minister is defending now.
Mr Clarke
The hon. Gentleman needs to bear it in mind that we are of course dealing here with a product, in universal credit, that has a number of different components. The change to which he is alluding affects the standard allowance, but the majority of households on universal credit of course receive many additional elements—for example, 58% receive additional support for housing costs and 38% receive the child element—and many households on UC will also have access to additional sources of income, such as child benefit. This comes before we come to all the things we have built into the system over recent years to make universal credit more generous. That includes, for example, the £1,000-a-year increase to the work allowance, which was announced in 2018 and is worth £630 to working parents and people with disabilities, and of course we have changed the taper rate so people get to keep more of the money they earn as their earnings increase. This is a very carefully calibrated system, and let us not forget that this is far better, frankly, than the legacy programme we inherited from the last Labour Government, which of course, as we know, did not incentivise work, did not properly support people and was a failure, so I am afraid I will not take lessons on universal credit from the hon. Gentleman.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Clarke
I want to make progress because it is important that we reflect on the employment situation in the United Kingdom. Our joblessness rate is now lower than that of the United States, lower than that of Canada and lower than those of France, Italy and Spain. People have been coming off the furlough scheme very rapidly now, and the numbers are down to 5.1 million in January to 1.6 million at the end of July, while almost half of those people still on the scheme, lest we forget, are already working through flexible furlough. The number of people claiming self-employment grants has fallen significantly, too. But that is not all: broader economic growth has exceeded expectations as restrictions have been lifted.
Miriam Cates
My right hon. Friend refers to the furlough scheme, which has of course been a phenomenally successful scheme. It has been credited with preventing mass unemployment and saving the job market. Does he not agree that Opposition cries that we are clobbering working people absolutely do not stack up when we consider the furlough scheme?
Mr Clarke
I thank my hon. Friend for her point, and this is absolutely right. The furlough scheme has been absolutely essential to supporting the UK throughout this very difficult period. It has been an historic success, and we only need to consider how serious the employment situation would have been had we failed to intervene and failed to show the decisive leadership that this Government have shown.
Alex Cunningham
As a fellow Tees Member of Parliament, the Minister will be aware that at the height, just a few weeks ago, there were 12,000 more unemployed people across the Tees Valley than there were in March last year. How does he reconcile that with talking up the Tees Valley employment situation?
Mr Clarke
I do so quite readily when I look at the extraordinary potential of our local economy. We have all the new jobs coming in at the Teesworks site, the former Redcar steelworks site. We have the hope and potential of green industry, which the hon. Member champions, as I do, with all the jobs in carbon capture, utilisation and storage as well as hydrogen. There is the new GE Renewable Energy factory, which will employ 2,500 people. Its construction starts incredibly soon, and it will be fully operational by 2023. Those are the reasons for hope and optimism. Of course, I will never apologise for talking up Teesside, just as we should never apologise for talking up the UK economy. We have done an extraordinary thing in this country: we have got through the pandemic—we have weathered the storm—and now we can move on to the recovery.
Jack Dromey
Three out of the 10 most deprived constituencies in England are in Birmingham and 42% of children in Birmingham are growing up in poverty, yet the Government are hitting Birmingham hard with the £1,000 a year cut to universal credit and the national insurance rise on top of the cost of living going up and soaring energy costs, with supermarket costs up, childcare costs up and rents up. Can I ask the right hon. Member this question: have the Government carried out any impact assessment of the consequences of their actions on Brummies, not least because the simple bleak reality is that tens of thousands face a tough Christmas and a bleak new year?
Mr Clarke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which basically re-summarised the speech we heard from the shadow Minister. I can confirm that HMT’s distributional analysis has shown that, as a proportion of income, our interventions have supported the poorest working households the most. Of course I recognise the challenges—I represent a constituency that has many challenges—but the number of children in absolute poverty, to which he alluded a moment ago, is lower than it was when Labour left office in 2009-10, both before and after housing costs are considered. These are incredibly important achievements, and we should never lose sight of them. In short, we took decisive action, and that action has worked.
It is clear that the world of September 2021 is very different from that of March 2020. The success of our vaccine roll-out means that most restrictions have now been lifted and we are seeing the benefits of our approach. These new circumstances therefore require a new response. We of course believe that the best anti-poverty strategy is a jobs strategy, and the best way to help vulnerable people is to provide them with the opportunities that they need for well-paid work.
Aaron Bell
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He is right about the importance of jobs, and not just well-paid jobs but high skilled jobs. Can he say something about how our plan for jobs is delivering people with skills? We have a limited amount of money to spend and it is better to invest that in people’s skills than endlessly into welfare.
Mr Clarke
I absolutely agree: it is very important that we invest in skills. The plan for jobs is not just about getting people into work or keeping them in work; it is about making sure they grow their skills during their working lives, which is why we have a focus on more skills for school leavers and generous apprenticeship hiring incentives. We are also tripling the number of traineeships for 16 to 24-year-olds, and we have the pioneering lifetime skills guarantee. These are all the sorts of things that will make a difference in Staffordshire as they will across the rest of the UK, and we should be incredibly proud of that.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
On the previous intervention about there being a limited amount of money that can only go so far, did the £1.6 billion allocated for a nil rate stamp duty on houses worth up to £500,000 help the poorest, the richest, or a combination of the richest and the housebuilders’ profits?
Mr Clarke
The hon. Gentleman asks us to apologise for keeping the housing market moving in the teeth of the pandemic and I make absolutely no apology for that; it was absolutely the right thing to do to make sure we did not see a collapse of that market.
It is important to recognise that supplying, protecting and creating employment opportunities is the right way forward both economically and politically for our country. That is why we have made a deliberate choice to invest in our plan for jobs, which we launched over a year ago to create work opportunities and assist workers to develop the right skills for the future.
Our plan is helping young people—a group disproportionately affected by the pandemic—through the £2 billion kickstart scheme. At lunch, I was talking to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), about the impact of these programmes on young people, creating and fully funding hundreds of thousands of jobs for those at risk of long-term unemployment. I am proud that so far over 63,000 young people have had the chance to begin a kickstart job, with the numbers growing by more than 2,000 every week. Our plan will support more than 1 million unemployed people, many of whom are aged over 50, helping them find work through our three-year-long £2.9 billion restart programme, and providing jobseekers with the personalised, intensive support that will make a real difference to their prospects.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
On retraining opportunities, may I highlight the lifetime skills guarantee as well? If someone has a job and thinks they can do something better, we can give them £2,000 or £3,000 to help them retrain. That is huge for people in South Ribble who want to go and do something exciting.
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend is right. For the first time, any adult without a level 3 qualification will be fully funded by the Government to access three courses worth £3,600 per person. There are 11 million adults across this country without level 3 qualifications; this policy is directly targeted to support them.
We have invested £2.3 billion to hire and retain work coaches, doubling the number to 27,000, a feat that we have achieved in just eight months, and we are spending over £200 million on providing unemployed people with tailored help with CV writing, interview skills and job search advice. [Interruption.] We have doubled free childcare for working families—we can carry this on all day. This is a comprehensive solution to a very challenging series of problems. The plan for jobs is not about quick fixes; it is about creating sustainable employment so that people can be confident about being able to support themselves over the longer term.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point about job applications and employment but, as we have heard, this debate is about the cost of living. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how much the average family has had to pay in increased petrol costs per year, as well as the average cost of filling up a car?
Mr Clarke
This Government have frozen fuel duty for 11 years, so we do not need to take any lessons on that.
It is vital that we keep bearing down on the skills crunch we have been talking about. Our employment strategy is supporting people through a variety of means to gain the knowledge, attributes and qualifications to find work in high-value sectors. Insofar as we achieve that, we will be achieving a much more sustainable, robust economy for the future. Our employment strategy is supporting the finances of people up and down the country, helping them back into work, and helping them earn more and succeed in the jobs of tomorrow.
Meanwhile, Labour offers absolutely no plan to tackle the challenges that the country faces. There is no plan to take the tough decisions on covid; the amounts of money to be raised that are talked about are a fraction of those required to support the demands they are making of the Exchequer. There is no plan to create the high-skilled, high-wage economy, no plan—they voted against it last week—to tackle the NHS backlogs. While we wait for the Opposition to reveal how they would do this, we are taking action.
In April we took definitive action, increasing the national living wage by 2.2% to £8.91 an hour, an increase worth more than £345 a year to a full-time worker on the NLW, and at the same time we extended the NLW to those aged 23 and over. Last year we took action to tackle rent costs by boosting the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile of market rates, and we are keeping cash levels at those higher rates going forward. That will cost more than £950 million this year and has meant that more than 1.5 million households benefited from an additional £600 last year compared with before the crisis. We have protected people from excessive council tax increases and given councils £670 million this year to provide families with help with their bills.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the Government plans for social care reform will force local authorities to increase council tax?
Mr Clarke
We have always been clear, and it has long been the practice, that a proportion of social care bills are met through council tax, and that is the right thing to do. We are saying that, additionally, we need a credible solution to properly fund social care in the long term, so that people can have the dignity in their old age that they deserve. This is a complex and challenging area of policy. While we have stood up and said that we will do the difficult thing and actually increase taxes so that there is enough money for the system not to fall over, Labour simply plays politics with the issue. Voting against what was a progressive, broad-based tax increase to properly fund adult social care was an irresponsible choice, and in their hearts Labour Members must know it.
The new health and social care levy is a £12 billion a year injection into the NHS and social care that will benefit people of all ages and backgrounds. The decision to raise taxes was tough—of course it was; we believe in a low-tax economy—but it was the responsible thing to do given the impact of covid on the country’s finances. Most importantly, that decision was fair: the levy is progressive because those earning more will pay more, and businesses will share the burden.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. The point is not whether extra money needs to be raised to fund the NHS or indeed social care; the point is how it is to be raised. National insurance and council tax are regressive, not progressive, taxes, but there are alternatives such as reform of national insurance, looking at assets as well as income, or looking at regional differences. There is a whole raft of options that the Minister and the Government could have considered; why did they not do so? Why have they chosen a regressive system for raising additional money?
Mr Clarke
We did look at this, and Treasury analysis showed that lower-income households will be large net beneficiaries from the package announced by the Prime Minister, with the poorest households gaining the most as a proportion of income. This Government are unafraid to make tough choices in order to safeguard the nation’s finances. The difficult decisions that we have made to increase corporation tax rates and temporarily reduce overseas development assistance—which I know will be considered the right decision by my constituents on Teesside—are clear illustrations of our approach on this front.
As a final point, I remind Members that while we have taken extensive action to safeguard workers’ finances during the pandemic, our record of achievement stretches much further back. Indeed, according to official statistics there were 1 million fewer workless households at the end of 2019 than in 2010, while income inequality was lower going into the pandemic than in that year as well. In fact, over the past 11 years successive Conservative Governments have striven to keep the cost of living in check for millions of households.
Let me give the House some examples. Fuel duty has been frozen for 11 years in a row, cumulatively saving the average driver £1,600. The energy price cap has protected 15 million households in the two years since its launch. We have nearly doubled the personal allowance over the last decade, making it the highest basic personal tax allowance of all countries in the G20 and one of the most generous internationally. In combination, our changes to the national living wage, personal allowance and national insurance currently leave a full-time national living wage employee £5,400 better off in cash terms compared with 2010. I am proud of that, and I think all Conservative Members should be. These measures are just part of a record of achievement that has made a real and lasting difference to people’s lives.
Tulip Siddiq
The Minister is talking about everything that he is proud of. Is he proud that the childcare system in this country is the third most expensive in the world, and that parents are making the choice between paying childcare costs or paying their rent or mortgage? Does he think that removing the universal credit uplift will help working parents? I notice that he has not said anything about childcare, so would he care to elaborate?
Mr Clarke
I would be delighted to. This Government have doubled childcare for working families to 30 hours a week. That is worth £5,000 a year. For working families claiming universal credit, up to 85% of eligible childcare costs are met. That is the right thing to do. We want to keep women in the workforce, and we want to make sure that it is easy for families to adjust to whatever arrangements best suit them to support their children as they grow up.
A plan for jobs, incomes supported, the economy rebounding—this Government have safeguarded the finances of millions of people and, in doing so, set our country on the path to a strong recovery. Working people right across this country are seeing the benefit. We are not just promising a brighter tomorrow; we are delivering positive, tangible change today. Let me stress that we have no plans to alter our course. We will remain relentless in our mission to provide workers in every part of this country with the better prospects, greater security and increased opportunities that they so rightly deserve.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
This could not be a more timely debate. My constituents and people across the country are looking with great apprehension at the winter to come, fearful about how they will make ends meet. I welcome the Minister to his post, and I appreciate what he said about the economic support offered, but that is not unique to this Government or any other. Governments around the world have sought to support their citizens through this pandemic, and many have done so more compassionately and more competently than those sitting across from us on the Tory Benches.
Many have done that from a better starting point, too, without public services stripped bare from a decade of austerity and a welfare state that punishes people for their circumstances, and without the worst inequality in north-west Europe. And none of them has embarked upon a project so thoroughly deficient and self-defeating as Brexit, which has left businesses carrying higher costs, shelves empty, and skilled people—our neighbours and friends—leaving this island in their droves because this UK Tory Government have made them feel so unwelcome. Scotland voted for none of this.
To the here and now, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have food shortages and price rises, inflation increasing, cuts to universal credit and tax credits, the end of the pensions triple lock, a regressive national insurance hike, the end of furlough and the self-employment income support scheme—for people who were lucky enough to be eligible for that scheme rather than excluded from it—and now the prospect of spiralling energy bills as we head into the depths of winter.
Alex Cunningham
The hon. Member has just mentioned energy prices. I do not know whether she saw that Torsten Bell of the Resolution Foundation said:
“The autumn is looking like a cost of living crunch.”
He added that four in 10 households
“will see their energy bills rise by 13% (£153 a year) at exactly the same time as their income falls by 5% (£1000 a year).”
He also mentioned inflation, which is expected to get to 4%. What does she think that will mean for the poorest people in our society?
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Member is perfectly right to point that out and to refer to the words of Torsten Bell. He came to the Treasury Committee to give evidence about some of the things that we are facing in the months ahead. Many constituents will just not be able to cope with this. They will become more indebted, they will struggle to get by, and they will find it difficult to get back out of that debt, get on with their lives and be productive members of society. This is a significant crisis, which this Government are ignoring and making worse by their inaction.
This Tory Government have already created the perfect storm: a cost-of-living crisis atop an already weak and stagnant economy. Citizens Advice Scotland found that more than 1.4 million people in Scotland ran out of money before payday at least once in the last year. Sarah Arnold, senior economist at the New Economics Foundation, found that 2.5 million working families on low incomes will lose £1,290 a year because of the double whammy of the cut to universal credit and the increase in national insurance contributions. That is utterly unjustifiable.
It may not mean much to those on the Government Benches, but that is an enormous amount of money to many people across this country, which cannot be made up through a few hours’ work, as the Work and Pensions Secretary appears to believe. It is the difference between just getting by and not coping at all, between being able to put food on the table or relying on the food bank, between keeping the lights and the heating on or disconnecting from the power supply.
I am an honorary vice-president of Energy Action Scotland—I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—which has found that one in five households with a prepayment meter regularly self-disconnects because they simply cannot afford to top it up. Of those households, 88% contain a child or someone with health issues. Those on prepayment meters will struggle the very most in the months ahead—they always do—and this UK Government do absolutely nothing to support them. The stress of watching the meter eat what little money has been put in it is an experience that I am sure few on the Government Benches will understand, but I have had constituents shivering, living in one room under blankets and duvets, because no matter how much money they put in that meter, they cannot keep their home warm.
There is a significant impact on older people, carers and people with disabilities, whom this UK Tory Government have often completely ignored. That is a group whose energy bills are higher. My constituent Rob McDowall is among many already worrying about how to keep warm this winter. Like Citizens Advice Scotland, he is advising people to seek assistance and advice right now. While I fully support attempts to seek advice, this UK Tory Government should take their responsibilities seriously too.
Energy costs will increase more in Scotland due to our geography. This is a life and death issue. Living in a cold home causes illness, and Energy Action Scotland has found that there are around 2,000 excess deaths in Scotland each winter as a result. That is a scandal in energy-rich Scotland, but it is a reflection of how broken the energy system is—a system entirely reserved to Westminster. Around 25% of energy bills is the cost of UK Government levies and policy choices, as well as VAT. That disproportionately hits those on low and middle incomes. The Treasury must do something now to alleviate that burden. That is in its hands.
Alan Brown
Is it not the case that even the schemes that are meant to help the poorest, such as the warm home discount, the eco scheme that helps with some energy-efficiency measures, are paid for by other energy users, so they are actually regressive? Those who can least afford their energy bills are paying to try to support other people, so it is a circular argument that goes nowhere. Is it not also outrageous that in the highlands of Scotland, people pay up to £400 more a year as a levy on their electricity while exporting energy to the rest of the UK?
Alison Thewliss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point that out. That is an unfairness in the system that the Government have shown no compulsion to tackle at all. We must look at that unfairness, particularly for those in the most rural parts of Scotland who find it hardest to afford their energy bills.
I seek an assurance from the Government that those who have money sitting in their energy accounts just now will see that swiftly transferred over to any new company, as people tend to pay in more over the summer to meet their bills in the winter. In his statement yesterday, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy could not guarantee that the warm home discount would be paid to customers transferring. I also want to know what assistance will be possible for those transferred customers who are living with existing arrears. It is an uncertain and very worrying time for them all.
As an aside, my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) have been pursuing the ridiculous transmission charging regime, which makes it more expensive for us to connect the clean, green energy produced on our doorstep in Scotland to the national grid. It feels as if Ministers could not be less interested in fixing that disproportionate scandal.
We all know households that already struggle to pay their energy bills. Households relying on electricity for their energy needs pay £600 more on average than households with both gas and electricity. In the areas that are off the gas grid completely, particularly those relying on liquefied petroleum gas, those costs can be even higher.
In addition to food banks, fuel banks are springing up around the country to meet this need, but given the soaring fuel prices we face, it will just not be enough. The price of food in the shops is also going up. Inflation stood at 3.2% in August, which I understand is the highest month-on-month increase since records began in 1997. Some have predicted that it might reach 4.5% by November. The Bank of England target is 2%. That means that goods in the shops will get ever more expensive. There is the prospect, too, of the national insurance hike being passed on to consumers. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has suggested that companies may try to cover the increase on employers’ costs by passing it on to consumers, so as well as being a tax on jobs, this is a tax at the till.
In addition to having an impact on people’s food bills and their ability to feed themselves, this cost increase is having an impact on charities that are already trying their best to support those in need. Audrey Flannagan at the Glasgow South East food bank in my constituency tells me that food donations to it are down 30%, at a time when she is planning for an influx of people due to the cuts to universal credit. I say “cuts” because, for many who claimed benefits for the first time during the pandemic, they have known nothing else. Audrey tells me that people she has spoken to have been horrified to receive a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions informing them that their money is getting cut, because for them it is not an uplift; it is quite simply what they have been managing on for months now.
The Minister talked about living wages, but his living wage is not a real living wage, as set by the Living Wage Foundation; it is a pretendy living wage. It is not enough for people to live on, and it is not available to everyone. As he knows well, age discrimination is baked into the living wage. Younger people, who face the same bills at the checkout and on their energy and rent, are getting short changed by this Government through their pretendy living wage.
The impact on families of this cut has been well repeated, but I would like to mention the impact on single people. Twenty pounds is around a third of a single person’s income on universal credit. Glasgow South East food bank has seen a significant drop in single people coming for emergency food assistance in this past year, from 601 people in January to March 2020, to just 151 people in the same period this year. Audrey Flannagan believes that the additional £86 per month—UC is paid monthly—was enough to make a difference to those people. It pays for the gas and electric, it puts food on the table, and without that £86 a month, many will return to her service in just a few weeks’ time.
Many people have been in touch with me, as they have with my colleagues, to protest the cut to universal credit, but I want to read this email from John, because he puts it so well. He says:
“I wanted to write you a short note to tell you that cutting back on the U.C. uplift is going to have a very hard consequence on me. I was laid off at the start of the pandemic when the company I was working for closed down. With the uplift I’m receiving about £300 to last me nearly 5 weeks! The government talks like this was a favour done us! Firstly, I and all those on Universal Credit are not responsible for a pandemic! Secondly, the pandemic is not over yet! There could be further strains and further lockdowns! What then for people like me! Also benefits did not go up before the uplift for years and years, while prices and the cost of living have. This therefore is actually a benefit cut! It will be the difference for me between just getting by and crushing poverty!”
That choice will be faced by people up and down this country. Every single person in this House has a responsibility to think of each and every one of them when we vote on this issue, because it is the difference between just getting by and crushing poverty, as my constituent John pointed out.
There are global issues, of course, driving the cost-of-living crisis, but the political choices being made by this UK Tory Government are making it worse. Yet again, they have chosen to balance the books on the backs of the poor—to repeat the mistakes of the previous crash by choosing austerity over stimulus. My constituents did not choose this. The people of Scotland did not choose this. Even many Tory voters did not choose this, as those on the Government Benches break promise after promise to their own supporters. The first duty of Government is to protect its people, and this UK Tory Government have failed repeatedly on all counts. There is no Union dividend, only a Union dead end. Scotland needs the full powers of a normal independent country, to look after all of our people and seek a fairer, just and more prosperous recovery for everyone.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the maiden speech of Jill Mortimer. I remind people that they cannot intervene.
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
Mr Speaker, first may I say what a privilege it is for me to have you back in the Chair? Thank you for calling me to make my maiden speech today, which I do as the first Conservative Member of Parliament for Hartlepool since the constituency’s creation almost 60 years ago. This is perhaps surprising, considering that the people of Hartlepool have traditionally shared so much in common with the modern Conservative party. Both recognise the importance of hard work, thrift and individual responsibility, and both share a profound love of family, community and country. For too long, the elected representatives of Hartlepool have dismissed the concerns of my constituents and taken their vote for granted, but I promise the people of Hartlepool that I will do all I can in my capacity as their new parliamentary representative to ensure that their voice is not only heard in this place but valued.
It is, after all, the people of Hartlepool that make my job the privilege that it is. I am immensely grateful that, in my new role, I have had the opportunity of getting to know some of the most hospitable and compassionate communities in the country. From Hart in the north to Seaton in the south, the unique kindness of my constituents never ceases to move me. They have made me feel so welcome in my new constituency, and for that I am truly grateful. Regardless of how my constituents voted in the by-election earlier this year, it is an honour to represent them all, and I would like to thank them here today for placing their trust in me.
Throughout history, the success of our United Kingdom has depended on the back-breaking work and unwavering determination of Hartlepudlians. Their engagement in the Hartlepool region’s maritime, rail and steel industries has repeatedly helped to secure Britain’s status as a true economic powerhouse. On 16 November 1914, the unshakable devotion of Hartlepudlians to their country was demonstrated in no uncertain terms when the first casualty of the first world war on British soil occurred on our Headland. It was here that we built ships that allowed global Britain to grow and trade around the world, and it is here now, at our nuclear power station, where we power 2 million homes across our region—and I am already fighting for a new reactor for Hartlepool beyond the current plans for decommissioning.
The history of Hartlepool is one of hard graft, bravery, sacrifice and love of country. I intend to fight tooth and nail in this place to give my constituents both the recognition and prosperity they deserve. Following Britain’s departure from the European Union, Hartlepool will once again be at the forefront of ensuring the success of this great country. The Government’s plans for a Teesside freeport, which will include the ports of Hartlepool and Able Seaton in my constituency, will give Hartlepudlians the necessary tools to drive not only regional growth but national growth. I would like to pay special thanks to all my Teesside MP colleagues and Ben Houchen, the Tees Valley Mayor, who has fought so tirelessly to ensure that the Teesside freeport becomes a success for the economy of Hartlepool. I look forward to continuing my work with them to deliver for my constituents.
I would also like to pay tribute to my predecessors Mike Hill, Iain Wright, Peter Mandelson and the late Edward Leadbitter for their service to the people of Hartlepool. Although Lord Mandelson and I agree on very few things, and I, as a proud northern lass, know the difference between mushy peas and guacamole, he was committed to injecting new life into Hartlepool, as demonstrated by the redevelopment of Victoria Harbour. I am proud to pick up the baton of regeneration for my constituency, and the grant of £25 million that Hartlepool recently secured as a result of the Government’s towns fund will help several redevelopment projects.
The towns fund showcases the Government’s commitment both to building back better after the pandemic and to levelling up the country. Further investment in Hartlepool will be crucial to ensuring that the priorities of Hartlepudlians are implemented, for example: regenerating our high streets and local communities; creating good quality and sustainable jobs; helping local businesses to deliver more apprenticeships; and putting more police officers on our streets. I also look forward to working with the Health Secretary and his Ministers to discuss how important healthcare services can be returned to Hartlepool.
As our country emerges from the pandemic, our communities, strengthened and emboldened by their fight against the virus, have much to be optimistic about. The Government’s ambitious plans to build back better, which will put Britain’s communities at the forefront of the national recovery, promise countless opportunities for constituencies like mine. It is time to demonstrate to places like Hartlepool, not with words but with concrete action, that their votes will never be taken for granted by a one nation Conservative Government. I, for one, will dedicate my career to repaying the trust of the people of Hartlepool, and this great but long forgotten jewel of the north will once again gloriously adorn our nation.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer). It is also wonderful to see her colleagues gathered around her to show her such support—support I know she will be sharing with the hard-working people of Hartlepool who may be suffering from the Government’s fiscal policies.
I am not sure if the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), who has now left his place, does the weekly shop, but it is something I try to do myself every weekend. Deliveries would be easier, but I find out far more in the aisle of Morrisons about what is happening in my constituency and about people’s problems than I ever do in casework surgery. At the moment, by far the biggest issue the people of Swansea East are facing is the steep rise in the cost of living, while at the same time the money coming in is being hit hard from every angle. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard, “Have you seen the price of this?” or “I can’t afford to buy that anymore”. Some will blame the pandemic and others will blame Brexit for the reasons behind the rising costs and reduced incomes, but either way, it boils down to the same thing: working-class communities are struggling more than ever before, and this Government need to hold up their hands and take responsibility for that.
I would like to take this opportunity to talk about what it is actually like for families who struggle every week to stay afloat. It was in the summer of 2016 that I became aware of the scale of the problem for families in Swansea East. Just a few days into the school holidays, the local food bank called, asking if my office could put out an appeal for donations as its shelves were almost empty—empty because parents were struggling to replace the free school meals that had kept their children fed during term time. From this, our first kids summer lunch club was born. Every year, my team makes sandwiches and delivers them to local free holiday clubs. Year on year, this has evolved and grown, and now every school holiday we try to do something to help families in the constituency who just cannot make money stretch far enough.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for the very hands-on approach she has taken to feeding her families, but does she share my pain and sadness that food banks and social supermarkets have become the norm, not the exception, in the last nine years alone?
Carolyn Harris
I certainly do. I see that week in, week out when I visit my communities: there is not one that does not have a food bank facility, albeit an ad hoc version.
This year, we added to the lunch club, delivering a Morrisons bag full of breakfast provisions for a family for a week—so we were providing breakfast and lunch. At least once a month, we distribute what some might consider to be luxury items, such as soap, shampoo, sanitary towels and deodorant, courtesy of the wonderful Beauty Banks charity. We deliver them to a community organisation for families who, if they cannot afford to feed themselves, certainly cannot afford personal hygiene products.
By far our biggest project was last December’s “Everyone Deserves a Christmas” campaign. It is the fourth year we have done it, and last year was like no other. We were inundated with requests and recommendations about families who needed help. Thanks to support from the city’s Swans football club, the Ospreys rugby team, Swansea Council, local businesses, local community groups and people including the incredible Welsh football star Gareth Bale, who personally paid for 300 Christmas hampers, we ended up making and delivering 1,300 hampers. On Christmas eve, we cooked more than 100 dinners and delivered them to people who would not have had a Christmas otherwise.
The highlight for me was when one of the drivers returned from making his deliveries to thank me for letting him be involved in the scheme. He said that he was so touched by the excitement of a child who had opened up the hamper box and rejoiced that it was the best present he had ever had, because among the festive food were a tin of Quality Street and half a dozen Christmas crackers. That family had not had a tin of sweets before, because £4 on offer was too much to spend on something non-essential.
With summer now behind us, we are once again planning our Christmas hamper campaign, but with the scrapping of the £20 universal credit uplift, the steep increase in energy prices and the ongoing fallout from business closures, job losses and reduced incomes for those on furlough, 2021 is likely to have hit even more families than 2020. Thousands more people will be sitting at home right now worrying about how they will get through the next week or the next month, let alone buy Christmas presents and other extras. I worry for the families in my constituency, in my city, across Wales and across the UK. The past 18 months have been cruel to so many, but the Government clawing back more money from those who can least afford it is crueller still.
My team—and Gareth Bale, I hope, if he is listening—will help again. We will happily keep on fundraising, packing boxes and putting smiles on faces in Swansea East with a box of sweets in a Christmas hamper. It is an honour to do so, but anyone in this House who makes that necessary because they think that those families do not need the extra £20 universal credit payment, or that they can spend their already stretched incomes on huge hikes in energy bills, should think of those kids and be utterly ashamed of their actions. When the Minister refers to universal credit as a product, when in reality it is a lifeline, I fear that he sees claimants more as a commodity than as individuals.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
May I say what a pleasure it was to hear the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the new Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer)? It was absolutely tremendous. I was lifted off my feet by its sheer patriotism. It was so inspiring to hear her love for her place, her attachment to it and her commitment to Hartlepool. It makes me proud of the day I spent campaigning for her—well, maybe it was more like an afternoon, but it was enough. We are all Hartlepudlians after that speech, so I am very pleased that she has joined us.
The British economy is booming. We have the fastest growth in the G7, this year and next. Unemployment is falling across the country, wages are up and the strongest recovery is for the youngest people in our economy. I am very proud of what the Government are doing to invest in people—2,500 young people are joining the kickstart programme every week, 1 million people in long-term employment are being helped with £2,000 restart grants, there is £3,000 for every new apprentice, and the Government are doubling the number of work coaches—and to help them take the benefit of our high-wage economy. However, I recognise that there is a problem.
This is an appropriate debate for us to have at a time when inflation is creeping into the economy and the cost of living is a concern. It is creeping in partly because of the exuberance of the global economy as countries come out of lockdown and the huge pent-up demand for raw materials. Covid has obviously caused disruption to global supply chains and to logistics. We are a group of islands, and we are vulnerable to shocks in international trade; indeed, I think we are rather too vulnerable to such shocks. We are too reliant on imports, especially of energy, which, of course, is salient this week. Beyond that, however, are some profound structural issues in our economy that I think we need to address, on the supply side. There are distortions in the market.
Let us think about the four most essential aspects of life, the things that we all spend our money on first: housing, food, water and energy, such as heating. Each of those markets is distorted and they have different effects, in that some are overpriced and others underpriced. Housing is overpriced—more specifically, the land under houses is overpriced—and as a result the proportion of household spending that goes on housing has doubled over the last 50 years. Food costs are going up, and there is real concern about that, but it is happening after years of artificially low prices. As the proportion of household spending that goes on housing has doubled, the proportion spent on food has halved over the same period, so something is up. Of course it would be great if the quality of the food were just as good or if the real costs of its production were reflected in the price, but they are not. We have an obesity crisis, and we have polluted rivers and a polluted environment.
The same story could be told about our water systems. We have artificially cheap water in this country, because the real cost of water is being borne by the environment, by all of us in our taxes and by public services, resulting in bad health. As for energy, we are all now very familiar with the fact that prices are rising because of our dependence on foreign supply.
Those different distortions in our markets have different effects on prices, but what all the markets have in common is a lack of effective competition. We have a small number of very large companies—house builders, supermarkets, water companies, energy companies—all of which act to distort markets and have negative effects, and ultimately to pass on high prices. Even if in some cases the price at the till is low, for instance as a result of subsidies, the overall effect of these cartels is to increase prices for all of us.
I say yes to the Government’s demand-side reforms, and congratulate them on a high-wage economy with rises in wages and investment in skills. I look forward to the spending review, and hope that we will see more support for the worst-off families. Fundamentally, however, we need more plural markets and more local production in homes, food and energy, which will empower local communities, help local economies, and keep down the cost of living.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for missing the opening minutes of the debate, and thank you for allowing me to speak this afternoon.
It was a pleasure to hear from the new hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer). I expect she will know that the colourful football manager Brian Clough started off at Hartlepool United, and I am sure that those on the Government Benches are hoping that she does not turn out to be as controversial, as outspoken or as rude as he proved to be over the course of his career.
As we enjoy the last of the summer, our thoughts will soon turn to winter and the challenges of fuel poverty. The rise in rail fares, council tax increases and rising household energy bills are of concern to hard-pressed families, but what is rarely mentioned is the extortionate price of water. Access to safe drinking water is one of the most basic human needs. Water should not be expensive, and it should not be causing environmental damage to our local areas. This appears to be a bare-minimum service, but I am sad to say that in Wales, the co-operative Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water is failing to meet even that standard. It is shameful that families are being let down on something as vital as their water bills. The Consumer Council for Water has found that the unemployed, call centre workers and carers are hardest hit by high water bills, simply because they do not know that help is available, and water companies have been found wanting when it comes to publicising such schemes.
Wales has some of the most impoverished communities in the UK. In 2020, median gross weekly earnings in Wales were the third lowest amongst the 12 UK countries and English regions. Water ought to be affordable for all, yet Welsh Water’s forecast average bill in 2021-22 is the third highest of all the companies in England and Wales. To put this in perspective, Severn Trent Water, which covers most of Gloucestershire, Bristol and Birmingham, has among the lowest bills in the country, so simply living across the border means enjoying lower prices. I am sure that Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water’s public affairs department will be on the phone to me and sending me emails and press releases telling me that it is different in that it has a higher geographical area and a coastline, but it seems amazing to me that the City of London, where some of the richest people live, benefits from the lowest prices from Thames Water. Why is that the case? How can Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water, a company that frequently touts its not-for-profit status, not be ashamed of the fact that it is forcing families with household incomes far below the average to pay some of the largest water bills in the country? This is a company that is failing its communities.
For some, the extortionate prices are just laughable, given that their water supply is not even reliable. One village in Denbighshire has been plagued by supply issues this year. Residents have experienced extremely poor water pressure and a complete halt in water supply on several occasions. Their water went off completely in July for the ninth time in the year. That is more than once a month. How can the company possibly justify charging some of the highest prices and then fail to even deliver the water? To add insult to injury, Welsh Water has confirmed that work to rectify the supply issues will not get under way until next May, a full six months away, and meanwhile we are facing a hard winter. That is not an isolated case. I know of many Members, from Newport to Monmouthshire, who have had problems with water supplies.
High bills and poor service are compounded by the environmental damage that Welsh Water has contributed to in our Welsh rivers. Wales is fortunate enough to have some exceptionally stunning waterways and countryside, but they are being threatened by the irresponsible actions of Welsh Water. At a time when we are trying to attract people to come to Wales for tourism and holidays, they are being faced with polluted rivers. It is not good enough. I was horrified to watch a “Panorama” programme earlier this year that found that Welsh Water had been illegally dumping raw sewage into rivers. This is extremely damaging for the ecosystems of the rivers, it is unsanitary and it is a dangerous breach of the company’s permits. It ruins the rivers for the many dog walkers, wild swimmers and paddleboarders who wish to enjoy the beauty of the Welsh countryside. It threatens the biodiversity of the rivers, puts wildlife at risk and results in large-scale ecological damage. Above all, it risks the health of the most vulnerable customers in the country, and still nothing is being done.
There is no defence for this. It is not a one-off mistake or a small-scale problem. Last year, sewage was dumped more than 100,000 times across 2,000 water treatment works and sewer overflows across the Welsh Water network. That is a shockingly high rate, and Welsh Water must be held accountable for the damage that this has caused. Welsh Water was found by the “Panorama” investigation to be one of the worst offenders across England and Wales. According to its data, three of its treatment works were in breach of their permits. The Aberbaiden plant had illegally discharged untreated sewage on 12 consecutive days in December into the River Usk. That sewage gets into the system, and our children will drink that water. Our elderly will drink that water. This is a scandal of epic proportions and it needs to be called out. The Usk is a protected river, and a special area of conservation. For Welsh Water to be dumping untreated sewage into an environmentally protected river is absolutely abhorrent and shows flagrant disrespect for the communities it operates in.
Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water says that it is run
“solely for the benefit of customers”,
yet it has some of the most expensive water in England and Wales, which it does not always deliver to the households it claims to serve anyway. Meanwhile it is consistently breaching its permits by dumping untreated sewage into the rivers. How can this possibly be the action of a company acting solely for the benefit of customers? Surely it would be more beneficial to them if Welsh Water ensured that its water bills were more affordable. I am a huge advocate for co-operatives, and I sit here proudly as a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament, but this one is failing. Welsh Water is failing in its environmental commitments and it is failing its customers, and it must be held to account.
The Public Accounts Committee held an inquiry on the water industry in 2015, and Ofwat has launched investigations. I implore those on the Treasury Bench to look into the actions of Welsh Water and make sure it starts delivering for its customers before we see an environmental scandal on a larger scale.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
What a joy it was to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) give a truly brilliant speech. It is somewhat apt that the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke about Brian Clough, who was passionate about his local community. Brian Clough gave hope and aspiration to the communities he represented and, having spent time with my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool in her constituency, I know that is exactly what she does. This is the first time Hartlepool has had such political leadership for a long, long time.
This is an important debate, and the first line of the Opposition motion says
“this House is concerned about the negative impact of Government policy on the finances of working people”.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), who is no longer in her place, framed that argument by saying it is based on choices made by the Government, my Government, this year and last year.
I want to test that thesis and, rather than stating things in bland generalities, I will make specific reference to my town of Bury and the impact of the choices that my Government have made over the past two years and how they have benefited working people.
Over the past two years, this Government have given nearly £80 million in busines support grants to businesses in my area, ensuring that people have jobs, that businesses are able to continue and that wages can be maintained at their previous level. That is down to the choices made by this Government. We have protected jobs, which seems to have been completely ignored by some Opposition Members.
What else have this Government done for the people of Bury over the past 18 months? In the financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22 so far, Bury Metropolitan Borough Council has received £1.8 million, on top of the other support that is open to people in my community, to support vulnerable families and specifically to help with fuel, energy and water bills. That is on top of the £1.8 million that the council received from the hardship relief fund, the majority of which has been given to families of working age, who have received £150 credit set against council tax bills. That is part of a total package of £118 million, separate from furlough and the Government-backed schemes such as the loan schemes, which has ensured that businesses have not only been able to maintain employment and pay wages but have been able to thrive and expand.
This Government and every Conservative Member should be extremely proud of that record and of the investment this Government have made in communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool mentioned the £25 million going into her town, and it means regeneration. It is creating employment and changing lives. This Government are making these decisions in every part of the United Kingdom every week, and they are changing lives.
Alex Cunningham
I also congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer), on her maiden speech. I am sorry that her Tees valley colleagues have now abandoned her, because I wanted to share some child poverty figures with them. Since 2015, the number of children in poverty has gone up by 1,800 in Stockton South, by 2,000 in Hartlepool and by 1,900 in each of Darlington, Redcar and Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. Will the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) address the children in the Tees valley and persuade Tees valley MPs to vote against the universal credit cut?
James Daly
From recollection, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool will tell me if I am wrong, Ben Houchen got 74% of the vote. Conservative MPs have been elected in Labour areas of the Tees valley because we give hope and we have a plan. This Government’s plan for jobs is working, whereas Labour has offered nothing to the Tees valley over the past decades. The Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool and other Members in that area are putting forward plans that are changing lives, for which they should each be extremely proud.
I come to the second part of the debate. In Bury, we have seen unprecedented support during an incredibly difficult period. How do I, as a Member of Parliament, feel about the Government policy? How do I look at what we should be doing to change people’s lives, give hope and inspiration, and make sure that people can make the best of themselves, having the best career, best-paid job and best future? I have heard no arguments —no plan, definitely—from any Opposition Member in respect of how that is going to happen; I have heard no hope, no vision, no anything for children in Bury or in the Tees Valley about how their lives are going to be transformed by a Labour party. I have heard bland generalities.
The shadow Minister said that the Labour party would create a high-skills, high-wage economy, but they are going to be too late, because this Government are doing it already. We are investing billions of pounds in skills uptraining, not only to give young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds the best chance to have a highly paid, skilled job, but to regenerate our areas. In an area such as Bury, we have to have that skillset so that we can bring in high-tech manufacturing and make sure that those jobs are closer to our communities, so that people, including young people in Bury, do not have to go to Manchester or London to have a highly-paid job.
This Government have a plan that is delivering; the plan for jobs is delivering, and we can see the kickstart figures. We are creating, through youth hubs, kickstart and all the other programmes that have been outlined, a set of policies and programmes. Bury College is part of a bid for institute of technology status for Greater Manchester. What does that mean? It means colleges in Greater Manchester are working with the University of Salford to create the means by which high-skilled, high-worth employment is going to be on the doorstep for people, with the skills training that is being delivered. I had the privilege of going to Bury College with the Minister two weeks ago; the T-levels that have been introduced by this Government are inspiring aspiring people and changing lives, making people’s futures brighter—we cannot overlook that.
We have a transformative Government. Every decision made is regarding levelling up. Everything we decide to do is done to transform opportunity. Sadly, the Labour party is not interested in that and certainly does not have a plan to do it. So I congratulate this Government. There are challenges. We are dealing with a £400 billion pandemic, for which there is no panacea, but this Government have done what they have needed to do to protect people’s livelihoods and interests, and to support families throughout this period, with unprecedented financial support. We are now on to the next stage. The plan for jobs is working; it is hope, it is aspiration and it is changing futures and lives in communities such as Bury. I support the Government wholeheartedly on that vision for our country.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I would like to thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition for securing this important debate. I also wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer)—I would if she were in her place—on her maiden speech.
Many of my constituents in Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough are facing a winter of immense financial difficulty, particularly given the cruel £20 a week cut to universal credit that Ministers are pushing through, against the wishes of this House; I welcome this opportunity to bring to light their hardship. After a decade of Tory mismanagement, poverty and inequality run rampant in our country. Council budgets have been cut to within an inch of their lives, leaving local services in tatters. Schools struggle to give kids the education they need and deserve. Emergency services are stretched beyond any reasonable expectation. People have been left to fend for themselves. The same families who have borne the brunt of austerity are set to face a winter in which they choose between heating their homes and putting food on the table.
In Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, 15,000 families are in receipt of universal credit or working tax credit—that is three in every five families. The planned cut will take £15 million from families that are already struggling to feed themselves. It will bring more hardship for those who are already struggling. It will come in October, just as the furlough scheme ends and the energy price cap is set to rise, which could see prices rise by up to £153 per year. Research by Sheffield citizens advice service has found that 28% of households in which someone received universal credit are behind on their energy bills. That is seven times the rate for those who do not receive that benefit.
Cutting universal credit now shows just how out of touch the Government are with the realities of working people’s lives. Some Government Members like to believe that poverty is a thing of the past—a product of Victorian Britain—but in today’s Tory Britain, the cut will affect 6.2 million families. On top of all that, the Government are now planning to raise taxes on millions of hard-working families. The rise in national insurance is the biggest tax rise on families for 50 years. Already, constituents have been contacting me because they do not know how they are going to be able to afford basic necessities after they are hit by the double whammy of a cut to their universal credit and a rise in their tax bill.
I wish to speak briefly about one of my constituents, whose name is Shaun. Shaun is a young man with serious mental health needs. His single person’s universal credit barely stretches to cover the costs of caring for his four-year-old son. What is Shaun supposed to do when he finds himself with £1,000 less each year? What choices will he be forced to make to get through each month? What will he and his son have to give up to get through each day? Shaun will not get answers to those questions, because Ministers will not look Shaun in the eye and listen to how the cut will plunge him into debt or how he worries about the impact it will have on his mental health.
Let us call these policies what they are: cruel. Labour knows it, the public know it, and dozens of charities and campaign groups know it. I would like to think that, deep down, even some Government Members know it. The cut to universal credit in particular is so cruel that the charity Human Rights Watch has said it would breach the UK’s international human rights obligations.
The Government’s policies are regressive and will hit working families the hardest. They lay bare the reality that the levelling-up agenda is no more than empty rhetoric and a new name slapped on a Government building. We cannot level up by taking money out of the pockets of those who need it the most. Not only that, but their policies are a sucker punch to businesses up and down the country which, after barely staying afloat during covid, will see their revenue streams run dry as consumer spending falls because of the fiscal squeeze. I urge the Government to listen sincerely to the concerns of Members from all parties. I hope they will see sense and reverse these decisions before yet more families are pushed into a never-ending spiral of poverty.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), and it was a delight to hear the maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) earlier. As a fellow MP in a post-industrial area, I absolutely recognise what my hon. Friend said about the importance of levelling up being about not only materially restoring to northern areas the opportunities that have been given to the south, but honouring those areas for their contribution to the wealth of this nation over hundreds of years.
Throughout my whole adult life, inflation rates and interest rates have been remarkably stable. That is not normal historically, and when I speak to constituents or more senior Members and hear about what life was like in the ’70s and for many decades before, I realise that the inflation that is a threat now is very different from the stability we have enjoyed in previous years. It is a concern.
My constituents are worried: they are worried about energy prices, and we have heard much about that over recent days; they are worried about commodity and construction prices; and they are worried about shortages. I have just heard from a major importer in my constituency who is concerned about the cost of shipping. The cost of a shipping container from China has risen from around $2,000 a container last November to getting on for $20,000 now. That will have a huge inflationary pressure, given how much we import.
It is also the case, though, that wages are rising and our job market is buoyant. Our plan for jobs is working. We have heard much about the furlough scheme, which has rescued our economy from the fate of mass unemployment. We have a record number of job vacancies—more than 1 million—and businesses in my constituency of Penistone and Stockbridge are hiring people of all ages for all different types of jobs.
We have heard Brexit being blamed for the situation that we find ourselves in, and there is no doubt that Brexit has caused changes in our economy. I draw the attention of hon. Members to an article by Matthew Lynn in this week’s Spectator entitled “Who’s afraid of rising wages?” It starts:
“During the Brexit referendum, Stuart Rose, the former boss of Marks & Spencer, and chair of the Remain campaign claimed that if Britain left the EU, wages ‘will go up’. This was, he added, in a rare moment of candour, ‘not necessarily a good thing’. But the idea that salaries might rise was exactly the reason that a great many people voted for Brexit.”
Why should we be afraid of rising wages? It is what the Opposition have been calling for. More competition for employees will lead to rising wages, and we are seeing that: Costa, for example, is paying over 5% more. On average, wages have risen 8% over the past three months, and, from April, this Government raised the national living wage to £8.91.
We must remember that we are still in economic shock. We are coming out of an extraordinary period of time, but things will settle. In fact, the International Monetary Fund has forecast that the UK will have the highest growth in the G7 this year, so while there are concerns around inflation and the cost of living, which must be addressed, there is also a good chance that we will have a fairer jobs market at the end of this.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Will the hon. Lady share with us the solution to the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, which is not adequate for farmers to be able to employ enough people to pick crops in the field and to avoid the situation that we are seeing in Scotland where many fields of crops are just being left to rot because of the lack of workers?
Miriam Cates
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. While, overall, on a macro level, having more jobs available for British workers will push wages up, it is of course the case that certain sectors will need specific interventions to save them, and I would support any such measures.
While there are concerns like the one the hon. Lady has raised, and concerns in the wider economy, our plan for jobs is working and the future is optimistic. None the less, there are some long-term structural issues with the cost of living and threats to living standards that must be addressed, and this is the moment to do so. We must find a solution for the sake of future generations.
First, housing affordability is a key driver of problems with the cost of living. Solving the housing crisis will unlock many issues, such as generational inequality, and it will reduce the cost of living. I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), has been appointed to look at this specific problem, because it is very important. Many of the serious issues that Members have raised in this House today would be much aided by a reduction in the cost of housing.
Secondly, we also need to look at fairer finance for families. Again, much has been said about the changes to universal credit, but I want to consider what we could do in our taxation system to make life fairer and cheaper for families. Unlike many countries, the UK has an individualistic tax system. We tax individuals rather than households, which means that we do not take into account the number of dependants in a particular house, and that can make life very expensive for families. Some families on low and middle incomes can end up paying around 30% more tax than individuals living on their own. When we couple that with the way that benefits are clawed back as people earn more, some families can effectively face a marginal tax rate of 75%, making it very difficult for them to get out of poverty. We must recognise the importance of raising children not just for the nuclear family, but for our whole society. We need to look at how we can make it less expensive for families to exist and to raise their children.
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Member is making an interesting point about support for families. Does she agree that the UK Government’s two-child benefit cap punishes those who have a larger family and puts them in a position where they cannot work their way out of poverty?
Miriam Cates
What is far more significant is the way in which we tax individuals—potentially spreading people’s income tax allowance and things like that—rather than looking at household income; that would give families far more choice about how they spend their income and organise their lives, and make family life much more affordable.
Thirdly, we have to address the long-term affordability of our public spending commitments. The welfare state that we have today was designed 80 years ago, when life was very different. Demographics were different then. There was no paid-for childcare or paid-for social care. Most women did not work. There was a huge amount of free care and community living going on that we just do not have, or that there is not nearly as much of, today. Of course, people then also spent a far higher percentage of their life working, whereas now people spend much longer in education and much, much longer in retirement, which means that proportionally, over the course of someone’s life, they are spending far less time paying tax and paying for insurance—paying for the benefits that we all want to enjoy.
The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that public sector net debt could rise to 300% of GDP by 2070. We just cannot continue in the way that we are now. We need a reset. We need to redesign our public spending and welfare state for modern life and modern demographics. I think we have already established that we cannot tax our way out of this. Of course, we should be trying to grow our way out of it, but we also need a fundamental redesign of the welfare state and public spending.
We also need much more emphasis on community solutions and prevention. It has been an honour to be part of the early years review of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), whose start for life recommendations look at the importance of the first 1,001 days of a child’s life. If we get that period right, we can prevent so many problems that destroy people’s lives in the long term and which are incredibly expensive for public spending. We must spend more and invest in the early years and health prevention. About 40% of the NHS budget is spent on preventable and lifestyle diseases. We have to tackle those things if the state is going to be affordable in the long term. Of course we should innovate, use technology and look at what other countries are doing to address these issues.
We should be concerned about the cost of living. Families up and down the country are struggling, and there are families that are not able to take advantage of opportunities in jobs and higher wages. But this Government have taken action on jobs over the last 18 months, and that is bearing fruit. As our economy is reset, we now have an important opportunity to solve some of the structural issues that we face.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
One thing that the Government could look at is the 2017 plan to extend pensions auto-enrolment to people who are 18-plus, rather than 22-plus, and to low-paid workers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should take that forward at the earliest opportunity as part of a long-term solution?
Miriam Cates
I absolutely agree. In my speech on national insurance contributions a couple of weeks ago, I made the point that the auto-enrolment scheme was a fantastic invention and that we could extend it, as my hon. Friend says, but also that we could look at using it as a model to help contribute to social care, so that people pay into it now and reap the rewards later.
We have to address some of the structural issues that I have discussed. Now is an excellent time to do that, and I would welcome the opportunity to work with Ministers and colleagues across the House to look at innovative solutions to do that.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for that very interesting analysis of what we ought to be doing now.
For households and families living on the edge, a cost of living crisis is a crisis that they simply cannot afford. To cite just one statistic, in my constituency of Coventry North East, the rate of child poverty already stands at 29%. Once the cuts to universal credit, the rise in national insurance contributions and an increase in a wide range of household bills are factored in, I am certain that the number will rise significantly. A cost of living crisis, therefore, will not just result in a short-term squeeze on family finances but will have a long-term corrosive impact on the life chances of thousands of children across the country.
Many of the people I represent in the community I grew up in work hard but in low-paid and often insecure jobs. The Government’s disregard for, or lack of understanding of, the challenges that these communities face was demonstrated recently by the Work and Pensions Secretary, who claimed that individuals facing the £20 cut to universal credit should work two more hours a week. Yet it was soon made clear that in fact it would take about nine more hours a week to make back the £20 cut. Is the Work and Pensions Secretary seriously saying to these people that they should essentially have a six-day working week: that they should sacrifice their weekends; their family time; their time for rest and relaxation? It is all well and good saying that we need better-paid and more secure work, but in communities like Coventry North East we need Government investment and support to make it a reality. So far, despite all we have heard about levelling up, we have not seen any tangible evidence of this in Coventry.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend knows that these people use the same supermarkets that she and I use, and they have so much less money. She knows, as I do, about supply and demand, and if there is less food and less product around, the prices go up. I do not go to supermarkets very often, but recently, when I do, I have noticed that product is being fronted on the shelves with very little behind it, so there might only be 20 or 30 cans of beans instead of 200 because there is a food shortage in some product areas. Does she agree that the Government really need to act on employment and getting drivers in place so that we do not face these kinds of shortages?
Colleen Fletcher
I thank my hon. Friend. Unlike him, I do go shopping a lot. I spend a whole lot of my time in supermarkets, for different reasons, and I entirely agree with him. I see that around my constituency an awful lot, not just doing food shopping, I hasten to add, but other shopping as well, which I thoroughly enjoy when I have the time for it.
It becomes clearer each day that the interests of my constituents will never be served by a Tory Government who simply do not understand, or do not want to understand, the difficulties faced by my constituents. Successive tax rises have demonstrated that even though my constituents were some of the worst affected by the pandemic, in terms of their health as well as their finances, the Government have made the political decision to ensure that they will bear the bulk of the costs of this crisis and will be offered scant support if they are struggling.
I urge the Government to pause and reflect on their recent decisions and offer a better deal for people like those who live in the communities that I represent to ensure that we can get through any cost of living crises together.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher).
It is also a pleasure to contribute to the debate in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) made her maiden speech. When I went up to campaign for her in Hartlepool, I was struck by the reception that we had on the doorsteps and the faith that the people of Hartlepool put in her. That faith has been entirely justified by the tone of her speech. She stands for putting pride back into Hartlepool, exactly the same as other Members in the post-industrial areas that the Government are levelling up and addressing, like me, in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates). It will be good for working people that Newcastle-under-Lyme has a £23.6 million towns deal, just as Hartlepool has its towns deal funding. The Government have taken on that agenda. Let us be fair: it was originally the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) who said that we needed to do more for towns, but the Labour party decided that it did not want to listen to what people in towns have to say—people who voted for Brexit and wanted Brexit to happen—and it did not vote for her to be its leader. That is why it has been reduced to the state that it is in.
I turn to the effect of Government policy on the finances of working people. The key thing is that people should be working and the Government have been extraordinary in ensuring that people can continue working. There was a period when people had to stay at home, but now they have jobs and businesses to go back to because of the extraordinary measures taken by our extraordinary Chancellor in extraordinary times. We saved millions of jobs through furlough—more than 10,000 people in Newcastle-under-Lyme were on furlough. We saved tens of thousands of businesses through the grants and loans that we gave them, and those businesses are now recovering and hiring again. We have also protected people’s salaries through measures such as the energy cap. Yesterday, I was grateful to hear the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy say that, with the energy cap put in place by the Government, people will not have to pay much more this winter.
Above all, the Government have kept people in jobs. Unemployment peaked at 2 million fewer people than was initially feared at the start of the pandemic, which is a tribute to what we have done through the pandemic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said, jobs are now available—we have 1 million vacancies out there—and wages are rising because the era of unlimited immigration is over. We have the highest growth in the G7, and the OECD predicts that we will have the highest growth this year and next. We also have, as I said in my intervention on the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, a plan for jobs that is about not just getting people into jobs but getting them into better jobs and getting them better skills in jobs. We have policies such as kickstart and restart, and we are doubling the number of work coaches. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), for visiting the Newcastle-under-Lyme jobcentre with me in the summer, where he saw what our work coaches are doing to get people into jobs in north Staffordshire.
Of course, the Government also have policies for more skills, including apprenticeships and technical training. For the last two Fridays, I have been giving out awards at Newcastle College, first to those in higher education and last Friday to those in further education. The college’s apprenticeship scheme is outstanding—in fact, it was the first college to be graded “outstanding” across the board with Ofsted—and people who go there and get those technical skills will end up with much better jobs, and much better paid jobs, than they would have done without those innovations. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) mentioned an Institute of Technology bid. Newcastle College also has one in. If it gets that, that will only enhance our offer to young people in north Staffordshire and Newcastle-under-Lyme.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about not just creating jobs but creating high-quality jobs? This Friday, United Caps is opening a new manufacturing facility in my constituency, providing high-quality jobs on the top of the old pit site. It is doing that because of the aspiration that the Government have given the company to invest in a former pit town on a former pithead to give us the new high-quality jobs that Government Members want and Opposition Members do not.
Aaron Bell
Like my hon. Friend, I have the honour of representing a former mining area, and it is so important that we give our areas the hope, the skills, the jobs and the future they need. So much public money is coming into places such as Newcastle-under-Lyme, but in the long term we will need the private sector to sustain our economy, which we can do by using the pump-priming of the towns fund and the future high streets fund—we have got money from that—to grow our local economy to support people. We can do that by paying people higher wages, and by giving them better skills they can earn those higher wages. He is absolutely right.
The Government have a plan for jobs, but where is the Opposition’s plan? We did not hear one from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson). Labour must address the fiscal reality; it cannot wish it away. We spent £400 billion in extraordinary support during the pandemic. We now have a £300 billion deficit—nearly 15% of GDP—but we were able to put that support on the table only because previous Conservative Governments accepted that we have to live within our means and get the deficit down when we can. We dealt with Labour’s deficit and we will now have to deal with the deficit that is the legacy of the pandemic.
As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—I welcome him back to his rightful place at the Dispatch Box—said, the Opposition do not seem to want to accept any of that. They voted against extra money for the NHS, which I find astonishing. They say that we should put the tax elsewhere, but they voted against our increase to corporation tax. They also voted against freezing income tax thresholds, which was not a popular decision but a necessary one in the face of the fiscal realities. They also voted against the reduction in the international aid budget. Again, we breached the manifesto on that, but in the extraordinary economic circumstances we are in, I believe it is the right thing to do.
Labour Members want more spending and they want no tax rises in the face of an unprecedented, enormous deficit. I believe that that is economically incoherent, and it takes the British people for fools. They tried that once before in the face of an enormous deficit during the 2010 to 2015 Parliament, and I have to tell them that it did not work out well for them at the next election. I am reminded by today’s news that they also took the opportunity during that Parliament to change the way they elect their leader. They are trying to do that again now, and that really did not work out well for them, so they really should be very careful what they wish for.
In conclusion, the reason why Government economic policy is working and is in the interests of working people is that it is really all about jobs. Conservative Members all believe that jobs and work are the best way out of poverty. There are more jobs, more people helped into jobs, more training within jobs, including the apprenticeships I talked about earlier—[Interruption]—with up to £3,000, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) says. There is our lifetime skills guarantee for those who are in the wrong job and want to change jobs, and we have also put an end to unlimited immigration, protecting our citizens from the race to the bottom in wages that, sadly, we have seen so often. The Labour party wants us to rejoin the EU, reopen those borders and force wages back down again.
From the plan for jobs to the increase in the national living wage, I firmly believe that this Government are putting those on lower incomes at the heart of our economic policies and at the heart of our economic planning, and it will be a brighter future for all of us.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is a delight to follow my Procedure Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). It is helpful because we are ideologically opposed on every single matter, so I can pretty much stand up and say exactly the opposite of what he said, and it will be grand. Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to take to take you back to 1915. In 1915, my great-great-grandfather John Murray was killed when his steam herring drifter was cut in half by a British warship. My great-granny’s mother Barbra Helen Murray, who was known as Babeellen, was left to raise five girls by herself. When she was left in that situation of abject poverty, there was no Government funding to help her. She had no support from the Government to get through that very immediate crisis. Her sister stepped up and offered to take the youngest child off her hands—offered to give that child a home and pay for that child’s upbringing. Imagine having to make such a choice about whether to keep her child. Imagine being forced into that choice of whether to keep that child, whether in 1915, or in 2021 with the rape clause. Imagine having that choice. Thankfully, she chose to keep her child, and she brought up my great-grandmother.
The family were helped: they were helped by the church, their friends and their relatives. However, the reality was that people did not have a lot to spare and people did not have a lot they could give in such charitable situations, so the family really had very little money. This was despite the fact that my great-granny’s mother worked in every single job she could find. She knitted things, she sewed things and she mended things. She cleaned every building she could possibly get access to and that she could convince people to pay her for cleaning. She did not get any money at all from the Government until she turned 70, when she got 7 shillings and sixpence for her pension, which was an absolute fortune to her. She had spent 37 years working in every job she could have and in every moment she could find in insecure employment—like people are being forced to do in the current system; trying to work every single hour in multiple part-time jobs just so that they can try to put food on the table.
Alex Cunningham
The hon. Member makes me reflect on a family matter of my own. When my grandad was killed in a pit accident, my dad had his apprenticeship, and my granny went out and scrubbed floors to ensure that he completed his apprenticeship. But today we find that grandparents are looking after grandchildren—perhaps because somebody is in prison or because they have a drug problem—yet they do not get help, and even those people are going to lose this £20 of universal credit. Would you credit that?
Kirsty Blackman
Stories like this belong 100 years ago; stories like this do not belong in the 21st century. We should not have constituents who are in absolute poverty coming into our constituency offices.
This motion is about the working poor. My great-granny’s mother did not have money to buy what she saw as necessities; she obviously did not have enough money to buy food and stuff but was helped out in that, but she also could not go to church because she could not buy clothes for church. She had her working clothes but could not buy Sunday best clothes to go to church; that was her biggest regret about not having money. Nowadays, people on UC may not be able to afford internet access, which they need to get their UC, or to afford other things we see as necessities. Not many people are wanting a Sunday outfit to go to church—some are, but not that many—but they desperately need access to the most basic of services so they can get their UC and make their claims, and so that they can speak to friends and family and not be hugely isolated.
A cut of £80 a month is a huge amount. For a lot of people, £80 a month is their council tax bill, or two mobile phone bills, or—goodness knows—one pair of shoes for the kid, maybe two pairs for those who are particularly lucky and their child is going to wear something a bit cheaper. It is a huge amount of money, not pennies; it means people will have to cut back on a big, major bill when this cut is implemented. My great-granny remembered her mother crying because winter was coming and she could not afford to buy shoes for the children. That was over 100 years ago; this should not be happening today—we should not be having single parents crying because they cannot afford to buy winter shoes for their children.
Catherine West
What does the hon. Lady make of the fact that there are 23 more billionaires in The Sunday Times rich list this year?
Kirsty Blackman
I am going to come on to that, because I am thinking there is a divide across this Chamber: the constituency cases we on the Opposition Benches are seeing do not appear to be reflected in the cases being seen by those on the Government Benches, or they would not be making this cut. If they were sitting around those tables with people crying because they are living in absolute poverty and destitution, they would not be choosing to cut this £20 a week.
Some 72% of families who need food bank help have at least one parent in work. In my constituency more than four in 10 families will be hit by the UC cut. Aberdeen has been hit by a triple-whammy: the oil price crash has meant many people have been made redundant; we have seen the reduction in the reliance on oil; and we have seen both covid and Brexit. All those things are having a significant impact on the people of Aberdeen, and particularly my constituency. We have seen massive house prices in our city, too, so people have not been able to save money, and they have not been able to get council houses because of the right to buy, which we have, thankfully, cancelled now in Scotland. They have not had the opportunity to get back on the housing ladder, and they are doing the kind of insecure work my great-granny’s mother was doing: they are cleaning hospitals and working as porters and carers. I defy anyone to tell me those people are not working hard; these are hard-working families, yet they are being slammed consistently by this Tory Government.
We are talking about absolute destitution. My hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), mentioned prepayment meters. I do not know how many Members have had a prepayment meter, but I lived in a flat with one when I had hardly any money. If a prepayment meter goes £20 into the red, it stops working—the electricity stops—and people do not just need a fiver to bring it back; they need to pay the full £20 to get back into the green. Many of my constituents are faced with those numbers ticking towards that negative £20 and wondering, “What on earth are we going to do about this? How are we going to pay for the electricity so our children have heat and do not freeze?” We had a guy come into my office one day. This chap was on universal credit, and he was one of those single people on universal credit who is literally destitute. That is a significant portion of single people on universal credit; they are living not just below the poverty line but below the line of destitution. This chap came into my office to say that he did not know what to do. He had not eaten in three days. His dog had not eaten in three days. He had sold every single item of furniture that he had in order to try to keep them both fed. He had sold his bed, so we managed to source a bed for this chap.
That should not be happening in 2021. We should not be having those conversations with people, yet Government Members talk about £6 billion and say, “Oh, we’ve given £80 million to this scheme” or whatever. It does not matter if they have given £80 million to that scheme; it does not make a difference. What makes a difference is ensuring that these folk have enough money to eat—enough money to feed themselves and to clothe themselves. The hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) talked about hope and aspiration. How can someone have hope and aspiration if they spend every single moment of every single day—
Kirsty Blackman
Worrying—exactly. Worrying and thinking about what on earth they are going to do tomorrow, and what they are going to do the next day. Half of people who go to Trussell Trust food banks are in debt to the DWP because the universal credit system is so rubbish. People are in debt because they have had to take crisis loans due to the universal credit system.
That is before we talk about the £20-a-week cut. That is absolutely a cut for people who have been going through the hardest times. Government Members can talk about the £6 billion all they like, but the reality is that the damage that this cut will cause to people—the number of hospital admissions we will see and the number of people who will die as a result of the cut—will be far more and cost far more than £6 billion.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Let me start by saying that I make no apology for referring to a subject that I have talked about very often in this House and in questions—universal credit and child poverty, which are inextricably linked. I want to talk again about the serious and really disproportionate effect that ending the universal credit uplift will have on people in my constituency of Blaydon and across the north-east.
Many constituents have written to me expressing their concern about the cut—the loss of the £20. I have heard both from people who receive universal credit themselves and know what a huge difference that has made to them, and from those who are concerned about other people in their community who will be affected by the cut. There is a real and genuine concern about how people will suffer as a result of the loss of that £20.
One of the many constituents who got in touch with me, Stacey, will, after the cut, no longer be able to afford to take her child to their hospital appointments as the travel fare is too expensive, leaving her, she says, to choose between buying food and accessing healthcare. Stacey’s story highlights perfectly what we know from the data and what we hear from charities across the region. Forty-six per cent. of families with children in the north-east will be affected by the universal credit cut, and that in a region that already had the second highest level of child poverty in the country before the pandemic. The cut will leave families worse off.
Of the 20 constituencies with the highest increases in child poverty between 2014 and 2019, 17 are in the north-east. In my constituency of Blaydon, 27% of children live in poverty. That is data from before the pandemic.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is bringing forward the very important issue of child poverty. Charities have indicated to me that child benefit is a godsend, but they also say that the benefit cap has remained the same since 2013 and that, in the same period, inflation has been 17.56%. That means that people who have been on the same wage for eight years will find that if they go to their boss and ask for a wage increase, they will lose their child benefit. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is time to address that too?
Liz Twist
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; of course, I absolutely agree with the important point he makes.
Some 7,320 households in my constituency of Blaydon, or 21%, will be affected by this cut, which represents a combined loss for low-income households in Blaydon of £146,400 a week. That is £146,400 being sucked out of the local economy each week, virtually overnight. Is that levelling up for my community? I thank the North East Child Poverty Commission for the important work it does to produce such figures, which graphically illustrate the problems we are facing.
We have talked a lot about jobs as well, because universal credit is as much an in-work benefit as it is an out-of-work benefit. Some 40% of those on universal credit are in work, many doing really important key worker jobs that did so much for our society during the last 18 months of the pandemic. This is not about people being lazy and wanting handouts. Low wages, poor-quality jobs, zero-hours contracts—they all mean that being in work is no longer enough to be out of poverty in this country.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. She refers to the fact that 40% of universal credit claimants are in work. Does she agree that that means that one in 14 British workers might be affected by this cut?
Liz Twist
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and share her concern about the number of people who will be affected by this cut. Being in work is not enough; we need better quality jobs, with proper conditions and adequate pay.
I want to mention the energy price cap rise and the inevitable cost rises that will follow. Many of these families will feel the impact of that. Many may be living in poorly insulated homes and may feel the need to increase the heating in their properties. We know that there are links between poor quality housing and poverty and, indeed, poor health, so the energy price cap rise will have a significant impact on those families—probably more significant than for some of us. Labour wants to keep the uplift until we can replace universal credit with a better, more compassionate social security system that properly supports those who need it.
I want to refer also to the increase in universal credit claims as a result of the pandemic. I have managed to get information from Gateshead Council showing a significant increase in council tenants across Gateshead claiming universal credit. Indeed, from April 2020 to the end of March 2021—almost exactly that whole year of the pandemic—there were 1,758 new universal credit claims. Some of those dropped off during the year—perhaps they were not eligible, or whatever—but there was still an increase of nearly 1,100 tenants claiming universal credit.
One other issue, which we have talked about often and must not forget, is the five-week wait, which leads to incredible arrears, certainly in Gateshead. By 31 March, 69% of Gateshead tenants were in arrears by an average of £666. Clearly, those arrears need to be resolved at some stage. They are a debt around the neck of those people.
I want to talk about the national insurance rise. Research from the New Statesman and the Resolution Foundation shows that people in the north-east will lose a higher proportion of their disposable income than those in the south of England due to incomes on average being lower in the north-east: people in the north-east will lose up to 25% more income than those in the south-west. When it comes to social care, people will still need to sell their home to fund their care, especially people with lower value homes. They will still face a substantial cost before the cap kicks in. Homeowners in the north-east could face care costs of up to three fifths of their assets, including the value of their home, while homeowners in London face costs of just 17% of their assets due to the difference in the value of housing. That is deeply unfair, on top of the additional contribution for many workers who, as I said, are in relatively low-paid jobs.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a compelling and powerful speech about a wide range of issues affecting her region, and I commend her speech to the whole House. I was particularly moved by the point about housing and the difficulty for many tenants. Does she agree that there is a huge need for more council houses in this country?
Liz Twist
I absolutely agree about the need for additional council housing.
The rise in national insurance will disproportionately affect younger people and those on low incomes. It is absolutely right that we need more money for the NHS and social care after years and years of cuts, but it cannot be right that it is the lowest-paid earners who pay for it. The Government’s plan will not end the crisis in social care or help to fix the backlog in the NHS.
Alex Cunningham
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) talked about the Conservatives not really understanding the plight of people living on universal credit. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it might be a good idea for some of them to spend a month living on the income of a person on universal credit? Not just that, however. Let us load them with a debt of £10,000 and say that they have to pay off some of that debt out of their income as well, and maybe they might understand a little bit more.
Liz Twist
I would not like to load anyone with debt, frankly, but I do wish that people would understand what it is like to live on universal credit, and not just for a week or a month, with no recourse to a cash pot in the bank on which they can draw if they run out of money. Many of us will not understand that, but it came home to me very clearly when I became a councillor and an MP just how much on the breadline some people are, with no access to credit cards or other finance. It is a really difficult life for people.
I was talking about social care. As I said, the Government’s plan will not end the crisis in social care or help to fix the backlog in the NHS. It will take money from those already struggling financially, without fixing the problems. What my constituents want to know, when we talk about social care, is what services they will be able to access. We have talked about money and the need to address that, and we have talked about caps. What we have not talked about is what the Government’s social care plan means for those of my constituents who actually receive social care, with people coming in to look after them. Will they receive a better service? Will the staff, many of whom will be caught by the universal credit cap, see decent pay and conditions, and recognition for the really important work they do? We are missing a huge piece of the jigsaw and the Government need to address that. Labour has said that there are many other ways to raise the money, including taxing the incomes of landlords, and of those who buy and sell large quantities of financial assets, stocks and shares. Labour has been clear that we want those with the broadest shoulders to carry the burden.
I want to talk a little bit about the excluded, because so many of my constituents during the pandemic, including the self-employed, have found themselves facing real problems. They were excluded from any schemes that the Government brought forward and in many cases they were excluded from universal credit because of money that they might have put away for tax, or small amounts of money. Lots of single people running dance schools or hairdressers or working from home have found it hard to get through. It is really important that we recognise the pandemic’s impact on them. I know from Zoom calls with my constituents—people who own beauty salons, people who were creative—how much they have been affected. They really have suffered.
Lastly, I pay tribute to Gateshead food bank, Gateshead Council and the many other local organisations that have picked up a lot of the slack. They are doing a great job, but for goodness’ sake, it should not be necessary in this day and age.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) on her maiden speech. She is not in her place, but it was a very good maiden speech and I look forward to joining her in many more debates in this place. Having spent a little time at by-elections, I have never quite been sure that Peter Mandelson would confuse mushy peas with guacamole, but there we go.
Thank you very much indeed for calling me today, Mr Deputy Speaker, to support Labour’s motion on behalf of all the families in Newport East who have been hit really hard over the past 20 months and who now face the perfect storm of rising costs and cuts to Government support, with their incomes down and prices rising. Instead of making positive plans to tackle the problem and to help people, Conservative Members are making it worse, as we saw last week from their manifesto-busting vote to increase national insurance contributions—we saw their actions then.
The burden of lower incomes and rising prices is falling yet again on working people who can least afford it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) said, many of the working people who are being hit yet again were the key workers we so relied on in the pandemic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) said, this is very much about political choices. That is a point that we repeatedly have to ask the Government to address—this is about political choices that they are making.
Last month, I met my local citizens advice bureau in Monmouthshire. I also thank Newport CAB, which is doing an excellent job in difficult times with funding cuts—my thanks go to all those out there offering advice services, because we will really need them in the months to come. In my meeting with Monmouthshire CAB, we discussed the looming autumn crisis, the end of furlough on 30 September and the cut to universal credit, which so many hon. Members have mentioned and the impact of which we could see coming down the tracks.
The uncertainty of the pandemic has already led to a series of income shocks for many constituents who are struggling just to meet everyday bills. Whether those bills are for heating, food, transport, childcare, back-to-school costs or rent, they are pushing people into debt. The Money Advice Trust’s report “The cost of Covid” makes shocking reading: it found that 5.5 million adults are behind on their basic bills and credit payments, 12% of adults have used credit and 37% are using high-cost credit just to cover essential outgoings such as groceries and energy bills.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Payday lenders —loan sharks, really—are charging exorbitant interest. The Government changed the regulations in 2017, but that has not helped at all. In the credit union market, which we particularly support, credit unions are absolutely at their limit because of covid, but the Government have not stepped in to support those low-cost lenders at all. It has been a boon to payday lenders, but for low-cost lenders such as credit unions, which are membership organisations, the Government have done absolutely nothing.
Jessica Morden
My hon. Friend has made an extremely valid point. I see that at first hand in my constituency, and I hope that Ministers will note what he said, take it away and actually do something about it.
People are using credit, including high-cost credit, to cover essential outgoings—spending on groceries, energy bills, and school books and stationery for children. Those on the lowest incomes are also bearing the brunt of the rising food prices that we have talked about today. I pay tribute to Raven House Trust food bank, Caldicot food bank, and all the other food banks that serve Newport East for the fantastic work that they do to support people. I also pay tribute to the community and the churches for supporting those food banks during what has been a very difficult time.
Liz Twist
During the pandemic, we have seen our community groups, our churches and others come to the forefront and help people. Without that help, would not many more people have been in real difficulties?
Jessica Morden
My hon. Friend is right. We owe a debt of gratitude to all those out there in the community—in churches and in other organisations—who have stepped up to help those who are suffering the most.
According to the BBC food price index, food prices have risen by 8.3% since January, with meat and fish up by 22% and fruit and vegetables by 14.7%. As has already been said today, the Government have done very little to address the supply chain issues which are leading to higher prices yet again. We are seeing HGV driver shortages and delays at borders and ports, and we need the Government to address those problems. As we have seen in many news reports, the costs of raw materials for many goods and services have risen as well, affecting the cost of furniture, women’s clothes, vets’ bills, second-hand cars and more. So much for the positive strategy from this Government for shaping our future post Brexit.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points about the wide range of problems that families are facing—not only the deeply mistaken cut in universal credit and the end of the furlough scheme, but wide-ranging price rises linked to supply chain issues and the Government’s ineptitude in so many respects. All those problems are hitting ordinary people across the country very hard. Do we not face a perfect storm for many of our residents?
Jessica Morden
My hon. Friend is spot on. It is indeed a perfect storm, with all those factors coming together at the same time.
Petrol and diesel are also more expensive, costing more than they have since 2013, and the cost of buying a home has skyrocketed in Newport East. Home-Start Cymru has highlighted the huge rise in prices in Monmouthshire, and we have seen the same in Newport. That has put the opportunity to buy beyond many people, particularly our local young people trying to get on to the housing ladder. Housing insecurity has increased, with more mortgage arrears and more people pushed into renting. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South mentioned the research carried out by Zoopla, which has reported that rental prices have risen by 5% in the last 12 months, while wages have remained stagnant for many. Average rail fares are rising three times faster than wages, and are 50% higher than they were in 2010. Studies by the Office for National Statistics suggest that those who commute to work are set to experience the steepest increase in rail fares next January. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), it is all coming together in a perfect storm.
There are further problems on the horizon. This week we have seen the crisis in energy costs and soaring prices. Fuel debt is already the third most common type of debt with which people seek help. The energy price cap for October—just as the cold weather sets in, furlough payments end and the universal credit uplift is scrapped—is set at £153, higher than the warm home discount payment, which has been set at the same rate since 2014. As Martin Lewis has said on his website, that payment should be increased in the Budget, and I hope that the Ministers are listening to that too.
The CAB estimates that 2 million households are already behind in paying their energy bills. As I have mentioned the CAB, it is important to note that while demand for debt advice has gone up and up, funding for debt advice services has decreased. If the Government do nothing else as we come into the autumn, they should at least look at properly funding our debt advice services.
The cutting of the universal credit uplift will be the biggest overnight cut to social security, with 8,630 households in Newport East alone seeing their money cut by £20 a week. I know at first hand from my constituents, as many hon. Members do, how the uplift has been a lifeline for those struggling to buy essentials.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I have heard from One Parent Families Scotland that single parents are often overlooked and stigmatised, and that an overwhelming number of one-parent families are headed by single mothers. On top of the day-to-day worries of increased energy and food costs, they also worry about providing a happy Christmas or a fun birthday for their children, and will push themselves into debt to do so. The £20 universal credit uplift is a lifeline for single parents. Does the Member agree that it is not enough to be barely getting by, and that it is also about quality of life?
Jessica Morden
The hon. Member makes a really valid point. Added to that is the fact that single parents who are under 25 get a lower rate of universal credit because they are perhaps deemed to be living at home, which is deeply unfair. They will also be deeply hit by these cuts and changes.
We know that 40% of those who will be hit by this cut are in work. That is an inconvenient truth for Ministers, who ignore the fact that universal credit is as much an in-work benefit as an out-of-work benefit. A cut of £1,040 a year alongside the increase in national insurance contributions says everything about where this Government’s priorities lie. Action for Children has said that
“you can’t level up the country by pushing down the living standards of some of the hardest working families in the country.”
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that 300,000 more children will be pushed into poverty. Families who are just about keeping their heads above water will be plunged into poverty.
In the face of this crisis, the Government choose not to help but to make things worse, wasting huge amounts of taxpayers’ money on outsourcing and crony contracts while hitting the same group of people over and over again. I hope that Conservative Members will do better tonight than they have in previous votes. I hope that they will stand up for constituents who need them, and show that they understand what life is like for many in this country.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I want to confine my remarks today to the impact on disabled people. Disabled people are being let down by this Government’s policies. Research by the Disability Benefits Consortium has found that at some point during the pandemic two thirds of disabled claimants had to go without food, heating or medication, and that almost half reported being unable to meet financial commitments such as rent and household bills. I have seen these people in my constituency office, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who made a powerful speech, has seen them too.
This is one of the direct impacts of the Government’s failure to extend the universal credit uplift to legacy benefits. The Government are now justifying their cut to universal credit on the basis that it was only meant to help with extra costs during the pandemic, but if that was the case, why did they refuse to extend it to disabled people on legacy benefits, who were disproportionately impacted by lockdown and who experienced much higher costs as a result? As I said yesterday in the debate on the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill, the initial reason given for not extending the increase to legacy benefits involved technical issues, but how does that stand up, 18 months on? This was a political choice.
Many, but not enough, disabled people work, and for those who do, there is a disability pay gap of 20%, with disabled workers earning on average £2.10 less per hour. This is not surprising, given that disabled people tend to be concentrated in lower-paid and part-time roles. Yesterday, ethnicity pay gap reporting was debated in Westminster Hall, but we also need disability pay gap reporting—a policy already adopted by the Liberal Democrats. I would argue that what gets measured gets attention.
Although this debate is about the devastating impact of the Government’s policies on working people, we must not forget that their policies are leaving almost half of disabled people out of work, with an employment gap of 28%. For all that the Government may claim there are now more disabled people in employment than ever before, there are also simply more people classed as disabled than ever before due to the recent inclusion of those experiencing mental ill health. That is a welcome move, but it changes the statistics.
Hundreds of thousands of people are still kept out of the jobs market through lack of support, inappropriate testing and the fear of sanctions and loss of entitlements if work is attempted but not sustained. The health and disability Green Paper focuses on keeping people in work, not making work more accessible to all, and the Access to Work programme is lengthy, burdensome and simply does not work for small employers—it is a barrier, not a help.
Nearly half of all people in poverty are either disabled or live with someone who is disabled, and they will be disproportionately impacted by the growing squeeze on living standards, whether due to increased energy and fuel prices, cuts or tax rises. This crisis simply cannot continue.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
This debate has made me feel like I am living in a parallel universe. Listening to Conservative Members—if they were still here—we would think everything in the garden is rosy, but Opposition Members know only too well that the cost of living crisis serves as a stark reminder that this Government are not serious about supporting ordinary working people. It confirms to us that they lack ambition when it comes to affording our people a life of dignity in which they can support themselves and their family and comfortably grow old with the assurance that they can support their children and grandchildren.
The economic settlement of the past four decades has smashed the unwritten guarantee that each successive generation will have it better than their parents. If this pandemic has taught us anything, it is that life is precious and that it is for living. Yes, those who can should contribute to society but, crucially, people should get something back and be able to enjoy their time with family and friends, rather than having to receive state support while in work. They should not have to rely on food banks or have to work three jobs just to make ends meet.
The system is not on the side of our people. Indeed, most callous of all, retirement itself is fast becoming a distant dream for so many in areas like mine in the north-west who fear that they will not be able to afford it. If only I had £1 for every time I heard someone say, “I will have to work until I drop.”
As the Scottish trade unionist Jimmy Reid put it:
“A rat race is for rats. We’re not rats. We’re human beings.”
In my constituency of Liverpool, Wavertree, I regularly come across people who do the right thing, work hard and pay their taxes. They are honest, decent, salt-of-the-earth people who operate in the real economy across all sectors—care workers, hospitality workers, call centre workers and those who run small and medium-sized businesses—and too many now tell me that they feel the system has failed them. After all, our people, working-class people, picked up the tab after the last economic crisis in the form of austerity, the biggest squeeze on wages and living standards since the Napoleonic wars and so much besides, and now they will do so again.
Conservative Members will no doubt trot out the same lines about their inadequate increases in the living wage and the personal tax allowance, which ironically they are now freezing—they even cite rising wages in certain sectors. Some might say that their intentions are good. Ultimately, success is measured by outcomes, and on every metric this Government are failing. If they were serious about supporting our people, their priorities would be wholly different.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend mentions the salt of the earth. For me, the real salt of the earth are kinship carers, the grandparents who take on their grandchildren because their parents can no longer look after them, yet they get a very raw deal. Does she agree it is time the Government recognised the value of kinship carers and the money that is saved because of the burden they take on? Does she also agree that kinship carers can do without this cut to universal credit?
Paula Barker
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The points he raised are completely pertinent and I agree with all of them.
As I was saying, if the Government were serious about supporting our people, their priorities would be wholly different. We would not see a hike in national insurance. We would not see the scrapping of the £20 UC uplift. We would see a proper funding settlement for local government, rather than backing our cash-strapped local councils into a corner over regressive tax increases. We would see action to tackle rising energy costs—that infamous Marxist idea, according to David Cameron. It is an idea once proposed by my former leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband).
Finally, something often missed in debates such as this: we would see recognition of the role of the trade unions in reducing inequalities in the workplace and across society. In the coming weeks, Members from across this Chamber, including on the Government Benches, will have the opportunity to support the private Member’s Bill on fire and rehire introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). I can say with certainty than an effective system of collective bargaining across sectors of the economy will not cost the Chancellor a penny—he may even save a few pounds.
Research from the New Economics Foundation shows that modelling produced for one of its reports indicates that by the end of the year, without a change in Government policy, 32% of the UK population, or 21.4 million people, will be living below a socially acceptable living standard, as measured by the minimum income standard. That is a third of people in this country, and it is absolutely shameful. Numbers like that tell us that the time for tinkering around the edges is over. Inequality is not some vague concept; it has real consequences for communities such as mine. What is economics if not the allocation of wealth, power and resources? Opposition Members believe in a fairer, more equal and democratic distribution of all three.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), who made such a powerful and passionate case, so rightly pointing out the false economy that inequality represents.
Thousands of families in my constituency, like families across the UK, have taken a real buffeting over the past 18 months, and this month could bring the perfect storm for them as the furlough scheme ends, the universal credit uplift is scrapped and the cost of living spirals upwards. The pandemic has had a significant impact on household finances, which have been stretched to breaking point, and not everybody is able to weather the storm as easily as others.
Conservative Members like to claim that their Government have fixed the roof while the sun is shining, but the reality is that the Tory roof is made of straw and a cold wind is blowing. Worrying research from the Bevan Foundation has found that one in three Welsh households does not have enough money to buy anything beyond everyday items, while more than one in five households with a net income of less than £20,000 have seen their income drop since January. The planned cut to universal credit will only deepen these inequalities, as those on the lowest incomes will be pushed into poverty and destitution.
In Aberavon alone, more than 7,000 households receive universal credit. For those families, the £20-a-week uplift has been a lifeline, protecting those who have lost income and preventing them from slipping into poverty or having to visit the food bank to feed their families. It is important to note that of the 7,000 households in Aberavon that are on universal credit, 2,000 have registered since the start of the pandemic. The idea that the removal of the uplift is somehow not a cut is deeply disingenuous, because the 2,000 households that have registered since the start of the pandemic have certainly not known any other rate of universal credit. The Government’s claim is blatantly and deeply disingenuous.
The uplift has made a real difference to family budgets. My inbox has been filled with emails from residents telling me how it has helped them to meet the cost of essentials and allowed them to pay their bills, make the rent, put food on the table and switch the heating on. To some, £20 a week may seem like a small amount of money, but to the families I am talking about it makes a world of difference and would have been crucial to help them with rising energy bills and the escalating cost of the weekly shop. They are now deeply anxious about their precarious finances and worried about how they will make ends meet without the uplift.
The reality is that we are potentially moving into an age of anxiety. The anxiety that is now afflicting so many millions of families and households throughout the country saps the strength from the recovery and defeats growth. It is a brake on growth, which is why the Government’s policies are so deeply damaging. They are not only the wrong thing to do in a civilised society but the definition of a false economy because they are putting a brake on growth and holding back the recovery.
Some of those who contacted me are shopworkers and carers who worked through the pandemic and now face the cut to universal credit. That is no way to thank them for what they have done. Members on the Government Benches stood on their doorsteps applauding our key workers; now they reward them with this cut and a cost-of-living crisis. Their hypocrisy is breath-taking.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend talks about people applauding on their doorsteps; when I put a question to the Prime Minister when he was talking about his tax increase, he said that the Government do not pay care workers. Apparently, somebody else does, but does my hon. Friend agree that the Government pay grants to local authorities, and that money goes to carers? We hope that some of the extra tax money will go to local authorities to pay care workers, so is it not about time that the Government said, “We’re paying for the fiddler so we’re going to decide the dance”? They should decide the level of pay for care workers and it should be much higher than it is now.
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has confirmed, we are committed to a proper living wage in this country of a minimum of £10 an hour. Government Members constantly ask for Labour’s plan; there is one absolutely key element of it. It is about making work pay and rewarding the heroes of the pandemic: those who kept our economy running and our supply chains open. Rather than rewarding them with cuts and destroying supply chains, we should seek to build an economy that works for everyone.
The grim reality is that around 40% of the families who claim universal credit are in work, but that work is insecure and involves short hours or low pay. They are claiming universal credit not because they are workshy but because the Government are presiding over an economy in which jobs are not paying the bills and low-paid people are forced to top up their income. If the cut to universal credit goes ahead, it will be the biggest overnight cut to the basic rate of social security since the foundation of the modern welfare state. It will plunge families into poverty, forcing them to rely on food banks. But it is the very definition of a false economy: it would remove £7.3 million from the economy in my Aberavon constituency alone. This money is not saved by families; it is spent in the shops and the businesses in my constituency, helping to stimulate the local economy and helping to create jobs. Without it, spending power will decrease and the economic recovery will be stymied. Government Members have rightly stated that we need to grow our way out of the recession, and yet they are promoting policies that will put a brake on growth. It beggars belief.
This squeeze on living standards is not inevitable. Poverty is a political choice. The squeeze on living standards is a political choice. The Government have made the choice of hitting hard-working families with a double whammy of cutting the universal credit uplift and hiking up national insurance contributions. At a time when food, fuel and energy prices are going up, this will place an enormous burden on hard-working people. It is the Government’s choices that have shaped an economy that has become less resilient and less secure. The Government’s botched Brexit and failure to plan for crises such as the pandemic have combined to expose our declining sovereign capability—our lack of supply chain resilience, the empty shelves in the supermarkets, the shortage of HGV drivers, and delays at our border and ports. All of this is combining to drive up prices, and it is hitting working families in their pockets.
Two hauliers in my Aberavon constituency, Frenni and Owens, have told me about the detrimental impact that the shortage of HGV drivers is having on their businesses. Owens estimates that they are 150 drivers short and that that is reducing their capacity by about 1,000 full trucks a week. They desperately need the Government to take urgent action to address the shortage. What that demonstrates is that the economy is interconnected and that the impact on supply chains impacts on prices, impacts on the cost of living crisis, and impacts on working families. The Government should be doing all they can to support families through these tough times, not pulling the rug out from under them. They must start by cancelling this cruel and self-defeating universal credit cut. Then they must build an economy that works for all, by tackling insecurity at work, lifting people out of in-work poverty and increasing the minimum wage to at least £10 an hour. Then they must tackle the cost of living crisis by sorting out the chaotic shambles of their botched Brexit.
If the Government’s levelling-up agenda is to be anything more than empty rhetoric, they must change course. They must stop this race to the bottom and strive instead to build an economy that works for all. They must stop their complacent, blasé approach to Government and get their act together to address the huge disruption that has been caused by their botched Brexit deal.
Alex Cunningham
The Tories are keen to talk up the importance of work, and I agree with them on the importance of work—good paid jobs must be the answer—but they also allow many firms to go to the wall. The latest in our area is the world-renowned Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Company, which built the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Tyne Bridge. Hundreds of jobs in the main firm and in the supply chain have now gone, as neither the Tory mayor in the Tees Valley nor the Government were prepared to do anything to sustain those jobs, simply because the company had a cash-flow problem. Does my hon. Friend not agree that we need to protect the jobs that exist today and not just dream of jobs in the future?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Much of the debate today has been about the immediate impact of the universal credit cut and the immediate impact of the cost of living crisis, but we need to examine the fundamental structural weaknesses in the British economy that have seen a massive decline in manufacturing, and that has been turbocharged by 11 years of Tory neglect. We have ended up concentrating so much of our economy in London and the south-east around the financial services sector. The financialisation of the British economy has ended up driving inequality, with a very small percentage at the top being paid eye-watering bonuses while the rest of country is left behind. We have shifted from being a country that makes things to a country that consumes things—a country that is fuelled not by production, but by consumption, and which is floating on a sea of debt. All those structural weaknesses have been chipping away at the resilience of the British economy for 11 years now, and the pandemic and the botched Brexit are now combining to expose the profound lack of resilience in our economy. Therefore, although today’s debate is extremely valuable and important, it fundamentally needs to be seen in the context of 11 years of Tory failure, neglect and a failure to look at the foundations of our economy.
I have the largest steelworks in the United Kingdom in my constituency, and steel is a case in point. The hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), who represents a steel constituency, is not in his place now. We have seen the act of industrial vandalism that saw the closure of the SSI works in Redcar on the watch of the Tory Government; the total and utter failure to address exorbitant energy costs, which are crippling the British steel industry; the failure to stand up to China and the dumping of Chinese steel on the markets, which has deeply undermined our competitiveness across the world; and the failure to have a patriotic procurement policy that would enable us to focus on buying British steel when those opportunities arose. If we are serious about the transition to a green economy, we will never get there without a resilient and vibrant British steel industry. Our steel industry is just one example of how the Government have allowed our manufacturing sector to decline over the last 11 years that they have been in power.
Alex Cunningham
There is some good news this afternoon, because I understand that the Government have actually helped out and we have some form of agreement with CF Fertilisers—the company that makes fertiliser from natural gas and produces 60% of the country’s CO2, which is so desperately needed for everything from beer to anaesthetic systems in hospitals. Will my hon. Friend welcome that, but also reflect on the fact that the company had to go to the brink of failure before the Government chose to act on energy prices and the other factors that were affecting it?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head; we appear to be in a constant state of crisis management, based on the fact that there has not been long-term planning. The gas crisis was foreseen by many people years ago, and it was based on a concern about the Government’s failure to deliver gas security by enabling the additional storage of gas. We do not have gas stockpiled in the way that most other advanced industrialised countries across the world have. This is another example of the Government being asleep at the wheel and not having that long-term planning in place.
We have a Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy who does not believe in industrial strategy. He has closed down the Industrial Strategy Council at the very time that we need a partnership between the state and business to drive our economy forward. These fundamental issues have to be addressed. We have to look at the cost of living crisis, and develop a partnership between the state and business. We must have the long-term planning in place that we so desperately need.
Stephen Kinnock
I would very much like to give way to my hon. Friend again, but Mr Deputy Speaker is looking at me in a way that tells me that perhaps it is time to finish my speech.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Alex Cunningham, who has not made a speech, has spoken for longer than Wendy Chamberlain.
Stephen Kinnock
I will give way to my hon. Friend one more time, if that is all right.
Alex Cunningham
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. He will not know this, but I spent a long part of my career in the gas industry. I remember taking a group of women journalists offshore to the Rough field, off the Humberside and Yorkshire coast. Does he agree that it is extremely lamentable that the Government allowed that storage facility to close down and that that wonderful facility—the first of its type in the world—is no longer in use for gas storage?
Stephen Kinnock
There we have an absolutely spot-on illustration of precisely the problem that I was alluding to, which is that many of the issues that have been exposed by the pandemic are a failure of long-term planning. That is another example of a false economy. It is about the culture of looking at the immediate bottom line. Knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing is the definition of the way in which this Government have been running the country for the past 11 years.
The value of resilience is about understanding the need for investment and about investing in order to save for the future. Prevention is always cheaper than cure. That is why, with the up-front investment that has been so sorely lacking over the past 11 years, those chickens are now coming home to roost. We therefore need to develop a new political culture, a new business culture and a new commitment in this country to security, resilience and partnership. On that basis, the issues that we are addressing today are the symptoms of the problem and not the cause.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Hard-working people are facing a triple whammy this winter: rising fuel bills, a national insurance rise, and a £1,000 cut to universal credit. Even before the pandemic, my constituency of Manchester, Gorton had some of the highest rates of fuel poverty in the country, with almost a quarter of families classed as fuel-poor. Across the UK, 3 million households struggle to pay their energy bills, and it is predicted that as many as half a million families could slip into fuel poverty as the temperature drops and bills skyrocket this winter.
In the face of the gas supply crisis, maintaining the energy price cap is welcome, but it will not be enough. As a minimum, the Government should make the £140 warm homes discount automatic and extend it to give more people peace of mind this winter. While the energy price cap may be fair, for many families it is no longer affordable, and in just a matter of weeks it will be at the highest-ever level. As a result, hard-working families already struggling to stretch pay cheques to the end of the month will be forced to make an impossible choice between heating or eating.
To make matters worse still, the CO2 shortages will mean that supermarket shelves could be empty in the coming days as food shortages hit the market. In Manchester, Gorton this will mean more vulnerable people being forced to access food banks. Food bank usage is at an all-time high. It is a disgrace that in the 21st century families and children have become so dependent on charity to survive. Manchester’s own Marcus Rashford has done so much over the past year to shine a light on the shameful rise of food bank usage, and it is time the Government listened. Being unable to buy food is not an issue with the high cost of living. It is much more fundamental than that: it is about the cost of surviving.
The escalation of fuel bills and the rising cost of living means that the Conservatives’ plan to cut universal credit is no longer just indefensible; it is now unconscionable. The Business Secretary himself has admitted that this
“could be a very difficult winter.”
So the question remains why his Cabinet colleagues will not intervene to alleviate the financial burden on working people and cancel the cut.
This morning, my constituent Alisha emailed me. She is a universal credit claimant and scared at what the cut will mean for her and her daughters. She wrote:
“it will mean I will go without food or warmth so my girls may suffer less…we go without luxuries and each month is a struggle. Our future is bleak. I just hope I can hold on for them.”
Alisha is one of hundreds of constituents who have written to me terrified about their future and worried about how they will get by this winter.
The Resolution Foundation reminds us that to govern is to choose, and I know that my constituents will never forget that the Tory Government have chosen to push millions of hard-working families into poverty. However, it is not too late. There is still time to cancel the cut.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to say clearly to the Government that their current pursuit of benefit cuts and tax hikes, their economic mismanagement of the energy sector and the housing market—to name but two—and their casual indifference to the spectre of soaring inflation in the price of basic goods and food are combining to inflict poverty, hardship and misery on working people. The other week, the Prime Minister responded to my question on the negative impact of the £20 a week universal credit cut by saying that his Government have always been ready to put an arm around the people of this country. I would contend that the Government’s policies will more likely lead to a hand being clasped around the throats of working people, the unemployed, the disabled and—tragically—their children. This is not levelling up; it is grinding down. This is not building back better; it is a new round of austerity designed yet again to make the poor pay for another fine mess of the Government’s own creation. People’s standard of living is not, as the Government claim, rising inexorably because of recent wage increases. Overall, it is declining because of the toxic cocktail of measures administered by the Government, which they pretend are medicine to make us better.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that more than 12,500 working-age families in my Birkenhead constituency will be hit by the cut to universal credit, including more than 6,000 working-age families with children. That is almost one third of such families in Birkenhead, and they are set to lose just over £1,000 a year. How can that be fair? In the run-up to the day of shame on 6 October when the axe is scheduled to fall, more people have written to me asking me to oppose the cut than on any other single issue. My mailbag on the cut far outstrips the previous record holder: Dominic Cummings’ emergency eye test at Barnard Castle.
One letter stands out. It is from the seven-year-old son of a constituent who told me how worried he is that this family will not be able to afford to feed to him because he heard that they were about to lose £20. This is a particular concern for children because, as of 2020, 33% of children in Birkenhead—more than 6,000—were officially classed as living in poverty.
This vindictive cut would be bad enough any day of the week, but look at its timing—it is like something straight out of “Hammer House of Horror”. The cut coincides with the increase in national insurance, the surging cost of gas, the prospect of transport costs going through the roof, rents being driven up by the housing crisis and basic foodstuffs costing ever more as the supply chain becomes more and more disrupted.
Let me tell the House what that means to ordinary people. One of my constituents—I will call him Gary—lost his job due to contracting covid-19. He was not furloughed and he rents from a private landlord. He is on universal credit and, with the £20 uplift, after rent he had £46 a week to meet all his expenses. When the cut comes in, he will be left with £26 to meet those same expenses, each of which is going up. Gary, like so many others, faces ruin. I know full well that the Government will respond with their usual refrain that universal credit will help Gary to get a job, but they conveniently forget that their measure, which will put an estimated 800,000 into poverty—including 300.000 children—will have an impact on the about 40% of universal credit claimants who are already in work.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I intervene to make the point that my hon. Friend has made that there are many working families—those in work—who are on universal credit, which the Prime Minister does not seem to understand.
Mick Whitley
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I made that point to the Prime Minister, who just did not give me an answer.
Those working people will be hit by both the cut and the increase in national insurance. They will number thousands of working hairdressers, shop assistants, street cleaners, hospital porters, farm workers and countless others who are paid peanuts and have no choice but to claim in-work benefits. I genuinely hope that Conservative Members will not cry TINA—there is no alternative—as a previous Government of their persuasion did. Rather I hope that they will withdraw their package of measures that will slash the standard of living for the majority, and adopt the progressive tax policies that my party stands for and that can ensure that those with the broadest shoulders and the most bloated bank accounts pay their fair share, so that my constituents are not forced into a life of poverty.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I express my gratitude to the Labour Treasury team for facilitating this opportunity to debate the devastating effect of Government policy on the finances of working people.
I know the British people have had a very difficult 18 months during the covid crisis, with the sorrowful loss of lives—inexcusably, the highest death toll in Europe —despite having our world-class NHS and our world-class public health systems, as well as an unforgiveable care home crisis, soaring unemployment, businesses closing, food bank usage skyrocketing and, most recently, the tragic debacle in Afghanistan, leaving many of us, especially my Slough constituents, and British Afghans in absolute despair. I do not think anyone in this Chamber could have foreseen the debilitating impact that a pandemic would have on our communities when we all had the honour of being elected as Members of Parliament.
I want to pay tribute to the extraordinary generosity and service of the Slough Council for Voluntary Service, the Slough Foodbank and other voluntary and faith groups within my constituency. But we as a nation should not have to rely so heavily on their good will. The Government should not be failing the most vulnerable, so as we emerge from what has been a very testing period for our economy, I despair at the direction this Government are taking us in. Instead of rebuilding, investing and stimulating our economy, it seems that they are more intent on ideological cuts to the very services and people that have kept this country going since March 2020.
There are the rises to national insurance, the universal credit cut, the upcoming freeze on the personal income tax allowance, inflation-busting rail fare increases and the highest petrol prices since 2013, as well as rampant waste, cronyism and corruption in the top levels of Government, the damage caused by the Government’s hard-line Brexit deal, and the supply chain and HGV drivers chaos leading to empty supermarket shelves. There is the Government forcing local authorities to raise council tax, and their unwillingness to outlaw the deplorable hire and rehire tactics of unscrupulous employers. There are some of the highest childcare costs in the world, a housing crisis worsened by a cladding crisis, and the absence of a sector-specific deal for our aviation sector, which at one point was world-leading, despite repeated pleas from the likes of myself and other hon. Members. There are the policing cuts leading to less safer communities, and the exorbitant increase in energy bills leaving many languishing in absolute despair.
This is all while we had a Tory Government asleep at the wheel and acting only when it is very late in the day. Make no mistake, although the Government may want to make it seem that way, these vital issues have not arisen solely because of the covid pandemic. These matters have been exacerbated by a decade of austerity and inadequate emergency support meeting a failing post-pandemic plan—a perfect storm that only leaves families worse off.
We in Slough have been impacted acutely by job losses and the inadequate Government support. With Heathrow and the largest singly owned trading estate, the Slough trading estate, on our doorstep, unemployment, furlough and food bank usage have all, sadly, increased. We must not allow a temporary crisis to unevenly and permanently change prospects across our country; we must assist those who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, not punish them further with ill thought-out Conservative Government policy.
Mr Dhesi
The crisis in Heathrow has impacted not only my Slough constituents but regional airports and the economy of Wales, about which I know my right hon. Friend feels passionately. That is why we must help the aviation sector. Heathrow used to be the busiest airport in Europe but is now no longer even in the top 10; that is diabolical and is a direct consequence of inaction by this inept Government. Not only is it the right thing to do to help the aviation sector, but it is how we will effectively recover as a nation.
One of the most immediate dangers facing my constituents from the Government’s barrage of cuts and policies is the cut to universal credit of £20 a week. Over £17 million will be cut from my constituency, and this will affect families who have battled through a pandemic, who were clapped, who face a very difficult job market, and whose children have only just returned to the routine of school. I have been contacted by constituents who have been furloughed then had their UC capped, and are struggling to make ends meet. There are self-employed people using up all their income and being told to use food banks and claim UC. Continued cries from the Government Benches that that is a solution is insulting to all the families who work tirelessly just to put food on the table.
Kirsty Blackman
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is disrespectful of the Secretary of State to say that such people can just pick up another couple of hours of work? A working mother already on part-time hours because of childcare cannot just suddenly become an HGV driver overnight or pick up a couple of extra hours; that is not how it works.
Mr Dhesi
The hon. Lady eloquently makes my point, and even that calculation of two hours has been demonstrated to be completely off the mark; the number of extra hours hard-working Brits will need to work is actually nine.
Another main issue on which constituents ask for my help is housing, and, sadly, that is unsurprising. Average rents have risen by £456 in a year, the highest rise since 2008, rising above average wages by over £2,000, leaving home ownership a distant or impossible dream for too many in the next generation.
Alex Cunningham
The issues my hon. Friend raises will also result in more debt. Is he surprised to learn that debt in this country is 123% of household incomes and that there have been 27,662 individual insolvencies in the second quarter of this year? People are in trouble now, and if this additional help is withdrawn how on earth are they going to make ends meet?
Mr Dhesi
My hon. Friend has demonstrated in this debate that he is an endless fountain of statistics; despite not being on the call list, he has made many interventions that make hard-hitting points to which the Government must listen.
It is important to highlight that home ownership is an impossible dream for so many in the next generation. That is because the quality and quantity of social and affordable housing is wholly inadequate, an issue the Government have failed to address despite being in power for well over a decade. A report showed that affordable housing increased by just 1% last year—90,000 homes short of the bare minimum needed to tackle this crisis. What about those who own homes that are now worthless due to Government inaction on unsafe cladding? That is an absolute shambles. It means a mother of two going without food to pay her rent and feed her children, and others moving from property to property due to rent arrears and evictions. One constituent even told me that their struggle with paying rent and bills made them feel like
“there is no way out”.
It is a vicious cycle—a downward spiral. Is this really the kind of society we want to live in post pandemic? I certainly do not.
We need to realise the potential in our great country and give businesses, families and young people the tools that they need to rebuild and prosper, not break them down before a recovery has even begun. We have a fantastic business hub and innovation centre in my constituency. Prior to the pandemic, we had among the highest business start-up rates in the entire country, we were in the top three for productivity, and we had a booming private sector providing thousands of jobs. But instead of giving the hard-working people of Slough support to ensure that they can once again thrive, these measures are pushing them further down.
In conclusion, I want to see ambition from this Government genuinely to rebuild stronger than before, with a greener, more efficient and innovative economy that will benefit us all, not just a select few.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who is a good friend. He put his arguments so forcefully and cogently. So many of the contributions this afternoon, certainly from Opposition Members, have been impressive and consistent in their criticism of the Government’s attitude and policies for addressing a fundamental problem in our society.
That perhaps comes as no surprise. When someone has their lunch hand-delivered to them every day by a company based in the Cotswolds, they might not be totally in touch with what is going on out in the economy—the price of food, the price of sandwiches and so on—but as I understand it, that is exactly what happens for the Prime Minister; one of his donors delivers a sandwich to him every day. It is a very reputable and nice business, based in the Cotswolds; I actually visited it myself once.
That kind of out-of-touch-ness is at the heart of this Government. They are divorced from the harsh impacts of what is going on in our economy—of inflation and the real cost of living. We must think about what has happened in the past 15 or 18 months for our nurses, hairdressers, decorators, plumbers, brickies, care workers—all those who are now facing the severe impacts of really high inflation, with wage growth not keeping up.
Those of us who are in touch with the weekly shop, as was evidenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), know how much we are seeing in price increases—not just the standard price increases that are going on, but the price gouging that is happening on our high streets. I have seen that at first hand. We have a Tesco store on the Parade in Leamington, and there is sometimes a 60% price difference between what people pay in the Tesco superstore a mile and a half away and what the vulnerable, the elderly and so on pay in that store on the high street.
I am not sure how this computes. If someone’s real concerns are about buying Lulu Lytle wallpaper at £840 a roll, I do not think that necessarily puts them in touch with what is really going on at the local DIY store, or the cost of timber down the timber merchant to build themselves a shed. I think that is at the heart of the policy and the Government’s inaction in addressing inflation and the pressures on families up and down our country. Certainly, the hard-working people in Warwick and Leamington are being very hard hit by rising costs. We are all facing the rising prices of energy, food, travel and housing, all of which are contributing to rising inflation, not to mention, as has been said repeatedly from the Opposition Benches, the sledgehammer of the universal credit cut and the pressure on pensions. When we put all that into the mix, together with tax increases, we realise how hard it will be for people and families up and down the country.
Looking at inflation—sadly, I am one of those who takes a real interest in this sort of stuff—the biggest jump on record was in August. The Bank of England expects inflation to peak at 4%. I think it is slightly underestimating the impact of what could happen—personally, I think it might exceed that—but even 4% is double the Bank of England inflation target of 2%. The Government, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor seem to be acting surprised that inflation will be peaking at 4%, but surely they will have access to briefings from the Bank of England and the senior economists—the likes of Andy Haldane and others—who will be saying what is happening to the UK and global economy and where the price pressures are that will impact on ordinary households. They track the data and get input data from businesses in the regions—in the west midlands, all the businesses will be feeding that information into the Bank of England’s regional office.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about inflation. He and I may be of a similar age and remember how, perhaps in our younger years, inflation was such an important issue that we were mindful of almost daily. However, there is a generation that does not really understand, or perhaps has not experienced, what inflation means to the daily and weekly cost of living for ordinary families. By not being up-front or public about this, the Government are perhaps not educating people on how to manage the coming crisis.
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend; she is incredibly generous to suggest that I might be of a similar age, but I will take that compliment from her. Of course, I agree. Certainly, I think about my generation and what happened to inflation in, say, 1990 and 1991, as someone who was paying a mortgage at the time and seeing 60% of my income going on the mortgage because of the excessive interest. Those on tracker mortgages and so on will be really worried about what is happening, because their incomes are certainly not keeping up with that kind of increase. I speak as someone who suffered—okay, I am nowhere near, and never have been, the sharp edge of the sort of extreme poverty that we are here to talk about. However, we should realise the pressure that that puts people under emotionally and psychologically, and the impact on mental health. What inflation can do, in eroding pensions and impacting on household budgets, should be a real concern to everyone in this House.
Kirsty Blackman
On that point, we got our first mortgage in 2009. People who have had a mortgage for as long as I have had, which is about 12 years, have never really seen interest rate hikes. There are people in the group that the hon. Member is talking about who are not worried because they have never met this in the face, and they are going to get such a shock when interest rates rise, as he is describing.
Matt Western
I thank the hon. Member, or perhaps I can suggest friend. Indeed, we have been insulated these past 10 years from the ravages of inflation that some of us know—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) would say this—can erode business confidence and have an extreme impact on household budgets.
Alex Cunningham
I well remember the Thatcher Government, when interest rates went up and up and up and up. Even those on good wages were struggling, so it was even more difficult for others. There is a storm ahead for many people. Does my hon. Friend agree that savings are very important? The average savings for a low-income household are £95, while a high-income person is likely to have £63,000 in savings. Who is going to come off worse?
Matt Western
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We all have to understand that it is easy to talk about numbers and statistics in the abstract, but the reality for so many people, as he illustrates, is that they do not just have the uncertainty and insecurity of zero-hours contracts and the pressures of the cut to universal credit, but having so little money in the bank brings pressures on households. And here we have inflation about to rip into those households through the energy price increases I am going to come on to talk about.
I talked about the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. Those in corporate business and in senior positions in Government must know what is happening to inflation. They must know what forecasters are saying. When commodities are bought, all energy costs are forward priced—they know what is coming down the track—so the Chancellor could suggest only a 1% increase for nurses when he knew all along that there was likely to be a significant spike in inflation coming. Energy costs are a major issue, one that has perhaps been the driver to this particular debate, alongside the cut in universal credit. We have long known for months that there was going to be an increase in gas prices of 12% in October. That will have a significant impact on household bills. The average gas and electricity bill for customers will go up by £139 a year to just under £1,300. Now, we have to rely on the Government to get a grip to avoid further increases as a result of this unfolding crisis.
It is fundamentally a failure of long-term Government planning over the past decade that we, as a country, are so exposed and vulnerable to rising gas prices. We should have been building energy resilience, instead of being one of the countries most reliant on foreign gas. We should have been investing in domestically produced renewable energy. Instead, we squandered 10 years burning fossil fuels. When I was working on Warwick District Council as a councillor seven years ago, I proposed the Warwickshire energy plan to save people money, create energy resilience and address energy poverty. Sadly, there was not the gumption to follow through on that, and I am disappointed it never materialised.
Mark Tami
A perfect example of the point my hon. Friend is making is Wylfa nuclear power station in north Wales, in Anglesey. Building could have started on that and it would have been part of a growing nuclear programme, but the Government failed to support it. A spin-off would have been high-tech jobs, but the Government are not interested—they just step back.
Matt Western
I thank my right hon. Friend for that point. I think the important thing is that the Cameron-Osborne Government in particular became obsessed with fracking and took their eye off the ball with other energy sources. In Warwickshire, we had Algy Cluff come and visit; he was a significant donor to the Conservative party, I think, and he was really interested in having blocks under Warwickshire that he would frack. That undermined long-term planning for projects like the one that my right hon. Friend mentions.
If the Government had followed through, we could have been building zero-carbon homes since 2016. Instead, the Cameron, Osborne and—dare I say it—Liberal Democrat Government scrapped the regulations for housing developer donors. A million homes could have been built since 2016, but something like 10% of households in my constituency are in fuel poverty already and I can only see that figure rising. Several thousand homes in my constituency could have benefited from forward-thinking house building and zero-carbon homes, because we have seen such an explosion in house building across south Warwick and south Leamington.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend might not know this, but I was in the gas industry for many years, as I mentioned earlier, and I was involved in a warm homes system. We went door to door, systematically insulating people’s homes and windows doing all manner of other things, but the current Government have done away with that. They have also done away with much of the responsibility on energy companies to do more in that space. Does he agree that energy companies could be expected to do much more to insulate our homes?
Matt Western
I absolutely agree—it is such a key point. There are so many schemes that could be introduced, and there is some excellent practice across Europe; I think it is currently beyond the wit of the Government, but as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for council housing I am certainly keen that we should push for it.
On energy costs, I go back to the point about heavy manufacturing. I am passionate about our manufacturing sector—not just the automotive sector, which I have talked about often, but chemicals, aerospace and steel. We have heard the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) made about the impact on steel, but the impact will be felt throughout our manufacturing: steel goes into the food and drink sector as much as into automotive and elsewhere.
The reality is that the price varies for energy. For gas in the UK, I think that I am right in saying that there is a 40% premium against the average in Europe, which is making us uncompetitive in comparison and will have an impact on future investment and, ultimately, on jobs.
Food prices are another big driver of inflation. The price of food and drink in shops and supermarkets has risen by more than 1% in August, the highest growth since 2008. Food commodity prices have increased by 17% since the start of the year. The Food and Drink Federation says that the cost per household of food and drink shopping will increase by more than £160 per year because of Government policies—that is the federation speaking, not me.
Various hon. Members have mentioned the supply chain disruption, which will lead to higher prices. We have heard about the shortages of heavy goods vehicle drivers, but there are also shortages of refrigerants and carbon dioxide, and of course there is the additional complexity of delays at borders and ports.
I turn to travel. I asked the Minister about the price of petrol, but in July petrol prices hit their highest level in almost eight years. It now costs £74.26 to fill a 55-litre family car with petrol, a 17% increase—17% seems to be a repeating figure—since the start of the year, by the Government’s own data. Diesel, by comparison, has risen by just 14%.
Rail fares are not faring any better. The Government are planning fare rises of 4.8% next year, way ahead of inflation. The average commuter faces paying £3,300 for an annual season ticket, 50% more than in 2010. An annual season ticket from Leamington to London, incidentally, now costs £8,700, a significant amount of money.
As for housing, rents have risen at their fastest rate since 2008, at a time when we are seeing declining home ownership, and the vulnerability that confronts so many people as more and more are living in the private rental sector. Rents in the west midlands are now £1,192 higher than they were in 2011, and incomes have certainly not kept pace with that.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I think those who are listening will appreciate that for some families the combination of rising prices, rising rents and rising costs of travel to work will lead to absolute desperation—and, of course, this does not just have an impact on individuals and families; it has a wider societal impact. If people are unable to pay their rent, if they are made homeless and if that affects their mental health, an enormous strain will be placed on our public services and on society more broadly. Measures such as the cut in universal credit are complete madness, because the longer-term costs for the Government will be even higher than the costs of maintaining the uplift.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is spot on. Short-term thinking often costs much more in the long term, and impacts of that kind will have very long-term consequences on people. We all know about the impact on mental health and how that can then affect people’s home lives, social lives and family lives, but it can also affect their working lives, which can have an economic consequence too, as well as increasing costs in the national health service and elsewhere.
We need to build more social housing for rent. Just 21 social rent council homes have been built in the Warwick district since 2010.
Let me now turn to the unimaginable and, I think, inadmissible cut in universal credit. It just underlines how out of touch this Government are that they are cutting the £20 uplift. Reversing that decision would prevent families from experiencing an even sharper hit during this cost of living crisis. I think it shameful that the very workers who got us through the crisis are now in the firing line for a £1,000 cut in their income every year. I think about the carers, the shop workers and the delivery drivers—all the people who kept the wheels of the economy turning through such difficult times. Data from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that in Warwick and Leamington, which I think many people would assume to be a prosperous area, 13% of working-age families—6,300—and 29% of working-age families with children will be affected by the cut. This really is a poverty policy.
We have heard a great many claims about levelling up, but the one area in which the Government seem to be succeeding is levelling up on taxes which are more regressive than ever. We may think back to the increase in VAT from 17.5% to 20%; now we are seeing a rise in national insurance and rises in council tax across our local authorities. The average band D council tax set by authorities in England in 2021-22 is just under £1,900, a 4.4% increase on the 2020-21 figure. These are real costs to people. As we have heard, the national insurance increase is the biggest tax rise for families—the most significant change—in 50 years. Graduates now face a marginal tax rate of nearly 50%: that, surely, is a tax on aspiration.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend talks about tax rates. He will be interested to know that a tweet has just come in from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation saying that
“191 Conservative seats will see more than a third of working-age families with children affected by the cut to #Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit. There’s still time for the Government to listen to the huge opposition to this cut and change course”.
I know that my hon. Friend will agree.
Matt Western
I can assure my hon. Friend that I absolutely agree with that. It was so telling that five or six former Conservative Work and Pensions Ministers said that they were absolutely against this cut. Of course, everyone on this side of the House is against it. It is also quite obvious to economists that the uplift should not be cut but left in place. The cost is £6 billion, I think, and in the context of some of the overspends that the Government have been guilty of during the pandemic, that is actually very little.
The cost of living tsunami that families will face in Warwick and Leamington and across the country this winter shows just how out of touch this Government are. Instead of making positive plans to tackle it, I am afraid that they are simply making it worse. We have the national insurance and council tax increases, and now we have the universal credit cut. The Government are failing to tackle the supply chain disruption that has been exacerbated by covid and Brexit, and we now have rising energy prices, rail fare increases and rising rents. The Government seem to be happy to waste huge amounts of taxpayers’ money on outsourcing and crony contracts, and I just feel that they are really out of touch. They seem to know little about the true cost of living.
We have a Prime Minister who spends—or rather, gets his donor friends to spend—tens of thousands of pounds on the refurbishment of his flat, and a Chancellor who is happy to spend a significant amount of money on a swimming pool, but they will seemingly not listen to all of us saying that there is a need to retain the £20 uplift. I was really surprised when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), did not know how much it cost to fill up a car. I will tell him: it is 77 quid. He had no idea how much people spent on petrol a year. I can tell him that it is 17% more than it was at the beginning of the year.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
There is no doubt that we are facing a cost of living crisis, with universal credit to be cut by £20 a week, negatively impacting 10,406 of my constituents and 400,000 people across Scotland; with a national insurance hike hitting those on the lowest incomes; with energy prices expected to soar by at least £139 for millions of households; with 16,500 jobs in Scotland still on furlough—that is 5% of all those who were furloughed; with exports from the UK falling by a staggering €16 billion, down 17.1% in the first seven months of this year; and with the ending of free movement disrupting supply chains and leading to empty supermarket shelves and higher prices. I could go on, but it really does feel like the end of days.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Ardrossan, Largs and other food banks in my constituency and to all the voluntary organisations that are supporting those in North Ayrshire and Arran who are in financial distress and who will fall into financial distress as a result of the universal credit cut. Apparently, though, it seems that none of the soaring prices and empty supermarket shelves are a consequence of Brexit. No, they are a consequence of covid, or the problem is global, or it is the bogeyman! It is the fault of anything or anyone except the rabid Brexiteers on the Tory Benches.
Of course there are global issues at play, but to suggest that the disruption to our economy is nothing to do with Brexit is complete nonsense. We have a shortage of HGV drivers, food packers and staff in food processing plants, and it is time that that was faced up to. I was told yesterday by the Secretary of State for Business that there was no point in talking about the consequences of Brexit, as that would be re-fighting the battles of five years ago. That might explain why we are being told that Brexit has nothing to do with our empty supermarket shelves, which incidentally no country in the EU is experiencing. Global factors apparently affect the UK uniquely.
We can all understand the scepticism with which the Business Secretary’s words were met yesterday when he said there will be no energy shortage this winter. The truth is that we cannot believe a word this Government say. This is the Government who told us there would be no food shortages, no price rises and no fall in exports. The sunlit uplands that they presented as their vision of Brexit have become the nightmare about which we warned.
The harsh and cruel reality is that food prices are up, energy prices are up, inflation is up, pensioner poverty is up, child poverty is up and taxes are up, regressive as they are, and the Tory response to this cost of living crisis is to cut universal credit. Today’s debate is about poverty, which prevents people from reaching their potential and prevents children from achieving their best in school. It robs people of their good mental health and of their physical health. It is corrosive, it grinds people down and, ultimately, it kills them. I remember when this Government used to pretend to care about the just about managing, but now they seem to care for the just about managing just as much as they care for those who live in deep poverty.
Today we hear that the National Audit Office has discovered that the Department for Work and Pensions underpaid 134,000 pensioners by a total of more than £1 billion in state pension, and of course women are disproportionately affected. With the energy price cap rise, it will be a cold winter for many of my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran, but it has been wilfully and deliberately made colder by this Government’s £1,040 a year cut to universal credit. Shame on them. Their callous disregard for poverty shows with crystal clarity that the Conservative party is not fit to govern.
It would be laughable if it were not so serious. This bumbling Prime Minister pledged to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates. That is big talk from a Prime Minister who breaks pledges with ease, who is struggling to keep the lights on and who has insisted, despite the evidence to the contrary, that child poverty is falling. That view is brought to us by the same Prime Minister who said Brexit would lower energy prices.
I remember when, in 2012, the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) dismissed the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, and the then Chancellor, George Osborne, as “two arrogant posh boys” with
“no passion to want to understand the lives of others.”
I ask anyone sitting on the Conservative Benches if they would care to tell me what has changed. If it was true of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor then, by God how much truer is it now? I wonder what Conservative Members think of that.
The Prime Minister said today—this will put the fear of God into the House—that it will not be a tough winter. Let us hope he is right about something for once in his life, because we know that for too many in our constituencies it will indeed be a tough winter. This Government are not fit to govern and their so-called global Britain is not just an illusion but a laughing stock. It is a hallow phrase that means nothing to those who are struggling, and it is why so many of us in Scotland are sick to the back teeth of this cruel, nonsensical incompetence. We can and will take our future into our own hands and build a fairer, more equal, more compassionate society in an independent Scotland. We can then start to see what levelling up really looks like, instead of the shoddy window dressing we see before us.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I must be living in the same alternative universe as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) because I do not recognise any of the positive spin I have heard from Conservative Members this afternoon. They must be experiencing selective amnesia. Eleven years of draconian austerity measures have attacked some of our most deprived communities, particularly in Liverpool. They have robbed 63%—£450 million—from my great city, which has had a devastating impact on the most deprived.
In my constituency, we have some of the highest child poverty rates in the country, which rocket to 29.3%, compared with the national average of 19.1%. One quarter of the children in my constituency live in absolute poverty. This Government are making decisions to hit the income of those households that are completely unconscionable and must be stopped. Like most of my Labour colleagues, I receive lots of desperate emails. One of my constituents wrote to me to say that the thought of more cuts is making them physically and mentally unwell, and they fear that when these cuts go ahead, they will lose everything they have worked so hard for over the years. Another told me that they have just £100 to survive until their next pay day, which is still 26 days away. They described their heartbreaking daily cycle of hunger, worry and depression.
This Government’s proposals to cut UC, end furlough and hike national insurance, and now the rise in energy prices, is creating a Tory-manufactured cost-of-living crisis. This could not have come at a worse time, as the cost of living is rising. Income is down and workers are doing more work for less pay. We are experiencing fire and rehire, less wages, more work, and worse terms and conditions. How can this Government talk about levelling up while disproportionately taking money out of the pockets of low-paid people who are reliant on welfare payments? In my constituency, more than 6,200 people are in receipt of unemployment-related benefits, including UC, which in reality supports a huge number of working people. That represents about a 50% rise since the start of the pandemic. With the end of furlough, the cut to UC and the hike on taxes on working people, this Government are creating the perfect storm, driving working people further into poverty through a combination of welfare cuts, tax hikes and soaring living costs.
I wish to conclude by paying tribute to Liverpool City Council, the voluntary and community centres, and all of the law centres in my constituency for the amazing work they have done during this pandemic to support those in most need. I dread to think what would have happened without that amazing support.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to take part in this timely debate, as we surely head towards a cold Tory winter of discontent, of high prices, shortages and rising unemployment. I am privileged to represent a constituency in the north-east of Scotland, which is generally regarded as a prosperous area. It has certainly suffered from the oil and gas downturn over the past few years. It is still to benefit from the transition to renewable energy technologies that we all fervently hope to see, and it has certainly borne the brunt of the austerity agenda we have experienced in recent years. My constituency is a mix of urban and rural, taking in a slice of the north of the city of Aberdeen and extending out into the rural countryside, with its mix of small towns and villages. Although the economic statistics might show that it has one of the highest levels of gross value added in Scotland, never mind the UK and never mind Europe, that hides the reality of the experience for far too many who live there. Someone who went to the go-to data set of the Scottish index of multiple deprivation and looked at Aberdeenshire might pick out a handful of streets that would show a concentrated amount of deprivation, but that misses out important parts of the picture. It misses the individual stories hidden within, because the reality is that there is a significant amount of rural deprivation and a range of intersecting factors that contribute to that.
As I know myself, living in a small community, there is the perennial issue of trying to find childcare. The Scottish Government are tackling that with their 1,140 hours of free childcare, which it is no exaggeration to say will be an absolute game-changer for many in Scotland with young families.
There are the additional costs of heating, particularly for those who live off the grid. People who get their energy for heating and cooking from heating oil do not get the opportunity to shop around on MoneySuperMarket.com for the best suppliers. There is a limited number of suppliers and they have to buy in bulk. Despite some of the many laudable community initiatives that have come through the community planning system to try to take the edge off that for people, it is still an additional expense of rurality.
There are transport costs. Not everybody lives near a public transport link, so there is the added cost of having to run a car to get to work, get about and access public services when public transport is not always an option.
People have been hard-pressed by austerity for a number of years. It is easy for those who have never lived in such an environment or who have never experienced scarcity or shortage in any significant way themselves to fully understand how expensive it can be to be short of money. People buy what they can afford, not what lasts best. They pay more for their energy, particularly if they are, as many colleagues have said, trapped on a prepayment meter, with everything that goes with that. Access to credit and financial services is much harder and is often more expensive when it is available.
Deprivation also hits those who at one point might have been seen as doing well—we could call them, as some have, the precariat. A significant number of people right across Scotland and the UK are probably no more than a missed pay cheque or a significant household expense away from serious financial difficulties. Let me cite the example of a citizens advice bureau that is not in my constituency—it is in the neighbouring constituency to the south, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine—but covers areas of my constituency and I do not believe it is atypical. This citizens advice bureau is located in Westhill—in what would, on the surface, look like a prosperous set of communities there and roundabout—but it has one of the highest rates of people coming through its doors in search of debt advice.
Right across the north-east of Scotland, the use of food banks is common; not a community is unserved and, as we have heard, demand is, as in other areas, heading in only one direction, and sadly it is not down.
For me, tackling poverty means many things, but above all it means treating people as citizens, with dignity, and enabling them to participate fully in society on their own terms, shorn of the shame of being left without. What does it say of the UK Government that they have made a set of policy choices, particularly over the past fortnight, that seek to make it harder for families and individuals to provide that dignity for themselves and to participate as they might wish in wider society?
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the people in my constituency of Swansea West and elsewhere who voted in good faith for Brexit—for more money, more control and more jobs—have seen a sort of Brexit dividend, which is basically rising food prices, because of food barriers and a falling currency, and national insurance going up and universal credit going down? Does he think that the poorest should get an injection of money to make up for that, rather than being hammered?
Richard Thomson
The hon. Gentleman makes a succinct and powerful point about how people voted in good faith for something that has turned out to be a fiction and a fantasy. I would always argue for more money to help those who are most in need—there is also an economic benefit to that in the boosting of consumption—but one of the first steps we could take is not to take money away. If the hon. Gentleman waits patiently, he may hear that I have more to say on that later in my speech, but he makes a powerful point.
In the Minister’s response to the opening speech of the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), he spoke of the need to make tough choices. It is that macho rhetoric—fine, easy words that fall a great deal harder on those on whom those choices impact than they do on the perennial Conservative and Unionist party’s self-conceit of being a party of low taxation, which it seldom ever lives up to in office in any meaningful way.
Those tough choices come with very long-standing consequences: they impact on people’s children; they impact on family life and well-being; they impact on a person’s health; they impact on their self-esteem; they impact on their opportunities; and they impact on life chances, and they do so across generations.
In the past fortnight alone, we have seen the triple lock gone, removing the link between earnings and pensions. We have seen the end of furlough. We have seen the £1,040 cut to universal credit. We have seen a breaking of the manifesto promise not to increase national insurance, in a move that will hit the youngest and the poorest the hardest and that will embed generational and geographical inequalities and bake them into our social and economic reality for generations to come. As has been said, this has all been exacerbated by Brexit, with the shortages of products that that will bring, allied to an accompanying increase in prices.
Kirsty Blackman
Does my hon. Friend feel that, after a decade of austerity, after all the hits from Brexit, and after covid, this is the worst possible time to be taking money away from people?
Richard Thomson
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I was deficient—I should have said what a magnificent speech she made earlier on, encapsulating as it did what it really means to be without and to be in search of that dignity. She is absolutely correct in what she says: this is absolutely the worst time to be taking away that support. It is almost like the Chancellor has gone out to the pub for a round of drinks. He has carried the drinks away from the bar—it was a very complicated order—and staggered across the floor with a big tray, and when he is about one yard from the table, he drops the whole lot, and leaves it smashed on the floor. It is the same with the economy, having carried it thus far. It is inept to say the least.
Richard Thomson
I will give way with great pleasure. The hon. Gentleman has been waiting some considerable amount of time, so I cannot wait to hear what he has to say.
Douglas Ross
I always wait a long time to hear from the hon. Gentleman. He is speaking about the worst possible decision at the worst possible time. As we face a global energy crisis, does he not agree that it is the worst possible decision to allow the Greens into a coalition Government in Scotland, and does he agree that it will affect my Moray constituents and his Gordon constituents if they get their way and have the oil industry transition or die and shut down in the next 10 years?
Richard Thomson
That is surprising for a gentleman who has served in both Parliaments. I would have expected him to be quite au fait with the constitutional settlement. There is no decision that can ever be taken in Holyrood that would bring about the situation that he describes. [Interruption.] When I am on my feet, the hon. Gentleman needs to be in his seat, as I believe he said last week to somebody more senior than either of us for the moment. Nevertheless, the Scottish Government have managed, through this deal with the Greens, to invest money in the energy transition. There is actually money on the table—money that has not been put on the table by the UK Government despite their big words. They are delivering infrastructure for my constituents, with investment in roads and the examination of possible future investment in rail. I am certain that the benefits will fall through to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and to Moray as well, even though I have absolutely no doubt that he will find the worst possible angle that he can try to put on it for his election leaflets when he is next up for election.
We have a UK Government who speak the language of levelling up, while simultaneously grinding down on those who work the hardest and those who have the least. I personally would much rather that we judge their efforts on the fairness that they exhibit in their approach to Government and the equality of opportunity that can be offered to all regardless of means or background to deliver the improved outcomes that we all strive for.
If we want to build back better and build back fairer, Scotland quite clearly needs to be well away from the baleful influence of Conservatives in this place and from the continued rule of Westminster Conservative Governments.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
What an excellent debate it has been. It was good to hear the maiden speech from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer), a number of contributions from the north-east, and different experiences from colleagues across the House.
Many colleagues thanked the volunteers who run food banks. I was reflecting that when I first began contributing to civic life as a councillor, it was all about opening Sure Start centres, and going to see new science labs at secondary schools, new running tracks and new additions to leisure centres—all those hopeful things that we were doing nearly 20 years ago. What a difficult winter we have ahead of us, when we are all talking about visiting food banks on our constituency days. Last Friday I visited Naomi from Highgate, who has a distribution point in her garage. There are soup kitchens run by Mary in Bounds Green and by Ann in Middle Lane in Hornsey. This is the reality of constituency life now and it is hard to compare the two situations: the first, a sense of hope and opportunity for future generations; and now, a dim and difficult winter ahead.
The 8.3% increase in food prices will bring a great deal of difficulty to households that will already be clobbered by the universal credit cut, if it goes ahead—it is not too late to do a U-turn. That £20 less a week will have a huge impact, not only on the families in our constituencies, but on the high street. How many of us are seeing closed shop fronts because people do not have the money in their pockets to keep things going? Next April, the increased national insurance contribution will come to the fore and people will be clobbered again—more taxation than the 1950s. According to Zoopla, rents are up by 5% in the last 12 months. Rail fares are also up, in some cases by thousands of pounds, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) mentioned.
Let me turn to local authorities. As a vice chair of the Local Government Association, I am extremely concerned about the difficult decisions that local councillors will have to make. In my experience, local councillors—regardless of party—do not actually like putting up council tax, but unfortunately once again council tax will be going up, because they will have to pay for the new national insurance contributions, which will be payable by local authorities for all the new staff needed to tackle the NHS backlog. Taking on more health and social care staff is great, but it will have a double impact because the public sector will be paying twice.
This is the third most expensive country globally for putting children into childcare if we need to rush out to work. It is wonderful to have more women and more parents in work, but the cost for people with two children under the age of five or six is enormous.
We have had the debate on energy prices at length today. We are going to be paying at least £7 a week more, and that is a very modest assessment by the Financial Times today. The £20 cut, plus the £7 increase, plus the 8.3% increase in food prices means that we are looking at a really difficult winter.
There is also the impact on children in schools where the pupil premium has been cut. In Hornsey and Wood Green, in my local government area of Haringey, there has been a £600,000 cut to the pupil premium. The fact that schools will be reducing their staff and their input will just add to the terrible cuts to household budgets.
We face a really difficult time. This has been an excellent debate. There is still time for the Government to change their mind on this added pain for working people. I hope that they will reconsider this foolish decision and its timing, as the recovery is not yet home and secure. I ask them please to think again.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank Members who have contributed to today’s debate. We have heard excellent and very thoughtful speeches from Members in all parts of the House, but particularly from those on the Labour Benches.
This debate is not about whether taxes should go up to fund services; it is about the fairness of clobbering working people with tax rises after a global economic crisis and at a time when living standards are being squeezed because prices are going up. We have heard moving stories from my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), for Islwyn (Chris Evans), for Blaydon (Liz Twist), for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), for Slough (Mr Dhesi), for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) about how hard life is becoming for working people in their constituencies.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) said in her opening comments, this is a debate about the choices the Government have made over the decade they have been in power: the choices they made during the pandemic and the choices they are making now as life slowly returns to normal. It was the Conservatives’ choice last year to force a 5% council tax rise after their costly mistakes and their delay in locking down led our country into the worst recession of any major economy. It was the Conservatives’ choice to cut universal credit, an absolute lifeline for so many working people while prices are on the rise, tipping many working families over the edge into debt and leaving them fearful about the future, as we heard so eloquently from many hon. and right hon. Members.
It is the Conservatives’ choice to clobber working families with a national insurance tax hike rather than ask those with the broadest shoulders to pay their fair share. How can it be right that a landlord who rents out a portfolio of properties does not pay a single penny more while their working tenants get clobbered with tax rises? How can it be fair that the care workers we all clapped last year are this year rewarded with a cut in their take-home pay—no rise in pay, just a Tory rise in their taxes? That is not what the country expected. It is certainly not what those heroes on the frontline deserve. The national insurance tax rise breaks the manifesto pledge that every single Conservative Member was elected on less than two years ago: a pledge so important that the Prime Minister highlighted it in his personal foreword to the manifesto that every single Conservative MP was elected on. Every one of them has broken their promises and has broken trust with the voters who sent them here.
So what will working families get in return for these manifesto-busting Tory tax hikes? What is the gain for all the pain? The Prime Minister told us that this tax increase would pay for his plan for social care—except, of course, the Conservatives’ social care plan does not fix the social care crisis. The Prime Minister told us on his very first day in Downing Street that he had a plan to fix social care. Strangely, he kept that plan hidden for three years. We waited all that time without seeing a dot or a comma of the plan that he supposedly already had ready. When he finally unveiled it, he rushed through a vote on it within 24 hours in a desperate bid to avoid scrutiny. As we read in The Times, he bludgeoned those brave few Conservative MPs who still think keeping their tax promises matters with threats to cut off investment and punish their constituents—the people that voted to send them here in the first place.
The Prime Minister railroaded such an important policy through with such desperate haste because he wanted to push it through before anyone noticed that there is nothing extra for social care for at least three years. In fact, there will not be any extra money ever unless the Government plan to cut the NHS again at some point in the future. Astonishingly, this back-of-an-envelope plan could actually lead to cuts in social care. If councils have to pay increased employers’ national insurance contributions, they will have to cut services or put up council tax even more to pay for it, and care homes are reporting that if the Government do not fund the lost cross-subsidies from private purchasers, they will go bust. The Prime Minister cannot even guarantee that older people will not have to sell their home to pay for social care. That is another election promise smashed to smithereens. The cap on costs does not include accommodation, so people in care will still face charges totalling hundreds of pounds a week even after they have reached the cap.
Where will people living in a town in the north of England in a house worth £180,000 find the £85,000 plus the tens of thousands in accommodation costs that the Government expect them to pay without selling their home? Are the Conservatives so out of touch that they think most people have that kind of money stashed away in savings accounts? They do not. What kind of plan for social care ends up costing working families more while cutting the services they are paying for and closing down the care homes they need to use while still forcing older people to sell their homes? Only a totally botched plan from these tax-hiking, pledge-busting Conservatives.
The Government’s failure on social care means that councils have been left with a £2.7 billion black hole in their social care budgets. Since the national insurance tax hike will not plug that gap because not a penny is going on social care, what do the Government expect councils to do next April, faced with that dilemma? We need not wonder, because it is all right there in black and white in the social care plan—it could not be clearer. It says:
“We expect demographic and unit cost pressures will be met through council tax”.
That is why the Health and Social Care Secretary could not rule out tax rises last week and why I strongly suspect that the Minister will not rule them out in her contribution.
The Prime Minister has primed a council tax bombshell ready to go off next April. The Conservatives will clobber working families with a triple tax whammy, with yet another Conservative council tax hike next year on top of the Conservative council tax hike this year. That is on top of the Conservative national insurance tax hike, and that is on top of the Conservative cut to universal credit. They just cannot help themselves—they are Tory taxaholics.
Earlier this year, the Government’s inflation-busting council tax rise hit working families in the pocket, with the economy struggling to recover after the worst crisis of any major economy. Their council tax hike next year will land on people’s doormats after a winter of rising inflation and rising energy prices. The average band D council tax rate looks set to top £2,000 a year by 2024. Let me tell them here and now that working families simply cannot afford it.
The pain does not end there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South said in her opening remarks, when social care costs outstrip the funding that councils have available, they are forced to cut other services—even after the Conservatives’ council tax hikes. Just count the cost to communities of these Conservative choices: libraries cut; youth services cut; children’s centres cut; and even public toilets cut. Thanks to the Conservatives, councils are cutting everything except the grass. The message to the public is loud and clear: pay more but get less under the Conservatives.
The headwinds facing working people this year are reaching gale force. Prices are up. Energy costs are up. Taxes are up. Rents are up. Childcare costs are up. Rail fares are up. The only thing going down is wages, which are still lower than under the last Labour Government.
The supermarkets are running out of fresh fruit and vegetables thanks to the Government’s incompetence, but, because household incomes are under so much pressure, many people could not afford to buy them anyway. What a state they have left our country in. Put simply, the country faces a Tory winter of discontent. Working families are facing a squeeze in their living standards that they simply cannot afford, all because of the bad choices, broken promises and sheer crass incompetence of this failing Conservative Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in this important and wide-ranging debate. I will endeavour to respond to as many points raised as possible in the time I have. First, the Opposition have focused on benefits today, but the reality is that this debate is about working people. It is about people in work getting the right support that raises them out of poverty, and benefits are our safety net.
Let me turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer), who made her maiden speech. She spoke about the value she will bring to this place as the first Conservative elected for her constituency, and about her unwavering determination to be here. The fact is that she will be a strong voice in this House, and we welcome her heartily.
The hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) spoke about the price of food. I know the incredible strength of her community and what the pandemic has done across many of our communities. We have all worked together to support those communities. Let us commend all the communities and people who have stepped forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) spoke about the important investment this Government have made in young people, our support for restart and the emergence of the global economy, which is creating challenges for everybody.
The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans)—and I thought this was a very important matter—raised the issue of water prices, but also his deep frustration about the impact of loss of water. I have seen that in my own constituency, and that was welcome to hear.
There was an excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), who spoke about the business support in this area, the protection of jobs and the fact that there had been hardship help with council tax bills. He said that we need high skills and to see the impact of T-levels, and this Government are making that happen.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) spoke about Shaun and the mental health impact of the never-ending spiral of poverty, which was absolutely harrowing to hear. Our in-work progression focus will absolutely help people such as Shaun. Our work coaches transform the lives of people like Shaun every day, and we stand ready to help.
The hon. Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) shared her shopping habits, which I very much enjoyed. It was very reassuring to hear that she really understood the value of the DWP to her community.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
This debate is all about jobs. Does the Minister agree that the reopening of the Amlwch jobcentre will ensure that my constituents across Ynys Môn get access to hundreds of new jobs?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend, and she gives me the opportunity to speak about our unwavering support for the most vulnerable people in our society. Week in and week out, the doors of our jobcentres have remained open for the most vulnerable, but that particular jobcentre has been very difficult to get open safely. I am delighted it is opening imminently, and I know what an impact it has in her community and how much work she does to support that community.
To turn to the thoughtful contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), she spoke about the hiring opportunities, the opportunities of rising wages and of course the challenges of raising a family, which we all know.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) rightly raised the cost of broadband. I am happy to say that at the DWP we have a social tariff available. We want to support people on low incomes who need specific help, and we have specific support through the benefits system and the flexible support fund. She should be reassured by that.
There is so much more I would like to say. There was the passionate contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). There was the speech from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), who should please look at the strategy in the disability Green Paper and have a look at the impact of auto-enrolment, which I think will reassure her.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) mentioned the value of UC and how it had supported many people, and he asked about our plan. We have had a plan for jobs since last July, and I will go on to make further comments shortly.
We in this House engage weekly in our surgeries with constituents who are in times of need, and nobody could have foreseen how difficult the last 18 months or so were going to be for our society because of a global pandemic. Members have raised various challenges faced by their constituents in different sectors, and they are important matters, but it must be noted that many constituents on UC are working, which is exactly why we have a taper rate to support people. There is no cliff edge on UC—if you work hard, UC helps you to keep more of your money.
Through this pandemic the Government have recognised that people needed significant additional support and have stepped in to help pay the wages of millions of workers, investing over £400 billion in an unprecedented package of support, protecting jobs and safeguarding livelihoods, as we have heard throughout this afternoon. Our plan for jobs, which I have been delivering on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions, is wide-ranging. The package includes kickstart, restart, doubling the number of our work coaches, job entry targeted support, job finding support, sector-based work academy programmes, our enhanced youth offer and new DWP youth hubs, and a significant expansion of our jobcentre network, allowing us to assist our claimants, some for the first time in their lives, with not only benefit support and advice but opportunities to progress or transition to a different sector and harness their skills in a new way.
Mr Holden
Does the Minister agree that the best way to help people, especially those changing jobs, is to do everything we can through jobcentres? I thank the Consett, Stanley and Crook jobcentres for attending my recent “jobs, jobs, jobs” fair at Derwentside College in North West Durham, which the Pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), also kindly came along to. Does the Minister also agree that it is incumbent on all Members to do everything they can to help all their constituents get into new jobs given the record numbers of vacancies across the country?
Mims Davies
Absolutely: jobs, jobs, jobs is the right message, but very little of that has been heard in the Chamber this afternoon from those on the Opposition Benches. On jobs fairs, it is vital that people come through our doors and see what is out there, because it is time once again to be, as this Government are being, forward-thinking, pragmatic and responsible as we push to build back better. The reality is that it is unsustainable to carry on spending the amount that we have been on welfare measures during this pandemic without ongoing increases in public expenditure, which Opposition Members have complained about. Inevitably, that would also affect working people’s taxes—which is what the debate is about.
The extra provision this Government have provided during the pandemic was temporary, to deal with the pandemic head on. Now that public health restrictions have been relaxed, it is right that these temporary support measures come to an end. Of course we also have our successful vaccine roll-out, and pleasingly—we must remember this—we are no longer in the same situation we were in at the turn of the year, and nor is our labour market. We have been able to reopen society, and our economy is recovering strongly. Growth is forecast by the OECD to be 7.2% this year, reflecting the bounce back we are already seeing right across the UK. So it is a time to be bold and empower people to harness their opportunities and help them progress on to their next stage—to give people both the hope and the skills and training they need to thrive in this changing economy.
Kirsty Blackman
What would the Minister say to the working parent who is already trying to juggle hours around childcare and who cannot simply pick up another few hours of work a week? How are they going to make up this shortfall?
Mims Davies
I would say, “Talk to your work coach.” We heard from two hon. Members from Liverpool today. I was in the Toxteth jobcentre meeting the first people taking the digital online level 3 programme, which people can earn a lot more money by taking part in. There are so many opportunities in jobcentres. I know that the hon. Lady has not been to her jobcentre recently, because I checked. Please do go and visit.
Mims Davies
I will make some progress, because I think it is important to talk about the 1 million vacancies that we have in our economy. We have jobs in growing and emerging sectors; we have green jobs, we have tech roles, and they can all be accessed through our jobcentres.
I am determined to help those with the biggest barriers to move closer to the labour market, to ensure that, as the hon. Lady says, people progress into work and see the reward for their efforts, and to help people increase their hours or get into work for the first time, like—I must correct the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke)—the more than 69,000 young people who are now in kickstart roles, on that important first rung of the career ladder.
My message today to everyone in the Chamber and everyone looking in is: if you want to progress in this jobs market, whoever you are, wherever you are—at any age or any stage—we are here for you. We will get behind you. We have dedicated work coaches, and we have boosted them by 13,500 as part of our plan for jobs. We will give you tailored support and we will help you progress. We will not leave you behind.
We are directly investing in our young people most at risk of long-term unemployment with the £2 billion kickstart scheme, a life-changing scheme of a six-month work placement—a springboard into a future career. With over 188,000—I got it right this time—kickstart roles, young people must turn to their work coaches to hear about these amazing opportunities.
Meanwhile, I must let the House know that we have a new youth hub across every Jobcentre Plus district throughout England, Scotland and Wales. By Christmas, we will have 150 new youth hubs open. These are valuable new partnerships—interventions for direct life chances—with local councils, football clubs, charities such as the Prince’s Trust, and local training providers.
We are also seeing lives changed by our job entry targeted support programme, which is known as JETS, with over 25,000 people starting new jobs since our plan for jobs was launched. That is not forgetting our £2.9 billion restart scheme, which will, crucially, help those who are leaving furlough. We have also refreshed our “50 PLUS: Choices” offer, and we have stronger support for those who need any extra skills through our lifetime skills guarantee.
I am passionate—I hope the House has noticed it this evening—about getting people into jobs, but also about progressing people when they are in work. This Government’s longer-term ambition remains to build an economy that ensures that everyone, no matter what their background, has the opportunities to enter work and progress out of low pay.
We are absolutely taking action. The in-work progression commission was launched in March 2020 by the DWP. We will respond shortly to its report, but it is all about getting that understanding about the barriers that people in low pay face and, crucially, as we talked about this afternoon, ensuring that work remains the best route out of poverty.
Our plan for jobs programme is also helping claimants to gain the skills they need to progress in work. Our sector-based work academy programmes—SWAPs—are helping people get new skills to retrain and pivot into growing sectors, from viticulture to construction, infrastructure and social care. Haulage has been mentioned this afternoon; we have a programme in that, too. We also have DWP Train and Progress, which provides the ability to access the Department for Education skills bootcamps in growing sectors. With over a million—
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Business without Debate
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Will Members leaving the Chamber please show a little bit of courtesy to others by doing so quietly?
Kirsty Blackman
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice because the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), has just left the Chamber.
The hon. Member said that she had checked and that I had not visited my local jobcentre in recent times. In fact, my local jobcentre was closed from the start of the pandemic until 26 April this year, when it was only allowing entry to people who had been requested to attend. I was contacted by the jobcentre recently, we had a “back and forth”, and I asked if I could visit. The jobcentre refused me that opportunity, because it is only doing virtual tours at the moment. I would appreciate it if the hon. Member could confirm that I have not had an opportunity to visit my local jobcentre, but I will be taking part in a virtual tour and speaking to the manager on Monday.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point of order. However, she will appreciate that it is not a point of order for the Chair, but a continuation of the previous debate. I understand why she wants to set the record straight, and I am sure that the Minister will hear what she said in due course and will appreciate her contribution.
Cawston Park Hospital: Norfolk Safeguarding Adults Board Review
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
We are here this evening because of Joanna, Jon and Ben. Joanna had autism and was epileptic, Jon was autistic too, and Ben had Down’s syndrome. Their learning disabilities led to mental health difficulties, and they were consequently sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 and sent to the private Jeesal Cawston Park Hospital in my constituency. It is an assessment and treatment unit, and assessment and treatment is exactly what was meant to happen to these people: they were meant to be assessed and then treated, the objective being their discharge back into community care. But that did not happen.
Joanna was kept in the hospital for 11 months before she died in April 2018. Jon was kept in the hospital for 24 months before he died in October 2019. Ben was kept in the hospital for 17 months before he, too, died, in July 2020. All of them were in their early 30s, and all of them suffered from neglect. They were neglected through uncontrolled weight gain, through a lack of meaningful physical or mental activities, and through a lack of effective treatment through continuous positive airway pressure—CPAP—machines, which help people to sleep at night. The staff neglected the raising of concerns by members of their families; and, worst of all, they neglected even to attempt to resuscitate them when resuscitation was desperately needed.
Joanna was found unresponsive in her bed. A nurse and five carers—all of them trained—attended, but not a single one attempted resuscitation. Joanna died. Jon had swallowed a piece of a plastic cup. He told staff:
“I cannot breathe. I am dying.”
The CCTV footage proves that the staff just stood there for several minutes without attempting resuscitation. He died.
The day before Ben died, it was obvious that he was extremely unwell. He had blue lips and blue nails because of a lack of saturated oxygen in his blood. His mother was there on a visit and she raised the alarm. She demanded that an ambulance be called, but the hospital refused. Even later that day when Ben’s oxygen saturation levels were measured and found to be 35%, no ambulance was called. He died. The hospital neglected the families, and neglected to use their expertise and experience.
The families describe indifferent, harmful hospital practices, excessive use of restraint and seclusion by unqualified staff, and overmedication. A mother has contacted me in the past week to describe her child’s matted hair, her uncut fingernails and toenails, and the soiled clothing piled in a corner of the room. By chance, CCTV footage reviewed after Ben’s death uncovered a casual physical assault on him by a carer on the day he died. He was pulled down by his arms and then slapped around the head. What have we not seen?
This was supposed to be a specialist assessment and treatment unit, yet records were not even kept by the hospital for prolonged periods. Joanna was at the hospital for 11 months, but there are no records for 179 days of those 11 months. Ben was there for 17 months, but for an amazing 450 days during that 17-month period, no records were kept. So what assessment was undertaken? What treatment was given? My first request of the Minister is this: we need to acknowledge the scale of this scandal and its impact on real people, the most vulnerable in our society. We also need to acknowledge that we should all be ashamed.
This is not unique. We have heard this before. It sounds familiar, and that is because exactly the same thing happened at Winterbourne View Hospital back in 2012. We have had the report. This was another assessment and treatment unit where people with learning disabilities or autism were abused. The 2012 report criticised the development of assessment and treatment units, saying that they were
“not part of current policy, and certainly not recommended practice…Containment rather than personalised care and support has too easily become the pattern in these institutions.”
Of course lessons were learned. Department of Health reports described the abuse of people at Winterbourne View Hospital as “horrifying”. A Department of Health programme of action was agreed, and I have it with me today. Following the statement:
“We the undersigned commit to a programme for change”,
the very first undertaking is that
“Health and Care Commissioners will review all current hospital placements and support everyone inappropriately placed in hospital to move to community-based support as quickly as possible and no later than 1 June 2014.”
That did not happen. Today, in 2021, more than 2,000 patients are still contained in assessment and treatment units. I use the word advisedly: they are “contained”.
This is my second request to the Minister. Will she, on behalf of the Government, recommit this evening to the needed closure of all assessment and treatment units? That is what the coalition Government committed to doing in 2012, but by 2014 it had still not been done. We need to do it now. Why do we need to do it? There is a monumental conflict of interest for these private hospitals. Beyond being merely inhumane, there is a huge commercial incentive to maintain residency, because each of these patients comes with a fat cheque of £26,000 per month.
We can see where the conflict lies and why one family member, when they went to Cawston Park Hospital, was handed a piece of paper on which was written the address of a firm of solicitors. Her statement said:
“Once people are in Cawston Park Hospital you can’t get them out.”
Patients did not leave Cawston Park Hospital, and the problem is structural. If a hospital is paid £26,000 a month to assess and treat a patient, is it surprising that the hospital does not release them?
We have had another review of this latest scandal, and the Norfolk Safeguarding Adults Board’s review of Cawston Park Hospital is excellent. I have read it. It is 105 pages long and there are 13 recommendations. I recommend it wholeheartedly to the Minister, and the Government should apply all the recommendations.
The report has been followed by the usual handwringing responses from the agencies. Action plans have been created and there have been multidisciplinary stakeholder reviews. Profound apologies have been given, and I believe they are profound apologies. Lessons have been learned, but in my submission they have not really been learned, because without a profound culture change in residential care, we will be back here again. We all know it and the public know it.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate on the tragic events in Norfolk and for the powerful case he is making.
One of the most alarming elements of this very shocking report is the final hours of Ben, which my hon. Friend mentioned. Ben’s mum, Gina, said:
“If you ill-treat an animal, you get put in prison. But people ill-treated my son and they’re still free.”
That is completely unacceptable, and the police and the authorities should look again at all the leads and all the evidence to hold those people to account.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that management teams and owners should personally fear prison as a response to a culture failure. If a culture of neglect is tolerated by their acts or, more likely, by their omissions, there needs to be personal liability. People need to fear prison, because there will be no change without individuals being held personally to account for allowing this culture of indifference. I profoundly hope that the most rigorous investigations are undertaken by the police and the Care Quality Commission, with a focus on individual prosecutions if justified by the evidence. There have been no prosecutions to date.
More generally, and widening the conversation away from the individual, directors need to be held to account if we are to restore public trust in the system. The Law Commission is aware of this, and it is undertaking a consultation on the issue of corporate criminal liability. It is consulting on how we can make improvements primarily, in the first instance, in economic crime, but how much more important is it to get equity where the victims are the most vulnerable in society, people in care, people who cannot argue their own case because of their age, because of illness or because of their condition?
The current rules on the definition of a controlling mind are often too narrow for individual prosecutions to succeed. The legislation has been on the statute book since about 2007, and there have been hardly any successful prosecutions because of that narrow definition. This needs to be changed.
I am meeting the Law Commission in October, along with the authors of the Safeguarding Adults Board review, to press the case for a widening of the definition to make the people who run such hospitals fear personal prosecution, because that is how we will change the culture.
That leads me to my third request of the Minister. If she really wants to prevent a repeat, will her Department commit to making a submission to the Law Commission consultation on criminal corporate liability so that we strengthen the personal responsibility for providers of residential care? The Chinese general Sun Tzu, who is very famous now, said “Kill one, terrify 1,000”, and he was right. The problem is that families of patients are concerned; they are the ones who are fearful and have no confidence in the current system. They fear the consequences and we need to change that; it should be the directors of care businesses. If they allow abuse and neglect, they should be fearful—they should pay with the fear of a prison sentence. Only then will we get change.
The Minister for Care (Gillian Keegan)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) for securing this debate on this deeply disturbing, upsetting and important topic, and for his continued work on exposing the failings at Cawston Park.
I would like to begin by expressing my sympathy for the families, friends and loved ones of Joanna, “Jon”, as he is referred to in reporting, and Ben. These are three people whose lives were cut short tragically and needlessly. The accounts of their experiences at Cawston Park Hospital, a place that should have been there to care for and support them, are heartbreaking. I can only imagine how distressing it would have been for their families and loved ones to read about the events leading up to their deaths. I send the families of Ben, Jon and Joanna my deep condolences, and I would like to invite them to meet me so that I can understand their experiences directly—I would be happy for my hon. Friend to join me in those meetings.
I would also like to thank those who have shared their experiences of the services and support at Cawston Park, and the Norfolk Safeguarding Adults Board for under-taking the review and preparing the final report. That is essential for shining a light on what has happened. I know that my officials are in dialogue with the board to identify how recommendations can be progressed as impactfully and as quickly as possible. I believe they met today.
The appalling care and practice uncovered at Cawston Park is completely unacceptable. Every person with a learning disability, and every autistic person who needs it, must receive safe and high-quality care, and they must be treated with dignity and respect. Both my hon. Friend and I have dearly loved family members who have Down’s syndrome and know many people with autism, and we are horrified to think that vulnerable people who put such trust in others for support would be treated in such an appalling way.
I recognise and acknowledge the frustration and strength of feeling about the issues raised today. The Department is working with the NHS, local government and the Care Quality Commission to ensure that we identify unacceptable care with urgency and take robust action immediately. I can confirm that Cawston Park closed in May, following action taken by the CQC, and all of the people who were in-patients at Cawston Park have moved either to a supported community setting or to an alternative hospital setting, where immediate discharge was not possible.
I appreciate that everyone listening will want assurance that anyone with a learning disability and any autistic person in one of those hospitals—any one of the 2,000 people he mentioned—is safe. NHS England’s reviews of each individual person’s care arrangements will ensure that there is a clear care plan in place with a clear path to discharge. Such treatment where there were no clear paths to discharge must not happen again.
More broadly, I welcome this opportunity to set out the work that is under way to eliminate poor-quality in-patient settings and properly invest in the community alternatives that people with a learning disability and people with autism deserve.
As the regulator for mental health hospitals, the CQC has a central role in identifying any cases of poor in- patient care and taking immediate action. The Department fully endorses the increased scrutiny by the CQC and its improved inspection approach, which includes spending more time with patients and their families to identify settings that are at risk of developing a closed culture. In particular, the CQC takes more account of what families have to say. The enhanced processes have revealed cases in which quality falls below the standards we expect. Where that is the case, robust regulatory action is being taken. We must not tolerate poor care and treatment, and any provider that cannot meet standards should be tackled immediately, including through closures.
In the report, families describe the excessive use of restraint and seclusion by unqualified staff. Any kind of restrictive practice or restraint should only ever be used as a last resort. The Department is taking action to increase the transparency and reporting of the use of restrictive practices, in response to the recommendations made by the CQC in its review of the use of restraint, seclusion and segregation. Increased transparency is a central aim of the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018 statutory guidance, on which we have recently consulted. Work is now under way to commence the Act from November 2021.
As part our longer-term plans to limit the unnecessary detention of people with a learning disability and autistic people, we are seeking to implement once-in-a-generation reforms to the Mental Health Act. Under our proposed reforms, we will limit the scope to detain people with a learning disability or autism for treatment if there is no diagnosed mental health cause for distressed behaviour. To support that, the proposed reforms will create new duties for commissioners to ensure an adequate supply of community services and that every local area understands and monitors the risk of crisis at an individual level. For those who continue to require in-patient care, we are clear that this should be for the shortest time possible, as close to home as possible and the least restrictive possible.
Alongside the longer-term plans to improve in-patient care and support, the situations outlined in the review of Cawston Park highlight the need for urgent action in quicker time. That will require cross-system, cross-Government action in a number of priority areas that have historically presented blockages to progress. The Government are taking action specifically to target such blockages, ranging from identifying best practice models in the community to ensuring that the right workforce with the right training is in place.
In closing, I thank Members for their contributions on this important topic and their commitment to ensuring that people with a learning disability and autistic people receive the high-quality care and support that they deserve. The CQC’s robust inspections are helping us to identify and prevent cases of unacceptable care, such as that of Cawston Park. It is our priority—and my personal priority—to reduce reliance on in-patient care. I have set out today the range of work that is under way not only to reduce in-patient numbers but to drive real change in the care that is available to people with learning disabilities and autistic people, to enable them to live fulfilling lives in the community, as we all want. All our actions will be shaped by the Norfolk Safeguarding Adults Board review report, to ensure that the experiences of Ben, Jon and Joanna are not repeated.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Organics (Equivalence and Control Bodies Listing) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, may I remind Members that the current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission is that Members wear masks when they are not speaking? Please may I also ask you to give Members and staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room?
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Organics (Equivalence and Control Bodies Listing) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
It is great pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
The statutory instrument was made to streamline the process of listing and accessing the third countries and third-country control bodies that we recognise as compliant and equivalent for the purposes of our organic regulations. The amendments made by the SI do not constitute policy change.
As established in the Northern Ireland protocol, EU organics regulations will continue to apply to Northern Ireland as they do in the EU. As such, Northern Ireland will continue to use the list of recognised third countries and third-country control bodies in EU law, and the SI will have no effect in Northern Ireland although it will in the other three nations of the UK.
For organic products imported from another country to be legally sold as organic in Great Britain they must be certified as organic by a third country or third-country control body that we recognise as having equivalent or compliant standards. The lists are currently contained within regulation EC No 1235/2008. Annex III lists third countries recognised as equivalent, giving the names and websites of the competent authority for each country, along with a list of the control bodies operating in that country, their control body codes, and websites. Annex IV lists third-country control bodies recognised as equivalent, providing for each the name, address, website, code numbers, applicable countries and product categories listed.
As the law stands, it would be necessary to pass a new SI to confirm recognition of a new country or control body, or for changes to existing recognition, for example if the name, website address or approved goods categories changed. With hundreds of organisations listed, that information can change frequently. When we were in the EU, a committee met, not Parliament, several times a year to agree minor changes related to addresses and so forth. Because it met only several times a year, the current retained regulations are not absolutely up to date. Given the administrative nature of the changes, we believe that making numerous new statutory instruments to reflect them would not be an appropriate use of parliamentary time, or, indeed, any of our time. We also worry that the time taken to pass such SIs would have a negative impact on trade in organics.
Details held in these lists are necessary and important for port health authorities, local authorities, and other relevant parties to ensure that the goods in question have been certified in a recognised third country, or by a recognised third-country control body. The delay between the changes taking place and being reflected in legislation would result in discrepancies between the documents and legislation. That could well cause disruption, as even minor discrepancies might delay goods being checked at ports, for example.
The SI will not alter the criteria according to which third countries and third-country control bodies are recognised. At the moment, we recognise 13 countries, plus the EU, and about 55 control bodies. Before we recognise a country or control body we do an extensive technical comparison of standards. The SI just seeks to move the lists currently referenced in legislation to the gov.uk website, where they can be updated directly by officials. In listing any new country, we will continue to uphold the high standards that our consumers and businesses expect.
That change will also improve accessibility of the lists for stakeholders by providing all the relevant information in a single location. We expect the change to be warmly welcomed by stakeholders as they have complained about the current system in the past. The proposed lists on gov.uk will be updated to reflect the terms of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and extend EU organic equivalence until the end of December 2023 as agreed in the TCA, without the need to pass any more SIs on the subject.
The UK has committed to updating the lists of recognised third countries and third- country control bodies to reflect the changes that occurred before the end of the transition period. We will add, remove and amend some of the control bodies in both Annex III and Annex IV. Until the SI comes into effect, goods certified by those control bodies risk rejection at the border.
The changes contained in the SI have been discussed with port health authorities; UK organic control bodies, through the UK Organic Certifiers Group; and the Devolved Administrations at the UK Organics Four Nations Working Group. All of them have warmly welcomed the changes and I therefore commend the SI to the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve once again with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place—elevated no less—and also surrounded by lots of hon. Friends. It is wonderful to see so many people here. I also understand that an additional Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister has been added to the team. I take it that that is no doubt a response to the ferocious onslaught from the Opposition Benches over many years. Although it may not be clear who is doing what yet, I hope that the Minister retains her responsibility for cats—I am sure that she will—and organics.
We have discussed this issue many times, and at first sight the proposed SI is thoroughly innocuous. I should start by reassuring everyone that, looking at the numbers present, the Opposition will not press the motion to a Division—[Interruption.] Well, we are not used to winning. At first sight, the proposals are reasonable, and the desire to streamline the UK’s organic regulatory framework is clearly laudable, but I want to raise some issues, not least those raised by the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It does excellent work, and its in-depth examination of the instrument is exemplary. There has been some to-ing and fro-ing between the Committee and the Department as the Committee wrote seeking answers—those answers were quite hard to find hidden as they were in appendix 1—and those questions are worth putting on the record today.
The Lords Scrutiny Committee made the strong point that the SI will result in the loss of parliamentary oversight. Perhaps that is a minor issue for some, but I think it is rather important. As the Minister has outlined, in the explanatory memorandum DEFRA justified the decision to change the process to an administrative one by arguing that the current process can be very time-consuming and take up to a year. That rather prompts the question why it has to take that time to get an SI through. The Scrutiny Committee certainly did not find that a particularly convincing argument. It does not have to take a year to do things—in the last week or two we have noticed how legislation can be rammed through Parliament very quickly when the will is there. It should not take us a year to consider SIs, and nor is that a good enough reason to withdraw parliamentary oversight from this process.
The Lords Scrutiny Committee was also not convinced by the Department’s argument that changes to recognition were uncontroversial administrative amendments that do not require scrutiny. The Committee argued that such changes are exactly the sort of things that should be considered. I may be old-fashioned, but I think that parliamentary scrutiny matters: they are important big changes in our trading relationships with the rest of the world. The Committee argued that SIs are frequently used to make much less significant changes, such as updates to lists of recognised countries or bodies, and it argued that parliamentary oversight is desirable.
In the exchange of questions and answers with DEFRA, the department said that there would be sufficient transparency because the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament. We have all heard that argument and we know how well that works in practice. Frankly, we need something better than that. The Committee did not find DEFRA’s response wholly convincing, and it is right. It said that that response was simply a statement of the constitutional norm and was not a suitable replacement for parliamentary oversight of individual decisions in a specific policy area. It also raised the ongoing questions about the impact on Northern Ireland. That is hardly a surprise, given that that continues to be an unresolved issue that the Government bat away as unfortunate collateral damage.
In its response to the Scrutiny Committee, DEFRA stated that EU law will continue to apply directly in Northern Ireland under the protocol, and any changes in recognition by the EU in relation to organic standards will be made by the European Commission via legislative amendments. As a result, in cases of divergence of recognition between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, organic goods that are imported to Great Britain from a third country that does not have mutual recognition with the EU for organic goods could not be moved to Northern Ireland. That is a familiar argument that we seem to keep on replaying, and one might well conclude that it is absurd that the Government are proposing a system in which certain organic foods imported into Great Britain could be barred from another part of our country, namely Northern Ireland.
Does the Minister have any comments on the concerns raised by the Lords Scrutiny Committee? Despite all that and the deficiencies identified, it is important to recognise the views of the stakeholders involved. She has rightly said that they are concerned about the length of time it takes to make changes, particularly when we are dealing with many new situations with many third countries as a result of fragmentation.
I have had the opportunity to talk to some of the organic certifiers. They have asked me to point out that that there is a need for scrutiny, but they would like that to be conducted by an independent group made up of organic interest groups, enforcement bodies, representatives from the devolved nations and organic control bodies to provide oversight of the proposed changes and to the organic regulatory framework more generally. They argue that the such a body would help to provide the necessary safeguards and give guidance to Ministers to help them to engage with the detailed provisions of UK and third-party organic regulations while upholding the principles underlying those standards and serving the interests of the general public and stakeholders in the organic sector. Again, I would welcome the Minister’s views on that suggestion. There seems to be a plethora of potential committees that could established in this field. I am told that DEFRA has previously promised that it would establish an expert group similar to the EU’s expert group for technical production, but the organic sector has heard nothing further on the plans for its establishment. Again, I would seek the Ministers views on that.
In the annex to the TCA, there is also reference to a “Working Group on Organic Products”, which has yet to be formally established. Despite indications that the first meeting would be held in the summer, I am told that DEFRA has taken the decision to postpone the meeting until November at the earliest. When will the Minister’s Department finally come good on its promises and set up all those groups?
In summary, can the Minister guarantee that the SI is not just another example of the Government trying to avoid parliamentary scrutiny? When the Minister replies, could she say a little about the future of organics in the UK? The EU has set a bold course—25% by 2030. Where will we be in 2030 on organics? I have to say that unless there is a significant change of course, my fear is that we will be way behind. We need to do better. The SI fiddles with the lists, but we need some ambition and some action, and I am afraid that that is too sorely lacking.
Victoria Prentis
I spent many happy years serving Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and—
The Chair
Minister, I missed Mr Doogan. If hon. Members wish to speak, they should stand. That is why I missed the hon. Member.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Stringer. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I also cannot help but notice the asymmetry in Committee. As an SNP Member, I am vexed regularly by the asymmetry in this Parliament and nowhere more is it manifest than in here this morning.
As the proposed amendment concerns the importing of food into the UK, and therefore into Scotland, it is therefore material to the devolved areas of competences, including food standards, plant health, agricultural standards, animal welfare and the environment. The Minister would expect the SNP to highlight that fact.
In January 2021, when the SI was originally to be tabled under the title “The Organics (Amendment) Regulations 2021”, it would have covered essentially the same issues. At that time, the Scottish Government stated that the SI would fall under the scope of devolved competence. I heard the Minister say that she had discussed the SI with the devolved Administrations, and that has been warmly welcomed, but there is a substantial and material difference between warm words and legislative consent. Furthermore the updated SI before us today has been criticised by the Welsh Government on the grounds of covering devolved issues without the UK Government seeking a legislative consent motion from the devolved nations.
Can the Minister confirm for the record whether the UK Government did in fact receive legislative consent from the devolved Governments? If they did and the consent was acquired, I will be able to go away contented from today’s session. If not, and it is shown that consent was not sought by UK Ministers, or sought but not granted, the Minister has a real problem. It is a not a problem of maths, of course, because whatever the Minister wants to get through this morning, she will achieve, but it demonstrates once again that DEFRA, essentially a quasi-English Government Department with very limited scope across the UK, has sought with the SI to hold the devolved nations in a form of contempt, again. The UK Government have sought, in a wholly transparent manner, to exploit the frontier element of the regulations, which deals with the importation of organic foods across territories, and extrapolate that across a whole suite of competences such as food standards and so on.
DEFRA has established what it thinks is right for England in organics equivalence and control and is now seeking to smash that into the statute of the devolved nations without the dialogue necessary to maintain the pretence of a Union of equals within the United Kingdom. In her introductory remarks, the Minister referenced “our organic standards”. Whose are those standards? I do not want to be unnecessarily abstract about this, Mr Stringer, because organic producers in Scotland of course want to export to the UK market, and the English market in particular, given it scale. There will be a significant degree of overlap and conformity in those standards, but it is about the process as much as it is about the outcome.
In the absence of legislative consent, the SI is another clear example of the UK Government seeking to wrest control of an EU-regulated matter as it returns to UK jurisdiction, despite the fact that it should clearly fall to devolved competence under the established principle of that which is not reserved is invariably devolved. I look forward to the Minister’s clarity on this issue.
Victoria Prentis
If I may, I will deal with the last question first. There is a long-standing disagreement about whether this is a devolved matter or not. In this instance, we took the approach of getting the changes we have suggested approved with the devolved Administrations at the Organics Four Nations Working Group. We dealt with it in that way. When I say “our”, I mean the UK, normally.
As I started to say, I spent many years on the JCSI and I therefore have enormous respect for Lords scrutiny of secondary legislation. I have corresponded with the Lords Committee Chair on this issue, and I was pleased that the Committee appeared to accept our assurance on the Northern Ireland issue. If I may, I will not go into that in any great detail as I dealt with it in my opening remarks.
I completely agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge that parliamentary oversight is never a minor issue. I gently remind him that while we were in the EU this was not overseen by Parliament, but dealt with by a committee at EU level that met several times a year. On scrutiny, the important issue is not the addresses and the websites, but whether we recognise a third country or a third-country control body as equivalent. I reassure the Committee that the recognition will be subject to extensive technical checks and we will make sure that the enforcement mechanisms work. The final decision will of course be overseen by the Secretary of State, as is normal, and if recognition is agreed, the third country must meet continuing obligations, including, for example, the provision of annual reports, notifications of infringements and changes to its standards and controls.
Organic trade between the UK and any third country, which is recognised in the future, will of course be subject to the provisions of any free trade agreement or treaty, and Parliament will have oversight of that.
I think that the future of organic farming is bright. I know that the hon. Member for Cambridge has had a long interest in it, as do I, and I believe that organic farmers are well placed to benefit from our future farming schemes, due to the very high standards to which they operate. I suspect that many of them will go directly to the higher level schemes, truthfully, and I reassure the Committee that the environmental land management schemes group has members from the two control bodies serving on it, and they have made very sure that there is a loud voice for organics in the development of the schemes’s process.
It is true that we are still working on setting up an organics working group. Unfortunately, the EU has delayed a number of meetings, but we continue to press to set up that group as soon as possible. The UK Organics Four Nations Working Group continues to operate well. With that in mind, I commend the SI to the Committee.
Question put and agreed.
Safeguarding (Code of Practice) Measure (HC 689)
The Chair
Before we begin, may 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 leave enough space between seats, if you have not done so, and thank you to those who have done. Please give space to Members and staff when leaving the room. Members should send their speaking notes via email to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk. Similarly, officials in the Gallery should communicate electronically with Ministers.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Safeguarding (Code of Practice) Measure (HC 689).
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I hope not to detain the Committee for too long.
I introduce the Measure with a great deal of humility, given that there have been some appalling cases of abuse by people in influential positions in the Church. The Church, like many organisations, has been scrutinised by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, IICSA, which has recognised that the Church has taken steps to tackle abuse such as the passing of the Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure in 2016. However, IICSA said that the way in which the 2016 Measure imposed obligations on individuals and organisations in the Church to follow correct safeguarding practice was not as clear as it should have been. In particular, the 2016 Measure said that relevant persons must have “due regard” to safeguarding guidance issued by the House of Bishops. IICSA said that the term “have due regard” to safeguarding guidance was not well understood and referred to it as a “term of art”. IICSA said that “due regard” should be replaced with a requirement that was more explicit. In section 1(4) it states that a relevant person “must…comply” with the requirements imposed by the code of practice.
Secondly, the Measure adds to the list of relevant persons who must comply with the requirements of the code. Cathedral Chapters, diocesan board of education, diocesan boards of finance, staff members of the Archbishops’ Council and staff who work in dioceses, parishes, cathedrals or for mission initiatives, all of whose work relates to the safeguarding of children or vulnerable adults, are all now included in section 1 (2) sub-paragraphs (h),(i) (j), (m) and (n).
Thirdly, the Measure adds in section 5C (2) a power for bishops to suspend church wardens where she or he has failed to comply with the requirement of the safeguarding code of practice. A church warden who is suspended for non-compliance with the code of practice will have the right of appeal to an independent judge.
The code of practice and any amendments to it will be subject to prior consultation with those who have suffered abuses as well as with representatives of clergy and laity, and will be subject to scrutiny by the General Synod. The code and any amendments will be sent to every member of the General Synod as well as being published online, and if 25 or more members of the Synod give notice that part of the code will not come into force until the Synod has debated and approved it.
The code of practice itself will be in several parts and we intend to bring the provisions into force as soon as possible. The first new code brought into force is expected to be the one concerning “learning lessons case reviews” followed by one on “managing allegations”. It is expected that the consultation on the learning lessons case reviews will take place before the end of this year, and on managing allegations early in 2022.
We are currently in a transitional period where the House of Bishops safeguarding guidance continues to apply until such time as the new codes of practice have been approved. Existing guidance is still being improved in the interim such as the “Responding well to victims and survivors of abuse” guidance, which was approved earlier this month.
Finally, let me end as I began, with humility for all that the Church has not done well in this area by quoting the Archbishop of Canterbury’s evidence to IICSA in 2019. He said as follows:
“Overall, I remain utterly horrified by what we have done in the past, our failures, and no doubt there will be failures going on…we have made small progress. We have a long way to go.”
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Ms Ali.
I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner for his presentation. He is absolutely right that safeguarding is a hugely important issue and one on which we must do so much better. Therefore, the Opposition will not oppose the Measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Nationality and Borders Bill (First sitting)
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairs: †Sir Roger Gale, Siobhain McDonagh
† Anderson, Stuart (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Baker, Duncan (North Norfolk) (Con)
† Blomfield, Paul (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
† Charalambous, Bambos (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Coyle, Neil (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Grant, Mrs Helen (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
† Gullis, Jonathan (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
† Holmes, Paul (Eastleigh) (Con)
† Howell, Paul (Sedgefield) (Con)
Lynch, Holly (Halifax) (Lab)
† McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
† McDonald, Stuart C. (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
† Owatemi, Taiwo (Coventry North West) (Lab)
† Pursglove, Tom (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)
† Richards, Nicola (West Bromwich East) (Con)
† Whittaker, Craig (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)
Rob Page, Sarah Thatcher, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Witness
Jon Featonby, Policy and Advocacy Manager for Refugees and Asylum, British Red Cross
Public Bill Committee
Tuesday 21 September 2021
(Morning)
[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]
Nationality and Borders Bill
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before we begin, I have a couple of preliminary announcements. I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Any doubt about that, please ask the Clerk at the end. We must ensure that Hansard gets the notes. Please ensure that all your mobile phones are switched to silent. I remind Members that tea and coffee are not allowed in Committee. If you want to have coffee, you have to go outside the Committee Room.
Today, we will consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider the motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and the motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral sessions begin. In view of the time available, I would like to take those matters formally. I have discussed it with the Minister and he agrees. I call him to move the programme motion standing in his name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.25 am on Tuesday 21 September) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 21 September;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 23 September;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 19 October;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 21 October;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 26 October;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 28 October;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 2 November;
(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 4 November;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
TABLE DateTimeWitnessTuesday 21 SeptemberUntil no later than 11.25 amBritish Red CrossTuesday 21 SeptemberUntil no later than 2.45 pmImmigration Services Union; Joint Council for the Welfare of ImmigrantsTuesday 21 SeptemberUntil no later than 3.15 pmDerbyshire PoliceTuesday 21 SeptemberUntil no later than 4.00 pmKent County Council; Westminster CouncilTuesday 21 SeptemberUntil no later than 4.30 pmFortinus Global LtdTuesday 21 SeptemberUntil no later than 5.15 pmNational Crime AgencyThursday 23 SeptemberUntil no later than 12.15 pmMigration WatchThursday 23 SeptemberUntil no later than 12.45 pmThe Hon George Brandis QC; High Commissioner for Australia to the United KingdomThursday 23 SeptemberUntil no later than 2.30 pmUnited Nations High Commissioner for RefugeesThursday 23 SeptemberUntil no later than 3.15 pmSiobhán Mullally, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons; Dame Sara Thornton, Independent Anti-Slavery CommissionerThursday 23 SeptemberUntil no later than 4.00 pmRefugee Council; Refugee Action; Women for Refugee WomenThursday 23 SeptemberUntil no later than 5.00 pmEPCAT; European Network on Statelessness; Immigration Law Practitioners Association
Date
Time
Witness
Tuesday 21 September
Until no later than 11.25 am
British Red Cross
Tuesday 21 September
Until no later than 2.45 pm
Immigration Services Union; Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants
Tuesday 21 September
Until no later than 3.15 pm
Derbyshire Police
Tuesday 21 September
Until no later than 4.00 pm
Kent County Council; Westminster Council
Tuesday 21 September
Until no later than 4.30 pm
Fortinus Global Ltd
Tuesday 21 September
Until no later than 5.15 pm
National Crime Agency
Thursday 23 September
Until no later than 12.15 pm
Migration Watch
Thursday 23 September
Until no later than 12.45 pm
The Hon George Brandis QC; High Commissioner for Australia to the United Kingdom
Thursday 23 September
Until no later than 2.30 pm
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Thursday 23 September
Until no later than 3.15 pm
Siobhán Mullally, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons; Dame Sara Thornton, Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner
Thursday 23 September
Until no later than 4.00 pm
Refugee Council; Refugee Action; Women for Refugee Women
Thursday 23 September
Until no later than 5.00 pm
EPCAT; European Network on Statelessness; Immigration Law Practitioners Association
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 8; Schedule 1; Clauses 9 to 21; Schedule 2; Clauses 22 to 26; Schedule 3; Clauses 27 to 39; Schedule 4; Clauses 40 and 41; Schedule 5; Clauses 42 to 71; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 4 November.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
On a point of order, Sir Roger. On the initial list of witnesses there were some Home Office officials. On the present list, there are no Home Office officials, which makes it much harder for the Opposition to scrutinise the Bill. We had certain questions that we wished to pose to Home Office officials. I put it on the record that they were initially on the list of witnesses but are no longer there.
The Chair
That is not strictly a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the usual channels. That should be discussed between the Government and Opposition Whips. I had better ask for the relevant parties to do that privately, and to have a conversation with you. It is not something, I am afraid, that I can adjudicate, but you have made your point. The opportunity to discuss it was at the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday, where it should properly have been raised. It was not raised on that occasion.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Further to that point of order, Sir Roger. I may have raised it had the Programming Sub-Committee started at the time it was supposed to start. I arrived yesterday a minute before the start time, and the sub-committee had finished its work. I was going to make the point that Government witnesses had disappeared. We have now lost a couple of hours, and the opportunity for other witnesses to give evidence. I wanted to put it on the record that I was disappointed not to be able to make that point yesterday.
The Chair
The sub-committee was quorate when it started yesterday. Members are expected to be there in a timely fashion. I think that I am right in saying that we started on the nose of the time at which we were supposed to start. I take your point, but again it is a matter for the usual channels, not the Chair.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Tom Pursglove.)
The Committee deliberated in private.
Examination of Witness
Jon Featonby gave evidence.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public, and proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interests in connection with this Bill? Then, as a matter of record, there are no declarations of interest.
Good morning, Mr Featonby. We will now hear oral evidence from Jon Featonby, who is the policy and advocacy manager for refugees and asylum at the British Red Cross. Before calling Mr Charalambous to ask the first question, I remind Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we have to stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. As such, we have just under one hour for this session, until 11.25 am. Mr Featonby, I have introduced you, but could you please introduce yourself for the record?
Jon Featonby: I am Jon Featonby. I am the policy and advocacy manager for refugees and asylum at the British Red Cross.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed for taking the trouble and the time to join us this morning.
Bambos Charalambous
Q Mr Featonby, I am going to ask you some questions about the Bill in which the Red Cross has indicated some interest. According to the Government, the main objectives of the Bill are to increase fairness in the asylum system; to better protect those who are supported and in need of asylum; and to deter illegal entry into the UK and break the business model of people smuggling networks. To what extent do you think this Bill achieves those objectives?
Jon Featonby: I will start off by saying that as the British Red Cross, we very much welcome this opportunity to give evidence to the Committee today, but the short answer to that question is that we do not think the Bill is going to meet those objectives at all. To build on that a bit, we take that from our role as the largest independent provider of advice and support to refugees and people seeking asylum in the UK. We work with around 30,000 people each year in all four countries of the UK, supporting people throughout the asylum process, from when they first enter it to when they get decisions, and in making decisions about what happens next. Through that work, we see that there are three key elements of an asylum system. First, it must be safe for people to access it; secondly, it must be fair and efficient and make decisions in a timely way and, thirdly, those people who are in the system, while they are in the system, should receive the advice and support they need.
At the moment, there are a number of challenges to that, as shown by the number of people taking dangerous journeys to reach the UK, the increasing backlog in asylum decision making and the length of time people are having to wait for a decision on their application. There are also challenges that local authorities, organisations such as our own and, importantly, people in the system face in terms of the support they receive, whether that is support with accommodation, mental health or other areas. We believe those should have been some of the priorities for both this piece of legislation and the new plan for immigration that runs alongside it.
That work is also informed by the people we work with. We run the VOICES Network, which is a group of people with lived experience of the asylum system. They were among those who gave evidence to the Government during the consultation on the new plan, and when we speak to them about this legislation, one of their key messages, as people who have made that dangerous journey, is that there is nothing in the Bill or in the new plan that would have changed the decisions they made.
We absolutely agree that there are too many people making those dangerous journeys; we want to see a reduction in the number of people making dangerous journeys in small boats across the channel as much as anybody else does, but we do not believe the measures in the Bill will do that.
Bambos Charalambous
Q As a follow-up, how do you think a reduction in those dangerous journeys would be better achieved?
Jon Featonby: There is no simple answer to that; as the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, there is no silver bullet for many of these challenges. If there were, I am sure some country would already have come up with it. However, there are some key things that the Red Cross believes could be explored further.
The expansion of safe routes for people seeking protection is prime among those things. We welcome the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme announced recently. The UK has a good recent record of providing resettlement places, and we believe that on top of that Afghan resettlement scheme there is the need for a wider global scheme. There is the UK resettlement scheme, the successor to the Syrian resettlement programme, but there is no annual quota for that. On top of that 5,000 commitment for the Afghan scheme we would like to see an additional 5,000 for the global scheme.
We also call for refugee family reunion. One of the core bits of work that the Red Cross does in the UK is support refugees being reunited with their family members. As the new plan for immigration stated, family reunion is currently the largest safe route for people to get to the UK. Over the five years to 2019, 29,000 people arrived in the UK through refugee family reunion, compared with 25,000 through resettlement over the same period.
From what we see in our work supporting families, as much as that reunion is a moment of joy for so many people, there are other families whom the current rules do not allow to reunite. One of the prime examples is that the rules do not cater for adult dependent children. A parent in the UK who has refugee status can sponsor their parent, their partner or spouse and any children under the age of 18 to come and join them, but we see that often there are people whose child may have turned 18 or 19, potentially while they were in the asylum process, who face a difficult decision about whether they leave that child overseas, or just do not bring any of their family to come and join them.
We believe the Bill is an opportunity to expand the rules. One of our key concerns about the Bill, in clause 10 on the differential treatment of refugees, is that there is potential for family reunion to be limited, although the Bill does not quite state how.
Alongside those safe routes, we recognise that the UK cannot alone solve all those issues. However, it has a vital role to play internationally, ensuring that no matter where people are after they have been forced to flee their home, they can access protection systems, whether in the UK, France, Germany or close to the countries from which they first leave.
Bambos Charalambous
Q You mentioned clause 10 in your answer. What other problems do you see with clause 10, which treats people differently depending on how they arrive?
Jon Featonby: The starting point for the British Red Cross is that people’s protection should be based on their protection needs, and not on how they have entered the UK. Clause 10 provides a power that would move away from that and treat people on the basis of how they arrive in the country. It is difficult to ascertain what some of the impact would be, because clause 10 just creates a power for that to be introduced later in the immigration rules. Certainly, our concern is that the list of the ways in which leave can be differentiated for those people recognised as refugees is an example list and non-exhaustive, and there is therefore scope within the immigration rules to follow for that differentiated treatment to be undertaken in a much wider way.
In terms of the impact of that differentiated treatment, which I am sure falls within the Bill’s aim to deter people from making dangerous journeys, we certainly do not believe that it will do that. From the people we work with, we know it is rare for people making those journeys—even if they have any element of choice over where they are going to end up—to have any clear idea about what their rights and entitlements will be when they arrive, so we do not believe it would deter dangerous journeys.
We also believe there would be negative impacts from some of the ways people’s leave will be differentiated. Some of that concern draws on the evidence from Australia, which has used temporary protection visas, similar to those that clause 10 would allow to be introduced, on and off for the past two decades. One of the key findings is that that has increased the insecurity people feel when they have that protection status. This is a group of people who will have been recognised as refugees by the UK Government, but one way they will be treated differently is that those who have arrived irregularly will only get temporary protection for maybe two and a half years, which will then be extendable at each point.
The lack of security around that has an impact on not only people’s mental health, but their prospects for integration and their ability to get jobs and rebuild their lives. Employers looking at that type of temporary leave are less likely, we believe, to employ that person, compared with somebody who might have indefinite leave to remain, as a refugee arriving under the resettlement programme would have.
I have already mentioned our concerns about the potential impact on family reunion. It is important to note that those people arriving in the UK through family reunion are predominantly women and children; 90% of all family reunion visas currently granted are to women and children. Limiting access to family reunion for the refugee in the UK is taking away a safe route for his—in most cases—wife and children to be able to come and join him. The evidence from Australia was that where that happened, it incentivised and increased the number of dangerous journeys being made by women and children, which is something the British Red Cross believes should absolutely be avoided.
One of the other potential routes for differentiation is giving those people granted refugee status no access to public funds. Most of the refugees we support struggle when they are first granted status, and one of the main groups of people we support across all our services in the UK is people who are destitute, at all stages of the asylum process. Around one third of the people we have supported in our destitution services over the past year are people with refugee status, and often that is because they fall into the gap between Home Office and local authority support when they are first granted status and the Home Office support ends.
Without giving people access to the social security and welfare system, you risk embedding some of that destitution at that point as well. Not only is that bad for those individuals, putting them at great risk, but it puts extra pressures on local authorities. We see that within our services at the moment.
Bambos Charalambous
Q Moving on to clause 11, on asylum accommodation, I know in the past the Red Cross has been critical of the Government’s using Napier Barracks to house asylum seekers. What are your thoughts on clause 11 and dispersal, and what lessons can be learned from the problems with Napier Barracks?
Jon Featonby: The issues with accommodation and the challenges the Home Office faces in providing it are well known and serious, and there is no simple solution to many of them. Some of the problems around the shortage of accommodation were caused by the covid pandemic. We welcome the Home Office’s move at the start of the pandemic not to evict people from asylum accommodation, but that obviously meant that fewer people were moving through the system.
Some of the challenges with the dispersal system and the shortage of housing are also caused by the increasing backlog in asylum decision making. There are now around 70,000 people waiting for an initial decision, the majority of whom have been waiting longer than six months. That includes people from places such as Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Eritrea, who will almost certainly go on to get refugee status, but the lack of throughput in the system has created that pressure. Several Members on this Committee represent areas that do great work hosting people through the dispersal system, but we do not think the Bill will do anything to help them.
The accommodation centres in clause 11 are part of the response to that pressure. As you rightly said, the Red Cross has raised concerns around some of the Ministry of Defence sites that have been used over the last year, and their suitability for people seeking asylum. In particular, we were operational in Penally Barracks in south Wales when that was open, and we continue to support people in Napier.
From our experience, we think that the best way to accommodate people while they are in the asylum system is within communities. They can feel a part of those communities and receive the support that they need. It is also beneficial for those communities, in terms of social cohesion. That relates to some of the negative impacts that we have seen, where people have been accommodated in some of the military barracks.
We also have some concerns about the way that clause 11 currently works. Reading the explanatory notes, what seems to be happening is that, rather than the Bill itself setting out the framework for an accommodation centre, it relies on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. That legislation was passed almost 20 years ago during a very different time: asylum applications were far higher, the length of time that people waited for a decision was far shorter, and far fewer people were then getting positive decisions after going through that system.
The 2002 Act has quite a few concerning aspects, including not allowing children in accommodation centres to access local authority schools. We see that as being quite serious. It may well be that the idea behind the centres, and the Government’s proposed use of the centres, would include families or children being accommodated there, but that is not clear from what is currently in the Bill. The Bill does, however, change the 2002 Act around some of the limits on the length of time that people can stay in one of those accommodation centres. Currently, under the 2002 Act, somebody in an accommodation centre could only be accommodated there for up to six months. The Bill gives the Home Secretary the power to increase that length of time.
It is noteworthy that, in the recent special development order, which was laid before Parliament to extend the use of Napier Barracks by an additional five years, one of the ways in which the Home Office changed the operation of that site was to limit the length of time that somebody could stay there to 90 days. Therefore, we would certainly see that one of the safeguards around the use of accommodation centres would be to limit the length of time that somebody could stay there, rather than extending it.
The Chair
I must offer other Members the opportunity to ask questions. I will come back to you if there is time, Mr Charalambous.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q How many clauses in this Bill do you think will have a direct impact on people smugglers?
Jon Featonby: There are 71 clauses and four schedules in this Bill. As far as we can see, from our reading of the Bill, there is one clause that directly targets people smugglers themselves. That is the clause extending the criminal sentence for somebody convicted of that to a life sentence. We absolutely welcome that tightening of people smuggling. We absolutely believe that one approach that the Government should continue to take is in targeting those people smugglers who take advantage of people trying to seek safety.
Our concern is about the other aspects of the Bill, which seem to be more about trying to deter people from making those dangerous journeys. As I said earlier, we do not believe that those clauses will have that impact.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q You have said, essentially, that you do not think disincentives work. I want to look at one of the Government’s attempts to disincentivise people from using people smugglers: this new scheme of notices of intent. It is in the Bill, but it is also already in the immigration rules as of the start of this year. What impact have those notices had?
Jon Featonby: It is not clear that they have had any impact. I suppose that you could rightly say that one of the things the Bill does through clause 14 is move the current inadmissibility rules, which are in the immigration rules, into primary legislation. Those have been in force since 1 January, replacing what was the Dublin system, which the UK was part of when it was a member of the European Union.
Since those rules were introduced, 4,500 notices of intent have been issued to individuals. When somebody first arrives in the UK’s asylum process, they are interviewed by a member of the Home Office at the initial stage. Then, if, for whatever reason—there are five potential reasons—the Home Office believes that that person’s asylum claim may be inadmissible in the UK’s asylum system, a notice of intent is issued to that person at that instance. At that point, the person’s asylum claim is still live, but it does not go any further. There are no interviews and it is not substantively considered by the Home Office. The guidance that was introduced by the change in rules then gives the Home Office six months to try to get a return agreement in place, or to look further at that person’s claim to try to work out whether that claim is inadmissible.
What we have not seen since the beginning of this year is a decrease in the number of people making dangerous journeys. It is not apparent to us that it has deterred people. However, because of that in-built six-month delay, it has further increased the delays that people already face while waiting for a decision on their asylum claims.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q So basically, people are waiting another six months. What impact does that and the other measures in the Bill have on local authorities that are involved in asylum work?
Jon Featonby: We pay tribute to the local authorities that are part of the dispersal scheme. We work very closely alongside them, and the ones that we work with are very proud of the roles that they play. However, we also recognise that the local authorities that support people are under quite a lot of pressure. There are not enough local authorities currently taking part in the dispersal system, and we encourage more to do so and believe that that should be a priority for the Home Office.
One of the problems with the increased delay, whether it is caused by the inadmissibility rules or by wider decision-making delays, is that people are left in limbo in the asylum system longer, unable to work and reliant on the Home Office for support. There is then a negative impact on people who do go on to get refugee status, on their ability to integrate and to stand on their own feet; they are more likely to have to rely on local authority support for a longer period.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q What does that mean for the cost of the system?
Jon Featonby: It is well known, and it was mentioned in the equality impact assessment published at the beginning of the week, that the cost of the asylum system has increased significantly over the last year. While we are not aware of a breakdown of the drivers of that cost, it is likely that a lot of it has been driven by the increased pressure on asylum accommodation, and in particular the increased use of hotels over the last year or so. One of the quickest ways to reduce that cost would be to get people moving through the system much faster again—making those decisions and reducing the pressures on the accommodation system.
Because the Bill will not deter people or reduce the number of people entering the asylum system—if anything, it is just going to increase some of the delays in the system—there is a danger that it will increase the overall cost. It is unknown at the moment what the cost of the accommodation centres might be. A contract notice was issued in August saying that they will potentially accommodate up to 8,000 people, but there is very little known about the cost of that.
Stuart C. McDonald
I know colleagues will have other questions on provisions relating to the asylum system. Does the Red Cross want to speak about the provisions relating to modern slavery or statelessness?
Jon Featonby: One of the roles of the Red Cross in the UK is that we work alongside police forces when they undertake anti-trafficking raids to disrupt situations of exploitation; we are there to work alongside police forces and local authorities to support people at those points. We also support people who have gone through the national referral mechanism and been found to be survivors of modern slavery in terms of what happens next—to support them with their onward journeys.
The Modern Slavery Act 2015 was definitely a landmark change. It has very much changed the way the UK has responded—it has improved it. We know from our work with other Red Cross national societies around the world that the UK is now seen as an international leader through that legislation. We are concerned, though, that this is an immigration Bill that contains a large modern slavery element; there is a danger that part 4 moves away from protection as a first port of call in cases of modern slavery. In particular, when we set up reception centres at anti-trafficking raids, we found that the vast majority of people who are taken out of situations of exploitation do not enter the national referral mechanism. When we monitored 10 reception centres, 170 people were taken out of those situations and only four consented to go into the NRM. Some of the changes to the NRM contained in part 4 of the Bill may raise those barriers.
However, there is also an opportunity in the Bill to improve the treatment of people who come out of the national referral mechanism with a positive conclusive grounds decision. We welcome the commitment in the Bill to offer immigration status to some of the people with positive conclusive grounds decisions. When people get a positive conclusive grounds decision and the support that they received while they were in the NRM ends, one of the challenges that they face is that, if they do not have a secure immigration status, it is very difficult for them to get on with their lives—to make decisions about what happens next. It potentially also means that, if they are unable to work and access local authority support or welfare support, they are at risk of being re-exploited. We have made recommendations in the past that people should get that status.
We feel that those provisions can be strengthened to make it clearer that more people will be able to access that immigration leave. At the moment, if the Home Office believes that somebody would be able to receive protection in their country of nationality, they are not eligible for that grant of leave. Having seen the need in people who have gone through the NRM, we believe that it should pretty much be a universal offer of leave at that point. We would like to see the Bill strengthened in that way. I pay tribute to the work of Lord McColl and Sir Ian Duncan Smith in particular for their campaign around this in recent years.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q Anything on statelessness, or do you want to leave that to other witnesses?
The Chair
There are other Members who wish to ask questions, Mr McDonald. If there is time, I am happy to bring you back in. At present I have Jonathon Gullis, Paul Blomfield and Anne McLaughlin who are waiting to speak. Minister, would you like to come in now or wait?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I am happy to come in later.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Q Clause 10 talks about the idea of differential treatment. To people in Stoke-on-Trent this seems absolutely acceptable. Stoke-on-Trent is, by the way, a member of the asylum dispersal scheme and the fifth largest contributor in the UK. Some people have come via safe and legal routes, such as from Afghanistan, whereas others are illegal economic migrants who were already in a safe country in France but who have come over the English channel,. Do you not think that saying we are going to treat people differently is going to deter people from making that journey? That will impact the people smugglers, because people will not make the dangerous journey they should not be making in the first place, because they are aware of the consequences when they are caught.
Jon Featonby: That is one of the reasons why we are concerned about the clause. We come from a different viewpoint in that we believe that people’s rights and entitlements should be based not on how they entered the UK, but on their protection need. People who go through the asylum system and fall into group 2 in clause 10 are people whom the UK has recognised as being in need of international protection, and they have refugee status.
We work with and have conversations with people who have been through the process. Maybe they arrived in the UK on a small boat or through some other irregular means. They tell us that these changes would not have impacted the decisions they made. It is very unlikely that people have a clear idea about what the UK’s asylum system looks like and what their entitlements will be when they are in it or when they go on to get status. Some people have very little choice in the country they end up in. They may well not have started out being involved in the smuggling networks in France. It could have been much closer to the country from which they have fled. The smugglers have much more control over where people end up.
Where somebody feels safe is subjective to the individual. There are many reasons why people in France may be unable to avail themselves of the protection system there. It might be that, because of how they were living in France, they were not aware of how they could claim asylum or the route to do that. It may be that they were treated in some way along that journey that meant they felt unable to avail themselves of protection in France. It is also important to note that the vast majority of people who do make it to France in search of protection stay in France. France receives, generally, at least three times as many asylum applications as the UK.
We do not believe that the differential treatment will deter people, and there are challenges around the differential treatment in clause 10. Stoke is absolutely one of the places in the country that we work with and pay tribute to. Abi Brown, the leader of the council, speaks very eloquently about how proud she is of the council’s role. However, clause 10 will potentially make it harder for those local authorities who support people. If people continue to come to the UK, go through the asylum process and get status and are then unable to reunite with their family members or have insecurities around the length of time they are going to get status, and, crucially, if they are unable to access public funds, that impacts on their integration prospects and ability to support themselves. That may well increase the pressures on local authorities.
Jonathan Gullis
You mention that some people say that they would still choose to make the journey despite the Bill. Those who are willing to make the journey, of which over 70% are 18 to 30-year-old men on their own, have put thousands of pounds into the hands of people smugglers by their own choice. They are willing to keep funding a smuggling entity in order to try to access the UK, because they seem to think the UK is a better deal than mainland France, Italy or Greece, which are obviously all part of the European Union and have the same protections that the UK does—the European convention on human rights and such. Ultimately, does that not show that the system is broken and the legislation is needed? We do need to make sure that illegal economic migrants crossing the channel are treated differently from people from Afghanistan, for example, who have taken the safe and legal route we provided through Operation Pitting.
Jon Featonby: We disagree that they are illegal economic migrants. They are people who have protection needs. Obviously, if they have gone through clause 10 and they fall into that group too, they have gone through the asylum system and it has been found that they are refugees.
We absolutely agree that action needs to be taken to reduce the number of people making dangerous journeys. There are too many people putting their lives at risk crossing the English channel to get here. Our concern is that we do not believe that the provisions within this Bill will deter that. We think the Government would be better off approaching this by increasing some of the safe avenues for people.
Afghanistan is a good case in point. Obviously, we now have the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme alongside the relocation programmes. We have been working with families as they arrive at airports and hotels across the country, and we see their relief and joy. However, that is only ever going to go so far in meeting the needs of the number of people who are likely to be displaced from Afghanistan and other refugee-producing places and situations, and there will always be people who take irregular journeys in order to reach safety. From the point of view of the Red Cross, it it paramount that people are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve because of their protection needs, and that they are helped to rebuild their lives and to enjoy that protection, if they get that in the UK or anywhere else in the world.
Jonathan Gullis
Q The issue is that we have people illegally entering the country in record numbers via the English channel. They are illegal economic migrants, because they are able to claim refuge in a safe place, such as France. France is not a war-torn country; they are safe over there. Ultimately, this is putting huge pressure on cities such as Stoke-on-Trent that step up to the plate. I hope local authorities in places like Scotland step up to the plate; I know that Glasgow does its bit, but sadly others do not. I hope to see other places take part in the asylum dispersal scheme. More importantly, you talk about the pressure on local authorities that clause 10 might impose. We have an issue with housing in Stoke-on-Trent, which has lower than average house prices and is taken advantage of because of that. Stoke-on-Trent has lodged to pause its involvement in the asylum dispersal scheme until other areas step up.
Does it not make sense that we would provide good-quality accommodation? I think Napier Barracks was fantastic accommodation. It provided safety and shelter, had hot running water and sanitation, and provided yoga as well. We have Napier Barracks and others like it that we can use. What do you think about doing what Denmark is doing, which I think is a fantastic idea, and taking people to another country, such as Rwanda, and processing them outside the United Kingdom? That will also help to deter people from making these dangerous journeys.
Jon Featonby: On the point about accommodation, we recognise the pressure that local authorities are under. Part of our concern around the Bill is that there is nothing in it that we think will encourage more local authorities to take part in dispersal, or reduce the number of people entering the asylum system. The number of people claiming asylum in the UK at the moment is not anywhere near the historic highs of the early 2000s. It has gone up slightly over the last couple of years, but it is still lower than at the height of the movement from Syria in 2015 and2016. We do not believe that there are too many people claiming asylum. The UK should be able to deal with the number of applications at the moment.
What we have seen over many years, predating the covid-19 pandemic, is a slow down in the rate of decision making. That leaves more people in the asylum support system for longer periods of time and increases the pressure on asylum accommodation. That is why I again reiterate the point about the focus on decision making and ensuring that the Home Office is resourced to make good-quality, quick decisions as an absolute priority.
The point around accommodation centres is an interesting one. From the people we work with, we certainly believe that Napier has had a negative impact on the people accommodated there. It has not provided the environment that many people who have been through traumatic experiences require. At Penally Barracks, there was a live firing range on site, which was retraumatising for many people.
The Chair
Order. Mr Gullis, this is an opportunity to ask questions not to make speeches. I have to accommodate as many Members as possible. If there is time, I will come back to you later.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Q Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Red Cross would view itself as a close partner of the Home Office and in a trusted relationship to deliver on the ambitions of whatever Government are in power in relation to asylum. In that context, I guess that you are regularly consulted by and engage with the Home Office on issues of policy. The thinking behind the Bill is clearly predicated on the assumption that there will be a significant opportunity to develop safe and legal routes into the UK. Have you had any discussion with the Home Office about the shape of those future routes?
Jon Featonby: The start of your question was a very good point, and yet as the Red Cross we are an auxiliary to Government for humanitarian purposes, as other national societies are to their Governments around the world. Regarding the things I have said today, Home Office officials have heard them from me several times before. We enjoy a good relationship with them and I hope they would reflect similarly back to us as well. We use the expertise from supporting people across the UK to reflect back what we see and to help the Home Office to meet some of the challenges it faces.
The precursor to the Bill was the new plan for immigration and the consultation on that. We took part in the formal consultation process and in some conversations with officials around that process. We also take part in frequent stakeholder meetings with the Home Office on a number of different areas, as well as having private dialogue.
Family reunion is one of the key areas for us. When the new plan for immigration was published, we welcomed the commitment to look at changing the rules around family reunion, to allow adults who had arrived through a safe route to sponsor their adult dependent children. We were disappointed then to see in the consultation response that that proposal has not been taken forward, but we continue to have dialogue with the Home Office around it, as well as on a report that we published towards the end of last year, which looked at the family reunion process itself and the safety of it for the family members outside the UK. We welcome the commitment within the consultation response to continue working with us in considering how those recommendations can be followed through.
Also, around the issue of the resettlement programme, we welcome the Afghan scheme, as I said, but we believe that there is more that can be done there and on family reunion, to make sure that more people are able to access safe routes rather than putting their lives at risk by taking desperate journeys.
Paul Blomfield
Q But from your discussions, you have had no sense of what schemes the Home Office might have in mind beyond that? I ask that because it is a fairly fundamental issue on which the Bill is predicated.
Jon Featonby: At the moment, there is the Afghan resettlement scheme and the global resettlement scheme, which has an unset number. Family reunion may be potentially negatively impacted by the Bill.
Within the new plan, there is the commitment for the Home Secretary to be able to use an almost ad hoc discretionary power to be able to provide a safe route for people, and we very much welcome that. However, we believe that the Bill is an opportunity to go further, both on existing safe and legal routes, and to explore something like humanitarian visas, which would enable people to apply for asylum from outside the UK as well, because it is obviously noteworthy that the only way that someone can enter the UK asylum system is by being on UK soil.
Paul Blomfield
Q May I ask one further question on a different point? The Bill introduces a new element to the asylum system in the consideration of late evidence, and it requires a reduction in the weight of evidence that is submitted late and indeed the credibility of applicants who give it. Do you see any potential difficulties with that and, if so, could you share those with us?
Jon Featonby: On those elements, the view of the British Red Cross is that it will be quite hard to work out what the impact of some of those clauses will be without further detail about them becoming available. There is already a section 120 notice, which can be issued to people to make sure that they provide evidence as soon as possible within the asylum process, and there is a particular focus at appeal stage.
The Home Office has done great work over recent years in looking at some of the reasons why people do not necessarily provide all of their evidence early on in the process. There are particular groups that quite often will struggle to provide all of their evidence early on. For a woman who has been a victim of sexual, gender-based violence, for example, there are very good reasons and very strong evidence as to why she may not disclose all of the evidence very early on. When someone comes to make a decision on an individual’s asylum claim, a potential result of that individual not having disclosed some of the evidence is an impact on their credibility, and you could end up with people not being given protection even though they are really in need of it.
The Chair
I will call Ms McLaughlin, then the Minister, and then we will see how we are doing for time.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Q The British Red Cross is part of the International Red Cross, so perhaps it has a clearer picture of the scale of the global crisis that is leading to the displacement of people. The Bill is apparently partly a response to the number of people seeking asylum and refugees that the UK is taking. You said a moment ago that we should be able to take the number we have at the moment. The UK Government’s argument is that we are taking proportionately higher than most other countries. Is that correct? Are the Government right to be concerned enough about the proportionally higher numbers that the UK is taking to bring in this legislation?
Jon Featonby: As you rightly say, the British Red Cross is part of the Red Cross and Red Crescent global movement of 190 national societies around the world. Working with our international partners gives us that insight into what is happening globally.
We know that 75% of refugees are hosted by countries that border the ones that they fled, and 85% of refugees are hosted by some of the poorest countries in the world, so it is absolutely the case that most people who are displaced from their own countries stay within their regions. Almost everybody we work with wants to be able to return home at some point, which is why they stay as close to their home as they can for as long as possible. One of the other trends we have seen over the past decade is that the situations that produce refugees are lasting for longer, which means that people are living in those other countries for longer. That potentially results in more people looking to move on in order to be able to rebuild their lives.
The UK has about 35,000 to 40,000 asylum applications a year at the moment. Compared with other European countries, that puts us 17th in the number of applications per capita. We are fourth overall for the past year. Germany received four times as many asylum applications as the UK did last year. France received three times as many and Spain received twice as many.
Anne McLaughlin
Q That is interesting. If I have time for one more question, I want to mention the concerns that have been raised about aspects of the Bill that are not compliant with some of the UK’s international obligations—the refugee convention is one, but there are many of them. There is a huge debate; one commentator says, “It doesn’t comply,” and the Government say, “Yes, it does comply.” Do you share those concerns? If so, is it possible to amend the Bill so that the UK is not defying international obligations?
Jon Featonby: We are aware of that debate going on. I am also aware that the Committee is taking evidence from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees later in the week, which is, compared with the Red Cross, in a far better place to make comments on that.
From our point of view, that debate will probably rage on through the course of the Bill’s passage and after it becomes law, but it is important to remember where the idea of the refugee convention comes from. We can have a debate about article X or article Y of the convention and how this legislation fits or does not fit with them, but the convention was obviously born out of what happened during the second world war and built on international agreements before that. It is largely predicated on the idea that no one country can respond to global displacement on its own. To be able to do that and make sure the people who are displaced receive the protection they need, there needs to be an international framework based on solidarity and co-operation, and that is absolutely what the convention is part of. Obviously, the UK played a key role in its drafting.
One of our concerns about what is in the Bill, particularly around inadmissibility rules and reducing access to the UK’s protection system, is that what the UK says and does matters, so other countries look to the UK and take a lead from it. There is a potential negative impact. If the UK says, “We don’t believe that these people should be claiming asylum here”—not making a decision on their protection needs but just saying, “These people are inadmissible to our rules”—and they get pushed back to France, France could be within its rights to do the same, and you end up with a domino effect.
To return to what is happening in Afghanistan at the moment, one of the international community’s primary objectives should be to make sure that the countries bordering Afghanistan continue to keep their borders open so that the people who need to escape Afghanistan can do so. We saw that with the Syrian crisis and the role that Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, in particular, played in the region. There is the danger that if countries such as the UK prevent access to their protection system, some of those countries can—almost quite rightly—turn around and say, “Why should we continue to keep our borders open?”
Rather than getting into the ins and outs of the convention, we believe that it is important for the UK to continue to show that leadership by offering protection, whether through the resettlement programmes, which are absolutely among the world’s best, or through continued access to a protection system and the asylum system in the UK.
The Chair
I will now call the Minister. Mr Anderson, if there is time after we hear from the Minister, we will try to fit you in.
Tom Pursglove
Q Thank you, Sir Roger. Thank you for coming to give evidence, Mr Featonby. I welcome the support you have expressed for the principle of the Afghan scheme. Of course, this Government are absolutely committed to the principle of establishing safe and legal routes. You have been asked several times about the issue of channel crossings, and I feel that you have glossed over that slightly in your answers. Do you think that it is a priority? How would you go about tackling that challenge?
Jon Featonby: It should be, and it is right that it is a priority. There are too many people trying to cross the channel. It is well known that it is the busiest shipping lane in the UK. It is not said enough, but tribute should be paid to Border Force and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution because we have not seen huge numbers of lives lost, especially compared with what we have seen in the Mediterranean.
We would certainly say that although people continue to make those journeys, the primary focus should be on ensuring that people’s lives continue to be saved and that the loss of life stays relatively low. However, it comes back to the fact that we do not think the Bill will deter people from putting their lives in the hands of people smugglers or, as we are increasingly seeing, taking to small boats—relying not on people smugglers but on very small and even less seaworthy crafts.
There is no easy way to tackle the problem. There is no one simple solution. However, some of it will come down to the increased provision of safe routes. The more safe routes there are, the less likely people will need to take dangerous journeys. Something that needs to be a part of the UK’s international co-operation, and something that it can play an increasingly important role in, is making sure that people have access to protection systems outside the UK.
It comes back to the point about understanding why people make those journeys in the first place. People do not get on those boats on the French shores lightly—it is clear what the risks are going to be when they are there. Understanding what leads someone to that point is vitally important, and I am not sure that the Bill reflects what people with that lived experience would tell us. Some of that will require continued work with our European partners, in particular, to make sure that people have access to information, as well as to their protection systems, in order to look at the reasons why somebody may not have claimed asylum in France, for example.
A vital point that came up in the equality impact assessment published earlier this week is that when states such as the UK look to put in extra measures to protect their borders and asylum systems, they must ensure that does not lead to inverse reactions, which will just lead to people making more dangerous journeys. That is certainly what we have seen over the last 10 to 15 years. The harder it has been for people to make journeys when one route is cut off, the more people are generally pushed to make more dangerous journeys. We should be dealing with the root causes of why people make those decisions in the first instance.
Tom Pursglove
Q What assessment have you made of those evil criminal gangs and the associated criminality? You have referred to the life sentences for people smugglers. What more would you propose doing to break their business model?
Jon Featonby: It is largely about the points I have just raised. The explanatory notes to the Bill talk about breaking the business model, and absolutely there are the enforcement procedures regarding the people smugglers themselves. We agree that that should continue to be a priority. However, we need to look at why people turn to people smugglers, and that is because of a lack of other alternatives, whether that is accessing protection systems or those other safe routes.
Tom Pursglove
Q On modern slavery, I recognise that one of the challenges to modern slavery prosecutions is maintaining victim engagement throughout the criminal justice process. In your view, what are the key barriers for victims?
Jon Featonby: That is a very good point. We believe that the modern slavery response needs not only to provide protection for people coming out of situations of exploitation, but to enable those people to take part in prosecutions to tackle people who are exploiting others, whether in the UK or abroad.
The challenges that we see people quite often face are, first, at times a lack of trust in the police or whoever else it might be, but also—probably more importantly and more pertinent to the Bill—a lack of security about their immigration status. The people we work with, who predominantly do not have a secure immigration status in the UK, are thinking about where they are going to sleep that night, and how they are going to feed themselves and their family, rather than how they are going to help the police through this, or potentially how they will have to recount quite traumatic experiences to support those prosecutions.
That is why we support the measures in the Bill to try to give more people secure immigration status. We think that will make a big difference, but we absolutely encourage the Government to go slightly further to ensure that more people can avail themselves of that protection, which would have a beneficial impact on prosecutions as well.
Tom Pursglove
Q I will ask one more quick question, so that hopefully my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West can come in. In your view, will the new legal aid provision in relation to the one-stop process encourage earlier referrals into the national referral mechanism?
Jon Featonby: Potentially. Some of it depends on how it is implemented. We would probably like to see some changes to that provision. I touched earlier on the work that the Red Cross does at reception centres to support people when they first leave those situations of exploitation. At that point, people come out, they are in these centres, the Red Cross may well be there, but it is probably the police, local authorities and increasingly immigration enforcement. There are very few opportunities for people to get legal advice at that point around what the NRM entails for them.
The provisions in the Bill on legal aid are welcome, but they are only for those people who have ongoing protection claims. Most people who come out of those situations of exploitation will not necessarily have an ongoing asylum claim. We would welcome the broadening of the provisions in the Bill to make sure that it covers everybody who may be thinking about entering the NRM, so that they are able to get legal advice, whether or not they have an ongoing human rights or asylum claim alongside it.
The Chair
Thank you. This will have to be one final question from Mr Anderson and one final answer.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Q I have been listening today in keen trepidation of your answers. When sitting through several of these Bill Committees, we always find people—we will hear it today—who say it goes too far or it is not enough. I represent Wolverhampton, which has certainly stepped up to the plate and done its bit over the last few years. I have heard what you have said from your point of view about the gaps in the Bill. What positives can I take back to Wolverhampton City Council that the Bill will help to alleviate pressures?
Jon Featonby: It is very difficult for me to highlight any positives. That is one of the things that we will continue to raise with parliamentarians and the Home Office, because we do not think the Bill meets those challenges. The Bill is an opportunity to meet some of the challenges, particularly around the move-on period for people when they get refugee status, to make sure that the move from Home Office support to local authority support is as smooth as possible. We hope that as the Bill progresses such issues will continue to be debated. We do not believe that the Bill, as currently drafted, will alleviate any of the current pressures that local authorities face.
Stuart Anderson
Q Do you not believe it will alleviate any of the pressures that the council will face?
Jon Featonby: No.
The Chair
I am afraid that brings us effectively to the end of the time allocated for this morning’s sitting. Mr Featonby, the Committee is indebted to you. Thank you very much for joining us. The Committee will meet again this afternoon. The doors will be locked, so Members may leave papers in the room if they wish to do so. You will continue to take oral evidence this afternoon. Please leave promptly and observe social distancing as you go out the exit door.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.
Health and Care Bill (Ninth sitting)
Tuesday 21st September 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesHealth and Care Act 2022 View all Health and Care Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 September 2021 - (21 Sep 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mrs Murray. There have been quite a few changes on the Government Benches in the Committee. We congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), on her promotion and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), on her transfer. If there was a Sky Sports News transfer deadline day reshuffle pack, I can see Jim White in wheels of excitement about the number of changes at the Department of Health and Social Care. We are delighted that the star striker remains in his place.
On a more serious note, the composition of the Committee has changed. Was that in order? Was some kind of approval process from the House required before that could take place?
Justin Madders
Further to that point of order, Mrs Murray. Derek Wilton on “Coronation Street” used to say, “I shall be on the cocoa by the time Trevor McDonald has finished”—a reference to people retiring for the night at around quarter-past 10 or half-past 10. We got an email at 10.22 pm last night with an updated selection list from the Chair. I do not think there are any substantive changes, but in a case where there are dramatic changes to selections and groupings at short notice, is there any rule or procedure about how much notice must be given?
The Chair
There is no minimum notice requirement, but I am sure there will not be an issue in future.
Justin Madders
Further to that point of order, Mrs Murray; I have had a few days to think about these points. The Minister very helpfully said he would write to me about the workforce amendment we put forward last week. Over the weekend, I was talking to some members of the public who are very interested in the Committee’s proceedings. They asked when that letter might be published. I know the Minister is very busy and has a lot of new inductions for his colleagues to get through, as well as his work on the Bill, so I am not going to ask when he will release it, but would it be appropriate to add that letter to the page on the Government website where all the Bill information is contained?
The Chair
I am sure the Minister has heard your point of order, Mr Madders.
Clause 25
Integrated care system: further amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider:
Government amendment 14.
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Mrs Murray, it is—even more than usual—a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship: I am still standing before you in this Committee and opposite the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, as seems to be our fate. He has served in his Front-Bench role longer than I have in mine, and that is going some.
Clause 25 gives effect to schedule 4, which contains minor and consequential amendments relating to the introduction of integrated care boards. The majority of the amendments relate to replacing existing references to clinical commissioning groups in legislation with references to integrated care boards. The schedule is necessary to ensure that existing primary legislation that refers to CCGs will continue to operate effectively once ICBs are established. Without it, references to clinical commissioning groups would be erroneous and the new commissioning bodies, ICBs, would not be referenced where they need to be across the statute book.
Following from that, Government amendment 14 is minor and technical. It is simply to ensure that the legislation hangs together properly. It makes no change to the status quo, but reflects that clause 15 of the Bill replaces section 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006 with a slightly amended proposed new section 3. A consequential amendment is therefore needed to section 187 of the 2006 Act so that it refers to the correct subsections. Previously it referenced subsections 3(1)(d) and (e), but those same subsections have now been moved to 3(1)(e) and (f) in proposed new section 3.
The amendment simply updates the cross references in section 187, without which section 187 would refer to incorrect subsections, which could result in regulations made under section 187 allowing for charging for the wrong services. That is, quite clearly, not our intention, and we are simply continuing the status quo and clarifying that matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Integrated care system: minor and consequential amendments
Amendment made: 14, page 151, line 34 in schedule 4, at end insert—
“107A In section 187 (charges for designated services or facilities), for ‘section 3(1)(d) or (e)’ substitute ‘section 3(1)(e) or (f)’.”—(Edward Argar.)
This amendment is consequential on clause 15 of the Bill, which changes the numbering in section 3(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26
Abolition of Monitor and transfer of functions to NHS England
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 27 to 32 stand part.
Edward Argar
NHS England and NHS Improvement, comprised of Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority—the TDA—requested the primary legislative changes to support the merger of their organisations, and these clauses are fundamental to fulfilling that ambition. In recent years, NHS England and Monitor, as part of NHS Improvement, have been working closely together with a view to acting as a single organisation with a single operating model. They already have aligned board and committee arrangements and joint senior executive appointments through the joint working programme. Despite the progress made, there are limits to the extent to which they can collaborate under the current statutory framework.
Establishing a single statutory body responsible for the health care system in England has several clear benefits. First, it will create a more joined-up approach across the NHS to provide national leadership and speak with one voice to set clear and consistent expectations for providers, commissioners and local health systems. Secondly, it brings services, support and improvement under a single regulatory and legislative framework. That will deliver improved care for patients, enabling better use of collective resources, removing unnecessary duplication and ultimately making better use of public money. The merger will provide clearer lines of accountability so that the public can be assured that any service they use meets the same requirements around safety and quality.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
One of the problems that we have found in Nottingham around driving integration was the duplication of lots of different regulators and metrics, which meant that organisations were often working to different purposes. This obviously tidies that up a bit in terms of regulators. Does the Minister envisage going further in the future?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for that question, which reminds me of some of the questions that he used to ask me in this room about what the future held when we discussed delegated legislation. I am always cautious not to predict the future, but hopefully it will be helpful if I set out the principles that I think should apply. I agree that unnecessary duplication that does not bring clear and tangible benefits to patient safety or improve outcomes is clearly undesirable. Therefore we will seek to streamline where appropriate, but without compromising patient safety or the outcomes that patients experience. While not predicting the future, I hope that gives him some reassurance of the direction of travel as I see it.
Clause 26, along with other provisions in the Bill, including clause 29, makes the legal changes necessary to bring these organisations together as one legal entity. Clause 26 abolishes Monitor and introduces schedule 5, which contains amendments that transfer Monitor’s functions to NHS England in order to fulfil the Bill’s intention to merge Monitor and the NHS TDA into NHS England to form a single body. The schedule transfers powers and duties from Monitor to NHS England and repeals provisions that are no longer necessary in the light of the merger. For example, Monitor’s functions in relation to NHS foundation trust mergers and acquisitions in sections 56 and 56(a) of the 2006 Act, and in relation to licensing providers in sections 81 to 114 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, will all transfer to NHS England.
We acknowledge that bringing together the commissioning functions previously exercised by the NHS commissioning board, and the regulatory functions previously exercised by Monitor, under a single organisation could be perceived as giving rise to conflicts of interest. The Bill will therefore ensure the proper management of any such conflicts, and we will work with stakeholders on robust processes that will safeguard the separation of responsibilities and improve transparency. For those reasons, clause 27 seeks to insert new section 13SA, which deals with minimising conflicts between the body’s regulatory and other functions, into the National Health Service Act 2006.
The clause places a duty on NHS England to minimise the risk of conflict or manage any conflicts that arise between its regulatory functions and other functions. In the event that a conflict were to occur, NHS England would be under a duty to resolve or manage that conflict and to ensure appropriate transparency. NHS England must include within its annual report details of such conflicts and how it had complied with its duties to manage them under new section 13SA of the 2006 Act.
Clause 28 amends section 100 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which relates to the modification of licence conditions for providers. Licences are the basis by which NHS Improvement and, in future, NHS England set conditions on providers as to the terms on which they can operate. The clause requires that when NHS England makes a major change to the standard licence conditions, as permitted under section 100 of the 2012 Act, it must assess the likely impact of the change or publish a statement explaining why such an assessment is not needed.
The clause also provides that the impact assessment carried out by NHS England must be included in the notice of the modification that is sent to the relevant licence holder and others, as required by section 100(2) of the 2012 Act. This new requirement is intended to make it clearer why NHS England is altering a standard licence condition, which we think is in the interests of providers and the smooth running of the system.
Clause 29 abolishes the NHS TDA and works in harmony with clause 26, which abolishes Monitor and other provisions in the Bill that confer functions on NHS England in relation to providers, in order to merge the two organisations into NHS England to form a single body. In transferring functions that were formerly delegated to the TDA, we have considered the mechanisms and processes associated with those duties and assessed the best fit for the system, to ensure that the relationships already in place are not unduly affected. Clause 29 revokes the directions that established the TDA, and subsections (3) and (4) include consequential amendments that remove references to the TDA. They will no longer be relevant once the TDA is abolished.
Clause 30 makes a consequential amendment to NHS England’s general functions to reflect its oversight of NHS trusts and foundation trusts due to the merger of NHS England and NHS Improvement. The clause ensures a joined-up approach to decision making, allowing NHS England to understand the services required to best serve patients. It amends section 1H of the National Health Service Act 2006 so that for the purpose of discharging its duty to promote a comprehensive health service in England, NHS England must exercise its functions in relation to English NHS trusts and foundation trusts, as well as in relation to ICBs, which will replace the current reference to CCGs, so that services are provided for that purpose.
As part of the merger of NHS England, Monitor and the NHS TDA, and as a consequence of the abolition of Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority, clause 31 gives the Secretary of State the power to make schemes to transfer the staff, property, rights and liabilities from Monitor and the TDA to NHS England. These transfer scheme provisions follow a similar protocol used within the Health and Social Care Act 2012 for the transfer of assets, rights or liabilities on the abolition of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Health and Social Care Information Centre. The transfer schemes used then proved effective and efficient, ensuring a smooth transition and no impact on the services they delivered.
Finally, clause 32 contains a regulation-making power that allows the Treasury to vary the way in which any relevant tax has effect in relation to the transfer scheme. Regulations made under this power can be used to ensure that no taxes arise, and that there are no changes to the tax positions of either the transferee or transferor body. It is appropriate to avoid unnecessary tax complications relating to a transfer scheme between public bodies. The types of taxes that can be varied are set out in the clause.
Without this clause, the transfer of assets or liabilities between the bodies mentioned in clause 31—namely Monitor, NHS Trust Development Authority and NHS England—could give rise to unintended tax liabilities. As I have highlighted, this merger has clear benefits and is central to the Government’s plans for establishing a more integrated, responsive and accountable health and care system.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for his detail on those clauses, which have been very helpfully grouped. Although we have not put forward any amendments, we do want to raise some general concerns—mostly around what these clauses do not do.
As we have heard—although I do not think the Minister used quite the same terminology as we would have—these clauses have got rid of the worst trappings of the market architecture, which were characteristic of the Lansley Act. As we have heard, they enable the merger of NHS England and NHS Improvement, although I do not think that NHS Improvement is actually mentioned anywhere in the Bill. All references are to Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority. It is almost as if the Government want us to forget that NHS Improvement ever existed—or probably want us to forget who was chairing it.
The abolition of Monitor sounds another death knell for the Lansley Act, but does leave some of the market mechanisms in place. However, since they were ignored anyway, I can understand why the Government have not bothered to go the whole hog.
Clause 26 finally turns the Monitor off at the mains—although I think it is fair to say that it stopped working some time ago. NHS England is now the undisputed, supreme leader over commissioning and both flavours of providing, so the Bill not only tears up the Lansley reforms but quietly changes the 2003 amendments. Monitor was set up as the regulator of foundation trusts, and was to be the approver of applications to become a foundation trust.
Foundation trusts have had many incarnations, but were once heralded as the vigorous, autonomous new organisations that would shake up the NHS and bring choice and competition into healthcare. They were beyond the reach of those nasty bureaucrats who ran the rest of the NHS. However, as I think we have seen today, it has not quite turned out like that. There must be a clever saying somewhere that “All health service reforms end in failure”, just like all politicians’ careers—although the Minister is clearly an exception to that!
It is fair to say that we are seeing the end of the foundation trust experiment. There is no evidence that the new foundation trust model did any better than the old model. Of course, the first few anointed foundation trusts did outperform non-foundation trusts, but that was because they were already the best-performing trusts. That was why they were allowed to become foundation trusts in the first place. It was, really, a self-fulfilling prophecy, but, as time has moved on, it has been harder and harder for trusts to excel to the level originally envisaged.
Foundation trusts did have some good characteristics; they did have a better go at accountability to their governing bodies. Given this Bill’s focus on involving patients and the public in the wider health system, perhaps this system also has some positives—something to commend it. It might not have been a bad idea to have an equivalent model for the governance of ICBs, but I will not return to that now. I know the Minister has not warmed to our suggestions of greater accountability, but I will leave that for him to consider if he brings forward amendments on Report.
The Lansley Act favoured foundation trusts and made the optimistic—and what turned out to be highly inaccurate—assumption that, in time, all NHS providers would become foundation trusts. As so much happened with that Act, however, it turned out not to be the case at all. Foundation trusts are now no different from the old-school, old-style NHS trusts—a “distinction without a difference”, as Lord Stevens once quipped. For all relevant purposes, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts are performance-managed in exactly the same way.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is right in what he says. Given Monitor’s role, NHS Improvement’s role and local scrutiny of what is happening within the system—it is almost independent in some cases—there is a real gap here now. I have called them cartels before, although my hon. Friend will perhaps not use that word. With the absence of Monitor, where is the transparent and independent scrutiny? What is the new regime, and how will that accentuate the patient voice? We have also been unable to highlight how many millions of pounds have been wasted in the intervening years from 2012 with regards to how the previous Act was pushed through, and the terrible waste that has arisen as a result. Surely the patient voice must be really important in holding trusts to account.
Justin Madders
I can assure my hon. Friend that I will not waste opportunities to refer to the waste of public money as a result of the Lansley Act, but the wider point is one that the Opposition have made already in Committee and will continue to make. There is clearly a gap where accountability ought to lie. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister says about why the governing model for foundation trusts cannot be expanded to all remaining trusts. We would particularly want to see far greater patient involvement in the integrated care systems in the Bill. Clearly, we have had that debate unsuccessfully, but I hope that we will perhaps have an opportunity to return to it once the Bill returns from the other place.
I will say a few words on the licensing scheme. Given that the Bill marks an end to the whole era of markets and competition and a move, at least in theory, to a model of collaboration and co-operation—not a cartel, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South might call it—why is it necessary to license NHS bodies that are now fully under the control of NHS England and the Secretary of State? That does not seem to be a particularly good use of anyone’s time, and it will create more unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy.
We will do our best to help the Minister in reducing obstacles to delivering patient care, so we will not oppose these clauses. However, we think that they have probably not gone far enough. They are clearly a necessary tidying-up job, but the Government should do the job fully and properly.
Edward Argar
As ever, I am grateful to the shadow Minister. He should be optimistic—perhaps not on this issue, but more broadly—about the reception of some of his suggestions. I think I managed to take him aback slightly last week with one suggestion, although it was perhaps not the one with which he expected me to be willing to engage. I always listen to and consider carefully what he says.
The shadow Minister made a number of points. He mentioned the references to Monitor and TDA and said there are no references to NHS Improvement. That is because NHS Improvement is not the named body in law—that is simply a legal distinction. The named bodies are the NHS TDA and Monitor, which we understand and know as NHS Improvement.
I gently chide the shadow Minister. His reference to the chair of NHS Improvement, Baroness Harding, was a little unmerited. She has worked tirelessly. Colleagues will have their views, as is entirely appropriate in this place, but his reference was uncharacteristically uncharitable.
Karin Smyth
Given that the Minister, who I think is an honourable man, has mentioned that, does he think it acceptable for the chair of NHS Improvement to take the Conservative Whip in the House of Lords, as was outlined in the pre-screening scrutiny commission by the Health and Social Care Committee? Does he think that is acceptable, as other Ministers have not done so?
Edward Argar
I believe that all appointments, including that one, are conducted entirely appropriately, in line with Cabinet Office guidance.
I move on to the shadow Minister’s substantive points, which he perhaps made more in hope than anything else. We are not resiling from the value that choice and competition can bring, but we recognise that it is not the only driver of improvement and that collaboration plays a key role, so the position is perhaps a little more nuanced than he might like to suggest or wish to see. What we are seeing here is a reflection of the reality. We are ensuring that the way the system has evolved in practical terms over time is reflected by updating the appropriate legislation.
The shadow Minister mentioned a number of specific points around foundation trusts, and I hope I can give him some reassurance. We are not abolishing foundation trusts or their rights. The licensing system that we are talking about allows for equivalent management of both types of trust in a consistent way, and the NHS will still have the power to authorise new foundation trusts in the future, if they meet the appropriate criteria.
Justin Madders
I think the Minister probably has the gist of what I was getting at in my comments. Can he tell us how many applications for foundation trust status are currently in the pipeline?
Edward Argar
The shadow Minister is an able parliamentarian. I hesitate to say with certainty, but my belief is none at present. However, I caveat that by saying I would not wish to mislead the Committee. If I have got that wrong, I will of course let him know.
There is nothing that stops the evolution of trusts into foundation trusts, if they so wish and meet the criteria. What we are saying here is that it is not one size fits all. We will not force anyone down that route, but the option remains for NHS England. I would argue that the way the system has evolved is a reflection of the strength of that system and the framework that we have put in place around it. On a serious note, I know that the point about foundation trusts is of considerable interest to the shadow Minister. When we reach clauses 51 to 57, which cover this issue and the operation of foundation trusts, I suspect that we may get into rather more detail about how they actually operate. I might even be able to confirm that my understanding of the figure for which he asks is correct.
The shadow Minister has made his points clearly, but I hope the Opposition will agree to these clauses. They are technical clauses in essence, and the shadow Minister has rightly used them to air broader issues that are related. They are technical clauses to reflect the reality of the evolution of the system.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Report on assessing and meeting workforce needs
Chris Skidmore
I beg to move amendment 94, in clause 33, page 40, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 and insert—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, at least once every two years, lay a report before Parliament describing the system in place for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of the health, social care and public health services in England.
(2) This report must include—
(a) an independently verified assessment, compliant with the National Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice for Statistics, of health, social care and public health workforce numbers, current at the time of publication, and the projected workforce supply for the following five, ten and 20 years.
(b) an independently verified assessment, compliant with the National Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice for Statistics, of future health, social care and public health workforce numbers based on the projected health and care needs of the population for the following five, ten and 20 years, consistent with the Office for Budget Responsibility long-term fiscal projections.
(3) NHS England and Health Education England must assist in the preparation of a report under this section.
(4) The organisations listed in subsection (3) must consult health and care employers, providers, trade unions, Royal Colleges, universities and any other persons deemed necessary for the preparation of this report, taking full account of workforce intelligence, evidence and plans provided by local organisations and partners of integrated care boards.”
This amendment would require published assessments every two years of current and future workforce numbers required to deliver care to the population in England, based on the economic projections made by the Office for Budget Responsibility, based on projected demographic changes, the prevalence of different health conditions and likely impact of technology.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 33, page 40, line 6, leave out
“at least once every five years”
and insert “annually”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on assessing and meeting the workforce need annually.
Amendment 40, in clause 33, page 40, line 7, leave out “the health service” and insert “health and social care services”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on assessing and meeting the workforce need for both health and social care services.
Amendment 41, in clause 33, page 40, line 11, at end insert—
“(3) Health Education England must publish a report each year on projected workforce shortages and future staffing requirements for health and social care services in the following five, ten and twenty years.
(4) The report must report projections of both headcount and full-time equivalent for the total health and care workforce in England and for each region, covering all regulated professions and including those working for voluntary and private providers of health and social care as well as the NHS.
(5) All relevant NHS bodies, arm’s-length bodies, expert bodies, trade unions and the National Partnership forum must be consulted in the preparation of the report.
(6) The assumptions underpinning the projections must be published at the same time as the report and must meet the relevant standards set out in the National Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice for Statistics.
(7) The Secretary of State must update Parliament each year on the Government’s strategy to deliver and fund the long-term workforce projections.”
Amendment 42, in clause 33, page 40, line 11, at end insert—
“(3) The annual report must include an assessment by the Secretary of State of safe staffing levels in the health service in England and whether those levels are being met.”
Chris Skidmore
I wanted to speak to amendment 94, which is the product of a revision on my part. I initially tabled an amendment to clause 33, but it was as a result of the oral evidence sessions when the clause was discussed at length by a number of organisations that I decided to re-table amendments with further detail.
Clause 33 is one of the shortest clauses in this substantial Bill, but it is one of the most important. When it comes to looking at how we plan the NHS workforce for the next five years as the clause suggests, or the next 10 or 20 years, we face significant demographic changes in the United Kingdom. We have an aging population with sadly more co-morbidities and chronic conditions, such as diabetes, than ever before, which puts increasing pressure on not only the health service, but the health and care service. That is the omission. The clause has no mention of the care service, which needs to be dealt with.
The clause is rather perfunctory. At the moment, the duty on the Secretary of State is to,
“once every five years, publish a report describing”
—not necessarily detailing or taking any action—
“the system in place for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of the health service in England”
—not the care service.
Secondly, the report would be prepared by NHS England and Health Education England alone, not mentioning any of the other wider workforce organisations. They would,
“assist in the preparation of the report”
but only,
“if requested to do so by the Secretary of State.”
The Secretary of State holds all the cards about how the report is published and what type of data is used.
Amendment 94 sets out that we should have a report every two years. The first amendment I put down actually wanted an annual report. I know there are some amendments on annual reports, but it was very clear from organisations, such as NHS Confederation and NHS Providers, that they saw an annual report as being too bureaucratic. They would have to start the next report having just finished the previous one, hence I withdrew the amendment. In that spirit of the Committee, it is important that Back-Bench Members listen and change our amendments where possible.
I have tabled some amendments saying that the Secretary of State must lay a report every two years. We have seen with the pandemic that five years is too long a period to anticipate unknowable events and uncertainties within the system. Having a two year report would reflect better on the pressures that can occur within a system over a shorter period of time. Amendment 94 also addresses two specific issues around what this report would look like and how it is put together, because ultimately a report is only as good as the data it utilises. Where are we getting that data from? If the clause allowed NHS England and Health Education England simply to assist in the preparation of the report without any understanding of what data measures are used in such reports, we would miss an opportunity to embed detailed demographic research into our understanding of the workforce needs of the NHS and care population.
Karin Smyth
The right hon. Gentleman is making some excellent points. He and I share a health economy, two universities and a thriving region, but we still have problems. People in my constituency cannot get the sorts of jobs and apprenticeships that they need. How would his amendment deal with the geographical discrepancies across the country through a single two-year report, and how would we account for the different training demands in different parts of the country?
Chris Skidmore
I think there is a subsection here about how clause 33 relates to clause 19 and the duties on ICBs as the placemaking organisations that can provide the training opportunities for the future. I also think there are great opportunities in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for potential further devolution of the skills budget through a mayoral system. That skills budget will already be devolved in some of the metro Mayor areas, so I hope that it will also be devolved across wider areas that do not necessarily have a city population. The Government are clearly looking to fill that gap. Those are also the skill needs of the healthcare population, which is why, when it comes to the duties for the ICBs, I am keen that they take on board the wider non-healthcare resident population, whether in universities, colleges or elsewhere, to bring in expertise on creating training pathways for the future.
Without going off-piste, I think there are future opportunities for more flexible qualifications. We have the lifelong learning allowance. We are looking at how to allow individuals to retrain for the future, creating apprenticeship opportunities, in-work opportunities and course-based opportunities. This is not just about providing nurses and doctors; it is also about allowing nurses to move up the scales and retrain when they are in the NHS, which would help to lower the attrition rate.
Retention is one of the greatest challenges we have—it is not only about training—and I am sure that the intention of clause 33 is also to get to grips with retaining the 20% of the workforce who leave over a five-year cycle. It would do so much better if it took into account statistics consistent with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s long-term fiscal projections and if we were able to look at the needs of the population. That is what subsection 2(b) of my amendment suggests—looking at workforce numbers
“based on the projected health and care needs of the population”
as well as the demographic numbers of the workforce.
The amendment suggests a number of organisations that should be able to contribute to the report, including health and care employers. I return to the point that the care sector is not reflected in clause 33, and it really should be. Trade unions also play a vital role in identifying needs; that may be strange coming from a Conservative MP and I may disagree politically with unions, but they have the data and the opportunity to provide feedback from their members, which is really important. I have mentioned the royal colleges in discussions on previous amendments. Universities are critical for identifying ways of integrating healthcare and education practices. I also suggest
“any other persons deemed necessary for the preparation of the report, taking full account of workforce intelligence…and plans provided by local organisations and partners of integrated care boards.”
The amendment would therefore allow for place-based opportunities, as the hon. Member for Bristol South has said, in delivering on the clause’s workforce planning.
I do not intend to push the amendment to a vote. It is a probing amendment, which I hope the Minister will take seriously, especially given the length of time the issue was discussed in the oral evidence sessions.
I am sure all Members have received briefing packs from various organisations. Clause 33 comes up as one of the priorities. The organisations’ intentions are not vexatious; they are not raising the issue to make a campaign point against the Government. The tone of the Bill is one of collaboration and partnership. As was mentioned in the oral evidence sessions and the early sittings of the Committee, the Bill is unique. It is not a top-down reorganisation—it is filling in the jigsaw puzzle that has been constructed from below upwards, providing the legislative cherry on the top of a cake that has already been baked by local healthcare communities who know what they need. What they need is certainty on workforce planning. The Bill provides the legislative certainty of consistency at national level that will trickle down to local level.
I urge the Minister to listen to the requests for more frequent reporting on workforce planning, better use of data in producing the report and a widening of opportunities to be partners in that report. The Minister and Department have done a fantastic job in allowing the partnership model to evolve. We have moved away from institutional top-down accountability, where there was a competitive spirit between institutions. We have broken that down; the ICPs and ICBs now provide an opportunity for greater partnership working, for the benefit of patients and the outcomes that need to be delivered. This is the missing piece in the legislation.
We need to move workforce needs to a partnership model and away from the top-down approach that clause 33 very much suggests. The Secretary of State holds all the cards on the planning of the report and does not even necessarily have to work with NHS England or Health Education England. In the spirit of the Bill, I urge the Minister to open up the clause and consider the proposal in amendment 94 on Report or in the other place. It is an important change that would make the Bill even better. I urge him to give it due consideration.
Justin Madders
I will speak to amendment 94 and the other amendments in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, since they are grouped together and we are clearly all talking about the same thing. There is probably only a cigarette paper between many elements of these amendments and, I hope, the Minister’s position when we get to the end of the debate.
One reason why there are so many amendments and they are all fairly similar is that it was clear from the evidence sessions that this is one of the few areas on which there was complete agreement among the witnesses. Clause 33 is simply nowhere near good enough. Given the importance of workforce issues, which is the most crucial issue facing our NHS and social care system—as the right hon. Member for Kingswood mentioned, social care must be included within this—it is strange that we have really quite a tepid offering in the Bill.
It feels as though the whole question of workforce is firmly in the Department’s “too difficult” box. It knows it has to do something; it knows that without the tremendous efforts of the staff the NHS would simply collapse, but rather than coming up with an effective strategy, it has produced this fig leaf of a clause to create the impression that the issue is being taken seriously and dealt with.
Justin Madders
It is now in the Minister’s inbox, and he will know that what is currently in the Bill does not cut it in terms of the challenges we face. As I often do, I place on record our thanks and admiration for the whole NHS workforce, for turning from theory into reality an organisation that demonstrates the benefits of collectivism and socialism and is one of the nation’s proudest achievements—I certainly expect the Minister to agree with the latter part of that sentiment, if not the former.
I have said this many times before, and I will say it again: without its workforce, the NHS is nothing. It is not only the doctors and nurses, but all the others who contribute to the delivery of a comprehensive and universal service, free at the point of use: the radiographers, the porters, the cleaners and the allied health professionals. I will not list them all, but we should acknowledge that a number of different people contribute towards even the most straightforward engagement with a patient, and we are grateful for each and every one of them and the service they give.
I briefly refer hon. Members to the report by the Health and Social Care Committee on workforce burnout and resilience. It conducted an inquiry into the issue and found that staff shortages were
“ultimately the biggest driver of burnout.”
It was presented with much evidence from staff about feelings of low energy or exhaustion, increased mental distance from or negative feelings about the job, and reduced professional effectiveness. Excessive workload was identified as the key predictor of staff stress, workers’ intention to quit and patient dissatisfaction, and was also highly associated with the level of errors.
I draw this Committee’s attention to some of the conclusions in the report. Paragraph 22 states:
“It is clear from our witnesses that although the People Plan presents comprehensive ambition to address the failings in the culture of the NHS, and address the needs and wellbeing of NHS staff, its delivery will depend on the level of resourcing allocated to these priorities. Without adequate funding the laudable aspirations of the People Plan will not become reality.”
Paragraph 23 states:
“We recommend that the Department publishes regular, costed updates along with delivery timelines for all of the proposals in the People Plan.”
That is something we are trying to turn into reality with our amendments.
Turning to the specifics of amendment 40, paragraph 24 of the Select Committee report states:
“The absence of a People Plan for social care serves only to widen the disparity in recognition and support for the social care components of health and social care. The Government should rectify this as a matter of urgency in their upcoming work to reform the social care sector; and it is essential that it is included in the social care reforms promised this year.”
Some reforms have been promised, but we still await the further White Paper on integration, which we have touched on many times.
“The adult social care workforce has stepped up to the plate during the pandemic. They deserve the same care and attention that the People Plan pledges to NHS colleagues.”
We wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments stated there.
Karin Smyth
I entirely concur with the comments of my hon. Friend, who asked: if not now, when? The right hon. Member for Kingswood described this as a short clause, but one that is hugely important. I do not want to quote everyone who has given us evidence, but we all agree that this is a major issue for the service and has been for a number of years. It is the major omission from this Bill, which has had all sorts of other things added to it but does not look at this issue seriously. This is a massive missed opportunity, unless the Minister takes on board some of what has been said today and supports some of these amendments, to indicate to the service, post pandemic, that this message has been heard loud and clear. The Secretary of State seems to want to take on a lot of responsibilities, and this is something quite significant that he could do something about. He could give that indication.
As I said to the right hon. Member for Kingswood earlier, we have to recognise the differences between health economies and parts of the country. Fairly recently, the Government expanded medical training places in parts of the country where there is a low take-up, and to which people are not moving to work. We know that if we train people locally, they stay local and if the Government would like a quick and easy way to level up—however they want to define it—that is it.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to all the hon. Members for tabling the amendments. They relate to increasing the Government’s accountability for assessing workforce planning and setting workforce projections. Before I turn to their substance, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston suspected, I entirely agree with the latter half of his sentiment about the achievement that is the NHS. I am not sure I would necessarily attribute that to unbridled socialism, which tends to fail where it is tried. However, as Opposition Members will know and as set out well in the book written about Nye Bevan by their right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), which I re-read over the weekend, the genesis of the NHS was a complex one, which owed much to all parties in the House.
Justin Madders
I am glad the Minister has time to be reading such excellent tomes over the weekend. Can he remind us what the Conservative party did when voting on the original National Health Service Act 1946?
Edward Argar
Could the hon. Gentleman remind me what the Labour party did when in government, resulting in the resignation of the architect of the NHS?
The point I make is a serious one. The genesis of the NHS which, quite rightly, we are all proud of and recognise as a great achievement, is far from as simple as sometimes it might be portrayed by both parties in the House. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that while the new hospitals we are building, the developments in drugs and therapeutics, and the new technology and new kit are all hugely important, they are limbs of the NHS. Its beating heart is its workforce and he is right to highlight that. I join with him, as I often do on these occasions, in paying tribute to all those who make up that beating heart.
Continuing to grow the workforce remains a top priority for the Government. Although I may disappoint some hon. Members, I am genuinely grateful to those who tabled amendments and spoke to them today, because this is a crucial debate, and I suspect the matter will continue to be raised, not just during the passage of the Bill but, rightly, more broadly. As ever, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, who brings a high degree of expertise to this subject, as the only hon. Member or right hon. Member to have occupied both the office that I now occupy and that of Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation. He brings to the Bill the perspective he has gained from both those offices.
When I got this job back in September 2019, which seems like an age ago, I was responsible for workforce for a few months, until that responsibility was taken on by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) at the beginning of 2020. One of my first visits was to the University of Lincoln, which had just opened its medical school. That medical school had been campaigned for very hard by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney), who was out of office at the time, and by the then Opposition Member for Lincoln.
The hon. Member for Bristol South is absolutely right to highlight the importance of local medical schools. Lincolnshire, for example, has a challenge in attracting and retaining a workforce. We are already in the early stages of seeing a growing workforce of people there who are likely to start their careers in Lincoln. When I visited, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood was remembered with fondness. I did not take it personally that they almost seemed disappointed to see me and not him, but that is a reflection of the affection in which he is held and the respect for him in this sector.
As the shadow Minister rightly said, yesterday I again resumed responsibility for the NHS workforce and I look forward to working with him constructively on these matters, which is the way we tend to work. We will consider the role that all stakeholders can play in identifying the needs and opportunities around the workforce. I always value input and I echo the words of my right hon. Friend, which I hope will find favour with the shadow Minister, that that includes input from professional bodies, think-tanks, NHS bodies and the trade unions. There may be times when we disagree, but I look forward to working with all of them constructively and courteously, as I do with the shadow Minister.
This year, we have seen record numbers of nurses and doctors working in the NHS, and the total number of NHS staff has increased to almost 1.2 million. There are over 17,800—2.9%—more professionally qualified clinical staff working in NHS trusts and clinical commissioning groups than in June 2020, including over 2,700, or 2.3%, more doctors and over 8,900 more nurses.
We continue to make good progress towards meeting our manifesto commitment of 50,000 more nurses by March 2024. Encouragingly for future workforce supply, applications for nursing and midwifery courses in England were up 21% this year compared with last year, and we have seen the highest number of students accepting places in the past 10 years. Through Health Education England, we will continue to invest in the NHS and social care workforces, and an additional duty is not required for this to happen.
I will not repeat the point that the shadow Minister very kindly made about the July commission. I will certainly look into the status of the response to that report. He will recognise that even when we do not agree, which is not that often, although there are such times, I endeavour to be efficient and courteous in responding to such matters, so I look forward to picking up on that with my new responsibilities.
Justin Madders
I certainly did not intend to upbraid him for not responding, given that he took over responsibility only yesterday. He will be aware of the importance of the report and of an official response.
Edward Argar
I am, of course, and I reassure the hon. Gentleman that prior to the reshuffle I was looking at a number of issues related to the recovery of our workforce. A fit, healthy and supportive workforce is crucial to that. I have read and considered the report, and, with my new responsibility, I will endeavour as swiftly as I can to ensure that the Government respond as appropriate to the Committee, and to Committee reports more broadly, in a timely fashion.
We believe that the proposed duty in clause 33, which inserts proposed new section 1GA into the National Health Service Act 2006 in order to require the Secretary of State to produce a workforce accountability report at least every five years, addresses one of the main issues in the current system: the need for greater transparency and accountability for the various bodies involved in the workforce planning process in England. The proposal in the Bill is to ensure that there are proper structures and accountability for ensuring that the necessary workplace planning and projections are carried out and co-ordinated effectively by the various bodies in the system. For example, the report will set out the role and responsibilities of the new ICBs and how they will support the delivery of effective local and national workplace planning.
Draft guidance issued by NHS England, which covers the role of ICBs regarding the workforce, sets out the direction of travel in that regard. It sets out the ICBs’ responsibility to develop system-wide plans to address current and future workforce supply for the local area, with demand and supply planning based on population health needs. The guidance also refers to their responsibility to provide workforce data to regional and national workforce teams in order to support aggregated workforce planning and to inform prioritisation of workforce initiatives and investment decisions.
I fear that my remarks may be a little more lengthy than usual, but I think that that reflects the importance and breadth of this issue. Turning to the other amendments in the group, amendment 2 would require the Secretary of State to publish the report on assessing and meeting the workforce need annually, rather than at a minimum of every five years. I acknowledge the witnesses’ comments, which the shadow Minister has rightly highlighted, but we need to be a little cautious. We cannot predict all future evolution and needs, which is why we have mandated the report to be published at a minimum of every five years. That flexibility allows us to provide an updated report in order to reflect any changes to roles and responsibilities earlier than the statutory required period, if necessary, but requiring an annual report would impose an unnecessarily prescriptive and, I fear, rigid arrangement on the production of this document and would be disproportionate to the level of change in roles and responsibilities that we expect to see in the system on an annual basis. I therefore suspect that it is a matter for debate as to what the most appropriate timescale is—we have therefore set a minimum period, rather than a maximum period.
Amendment 40 seeks to go further than our current duty on reporting workforce accountabilities, by requiring the report to set out the system in place for assessing and meeting workforce needs, both of the health service and of social care. As the shadow Minister has alluded to, and as he and I agree, our 1.5 million-strong social care workforce is an absolutely essential and valued part of the social care system and, indeed, our broader healthcare system in this country. Social care workers are on the frontline, caring for and supporting people at the heart of their communities.
I understand the intention behind the amendment, but I fear that we will not be able to accept it today. The scope of clause 33 as it stands has been carefully drafted to ensure that it reflects the statutory role and responsibility of HEE, which will assist in the production of the report. As a result, the workforce accountabilities report will cover the NHS in England, including primary, secondary and community care; the regulated adult social care workforce where sections of the workforce are shared between health and social care—for example, registered nurses and occupational therapists; and the regulated public health workforce, including doctors and other regulated healthcare professions. Regulated professionals in adult social care are therefore already included in the scope of the report, but HEE has no specific remit for the wider, unregulated adult social care workforce. I can reassure the Committee, however, that the Government are working hard to bring forward a White Paper for adult social care. As the shadow Minister rightly alluded to—he repeated his comments, so I will repeat mine—the proposal set out by the Prime Minister will build on the strong foundations for reform and integration that will be laid through the Bill.
Justin Madders
I will not tempt the Minister to tell us what will be in that, but his confidence that it will be an improvement on the current position is noted. Does he anticipate that the White Paper will also include a very clear commitment to a workforce strategy, along the lines that we have discussed?
Edward Argar
I do not know whether the shadow Minister has seen what I was about to say, but after two years of doing this together, he has become relatively psychic. I anticipate that the White Paper will set out in detail how we propose to fund social care professionalisation, as well as initiatives or plans to improve workforce wellbeing and further reforms to improve social care recruitment and support.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I know it is not the done thing for Whips to contribute to debates, but because I have been a care worker, this part of the Bill is close to home for me. I wanted to touch on the word that the Minister used when he spoke about “assumptions” about workforce planning. Does he agree that actual independence takes away the need for Ministers to make assumptions, and that is why the amendment is important? Otherwise, Ministers are in danger of marking their own homework when it comes to whether they have met the workforce projections that they say they have met.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady alludes to it not being normal form for a Whip to intervene, but her contribution is, as ever, extremely valuable in this context—particularly given the work that she did before she became a Member of this House—and I am grateful to her. My counterpoint would be that we need to be cautious about a separation of projections and planning from the reality of day-to-day delivery. The system, as envisaged, will bring together an actual knowledge of what is going on on the ground with those projections and data delivery.
I suspect that I will not convince the hon. Lady, but I recognise and acknowledge the expertise that she brings to the area. Back in my days as a councillor, I was a cabinet member for adult social care and saw at first hand the amazing work done by care professionals and by volunteers in the care sector. Notwithstanding any political disagreements we might have, I pay tribute to her for that.
Finally, regarding the consultation requirements in amendments 94 and 41, I assure the Committee that consultation already happens throughout the workforce planning and delivery process. To give a recent example of such engagement, HEE completed a call for evidence as part of its refreshed “Framework 15”. That call for evidence closed on 6 September and received responses from a wide variety of bodies. Between October and April of next year, engagement and consultation will continue through various events led by HEE. I am sure that as I assume my new responsibilities, I will occasionally be questioned on those by the shadow Minister, either across the Dispatch Box or in written questions and letters, as is his wont and, indeed, his right.
At local level, ICBs will be under various workforce-related responsibilities and obligations, as I have set out. As part of that work, we can expect ICBs to work with local stakeholders in their area. We expect all this stakeholder consultation to continue, but we want engagement to be flexible, in keeping with one of the principles—the permissive principle—behind the Bill.
Let me turn to the issue of safe staffing. Amendment 42 would significantly amend our proposed workforce accountability report so that it would have to cover an assessment by the Secretary of State of safe staffing levels for the health service in England and whether those were being met. The effect of the amendment in reality would be to require the Secretary of State to make such an assessment but, in so doing, risk detracting from the responsibility of clinical and other leaders at local level for ensuring safe staffing, reflecting their expertise and local knowledge, supported by guidance and regulated by the Care Quality Commission. We do not support the amendment as drafted, for various reasons.
First, there is no single ratio or formula that can calculate the answer to what represents safe staffing in a particular context, and therefore against which the Secretary of State could make an objective assessment. It will, as we have seen over the past year and a half, differ across and within an organisation. Reaching the right mix, for the right circumstances and the right clinical outcomes, requires the use of evidence-based tools, the exercise of professional judgment and a multi-professional approach. Consequently, in England, we think that the responsibility for staffing levels should remain with clinical and other leaders at local level, responding to local needs, utilising their expertise, supported by guidelines from national bodies and professional organisations, and all overseen and regulated by the CQC.
Secondly, the amendment would require the formulation of safe staffing levels against which the NHS workforce could be assessed. I fear that that would be a retrograde step, as it would inhibit the development of the more productive skill mixes that are needed for a more innovative and flexible workforce for the future. That new workforce is crucial to successful implementation of the new models of integrated care that the Bill is intended to support.
The specific wording of the amendment is incredibly broad and would require the Secretary of State to assess safe staffing levels across all healthcare settings, across the whole of England, for all medical and clinical staff. Such a duty would be burdensome not only for the national system but, potentially, locally—for local clinical leaders. It would move us away from that local accountability and expertise.
I assure the Committee that we will continue to engage with stakeholders and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, to look closely at this area. I want to reassure Members, including Opposition Members, that we have heard their concerns and the views that they have expressed in relation to workforce in today’s debate and reflecting the evidence of witnesses. I am grateful, as ever, for the tone in which the shadow Minister has raised his concerns and put his points. We will carefully consider these issues and continue to ensure, and to reflect on ensuring, that we work to address them through the Department’s wider work on workforce.
Let me just say, before concluding, that while we were doing the changeover between clauses, I did a very quick check and I believe I was correct in my answer to the shadow Minister that no applications were currently pending for foundation trusts. I wanted to clarify that it turns out I was right—I suspect he thinks he was right in his assumption as well.
For the reasons that I have set out, I encourage hon. Members not to push these amendments to a Division but to continue engaging with me and other Ministers.
Chris Skidmore
I thank the Minister not only for his kind words to me personally, but for his considered response to this set of amendments. It is clear that he is mulling over this, and I would like to give him time to think about potential opportunities for changing the clause. I know how these things work; I have sat in the very same seat that he is sitting in. I know he has to spin off various pieces of paper that have been provided to him by departmental officials. The officials who are sitting here have listened to this debate and will want to go back to the Department to discuss with their colleagues what has been mentioned in Committee today.
There is a gap between the sector’s expectations of what workforce planning might look like and what is currently written in the Bill. The Minister has proven my amendment to be defective. It is already highlighted in the legislative remits of Health Education England that it has to consult the social care sector and also the wider sector. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I do think there is an opportunity. If we can plan in advance and create systemic frameworks, we will save ourselves time—a stitch in time saves nine. We have an opportunity to provide certainty and security for the workforce and to provide a sustainable framework, although I am not sure whether the five years is sustainable.
As I have mentioned before, I was here 10 years ago on the Committee for the Health and Social Care Bill, which became the Health and Social Care Act 2012. We are now removing parts of that, and the Minister at the time, in the very same seat, argued until he was blue in the face that there would be a benefit. We can learn from that experience, but the lived experience of professionals suggests we need to be more frequent in our assessment of the workforce needs of the NHS and the care sector.
We know that the demographic train that is coming down the tracks is going to hit us. We have seen what has happened with gas supply prices and the energy sector; we knew nine years ago that we had only about four days’ gas supply, and yet no action was taken. If we transpose that over here, we know that we face workforce issues, if not a crisis, in the next 10 years. That will all come down the tracks in a perfect storm of increasing healthcare issues, an ageing population and an attrition rate in a workforce that cannot currently keep up with demand.
There are supply and demand issues. We need more frequent assessments to ensure that supply and demand meet each other, and we need investment in the workforce and in training. Although I will withdraw amendment 94, I am keen for the Minister to consider what further action might be taken on Report or in the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Justin Madders
I would just like to say a few words about amendments 40 to 42, if that is acceptable, Mrs Murray. We wish to press amendments 40 and 41 to a vote, with your permission. It is clear from the evidence that there is a demand for something to be done. It is interlinked with patient safety and cannot be ignored. Our main concern is: if we do not do this now, when will we?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 40, in clause 33, page 40, line 7, leave out ‘the health service’ and insert ‘health and social care services’—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on assessing and meeting the workforce need for both health and social care services.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 33, page 40, line 11, at end insert—
‘(3) The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers before the functions in this section are exercised.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to consult the Welsh Government before the functions on workforce assessments in this clause are exercised.
I will be brief, given that much of what I would otherwise have said has been covered in the debate on the previous group of amendments. I will just say to those on the Front Benches, in their discussion of the genesis of the NHS, that success has many parents. Aneurin Bevan of Tredegar was the father of the NHS, based on his experience of the provision of health in that area, but it was also based on the foundation that was set up by my predecessor but three as Member for Caernarfon, David Lloyd George.
Having got that out of way, the amendment would place a duty to consult the Welsh Government on workforce assessments. Although the amendment is a probing one, I am concerned that the devolution settlement remains somewhat complicated and sometimes unclear, even in its current iteration. As a piece of history and a reference to how that settlement can cloud matters, I will mention a question I asked a former Labour Secretary of State for Health, Mr Alan Milburn, some years ago about nurses’ pay. His response, which I committed to my memory, was “It is one of the abiding joys of my life that I have no responsibility for things Welsh.” Unfortunately for both Wales and him, he actually had responsibility for nurses’ pay at that time. Even Secretaries of State are not perfect, let alone Ministers of State and others. That situation has now been resolved.
The danger is always that the remaining integration of parts of the Welsh health service and health service in England might be overlooked. I referred to that earlier in respect of services and people from Wales—and people from England, for that matter—accessing health services on the other side of the border. People in north Wales specifically will recognise the names of individual hospitals in England. I refer briefly to Alder Hey on the Wirral, which provides services to children with severe conditions. There is the Royal Liverpool; the Christie in Manchester, which provides specialist cancer treatment; and the hospital in Gobowen, which has for a long time provided orthopaedic services. Recently, severe casualties and people who have suffered road traffic accidents have been helicoptered to Stoke for specialist treatment. As I said the other day, around 13,500 Welsh people access GP services in England, and 21,000 or so people from England access GP services in Wales. Those are the 2019 figures.
The workforce-training and education aspects of cross-border arrangements must be considered because staff are mobile. People from Wales access training in England and then return to Wales, and it works the other way around as well. In my own constituency specifically, the school of nursing at Bangor University has for a number of years trained nurses from all over the UK and elsewhere. We are now establishing a medical school that will certainly be training doctors who will return to Scotland, England or Northern Ireland.
The other positive opportunity that proper workforce planning would present the health service throughout the UK is in the specialisms that we hope to develop in Wales—particularly in my area of north Wales. Those specialisms include, for example, treating injuries arising from accidents on our coasts and mountains, for which we already have some specialism. There are also particular issues around mental health and multilingualism, particularly in talking therapies and work with children and older people.
There are opportunities for people who might be trained in Wales before going over to England, and vice versa. For the reasons that I have outlined, I think it essential that those matters be taken into consideration in workforce planning.
Alex Norris
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair once again, Mrs Murray, and to follow the thoughtful contribution by the hon. Member for Arfon.
The hon. Gentleman’s points about interdependency are important. Of course, we cherish and build on the devolved settlement, but we understand that we still have important relationships, not least at our borders. I thought that his point about specialised care was a thoughtful one, too: we know that as conditions or treatments become complex, there will be specialisations, and we would never want artificial barriers to get in the way of people accessing specialised care. His point about training was also good and jumped out to me.
Yesterday, I spoke to a surgeon in my community who took great pride in working in the hospital where he was born. In between, he had gone away; I am told that there are parts of the world other than Nottingham—I dispute that fact—and he wanted to go and see some of them. That will inevitably involve crossing borders, and it is important that that is reflected in the Bill. That will happen from nation to nation, but in the future it will happen from integrated care system to integrated care system. Where there is divergence, we need to be thoughtful of it.
The statement of values relating to cross-border care said:
“no treatment will be refused or delayed due to uncertainty or ambiguity as to which body is responsible for funding an individual’s healthcare provision.”
That is an important principle because it sets out that it is the job of the system rather than the individual to understand and navigate the separation between different bodies that may diverge but which work together in common purpose. That is easy to say, but hard to do at times. As I say, that is something that we will see between integrated care systems in time, too. That is true for patients, but also for staff, whether those staff work in Wales but live in England or vice versa, and for the important interrelationships between border integrated care systems on the Welsh border and the NHS in Wales.
There will be devolved and separate competencies between those bodies, but the human beings who make those systems go live side by side in communities, sometimes even next door to each other. A decision taken in one place, of course, impacts on everybody; we see that a lot in social care. Local authorities are under so much pressure at the moment, both in the resources that they have to fund social care and finding individuals to staff that care. There could be price wars at the borders that mean that individuals move between organisations more frequently than they would in a system that was better planned. We have to be mindful of that.
During the evidence sessions, we heard about the safe staffing legislation for nurses in Wales. That is the sort of thing that would already impact on border CCGs, and will do on integrated care systems in due course. That will only grow as the considerable workforce pressures that we discussed in the previous debate bite down even harder. Again, we must be mindful of that. It is crucial that there is a collective approach—a minimum approach—where the NHSs in neighbouring nations have due regard to each other. If the workforce becomes a zero-sum game, we will all lose in the long term.
I was heartened in those proceedings to hear about the contact between the Minister and his colleagues in Wales. I know that he takes matters seriously in Wales and across the United Kingdom, which is good. We might hear more about how that works with regard to the work- force. In the meantime, we support the inclusion of this measure in the Bill and the fact that it will be a priority.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Arfon. Although I represent an east midlands constituency, in sunny Leicestershire—the hon. Member for Nottingham North would argue that Nottinghamshire is sunnier—I have a huge affection for Wales. In every speech he gives, the hon. Member for Arfon brings to the fore his pride in Wales and his constituency. In the vein of highlighting successful politicians representing Welsh constituencies, I take this opportunity to put on the record a tribute to my former Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, who has become the PPS to the Secretary of State for Wales. I congratulate her on that appointment. It is well deserved; she has looked after me very well during her time in this House. I am grateful to her and put my congratulations to her on the record.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing the amendment before the Committee. It would require the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers before the functions contained in clause 33 were exercised. Clause 33 would insert proposed new section 1GA into the National Health Service Act 2006, which, as we have just debated, would require the Secretary of State to publish, at least once every five years, a report describing the system in place for assessing and meeting workforce needs of the health service in England.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, alluded to a point regularly made to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd. Although politicians and people in this House might see neat administrative boundaries drawn on a map, the reality is often much more complex. Certainly, those boundaries should not be seen in their everyday lives by constituents and others, who on occasions rightly need to exercise their right to access specialist services in England; I dare say there will be occasions where the counterpoint is true, and people living on the English side of the border may access health services on the Welsh side. We need to recognise that and work pragmatically with that reality.
Although in many other areas of the Bill we will work closely alongside the devolved Administrations, we do not agree that there is a formal need to impose an obligation in the legislation to consult Welsh Ministers before the Secretary of State exercises the specific power in proposed new section 1GA. I will turn to how we work with the Welsh Government in a moment.
Hywel Williams
I am not entirely reassured by the Minister’s words; possibly the best response is, “We shall see”.
I make one further point, if I may, in reference to his former Parliamentary Private Secretary: people from Ynys Môn are known in Welsh as people from “Gwlad y Medra”, which translates as “the land of I can do it”. Clearly, she can do health, and we look forward to seeing her performance at the Wales Office as well. I add my congratulations to her. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Can I clarify, Mrs Murray, that we have a hard finish at 11.25 am?
Edward Argar
I will endeavour not to be on my feet at that moment.
Clause 33 inserts new section 1GA into the National Health Service Act 2006, which sets out a duty on the Secretary of State to report on workforce systems. Under the duty, the Secretary of State is required to publish, at least once every five years, a report describing the system in place for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of the health service in England. A duty is also placed on HEE and NHS England to assist in the preparation of the report, if asked by the Secretary of State to do so.
As we have discussed this morning, the report will describe the workforce planning and supply system for healthcare workers, including those working in the NHS and public health, alongside regulated healthcare professionals working in social care and other sectors in England. The report will be published at a minimum—I emphasise in each of my remarks that word “minimum”, although the shadow Minister may feel that it is not sufficient—of every five years. However, I can commit to that publication cycle being kept under review by the Secretary of State, should circumstances change.
Clause 33 will provide greater clarity and transparency on how the workforce planning and supply system operates in England. The report produced under it will describe in one single document the workforce planning and supply roles and responsibilities of relevant national bodies, including the Department, HEE and NHS England, the new integrated care boards and individual employers, and how they work together in practice at national, regional and local levels.
Clause 33 will complement our ongoing non-legislative steps and investment in workforce planning in England. In July 2021, the Department commissioned HEE to work with partners to review longer-term strategic trends for the health and social care workforce. This important programme will review, renew and update the existing long-term strategic framework for the health workforce—HEE’s framework 15—and will genuinely help to ensure that we have the right numbers, skills, values and behaviours to deliver world-leading clinical services and continued high standards of care.
Alongside the work that we are already doing with NHS England and HEE, clause 33 will further improve accountability for all the bodies involved on the important subject of planning for and meeting future workforce supply and demand.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee for long; I have said more than enough on the subject—not persuasively, clearly.
The Minister made the point that I did not think that a minimum of five years was sufficient for a report on the workforce, and that is absolutely correct—and I am not alone, by any stretch of the imagination. Every stakeholder and every person who gave evidence to the Committee said that five years was simply insufficient to deal with the magnitude of the challenge that we face. If the Department really wants to grasp the nettle, it should be taking heed of what those stakeholders said.
The workforce is a very complicated and ever-changing issue. It is part of a world market in healthcare staff. What the right hon. Member for Kingswood said about his amendment was important: simply to dip into other parts of the world when we are running short is not a solution. Not only is it morally difficult to justify, but it does not represent a long-term solution—we are as prone to losing staff to other parts of the world as anyone else. People will remember that the junior doctors’ dispute resulted in an exodus to Australia and other parts of the world. Going around the world and dipping into other countries’ healthcare resources is not a solution to the challenges that we face. We are not going to divide the Committee on clause 33, but we think that it is insufficient.
I repeat the Health and Social Care Committee’s finding that
“workforce planning was at best opaque and at worst was responsible for unacceptable pressure on staff.”
That really cannot be ignored. We cannot keep kicking the can down the road. I hope that when the clause gets to the other place, there is more success in putting the onus on the Government to deal with the challenge.
Edward Argar
I hear what the shadow Minister says, and I hope that I can give him some reassurance: the Government will continue to reflect very carefully on the points made both in the debate today and in our evidence session.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)
Building Safety Bill (Seventh sitting)
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairs: Philip Davies, Peter Dowd, †Clive Efford, Mrs Maria Miller
† Amesbury, Mike (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
† Bailey, Shaun (West Bromwich West) (Con)
† Baillie, Siobhan (Stroud) (Con)
† Byrne, Ian (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
† Cadbury, Ruth (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
† Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con)
† Clarke-Smith, Brendan (Bassetlaw) (Con)
† Cooper, Daisy (St Albans) (LD)
† Hopkins, Rachel (Luton South) (Lab)
† Hughes, Eddie (Walsall North) (Con)
† Logan, Mark (Bolton North East) (Con)
† Mann, Scott (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)
† Osborne, Kate (Jarrow) (Lab)
† Pincher, Christopher (Tamworth) (Con)
† Rimmer, Ms Marie (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
† Saxby, Selaine (North Devon) (Con)
† Young, Jacob (Redcar) (Con)
Yohanna Sallberg, Adam Mellows-Facer, Abi Samuels, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Public Bill Committee
Tuesday 21 September 2021
[Clive Efford in the Chair]
Building Safety Bill
Clause 21
Authorised Officers
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted, except for the water that is provided. I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give one another, and members of staff, space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Clause 22 stand part.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Christopher Pincher)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I welcome the Committee back to its deliberations.
Clause 21 allows the Building Safety Regulator to authorise individuals to exercise powers on the regulator’s behalf. However, before making an authorisation, the regulator must be satisfied that the individual being authorised is suitably qualified to exercise that role. This power is designed to enable the effective functioning of the Building Safety Regulator’s functions in respect of higher-risk buildings.
Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review found that the regulation of higher-risk buildings could be improved by bringing together Health and Safety Executive expertise, local authority building control expertise and fire safety expertise from fire and rescue services. As we have already discussed, clause 13 enables the Building Safety Regulator to secure the assistance of staff from local authorities and fire and rescue services in its work on higher-risk buildings.
This clause goes further and consolidates the independent review’s recommendation, allowing the regulator to authorise others, including officers of these bodies, to exercise powers on its behalf. Under its general powers, the Building Safety Regulator will also be able to secure expertise from the private sector to deliver building functions on higher-risk buildings. In certain circumstances, the regulator may want to authorise such individuals to exercise powers, and this clause enables that to be done. The regulator will be able to authorise such individuals only where they have been appropriately trained to exercise these powers.
As some individuals will have more competence and expertise than others, the Building Safety Regulator will have discretion to confer different sets of powers on different individuals. For example, one person might be authorised to make applications for search warrants because they have appropriate experience, whereas another might be authorised to do site visits and seize documents.
In practice, that could work as follows: the Building Safety Regulator may request assistance with building control matters from the local authority, which provides an appropriately trained building control expert to assist with the regulator. The building control expert could be given Building Safety Regulator powers to enter non-domestic premises with or without a warrant. However, the Building Safety Regulator may decide not to designate this individual with the power to enter domestic premises, on the grounds that they do not have the necessary experience and training to do so. Deciding to enter domestic premises requires a balance to be struck between a person’s right to privacy—the resident—and the public interest in making entry to obtain, for example, evidence of wrongdoing. Not all those working with the regulator will have the necessary experience and training to make such decisions.
The full list of powers available is set out in schedule 2, which I will now turn to in some further detail. With the introduction of new duties and new processes into the building control regime, authorised officers will play a significant role in ensuring compliance with the new regime. This schedule provides officers who have been authorised under clause 21 with a suite of powers to enable them to assist the regulator in carrying out its building functions. This includes powers of entry, inspection and collection of evidence that mirror existing powers used effectively under similar regulatory regimes, such as the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. These powers are designed to be flexible and to be useful in every situation that authorised officers may encounter.
To ensure proportionality, as with existing practice, warrants will be required to enter residential premises or any premises where it is expected to be necessary to use force to enter. If an application is made to a magistrate for a warrant to enter domestic premises, additional powers may be requested, where required. Those are powers, first, to use force to gain entry; secondly, to collect and take away evidence; or, thirdly, take other personnel—for example, experts—on to the premises.
Compliance with the requests of authorised officers will be integral in ensuring the effective functioning of the new regime and will avert potentially dangerous situations for residents. As such, authorised officers have been provided with the powers necessary to enforce compliance where required. Paragraph 8 of schedule 2 provides that failure to provide information upon request to authorised officers will be a criminal offence. Deliberately providing information to the regulator that is false or misleading, when required to provide information or in the other circumstances in the clause, is an offence under clause 23.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that establishing criminal offences of obstructing the regulator’s work solidifies the regulator’s position, which is vital in ensuring residents’ safety?
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend is quite right: we must ensure that every player in the design, development and construction of in-scope buildings recognises the importance and powers of the regulator and the penalties that may apply should any attempt be made to obstruct or impersonate it. The offences will carry a maximum custodial sentence of up to two years to provide an effective deterrent to non-compliance. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises the power and veracity of the penalty.
I hope that members of the Committee will agree that this clause is key in enabling the regulator to carry out its functions effectively, drawing on the expertise and involvement of local authorities and fire and rescue services.
Clause 22 makes it a criminal offence to obstruct or to impersonate an authorised officer of the Building Safety Regulator. Under clause 21 and schedule 2, authorised officers will play a significant role in exercising powers on behalf of the regulator. This clause is designed to protect authorised officers by ensuring that they are not impeded and that they—and, by extension, the Building Safety Regulator—can go about their business of keeping residents safe.
Clause 22 does that by deterring and, if necessary, enabling the punishment of those who seek to obstruct or impersonate authorised officers—behaviour that could severely disrupt or sabotage critical building functions. The difference in penalties for obstruction and impersonation are proportionate to the expected gravity of each offence, reflecting the greater intent required to impersonate an authorised officer. The penalties mirror existing penalties for obstructing or impersonating a police officer and reflect similar provisions protecting staff of other regulatory bodies such as the Food Standards Agency and the Financial Conduct Authority.
The two clauses are crucial components of building the regime of the Building Safety Regulator and I commend them to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.
As the Minister rightly said in his introduction, clause 21 ensures that appropriately trained individuals secure the involvement of local authorities, key stakeholders and fire and rescue teams in working with the Health and Safety Executive and the regulator.
The current definition of at-risk buildings is those of 18 metres and above. I have said throughout proceedings on the Bill that the scope of “at risk” should be broadened, and we will debate that under later clauses.
We welcome the recommendations, which draw on the findings of the independent review conducted by Dame Judith Hackitt.
How will the regulator ensure that individuals are appropriately trained and qualified under the framework? An example arose yesterday on social media of a resident living in a block in Bournemouth. The block was signed off by a previous employee of the council but it has been riddled with fire safety issues that we in this room and beyond are all familiar with. The individual has now set up as a private contractor, free to assess so-called fire safety issues in other at-risk buildings.
Clause 22 is straightforward, and we agree with it. Although it is beyond the Minister’s remit, a £1,000 fine for impersonation seems little deterrent, given the amount of money involved in building construction. As the Minister said, current levels of fines under the justice system for impersonating police officers will apply.
Shaun Bailey
It is a pleasure to be back on a Committee with you, Mr Efford, and to see you in the Chair. I shall keep my comments brief because my right hon. Friend the Minister articulated most of the relevant points in his customary clear manner. I do not want to be repetitious.
Clause 21 is positive. It reinforces the non-siloed approach that we need to take to building safety. The Building Safety Regulator has the ability to work with different agencies and ensure it can meet its goals. The ability to gain entry to buildings and ensure compliance is important. We discussed the issue last week and it was clear that safety has to be at the heart of this. We must ensure that the mechanism safeguards residents.
We also discussed last week the need to ensure that the regulator is not beholden to anyone—that it is independent. I was heartened by the comments made last week by my right hon. Friend the Minister about the regulator always being the independent voice, especially in its engagement with third parties to deliver the objectives in clause 21.
Clause 22 deals with the criminal offence element. As I said in my earlier intervention, it reinforces the role of the Building Safety Regulator. It says to the industry and to stakeholders, “You have to take this seriously. You cannot stop the regulator doing what it needs to do to keep people safe.”
The introduction of a level 3 fine seems proportionate, but I implore the Minister to use a degree of flexibility. As circumstances change, things might need to become a bit more severe. I hope not. I hope that the Bill will lead to a sea change in the environment we have seen hitherto. The fact that we have put obstruction of the regulator on a statutory footing will reinforce that.
I fully support the clauses and wish them well.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West and concur with his sentiment that we must ensure that the Building Safety Regulator has the flexibility to do its job properly and the enforcement powers to ensure that all players across the in-scope sector recognise the importance and veracity of those powers.
As we move through the Committee’s deliberations we may disagree on matters of scope, but I hope that as we build the Bill—clause by clause and schedule by schedule—the House, of which this Committee forms a part, and the sector will recognise the powers that we are creating for the Building Safety Regulator and the importance of the law.
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale asked a couple of questions about clauses 21 and 22. He will know—he has heard me say it before in this Committee—that it is the responsibility of the Building Safety Regulator to build multidisciplinary teams that include local authority resources, fire and rescue service resources and those of others. We believe that the duty on them to co-operate will ensure the right level and that the right skills and expertise are available to the regulator.
We are working closely with the Health and Safety Executive to identify appropriate training arrangements for authorised officers. The powers available to authorised officers are very similar to existing powers available to local authority building control, the HSE and so on. We do not believe that new and further training and skills will be required, but I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point about training.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned enforcement and penalties. We believe we have struck the right balance in the penalties that apply to the obstruction or impersonation of an authorised officer of the Building Safety Regulator. If he rereads the explanatory notes, he will see that impersonation of an enforcement officer acting on behalf of the Building Safety Regulator is subject to a fine not of £1,000, but to an unlimited fine. If someone were to obstruct the regulator or an enforcement officer, the fine is £1,000. We have created that differentiation because we want to make it clear that impersonating an enforcement officer is a much more grave offence than obstructing an officer, even though that is an important offence in itself.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I am interested in the point that the Minister is making and in how the penalties for obstructing and impersonating compare with those for obstructing and impersonating other officials.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. For example, if an authorised officer of the Building Safety Regulator is obstructed, a level 3 fine of £1,000 may be levied. That compares with a similar fine for impersonating a police officer. However, given the nature of policing, the warrants held by police officers and the threats and difficulties that police forces can sometimes encounter, it is also possible for one month’s imprisonment to be imposed on an obstructer of a police officer. We have tried to make sure that the penalties are proportionate, and I trust that the Committee will agree that they are.
Having said that, I trust the Committee will see that clause 21 and schedule 2 enable the Building Safety Regulator to carry out its functions effectively, drawing on the expertise and involvement of local authorities and fire and rescue services. Clause 22, which we have just debated, enables the punishment of those who seek to obstruct or impersonate authorised officers, and I hope that the Committee will agree that these are good and proportionate clauses. I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Provision of false or misleading information to regulator
Question proposed,That the clausestandpart of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
The Committee will see that there is a theme running through the clauses numbered 20-something. Clause 23 makes it an offence to provide false or misleading information to the Building Safety Regulator in circumstances specified in subsection (1). The Building Safety Regulator will have powers to make a number of individual regulatory decisions based on the information provided by duty holders. As such, the Building Safety Regulator’s decisions have a direct effect on the safety of residents in high-rise buildings. It is therefore essential that correct information is supplied to the regulator to ensure that the residents in the building are safe and that the proper and requisite requirements of building safety are adhered to. This power aims to deter the provision of any information that could impair the regulator’s decision-making capability.
The independent review recommended a stronger enforcement regime in line with the approach taken in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This offence carries a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and/or two years imprisonment, which mirrors the maximum sentence for the similar offence in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Again, that takes forward the recommendation in the independent review. The weighty custodial sentence in this provision seeks to provide a strong deterrent against the provision of false or misleading information. This is to preserve and promote the effective functioning of the Building Safety Regulator and the safety of the building and residents.
We will come on to clause 138, but it is worth referencing it in the context of clause 23. It will allow for any officer of the corporate body to be held responsible for the same offence if they participated in the offence in the ways set out in clause 138. However, it illustrates that there are similar and sufficient powers for the BSR to apply to corporate bodies, and that again mirrors the provisions in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. This goes above and beyond the current building safety enforcement regime and it creates a stronger incentive for those who are directing companies to provide accurate information to the BSR. I hope that the Committee will agree to the clause. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24>
Review by regulator of certain decisions made by it
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
I will speak first to clause 24. The Government support the independent review’s recommendation that the new regulatory system should have
“a clear and easy route of redress to achieve resolution in cases where there is disagreement”.
I suspect that, from time to time, there will be disagreements. We are committed to ensuring that, where disputes occur in relation to regulatory decisions, they are resolved as quickly as possible for all parties involved. Our fundamental and overriding objective is to make sure that buildings and the people in them are safe.
The Building Safety Regulator will make a significant number of regulatory decisions under the new legislation. The approach to any disputed decision will be two-staged: first, an internal review by the regulator and following that, if necessary, an appeal to the tribunal. It will be in both parties’ interest that an independent team within the regulator carry out an initial review of any disputed decision. This will ensure swifter resolution for both parties.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Minister has mentioned a two-tier approach, so will he clarify whether that will put lengthy delays into the whole process?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my hon. Friend for asking that question. The very reason for having a two-stage process and an initial stage is to try to make sure that disputes that can be resolved quickly are resolved quickly and to minimise the number of disputes that go to the first-tier tribunal. That can be a more lengthy process. Our objective is to move as swiftly as we can through any disputes. We believe that will be for the public good.
As I have just said to my hon. Friend, clause 24 provides the legal basis for a person affected by the Building Safety Regulator’s decisions to request to have that decision internally reviewed. In the initial years of operation, we expect that there will be a substantial number of requests for review owing to the natural adjustment required by all industry actors to the new regulatory regime. We expect, and we intend, the Building Safety Regulator to make every effort to resolve disputes at the internal review stage. We believe that will be the swiftest way of achieving resolution. The right of appeal to the courts remains because individuals will be able to appeal against a decision made on review to the tribunal if they think it is unsatisfactory.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
The Minister has mentioned appeals. Will he say more about what the Government are going to do to ensure that the regulator is transparent in those appeals and in the outcome of the reviews?
Christopher Pincher
We certainly want the system to be transparent and the outcome to be agreeable to both parties, so that things can be done as swiftly as possible. We certainly want to make sure that the right resources are made available to all parties to ensure that that can be done. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the importance of swift and transparent resolution.
As I have said, the right of appeal to the courts remains and if I give an example of how the system may work in practice, it may assist the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. Relevant duty holders may have submitted a full gateway-2 application with all its constituent parts. The Building Safety Regulator, however, finds some of these documents to be not compliant, so does not approve the application to enable construction to begin. The developer then lodges an appeal—an internal review—against the Building Safety Regulator’s decision within the period prescribed. The BSR then decides the most appropriate form of review and how comprehensive the review will be. If the developer is not content with the final decision of the regulator, they can appeal that decision to the first-tier tribunal. I might add that this clause is intended for certain types of regulatory decisions, such as the example of the refusal of a gateway application, but it does not include enforcement decisions, which will be appealable directly to the tribunal. The clause reflects our intention that, where disputes occur in relation to regulatory decisions, we want them to be resolved as rapidly as possible for all parties involved.
Where disputes regarding the regulator and its decisions occur, and given that the BSR will make a significant number of regulatory decisions, it is in all parties’ interests for them to be resolved in an expedient and expeditious manner. Clause 25 therefore specifies that a decision by the BSR, if disputed, must initially be reviewed by the regulator’s independent internal review procedure before an appeal can be lodged with the first-tier tribunal. The intention behind this clause mirrors that of clause 24, because it seeks to ensure swifter resolution for both the individual who has lodged the request and for the BSR by providing an alternative dispute resolution procedure. It is important that disputes are swiftly identified and rapidly resolved, we hope, to the satisfaction of all parties. We believe that the two clauses provide an expeditious set of methods, so I commend them to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
Again, we welcome the ability to request a review and the provision for a first-tier tribunal, which will create the necessary expertise going forward. The detail of quite a lot of the provisions is left to secondary legislation, so will the Minister expand on some of that? Would he also provide some clarity on the persons directly impacted and an example of when the regulator would intervene because it is not happy with the work carried out by the developer? In what circumstances could the developer apply for a review?
Siobhan Baillie
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am a lawyer, so I would say this, but I agree that it is super-important for disputes to be dealt with properly. That was a key plank of the Minister’s explanation of the clauses. I am also pleased that a right of appeal to the court remains, but I will be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government will ensure that the regulator reviews decisions and whether there has been any assessment of how long reviews can take. We know that the issues are incredibly complicated, so there should be some investigation into that now and an ability for the regulator to check their own homework and for us to do so too.
When a developer lodges an internal review against the Building Safety Regulator’s decision within the prescribed period, the explanatory notes to the Bill say:
“The Building Safety Regulator decides the most appropriate form of review and how comprehensive the review will be.”
If the developer is not content with the final decision of the BSR, it can appeal that decision to the first-tier tribunal and that is what we were discussing earlier. The thing that shone out for me when we heard from the witnesses, particularly those affected by building safety concerns in their own homes, was the lack of trust in a range of policies and the legislation. It is therefore incumbent on us all to create the trust so that those people are able to rely on what we are doing. We have talked about transparency in the dispute resolution process and that is obviously key, but I would like to know a little more about how we will ensure that good transparency runs through the disputes process.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for Weaver Vale. We are clear that the process should be as collaborative as possible. We want it to be fair and transparent. When disputes arise, we envisage that the first stage of that dispute will be an informal discussion between the parties. That is normally part of the process that the HSE employs in other examples. If there is an internal review and if that is followed by an appeal to a first-tier tribunal, all those discussions and decision points will of course be publicly aired in the normal way.
What we want fundamentally to ensure is that the BSR has the flexibility to do its job effectively and to build casework and a casebook of knowledge and expertise that it can then use in cases as they develop. That is one of the reasons why—to answer the question from the hon. Member for Weaver Vale about secondary legislation—we are employing statutory instruments largely through the affirmative procedure. That will give the Commons in Committee and in the full House the ability to scrutinise, debate and vote on the issues. Fundamentally, it allows us as the Government, on the recommendations and advice of the BSR, to improve legislation rather than write it into the Bill and thus require further primary legislation should we find that events and examples arise to require that. We are trying to be flexible.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The Minister talked about internal discussions and internal reviews and, if necessary, going to the first-tier tribunal, which he said ordinarily happens under the HSE. How long might that process take? How long does it normally take under the HSE? Will he address the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud about the need to build trust into the system?
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. It is true to say that the first-tier tribunal element of any dispute resolution procedure can take months before a hearing is held. The tribunal is a busy organisation. It can, indeed, take a little longer, depending on the nature of the case, for a decision to be handed down. That is why informal discussion and decision between the appellant and the Building Safety Regulator are sensible in resolving smaller disputes, particularly in the early stages of the regulator’s existence when there are likely to be a number of disputes and a body of casework by which internal dispute resolution will be conducted. The two-tier mechanism is the right way of ensuring swift dispute resolution, enabling all parties to get on with their work.
Daisy Cooper
I thank the Minister for his patience on this point.
I note from the Minister’s use of language that it is “anticipated” that most cases will be dealt with informally at an early stage and that only exceptional cases will go to the first-tier tribunal. Can he assure the Committee that in the event of many cases going to tribunal and lots of leaseholders getting caught up in this lengthy, slow and bureaucratic process he will consider intervening to bring in other mechanisms to speed up the resolution of disputes?
Christopher Pincher
Without making any firm and final commitment to the hon. Lady, and as I said to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale, one of the reasons we are using secondary legislation in the Bill is to provide the Government, of whatever colour and stripe, and on the advice of experts such as the Building Safety Regulator, with the ability to make changes to the operation of the legislation as the terrain develops. As I said during our deliberations last week, we committed during the covid emergency to increase the resources of the Health and Safety Executive. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to determine in the spending review the exact amount, but we have committed to ensuring that the BSR and associated bodies have the appropriate resources to do their work. We expect a material number of dispute cases to occur, at least initially as the regulator beds in. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Lady says.
I am grateful to the Committee for its questions and deliberation. Clause 24 aims to ensure that where disputes occur in relation to regulatory decisions, they can be resolved as quickly as possible, which is to the advantage of all parties involved.
Clause 25 ensures that disputed decisions must initially be reviewed by the regulator’s independent internal review procedure before an appeal can be lodged with the first-tier tribunal—again, to ensure that a degree of consistency and transparency runs through the BSR’s deliberations.
With those final remarks, I commend clauses 24 and 25 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Cooperation and information sharing
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
As the Committee will have heard me say earlier and, indeed, last week, the duty to co-operate is key to the approach that we are taking in the creation of the Building Safety Regulator and its powers.
At the centre of the Government’s strategy to implement our improvements to the building safety system is the setting up of the first national Building Safety Regulator. To deliver its functions effectively, it is vital that the Building Safety Regulator is empowered to work closely with other public bodies with responsibilities for building safety and standards and for dealing with residents’ concerns.
Clause 26 and schedule 3 will foster and enable that joined-up working in two ways. First, they will create statutory information-sharing gateways and duties to co-operate between the Building Safety Regulator and other public authorities that have statutory responsibilities for the safety and standard of buildings and for supporting residents. These powers will apply only to specific functions relevant to building safety and standards and supporting residents; they will never override data protection requirements.
To take a practical example, when regulating high-rise residential and other in-scope buildings, the Building Safety Regulator will typically set up a multidisciplinary team, including the local authority and the fire and rescue authority. The Bill creates legal information sharing gateways enabling the authorities expected to be represented in this multidisciplinary team to share intelligence about residents’ safety, and use it to co-ordinate their respective operational activity. It is entirely appropriate that this collaborative approach to regulation is supported by reciprocal duties to co-operate between the Building Safety Regulator and local authorities, and between the Building Safety Regulator and fire and rescue authorities. We are also taking this opportunity to provide legal clarity for local authorities and fire and rescue authorities so that they may share information about building safety and standards issues across all buildings.
Secondly, the Building Safety Regulator, certain ombudsmen and the Social Housing Regulator are all likely to receive numerous complaints and concerns from residents. The Government intend that these bodies should co-operate and work together to support residents. For example, if a resident of a high-rise residential building sends an urgent safety concern to an ombudsman to be investigated, these provisions enable the concern to be passed to the Building Safety Regulator as the body able to take action.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
The Minister mentions the duty to co-operate between the Building Safety Regulator and other regulators, and the information-sharing gateways. Will he tell us a little more about that, and why ombudsmen and the Building Safety Regulator will need to work together?
Christopher Pincher
The reason is that it is entirely possible that a resident who has concerns will send them to an ombudsman, even though the Building Safety Regulator is the appropriate repository of that concern.
An example that we will all recognise is that often as Members of Parliament we receive our constituents’ concerns because we are the easiest people with whom to raise those concerns. The appropriate place to express the concern might be the local council and a local councillor, so we share information with our local councillors when constituents raise concerns. An ombudsman who receives a concern from a local resident in a high-rise, in-scope building should be able to share appropriate information with the Building Safety Regulator, and that is what these provisions do. The police share crucial intelligence. The fire and rescue service shares crucial intelligence. It is important that the Building Safety Regulator and other ombudsmen have the same opportunity. Schedule 3 enables the sharing of information between the Building Safety Regulator and two other bodies: the police, who may need to investigate more serious criminal matters; and the Secretary of State, who ultimately oversees the building regulatory system.
Shaun Bailey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being incredibly generous in taking interventions. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for St Albans mentioned ensuring efficiency in the broader process. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that by enabling data sharing we can ensure that concerns and complaints are addressed by the appropriate person? More importantly, it brings expediency to the process so that, if necessary, intervention by the regulator can be timely and a resolution can be found.
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Underlying our approach is the need to ensure an efficient and expeditious method of information sharing, whereby resolution is achieved.
It is also possible that, with effective information sharing, it will be possible over time for the Building Safety Regulator to understand the data flows between concerned residents and itself. The regulator will understand why information goes to ombudsman A or ombudsman N rather than to the regulator, and that will enable it and its multidisciplinary agencies better to communicate to involved parties what the correct and therefore most expeditious route to data sharing should be. By sharing data, everything can occur more quickly and people can be better informed.
Schedule 3 contains regulation-making powers enabling the creation of limited further information sharing gateways and duties to co-operate. For example, if evidence necessitated a change to the scope of the higher-risk regime, such that it proved essential that the Building Safety Regulator co-operated and shared information with further regulators, it is appropriate that regulations enable this.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for taking my intervention. Schedule 3 clarifies information-sharing powers on building safety and standards between local authorities and fire and rescue services. Will he provide further information on how personal and confidential data is to be managed appropriately?
Christopher Pincher
We certainly do not want inappropriate data to be shared. As I said earlier, these powers and data-sharing rights relate specifically to the work in hand of the Building Safety Regulator. They do not override ordinary data privacy rules and requirements. We shall certainly—as this House will want to—monitor that that data is used appropriately.
Given the potential significance of new duties to co-operate and of information-sharing gateways, any regulations creating them will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In a Committee of the House—if necessary, on the Floor of the House—therefore, there will be an opportunity to debate and vote on them.
Placing duties to co-operate and powers to share information on a statutory footing will encourage collaborative working to improve building standards and to ensure resident safety. That will all be done as expeditiously and transparently as possible. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
We support the clause and the schedule. They are pragmatic, common sense and based on learned experience—the experience of those who were ringing alarm bells for a considerable number of months with regards to Grenfell and other tragedies before that. The evidence is crystal clear: people being passed from pillar to post and information being lost and in some cases hidden from key stakeholders. Strengthening the provisions and the regulatory regime is most welcome. In 2018, I noted, Kensington and Chelsea was again found wanting by the Information Commissioner—on withholding information about building safety in Grenfell. The Minister was right, as were others in all parts of the Committee, about building trust in the new regulatory regime. That is vital.
Shaun Bailey
I feel that my contribution might be slightly repetitive, given the broad agreement on the clause in Committee.
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale was right that the clause is pragmatic. He was spot on when he said it is about rebuilding trust in the processes. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, I trained as a lawyer and I know the frustration when bodies do not share information with one another. We have to remember—the hon. Member for St Albans picked up on this in her interventions—we are dealing with people who do not understand the systems, but will have to access them. After looking at the array of information, should someone send their concern or query to the wrong body—unaware that they had done so—we have to ensure that it is still actioned. We are dealing with situations and problems that impact on people’s lives: this is about the safety of individuals in their homes. Where that happens, we have to ensure that seamless sharing of information and co-operation between the agencies—the clause does that.
It is also right for those organisations to co-operate with one another. As we touched on last week in our deliberations, we cannot have a siloed approach. Organisations have to communicate and work together. We have to build a structure within the legislative framework that not just enables that, but to a degree ensures it happens and almost makes it the default that they have to share information, because that is the system in which they find themselves—so there is no way they can avoid doing so.
That being said, the proof of how this will work is in how it is delivered operationally. What will be vital for the regulator to do and for my right hon. Friend the Minister to work on is to ensure that the operational delivery works, that the systems are there to allow that to happen and that the communications are there, that agencies are talking to one another and we have computer systems that do not just fall down at the first moment, but can operate. Once the system becomes operational, I will be looking at how it functions.
I am heartened to see an emphasis on data privacy. We have to get the balance right. Ultimately, we are dealing with personal data. We still need to ensure the right of individuals to have their personal data safeguarded, and their right to remain anonymous, where necessary, is also important. We must ensure that data is dealt with appropriately.
It is right to handle the situation by putting a duty on the different stakeholders. The way we have had to deal with these horrendous issues has been through a multifaceted, multi-stakeholder approach, so we are going to have to build networks. As is often the case, when the networks are built, there is then pressure to ensure that operational delivery works.
I support the clause and am heartened to see what is in schedule 3. We have to ensure that the clause can deliver, and it will be for my right hon. Friend the Minister, his ministerial colleagues and the civil servants to ensure that can happen. If the clause delivers and we ensure that it works, we will have a seamless system that people trust, and people will know that if they have concerns, they will be addressed.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. For me, this is about funding, as it was last week. We go back to delivery. As the hon. Gentleman says, this is absolutely and intrinsically about the safety of the people we are talking about, but without the funding for the organisations he mentioned—the fire authorities and the councils—it will fall down. Will the Minister ensure that the correct funding is ring-fenced for the organisations to be able to ensure the safety that is required for the people in the buildings?
Shaun Bailey
The hon. Gentleman touches on a really important point. I have a couple of points to address it. Last week, we heard from the Minister that there would be, broadly speaking, a new deal for funding. We also have to look at the procurement mechanisms that are used, in which I have a particular interest. They are really important and must be well scrutinised. We must use the procedures available in this place to ensure that that is done properly.
I was very heartened by what my right hon. Friend the Minister said last week on funding. As Members of this place, we have to ensure, in the ways we do as Back-Bench Members, that he follows through. I have found in the two years I have served as a Member of this place that funding is one thing, but making sure it is used effectively—not just properly—is another. One way to ensure that the organisations to which we say, “Right, build me a system,” can do that is to have the guidance in place, if, for example, we are talking about the systems that will have to be developed. The fire authorities’ primary function is to protect people. They are not whizz kids at building IT systems. We need to ensure that there is a method by which that could be done.
Equally, as I am sure the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby will agree, local authorities have many different duties. I think of my own local authority, Sandwell. It could have one department doing four things at the same time. They have to prioritise. They cannot be procuring systems at the same time as dealing with building safety. There has to be a way.
The clause has triggered a broader conversation. I want to stay within scope and I do not want to stray too far, but when we think about how we ensure co-operation, clause 26 highlights that there are broader discussions about ensuring that is done in the right way. I do not disagree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby on funding. The Minister touched on that last week. Let us see how that goes, and scrutinise it. Ultimately, it is about processes working.
This is the right clause. Sharing data and information will be important, but it is about ensuring that that can be done properly and that the systems are there. I am absolutely sure that my right hon. Friend will do his best to ensure that that happens in the best way possible.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West and other members of the Committee for their contributions. As a former IT professional, I spent 18 years implementing IT systems, so I will certainly not commit to this Committee or beyond that all the IT that the HSE and its associated bodies may use will work optimally all of the time. However, we certainly want the Building Safety Regulator to work optimally all of the time.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West mentioned the importance of the propriety of data and its use. We want to ensure that data and information can be shared effectively even if they are sometimes of a confidential nature where residents’ safety is concerned. The Bill allows certain public bodies to share information with the Building Safety Regulator, but it does not require them to do so. The ombudsman, of whichever source or nature, will be able to make decisions about what information to share based upon individual circumstances. When, for example, it appears that lives are at risk, we believe that it appropriate that the information could be shared with the Building Safety Regulator. That is why the shadow Building Safety Regulator in the Health and Safety Executive has already started to work with other public bodies to identify the sorts of detailed safeguards that will be required to ensure that personal information is appropriately protected, while issues that might pertain to risk to life are also fully understood so that data are properly and proportionately shared.
Shaun Bailey
I am incredibly grateful to my right hon. Friend; he is being generous in allowing me to intervene. Given his expertise as an IT specialist, does he not agree that one of the key things that we must do across Government when we implement these systems is take a lessons-learned approach? Will he assure me that he has looked in detail at some of the previous occasions when we have tried to implement such systems and that he will ensure that his officials will take away the lessons so that we can support the agencies in the most effective way possible as we set up the system?
Christopher Pincher
Once again, my hon. Friend flatters me in his description of my expertise. I have certainly had some experience of IT programmes in the context of Government that have gone awry. The national IT programme, Connecting for Health, is just one example. I certainly agree to keep a gimlet eye open on the way IT is deployed in this and other circumstances while still recognising the operational independence of the agency and the Building Safety Regulator.
My hon. Friend is right to ask for lessons learned. That segues nicely into the point made by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale when he talked about the importance of learned experience in the context of Grenfell. He is right. That is one of the reasons we want to make sure that the Building Safety Regulator and the associated multi-disciplinary teams have the flexibility to learn. Again, that is why we want to use effectively secondary legislation and regulations rather than primary legislation so that there is the flexibility to build the new authority.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the challenges of withholding information, and I refer him back to clauses 22 and 23 when we dealt with that issue and made it very clear that withholding information is a grave offence that can be punishable by a fine. He is right also to stress the importance of trust and flexibility. Again, that is a reason why we want to build the multi-disciplinary teams so that the BSR can co-operate with other expert parties. That will help to build the confidence of residents in high-rise blocks as well as that of developers, large and small, and those involved in the construction industry that there is the appropriate degree of co-operation and trust.
Mike Amesbury
There are a number of live applications to the building safety fund, and this is a practical plea on behalf resident leaseholders that many in the Committee will be familiar with. The information on progress is not being shared, and that is a genuine building safety issue that causes considerable anxiety. It has been raised on the Floor of the House, and it is relevant to the discussion that we are having now. It is a practical plea that many residents and leaseholders up and down the country have raised.
Christopher Pincher
I shall expand a little on the scope of this debate to answer the hon. Gentleman very briefly. He will know that we have put aside £1 billion of public money for the building safety fund, and a significant amount has now been disbursed. If there are specific examples of challenges around information being shared or the speed of delivery being effective, I will be happy to look at them.
In summary, clause 26 and schedule 3 will empower the Building Safety Regulator to work closely with other public bodies with responsibilities for building safety and standards. They will encourage collaborative working to improve building standards and ensure residents’ safety.
I am very grateful for the contributions that we have heard from across the Committee but, before I conclude, I should refer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby who asked about resources. He will know from our deliberations last Thursday that I made it clear that we have increased the resources available to the Health and Safety Executive by 10% of its total budget during the covid emergency. We have also committed to make sure that the Building Safety Regulator is appropriately funded. That is a matter for the spending review, but we have also—he will have seen this as we have progressed through the Bill—put in place clauses that will allow the Building Safety Regulator to charge and levy fees on appropriate parties to ensure that cost can be recovered. I hope that will give him some assurance that we have at the forefront of our minds appropriate funding to ensure that the Building Safety Regulator can do its work.
I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 27
Fees and Charges
Christopher Pincher
I beg to move amendment 7 in clause 27, page 14, line 24, after “fee” insert “or charge”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment 8 and clause 27 stand part.
Christopher Pincher
Let me begin by speaking to amendments 7 and 8. They are minor and technical, and they align the language on the charging powers in clauses 27 and 56—the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby will be taking close note—by inserting additional references to charges alongside fees. We will say more about that in future. The intention is to avoid any unintended ambiguities or inconsistencies in the charging provisions created by the Bill. The context is that clause 27 contains important provisions enabling the Secretary of State to introduce regulations that enable the Building Safety Regulator to charge.
Charging powers are necessary to deliver Dame Judith’s recommendations in the independent review that the regulator should charge, and to put the regulator on a sound financial footing. The amendments ensure that there is no ambiguity that regulations under clause 27 can allow the Building Safety Regulator to make charges as well as levy fees. Charges are a slightly broader concept than fees, because fees typically relate to a service. Someone provides me with a service, so I pay them a fee. A charge could go wider by covering additional activities, such as regulatory interventions needed to bring the regulated party back into compliance with the regime. The recommendations of the independent review indicated that where possible, regulated parties should bear the cost when their behaviour results in additional regulatory activity. When the regulated parties have caused such activity, they should potentially bear the cost. We therefore want the Bill to allow charges that meet the recommendations of the independent review to be applied. Fees and charges provided for in regulations under clause 27 will of course remain within the bounds set by “Managing Public Money”.
Let me turn now to clause 27 itself. The Government are committed to ensuring that the Building Safety Regulator receives the funding required to enable it to deliver.
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Gentleman is attempting to lead me down a path that I suspect he will return to later in the Committee’s deliberations. As I said, we want to ensure that should a regulated party engage in behaviour that results in additional activity for the regulator, the regulator should be able to charge. I will confine my answer to that very specific set of grounds.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
It is great to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Will the Minister explain a little more how leaseholders will be protected from unfair charging in relation to regulator fees?
Christopher Pincher
Yes, of course. Let me be really clear—we will discuss the building safety charge specifically in future deliberations—that we certainly do not want such costs to be passed on to individual residents or leaseholders. The point of the clause is to ensure that where regulatory activity is required by the Building Safety Regulator as a result of an identified party’s actions, that identified party pays for the cost. That certainly should not be passed on to leaseholders or other residents.
Shaun Bailey
I am incredibly grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; his characteristic generosity is shining through. I do not wish to lead him astray, but I am conscious of the broader spirit of what we are debating. We have just deliberated over clauses that talk about fines and sanctions. Will my right hon. Friend consider using the funds raised from that, and ensuring that they can be fed through to the regulator? I am sure he will agree that when it comes to funding, a holistic approach is a good way to ensure that we can maximise the resources this vital regulator needs.
Christopher Pincher
I will make some remarks about that as I advance through my speech on clause 27, but we certainly want to make sure that the Building Safety Regulator can recover associated costs from the regulated parties involved.
The independent review recommended that the regulator for buildings in scope of the new and more stringent regulatory regime should fully recover its costs from those it regulates. The recommendation reflected that duty-holders who require the most intervention by the Building Safety Regulator should pay more. The principle of charging within the building safety regulatory system is not new. Local authorities can already charge for building control work under the Building Act 1984, as can approved inspectors. The Bill needs to enable the charging of fees by the Building Safety Regulator, both to implement the independent review’s recommendation and to put the Building Safety Regulator on a firm financial footing.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
May I say once again what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford? My right hon. Friend mentioned the independent review’s recommendation that the regulator for higher risk buildings be funded by this full-cost recovery approach. Can the Minister explain why the Building Safety Regulator is going to charge fees and how those fees compare with those of other regulators?
Christopher Pincher
The Building Safety Regulator will charge fees in the normal way, and there will be a mechanism to levy that charge on an identified party. It will be the identified party’s responsibility to pay in the normal way. The fees are consistent with the sorts of fees that are paid through other regulatory mechanisms that local authorities, for example, employ, too. That comes with the caveat that we want to ensure that full-cost recovery is achieved by the Building Safety Regulator, so the charges will rather depend what the costs are. I trust that if there are charges for additional regulatory activity on the part of the Building Safety Regulator, it is in the interests of the identified parties not to cause that additional regulatory activity. That is another means of ensuring that everybody behaves appropriately.
Clause 27, alongside clause 56, provides the legal basis for the charging of fees by the Building Safety Regulator. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising the Building Safety Regulator to charge fees and recover charges from those it regulates.
Christopher Pincher
As I wish to maintain my 100% record of interventions, I will give way on this occasion.
Christopher Pincher
We will discuss the building safety charge in later clauses. I will make it absolutely clear at that point how appropriate costs may be passed on to leaseholders, what the caps are and what it is not appropriate to pass on, such as the examples I am giving here.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Lady.
The clause enables regulations to be drafted to allow fees to be charged for the Building Safety Regulator’s general functions in part 2 of this Bill, its functions regulating the higher-risk buildings in occupation and its functions under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The Government’s approach will ensure that fees and charges are appropriate. In line with the principles set out in “Managing Public Money”, the Building Safety Regulator will not make a profit on fees and charges for its regulatory activities. They are merely a means of cost recovery.
Setting out fees in secondary rather than primary legislation and allowing the Building Safety Regulator to put certain details in a charging scheme will ensure that fees can change over time. I hope that helps to address the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw asked.
Initially, the Building Safety Regulator will have to use assumptions to develop fees, but once set up it is standard practice for a public body setting a fee for cost recovery to recalculate fees based on actual experience. This allows the regulator to learn from experience and change the way it charges fees over time to ensure they are both effective in recovering the appropriate amount of money, and proportionate and fair to those charged. Making provision for fees in regulations allows for regular scrutiny of proposed charges through consultation and, importantly, by Parliament. To deliver the recommendations of the independent review and put the Building Safety Regulator on a firm financial footing, we expect that the regulator will charge the accountable person for regulating their actions under part 4.
We will have an opportunity to debate all the issues about which costs the accountable person should fairly be capable of passing on to leaseholders when we come to part 4. However, I will briefly reassure the Committee that part 4 of the Bill ensures that any costs associated with enforcement action by the Building Safety Regulator or resulting from any negligent or unlawful act by the accountable person cannot be passed on to leaseholders through the building safety charge, so the potential costs we are talking about in the clause cannot be passed on to a leaseholder in that way.
That safeguard provides a financial incentive for the accountable person to do the right thing, as I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, because the accountable person will bear the Building Safety Regulator’s costs when it has to tackle serious failures. The Government are working closely with the Health and Safety Executive to develop these proposals, building on its strong track record of successfully delivering cost recovery regimes—a track record that dates back to 1975, so it has some 46 years of experience.
The Health and Safety Executive rightly aims for the Building Safety Regulator to become a world leader in its field and to share best practice and expertise with international partners on a commercial basis. That is another means by which some funds can be raised. Subsection (6) enables the Secretary of State to approve commercial charging by the Building Safety Regulator. This power will be used only with the consent of the Secretary of State and in line with Government guidance on charging.
We believe the clause is vital to ensuring that the Building Safety Regulator has the funding required to enable it to do its critical work, that the accountable parties do the right thing and that any costs associated with these clauses are not passed on to leaseholders or residents through the building safety charge. I commend the clause and the amendments to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister. The amendments are a tidying-up and technical exercise that we quite naturally support. I heard what the Minister said about fees and charges, and obviously there have been a number of questions about those fees and charges potentially being passed on to leaseholder residents. I know that where there is a regulatory failure, and fees and charges are passed on to the accountable person, those cannot—I am seeking clarity on this one—be passed on to leaseholders. Is that the same for service charges as well?
Shaun Bailey
This might seem quite a technical clause and set of amendments, but it is an important one. I speak as the Member for the 14th most deprived borough in the country. I am conscious that we have to strike a balance, and I was quite reassured by what my right hon. Friend the Minister said.
Starting from the beginning, it is not uncommon for bodies to charge fees in respect of their activities, where necessary, and in particular bodies that exercise a function such as the regulator. In a way, clause 27 and the accompanying amendments are not uncommon in the nature of what we are discussing. The broader point, which has been made by Members on both sides of the Committee, is that we have to ensure proportionality. That was the key point made by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale.
We need to find a way to ensure that the regulator itself is financially stable and can carry out its work properly; it has to be able to undertake tasks that will be so important in keeping residents safe, and in ensuring that the industry knows it is being regulated and watched. A lot of the detail will be set out in secondary legislation, and it will be incumbent on all of us across the Committee to grasp the detail of that to ensure that it is done in the right way. I think of the leaseholders in my constituency who would not be able to afford ridiculous levels of service charge; it would not strike them as proportionate. However, there is clearly a balance to strike.
I listened to the intervention from the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston. She is a distinguished former council leader, and at some point she will have had to make decisions about what to charge for council services. It is difficult, when leading a public body, to decide how to balance those charges with the needs of the public. I do not envy anyone in that situation. Ultimately, we all agree that we want to deliver a public service in the way that has the least impact on the livelihoods of the people trying to use it. They are taxpayers too; they want to feel that they receive that public service when they pay their taxes.
Clearly, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has articulated, the key principle is ensuring that the regulator can carry on. What I am trying to express to my right hon. Friend—something that he has articulated in his contributions—is the need to be open-minded in terms of how that operates. We all accept that there has to be a fee-charging regime, but we have to ensure that it is proportionate and accepts the fact that the people at the right end of that are leaseholders and residents, and those are the people we are here to protect and serve. We need to make sure there is the right balance. I get the impression from the contributions made from across the Committee that there is acceptance that this has to be done. It is probably broadly agreed that the methods proposed in the clause are the way we need to do this but, as with much of our deliberation of the Bill thus far, the detail will come afterwards in the secondary legislation.
I am conscious of the need to ensure that we have a regulator that is well funded but that does not impact too much. We want to encourage proper behaviour in the marketplace. It is important in this clause to ensure that that is done in the right way. I support the Government amendments and the clause. I am heartened by what my right hon. Friend has said thus far and I appreciate that we will deliberate further on these matters: I do not want to be called to order. I just want to get on record that we should keep as open a mind as possible as we progress, but the detail, particularly with clause 27 and the amendments, will be in the secondary legislation, which I await with interest.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution and for the interest that the Committee has taken in this clause. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale asked about service charges, which are a well-established regime separate from the one that we are discussing here. I can reassure him on the question of costs. We recognise that the costs of the regulator will be a small fraction of the building safety charge and we will discuss that in greater detail under the appropriate clauses. To reiterate my earlier point, the Bill ensures that fees associated with breaches of the new regime can never be passed on to leaseholders. That is to ensure that the accountable person pays the costs of the wrongdoing and not the leaseholder. I hope that that is clear.
Clause 27 provides the legal basis for the charging of fees by the Building Safety Regulator, which is vital to ensuring that it has the funding required to enable it to deliver its critical work. Government amendments 7 and 8 ensure that there is no ambiguity about regulations under this clause allowing the Building Safety Regulator to make charges to identify parties as well as fees. I commend amendments 7 and 8, with clause 27, to the Committee.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Amendment made: 8, in clause 27, page 14, line 25, leave out “to be or” and insert “or charge to be”.—(Christopher Pincher.)
Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Service of documents
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
Clauses 28 and 29 are quite short, and concern how documents will be validly served by the Building Safety Regulator. Clause 28 is a technical provision, setting out how documents will be validly served, whether physically or electronically, on and by the regulator, in connection with its functions under parts 2 and 4 of the Bill.
It may assist the Committee if I point out that service of documents under the Building Act 1984, as amended by part 3 of the Bill, is dealt with in section 94 of that Act. Section 94 is itself amended by paragraph 58 of schedule 5 to the Bill, to modernise it and take account of the regulator’s role as a building control authority. We are amending an amendment to another Bill. The effective provisions of clause 28 essentially mirror what is already in the Building Act, but updated to reflect changes in practice since 1984.
Turning briefly to clause 29, this provides key definitions used in part 2 of the Bill, and provides for a specific place within part 2 as a helpful index of the terms contained within it.
Christopher Pincher
Without pressing the Committee further, I shall conclude my remarks there and commend it to the Chamber. The hon. Lady may wish to make a speech.
The Chair
If you put it in the form of a speech, then I am sure the Minister will have the courtesy to respond to you.
Mike Amesbury
Again, we have moved on considerably since 1984. If we take our minds back to 1984—I notice that some probably cannot—we have since seen the development of emails and various other things. This certainly brings those provisions up to date, with the narrative descriptions contained in clause 29. I will give way to my hon. Friend and colleague.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank my hon. Friend, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I wanted to pursue the question, which I raised with the Minister last week, on the definition of a residential building. Is it anywhere where one sleeps overnight—whether temporary, permanent, or one’s sole residential home? I listed a series of residential spaces that do not come under the definition of a normal tenancy or leasehold property, such as student accommodation, other forms of residential licences, hotels, guest houses, and so on. I wondered whether my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale could pursue this with the Minister in his contribution, referring to subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) of clause 29.
Mike Amesbury
I thank my colleague for her intervention. I am fairly confident that the Minister will oblige by furnishing her with an answer, if not now then soon.
Shaun Bailey
I am sure that many on the Committee are wondering what on Earth I could have to say about the service of documents. I would, of course, have given way to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth. I was hoping to rise to put an important question to the Minister, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale was able to help the hon. Lady.
I know this is an incredibly technical clause, but I speak from some painful experiences around service of documents in my previous life. While it might seem straightforward and we look at the clause and think, “OK, fair enough. It is very prescribed and descriptive”, I must say that having explained how service of documents works to numerous people, that is not the case.
My right hon. Friend the Minister articulated incredibly well how it will function. On the face of it, it is straightforward. We look at subsection (2) on how documents may be given and think, “OK, that seems pretty straightforward to me”. I implore him—I hope I am not going astray, Mr Efford, but I am sure you will tell me if I am—that we must ensure this is communicated to the people who will be utilising it. These are people who may not have a lot of experience of how documents are served. They are not doing this all day, every day. From my past life, I know the pain of having people who do not have the experience and are trying to do this themselves, and it causes issue after issue.
One thing that may come out of this, which touches on some of my previous comments, is around the idea of data share and co-operation. Without sounding flippant, the documentation we served and the information that would be exchanged using the process will be an important part of a vital regulatory process. It is vital that we ensure that is communicated as clearly as possible and the individuals who use the processes laid out in clause 28 understand how that operates. I do not want to see circumstances where legitimate problems and concerns are delayed because of a misunderstanding or issue with the process.
I reiterate my concern that if we do not ensure the provisions of clause 28 are translated down in a usable way to individuals, we run the risk of processes we have built up to now and have deliberated in previous clauses not being as effective as we would like.
I am glad that the clause understands that times have moved on. Gone are the days when things were couriered round. Email has been revolutionary. I remember from my professional life having to run round to another firm’s office to serve stuff. I was the junior so I made tea and served documents.
I am happy to see an understanding that the provision can be amended under subsequent regulations too. We have to be conscious that time and technology moves on, and we must ensure the process can continue and still function as things progress. While this may seem to be a very technical clause—I hope I have answered the question as to why on Earth I am speaking on this particular point—it underpins the importance of this process. Ensuring that the service of documents is done in a clear way and that those who utilise the process, from the large corporations down to the individual, understand how it functions properly will be key to ensuring that everything we have done up until now functions appropriately. I am heartened by the Minister’s contribution and he was very clear. I am glad to see that, as with most clauses in the Bill, there is a degree of flexibility in clause 28, and it is a vital part of this important Bill.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West. Let me assure him that it is our intention through the clause to ensure that neither he nor anyone else has to jump on their moped and serve papers in a rather more 1984 way than they may ordinarily have to, given that now, as the hon. Member for Weaver Vale rightly identifies, email and modern methods of communication allow for a much more speedy and clear way of serving documents. We want to ensure that the law reflects that.
On the questions raised by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth about in-scope buildings, I do not want to stray on to other amendments and clauses unduly, but let me to try to help her by reminding her of what I said last week. In-scope buildings are high-rise residential properties of seven storeys, or 18 metres, or more. Other in-scope buildings include care homes of the requisite threshold and student accommodation, for example, because we have said that such properties need to have two or more dwellings. She offered a list of other potential properties. I think she mentioned hotels, which are covered by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, and which tend to have a number of entrances and exits, and fire doors. Equally, prisons are covered by the 2005 order. I think there are seven immigration centres in the country, and none of them meets the height threshold that we have set out.
We have tried in all circumstances to act in a proportionate way that follows the advice and direction given to us by the independent review and Dame Judith Hackitt’s 53 recommendations. That does not, of course, preclude future changes to the Building Safety Regulator’s responsibilities. We have outlined how that may be done, and I am sure that we will go on, in further clauses, to do more of that. I hope that gives the hon. Lady some clarity on her question, which she managed, if I may say—tongue in cheek—to shoehorn into this clause. It is a skill not unknown to many of our other colleagues. I think that you have been guilty of that, Mr Efford—or rather, you have demonstrated the skill—in another context.
I remind the Committee that the clause essentially mirrors one that is already in the Building Act 1984. It updates it to reflect the changes in practice, as well as technology, since 1984, while clause 29 defines key definitions used in part 2 of the Bill, which we will further come to. They are technical clauses, which have none the less generated some interesting and, if I may say so, skilful debate, and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Scott Mann.)
Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.
Nationality and Borders Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 21st September 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesNationality and Borders Act 2022 View all Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 September 2021 - (21 Sep 2021)
The Chair
I remind Members about the public health guidance, and that electronic devices should be switched to silent.
We will now hear oral evidence from Lucy Moreton, the professional officer at the Immigration Services Union, and Zoe Gardner, policy adviser at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. Lucy is appearing in person and has just arrived, and Zoe is appearing virtually. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee agreed. For this session, we have until 2.45 pm.
Examination of Witnesses
Lucy Moreton and Zoe Gardner gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Lucy Moreton: Good afternoon. My name is Lucy Moreton, and I am the professional officer for the ISU, which is the union that represents borders, immigration and customs staff.
Zoe Gardner: Good afternoon. My name is Zoe Gardner. I am actually policy and advocacy manager at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants—I think my title was communicated wrongly before. JCWI is one of the oldest organisations in the country representing migrants and refugees going through the UK immigration system.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Q
Lucy Moreton: I think that if we knew how to fix the system, we would all have much quieter and easier lives. The Bill addresses some of the issues with the current asylum system, but without a significant underpinning of resources it will not make the difference that is anticipated. We have reached the situation that we have with the structures, both above and below the border, breaking, if not in fact broken, because of under-resourcing. You can set up an additional fast-track appeals process, for example, but if you do not resource the courts to enable them to have the rooms to hold the hearings, the judges to make those adjudications and the clerks to promulgate them, it will make no difference. You can express wishes in a Bill to return migrants to a safe third country, process them offshore or turn them back before they reach UK waters, but all that requires the co-operation of international partners, and if you cannot achieve that, it is nothing more than words on a bit of paper.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Zoe Gardner: Yes. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. The short answer is that the available evidence does not support the approach being taken in this Bill. The aims of the Bill that the Government have put forward are to create a fairer asylum system and to discourage the use of irregular journeys by asylum seekers using smuggling routes. A fair asylum system would provide protection to refugees based on their need. The Bill does not propose a system that would do that. Furthermore, the evidence from similar policies enacted in other countries, or previously enacted in the UK, shows us that this approach is unlikely to deter people from seeking to come to the UK using irregular means, because it does not provide meaningful alternative ways for people to travel. In short, the Bill will not work. The only people who will be celebrating its implementation will be the criminal smuggling gangs.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Lucy Moreton: I do not know the details of those 399 cases. If they have been in the system for more than 10 years—about 10 years ago, I was an asylum decision maker—it is likely that there will be other elements within that that are more complex. It is possible to repeatedly delay conclusion of a case through the late submission of evidence, for example. Whether that is the case in any or some of that group, I do not know. Clearly, the needs of anyone genuinely seeking protection in the UK are not served by being stuck in the system for months, let alone years.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Lucy Moreton: My understanding is that the stated aim is to deter irregular migration. I cannot see how some theoretical change, which is what it is at the moment, to how you might eventually be treated when you are finally granted asylum here would deter irregular migration. One element proposed for the group 2 refugees —the ones who have entered irregularly—is that it may limit their family reunion rights. Absolutely accepting the political balancing act that has to be done here, if you prevent people from travelling through a regular route, they will use an irregular route, so that alone seems to be circuitous.
Zoe Gardner: I agree with that assessment. The available evidence shows that the people who are making these journeys in order to seek asylum do not know the detail of different refugee protection regimes in different countries. They base their decision making on where to go. Either they do not make the decision at all themselves and it is in the hands of the smugglers who transport them, or they make the decision based on their connection to a country—so having family members in a country, speaking the language, or having other connections. In the case of Afghans at the current time, they might be ex-colleagues who have worked with the British military in Afghanistan. That might be a reason for their trying to come to the UK. The details of the system will not deter anybody.
With regard to the aims of the Bill, which is concerned with fairness, if we look at how the inadmissibility rules have operated so far, in the first six months of their operation since January, 4,500 people have been issued with a notice of intent under the inadmissibility rules, and 173 of those are from Afghanistan. This means that in effect their asylum claim has been put on hold for at least six months while the Government seek to find another place to send them—anywhere else but here. That is obviously not in the interests of fairness when it comes to people from Afghanistan who are clearly fleeing a dangerous situation.
JCWI has a client from Syria who is 19 years old. He was individually targeted by the Syrian military and was forced to flee at a moment’s notice. He had no other option but to take an irregular route. He has two sisters living here in the UK, so that was what motivated his choice to pay a smuggler to make a desperate escape and come to the UK. He is now in the inadmissibility process, and his mental health is deteriorating because of his fear that he will be sent away. The Government have told him that they are considering his removal to Austria or France or to anywhere else—anywhere else being somewhere that has no legal obligation to take him in and where he will have no family members. If he were to be removed, we would potentially be giving the smuggling gangs a repeat customer, because he would obviously have reason to seek to come back to the UK.
It also does not make any sense to pause that client’s claim for the time being, and the claims of 4,500 others—probably more at this stage—and have them wait in this limbo system, at great cost to the taxpayer and great harm to their mental health, on the basis of agreements to return people here, there or anywhere that we do not actually have yet. This approach is not going to achieve its aims whatsoever. The only thing it will achieve is cruelty, delay, additional bureaucracy and, as I say, lining the pockets of the smuggling gangs.
Bambos Charalambous
Thank you. I will let other Members ask questions now. If there is time, I would like to ask some more later.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Q
Zoe Gardner: There is considerable evidence that every time we spend more money on trying to close down a route that is regularly used by smugglers to bring people through irregular means to the UK—indeed, this is the case in any other country—the people who are desperate to take that route do not simply disappear. In fact, the routes are simply redirected, often to more dangerous paths. It does not stop the journeys, but it does allow the smugglers to charge more, for yet more dangerous journeys and yet more complicated ways of making it through these barriers. There is always going to be more flexibility on the side of the smugglers than on the side of the state. Until we provide people with a regulated alternative means of travel to the UK, every round of security spending that we throw at this and every attempt at this failed model of deterrence and pushbacks will be celebrated by the smugglers, because it simply lines their pockets.
The increased sentences proposed by the Bill are all very well, and would be perfectly reasonable if in reality they were aimed at smuggling gangs. However, what we have seen in the last 12 months is that the Home Office has used legislation that was intended to be used against smuggling gangs and members of international criminal gangs to unjustly prosecute asylum seekers themselves. Several asylum seekers have served jail time on the basis that they were facilitating the entry of other asylum seekers on the same boat.
That practice was being undertaken until, in August this year, the Crown Prosecution Service published some clarified guidance confirming that it is not a crime to enter the UK, even on a small boat or through other irregular means, if your purpose is to present yourself to the authorities and seek asylum. That is the case for almost all, if not all—I think the official figure is 98% —of the people on these boats. It has been confirmed that those people are not committing a crime or an immigration offence.
The danger of the increased sentences is that they will be targeted at the wrong people and that they will be used to punish people who are exercising their right to claim asylum rather than being targeted at the people at whom it should be targeted: the organised criminal gangs. That should be done on the basis of credible intelligence and international co-operation, and not on the basis of picking people up off the beach in Kent when they clearly intend to make an asylum claim.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Zoe Gardner: This refers to the differential treatment for people who, once they have arrived and been served with their notice of intent, have to wait six months in this unnecessary and harmful limbo situation in the asylum system. If the Government do not find somewhere else to send them—another country willing to take on our responsibilities for them—as is likely to happen in most cases, they will have their asylum claim assessed in the usual system. Given that the nationalities are overwhelmingly those recognised as refugees in this country—people from countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria, which have a high recognition rate—they will be recognised as refugees in need of protection from persecution.
The Government then propose, with this Bill, to offer them only temporary protection status, which is not the same as the refugee protection status that we have provided them with until now. That would mean people having an unstable status that would need to be consistently renewed, potentially once every 30 months, and with no guarantee of obtaining permanent settlement.
That is completely harmful to the mental health and integration prospects of refugees. It runs counter to obligations under the UN refugee convention, which requires that recognised refugees are assisted to naturalise and integrate. It also simply does not work from a practical perspective. We have an example of a JCWI client who is a gay man from Iran. He has been granted a temporary protection status for six months, due to complicated factors of his case. The Home Office proposes to reassess whether this gay man from Iran will be at risk again in six months, and again in six months, and again in six months. If it was every 30 months, I am sure that members of the Committee can see the lack of logic being applied there.
People who obtain refugee protection almost always need long-term, stable protection status. They come from countries where it is very unlikely that it will be safe to remove them again within 30 months. That puts a huge additional bureaucratic burden on a Home Office that is already failing to get through its case load at a reasonable speed and will very seriously hamper those people’s integration prospects.
Furthermore, as Lucy Moreton mentioned, those people may be denied the right to family reunification. That means that the largely female or child contingent of refugees who are currently able to get protection through a safe route of family reunion would then be denied that protection. That might mean that, in desperation to join their loved one who has come to the UK, they may then embark on those dangerous irregular journeys, so this may in fact provoke more irregular journeys and, again, enrich and empower the smugglers yet more.
Finally, the proposals also suggest that refugees granted this secondary status of protection would not be granted access to public funds. Aside from being cruel and harmful to refugees, that follows the same pattern of being illogical and impractical. The reality is that if these refugees are destitute, they will be able to apply to have the “no recourse to public funds” conditions lifted. Given that they will have waited for at least six months and then gone into the standard asylum procedure, which at the moment takes well over six months in many cases, and during that time will not have been allowed to work, plus being people who are recovering from trauma, the likelihood that they can go into a job and start earning straightaway is extremely low. The likelihood that they will be destitute under those circumstances is extremely high.
This just adds a huge additional bureaucratic burden where there will be application after application for these “no recourse to public funds” conditions to be lifted. In the meantime, there is the risk that people will fall into destitution. From the perspective of fairness and compassion, this plan does not work. From the perspective of having a functioning asylum system and a Home Office that produces efficient and tolerable procedures that work on a reasonable time frame, again, it completely fails.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Lucy Moreton: My colleague’s point on the administrative burden of constantly having to reassess and read asylum claims was absolutely right. It feeds back into the point I made about resourcing: you cannot make this work if you do not put the resources in. If you want civil servants to reconsider applications every six or 30 months, you are going to have to put enough civil servants in there to do it.
On the issue of pushbacks, as things stand at the moment, given the instructions that we work under to ensure the safety of life at sea and the legality of it, it seems to us—the trade union, and the members who advise us—extremely unlikely to happen in practice. The restrictions are, quite rightly, very tight. No one wants to see a fatality from what is a very dangerous manoeuvre. It was not expected to be announced as it was. It had been in discussion in various iterations for a couple of years, but for it to be announced suddenly in the press came as a surprise.
It had the unfortunate impact of endangering both border officers and migrants because suddenly migrants feared that they were going to be pushed back, even though they are in circumstances where they never would be—they are vulnerable, the vessel is vulnerable, it has vulnerable people in it and it is not in the right bit of the channel. Because they are frightened of being approached by border officers, they are less willing to be rescued in circumstances where they deeply need rescuing. That was most unfortunate.
I recognise the risk in saying this, but I will personally be very surprised if this ever actually happens and is completed. I would be amazed. We do not see migrant vessels that are not vulnerable in one way or another.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Q
Lucy Moreton: There are communications channels between migrants who make it and those who are waiting. Also, the spin put on it by the smuggling gangs is absolutely phenomenal. For example, we were seeing a lot of migrants being told that the small vessel route over the English channel would become illegal once the UK had left the EU. It was illegal before and it was going to be illegal after: nothing changed. But the gangs used that to pressure more people into taking the route—“Go now, before they stop it!”—and to charge more money for that route. Different vessels have different amounts of information, but this has been reported quite widely in the press.
Migrant groupings in France, I understand, are now aware that this is a risk. We know that they resist approaches by the French; they put themselves at risk in order to prevent the French intercepting and returning them while they remain within French waters. We get reports from our members on the cutters, particularly the smaller ribs, that migrants make absolutely sure that they have got a British vessel. They are far more likely to trust the RNLI or the coastguard, who they recognise because they are on telly and have different uniforms, than to trust us. The last thing we need is someone standing up and going overboard. If they are trying to avoid being intercepted, either by the French, by us or anyone they do not recognise, that is the risk.
Paul Howell
Q
Zoe Gardner: Can I jump in on that point? There is a difference between having some gossip information or potential misinformation about what will happen directly on the boat journey and what to do immediately on disembarkation, and actually having a complex and sophisticated understanding of the functioning of the asylum system in the UK, especially in comparison to the functioning of the asylum system in France.
Regarding the levels of understanding and information, as Lucy rightly said there is a lot of misinformation going around, but knowing that you need to avoid being intercepted at sea is different from knowing what your entitlements will be once you have got to this stage in the asylum system in the UK. They are different issues.
Lucy Moreton: I think that is a fair point; it is more about misinformation, spin and misunderstanding than about concrete information and a robust or detailed knowledge of what actually happens.
Paul Howell
Q
I will come to the point I was going to make. The number of cases and the backlog are increasing at a faster rate than the number of applications. I would like to try to understand whether that is purely resource—you have indicated there are resource concerns anyway—or whether there are ways in which the Bill could be written so that it was easier to make decisions and the decisions could be clearer and swifter, rather than having too many complexities, which results in longer times before you get a first decision. Is it the Bill? Is it the resources? Is it a combination thereof?
Lucy Moreton: It is a combination, inevitably, but there are elements of both. The rate of cases in decision is increasing in relation to the number of initial applications, but that is because of late and repeated applications that slow things up, and that may well be an element in the 399 that was mentioned earlier.
One provision in the Bill suggests that individuals would be served with a notice of information to say, “If you do not produce all the information that you know at this time, you will not be able to bring it up later—or, if you do bring it up later, much less weight will be given to it.” I am not convinced that that will work as well in practice as it might appear.
There will always be information that changes if someone has been here and been in the system for six months or six years. There can be a change of situation in their home country that might make late information come up, and even if the information comes up late and is given less weight, it must still be considered and will still have some limited access to appeal, albeit I think that the intention is to remove the ability to seek judicial review of the decision by giving an expedited appeal through the immigration tribunals process.
If the immigration tribunals process does not have the capacity to hear that case for six months, it will not make a great deal of difference anyway, but certainly any measures that assist in encouraging migrants to produce as much information as they intend to rely on at the beginning will help. Most migrants do that, but you get to the end of the system and then suddenly you get, “Oh, but hang on a minute—now I’ve changed my religion, recognised my sexuality, the situation at home has changed, I’m married, I’ve got a child, I’ve got closer ties here, I’ve got a medical condition,” or whatever additional applications come in.
Anything that can control and manage that better will help; that is a recognised method of abusing the process, but we cannot shut it off, because there will always be people for whom it is absolutely true that their situation has changed and they do need protection. We need a method for considering that quickly, getting it through the appeals process quickly, if that is relevant, identifying those who are abusing the system and, crucially, removing them. Another large part of the Bill is the ability to remove people who have come to the end of the system, while still identifying and extending protection to those for whom we have an obligation to do so.
Paul Howell
Q
Lucy Moreton: Everything will be in the detail. The words used will help, but I suspect we will find ourselves in a situation in two or three years’ time where there has been a loophole or a contrary decision by an upper court that has changed the way this works. There will always be genuine last-minute situations; there will always be genuine last changes that merit a fresh application.
If you front-load the resourcing at the beginning, if you can decide an application and have it through the court system in a matter of weeks, the scope for those last-minute changes of situation is significantly narrowed. If you make the whole process faster and tighter, rather than just trying to block the tail end of a very lengthy process, that would probably be more beneficial both to genuine refugees and to the British taxpayer.
The Chair
I do not want to limit anybody’s questions, but there are quite a few people who would like to ask questions. Jonathan Gullis.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Q
I am a bit perplexed. On the one hand, I am hearing that the system is broken; on the other, I am hearing that ultimately this is not going to be good enough. Lucy, on the pushbacks—I think the pushbacks are something that our commanders on those vessels need support and top cover from—you have said that that is not a deterrent, even though you have said that people will be scared of it. We have talked about the fact that people will not be getting access to housing in the legislation, at clause 11—we will use centres such as Napier barracks—which I think is brilliant and is also about the use of public resources; that will not deter. In Stoke-on-Trent they are livid at seeing illegal economic migrants—the ones coming over the Channel at the moment—paying thousands of pounds into the hands—
The Chair
Mr Gullis, I do not want to stop you, but it would be great if there could be a question, so that your colleagues can also ask questions.
Jonathan Gullis
There will be. Illegal economic migrants put thousands of pounds into the hands of people smugglers. Does that not show that these people are not genuine refugees or asylum seekers, like those we have seen from Afghanistan and Syria, who we have brought through safe and legal routes?
Lucy Moreton: It is a system that requires a great deal of money. You are not likely to have that money immediately available to you if you have fled in circumstances of danger. You may be able to gain it from relatives outside the country. Worse, though: you may put yourself into the hands of people traffickers, who will lend you the money for your crossing in exchange for your services in one way or another in the UK, be that in the grey economy or in modern slavery.
If you knew, before you spent all that money, that it was only going to get you a few weeks here until your claim is processed and dealt with, you would be far less likely to spend that money. If you knew that you spend that money and you are going to spend six to 10 years here to get through the system, that money is probably worth it.
Jonathan Gullis
Q
Lucy Moreton: From what I understand, the experience of Australia has been that it has not been as much of a deterrent as they would have hoped, but certainly, on paper, anything that shortens the system is going to be a positive. The reasons why people travel are so multi-factoral; it is not going to be a 100% answer, but nothing is. If there was an easy answer, we would have done it a decade ago when this started to be a problem. It may help, but it will not be a universal panacea.
Jonathan Gullis
Q
Zoe Gardner: I would like to pick up on the distinction you were making between Afghan refugees and the people you referred to as illegal economic migrants crossing the channel. It might interest you to learn that Afghans make up one of the most significant groups of people making those irregular journeys across the channel.
JCWI has some difficult in ascertaining at what point these people switch from being considered refugees—for example, if they worked with our military, or if they are gay and are facing persecution by the Taliban. Given that the resettlement efforts, as laudable as they are, will necessarily not reach all those people and certainly will not reach even all the people who worked with our troops in that country, if those people are facing being hunted down and murdered by the Taliban and are therefore forced to make a chaotic and immediate escape by whatever means necessary, be that with a smuggler, that does not remove their need for protection. It does not make them any less refugees.
It is really useful that you make that point, because it does point to a wider distinction that the Bill seeks to make, which is to draw a completely false distinction between two groups who are made up of essentially the same people. As I have mentioned, over two thirds of the people who are in Calais at the moment and who are making that crossing are from countries with very high recognition rates as refugees in this country. As I have said, they are from Iran, Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan. They are refugees and they need our protection.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the commitment made by the Home Secretary to implement the recommendations of the “Windrush Lessons Learned Review”. One of Wendy Williams’s recommendations in her review was to avoid viewing policy making on a binary of “Do this or do nothing”. That is the binary that, with respect, you are putting forward here. Nobody is suggesting that the status quo is acceptable. Unfortunately, the do-this option, according to all the available evidence, is likely to make the situation significantly worse rather than achieving its ends.
As Lucy mentioned, the evidence from Australia suggests that offshore processing centres for refugees had no discernible impact on the numbers of people attempting the crossing, but it did have a huge impact of cruelty and harm to the refugees who were subject to offshoring. We already have difficulty in this country in ensuring that asylum seekers have adequate access to legal representation, to adequate hygiene and to the other most basic needs. To take that process offshore to somewhere out of sight and away from our ability to scrutinise it would make it much more difficult to ensure that those minimum standards were met.
What I hope would never happen is what happened in the Australian case, where teams of experts from the UN and Médecins sans Frontières, and teams of paediatricians, reported finding the most traumatised population that they had ever seen or worked with, including among victims of torture. There were extremely elevated rates of self-harm and suicide, even among children. It ended in abject failure. Not only had it not deterred people from taking boats to Australia; it ended up with the Australian Government forced to medically evacuate all remaining residents of those camps in 2019, having spent €6 billion on the entire process. That is an absolutely disastrous model for the UK that we absolutely should not pursue.
Aside from the moral objections that may not be shared by all but that the JCWI certainly feels about the UK––one of the richest countries in the world––attempting to palm off our responsibility to refugees on to a developing country such as Rwanda, the impact was cruelty, and cruelty with no point, no purpose and no achievement. The situation just continued––
The Chair
Ms Gardner, you have put your case extremely well and I do not want to inhibit what you want to say, but I do want to see whether more Members can ask questions.
Jonathan Gullis
Q
Lucy Moreton: Many of them have.
Zoe Gardner: As I am sure you are aware because I think the previous witness did say this, the vast majority of people who seek asylum worldwide––86% of refugees and displaced people worldwide––remain in the country neighbouring the one they have fled. So 86% of people remain in developing countries.
France received three times as many asylum applications as we did last year. Most people stop as soon as they feel safe. The people making their way to England and who specifically wish to come to the UK do so because they have ties to this country, either because they have served with our military, as in the case of people from Afghanistan, or they have family members, as with the Syrian client I mentioned whom the JCWI is representing. They may also speak the language because of our colonial history and have other ties of kinship and history here.
There are people who have legitimate ties to the UK and there is no good reason why they should have their claims assessed in France if they do not wish to. It does not really work for us to say to the French, “Given that we are geographically located slightly to the west of you, none of these refugees is our responsibility. They are all on you,” because France could say the same thing. Then Italy could say the same thing and the entire international refugee protection system will crumble. It is necessary––
The Chair
Ms Gardner, you are making your case really well but I am trying to get a couple more people in before we go to the Minister, if that is okay, so I apologise. Paul Blomfield.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Q
“There is a risk that increased security and deterrence could encourage these cohorts to attempt riskier means of entering the UK.”
Could you share your views on that with us––first, Lucy?
Lucy Moreton: That has been the experience to date. There is a large displaced population in Europe. The majority of them have been there for some time. Just under half of them, in the last set of statistics I saw, have a failed asylum claim elsewhere within Europe. Whether they have legitimate ties here or legitimate reasons to be here or not, they will not simply say, “Oh gosh, it got a bit difficult today. Let’s turn around and go home.” If they do not have another route that they can try, they will simply become—as the risk assessment says—more and more risky.
We built the fence around the edges of where the Eurotunnel trains were, so people moved to Calais. We fortified Calais port, so they moved to Boulogne, went further north, or moved to Le Havre or Ouistreham. Every time we build a wall, they just move a little further down. Nobody wants—I don’t think anybody wants—to build a massive fence along the entirety of northern France, Belgium and Holland, but if we did so, they would come from Spain. Simply reinforcing the border is not effective if we do not also provide some form of alternate route, ideally an expedited route.
Paul Blomfield
Does Zoe have anything to add to that?
Zoe Gardner: Lucy covered it perfectly.
The Chair
Anne and Stuart, you have about a minute to ask your questions and to get some answers before I bring in the Minister.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Q
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Zoe, I am trying to understand one of the points that you made earlier and your example of the young gentleman from Syria who came over here. You said that, under the legislation, even if he is sent out of the country, he will try to get back in, regardless of the legislation, even though he knows the system. Is that solely because he has family members here, or because, no matter what legislation we put in place, people will still—even when they know the system—try to come back in? Will you expand on that, please?
Zoe Gardner: I certainly would not like to say that I know anything about his intentions individually, but I would say that, as a young person and a refugee, if he were to be sent to another country, anybody in those circumstances would seek to be with their loved ones. That is the natural and human thing that we would all do. As Lucy Moreton explained clearly, once you have taken such a long and dangerous journey, and seen things that we in this room have certainly never seen and hope never to, there is no prospect of going back or of giving up so, yes, people will try to make the journey back again. It already happens. It is factored into the price in some of the smuggling operations that we hear about, that if you are turned back by the French coastguard, you get one extra shot free on us, half-price or whatever.
People who have made the journey this far and believe that the UK is the place where they will be safe and their human rights respected will seek to come here. We cannot make them disappear, so—this goes to Anne’s point—the only credible response is meaningful and good-faith international co-operation. We need to engage with the French, step up to say that we will take our fair share and then speak from a position of moral authority to ask others to do the same. That means taking in people who have connections to the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
Q
Zoe Gardner: I am quite confused about that being the aim of the legislation that we have in front of us. The measures that have been put forward in the Bill, as far as I can tell, will only serve to exacerbate and complicate the repeated legal claims that will be made. For example, the split standard of proof in the Bill would apply a different standard of proof to different parts of a person’s asylum claim. That will be challenged and tested in the courts and will take longer. Obviously, the delays of six months will make the system take longer. On the other side, slapping a priority sign on to somebody’s deportation order does not actually make any difference. Again, as Lucy said, that is a matter for having well-resourced court systems and a fair and efficient system, and the Bill just does not do anything to achieve any of that.
The Chair
Apologies, but that brings us to the end of the time allotted to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee. Many questions were asked and our witnesses gave evidence that Members wanted to listen to.
Examination of Witness
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby gave evidence .
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Dave Kirby, the assistant chief constable of Derbyshire police. Dave is joining us virtually. We have until 3.15 pm. Will the witness please introduce himself for the record?
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: Good afternoon. My name is Dave Kirby, assistant chief constable with responsibility for crime and criminal justice in Derbyshire Constabulary.
Stuart Anderson
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: Specifically in relation to the clause 45 defence?
Stuart Anderson
Yes.
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: If I can start with the background, what we find—forgive me if I tread over ground that you have already been over—is that the defence can be abused either way and there might be ways to alleviate that. We find instances where people who have a genuine claim to be a victim are admitting principal offences—cannabis cultivation or similar—in order to protect the people who exploit them. It tends to have the effect of limiting an investigation, including limiting the examination of telephones or other digital devices that might show us a broader conspiracy, for example. Again, that is because they are still under that control. We see that in an organised way, which I will come to.
Similarly, we see people we believe are genuinely committing offences, such as the organisers of those cannabis growers or people who are in some way managing them, using the defence—some people might use the phrase “Get out of jail free”—to avoid prosecution. In either case, we have seen a high level of organisation, which it is important to point out. I cannot go into the tactical detail in a public forum, but we can see a level of control that goes beyond one organised crime group, for example. Then we see people who are genuinely being exploited perhaps admitting offences and being prosecuted, or being bailed or released under investigation and then simply going round the cycle.
There are two important points around how the legislation currently sits. One is that the defence can be raised at any time, which makes life quite difficult for investigators because they have the original investigation to consider and then they have the secondary, parallel investigation that is required around status. That has to be conducted even if a person has not claimed to be a victim of modern slavery, because that defence could be brought in at any time. I understand that people might initially be hesitant to do that, given that they are being exploited, so it could be problematic to change. However, a second area of interest is that there is no duty for people claiming to be victims to co-operate with the parallel investigation around their status; that is difficult for investigators because there are quite often a few lines of inquiry, with some exceptions.
Stuart Anderson
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: I would be hesitant to make that statement. There could be benefits for victims, with various revisions. I would not want to make that statement directly.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: I think that would assist hugely. The delay can still be there, because people can choose when to bring the defence, and sometimes that is even at trial. But, yes, more speedy decisions from the civil competent authorities would be helpful, because investigators—we all know that resources are very stretched in every force area—could then focus on the areas they really need to.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: At a national level, we have had some quite good interaction and support from Albania and other countries, including Lithuania—in fact, my own force in Derbyshire has had a joint investigation with the Lithuanian authorities around forced labour exploitation. So I would say that the support is good; in general, it is conducted in conjunction with Europol or the National Crime Agency. Given the complexities in achieving that level of co-operation, it tends to be for our higher level investigations, where we have mapped organised criminality working at an international level, as opposed to the day in, day out criminality and exploitation that we uncover.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: I think what you are getting at is correct. The reason is that some of these people are under a huge amount of duress, including their families being threatened. Their families remain in Albania and other countries, so they cannot protect them, and violence is often used by these groups. If people are told not to claim that they are a victim and to go through the criminal justice process, and then at some point change their minds for whatever reason, I think that needs to be allowed and not counted against them. The difficulty is, of course, those who would exploit the system and raise a defence at a late stage in order to cause complications for the prosecution and who are in fact criminals, sometimes at a fairly high level. That is where the police and other agencies always need to be cognisant that that defence can be raised and to run those parallel investigations.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
That turns the presumption of innocent until proven guilty on its head. Do you think that that is the most helpful way to go forward and, if so, are there other circumstances in which we should not offer support to people because we do not believe them, before they have had the opportunity to prove otherwise? If you do not think that it is helpful, how would you amend the legislation to be more helpful, while recognising that we do not know whether people are victims of slavery at the point at which they are arrested?
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: There are a few areas there. First, the existing legislation does not apply to a lot of crime types in any event—some of the more serious crime types that you mentioned, such as kidnapping and manslaughter, and lots of offences included in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and firearms legislation, so some of that is there already. I do not think that it is right to say that policing is turning the presumption of innocent until proven guilty on its head. What I would say is that, where we already have information and intelligence in relation to individuals and their place within a criminal hierarchy, at that point it may be appropriate to turn that presumption on its head.
To illustrate, there is a recent case in Derbyshire where an Albanian gang has been dismantled only in the last couple of weeks. There have been 24 arrests, and I think 12 of those people were Albanians, running cannabis growers and other types of criminality in the region. More than one of those people claimed to be victims, but we had a covert investigation behind us that showed their level of control, their ability to communicate, the resources that they had and various things that clearly went against that claim. Absent that information and intelligence, I do not think that we would say, “We don’t believe this person,” in the first instance. An investigator should, and in all investigations does, go into that situation with an open mind. This person could be a victim or could, in fact, be a criminal. They start at that point, not on one side or the other.
The other part of your question was about what we do to make things easier for investigators to understand the true position. I think that, again, that would be some sort of duty to co-operate, because it is quite difficult if somebody claims to be a victim and then, for example, refuses to provide a phone passcode, and so on. Perhaps a duty there would assist us. I mentioned whether a person should have to declare straightaway, because often there are delays, but I think that a lot of genuine victims would suffer that way.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: Absolutely. I cannot give you names right now. That perhaps would not be appropriate, but in various areas of criminality we have seen that, and again it is for various reasons. One reason that I have alluded to already is to hamper prosecutions, as a tactic. Quite often we can get around that as investigators because we have been looking at the various areas that would prove or disprove a person’s status throughout, but sometimes the defence is raised in order to obtain access, we believe, to other services that we would of course want to provide to genuine victims, such as access to housing and potentially some assistance in securing visas and so on.
We do see those things. I can only say that in some cases we have proved that those people are not victims—for example, through covert activity that was already in place because it was a part of larger operations or because of things such as telecoms investigations and so on, sharing that work. There is a lot of technical detail in how it is done, but we have detected people exploiting the system for those two reasons: benefits and to avoid prosecution.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: By “sequential”, do you mean repeated?
Tom Pursglove
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: Okay, I am trying to understand where you are going with the question. I am sorry, do you mean if somebody makes a claim and is referred, and then does so again following a criminal justice process? Or have I misunderstood your question?
Tom Pursglove
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: We see victims being referred into the system and then disappearing from it and turning up somewhere else, and then being referred into the system again, and so on. That is an indication, of course, that the control that these criminal gangs have has remained in place and they continue to be controlled, coerced and taken out of that process. Again, in general terms, the speedier the decision that is made in terms of a conclusive grounds decision and the support put in place in a substantive way, the less likely we are to see that because this would be an alternative for people who otherwise are in some sort of a holding pattern, waiting for decisions to be made, perhaps in temporary accommodation and so on. So, for me, the measures that are most effective are those that are going to cement those decisions the quickest and provide real support to those individuals—[Inaudible]—so they can be taken out of that coercive group of organised crime groups.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: Can you repeat the question? I had an issue with the connection. I apologise.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: The ability of gangs to bring people across the channel is a really important part of how many of those gangs work, particularly when we talk about foreign national offenders and foreign national organised crime. Again, at the risk of being boring talking about west Balkan criminality, I think it is a good way to illustrate that. West Balkan criminality, Albanian criminality, which is really what we are talking about, has taken more of a foothold since around 2017 in the UK, partly because of a real crackdown in Albania around cannabis cultivation. There needs to be a business model to support that. The gang members themselves do not want to spend long hours in uncomfortable and dangerous cannabis grows, for example, with the risk of being caught. Why would they want to do that? Similarly, if the business model is to exploit people for sexual practices then there need to be people to exploit. The ability to bring people into the country across the channel is hugely important for them.
Of course, there are other rackets such as labour exploitation and so on that have been talked about many times. Focusing on those two, they need people who can be exploited. British citizens form part of that, but people from comparatively poor areas who have comparatively few opportunities are much easier to exploit. In fact, many of those people do not initially believe they are victims—they believe that they are entering into a business deal. “You do this for this long, and then we will fly you back, or there will be some sort of benefit”. Sometimes that is the case. I would suggest that the conditions those people are living in are appalling and that the deal is a terrible one, but for some of them that is a better deal than they had where they came from.
Forgive me, that is a bit of a long answer. The point is that without the ability to bring foreign nationals in-country, those very well-organised criminal gangs—in my experience, many of them are far better organised than our own high-level criminality—would struggle to prosper in the way they currently are.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: At the moment, there is a heightened threat from people from those areas. That is what we are seeing most of in terms of foreign national offenders in Derbyshire and the east midlands, and I am fairly confident that is also the pattern elsewhere. To illustrate, we used to see Vietnamese organised criminals involved in cannabis growing, sex trafficking and other issues, but more often than not we now see Albanians in control, potentially exploiting those Vietnamese people, or, if not, working together. Some alleged groups are so well-organised and disciplined that they are able to effectively out-perform other criminal gangs. That is the threat we are seeing most in terms of foreign national criminality.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: It is happening very regularly. However, we are uncovering victims very regularly, so in their cases that is a very positive thing. Forgive me, could you repeat the last part of the question?
Bambos Charalambous
How often is it occurring? How much of a problem do you see it as being?
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: I think it is occurring a lot, but whether I would classify it as a problem or not is another issue. When it is being used genuinely for victims in some of the most terrible circumstances imaginable, I would not classify that as a problem. However, the abuse is real; it is actually organised and, in some cases, quite systematic.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: From a domestic point of view, we would look at things like if they have access to communications, do they have their own phone or not? Have they got an evident network of contacts or friends? Have they got control of their own finances? Have they got control of their own documents? Are they able to come and go, or are they locked into a premises, for example? There are not many people within the sex-trafficking area of exploitation who are there voluntarily, of course, so we look at all of those factors.
Really, we are looking at someone’s freedoms; their access to resources, including money, telephones, that kind of thing; and whether they have a normal pattern of life, a normal pattern of life for a criminal, or if they are very much restricted in what they can do. That is one of the ways we can identify people as victims. We would also conduct more detailed work around finances. For example, if benefits are being claimed, who are they being collected by? Which accounts are they being paid into? Are we seeing the same account more than once, which might show an element of organisation and coercion? Those kinds of things.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: Again, I think it is really important that victims are allowed to make that claim at any point. I say that because of the coercion that exists, including threats to family members and so on. If somebody is arrested for whatever offence and know that they are a victim, they dare not claim to be so because their bosses say, “Don’t do that.” They know that if they plead guilty, and indicate that they will do so, the investigation is likely to be stopped short, saving further investigation into the organised crime group. The person is told to toe that line because of the threat to their family. It is difficult to say that they must declare early in those circumstances.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: No, it does not, and again, it is down to the skill, knowledge and understanding of the investigators and other agencies to spot the signs and be alive to the fact that they are not just investigating whatever criminality is reported; they are also investigating the status of those involved.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank our witness for his evidence. We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of witnesses
Councillor Roger Gough and Councillor Rachael Robathan gave evidence.
Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Councillor Roger Gough, from Kent County Council, who is joining us virtually, and Councillor Rachael Robathan, from Westminster City Council, who is here in person. We have until 4pm. Would the witnesses introduce themselves for the record?
Councillor Roger Gough: I am Roger Gough. I am the leader of Kent County Council. I also chair the South-East Strategic Partnership for Migration.
Councillor Rachael Robathan: I am Rachael Robathan, I am leader of Westminster City Council.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Councillor Rachael Robathan: Just to give a current picture; we have 638 Afghan refugees who have come in as part of the current settlement in one hotel on the Edgware Road. We have a further 589 refugees who were in Westminster prior to that, spread across five hotels. Our experience is that clearly there is a lot of pressure on local services in terms of identifying health, educational and other support needs. There is not always the advance warning that local authorities would wish to have in terms of knowing about the placements before they arrive. Clearly, as much notice as we can be given from the Home Office, Clearsprings or whoever is placing the asylum seekers is very much to our advantage so that we can prepare and know what we are dealing with.
The other thing to stress is that there are particularly significant issues that arise. For example, over a third of the current Afghan refugees placed in Westminster are children and of those 10% are not with their parents or guardians, and have not travelled with them, so there is an immediate safeguarding issue, which the local authority needs to step in and deal with. While there is funding for the people placed in the hotels, there are undoubtedly significant pressures and concerns about how we support other people. It is unclear how long those refugees will be staying in those hotels. We are working on three months, but it could be longer than that, or it could be less. Those are the main things.
The current Afghan refugee settlement has been more co-ordinated than previous asylum-seeker placements, because there has been more of a joined-up approach. Westminster has a lot of tourist hotels in the centre of our city, which currently are not as full as hopefully they otherwise would be, so in areas where there is an availability of hotels there tends to be a disproportionate placement of asylum seekers, without necessarily the recognition of the pressure that that puts on the surrounding area.
Councillor Roger Gough: As you indicated in your question, clearly we have a very specific set of circumstances in Kent which relate to the Channel crossings and in particular to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Taking asylum overall first, most of the adult and accompanied child asylum seekers who arrive in Kent do not spend very long in Kent. There has been an exception to that for the last year, which is the use of the Napier Barracks near Folkestone, which has been a source of some challenge and controversy throughout its period of use. Most adult asylum seekers are rapidly moved on and dispersed. For us, the big issue has been unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. As you may know, we have twice in the last year had to suspend full operation of our statutory duties. Between August and, I think, early December last year and again between June and earlier this month, we did not collect young people from the port because our services at that point were put under extreme pressure.
To give an idea of what that means, there was great pressure on accommodation capacity since, this year in particular, we started to see more younger young people––under-16s––than we had in previous years. That certainly put pressure on fostering placements. For the slightly older young people, there was also pressure on some of the accommodation that they were placed in. That meant that young people were being placed outside the county, which clearly has significant impact in terms of oversight, safeguarding and so on. You must then add to that the fact that case loads and the pressure on our social work teams were reaching levels that we viewed as unsafe. Those are the sort of pressures that we were seeing in that area, and we have been working with the Home Office to try to make that a more manageable situation.
Turning to some of the wider areas, adult asylum dispersal, with the significant exception of Napier Barracks, has not been a factor for us very much in recent years. In terms of resettlement schemes, Kent, along with other parts of the south-east, played a full role in the Syrian scheme and is now looking to do so to the greatest possible extent with the Afghan scheme. We have three hotels in Kent that are being applied to Afghan families who are arriving.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Councillor Roger Gough: Historically, resources in the sense of money have been an issue for us. That has changed in the last year and a bit. Historically, we carried a loss, if you like: a difference between what we received from the various grants—chiefly Home Office grants—and what we spent of between £1.5 million and £2.5 million a year. In the summer of last year, there was a significant increase in the rates paid by the Home Office, particularly targeted on those of us in authorities with large numbers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. As part of the launch of the latest version of the national transfer scheme, there were some further enhancements to rates including some things on the care leavers area. That has made a real difference to us financially, so the point that I have made constantly is that when we speak about pressure and the areas in which Kent is feeling the impact, it is to do with the capacity of our services to respond. It has not been a case of financial resources this year or last, but historically it was.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Councillor Rachael Robathan: As Councillor Gough mentioned, it is not currently so much around the financial support; it is more to do with the wider pressure on services across the piece. For example, at the moment, we in Westminster, like Kent, have more than our allocated number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, which represents a significant responsibility because of the length of time that they are likely to be in receipt of services. There is a very significant pressure there, but it is more the wider pressure on overall services.
At the moment, we have 638 Afghan refugees in one hotel on the Edgware Road. We are having to put significant resources into trying to understand exactly who is there and what their needs are—all that information we need to gather in order to be able to look after those people safely while they are here. There is also the question of uncertainty. We do not know how long they will be within the borough and in need of our services. There are issues around education. Do we provide education within the hotel for those children? Clearly, if they were to go into our schools, that is disruption for the school and for the children themselves, as well as for the other children in that school.
So there are a number of other issues that need to be taken into account so that we can look after the children properly. That is why there needs to be more planning on where the asylum seekers are placed, and full co-ordination between the Government and local authorities on this.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Councillor Rachael Robathan: Yes, I think there should be a balanced approach to the whole process. Recognition needs to be made of the services and the housing accommodation that is available in different areas. Clearly, in inner-city areas there is more pressure. For example, the current Afghan refugees that we are seeing tend to have larger families, so there is more of a need for four-bedroom or even five-bedroom properties, which are under more pressure in an inner-city area than in other areas. Some balance needs to be made. Absolutely, in terms of dispersing and further placement, that needs to be balanced.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Councillor Roger Gough: I agree with that. What we have to remember is that there are different schemes for different groups of asylum seekers and others being resettled. The rhetoric that is always applied by central Government and the authorities is a place-based approach. Many of us would say that in practice that does not always work out.
When it comes to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, in Kent we have been vociferous that the scheme should be mandatory. At the moment, the Government are still very much committed to a voluntary scheme. We will have to see how that works out. The Government are seeking to make it work, but we have a view on that.
On adult asylum seekers, part of the difficulty is that you have a very different mechanism being applied and very different responsibilities for the authorities or areas that are taking part. For instance, the south-east is massively under-represented in terms of adult asylum seekers within its population by comparison with, say, the west midlands or the north-west. The problem is not so much that the authorities are unwilling to step up to the plate. It is much more to do with the cost and availability of housing and developing the infrastructure. To some extent, once you have established the infrastructure, it can support more arrivals; it is getting it started that can be the issue. That has generated a slightly vicious circle, in terms of where you get concentrations of asylum seekers. That is something that the Home Office and groups such as the regional migration partnerships were working on over the last couple of years. It was quite a major strand of work prior to the pandemic striking. There is very much a variation.
The other key point, which fits in with what Councillor Robathan has just mentioned, is engagement with local authorities. Many of us would say that the resettlement scheme—what started as the Syrian scheme—has been a great model of very effective engagement with local authorities, and that has been reflected in the fact that authorities across the country have played their part in it. Not all schemes work quite as well.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Councillor Roger Gough: Clearly, it is not welcome that we have another element of this particular picture in a part of the country that very visibly experiences large numbers of arrivals. In a sense, having a presence of this kind in east Kent is not ideal, and we have always been clear—both Kent County Council and our colleagues in the local district council, Folkestone and Hythe—that this is a decision taken by the Home Office, not by the local authorities, and is not something we were in support of.
That said, I think that a great deal of work has been undertaken to seek to address some of the problems that produced the real crisis in and around Napier Barracks in the early part of this year, where we saw some disorder and a significant covid outbreak. Significant steps have been taken on that, although there are still concerns about that facility.
Paul Howell
Q
Councillor Rachael Robathan: Yes, there are certainly some things that we would welcome, although it would be good to see some more detail when the secondary legislation comes forward. Just to back up slightly, a further issue that we have in Westminster, as many of you will be aware, is the significant number of rough sleepers. Our latest count was 171, which is actually fewer than there have been previously. We worked very closely with Government on the Everyone In programme and so on last year, which was very successful, but we still have 70 in a bridging hotel within Westminster, so there is a significant issue around rough sleeping.
Over half of those people have no recourse to public funds. All of the asylum seekers in Westminster have come through the sanctioned route, so they would be in category 1 under this Bill, but one of the concerns for us would be if there is more clarity, if you like, in terms of no recourse to public funds for category 2, whether some of those people who would have no recourse to public funds might slip into rough sleeping. There is always a draw to the centre of Westminster: it is known that an aggressive beggar can make up to £500, or sometimes more, on our streets in Westminster, so if people find themselves on the street, there is an economic pull into the centre. That could lead to increasing numbers within Westminster.
Speaking very specifically about Westminster, the issue is that we then have an issue with tented accommodation, and the point about tented accommodation—I have had a number of meetings with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice about this—is that there is a very high bar for the police or others to be able to gain entry to the tents. Not only is it difficult to enforce against those who would be illegally there but, much more importantly, it is very difficult to address issues around trafficked women and other people who are on the streets and need support and help, because we are unable to deliver that. That is a concern.
One of the things that we would welcome—I think this has come through in what both Councillor Gough and I have said—is a more organised approach to the way asylum seekers are looked after and accommodated. More planning around the process would help. I think we have also both said that the Afghan resettlement has been much better in terms of being able to have planning and co-ordination with local authorities, so that is something we would welcome.
Also in Westminster, I welcome the measures around modern slavery, but also the greater sanctions to stop people coming back into the country if they have been convicted of criminal activity. Once again, we have people on the streets in Westminster who engage in criminal activity to earn money. That activity is not at a very high level, but they are still things that have a real impact on our residents’ lives. We would welcome the moves around electronic travel authorisation and other measures to make re-entry into the country more difficult for those people who are here to commit criminal activity.
Councillor Roger Gough: I would endorse what Councillor Robathan has said; I agree with all those points. There are a couple of specifics from our side. One slightly begs the question as to how effective the measures will be, ultimately, because others looking at the Bill can judge that better than me. The basic principle of seeking to promote safe and orderly routes at the expense of those that involve things like the small boat routes would be very welcome. There is no doubt, and it has been much emphasised, that that route is very dangerous. It creates a degree of political tension because it is so visible. It is something that we very much wish to avoid. Those issues come home to those of us who are border authorities, particularly in the case of the small boats in areas such as Kent. The measures to try to shift the balance between the two ways in which people get here would in principle be very welcome.
The second area I want to touch on relates to age assessment. Broadly, the direction there seems to me to be a favourable one. The attempt to create a national body, not to carry out or provide support to local authorities, unless it is requested, so much as to provide some consistency and regularity to a very time-consuming process that can wrap up huge amounts of time from very qualified social workers and which often has no very obvious end to it because it is relatively loosely guided, is welcome. Establishing best practice as well as providing support for local authorities, many of which will be less experienced in this area than authorities such as mine, would be very welcome.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Councillor Roger Gough: We are slightly betwixt and between on that. I apologise if I give an answer that may not be quite as definite as you would like. I shall explain why. If we take this year and last year, the very specific pressures that we have been experiencing were rapid increases in the numbers of young people coming into our care, the end result of which was that social work case loads rose far above recommended levels, particularly for the specialist teams dealing with those cases. We also had reception centres that, particularly with the first wave of big pressure last year, were filling rapidly. That was the point at which placing young people in other accommodation was difficult because of the circumstances of the pandemic.
Just to be clear, it is perhaps worth saying that when we talk about unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, historically, these have been adolescent males. Indeed, if you look at last year’s figures, we have very few indeed who were under the age––or stated age––of 16. There was something of a shift in the early part of this year where, from memory, about a fifth of those arriving were of stated age under 16. That tended to push you more towards foster accommodation rather than the semi-independent and other forms of accommodation that we would provide for the 16 and 17-year-olds. That has meant that through the pressures on fostering, and to some extent on other forms of accommodation, we had to place more young people outside the county, and we were certainly heading into that sort of territory at the time when we were closing our doors again in June. That was the biggest area of concern.
One thing that is worth noting, too, and it has a longer lag on it, is care leavers: those who come into our care, or indeed the care of any authority, under the age of 18—they are taken in as children in care—then become care leavers. Councillor Robathan referred to that. Under the changes to legislation that took place three or four years ago, we have a responsibility for them through to the age of 25. While at the moment, we have around 300 under-18s in our care, we have over 1,000 care leavers. In fact, our care leaver service is more ex unaccompanied asylum-seeking children than it is ex Kent children in care. As you can imagine, that generates a number of specific pressures, too. I hope that answers your question. The only reason for my hesitancy at the start was that we have just come out of the period when we were not taking young people into our care, and therefore some of the very large numbers of arrivals that we saw a few weeks ago, of whom typically 10% to 15% would probably be unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, were not having a very direct effect on us at that point. But clearly if those numbers were to continue, we would potentially be in a different situation.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Councillor Roger Gough: First, there is a big variety of views in Kent, as I think there is anywhere. My inbox, my postbag, tells me that about all the issues that are raised, but as I mentioned in my earlier responses, the very visible sense of large numbers of arrivals on the coast has had an effect within the county, and therefore that has made the issue a pressing one. As I say, from a service delivery point of view, for us the most pressing element of it has been to do with the children.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Councillor Roger Gough: On the first question, it is a demand and I cannot quantify it at this moment, but I can give you perhaps some indications. It is a demand on social worker time, so you will tend to see that a typical age assessment involves two experienced social workers, who will carry out interviews. If you just take everything going smoothly, if I could put it that way, that would involve a couple of half-day interviews followed by extensive paperwork, research and then later stages of the process. In practice, and this goes back to my earlier comments about age assessment, there are a number of ways in which the process may well be less smooth running than that. But you need experienced social workers, and one of the areas in which we have worked with the Home Office has been through their support for us in backfilling posts so that experienced social workers can take that role on.
On safeguarding, clearly there is a significant concern—it is quite hard to specify the full details of it—where you have adults in what one would take to be a young person’s space. Clearly, you will have a challenge over those who are, if you like, on the cusp. What happens—this ties in, perhaps, to your third question—is that we have had historically quite large numbers of young people being put through by the Home Office where doubts have been raised by Border Force regarding their age. There are some of whom they would say—interestingly, recent court findings have helped with this process a bit—“Look, this person is definitely, in our view, out of the reasonable range to be considered a child,” and they would be into the adult part of the process.
That can sometimes come back. For instance, where asylum seekers have been placed in hotels elsewhere, disputes about age assessment then come back as an issue for the new local authority. I know of a number of places across the south-east where that has happened, but in our case, there are a number of cases where any local authority, I think, would take the view that, where it is very hard to establish—again, the guidance around this is relatively loose—that a young person is definitely out of that age range, there is precious little point in pursuing that further.
That still leaves you with a material number. At one point, at the height of things, around half the young people who were arriving arrived with doubts raised about them by the Home Office. We would then probably in practice seriously investigate, because it was considered viable to do so, only a portion of those, but they would very often go into cases where the age dispute would be pushed to the point of saying that this was indeed an adult.
Councillor Rachael Robathan: As Councillor Gough said, this is very time consuming. As he stated, almost all of the UASC are late-teen boys, and it can be very difficult at the best of times to tell someone’s age, so it involves a huge amount of time on the part of the local authority. There is a very clear safeguarding issue, because once someone has been accepted as UAS they are put into a child setting—schools and other child settings—where there is a very clear safeguarding issue. That is something that we are all very conscious of, clearly.
The other point, as we said earlier, is that there is an ongoing responsibility to these young people, because the responsibility to support them carries on until they are 25, so if you have someone who presents as a 16-year-old, let us say, that means that you have almost 10 years during which you will support that young person. In terms of ensuring that there is the best use of public funds, which we all know are always very stretched, we need to ensure that the people coming into the system are the ones who really need that support, and who are legitimately there.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Councillor Rachael Robathan: Anything that moves towards a uniform process will greatly help. At the moment, involving the local authorities and putting the responsibility on them is very difficult for what are very often stretched institutions. Having a uniform, joined-up process would be very welcome.
Councillor Roger Gough: Already when you see changes in, for instance, what the courts have found about what is a reasonable basis on which a challenge can be presented by Border Force, as we have seen recently, that has made a huge difference. The proportion of young people coming to us age disputed is significantly lower than it was before that.
When you get changes in the process, it can make a material difference. Authorities like ours are at least experienced in this area, even if we are in the eye of the storm. As dispersal happens, or when, as I mentioned earlier, those who have been placed as adults launch a challenge within their own authority, issues may arise for an authority that is not nearly as well set up to deal with them as we are.
To pick up on the point that Councillor Robathan made, it is worth emphasising what a difference going into the children’s system or the adult system makes. As we have both said, first there are children in care and then there is the care leaver process, all of which, quite properly in their own way, have particular requirements for children’s services departments in authorities. The process around adult dispersal clearly still makes demands on council services, but in the first instance it is a housing-related issue, from which a number of other things follow. It is not quite the same as building in what can be a seven, eight or 10 year process of somebody being part of the children’s services operations of the council.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Councillor Roger Gough: Sorry, could you just run your last point by me again?
Stuart C. McDonald
It just strikes me that a lot of the pressure around these decisions, and perhaps even a degree of cynicism about where a number of age claims fall, arises from the fact that UASC leave, as I understand it, takes young people up to 17 and a half. If UASC leave carried on until 19, 20 or 21 there would be much less pressure, or motivation—if you are cynical about it—to make a claim that you were 15, 16 or 17 than there is now. Would that be a different way to try to go about fixing this?
Councillor Roger Gough: I need to think about this one, but I suspect my answer will probably be that where the pressure arises is not so much on the immigration side of things as in respect of the children’s services obligations. As long as a young person is identified as being of a particular age that, under the current rules, makes them a child in care for the council, that is where the issues for councils arise. As has been mentioned, that takes those involved through to the age of 25 as care leavers. The answer almost certainly is that it is Children Act responsibilities that matter in this case. As you say, there is normally UAS leave to remain, which will then usually transfer over into a five-year leave to remain. In a sense, the age issues tie into Children Act responsibilities.
Stuart C. McDonald
Okay, I will give that some further thought.
Councillor Roger Gough: And so will I.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Councillor Roger Gough: I am certainly more supportive of something that is there to support local authorities and provide more of a framework and a structure, rather than completely taking the process over—I do not think that that is necessarily what would be envisaged. In short, going back to the two points you have posited, you are quite right that safeguarding arguments would cut both ways. What all of us are asking is simply, how do we find a process that is as robust as it can be and that does not have a hugely distorting effect on local authority children’s services departments in terms of their time, their resources and their officers’ commitment?
In terms of the function that this body could have, there is a suggestion that it could support, and take decisions with, authorities who wish it. But the key thing in many ways is that it provides more of a framework within what, at present, is a relatively hazy area of activity. To the degree that you can do that, I think you would make local authorities’ lives easier and better, and they would hopefully provide better services in this area than would otherwise be the case.
Councillor Rachael Robathan: I would largely agree. In terms of your first point, about moving the age higher, I would be wary of introducing a hurdle or age bar that was different from that for other young people in our care. I would be quite wary about introducing a parallel process that has different criteria. I suspect that you might just push the problem forward a few years; then you would have a 19-year-old, but are they really 19 or actually a 22-year-old who is presenting as a 19-year-old? That might move the issue around, rather than addressing it.
I agree with what Councillor Gough said: having a national process that helps local authorities in determining age would be a support. It is not determining the shape of the services that local authorities then deliver; it is basically saying, “This young person qualifies on this age basis to access your services.”
Stuart C. McDonald
We will have to see what the placeholder clauses in the Bill are replaced with, but thank you both very much.
The Chair
If there are no more questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Tony Smith gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Tony Smith, from Fortinus Global Ltd, who is joining us virtually. We have until 4.30 pm. Could the witness please introduce himself for the record?
Tony Smith: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Tony Smith. I am now an independent international border management consultant, but I am probably better known as a former director general of UK Border Force, with 40 years’ experience of working in the Home Office in immigration and border applications.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Tony Smith: I think there is a broad consensus that the system is broken. I spent a great many years working in the areas of immigration enforcement, border control or immigration control, and asylum. I think what has happened recently has been a new method of gaining entry to the UK. This channel crossing was not an issue in my time. I retired in 2013, and at that time most of our energies were devoted to securing the port of Calais and preventing illegal migrants from concealing themselves in vehicles, to reduce that route.
In some respects, we have been victims of our own success, in that the smugglers will not give up; they constantly try new methods to get around our controls. This method has been used only in the last two or three years; they have found a gap in our defences. I think, therefore, the Bill is right to try to distinguish those asylum seekers that enter in this way—coming across the English channel in small vessels and claiming asylum on arrival—many of whom have spent a good deal of time in another safe third country, from those that are being evacuated by the UNHCR or through the Afghan programme. I think the Bill does that. It does attempt to distinguish the method of entry by redefining article 31 of the refugee convention, and to distinguish those people that are immediately fearing persecution from those that are not, so that we can get back some form of control of that part of our border, which at the moment I fear we have lost.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Tony Smith: Yes, but as I say, I worked in senior positions in the immigration service when we had our really big asylum influx, which was in 2001. I am afraid corporate memory in the Home Office is not all that it might be, but at that time we were on the cusp of introducing the juxtaposed controls in northern France, because over 100,000 came in 2001 and the Government of the day saw it as a priority to reduce asylum intake from France. The effect of the juxtaposed controls was that by moving the UK border to Calais, it was not possible to claim asylum in the UK, because the applicants were not within the jurisdiction, so people were originally coming on forged passports—initially by air and then by ferry—and claiming asylum. Once we introduced those measures, they resorted to concealment in vehicles. We were then able to establish an agreement with our friends in France that we would have a British control zone in France, which would enable us to conduct our own searches in the UK zone. Subsequently, I was involved in a lot of the berthside checks to prevent people pervading through the fences and getting on to the vessels berthside.
We did a lot of work to secure that part of the border and in collaboration with our colleagues in France. That worked in terms of the targets, which were to reduce asylum intake via these methods, coupled with other measures that were taken, such as the third country unit to return people to safe third countries. We had the detained fast track system for manifestly unfounded cases. A lot of these things were tried previously and did work to an extent. As I say, the maritime environment is an extraordinarily complex one, as the Committee will no doubt be hearing, in terms of the complexities of international law and what we can do in our domestic law to manage that. I do think the attempt is a bold one to make this distinction, because I think we are conflating two different issues here, in terms of people who are travelling across between two safe third countries, and those that are genuinely in need of resettlement—of whom the numbers far outweigh the levels that the western world is prepared to take, I am afraid.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Tony Smith: After the first signs of Brexit, we did have an APPG, more on freight rather than people, about what we were going to do about the border with France. I participated in that with some French officials and a number of MPs. The ending of free movement is in itself a significant challenge for that border. There were certainly some overtures from French politicians that they wanted not just to retain the juxtaposed controls but to work with us on joint enforcement measures because they really did not want international organised crime groups working in the Hauts-de-France region. Nor did they want large numbers of irregular migrants, shall we say, who are already in the Schengen zone––as you know, there are no borders in the Schengen zone––effectively migrating into the Hauts-de-France in the hope of being able to get across to the UK.
I did think there was an element of goodwill there, in terms of continuing to work with them, and we have seen some of that. We have persuaded the French police to conduct checks on the beaches and to prevent people boarding small vessels to get across. The difficulty we have is that once they are seaborne, the French position is that they will not intervene because they see this as a search-and-rescue operation, which is covered by international conventions. The migrants do not want to be rescued by the French police or coastguard because they would be taken back to France. They want to be rescued by the UK Border Force. For the UK Border Force, our primary mission at sea ought to be the preservation of life on both sides. Once we bring people aboard a Border Force vessel, they are within our jurisdiction, they can claim asylum and that just fuels the business model that the human smugglers are exploiting.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Tony Smith: I think it is highly dangerous. I am in touch with former colleagues from the Australian Border Force, which is often held up as a model for pushbacks. That was an entirely different model from the one that we are proposing. These are dangerous waterways and very vulnerable vessels. I fear for the worst. We have already had drownings. They are not as well reported as they should be but we have had them. We do not know how many, of course, because bodies have not always been retrieved. We will certainly see the smugglers resort to tactics, as we saw in Australia, such as vessels literally being holed so that they sink and lifejackets being thrown overboard in the trust, hope and expectation that those on board will then be rescued, which we have an international duty to undertake.
The only real way out of this is to come to an accommodation with the French Government, which I have been advocating for some time. There is provision under article 98 of the UN convention on the law of the sea for countries to establish regional arrangements, so it is possible, with political agreement with France, that we could have joint patrols on the English channel. We could have British officers on their vessels and they could put French officers on our vessels, but the premise would be that if you are returned to either side, there is no risk of refoulement because both countries are signatories to the 1951 refugee convention and you would get a full and fair asylum hearing on either side. I do think that is possible, but there is a reluctance on the part of the French Government to go down that road at the moment because they have significant immigration problems of their own. They cannot control their own southern border because they are part of the Schengen group and there is a significant lobby in France saying, “Why would we stop people crossing to the UK when we have plenty of irregular migrants already coming into France?”
Anne McLaughlin
Q
You talked about Australia, which I was going to bring up. I am sure I read recently that Australia also criminalised those who rescued people who were seeking asylum and arriving by boat, but made the exception that if the vessel was not seaworthy they would not be criminalised. I think that is what you referred to when you talked about the traffickers putting holes in the boats so that they became dangerous. That sort of thing assists traffickers now that they know what to do. First, would you caution the UK against making that caveat and perhaps urge it to drop the pushback thing altogether? Would you caution against the criminalisation of people who rescue people at sea?
Tony Smith: We could spend a lot of time talking about the Australian model, which we do not have, but you are talking about a much, much longer stretch of water there. The Australian Border Force—I was down there helping it to set up—took the view that its maritime response was significantly different from ours. The vessels it deployed are significantly different from the UK Border Force cutters. The cutter fleet that we have in the Home Office are legacy Customs cutters. They are not designed to bring people ashore or to process people. They were even processing people on some of the Australian vessels to determine whether they were admissible to the asylum system before they brought them ashore. In the end, they invested in vessels of their own. They could then move the individuals from the unseaworthy vessels that they were encountering into their own vessels that they had purchased and escort them back to Indonesian waters. There was a significant investment by the Australian Government in doing that, which did work, but trying to compare that with what we see on the English channel is a different question.
Yes, of course we should preserve life, and I think the French should do that, too. There is an obligation on both sides of the channel for us to work together to find a way to stop human smugglers. The current model simply demands, “You pay €5,000 to me and I will put you in an unseaworthy vessel, and I really don’t care whether you drown or not because I have got my money.” I am afraid that is the way the mind of the human smuggler operates. They are getting the upper hand, we are seeing numbers going up and we will see more drownings. It is difficult to lay this at the door of the UK Border Force, who have a lot of other pressures on their resources at the moment.
We need to find a way, if we can, of getting common sense to prevail on a joint strategy with France. We already have a significant number of bilateral treaties with the French that have survived Brexit and that would enable us to fix this problem, but I do not think we have been able to find anybody in a senior position in the French Government who would go that far.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
Tony Smith: I would dispute those figures. We are probably about fifth in Europe in terms of asylum intake, but you are right that other countries have more asylum applications every year than we have. That is not necessarily because those numbers have been invited by the EU to go and live there. It is because they are unable to control their own external frontier. Because of the Schengen arrangement, asylum seekers can choose where they would like to go. Many drift north to Scandinavia, Germany, Holland or France, where they would rather be than in some of the southern or eastern European states.
The EU has its own difficulties in determining the allocation of asylum seekers across the Schengen zone because they do not agree among themselves about how they should be distributed. The bigger question is not necessarily a European one but a global one. No doubt you will hear evidence from experts on this. The need for international resettlement is a huge problem. We have seen it in Afghanistan; we have climate change; and we have migratory pressures coming up from South America to the US border. People are going to continue to move in great numbers over the next 20 or 30 years. The question is how the western world is going to cope with that.
I am quite a big fan of the refugee resettlement programme. UNHCR has been going out to western countries for some years saying, “We have 80 million people displaced, and 40 million in different countries in our camps already. These are refugees who have already fled war zones whom we would like you to take.” Even though we were taking only about 5,000 or so, we are still third highest in the world, so we are not really getting to grips with the global challenge of resettling refugees through the resettlement route. It has picked up a bit since Afghanistan, and we are doing more. There is certainly evidence that we are trying to do more, and I think we could become global leaders on refugee resettlement programmes, but it is going to be difficult politically for anyone to sell that when we are seeing uncontrolled migration across the English channel.
It is finding the balance. How can we help to contribute to genuine resettlement for genuine refugees, but at the same time take back control of our borders, which is clearly the Government’s stated intent?
Tom Pursglove
Q
Tony Smith: I do think that. It is absolutely important in all this. While I would not defend the turn back strategy, I can understand why the Government are looking at those kinds of measures to stop the boats. It must be extremely frustrating not to be able to do anything about the ever-increasing numbers, particularly when a succession of Home Secretaries have come in saying that that was what they would do. A number of my successors—civil servants—have given evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, saying that they were going to make the route unviable. I am afraid it is not within their gift to make the route unviable within the current frameworks. One would hope that the new legislation would change things. It certainly changes the dynamic. We can now say, “We know that you arrived by this route. We know that you are not immediately fleeing persecution.”
I am not a big fan of the criminal justice system for migrants. It has not really worked. I am a fan of it for smugglers and facilitators, but putting migrants in prison is not necessarily going to be the answer and will lead to more challenges. The question is how we disrupt the smugglers and break that business model. The only way is to start seeing people going back to France. Then people will see that there is no point putting their life at risk in a small dinghy. There will be no point in more and more of them spreading up to Calais because that business model is broken. The big difficulty for the Government is how to persuade the French that we ought to have a policy like that and negotiate an agreement, and how to counterbalance that with the other problem of significant numbers of people around the world seeking resettlement. How are we going to contribute to responding to that?
Tom Pursglove
Q
Tony Smith: Without a doubt. I support the investment of resources in France, and that is something that we have been doing for a long time now. The French could legitimately say, “Actually, why would you not help us to contribute to border security?” Let us not pretend that the French operational arms, including the police aux frontières, the douanes, the various coastal agencies—I used to talk to them regularly when I was in the job—are not supportive of preventing criminality at an operational level.
We can be quite pleased with the work that we have done to at least try to disrupt the smuggling gangs. Quite a few have been prosecuted on the French side, albeit, sadly, more the middle men rather than the big fish who are behind human smuggling gangs. You will hear from other witnesses more qualified than me to tell you about that level 3 criminality, but it is really difficult. How do we disrupt the business model? It is about deterring people from coming. We owe a duty under the 1951 refugee convention to give refugee status to those who are genuinely in need, but I am not sure that it is the same duty for those who are arriving in this way, from a fellow original signatory to that convention, than those coming through evacuation processes such as we have seen recently in Kabul.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Tony Smith: We lived through this before. We had something called the new asylum model when I was in the UK Border Agency, before taking the top job in the Border Force. Previously, I was regional director for UKBA London and the south-east, which meant that my teams were the ones who were processing asylum arrivals coming into the country. I was actually responsible for removals.
Yes, we did have targets in the Home Office in those days for enforcement. It was part of my mission to ensure that those who did not qualify to stay, either because they had arrived under safe third country rules, or they were coming on a manifestly unfounded route, were sent back. The trouble is we have seen a good deal of judicial overreach by the European Court of Justice, and significant interpretations and European directives, which kind of hindered those arrangements on returns. We have now got to a point where we are not really returning anybody who is coming across on these boats, and people notice that. If we do not start returning people, the numbers will continue to rise. We need to find a way of segmenting those applicants who we know have a genuine claim for asylum in this country from those who have probably been in Europe for a long time and may have had applications for asylum rejected—they have had a notice de quitter from Schengen, sometimes two or three notices—who are not genuine asylum seekers but who would just like to come to live here. That is not effective border control.
It is going to be really, really difficult, but I applaud the authors of the Bill, because it finally gets to grips with the difficulty of the way we have interpreted the 1951 refugee convention and put up what I think is the right interpretation of it in not conflating two different arguments, which is human smuggling across the English channel by criminal gangs, putting lives at risk, and the genuine need to resettle refugees from different parts of the world.
Jonathan Gullis
Q
Tony Smith: That is a great question. It is called the pull factor. A number of books have been written by people probably better qualified than I am that talk about what that pull factor is. I think there are number of reasons why people would quite like to live in the UK rather than in mainland Europe. Personally, I think the main one is communities. We have a significantly diverse range of communities across the UK where people can feel comfortable in terms of getting the support they need. We are generous—I would not say very generous—in our treatment of asylum seekers. We have hosted conferences in places like Hungary and Croatia—countries where, if you were to ask asylum seekers, they would probably say that you do not get a very good deal from the Government who are supposed to be protecting your welfare, whereas you will get that in the UK; you will also get good legal representation and a very full hearing. These are all things that we should be very proud of, but I think inevitably it does mean that more people want to come to the UK.
The other element is language. English is the second language for many, many people from different parts of the world, which means that this is still—you might not believe it—a very desirable place to come and live. People are prepared to pay a good deal of money to get here on the basis that not only would they have a better life if they came here, but their broader family would have a better life. It is a genuine aspiration for a lot of people.
That is the nature of immigration and border controls. There will be a dividing line. You are going to create legislation and a set of rules. You are going to get people in front of you who do not want any border at all and who think we should let everybody in. You are going to get other people here who want to build a fortress around Britain. That has always been the case, but in 40 years at the Home Office—I was one of those civil servants who stayed in the Department; I did not bounce around Whitehall like they do nowadays—I never once worked for any Government who said that they were prepared to approach a fully open border and free movement across our borders. In fact, the vast majority have sought to tighten up our immigration and borders system, or at least to make it firmer but fairer.
We cannot lose sight of the firmness bit. There will be a need to arrest people, and there will be a need to deport people. That does not sit well, does it? It does not feel nice, but if you are going to have an effective border control, you have to be able to enforce your laws. At the moment, there is a feeling that with this particular cohort, we are not really doing any enforcement at all.
Jonathan Gullis
Q
The Chair
Mr Smith, if you could hold your answer to that question, I am going to try to bring in Paul Howell as well.
Paul Howell
Q
Tony Smith: I particularly welcome the distinction between those people who are entering the country from safe third countries, with the new interpretation of article 31 where we can actually test whether they face an immediate fear of persecution in the circumstances under which we find them, and those who are genuinely fleeing persecution coming through refugee resettlement routes. I think that is the part that I favour the most.
The other thing we will have to consider is whether we will have to establish proper arrangements for the reception of people coming via this route. The facilities in Tug Haven—I do not know whether the Committee has been there—are appalling. We have a marquee there and we have Border Force officers changing nappies and ordering pizzas because we simply do not have the infrastructure to cope with these numbers. Other countries at least provide sensible, safe accommodation. You are going to hear lots of evidence about the circumstances at Napier Barracks. There is a real problem in the Home Office right now about being able to manage the proper reception of these people, whether or not we allow them to stay.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
The Chair
Sorry, Stuart, but I am going to break in here so that we can get an answer. Mr Smith, you have 30 seconds.
Tony Smith: The Dublin convention never worked. It certainly did not work with France even when we were in the EU. In fact, we were in the EU when some of the boats started coming. They still would not take anybody back because it relied on a flawed policy framework. I stand by what I say about the criminal justice system, because we have tried this many times before and people do not fear prison. What they fear is not achieving their ultimate ambition, which is to get settlement in the UK. That is where we need to focus our minds.
The Chair
I am afraid that brings us to the end of the allotted time for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witness on behalf of the Committee and we move on to our next witness.
Examination of Witness
Rob Jones gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Rob Jones, director of threat leadership at the National Crime Agency. What a great job title. We have until 5.15 pm. Will the witness please introduce himself for the record?
Rob Jones: My name is Robert Jones. I am one of the operational directors at the National Crime Agency. I tackle all the serious organised crime threats and my particular interest in this is that I tackle organised immigration crime as one of the national priority threats that the agency deals with.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rob Jones: Obviously, there is a lot of interest in the small boats business model. I will talk about the whole route first and then focus on small boats. For some time, we have operated with our international liaison network and international partners to try to deal upstream from the UK with smuggling gangs that are targeting the UK for profit. That is a big part of what we do. That has involved targeting people who use high-risk methods of clandestine entry, where they pack people into concealments in lorries and move them overland from as far afield as Turkey, typically via an overland route.
For a variety of reasons, beginning in 2018 over the Christmas period, we have seen a movement towards the use of the small boats business model to execute clandestine entry into the UK. That has been driven by a number of factors. Obviously, during the period of lockdown when we had a long period of benign weather, almost perfect conditions and the traffic through the Schengen area and traditional border crossings was supressed, we saw those same smuggling gangs recognising an opportunity and beginning to exploit the small boats model.
Our stated intent is to disrupt as much of this as far away from the UK as possible. That means operating in a range of different environments, which we do. We also work very closely with French, Belgian and German authorities to try to disrupt smuggling gangs that are much closer to home. The emphasis, particularly post exit and particularly because of small boats, on that relationship in the near continent is ever more important. The centre of gravity for small boats is not in the UK; it is in France, Germany, Belgium and further afield.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rob Jones: When we can identify crime groups in the UK, we target them and we use a range of investigative tactics to bring them to justice and take them through the criminal justice system. A big part of what we do is intelligence collection, where we share intelligence about known smuggling gangs with overseas partners. We do that very effectively with the French through a joint unit that we set up; we also work with German and Belgian partners in a similar bilateral way. Crucially, if we have lead intelligence that a boat is being supplied to a smuggling gang, an engine is being supplied to a smuggling gang, or smugglers are moving migrants to lay-up points where they are then going to be involved in small boats crossing, we pass on that intelligence as quickly as possible for action to prevent that crossing from happening. The stated intent for all of this is to prevent loss of life. Our biggest concern is a mass casualty event in the English channel, so everything we do is driven by that article 2 responsibility.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rob Jones: We work closely with national policing and we are one of the first responders for dealing with modern slavery, so we proactively investigate controllers and traffickers who keep people in debt bondage in the UK, and we bring them to justice through the criminal justice system. Through our liaison network, we also try to disrupt that threat further afield. That work has led to some powerful results through Project Aidant, where we worked with policing partners to look at things thematically. You talked about sexual exploitation, and with that, forced labour and all the areas that form the modern slavery threat, and we operate against them to try to disrupt them. That involves encountering victims, setting up reception centres and dealing with the victims of trafficking as well as with the perpetrators who keep them in debt bondage.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rob Jones: Some victims disclose relatively quickly. We recognise that others will not and that there are some people who, because of their level of vulnerability, need safeguarding and will need time before they can talk about their experiences. What I would say about the legislation and proposed changes is that we now have a national system for recognising the victim engrained. I do not see any of this changing that. First responders have become very good at recognising a victim, and we have significantly improved the picture nationally with national policing. In the victim-suspect paradigm, what are you dealing with? The intent is always to recognise the victim as quickly as possible. I recognise that it takes some time and is not straightforward.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rob Jones: A range of different scenarios. Many of these people are in debt bondage and there is leverage on their families, or they have already committed to working in an area that might be illegal, such as cannabis cultivation. It is a complex area, but we have a lot of experience of dealing with it and we deal with victims very carefully to ensure that we get the safeguarding right and whatever intelligence dividend we can.
You mentioned small boats in the context of modern slavery, so to deal with that really quickly, it does not really lend itself to the typical exploitation model. That said, we have seen some evidence of some nationalities coming through on small boats where there are some signs of that business model being used. I say it does not lend itself to that business model because these people are coming pretty much straight into the asylum system and to first responders. Traffickers do not like that; they do not want it. They would prefer those individuals to arrive in a truly clandestine fashion, so that they are not met by first responders and debriefed.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rob Jones: Potentially. I am not saying that it does not happen at all, but that business model does not lend itself to trafficking as much as it does to organised immigration crime.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rob Jones: This is a really difficult area. In the practical application of those provisions, it is really important that the level of oversight we have now is maintained. The other side of that coin is that you need to ensure that the defences available to people involved as victims in modern slavery are not abused. We see both sides of this. Our tactical advisers and expert witnesses disprove false claims from people claiming to be the victims of slavery and support legitimate claims. It is really important that the system maintains its credibility by having some appropriate tension and challenge without undermining victims.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rob Jones: It is recognising victims, understanding what is in front of you and making sure that you are consistent in applying safeguarding where it is needed.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rob Jones: This is inherently challenging: 150 km of coastline and it is not a canalised control point, so it is not like juxtaposed controls. The level of ambition required to tackle this is similar to that required to set up juxtaposed controls. The Le Touquet agreement set up what was then an unprecedented system for joint controls over immigration, and indeed customs. Where we find ourselves now is that we work really closely with the French on meeting that challenge.
Ultimately, it is for French law enforcement to deal with those departures and, from our perspective, our intent is to make sure that the disruption of departures is as far away from beaches as possible. That means that smuggling gangs are disrupted away from beaches and that the French do not have to chase migrants on beaches. That is not the best way to do this. It is an intelligence-led, planned response. That is the aspiration of the relationship with the French, which we build on every day with colleagues in the Clandestine Threat Command from immigration enforcement. Dealing with people who are leaving a border that is not controlled in the way that a typical border would have been controlled is inherently challenging. Those controls need to push back inland from the border, so that there is an intelligence-led proactive response. The French are working very closely with us to try to achieve that.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rob Jones: We are, absolutely. We have very positive relationships with those countries. The supply of boats to northern France and of engines in the infrastructure that supports these crossings is something that those partners can help us with.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Rob Jones: We know that that route is more and more attractive to organised crime. That is why we need to break the momentum that is pushing the viability of that route. People who are involved in the facilitation of migrants are also involved in drug trafficking and other serious organised crime. We have seen that polycriminality with HGV companies that will one day smuggle drugs and another day smuggle migrants.
One of the good things about these provisions is that they, to coin a phrase, level up the sentencing for people involved in the facilitation of migrants with that for those who are dealt with for drug trafficking. It cannot be right that, at the moment, if you smuggle 20 kg of class A drugs, you could face a life sentence, but if you conceal 20 people in a false floor in a lorry, which is one of the things that we encounter at the border, it is 14 years. Some of the provisions here, including the life sentence for facilitation, are a useful deterrent that we feel will help with that broader organised crime threat where some of this money is reinvested in other crimes.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Rob Jones: That is another helpful element that has, we hope, a deterrent effect. Criminality linked to the western Balkans, and really determined people who will be deported and then engage in a merry-go-round using false ID cards and clandestine entry to come back to the UK to continue committing crime, is something that we need to deal with. Those provisions would be helpful in that context.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Rob Jones: It is now recognised by organised crime groups as something that can generate a lot of revenue quickly. The previous witness talked about pull and push factors. The UK is a very attractive destination, and people will pay significant amounts of money—thousands of pounds—to smugglers. As we move forward with more pressure—we have seen what has played out with Afghanistan—and with more irregular migrants moving, there is the opportunity for organised crime to capitalise on that. Having a strong deterrent and being able to project our response and deal with organised crime groups upstream is really important to us, because there will be more and more pressure on the system, which inevitably will be exploited by smuggling gangs.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Rob Jones: Absolutely, with the normalisation of clandestine entry, where people are allowed to hide in a crowd. When this problem began, a big day was 100. We are now looking at a big day as being over 700. Within that, you get an increased risk that people will enter the country in a truly clandestine fashion. The more that you can do to offer safe and legal routes, and to disincentivise the business model through deterrents and a range of provisions, the more effective we can be at tackling the organised crime element, because we can then concentrate on the worst groups, which pose the highest risk and will potentially be moving people with a criminal history, whom we are most concerned about.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Rob Jones: There has been some progress. We have been working constantly with the social media companies to get a better response, and to ensure that their platforms are not being used to promote dangerous crossings, and there is progress. We are working in a voluntary environment. We are, in some ways, short of regulation, particularly in relation to this element, but we continue to work with those companies on a day-to-day basis to take material down. That response has improved. It is still not as good as I would like it to be, and we are working to an action plan where we have a common agreement of standards in terms of takedown and our aspiration to prevent adverse outcomes in the English channel, which is ultimately what this is all about. It has got better. It is not as good as it could be. Your point on encryption and some of the closed spaces that we cannot see that are being used to promote these crossings remains an issue for us.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Rob Jones: Obviously, we welcome the Online Safety Bill and its passage. It is a complex area, and only some of this can be dealt with in the Bill. We still require platforms and technology companies to be responsible, because however far regulation takes us, we still need the platforms to understand who is using them and to ensure that they are not being abused by organised crime figures, who are making money out of desperate people.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Rob Jones: This is a shared endeavour. I say that the centre of gravity for the organised crime element of this is in France—that is really important—so building on the partnership with France in order to deal with the issue is really important, and we continue to do that. We are also working with partners across Europe and developing those relationships. The factors that surround this, many of which are touched on in the Bill—safe and legal routes, the deterrents effect and so forth—are all important, because there is no silver bullet here. Because of the pull factors, the incentive for organised crime remains, and that is what we are trying to deal with by tackling the problem upstream. It is a range of all those factors, which need concurrent effort, and you cannot underestimate the need for the French to prevent departures in order to allow space for other measures, such as the organised crime element being tackled, to actually kick in and make a difference.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Rob Jones: I understand the point you make, but in relation to illegal entry, you do need an offence and you do need to be able to deal with it. None of that should create the issues that you describe, if the legislation is applied judicially and proportionately, and with properly trained people. I say that because we still have a position at the moment whereby, in relation to illegal entry, there is a difference between entry and arrival. In a maritime scenario, that is really unhelpful. It is not helpful for the safety of the migrants who could be on a smuggler’s boat, and it is not helpful for law enforcement.
One of the things that the proposal suggests is tidying up the position around arrival and entry for illegal entry, which is quite important. I recognise what you describe, but the NCA would never be involved in uniformed border control, where the mass criminalisation that you describe as a risk is something that would be the net impact of what we do. We are intelligence-led and deal with organised crime. Looking at it from that angle, I can see the benefit of those measures.
Stuart C. McDonald
Sure, but our concern is that that is exactly what the Bill does, and obviously we will hear evidence from UNHCR and various others who have that concern as well. Thank you for your evidence.
Paul Blomfield
Q
You talked about the factors that had led smuggling gangs and others to move from lorry and train crossings to boat crossings. We heard from witnesses earlier that we blocked off the opportunity to board lorries through the fortifications around terminals, which was one of the factors that pushed people to the more desperate route of boats. The Home Office’s own impact assessment of the Bill says that there is a serious risk that these measures could encourage people to attempt even riskier routes. Do you think that is a factor we should bear in mind?
Rob Jones: Displacement, in terms of protecting security measures, is always a potential second-order consequence. Organised crime is flexible, and we will respond to that. In terms of where we are at now with the general maritime threat, this does need dealing with. We are trying to second guess where people will go next. We had a terrible mass casualty event in Purfleet, where people were locked into a fridge box. We have had fatalities in the channel already, so we know just how ruthless some of the individuals involved are. We are trying to second guess where they may go next. We already know that bigger vessels have been used, and some of these tactics we have spoken about are important in dealing with bigger vessels.
I think we have pretty much got to the point now where a lot of the tactics and trade craft used in the eastern Mediterranean and other areas of the world are now being deployed in high-risk clandestine entry to the UK. That risk has already manifested itself. We need to live with it, confront it and deal with it, because it is happening now. With the numbers that we see and some of the vessels that are in the channel, we do need to do something different. It has grown to the point where you now have 50 or 60 people in vessels that are not licensed and that are taped together with plywood floors. That is, unfortunately, going to end one way unless it is disrupted, so it does need a second look.
On the displacement point, yes, it is a risk, but where is it? We are now living with a range of tactical options from smugglers that pretty much covers all of the modes. The riskiest one right now is, unfortunately, the English channel and small boats.
Paul Blomfield
Q
Rob Jones: That would certainly help our efforts, which are always going to be against the subset of the threat of a small number of individuals that are at the higher end of organised crime. That is going to be much more effective if some of those push and pull factors are not there anymore and if the incentivisation of the business model is taken away.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
Rob Jones: Thankfully, that is a policy issue, which I do not need to deal with. It is for others to deal with. I can give you my perspective on the impact of tackling organised crime. In relation to the other factors, it is helpful. No doubt, those considerations are under way, but that question is best asked to others.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
Rob Jones: Concurrent pressure against all of the factors that create a scenario in which thousands of people cross the channel in unsafe boats is absolutely something we need to.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witness for his evidence.
Question put, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Craig Whittaker.)
Health and Care Bill (Tenth sitting)
Tuesday 21st September 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesHealth and Care Act 2022 View all Health and Care Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 September 2021 - (21 Sep 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
As I said this morning to Mrs Murray, and I will repeat this afternoon for your benefit, Mr McCabe, it is a pleasure, particularly following the reshuffle, to still be serving under your chairmanship.
Clauses 34 and 35 would allow the Secretary of State to confer the exercise of his public health functions on NHS England or integrated care boards, and would allow those functions to be further delegated or subject to other collaborative arrangements, as defined elsewhere in the Bill.
Clause 34 substitutes proposed new section 7A for the existing section 7A in the National Health Service Act 2006, originally created as part of the 2012 health and care reforms, and amending the 2006 Act. To date, section 7A has been used to support the commissioning of key national NHS public health programmes, including our world-leading screening and immunisation programmes. The Government’s intention is that it should continue to do so. These public health services are embedded within, or have a clear affinity with, local NHS delivery mechanisms—a clear example being the delivery of childhood vaccinations by general practitioners.
Proposed new section 7A fulfils the same purpose as the original, in that it enables the Secretary of State to delegate the practical exercise of his public health functions to other bodies, but it is updated to keep pace with the thrust of the Bill and enable a wider range of delegation and collaboration arrangements. Not to do so would risk leaving public health programmes behind, with unnecessary restrictions on, for example, the range of bodies that could enter collaborative arrangements. The clause also consolidates amendments to section 7A made previously by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 in respect of inclusion of combined authorities as bodies to which the exercise of public health functions may be delegated.
In addition, to ensure that the delegation or joint exercise of functions does not lead to reduced accountability for delivering services, we have proposed appropriate safeguards that make further provision on joint working and delegation arrangements. For example, the Secretary of State will be able to set out in regulations which functions can and cannot be delegated, impose conditions in relation to the delegation or joint exercise of functions, and specify the extent of such arrangements. Furthermore, the parties will be able to agree terms regarding the scope of the delegation arrangement. NHS England will also have the ability to issue statutory guidance in relation to functions that are being delegated or jointly exercised under those provisions. Subject to those safeguards, the clause supports the aims of greater health and care integration and a focus on improving population health outcomes.
Clause 35 introduces a new power for the Secretary of State, by direction, to confer the exercise of any of his public health functions on NHS England or ICBs. The clause, again, goes with the grain of the Bill more generally in resetting the relationship between the Secretary of State, as rightly accountable to Parliament, and an enlarged NHS England with an expanded set of responsibilities, which include direct commissioning and oversight of some health services.
The Bill is moving away from a focus purely on competition, and is instead re-emphasising the value alongside it of integration and collaboration. That includes being very clear on the role that the Government have to play. To that end, there is a suite of proposals in the Bill that assert the Secretary of State’s ability to intervene, set direction and make decisions, not as a substitute for clinical expertise, but in setting that clear direction and being accountable. I suspect that, if not on these clauses, then on those we will debate in a moment, that will come to the fore in our discussions.
Clause 35 is, to an extent, illustrative of that and relates closely to, for example, clause 37’s power to direct NHS England. As the law stands, and indeed as it would stand with the changes proposed by clause 34 alone, the Secretary of State’s ability to delegate the exercise of his public health functions effectively depends on securing agreement with the body being delegated to. That arrangement has generally worked well since its inception as part of the 2012 reforms, and as far as possible the Government intend to continue to operate in that way. However, the power gives Minsters a backstop if agreement is not reached in a timely way or is unreasonably withheld. It also enables them to give clear instructions where needed or where it would be more efficient to provide a direction rather than set up a whole arrangement.
Delay and confusion can and do affect the health of those relying on public health services, so the backstop power reflects the proper relationship, as we see it, between the Secretary of State and the public health system. It also sits alongside other mechanisms, notably regulation-making powers, in relation to local government’s exercise of public health functions. However, it is important to emphasise that directions must be published as soon as practicable, and the power would, of course, have to be exercised within the normal bounds of ministerial decision making, accountability and transparency.
Furthermore, any decision to exercise the power will be premised and guided by general public law principles and in line with the Secretary of State’s general statutory duties. Those duties will of course form part of any Secretary of State’s reasoning on whether it would be appropriate to exercise the power. In particular, they would need to consider section 2A(1) of the NHS Act 2006. As such, the Government believe that clauses 34 and 35 embody a proportionate addition to the Secretary of State’s powers.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Minister says, the clauses relate to public health. We might previously have anticipated that the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) would have fielded them, but obviously she has moved Departments. I want to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to her for her service as Public Health Minister. We worked well together, particularly in the proceedings on the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. We have disagreed over the course of our work, and that is good—disagreement is good in a democracy—but we always disagreed well. I wish her well in her new role, although I might highlight the irony that, after all the work she did in public health to reduce fizzy drinks consumption, the top of the order of business at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at the moment is presumably trying to restore carbon dioxide supplies to get those fizzy drinks going again—I am sure she will seek for them to be sugar-free, if nothing else.
Today is also my first opportunity to formally congratulate and welcome the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) to her new role as Public Health Minister. I have long thought that it is pretty much the best job in Government, and gives the Minister the chance to shape and improve the lives of millions, if done well. From my work with her as a near neighbour, I know that she will give the job her all. I look forward to working with her and scrutinising the work that she does.
Of course, the job of Public Health Minister has been made an awful lot harder by the preceding decade. The other day I spoke about the bill for a decade of austerity falling due, and that is manifest nowhere more than in the provision of public health services and the impact of cuts on those services. In his introduction to these clauses, the Minister characterised the legislation as protecting the status quo, but the status quo relative to where we were in 2012 is very different: public health funding for 2019-20 was down 15% on where it was prior to the changes in the 2012 Act. If we set that against a growing and ageing population and all the attendant extra spending challenges that go with that, the real-terms impact is much greater. That has meant significant cuts: a cut of nearly half for support for health at work, the place where many of us will fall sick; a cut of a quarter for NHS health checks, a core preventative tool; and a cut of a quarter for smoking cessation programmes, despite how effective they are. Of course, the areas with the greatest needs have suffered the most and experienced the greatest cuts. Those cuts do not even fall equally.
For all the talk that we hear from the Government about prevention—we see it in these proceedings, the White Paper and the Bill—the reality is that Government policy over the last decade has made things much harder for our health system by creating extra demand. That is devastating not only for those individuals who have missed out, but for the system too. There is much greater demand on our health system as a result of the decisions that we have taken, and that is sad.
We have talked a lot about the 2012 Act, and much of what we are doing in Committee is removing its provisions, because they were not very good. However, one area where there seems to be no disagreement—no suggestion from the Government or the Opposition that we might change the position—is the idea that public health should go back home to local government. That is still an area of consensus that we can build on—of course it is. It means that our excellent public health staff, spearheaded by our world-class directors, can influence not only traditional public health-type services, but the whole range of services that shape the public’s health: licensing, planning, leisure, social care and much more—all those important things our local authorities do. It is just a shame and a wasted opportunity that this period has been characterised by cuts, particularly to those with the greatest need, rather than by investment in our communities.
I shudder to think of two things. The first is the amount of time that those skilled staff have spent on what is euphemistically called “service redesign” but is actually cuts. What could that amount of wasted time have been better spent on? The second is the professionals in that field who have chosen to leave because they do not want to be part of that. That is a real shame, and has really hindered our approach to tackling public health.
The Opposition do not intend to divide the Committee on clauses 34 and 35; at the end of the day, we would much rather that public health funding was spent at a local level than at a national one. We think it will have greater impact, and frankly we can get better value from it by combining it with local services. However, I want to test the clauses a little, starting with clause 34.
What we have seen in proceedings so far—I think this is sitting 10—is that, in reality, this is not an integration Bill; it is an NHS reorganisation Bill under an integration banner. I heard the Prime Minister himself promising a further White Paper, and presumably a further Bill, on integration in the future. The Minister has said that this Bill paves the way, but this was never a paving Bill. I challenge anybody to find in the White Paper or any publication from the Government relating to this piece of legislation the word “paving”—that is, until the Minister introduced it after the Prime Minister’s rather unhelpful intervention.
We heard from the Minister himself, when explaining to the Committee why a councillor cannot chair an integrated care board, that NHS bodies do not permit councillors to do so. He is telling us that this is about NHS bodies, not about partnership bodies. These are NHS bodies; they are accountable to NHS England and they can be altered by NHS England.
It has been a settled point of public policy for the past decade that public health is delegated to local authorities, for all the good reasons I mentioned. This may well be just my understanding, but I do not want to let this clause go without testing it: proposed new subsection 7A(2) provides for the range of eligible bodies that the Secretary of State can delegate the powers to. The first is NHS England, which would make sense in the case of big, national programmes such as the ones the Minister talked about in terms of vaccination. Another is a local authority, which makes sense for all the reasons I have given.
Yet another is a combined authority, which I suspect was not a feature of the 2012 Act—I do not think, although I might be wrong, that combined authorities were yet a twinkle in a local government leader’s eye at that point. However, with a combined authority, any arrangement would surely be by the consent of its members, rather than by delegation to the combined authority itself. Combined authorities are generally skeleton structures that act as an agglomeration of interested parties, rather than significant entities in themselves, so surely a local authority would receive those powers first and then, by agreement, transfer them to combined authority level with its partners.
Finally, there is an integrated care board. What is the reason for that? If these things get delegated to local government, why would they be delegated to an NHS body? Is that not an attempt, rather than repealing the provisions in the 2012 Act that moved public health back to local authorities, to do it on a de facto basis without addressing the point? That might be an unintended consequence, so I hope the Minister will address that and say that that is not the case.
Last Thursday, we dealt with the counterpart conversation to this one. We have debated multiple times the provision for health functions of the Secretary of State or NHS England to be delegated to the integrated care boards. That is in the spirit of what this legislation is about— local decision making—but at no point was there ever a proposal for any of those functions to be delegated to a local authority or combined authority. That, again, gets to the root of the problem with this Bill, and the core reason why the Government’s frequent integration efforts stall, spin their wheels and do not go anywhere. Local authorities are not treated equally, whether that manifests in social care—a very visible inequality in our health system—or in public health, as in this case. They ought to be equal partners, but they are anything but. Again, I hope the Minister can address that issue.
Edward Argar
The shadow Minister has made a number of serious points—I am not sure how one spins the wheels when the car is stalled, but none the less I took his point. First, at the heart of this Bill is the fact that we seek to strike the appropriate balance between what is clearly a national health service, accountable to the Secretary of State and Parliament, and local flexibilities and local integration. The debate we will have for the next two hours or so will probably be about whether we have struck that balance appropriately, but that is the core of what we are seeking to do here.
The hon. Gentleman rightly talked about the importance of local authorities in this space. He and I share a common view on that, and he is right: one of the few things in the 2012 Act that I suspect he would have agreed with was the recognition of the public health function of local authorities. We are not seeking to do anything in the Bill to undermine that function in any way. It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I believe that the Bill provides for multiple layers of integration. Within a local NHS system, at an ICB level and then at an integrated care partnership level, there will be increased integration with local authorities and others, laying the foundations for the ambitious programme that the Prime Minister set out when he spoke earlier in this Session about the health and care levy.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about combined authorities. My recollection—I may be wrong—is that they date to about 2016, rather than 2012, and my understanding of the power is that it does not go against what he was saying, but provides for the continued evolution of the system and enables that delegation to take place. In practical terms, I would envisage that, where local authorities combine and work together, they would have their own arrangements, and we are not seeking to cut across those local working arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the ICBs, saying that they are NHS bodies and asking whether this is a threat to local authority delegation of public health functions. My reading of that is that, as I mentioned in my opening remarks on these clauses, there are some public health functions that are NHS and delegated through CCGs, such as GPs participating in child immunisation programmes—hence the reference to ICBs, because they will be replacing CCGs in the new world.
Understandably, the hon. Gentleman talked about funding for public health. On his comments about the bigger picture on funding and spending levels more broadly, I simply remind him of the note left by a previous Chief Secretary to the Treasury:
“I’m afraid there is no money.”
We cannot get away from that context in this space, but more broadly he is right to highlight the importance of public health. The past 18 months have shone a light on public health; under Governments of all political complexions, public health has not always enjoyed that prominence in public debate, external media and other commentary. One thing that I hope will follow on from the terrible events we have endured over the past 18 months is a greater understanding and appreciation of public health and its measures, and for public health to enjoy the support it needs to do its job. I think all Members would agree that one of the few positives has been the recognition of the value of public health and prevention.
I think that those were the main points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I see these clauses as permitting a further evolution of the system and a recognition of the need, ideally, where we can, to further delegate powers from the Secretary of State to lower down within the system. On that basis, I hope the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will feel able to support the clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Power of direction: investigation functions
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 108, in clause 36, page 42, line 33, at end insert—
“(10) Nothing in subsection (2) supersedes Part 4 of the Health and Care Act 2021.”
This amendment will ensure nothing in new section 7D of the NHS Act 2006 about the Secretary of State’s powers to direct HSSIB supersedes what is in part 4 of the Bill.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe, and to see the Minister back again. We heard about his increased workload this morning; I also saw him on the Treasury Bench during the urgent question. I wonder where he finds the time—he should speak to his trade union rep if he feels there are too many demands being placed on his time. We will do our best to ensure that this afternoon is as stress-free for him as possible; if he accepts our amendments, that will go some way towards enabling that.
I will not speak for long on amendment 108 because we will be talking extensively about the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch later on in the Bill. Concerns have been expressed in briefings received by the Committee and in evidence about some of the relevant provisions in the Bill, particularly on access to information. Clause 36 looks at the proposed power over bodies that have investigatory powers, which include HSSIB. It is difficult for us to accept the clause as it stands without having gone through all the details on HSSIB, because we cannot possibly know whether our concerns will be resolved about how it will operate in practice. That is why we have put forward amendment 108.
The amendment would ensure that the powers in clause 36 do not in any way impede the important principle that HSSIB will be an independent body established by the Bill. In conjunction with further amendments, which we will no doubt get to in part 4, we can all be confident that HSSIB’s independence is sacrosanct. That is important for not just us as parliamentarians, but everyone within the NHS who may have reason to come across HSSIB. It is also important for patients, of course, because they will ultimately be the judges of whether HSSIB has been a success. It would be helpful to understand what the approach will be in relation to maternity investigations. HSSIB has a potentially important role in identifying how providers can sustainably and systematically improve the quality of such investigations and then provide appropriate support. However, ensuring proper accountability, clarity and independence remain important, and this amendment seeks to ensure that those matters are enshrined on the face of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I made it in rather slower time down to the Chamber to listen to the statement. After one of our sittings last week, I think the hon. Member for Nottingham North was on his feet asking a question in the Chamber before I had even made it out of this room, which shows a certain speed that I can only seek to emulate.
I appreciate that the amendment is linked to the independence of the Health Services Safety Investigation Body. The Government are clear that HSSIB will be independent, which is why it is being set up as a non-departmental public body, with a chief executive—to be known as the chief investigator—and executive and non-executive members. I hope I can reassure hon. Members that clause 36 is a temporary measure to ensure that the current Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch can continue to exist in the interim phase before the new body is established.
As I am sure hon. Members are aware, the merger of NHS England and NHS Improvement means that the NHS Trust Development Authority, of which the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch is a part, will be abolished. We need the important investigation function that the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch provides to continue until HSSIB is fully operational which, subject to parliamentary approval, is planned for spring 2023.
The power set out in clause 36 is designed to enable the Secretary of State to direct NHS England, or another public body, to carry out the investigation function in the interim period. I reassure hon. Members that the HSSIB will be independent. Clause 36 is not designed to infringe upon its independence and cannot be used to direct the new HSSIB in how it exercises its functions; it is there simply to ensure the continuity of current investigations until the 2023 start date. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston to consider not pressing the amendment to a vote.
Justin Madders
I am reassured to some extent by the Minister’s words, but we have seen over the past 18 months that temporary powers do have a habit of becoming rather more permanent than was originally intended. I think it would be perfectly possible for the Government to include some sort of sunset clause to ensure that the intentions set out by the Minister are adhered to, but we may come back to that. As things stand, we maintain our criticisms, and it would be remiss of us not to push this matter to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Argar
I will be brief, because I believe that in responding to the shadow Minister’s amendment I set out the intentions behind the clause and the reasons why it is drafted as it is. Notwithstanding his desire to push his amendment to vote, all I can say is that I will continue to reflect on the points he has made. I cannot promise the outcome, but I will reflect on what he said. Having made the case when I addressed the amendment, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
General power to direct NHS England
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I suspect that, with this, we get to the main event of this afternoon’s proceedings.
I begin with clause 37, which introduces powers for the Secretary of State to give directions to the newly merged NHS England. This merger, which is widely welcomed, of three different bodies with different accountability arrangements into one has inevitably required us to look at the appropriate accountability arrangements for the future, and the extent to which the accountability arrangements have evolved and kept up with the evolution of the organisation. The powers in the clause will ensure the appropriate balance between democratic accountability to the Secretary of State and the NHS’s clinical and day-to-day operational independence.
Clause 37 will give the Secretary of State new powers over a newly merged and larger NHS England. It does not give the Secretary of State any new powers over other NHS bodies. It gives the Secretary of State precisely no new powers over clinical decisions. The clause is about ensuring appropriate accountability mechanisms between the democratically elected Government and one of the biggest arm’s length bodies, if not the biggest. That is a principle of democratic accountability in a publicly funded national healthcare service, and I am sure it is accepted not just by the leadership of NHS England, but by Opposition Members, even if they may not feel that the clause reflects their interpretation of it.
In practice, NHS England will continue, as now, to make the vast majority of its decisions without direction, consulting the Government and others as it needs to. The Government’s primary means of shaping the NHS agenda continues to be the mandate to NHS England, which has been an established means of providing direction to NHS England since 2013.
As we have learned in recent times, events can move fast, and the mandate may not be adaptable to all circumstances—and nor was it designed to be when it was conceived. The powers in the clause are designed to supplement the existing mechanisms, such as the mandate, to give the Secretary of State the ability, where he or she deems it appropriate and in the public interest, to provide direction and to intervene in relation to NHS England’s functions. Of course, the Department’s title is “Health and Social Care”, and while NHS England will rightly continue to be focused on the NHS, the Government must take a wider view—and this wider view may lead us, on occasion, to a different conclusion about the appropriate course of action from that held by NHS England colleagues.
There is already a strong and close working relationship between Ministers and NHS England. The clause helps to formalise that in a way that is more transparent for everyone to see, building in the normal expectations of ministerial decision making and accountability by requiring Ministers to issue directions in writing, and to ensure they are published and made in the public interest. Any decision to exercise this power will be premised and guided by general public law principles and broader statutory duties.
To ensure the NHS’s continued clinical and day-to-day operational independence, proposed new section 13ZD also sets out specific areas where the power of direction in section 13ZC cannot be used. The Secretary of State is unable to use this power to intervene in the appointment of individuals by NHS England, in individual clinical decisions or in relation to drugs or treatments that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has not recommended or issued guidance on.
We believe that clause 37 is crucial for ensuring that we have the right framework for national oversight and accountability of our health system, and of one of the largest arm’s length bodies, responsible for over £130 billion of public money. The clause ensures, in proposed new section 13ZE, that appropriate levers are in place—as there are for other arm’s length bodies—for Ministers to respond and take swift action if NHS England fails to carry out any of its functions. It also ensures, in proposed new section 13ZF, that Ministers have the levers they need to direct NHS England to provide information. Without it, we would be expanding the functions, responsibilities and powers of NHS England without ensuring that there are appropriate accountability arrangements in place for this large integrated body.
The changes that clause 37 introduced are proportionate, in our view. They reflect the evolution of NHS England in recent years, changes to the wider system and the appropriate expectations on Government to support, challenge and steer the system, while also leaving it free to determine operational matters.
Clause 62 amends the National Health Service Act 2006 by repealing the duty on the Secretary of State and NHS England to promote autonomy. The rationale for doing so comes is two parts. First, the response to the pandemic has further highlighted the importance of different parts of the health and care system working together in the best interests of public and patients. By repealing the duty to promote autonomy, the clause further enshrines integration and collaboration at the heart of the legislative framework underpinning the system.
The second reason for repealing that duty is to ensure compatibility with the duties elsewhere in the Bill on NHS organisations, including NHS England, to consider the effects of their decisions on the better health and wellbeing of everyone, equality of care for patients and the sustainable use of NHS resources. To avoid any conflict in duties, it is important to remove NHS England’s duty of autonomy, as these new duties require NHS England to co-operate and work closely with other partners, rather than autonomously. Repealing the duty of autonomy will also make it easier for NHS England to facilitate co-operation within the system—when commissioning services or issuing guidance, for example.
Neither the provisions in clause 37 nor those in clause 62, or indeed anywhere else in the Bill, do anything to change the nature of NHS England as an arm’s length body. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member—I fear that I may not—that the removal of these duties does not mean that Ministers are about to start interfering in the NHS or in any other body exercising functions relating to the health service.
Integration is at the heart of the Bill. By creating integrated care boards and removing unnecessary bureaucracy that can get in the way of local organisations wanting to work together, we are putting more power and autonomy in the hands of local systems, and that is our intention here. We are seeking to strengthen local leadership and empower local organisations to make decisions about their populations. We believe that both clauses not only support that intention, but strengthen it, and I commend them to the Committee.
Alex Norris
The Minister rightly pointed out my mixed metaphor, so I will undertake to avoid metaphors in this contribution. It is hard not to feel like an undercard to the main event here—that is a simile, of course, rather than a metaphor, and I gave no such undertaking on similes.
I might surprise the Minister by agreeing with bits of what he said: we do not intend to divide the Committee on clause 37 and we do think that there is an important distinction between the powers in clauses 37 and 38, which I think will come out in the debate. However, if we went out to Parliament Square now and straw-polled people walking by, asking them who they thought was responsible for the NHS in England at a national level, I think we would wait a very long time before anyone gave any answer other than the Government and, by extension, the Secretary of State.
Alex Norris
And of course the Minister, through appropriate delegation, and we are all the better for it. The Minister can quote me on that—but not on a political leaflet, as that would be very challenging for me.
Covid has shown that the public think that the politicians they elect are accountable for the decisions taken in the interests of their health, however they might manifest in ordinary life, so I think the repeal of the duty to promote autonomy, set out in clause 62, probably follows inevitably from that. We want an expert-run health service that works together and follows the best available evidence and science, not one that is unaccountable and diverges from the interests and expectations of the public at large.
That leads me nicely to clause 37. It is possibly a tautology to say that if someone is held responsible for something, they ought to have responsibility for it, as the clause set outs. To put that bluntly, with more than £100 billion of spending—40% of the Government’s revenue budget—going into that area, people will expect political accountability. If NHS England is not seen to be acting in the public interest at the highest possible levels, there ought to be a mechanism, by exception, to correct that. It is the exceptional part that is really important.
That is defined negatively in the clause by what the Secretary of State may not do—for example, hiring or firing an individual, which I think is right, or directing the healthcare of a specific person. I do not think the Secretary of State would want to be in that position with important cases of individuals who are in the public sphere, or have the ability to act outside NICE guidelines on drugs or treatment, as happens in such cases. I do not think that is a good system, hard though it may be when prominent cases come to our attention.
That gives us a common-sense reading of what these clauses provide for the Secretary of State. Yes, the buck stops with the Secretary of State and his political colleagues as a collective if there are major failings in the health service or major failings of Government and of leadership, but the clause does not give Ministers carte blanche to pick and choose—undoubtedly with political pressures in mind—whether to involve themselves in the detailed running of the service. I think that will be covered in clause 38.
A concern raised by the Nuffield Trust in evidence was that there should be a stronger mechanism by which such decisions can be scrutinised. Will the Minister address that? I heard what he said about publication of information about the Secretary of State’s decisions, but why not provide for a parliamentary mechanism by which decisions could be scrutinised? That would ensure public confidence that there is no Executive overreach or direction at a low level of how our healthcare service operates, which I do not think would be at all desirable. I hope that the Minister will address that in his remarks.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I would like the Committee to take a moment to mourn the loss of the principle of autonomy as a guiding driver of the health service over some 20-plus years. That principle is part not just of the Lansley reforms, but of previous Labour reforms, and indeed of reforms by the Government before that. The idea was that the system would become more efficient and responsive with more autonomous units, rather than a great mass of health authorities, hospitals and systems that are rarely understood by local people, and that the competition of autonomous units would drive financial and service efficiency, for example. This is quite a moment, and I do not think we should just let it pass.
When I was a member of a primary care trust, which I may have shared earlier, our local region had “earned autonomy.” That meant that if we did certain things particularly well—bringing waiting times and waiting lists down, or fulfilling financial balance requirements, for example—the local team, board and chief executive would earn more autonomy to do more. In modern parlance, things became more permissive, and they were trusted to do something.
Justin Madders
I am a little confused, because my hon. Friend is talking about the end of autonomy, but everything we have heard from the Government is about how permissive the Bill is and how it will leave people free to make their own decisions. I must be missing the point somewhere, mustn’t I?
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which we will come on to when we discuss the following clauses. If there is no autonomy, but we are trying to be permissive, we come back to the vexed issue that the Minister alluded to earlier: where the balance lies between national and local accountability. We will come to that in further clauses.
I will not long mourn the loss of autonomy—I am not sure it really worked—but it is a principle for people to locally manage the units. As I said in relation to financial management in a previous session, if it is very clear that a chief executive or a finance director has responsibility for their bottom line, that drives a certain amount of focus and responsibility. I find it a little extraordinary for the Conservative party to be promoting the lack of autonomy. I hope hon. Members will take a moment to reflect on the seismic change we now have in the direction of our public services and the next era of the NHS.
Edward Argar
There are a few points that I will seek to address. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham North for highlighting the accountability of the Secretary of State—he also highlighted me. I remind colleagues that in my ministerial capacity, as a junior Minister, I am in legal terms but an extension of my Secretary of State; all the powers are vested in him and I am but a legal extension of him. Colleagues may dwell on that as they wish, but possibly not too much.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North set it out well. If we went out into Parliament Square and asked three dozen people who they believe is accountable for the NHS and the delivery of health services in this country, they would say it was the Government, or possibly the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister. I think that is right, and that is why we must ensure that the accountability is reflected in the responsibility and the ability to exercise that responsibility and accountability over how the NHS operates.
On the promotion of autonomy, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North alluded to and as I set out, if we are seeking to promote integration and co-operation, as the Bill does, that therefore sits slightly ill with a duty to promote autonomy, and this is about how we reconcile those two matters in legislative language. He talked about a parliamentary mechanism in this context. I emphasise the need for the directions to be published in writing and to be in the public interest.
As we know, such documents are always able to be debated in the House. Were something to be done that he thought inappropriate, I can bet my bottom dollar that I would be standing at the Dispatch Box answering an urgent question from him 24 or 48 hours later. There are mechanisms in this House by which Ministers can be held to account for decisions they make. That is why I believe that this move aids transparency. Rather than informal conversations and discussions, as happen in any organisation, the clause will require that, where a disagreement occurs, there is a clear direction for it to be published transparently, for shadow Ministers and others in this House to question and challenge it, or to raise, within or outwith the House, their concerns in front of the public.
The hon. Member for Bristol South quite rightly alluded to how PCTs operated. Like her, I sat as a non-executive member of a PCT board. I remember those days. If I remember correctly, not only did she sit on a board; she also has extensive experience in running healthcare services as a senior leadership figure within the local NHS, so she knows of what she speaks.
I do not think that what we are seeing here is quite as the hon. Lady characterises—a huge change in the direction of our party’s policy or the direction of travel. We are putting in place a pragmatic and sensible measure, to reflect the focus now on a duty to co-operate, which a duty of autonomy sits slightly ill with, as I say, and to make sure that we have clear accountabilities. We recognise in theory and in legislation what is already deemed by the public to be there in reality, which is the accountability of the Secretary of State and the Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Reconfiguration of services: intervention powers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 102, in schedule 6, page 180, line 12, at end insert—
“relevant Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee” means any Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee in an area to which the proposal for a reconfiguration of NHS services relates.”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 103.
Amendment 103, in schedule 6, page 180, line 41, at end insert—
“(3A) Before taking a decision under sub-paragraph (2)(a), the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult all relevant Health Overview & Scrutiny Committees, and
(b) have regard to, and publish, clinical advice from the Integrated Care Board’s Medical Director.”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult any relevant Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (as defined by Amendment 102), and to have regard to and publish clinical advice from the ICB Medical Director, before intervening in local service reconfiguration.
Amendment 104, in schedule 6, page 180, line 43, at end insert—
“(aa) publish a statement demonstrating that the decision is in the public interest,”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement demonstrating that any decision they have made on a reconfiguration proposal is in the public interest.
That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Edward Argar
If I may, I will turn to the amendments first and then the substantive clause. I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling the amendments. I said that the previous clause was coming to the main business of the afternoon, but I now suspect that was but an hors d’oeuvre to the discussion we may have on this clause and this set of amendments.
Amendments 102 and 103 would require the Secretary of State to consult all relevant health overview and scrutiny committees before making a decision on a reconfiguration. Amendment 103 would also require the Secretary of State to have regard to, and publish, clinical advice from the ICB’s medical director. It is of course vital that local views are represented in any reconfiguration. However, although I understand the rationale behind these amendments, I do not think they are strictly necessary. The new power will not replace the important role that local scrutiny and engagement plays in service change decisions; we expect the vast majority of reconfiguration decisions to continue to be managed by the local system, and system players will be encouraged to resolve matters locally where possible.
The Secretary of State will continue to be advised by the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, which is being retained. The focus of the IRP is and will continue to be the patient and quality of care in the context of safe, sustainable and accessible services for local people. It has also provided the system with advice based on its experience to date around critical success factors.
If I may go down a slight rabbit hole here, I would like to put on the record my appreciation for the work of the IRP. Certainly during my tenure in this post, I have consulted it and seen its advice on a number of occasions, and I am grateful for the work its staff do, the speed with which they do it and the benefit I have gained from that advice in making decisions or advising the Secretary of State on particular decisions.
In practice, the Secretary of State will always need to seek appropriate advice from clinicians, local leaders or other experts before making any decision, and all decisions made using the powers inserted by clause 38 and schedule 6 must be published. This will ensure transparency and allow for proper scrutiny of the way the power is being used.
Schedule 6 also includes the requirement for NHS commissioning bodies, including integrated care boards, to give the Secretary of State any information or other assistance required to carry out any functions under the schedule. It is envisioned that the Secretary of State will obtain information from NHS commissioning bodies when making reconfiguration decisions. This will include any representations that an HOSC, stakeholder, patient group or any other interested party have made, if applicable.
All decision making on reconfigurations, at both local and ministerial level, will continue to be guided by the four tests laid out in existing guidance that reconfiguration should be assured against: strong public and patient engagement; consistency with current and prospective need for patient choice; a clear clinical evidence base; and support for proposals from clinical commissioners.
As such, we believe that clause 38 and the guidance that the Secretary of State is required to produce under the powers in schedule 6 will provide sufficient safeguards to ensure that the Secretary of State receives appropriate advice before using the powers in this clause. As a result of not accepting amendment 103, we will also resist amendment 102, which is consequential on amendment 103.
Amendment 104 would require the Secretary of State to publish, alongside any decision they have made under this provision, a statement demonstrating that the decision is in the public interest. The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for all his or her decisions. Ministers are expected, as a core principle of the constitution, to act in the public interest, and this is reflected in the ministerial code. In addition, the Secretary of State’s scrutiny and direction-making process on this and any other matter must already take into account the public law decision-making principles, all relevant information and their legal duties, including the public sector equality duty, that adhere to such decisions.
The Secretary of State is also under a number of duties set out in the National Health Service Act 2006, including a duty to promote a comprehensive health service, to secure continuous improvement in quality of services, and to have regard to the NHS constitution. As I have already set out, the Secretary of State will continue to be advised by the IRP, and will seek appropriate advice from clinicians, local leaders or other experts.
As for paragraph 4 of schedule 6, the Secretary of State already has a duty to publish any decision they make on a reconfiguration and to notify the NHS commissioning body of the decision. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member for Nottingham North to withdraw his amendment—I suspect that I will be unsuccessful in that plea, but I make it none the less.
I will now address clause 38 and schedule 6. The clause inserts proposed new section 68A and proposed new schedule 10A into the National Health Service Act 2006. It also introduces schedule 6, which includes a new intervention power to allow the Secretary of State to call in a reconfiguration of NHS services at any stage of the process, without the need for a referral from a local authority. A reconfiguration of NHS services is a change in service provision that has an impact on the manner in which a service is delivered at the point at which the service is received by the user, or the range of health services available to individuals. That could be, for example, a change in where a mental health in-patient unit is based, building a new stroke unit, or restructuring a whole hospital trust.
The new intervention power will enable the Secretary of State to act as a scrutineer and decision maker for reconfigurations, to intervene where, for example, they can see a critical benefit or cost to taking one or other course of action, or to take action where there is significant cause for public concern. We do not expect or intend to use the power with any regularity, and where it is used, it will be done so transparently. As I have emphasised, the Secretary of State must publish any decisions made about reconfigurations.
Schedule 6 sets out the scope of the reconfiguration powers as they pertain to NHS commissioning bodies, NHS services, NHS trusts and foundation trusts. It introduces a new duty for the relevant NHS bodies to notify the Secretary of State of any proposed or likely reconfiguration. The Secretary of State will be able to take any decision that could have been taken by the NHS commissioning body. That includes the ability for the Secretary of State to decide whether a proposal should proceed, the results the NHS commissioning body should achieve, and the procedural steps that should be taken. As I set out earlier, decision making will continue to be guided by the four reconfigurations tests. The new power will not replace the important role that local scrutiny and engagement play in service change decisions.
As the shadow Minister set out, the public expect Ministers to be accountable for the health service, which includes reconfigurations of it. The clause ensures that decisions made in the NHS that affect all our constituents are subject to democratic oversight. Without it, the Secretary of State’s ability to intervene and take decisions will remain limited, often coming at the end of a long local process. As now, he would not be alerted to a potential change in services until the change became an issue and he would remain powerless to intervene without a formal referral by a local authority.
I am conscious that that existing arrangement satisfies few in Parliament, including Opposition Members, on the occasions when they make representations about the process. However, it will be for this debate to see whether Members feel that the proposed new arrangement satisfies them—I will not prejudge that for a minute, looking at the faces of the Opposition Members. I therefore commend clause 38 and schedule 6 to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I congratulate the Minister on his valiant attempts to defend the powers that he wishes the clause and schedule 6 to give his boss.
The Opposition are pretty realistic and do not think that the clause will survive the parliamentary process in its current form. It would save a lot of time if the Minister was to indicate now that he had taken note of the many concerns expressed and that things will change. However, as the clause remains on the face of the Bill, we will have to go through the long and important reasons why it will not be able to stand in its existing form. The Minister will continue to defend the indefensible until it no longer needs to be defended.
We have heard evidence as to why the powers in the clause are not needed and, indeed, why the Secretary of State would not want such powers. Again, we are trying to help the Minister and his Department out by pointing out some of the pitfalls. The clause really is the total antithesis of everything this Bill is supposed to be. The Minister has told us many times that he wants to take a permissive approach, but the truth, as exposed by this clause, is that being permissive is okay until it is not, and then we have the power grab, the micromanagement and the sound of bedpans dropping all the way up to the Secretary of State’s desk. That is the logical conclusion of the clause.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I want to speak generally to the clause and the schedule, rather than in support of any amendments. I thank the Minister for setting out the continued role of the IRP and the four tests that have been put in place. I am sure that all of us on the Committee have at some stage in our local communities faced a healthcare service reorganisation. They are very painful processes, as the hon. Member for Bristol South will recognise. We had a reconfiguration across both trusts in Bristol that began, I think, in around 2004 and has yet to be properly completed. They are incredibly painful processes that can leave local communities feeling disaffected and disempowered, whoever is taking the final decision.
We need to think carefully about the potential unintended consequences of the schedule as it stands. I have not tabled any amendments; I just want to raise potential concerns about the detail. In Bristol and south Gloucestershire, Cossham Hospital was provided to the local community by Handel Cossham, who was the Member of Parliament at the time for the east and south Bristol region. He was the only Member of Parliament who, I think, technically died in the Palace; he collapsed in the House of Commons Library and died of a heart attack. I think in those days they could not even claim that he had somehow survived.
Handel Cossham donated in his will land to the people of Kingswood, on which they built Cossham Hospital, named after him. Even before the NHS came into creation, therefore, Cossham Hospital was there, having been built in 1905. The local people of Kingswood, even though it sits in the Bristol East constituency now, felt very passionately that this was their hospital; it was not the NHS hospital. Yet there was a proposal to close Cossham Hospital, which was then reversed. In consequence, the decision was taken to close Frenchay Hospital in favour of a new hospital in Southmead. Frenchay Hospital was meant to become a community hospital, but a U-turn was taken by the healthcare authorities at the time—the clinical care commissioning groups and North Bristol Trust, which squabbled over who was in control because the land had been handed over from North Bristol to the CCG.
I benefited, when I was elected in 2010, from the “Save Cossham Hospital” campaign, which saw the very good Labour MP lose his seat. I faced battles when there were promises to put a minor injuries unit into Cossham Hospital and then there was another U-turn. Ultimately, no one has been held properly accountable, but the IRP published a report that demonstrated that North Bristol Trust had neglected its duty to communicate effectively with the public.
It is that element of communication with the public that I want to talk about in relation to schedule 6, because I have concerns. I agree with the Minister about removing the control of the health overview and scrutiny committees, because they became toxic platforms for councillors, who suddenly had to take decisions as local authority members. They did not know anything about them; all they knew was that their seats were at risk, so the committees were becoming highly politicised forums. People were turning up to the councils and demanding that councillors referred things to the IRP.
Perhaps the Minister can comment a bit more about the nature of who is doing the referral and who is contacting the Secretary of State, because the Secretary of State will not necessarily be aware of all the reconfiguration decisions. Who is the active agent who is making the referral to the Secretary of State? Will it be a councillor, a member of the public or a Member of Parliament? My worry is that when we get to election time, the Secretary of State becomes a lightning conductor, and this will electrify decisions. For new colleagues in marginal seats in the red wall, this could be one of the decisions that creates the dynamic by which the general election is fought on various reconfigurations. The Opposition will claim that it is the Secretary of State’s responsibility to deal with the matter and that he has let down local communities. That is the dynamic and toxic discussions that we have to avoid, if the provision comes into play.
I agree that the Secretary of State needs to have more information to hand and the ability to make decisions, but I am concerned about the definition in schedule 6, which states that
“‘reconfiguration of NHS services’ means a change in the arrangements made by an NHS commissioning body…that…has an impact on—
(a) the manner in which a service is delivered to individuals (at the point when the service is received by users), or
(b) the range of health services available to individuals.”
That is so broad that it could include the tiniest change. Mr Jones, a constituent of mine, might say, “Actually, this has impacted on my local provision of healthcare services for me. I want you to start a petition to the Secretary of State to change this.” I wonder whether there could be some conditionality placed within the definition that might touch on an overwhelming community interest, or something that might touch on the detriment of patient outcomes.
I believe that when we make reconfigurations, they are not necessarily done for financial reasons. They are done to deliver better patient outcomes, so we have to find a way for all political parties to demonstrate that when we put trust in professionals to take decisions, they are doing so because they recognise that there are ways in which reconfigurations can lead to better patient outcomes. We have to be able to move people in that journey. It is not just about the money when it comes to reconfigurations, and I understand that. As political leaders, it is worth supporting clinical decisions when they are the right ones for the benefit of patient outcomes, even if they are difficult decisions for us to take. Some reflection of that in the definition of “reconfiguration of NHS services” would be welcome.
Ultimately, it will come down to guidance, which is why the section on guidance is important. The Minister has mentioned guidance being published. Currently, paragraph 8 of schedule 6 only says:
“The Secretary of State must publish guidance for NHS commissioning bodies, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts.”
I think we would all really welcome that guidance being extended to the local authority’s health overview and scrutiny committee, so that it can understand what role it is playing within this fiery dynamic.
What we really need to do with the clause is ensure that members of the general public understand what the duties and responsibilities of the Secretary of State are to any reconfiguration, and that they are set out very clearly to start with. Once we start going down the journey of a petition being collected, it gathers steam and therefore becomes a campaign. Suddenly, rather than having the Department of Health and Social Care, we have a new Department called the Department of Health and Reconfiguration Services, which is what we need to avoid. For the sake of the public and the community, we have to be able to demonstrate that reconfigurations will happen—that is the nature of the NHS. Decisions need to be taken when the facts change and the clinical outcomes change, and I recognise that fact. However, we have seen flip-flopping in Bristol eroding public trust. We need to ensure that, from the outset, people understand why the Secretary of State has these powers and the conditions under which he can take decisions, working with the IRP. We would welcome guidance, potentially for Members of Parliament and local authority members, so they are able to have advance conversations when constituents come to them saying, “I want you now to refer this to the Secretary of State” or “I’ve got a petition of 10 people who want to refer this to the Secretary of State.” They will then know exactly the context in which they can consult the Departments.
Those are the only points I want to make. I am not here to support any of the amendments, although I support the clause. I wanted to reflect on things that might be added in order to break down the granularity of detail, provide wider community context and make sure the public understand where the Secretary of State sits in this potential conversation around reconfiguration.
Karin Smyth
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingswood. I feel the need for us to write a book or a pamphlet about the planned reconfiguration of health services in Bristol from my time on the board. I agree with a lot of what he said about the Kingswood-Frenchay area, but I hold the reconfiguration up as a good example of wider consultation, clinical leadership and patient and public involvement.
Some of the messiness we got into reflected healthy discussion of the issues. As he said, we are still going through the process, but at the end of those long days we managed to build two very good, specialised hospitals, particularly around A&E services, and therefore close an A&E service. Although not a clinician, I had lots of work in the Frenchay area at the time and it was a terrible place to work and deliver clinical services, having been built as temporary wartime provision, although it was much loved by local people. That is something we might reflect on at another time. The process continues. We have just closed the consultation on stroke services, and other good services, including primary community care services, have come about as a result of the reconfiguration. Reducing a hospital base from three to two is a major exercise, but it did happen.
The points made by the right hon. Gentleman were well made, as were those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. We could play good cop, bad cop, because I am disappointed that the Minister is not taking the very helpful hands that I have offered to find more ways around this, rather than saying that we just want to see the whole lot come out. It will come out eventually—I think we all know that—but along the way let us put some helpful things in place.
My amendments deal with health overview and scrutiny committees and clinical advice. I will not press them to a vote, but I would like the Minister to address them. I think they might appear in similar form in other places, at other times, so what we say is important.
The Government need to account for where and how they are going to get their clinical advice. Reconfigurations, both large and small, are important to local people, as hon. Members have said. The Cossham example is a good one. Some of those buildings do not belong to the NHS. They belong to local communities and pre-date the NHS. People love buildings and their associations. As we embrace technology, we can see that people like buildings because they are something they can grab hold of and understand.
Clinicians—and clinical advice about change—are crucial in allowing and facilitating change. As with politicians, if there are three clinicians in the room then often there will not be one single answer. The issues about what we should be moving towards are often not black and white. The whole vexed issue around the tests and where clinical advice comes from is problematic for the Government and the Secretary of State.
As my hon. Friends have said, the national clinical advisory team did independent reviews, and then that disappeared. We have looked at clinical senates. The Lansley test, which has been alluded to, wanted clarity about a clinical evidence base. In order to provide such clarity, a lot of clinicians need to come together, across specialities and across primary and secondary care, to agree and to then go and talk to the public, to make people understand why and when they are putting forward their propositions.
The timing is interesting, because the test assumed the support of GP commissioners. In this new world, there is no clinical leadership of these new bodies; they are managerially led. Some of the managers might be clinicians, but when the tests were established—this was also true of primary care trusts—the previous bodies in their previous incarnations were largely clinically led. We may dispute whether that was in actuality, whether those people were acting as clinicians, what sort of clinicians they were, whether they were clinicians in the field of the service reconfiguration we were talking about and so on, but that is an important point in terms of trust with the general public.
The new bodies are not clinically led. In my amendment, I suggest the ICB medical director, but that will be a pretty tall order for the ICB medical director even in my amendments. They are also supposed genuinely to promote patient choice. We talked earlier about the removal of autonomy, and what we are seeking to do in many of our amendments to the Bill is to put back the voice of the patient somewhere in this permissive integration world.
The other test was generally to enjoy public, patient and local authority support. While poor old Lord Lansley is not getting much praise in these meetings, some sort of provision for tests with the public, local authorities and clinicians, recognising the complexity that has been outlined particularly well by the right hon. Member for Kingswood, still living through some of this, is well made.
I do not think the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care wants all this on his desk. In my time in this place I have watched with great interest, as I am sure we all have, as hon. Members across Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire and all across the south-west have all risen at various times to bring up the issue of their community hospital, their A&E and various other services in their part of the country. Those issues are keenly felt and will all need consideration. Somebody—largely clinicians, and then other managerial people in those bodies—will have to sift out those processes.
What is alarming people, as we heard in evidence from our excellent witnesses—my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston outlined the key arguments—is that there is a gap. Who is filling it? How is it being filled? That is not just about process; it is about serious clinical engagement. That is why the Minister would be wise to pick up some of the helpful amendments that have been tabled, to alter this; otherwise it disappears completely. I think it was Nigel Edwards from the Nuffield Trust who said it is working pretty well at the moment.
We will all have our points in time where we disagree with things, and we will all want to bring in something else. That is partly our role as elected representatives, and I know the NHS does not like politics and politicians getting involved in these things sometimes, but it is the job of local representatives, whether local councillors or local Members of Parliament, to articulate on behalf of their constituents, to understand the debates and issues, to mediate them and certainly to challenge clinicians and managers of all types on the veracity of the proposals they put through.
The other thing I have said publicly is that sometimes the evidence put forward is not as robust as it should be. That external local scrutiny is well served by those of us who take a strong interest and ensure that the veracity of that information is solid. I have been able to go back to constituents—it is a brave politician who goes back to a constituent to say, “No, actually, I think we need to close that A&E,” but frankly, as we have seen from various reconfigurations across the country, at times that saves lives and is the right thing to do. Giving people locally the support to articulate that is also important.
Edward Argar
I fear we may not have consensus in Committee at this point, but none the less I will endeavour to answer some of the points raised. I am always grateful to the shadow Minister for his kind offers of help and assistance, and he will know that I always reflect carefully on the evidence we have heard and on the opinions of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I welcome his welcoming of the publication of the impact assessment in time for him to be able to quote it back at me. Finally, I thank him for his heartfelt and kindly offer of alternative approaches, given his concern for my workload were these proposals to be approved. I am touched on a number of levels by that, and equally by his suggestion that I and others have been engaged in the dark arts of spin—heaven forbid.
In the context of clause 38 and these amendments, right hon. and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, have raised a number of important points that bear further reflection. As we have said throughout this process, the challenge with this Bill is striking the right balance between being permissive and ensuring accountability at a national level, and we believe this clause plays a key part in doing so. I disagree with the shadow Minister’s view—although I respect it—that the clause does not strike the right balance, and I do not believe that the powers set out in it are disproportionate, as he has suggested. He has highlighted the role of the IRP. I mentioned my gratitude for its work in my opening remarks, and I was very clear that that work will continue. The IRP will continue to give the valuable advice it has given thus far.
I do not believe that the notification requirements will prove unduly onerous: a notification can be a very simple process. To the shadow Minister’s point about timeliness, process and definitions, we are working very closely with the NHS and other partners to produce guidance that will set out clear expectations about how and when the powers will be used, and how they will be exercised. In his remarks, he touched on a concern that Ministers might be beset by lobbying from the public and others. I would argue that such lobbying would clearly point to greater public engagement with such matters and increased transparency, which are things that we might welcome. For fear of upsetting my hon. Friend the Whip, the Member for St Austell and Newquay, I will pass over the invitation that the shadow Minister and others have extended to my colleagues on the Government Benches to break the Whip. I saw the expression on my hon. Friend’s face when that was suggested, so I strongly discourage any of my right hon. or hon. Friends from contemplating that course of action. Even though a reshuffle has only just happened, there is always another one at some point.
The shadow Minister mentioned the Health Service Journal, which I enjoy reading. All I would say is that we continue to engage with a wide range of stakeholders, as we have done throughout the process. Indeed, I think that in her evidence, Dame Gill Morgan highlighted the collaborative nature of the genesis of this Bill. I intend to continue with an open and transparent approach, discussing with colleagues and engaging with them and others, because we know that we can always learn by listening.
Justin Madders
I am finding the Minister’s response very entertaining, but he really does need to tell us exactly what is wrong with the current system that this Bill is going to fix.
Edward Argar
I will come to the shadow Minister’s point, but I just want to get through the points he made earlier in his preamble. He mentioned the quote in the Health Service Journal article from a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care, and I think that quote accurately reflects the nature of this Bill. I am grateful to those officials from the Department who ensured that the Health Service Journal got its quote.
I now turn to the substance of the shadow Minister’s argument and some of the gritter points that he, the hon. Member for Bristol South and others have alluded to. Fundamentally, he asked what challenge this Bill seeks to resolve. He asked a few other questions as well, which I will try to answer.
We believe that the Secretary of State should be able to intervene in reconfigurations for which they are ultimately accountable, and that this proposal will increase accountability to Parliament and the community by enabling intervention at an earlier stage. Too often, controversial proposals are referred at the very end of the process after a huge amount of work, effort and expenditure, rather than at an earlier stage when there is already a divergence of opinion in the local community. The Bill gives the Secretary of State an opportunity to take a view—based on advice and on the IRP’s four tests, which will continue to be the basis of that—and to get earlier intervention, where appropriate. That is one of the key reasons.
I will carry on, and the shadow Minister will nod if I am missing anything. He touched on local authority engagement, who can refer, whether there is a diminution in power—I think the hon. Member for Bristol South might have mentioned that—and what qualifies the Secretary of State to make those decisions. He also referred to local knowledge.
Karin Smyth
We could spend a lot of time on this, but I think the Minister is saying that this could happen if there is a dispute within the public at any stage—perhaps at the outline business case, perhaps at the initial raising at the ICB or perhaps at the floating of the idea. That is clearly nonsense, if I may say so. Will the guidance define what “any stage” means?
Edward Argar
We anticipate the guidance setting out what is proportionate, the criteria and the appropriate point at which an intervention can be considered. I come back to the point that too often, under the current arrangement, proposals come forward right at the end of the process, after huge amounts of expenditure, effort and time, only to be overturned—potentially at the very last moment—on the basis of the referral. Having a measured and proportionate intervention power at an earlier stage is the right approach to save a lot of angst and possibly money, although we do not anticipate that the power will need to be used on many occasions, because the vast majority of reconfigurations are broadly consensual, or reach a local consensus.
The shadow Minister alluded to local authority referrals, and the hon. Member for Bristol South has highlighted the importance of local authorities and local accountability in a number of previous speeches and interventions. The new call-in power will not replace the important role that local scrutiny and engagement play in service change decisions. Decision making on all reconfigurations, as I said, will continue to be bound by the four tests against which reconfiguration should be assured: strong public and patient engagement; consistency with current and prospective need for patient choice; a clear clinical evidence base; and support for proposals from clinical commissioners.
The IRP will continue to provide the independent clinical advice to inform the Secretary of State’s decision making. His scrutiny and direction-making process must take into account the public law decision-making principles, all relevant information and all legal duties, including the public sector equality duty.
In that context, the Secretary of State will also continue to be bound by his duty on quality of service. That includes promoting the comprehensive health service and securing continuous improvement in the quality of services provided. The new call-in power for reconfiguration will allow the Secretary of State to support effective change and to be more responsive to the concerns of the public—and of Members of Parliament as their representatives—at an earlier stage.
Justin Madders
Reflecting on the Minister’s comments about why the provision is needed, my understanding is that the power to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to intervene at an earlier stage means that, in effect, local health systems will not spend an awful lot of time and effort coming to decisions that will ultimately be overturned. I wonder whether the Minister can give us any more detail or any thoughts about why, in a system that was generally thought to be working well, a decision could go all the way through that process and, at the end of it, be deemed to be wrong.
Edward Argar
One particular example comes to mind, but given that it is a live one, I will not use it. However, if I semi-anonymise it, there are decisions that are made locally and followed through, and only at that last moment is the process challenged—for example, whether a consultation was done properly—so it triggers a potential referral to the IRP, which could see that process overturned. An earlier power to intervene and an earlier opportunity to engage could in many cases avoid that problem and lead to a smoother process.
Let me make a final point. I would expect most reconfiguration decisions to be managed by the local system, and system players will be encouraged to resolve matters locally where possible and not to require any referral to the Secretary of State. Where cases are highly contentious and require ministerial input, our proposals will allow the Secretary of State to intervene. He is accountable in Parliament for reconfigurations. The shadow Minister made the broader point that if we ask who is responsible for the NHS, people will say the Secretary of State, or potentially the Prime Minister. That is already there in people’s minds. It is right that we have commensurate powers in the Bill to enable the Secretary of State to properly discharge that function and accountability.
I remain touched by the hon. Gentleman’s kind concern about the volume of work I may end up having to do as a result of the measure. I do not quite share his concerns, but I am none the less touched by the thought.
I urge the hon. Member for Bristol South, perhaps in vain, not to press her amendment to a Division, and colleagues on the Committee to support the clause.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 40 and 41 stand part.
That schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Clause 42 stand part.
Clauses 44 to 50 stand part.
Edward Argar
With your indulgence, Mr McCabe, and that of the Committee, I will start with clause 39, followed by clauses 40 and 41 and schedule 7, and then go through the remaining clauses in the group.
Clause 39 amends the Health and Social Care Act 2012 by repealing section 179, which abolishes NHS trusts in England. It is an uncommenced provision. The policy intention at the time was that all NHS trusts would become foundation trusts. However, since then the provider landscape has settled at around one third NHS trusts and two thirds NHS foundation trusts, and, as far as I am aware, no applications for change to a foundation trust are currently in flight. There is no intention to alter this landscape significantly and, as such, section 179 of the 2012 Act should be repealed. Doing so provides absolute legal clarity that the Secretary of State can create new NHS trusts under section 25 of the National Health Service Act 2006.
Given the ongoing pandemic, and with the NHS having to deal with the broader challenge of treating an ageing population with ever more complex needs, we seek to ensure flexibility by allowing the Secretary of State to set up new trusts for any purpose, to ensure alignment within an integrated system. The ability to create new trusts, where they are requested by a local area, enables the NHS to be structured to deliver the best outcomes for population health and to respond to emerging priorities. Our aim is to ensure that the system is flexible and adaptable in the future, and wherever possible to avoid the need for complex workarounds to deliver system priorities. Although section 179 was never commenced, we want to remove any potential legal uncertainty over the Secretary of State’s ability to create new NHS trusts. Clause 39 removes the lack of clarity around the Secretary of State’s ability to do so.
Clause 40 repeals paragraph 10 of schedule 4 to the 2006 Act. This paragraph allows the Secretary of State to appoint trustees for an NHS trust to hold property on trust. The clause removes the Secretary of State’s powers to appoint such trustees. In practice, these powers have only ever been used to appoint trustees to NHS charities. Historically, NHS charities were charities regulated under charity law provisions but were also linked to NHS bodies and bound by NHS legislation. This means that they were charitable trusts established under the 2006 Act and had as their trustee an NHS body, such as an NHS trust or foundation trust. The 2006 Act also allowed the Secretary of State to appoint trustees to NHS foundation trusts and NHS trusts, and to transfer property.
Since the publication of the Government’s response to the review of regulation and governance of NHS charities in 2014, it has been our policy for all NHS charities to move to independent status. Since then, all NHS charities have moved to independent status, including the 21 larger charities that had trustees appointed by the Secretary of State. Therefore, there are no NHS charities with trustees appointed by the Secretary of State, and all NHS charities are solely regulated by the Charity Commission. In light of the above, and as there is no further need for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to appoint trustees, clause 40 will remove such powers.
Clause 41 introduces schedule 7, which makes minor and consequential amendments relating to clauses 39 and 40 of the Bill. Clause 39 repeals section 179 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and clause 40 repeals paragraph 10 of schedule 4 to the National Health Service Act 2006 and removes the Secretary of State’s powers to appoint trustees. In order to implement the changes as a result of these clauses, schedule 7 makes consequential amendments to various other pieces of legislation, such as the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 and the NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Act 2016. This ensures that the changes made by the Bill in relation to clauses 39 and 40 are consistently represented throughout other pieces of legislation. These minor and consequential amendments are necessary to clarify the Secretary of State’s ability to create new NHS trusts and to remove the Secretary of State’s powers to appoint NHS trustees.
Clause 42 makes changes to the licensing regime for NHS trusts. The clause removes the exemption in the licensing regime for NHS trusts, meaning that all NHS trusts will require a licence from NHS England to operate. This reflects the intention that NHS England should manage both NHS trusts and foundation trusts, which already have to have licences, in similar ways. This has been NHS Improvement’s de facto practice for some time, and this amendment brings trusts within the scope of NHS England’s licensing and regulatory powers.
NHS England intends to use this as a means to manage all NHS providers more effectively and coherently, to ensure they are fulfilling their statutory duties and delivering high-quality, financially sustainable healthcare.
Alex Norris
It is a pleasure to follow the Minister’s admirably comprehensive coverage of the clauses, which I will try to meet in similar terms.
We recognise that the clauses address a number of technical changes to the status of NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts in this country. We do not oppose them as we think they are consistent with the broader aims of the Bill: moving us from a world of competition to one of collaboration. I recognise that there is a great deal of transposition in the clauses, so very little will be different in substance, and that is why I will probe the Minister, who may well have pulled his punches with them. Why did he not go further?
In reality, the clauses, which are a significant part of the Bill, tidy up previous Acts but do not change enough of their substance. Nothing in the clauses—as with far too much in the Bill—will make anybody better, shorten waiting times, ensure safer staffing levels, address crumbling facilities, or do anything about the other myriad issues faced by the health service and Ministers. The Bill is in danger of creating the illusion of acting without really acting, like repainting a building and pretending it is a new hospital.
On clause 39, I listened carefully to what the Minister said about there being no plans to unsettle or change the provider landscape, meaning it is necessary to end the assumption that all NHS trusts will become foundation trusts. I agree with that basic principle because the debate has moved on significantly from that. It is less about a competition-based system and more about a system of collaboration. Indeed, as the Minister said, notably, there is a greater focus on the ICS as the unit of understanding in the community rather than the acute hospital.
As a result of that, however—this is not in the Bill —we will have two tiers, or two different sets of trusts, littering the landscape. We will entrench a system of trusts that are simultaneously autonomous and not, competitive and not, responsible for their own bottom lines and not, and free to spend their accumulated capital and not. That is a mess. If we tried to explain to a dispassionate observer why different trusts could do different things, we would not be able to. Were we designing a system from scratch, we would never design it like that. I would argue that the Bill is the closest we will come to designing a system from scratch, so I am surprised that that two-tier system has not been addressed in a more meaningful way. That would send a strong signal that NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts are fully part—not semi-detached parts—of the NHS. They are public bodies and we expect them to act like public bodies.
On clause 40, I do not think I had anything to ask the Minister beyond the points that he made. Clause 41 deals with consequential amendments.
On clause 42, and at the risk of asking a daft question, although I do not think it is, but we will find out, what is the point of licensing trusts? Is this not just creating a bogus sense of distance from the centre, when actually the rest of the Bill is designed to consolidate NHS England as the regulator, the funder and the powerful operator? Why create this licensed distance between NHS England and its providers, other than the fact that it has been custom and practice for the past 10 to 20 years to do so? Is the licence really going to be worth the bother of printing out, or is it not just a legacy of a model of independence and composition that successive Acts have featured, but from which there is now a universal keenness to move on?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his indication of broad support for our proposals. He is right: there is a significant degree of transposition and replication of what was there before, while recognising the new landscape. He asked why we did not go further; when we debated clause 38, he accused me of going too far. I suspect, from his perspective, that the question of balance has yet to be achieved, but I think we have struck the appropriate balance.
In his opening remarks, the shadow Minister said that while this is all useful and neat, it does not address some of the underlying challenges. I would argue that the Government have set out a very clear strategy for that in the NHS Funding Act 2020—I think I stood across from the shadow Minister for that one, which was a rather shorter piece of legislation—and, of course, the recent announcement by the Prime Minister, setting out the record additional funding going into the NHS.
On the specifics, I do not believe that foundation trusts mean a two-tier NHS. There are different models, and we are not proposing to stop the formation of foundation trusts—the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has already enjoyed asking me a polite but pointed question in that regard. However, we are not going to compel it; we are not saying that that is the direction, and therefore we do not see the need for section 179. We are not saying that everyone must move in that direction. However, we will retain the ability for them to do so, should they wish.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North raised the issue of intervention, support and similar matters. There are different definitions of those concepts. For example, on the purpose of a default order, when one of those is issued, chairholders must immediately vacate their office. The order must
“provide for the appointment…of new members of the body and…contain such provisions as seem to the Secretary of State expedient for authorising any person to act in the place of the body pending the appointment.”
An intervention order may provide for the suspension or
“removal from office of all the members”
of the board,
“or those specified in the order, and for their replacement”.
An intervention is essentially quite a strong power. I would suggest that support takes a less prescriptive form and refers—as we would all understand the term—to support, advice or guidance. There is a difference in the level and severity of the interventions required.
On equivalent treatment in respect of foundation trusts and NHS trusts, one intention behind the merger of NHS England and NHS Improvement is to bring together the way we support providers, trusts and foundations so that there is a single model of support and one licensing approach. NHS England will—I suspect through guidance—clarify further how that will work in practice.
I take the points made by the shadow Minister. He perhaps sees these provisions as an opportunity to go further and address other issues that he perceives to be challenges for the system. We have deliberately sought to make this a transposition. It is technical, but we think these technical changes are important to ensure that NHS England retains the powers it needs to support, intervene and make sure that the system works. Although I will, as always, continue to reflect on the points he makes, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 40 and 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
NHS trusts: wider effect of decisions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I hope I can reassure you, Mr McCabe, and the Committee that I do not intend to speak for anywhere near as long as I did on the previous group.
Edward Argar
I hear the cries of disappointment from the Opposition.
Clause 43 places a new duty on English NHS trusts, and clause 57 places a new duty on NHS foundation trusts, to have regard to the wider effects of their decisions. The duty, which was described in the NHS long-term plan as the triple aim, is mirrored for NHS England and the proposed integrated care boards. NHS England will be able to produce guidance on the duty that all bodies to which it applies must have regard. That duty is also given effect by clauses 4 and 19 in relation to other bodies, which we debated earlier.
As is indicated by the name, the duty has three limbs. First, NHS trusts and foundation trusts must consider the impact of decisions on the health, including mental health, and wellbeing of the people of England. Secondly, they must consider the impact on the quality of services provided or arranged by relevant NHS organisations, including their own. Thirdly, they must consider the sustainable use of NHS resources, including their own resources.
Decisions about particular individuals are excluded. It would not be practical or appropriate to apply the duty to decisions concerning services to be provided to any particular individual—for example, treatment decisions made by clinicians. The existing duties on those bodies encourage a focus on the interests of their own organisation and those who directly use their services. Although delivery of high-quality services remains critical, the new duty will complement other changes in the Bill to facilitate co-operative working and integration. It will encourage NHS organisations to continue to look at their communities beyond the people they directly provide services to and to consider collaborative, system-wide goals.
Following the merger of NHS England and NHS Improvement, NHS England will be responsible for setting and modifying the conditions contained in the licences of NHS providers. Clause 65 adds a new purpose for which NHS England may set or modify licence conditions: namely, that of ensuring that decisions relating to the provision of healthcare services for the NHS are made having regard to all their likely effects in relation to the three limbs of the triple aim.
Given that I have just discussed the triple aim in relation to clauses 43 and 57, I will not repeat the same arguments. As a consequence of this clause, NHS England will be able to set licence conditions aimed at ensuring that NHS trusts and foundation trusts comply with the new triple aim duty. Conditions relating to the triple aim in licences will ensure that the objectives of the new duty are considered alongside providers’ other duties and licence obligations. That in turn will encourage trusts and foundation trusts to consider the wider effects of their decisions and work on collaborative goals to the benefit of the whole system.
These clauses are essential in encouraging the components of our healthcare system to work together co-operatively and considerately, with an awareness of the wider effects of their decisions. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Alex Norris
I, similarly, will not go on at great length. The clauses are consistent with the stated aim to move from competition to a culture of collaboration. It is therefore right that under clause 43, NHS trusts will have regard to the impacts of the decisions that they make on their neighbours, with particular reference to promoting the triple aim.
I want to press the point about what is meant by “relevant bodies” in proposed new subsection (4). The Bill states that it means NHS England, the integrated care board, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts. All of those, of course, make abundant sense. However, we are missing an opportunity to extend it more broadly to the health and social care family, within which the Bill is meant to promote integration. The obvious exclusion is local authorities.
In previous proceedings, the Minister chided me for jumping about in respect of whether he was going too far or not far enough. I am going to take the cheese on that. There is no inconsistency between saying that in one provision—for example, the powers of the Secretary of State—the Government are going too far, and in another—for example, the status of NHS trusts—they are not going far enough. Provided that those two things are not interdependent, of course the Government might be going too far on one thing and not far enough on another. I reserve the right to say that as I see it.
I might just go back to the Minister at this point on jumping around, because the Bill started as an integration Bill. It was going to be the great integration of health and social care, and what a moment this was going to be in British healthcare history—probably second only to 1948. Obviously, that fell apart straight away because there is not much about social care in the Bill—only two clauses out of 135. Then the Prime Minister said, “Don’t worry, we are going to come back with an integration White Paper in due course.” Presumably legislation would follow that. At that point, the Minister said that this was a paving Bill.
Alex Norris
Foundation is even lower than paving, so I am not sure that that is a recommending analysis. Then earlier today, the Minister said that of course integration could take many forms. It could be integration of many bodies, and in this case many bodies within the NHS could be integrated. I gently say that, if we are wondering what exactly we are integrating, the title of the legislation is the Health and Care Bill, so I would start with health and care. I think we are missing that opportunity.
The reason for local authorities not being on this list may well be that we cannot bind the NHS to other non-NHS bodies, but that makes my case rather than argues against it. It is therefore not an integration Bill; it is just an NHS Bill. We will come back—that is the point. I keep saying this for a reason. We will have to come back to address that point, because the reason we are considering primary legislation is that systems have outstripped the status of legislation on the statute book. However, if we do not go far enough to catch up with them, we will have to do so in the future. There is an aspiration to do that sort of integration not just within the NHS, but within the broader health and care family. I really think that while it is not too late, we ought to consider what more we could do to put local authorities into this conversation.
As for clause 57, it is welcome that these duties also apply to foundation trusts, but it again highlights the fact that we are going to get to a point where the difference between a foundation trust and other trusts will be a distinction without a difference. We really ought to think about revisiting that, and I hope we will get the chance to do so yet.
Finally, of course it makes sense to amend licences, even if it perhaps does not make sense to have licences. I hope that the Minister can respond in particular to the point about local authorities.
Edward Argar
I have always been clear that the Bill adopts an evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach to driving forward greater integration, not only within the NHS in a locality but between the NHS and local authorities. On multiple levels, this is a Bill about integration and partnership working, and of course one on which the Prime Minister, ambitious as he always is for this country, wishes to build and go further.
The shadow Minister asked some specific questions about local authorities. The reality is that there is a different evolution and genesis in our local government system and the social care that sits with it, compared with the NHS. Up until 1948, effectively we saw that both were local and place-based. The National Health Service Act 1946 and the establishment of the NHS in 1948 set the NHS on a different path, which essentially looked upwards. It was a national system, albeit place-based, and it was national in its accountabilities, whereas local government continues to be based around different accountabilities at a local level.
Although it is important that we do exactly what we are doing, as the Prime Minister continues to, which is to drive forward greater partnership working and integration, we have to recognise those different developmental paths and the challenges they pose. In that context, local authorities do have, as the shadow Minister knows from his time in local government, their own distinct duties and accountabilities. The triple aim should lead NHS bodies to engage with local authorities—for example, in considering the health and wellbeing of the people in England or in their area. It pushes and nudges the NHS to think more widely about how it engages.
Equally, it is important to note that there are other measures in the Bill, such as the ICBs and the partnerships, that bring together those two bodies with their distinct DNA. We want to make it easier for them to work together in partnership and to integrate further, but we do recognise those different accountabilities and approaches —one directly accountable through local councillors to a local community, and the other part of a national system. These measures, we believe, will drive the NHS to go further in having heed to those local factors. That may not fully answer the shadow Minister’s point, but I hope it goes some way to doing so. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 44 to 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)
Building Safety Bill (Eighth sitting)
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Christopher Pincher)
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 30, page 22, line 2, at end insert—
“(4) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations define ‘building’ for the purposes of this section.
(5) The regulations may in particular provide that ‘building’ includes—
(a) any other structure or erection of any kind (whether temporary or permanent);
(b) any vehicle, vessel or other movable object of any kind, in such circumstances as may be specified.”
This amendment enables the Welsh Ministers to define “building” for the purposes of section 120I of the Building Act 1984 (inserted by this clause).
Christopher Pincher
The amendments relate to Welsh Government Ministers. They provide the Welsh Ministers with the necessary flexibility to define “building” for the purposes of proposed new section 120I of the Building Act 1984, to be inserted by clause 30 of the Bill. This is the same power as the Secretary of State has for England in new section 120D(4)(a) and (5). New section 120I contains a power for the Welsh Ministers to define “higher-risk building”. The additional power for the Welsh Ministers to define “building”, provided for by amendment 17, will ensure that Welsh Ministers can add clarity to the definition of “higher-risk building” as required.
Amendment 36 makes the power for the Welsh Ministers to define “higher-risk building” subject to the affirmative action procedure, but the power to define “building” under new section 120I(4) will be subject to the negative procedure, which mirrors the position in England. Amendment 37 disapplies for the purposes of new section 120I the definition of “building” that exists in section 121 of the 1984 Act. Again, this mirrors the position in England as regards new section 120D.
As the Committee may have gathered, these are important, although technical, amendments to ensure that Welsh Ministers have the necessary power to provide a clear definition of the types of structures that can be captured by the definition of “higher-risk building” and therefore subject to the more stringent building control regime provided for by part 3 of the Bill, which will be reached in due course.
Amendment 17 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
I said that the amendments are technical, and so they are, but as to the clause itself, it provides a definition for which buildings will be higher-risk buildings and therefore subject to the design and construction portion of the new, more stringent regulatory regime. It also provides for what must be done if a decision is taken to alter that definition in the future. For Wales, it provides the Welsh Ministers with the ability to define their own higher-risk buildings. To support the Committee’s scrutiny and, indeed, that of Parliament, we published, upon the Bill’s introduction, the draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations. Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review recommended implementing the new regulatory regime for buildings of at least 10 storeys. However, the views of stakeholders were gathered and they advocated expanding the scope still further. That is why we are defining the height threshold for a higher-risk building in England as at least 18 metres in height or at least seven storeys. We are being ambitious, providing the certainty that the markets require with our threshold approach while maintaining the focus on the taller buildings that the independent review advocated.
We agree with the pre-legislative scrutiny report about including more detail in the Bill, which is why we now define the height threshold of the regime within primary legislation and in the Bill. There may be incidents or emerging evidence in future that indicate that the definition of higher-risk building may need to be altered. Consequently, we included the power in section 120D(6), and its use would be subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament so that a Committee of the House—or indeed the whole House—would be able to discuss, debate and vote on the matter. However, any change must be proportionate. It must not slip into risk aversion. That is why the checks and balances outlined by sections 120E and 120F are necessary. We must understand the costs as well as the benefits. This is why any decision of expansion must consider the expert advice or recommendations of the Building Safety Regulator.
Taken together, sections 120D to 120H provide for a proportionate approach to defining higher-risk buildings and to the design and construction portion of the new regulatory regime. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Again, we accept the provisions in the clause giving the Welsh Government the desired and important flexibility particularly for buildings that are at risk. Buildings at risk have caused considerable debate and the Minister has referred to the original recommendations by Dame Judith Hackitt. There has been lots of debate in the built environment and among key witnesses. I know that members of the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government have heard similar evidence advocating for a broader definition of what is at risk. Clearly, many residents and leaseholders are in buildings below 18 metres that are certainly at risk.
I referred earlier to the fire in a care home in Crewe, not far from my constituency in the north-west of England. It was a home for vulnerable people and was constructed out of interesting materials and the results were unfortunately all too plain to see. Thank the Lord, nobody lost their life, but they did lose their home and their possessions. They were definitely at risk. In Runcorn in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), the Decks development has had a live application to the building safety fund. A number of buildings are 18 metres and above so they are in scope of the definition in the Bill, but some are below 18 metres and they are constructed with even more inflammable material. Again, they are very much at risk.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
It was Dame Judith Hackitt who initially suggested that the threshold be 30 metres. Does the hon, Gentleman agree that 18 metres or seven storeys is significantly more ambitious?
Mike Amesbury
Yes, but what I heard from the witnesses —the evidence is crystal clear—is that there are buildings, such as hospitals, that have vulnerable people. One thousand hospitals will not be within the scope of the Bill, because they are below 18 metres. According to the Department’s own figures, 13,200 care homes will not be classed as at risk under the current regulatory landscape.
The clause will provide that flexibility, which the Minister referred to. If there are thematic incidents, fires or failures related to building safety, the Secretary of State has the welcome flexibility of the regulator in the future. We certainly want the definition of risk on the record, as witnesses have requested throughout.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I shall be brief, as I am conscious of the fact that we have already touched on the clause.
The point on which I wish to comment, which was highlighted in the comments of the hon. Member for Amesbury, is the ability of the Secretary of State to liaise with the Building Safety Regulator, as provided in the clauses added to schedule 5 to the Building Act 1984. The key is the facility to recognise that circumstances change—specifications change, the industry changes. The clause gives the Department the flexibility holistically to utilise the Building Safety Regulator, ensuring that subsequent regulations reflect reality.
We have debated the 80 metres specification, but we heard during the evidence sessions that flexibility is necessary. There are many shades of grey in this space—it is not all black and white. The clause pretty much mandates the Secretary of State to have regard to the Building Safety Regulator’s advice and to take on board its recommendations. That is vital, because the way in which we have structured the BSR in the Bill thus far is for it to act not just as an enforcer but as an adviser too, and there will be individuals within the organisation who have the expertise and skill.
The clause provides the flexibility that we will need, and as we come to secondary legislation we will see how important that is going to be. As we build the legislative framework, it will be important that Ministers have the agility to take advice and react to the market. The market and the specifications now will not be the same in five years’ time or 10 years’ time. We must ensure that if things need to change we can act expeditiously. Clause 30 is the right clause. It provides that flexibility to my right hon. Friend the Minister and his officials and I therefore support it.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West and the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for their contributions.
My hon. Friend for West Bromwich West is quite right: we heard from witnesses that it is important to have an objective set of criteria when defining risk. I appreciate that there are different shades of opinion. We heard from Sir Ken Knight and Dan Daly, who are experts in their fields, suggesting that an objective threshold would be a sensible mechanism for adjudicating risk.
We chose high-rise residential buildings of at least 80 metres after engagement with stakeholders and judged that the risk to multiple households is greater when fire spreads in residences of that height. We are following the recommendation of Dame Judith’s committee to focus on residential buildings. We have responded to the concerns of stakeholders. That is why, rather than set a threshold at 10 storeys, we chose to set it at above 18 metres or seven storeys. The reason that it is and/or is to make sure that we mitigate the risk of gaming just below 18 metres. Adding the seven-storeys requirement makes it much more difficult for a regime to be gamed.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I agree with the Minister that 18 metres or seven storeys is a sensible starting point for the regime. I welcome that it is more ambitious than the 30 metres originally recommended by Dame Judith Hackitt. However, will he explain why he chose such a threshold, rather than a matrix of risks and specific factors?
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I understand why some regard a matrix or a set of matrices to be a better mechanism to employ. The problem with a set of matrices is that they are subjective. It is possible that one assessor could rule that a building is in scope of the regime and another rule it or a similar building out of scope. That would create unnecessary confusion in the regime. It is much more sensible that we have an objective threshold that everyone understands, be they the experts on the gamekeeper’s side of the fence or those on the poacher’s side. Everyone understands what the rules are.
The hon. Members for Weaver Vale and for Brentford and Isleworth, who is no longer in her place, mentioned other potential buildings. I have explained how it is possible, through advice from the Building Safety Regulator, to expand the regime, but I simply reiterate my earlier point that some of those buildings, such as prisons, hotels and hostels, are subject to the Fire Safety Order. They tend to have multiple means of exit and signage appropriate to guests entering and leaving the building. They are governed by a different regime. The Ministry of Defence’s buildings have their own fire safety arrangements and the Crown has its own arrangements under the Building Act. Those provisions have not been introduced and enforced but, as this Bill goes through the House, we will consider whether the Building Act provisions that apply to Crown buildings should be put into force.
We are not blind to the fact that the regime can be refined and improved. As I say, that is one of the reasons why we want to use secondary legislation as a mechanism for delivering the Bill in the most effective way.
Mike Amesbury
I seek some reassurance, on a point that was brought up by the Association of British Insurers and others throughout the Bill’s passage so far, and during pre-legislative scrutiny. With regard to those experts, can the Minister reassure us that there is a sufficient pool of people who not only will be trained and available but, importantly, will get professional indemnity insurance to assess the builders?
Christopher Pincher
I think I said in previous remarks that the multidisciplinary teams that the Building Safety Regulator will employ presently have many, if not most, of the skills and experience necessary to execute the roles in the new regime, so we do not anticipate that a significant amount of further training will be required. With respect to professional indemnity insurance, however, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have made it clear that, in the final resort, they will provide a backed scheme to ensure that proper professional indemnity for risk assurors is provided. I hope that gives him some certainty.
I will close by restating the key function of clause 30, which is to provide a definition for which buildings will be considered higher risk and, therefore, which buildings will be subject to the design and construction portion of our new and more stringent regulatory regime. Importantly, it also provides for what must be done if a decision is taken to alter that definition in the future—that very clear, staged process, which will ensure that proper tests, proper consultation and proper cost-benefit analysis are undertaken in order to deliver an expanded regime, if that is required. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Building regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
Clause 32 provides the powers to set procedural requirements in building regulations, which, among other things, will include the procedures for a new building control route for the design, construction and refurbishment of higher-risk buildings, the mandatory occurrence reporting framework during the design and construction of those buildings, and the golden thread of information during design and construction. I will explain each of the paragraphs—there are quite a few of them—in turn.
Proposed new paragraphs 1A and 1B of the Building Safety Act 1984 provide for building regulations to set procedural requirements relating to work, particularly for applications for building control approval. They will provide the basis for the new gateway process for creating new higher-risk buildings, and for a new refurbishment process when carrying out certain building work on higher-risk buildings. We will also be able to put in place new procedures for building control applications to be made to local authorities. The powers provided under the paragraphs will enable building regulations to make provision about notices that must be given to building control authorities—for example, when work commences—the issue of certificates, and the effect of such certificates. These regulations will also make provision for consultation arrangements, such as when building control authorities need to consult fire and rescue authorities on fire safety measures relating to building work. They will also include timeframes for providing consultation responses. Regulations made under these powers can also set out the grounds for granting or refusing an application.
With regard to the gateways, these paragraphs will allow for building regulations to set out new prescribed documents that must be included in applications for building control approval alongside plans for higher-risk buildings. They will also allow building control authorities the ability to set requirements when granting applications for building control approval. For example, the powers taken in proposed new paragraph 1B of schedule 1 to the Building Act 1984 would allow for staged approval routes for higher-risk buildings to provide greater flexibility for more complex developments—as we know, there can be many varied and complex developments. Applicants will be able to submit their application in stages with permission from the regulator, and in those circumstances building control approval will be strictly limited to the approved stages of work. Applicants will then need to submit plans and documents for other stages of work for building control approval before work on those stages begins.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
It is very good to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Efford. The Minister is discussing the powers that have been strengthened for both the regulator and local authorities—something I certainly welcome—and, following on from that, the ability to set requirements when granting applications for building control approval. Could the Minister talk a little more about these gateways and explain in further detail what happens in them, particularly gateways 2 and 3?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my hon. Friend. The gateways are a crucial means of ensuring the quality and consistency of work, so that poor work or work that does not meet sufficient standards is spotted and stopped. Gateway 2 will be a hard stop that replaces the present building control deposit of plans stage: a gateway 2 application will be submitted to the Building Safety Regulator for approval. It has to demonstrate building regulations compliance, including that plans should be realistic for the building in use and will deliver a building that is safe to occupy. It will be an offence to start building work without Building Safety Regulator approval. We will say more about those gateways in secondary legislation.
Gateway 3 replaces the current completion and final certificate stage of building work—that is, when building work is complete. Again, it will be a hard stop, whereby an application must be submitted to the Building Safety Regulator with building plans and information about the building. The Building Safety Regulator can and will carry out inspections, and if it is satisfied—as far as it can determine—that the building complies with the building regulations requirements, it will issue a completion certificate. These are quite stringent processes that, as I trust my hon. Friend will recognise, are powerful tools. In circumstances where building control approval is strictly limited to the approved stages of work, applicants will then need to submit their plans and documents for other stages of work for building control approval before work on those building stages can begin.
The powers that we have taken in proposed new paragraph 1B will also allow applicants to submit applications for building control approval with plans and any relevant prescribed documents they consider appropriate for refurbishment in higher-risk buildings. That will ensure that applicants are not subject to disproportionate requirements when proposing relatively minor refurbishments, which could be replacement windows or changes to the central heating or lighting system, for example. However, the regulator will be able to refuse the application if prescribed information is not provided on request. All these provisions together will strengthen the regulatory oversight of design and construction.
Theo Clarke
I welcome the Minister’s saying that there will be provisions to deliver the golden thread, which will be critical in helping to ensure that buildings are safe throughout their life, and I welcome the fact that new paragraphs 1C and 1D will contain requirements on the giving, obtaining and keeping of information and documents. Will this clause also ensure that developers will not be able to switch to cheaper and less safe materials during construction?
Christopher Pincher
I think it will—in fact I am sure it will—because it will require that, in design, construction and refurbishment, information that is needed to demonstrate compliance with specific building regulations is available. It will also require that information garnered through mandatory occurrence reporting, which we discussed in Committee last week, will be available, and there will be a clear legal requirement on duty holders to hand over that information. The power will also be used to require certain information about safety occurrences to be provided to the regulator. I will discuss that a little more in a moment.
New paragraph 1D also creates the power to make regulations to set out the information and documents that must be stored in the golden thread, and to set out standards that the golden thread must be held to. We know there is currently a lack of information about higher-risk buildings, which makes it difficult to design, construct and refurbish them safely. We are also aware that where there is that information, it is often not kept up to date, not accurate or not accessible. We believe that having accurate, up-to-date information is critical to ensuring that buildings are managed safely, and this new paragraph will ensure that the information is recorded and that it is accurate, kept up to date and accessible to those who need it.
Dame Judith’s review recommended that a golden thread be put in place for higher-risk buildings. We agree, and the recommendation is being executed, recognising that it is critical to ensuring that buildings are safe.
New paragraph 1E enables the implementation of a key recommendation of Dame Judith’s independent review: mandatory occurrence reporting, which I mentioned a moment ago, for higher-risk buildings going through the design and construction phases. Mandatory occurrence reporting is intended to provide a route by which valuable building safety intelligence and trends will reach the Building Safety Regulator and be shared with industry.
The effect of that proposed new paragraph is to enable regulations to be drawn up that require duty holders in design and construction to establish a mandatory occurrence reporting framework to facilitate the reporting of occurrences on site so that the duty holders, who have an obligation to report them to the regulator, become aware of occurrences in good time. Mandatory occurrence reporting will aid in driving intelligence-led enforcement on the part of the Building Safety Regulator, promoting safety-conscious culture change and improving safety standards and best practice across the built environment.
Proposed new paragraph 1F enables building regulations to prescribe the form and content of documents or information that must be given as part of a building control application. Those documents will be a key part of the new building control routes for higher-risk buildings. Proposed documents include a design-and-build approach document, a fire-and-emergency file and a construction control plan. The documents must demonstrate compliance with building regulation requirements and be realistic for the building in use—I made that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. That will ensure the consistency and quality of building control applications for higher-risk buildings.
The proposed new paragraph also allows for building regulations to set out how documents and information must be given. For example, it may be necessary to submit documents to the Building Safety Regulator via an online portal. It will also enable certain building applications to be refused if a document is not provided to the building control authority on request.
In order to check compliance, building control authorities must be able to inspect and test work, equipment, services and fittings, and to take samples. New paragraph 1G provides powers for building regulations to make provision for that. Building regulations will also be able to prohibit work from being covered for a period to allow the building control authority to inspect the work and to provide for the building control authority to cut into or lay open the work. Related amendments are also being made to section 33 of the Building Act to enable a building control authority to require a person carrying out the work to carry out tests of the work.
New paragraph 1A, which we discussed earlier, will allow building regulations to set prescribed timetables according to which building control authorities will need to determine applications—for example, gateway 2 applications, change control applications, and gateway 3 applications. That will help prevent unnecessary delays.
New paragraph 1H will allow building control authorities to extend that timetable where necessary, with agreement from the applicant—for example, if a development in hand is particularly complex. That will provide greater flexibility than under the current regime.
New paragraph 1I enables the drafting of regulations to allow persons affected by decisions made under the Building Act, or building regulations, to appeal against them. The Government supports the recommendation of Dame Judith’s independent review that the regulator must be “fair and transparent”. Where developers want to challenge a decision by a building control authority, it is right that they can do so. This clause makes provision to create routes of appeal to the regulator and the tribunal in England, and to Welsh Ministers or a magistrates court in Wales, whichever is appropriate. It also makes provision to set up procedural and administrative arrangements.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
We have discussed appeals. As part of the process, it is important that we have a robust and accessible appeals process, which is easy for people to undertake. Does the Minister share my opinion that these appeals need to be conducted in a reasonable amount of time? They have a habit of dragging on for long periods. With something as important as this, does he agree that people should have an assurance that when they make an appeal it is not just accessible but that they can expect an answer within a reasonable time period, to correct whatever problem has arisen?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of appeals. We have said in regulations that if the time limit is not met between the regulator and the applicant, and if an extension is not agreed, then the applicant can submit an application to the Secretary of State for a decision. That is a last resort. Through these provisions, we want to ensure that decisions can be made swiftly and efficaciously, so that challenges that may be brought to the Building Safety Regulator by a developer are dealt with rapidly, and a safe development can be advanced as quickly as possible. These include grounds for appeal, and the period during which an appeal can be lodged are also included in this clause.
There are a number of related consequential amendments in draft schedule 5. These include repeals of sections 16, 17 and 31 of the Building Act, which will become redundant with the introduction of new applications for building control approval under paragraphs 1A and 1B in clause 32.
That includes repeals of paragraphs 2 to 5 of schedule 1 to the Building Act, which are directly replaced by the new paragraphs 1A to 1I in clause 32, and amendments of existing references in the Building Act to, for example, the deposit of plans to the
“making of applications for building control approval”.
These new powers apply in Wales as in England, so the Welsh Government will be able to amend its building regulations as necessary. I appreciate that these are technical and rather dry paragraphs, but they are important to the success of the Building Safety Regulator, its powers and the appeals mechanism. Therefore, I commend clause 32 to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister for his thorough and detailed examination of the clause. The independent review made several recommendations for stringent new building control procedures to increase the regulatory oversight of design, construction and refurbishment—if we take our minds back to Grenfell, that was a refurbished building—of higher-risk buildings and of building work subsequently carried out. One concern, which was echoed by the Select Committee, is that a lot of detail is again left to secondary legislation, as the Minister referred to. To draw upon the golden thread, as a means to explain to Members not just in Committee but beyond, does the Minister have an example of the golden thread from beginning to end? Has he done some scenario planning of the application of the hard stop? How does the new regime capture permitted development? How does it capture those refurbishments and those conversions of offices into residential buildings?
Shaun Bailey
I grateful for the opportunity to speak on clause 32 which although very technical, is none the less very important. I want to speak about mandatory occurrence reporting, because I think that is a key matter. In order to understand trends and where consistent issues are becoming a problem it is key that disasters such as Grenfell are not allowed to repeat. We need to spot problems early. That comes back to the broader point of collaboration and working together. This is a collaborative piece. To ensure that the legislation works for the future and that we have a market that truly works for everyone, we must ensure that information is shared. We must ensure that trends are spotted early. It is about treating the issue as a partnership between stakeholders. To have the BSR acting as the centre point and information gatherer will be key.
The clause needs to provide certainty, although we will need to see the secondary legislation that will derive from the Bill. We need to ensure that leaseholders and residents have certainty and that they know where they stand, but we have a market to meet, and we must build houses. We know that we have a housing shortage and that we need to construct more places for people to live. To do that, we must have a regime that works. We must know that, ultimately, those who use the regime and construct property understand the rules by which they play. Equally, the balance must be struck so that they cannot game the regime either. That is why there needs to clarity.
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale is right that we need to examine the detail in secondary legislation. We need to see what the structure of that will be. It is all well and good to say “we’ll prescribe this, and we’ll prescribe that” but we need to know what specific forms will look like, how people will fill them out, whether they will be usable in a commercial context or will that encourage an organisation, a builder, a company or whoever to circumvent the system, because they think, “Do you know what? It’s a little too complex for me to do, so let’s see how I can fiddle it around”? The wording of the clause goes some way to delivering this, but we need a system that says to builders and stakeholders, “Look, it is within your interests to play within the system and comply with the regulations, and to share the information as part of the mandatory occurrence reporting.”
We have spoken about the impact in Wales as well, and it is important that, ultimately, we have that consistency in England and Wales. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale will know that there is a lot of cross-border buying and selling, and we must ensure that there is consistency so that people know where they stand in terms of the regulations. I am sure that he has many building firms that will do work both in England and in Wales, so they will need that consistency to know exactly the rules within which they are playing. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us about the conversations he has had with colleagues in Welsh Government to ensure that. That will be a real test of clause 32 and the subsequent secondary legislation, so that the marketplace that must fit within the regulatory framework knows where it stands. I come back to the point I made before, which is ultimately about ensuring that we can continue to have a market that builds houses, to address the situation that we have with local house building.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
I want to touch on a couple of things. Enforcement is key. We heard lots of evidence about the need for culture change. Enforcement gives us rules and regulations, which the sector needs, but we need to change the culture. Listening to the Minister’s response, I am at a loss to know where the enforcement will come from and how it will be funded. It would be good to get a real understanding of how this golden thread will be enforced. We listened to evidence from the Fire Brigades Union about how fire safety officers have been decimated. We know about local authority cuts. I would really like an understanding, on the record, of where the enforcement will be made and how it will be funded. We had rules, regulations and laws, but without enforcement we still had Grenfell. Hugely important moving forward is how the new set of regulations will be enforced to ensure that it is adhered to and we get the culture change that we desperately need.
Shaun Bailey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I am sure that there are some points that my right hon. Friend the Minister will pick up. I agree that enforcement is a really important part of this and has to be done properly. We discussed funding this morning. As my right hon. Friend indicated, there has been a funding uplift. As I said this morning, it will be on us to ensure that that works and is done in a proportionate way. I have no fear in saying that. It is our job to do that. Without being too repetitious, it is perhaps slightly frustrating, but the secondary legislation will be an important part of it, because that will show the meat of how the enforcement will operate.
It comes down to the operational delivery of all this. The clauses are very technical. They are there to lay the base framework. From my very limited time in this House, when we are passing legislation the big thing that we always have to think of is how it will work in practice. There are probably broader debates, particularly with clause 32, about what that will look like. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby touched on cultural change. It is important that the clause acts as a catalyst for that. As I touched on, it is about ensuring that there is a framework by which construction firms and builders know to operate, that there is an ability to share that information, and that building regulations flow through to ensure that we know where we are and that a really stringent process is followed. We must also be able to see the information that is required—the safety reports and fire reports—to ensure that we have the golden thread and the pathway that we have discussed, to ensure that we have built a story of compliance and safety, and to ensure that if we have to review the pathway to the construction of a building we can see that it has followed the tests and that corners have not been cut.
Clause 32 provides that base framework, but I stress that the meat will come in secondary legislation. As always, my plea to the Minister is that we continue with the flexible approach that he has adopted so far in relation to this piece of legislation. It is about being adaptable. The clause gives us the framework, but we know that the market changes, pressures change and risks change. When we come to report on building regulations, we must ensure that, as we look at clause 32 in secondary legislation, it has the room for manoeuvre to react. If we have to ramp up the reporting mechanisms, we must be able to do so. Equally, they must be robust enough to manage that.
We must remember, and I know my right hon. Friend is completely aware of this, that it is the leaseholders and residents who are at the core of this. Clause 32 was described as dry and technical, but it is a linchpin clause because it sets the rules of the game, which will protect some of the most vulnerable residents and leaseholders—the people we have been sent here to stick up for. We will ensure they have that framework and that right of redress. It is an important clause and I support it. I am really interested to see the secondary legislation that follows and it has my full support.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the Committee for considering the clause. I am grateful for the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West. He raised the question of cross-border co-operation between English authorities and the Welsh Government. I can assure him that my officials have been in close contact with the Welsh Government to ensure that provisions apply properly. Of course, because the devolutionary settlement came after the Building Act 1984, certain changes need to be made to the Act. There certainly has to be a recognition that the Building Safety Regulator does not apply in the same way in Wales as in England. The building control authority in Wales is the local authority—although a local authority can for the purposes of independence designate another local authority to act as the building control authority in a particular instance of a high-rise residential or in-scope building in their authority jurisdiction.
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale asked a number of questions about the golden thread. I agree that it is a hugely important element of the Bill and an important element to demonstrate trust and compliance to the regime. It is about giving information about a building that allows someone to understand the building. It also provides information to effectively manage the building. It needs to be created before building work starts and it must be kept updated throughout the design and construction process—for example where through the change control process, the plans for the building work are changed. That also needs to be captured in the golden thread.
When the building work is finally completed, the golden thread must be handed over to the person responsible for the occupied building, called the accountable person. The information required will have to demonstrate compliance with specified building regulations and information required through mandatory occurrence reporting. We will set out specific requirements for the golden thread in secondary legislation. The nature of the information and the documents that must be stored as part of the golden thread are potentially subject to change over time in accordance with technical developments in safety standards and safety practices. Some flexibility in the listed information and documents is required, and that is why we propose putting it into secondary legislation rather than putting it in the Bill.
I can give an assurance to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, who raised the issue of enforcement. We talked about that last week in Committee, and I pointed out the funding that has been made available to the Health and Safety Executive to help set up the shadow Building Safety Regulator. We have talked today about the fees and the charges that may be applied, as well as the spending review commitments we will make to the Building Safety Regulator.
Christopher Pincher
I will give way briefly, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, will want to get on.
Mike Amesbury
I asked the Minister about permitted development and how that will be captured by the golden thread. It will be detailed in secondary legislation, as is mirrored throughout the Bill. I understand some of the practicalities around that, but given that this is a central aspect of improving the building safety landscape, surely the detail should be in the Bill. Look at permitted development. Will there be refurbishments from office to residential? Grenfell was a refurbishment. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that matter.
Christopher Pincher
I am happy to look at the matter for the hon. Gentleman and make sure that we properly cover all eventualities in secondary legislation. I point out that with respect to permitted development rights, it is unlikely—although I would not say impossible—that buildings that fall into the scope of the currently defined regime will be built using permitted development rights. I suggest to him that such a building would very likely require planning permission using the normal routes.
I am very happy to make sure that we cover off those sorts of considerations when we look at secondary legislation. We need to make sure that it is sufficiently flexible to take account of future safety arrangements, future technical designations and future planning rules, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we are considering very shortly. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Dutyholders and general duties
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
Clause 33 relates to amendments to schedule 1 to the Building Act 1984 to enable building regulations to require prescribed appointments and to impose duties on those appointed and other relevant persons.
We agree with recommendations 2.1 and 2.2 of Dame Judith’s review, which ask that key roles and responsibilities in the procurement, design and construction process are specified. Clause 33 contributes to their implementation. It is only right that those who commission building work and who participate in the design and construction process take responsibility for ensuring that building safety is considered throughout the project, thereby ensuring that residents are safe and, importantly, feel safe.
The amendments to the 1984 Act create a power that we will use to make regulations that will identify and place duties on those involved in the procurement, design, construction and refurbishment of all buildings. The duty holders will be those people or organisations who commission the building work and undertake the design and construction or refurbishment building work. In other words, they will be clients, principal designers, designers, principal contractors and contractors, and all other persons involved in the work.
These are the key roles that are most important in initiating, overseeing or influencing activity to ensure building regulations compliance throughout the procurement, design and construction phases. Duty holders will be required to actively consider and manage building safety risks throughout the process, to ensure that designs, if built, comply with building regulations requirements as well as the building work.
Draft regulations have been published alongside the Bill. The Committee may find the draft Building (Appointment of Persons, Industry Competence and Dutyholders) (England) Regulations 2021 useful for more detail. The draft regulations set out the framework of duty holders and their duties. The main duty holders will be the client, the principal designer and the principal contractor. However, everyone undertaking design or building work, including designers and contractors, will also have duties.
The duty holders will need to have systems in place to plan, manage and monitor the design work and building work, to ensure they co-operate and communicate with each other, and to co-ordinate their work. The regulations also require duty holders to have the relevant competence—the skills, knowledge, experience, behaviours, and organisational capability—to undertake work, and to ensure that those they appoint are also competent to carry out that work. We will discuss that in more detail when we come to consider clause 34.
The regulations made under clause 33 will hold to account all involved in building work, making them responsible for the work they do and the decisions they make, ensuring those buildings are safe for those who live and work in them. I commend clause 33 to the Committee.
Shaun Bailey
Clause 33 is just common sense, really. It is ultimately about ensuring that those people who are appointing people, or those organisations that are making appointments to do work, are doing so in a way that is right and safe. I am conscious that I should not stray on to clause 34, but it is about ensuring that they appoint people with the ability to do the work and to perform those basic duties that we would expect.
I am slightly surprised that we need clause 33, to be honest, because to me it is common sense that if we were going to appoint people to do a job, we would make sure they could do it properly in the first place. None the less, we have seen, and we have heard in the evidence, that it is needed. It is probably a sad indictment of the market and the industry we are dealing with that we need to specifically prescribe in legislation that people who are appointed to do the work can do so in the way they need to, and that we will require building regulations to specify what that looks like.
I turn to the general duties as specified in new paragraph 5B. A lot of this stuff would appear to be relatively straightforward; it is just about ensuring that people are undertaking the work in the right way. I will not make too many comments on industry competence, because I appreciate that that is addressed further on, but, broadly speaking, for many of these clauses it will be interesting to see the regulations that follow and how that is prescribed.
Shaun Bailey
That is a good question. What will be needed is a broader conversation with the industry, and the evidence from the Association of British Insurers was about that industry engagement. What we are trying to do with this legislation is to bring about cultural change, so that cultural change must be holistic. As part of that, we must be open to having those conversations with insurers and with all parts of the sector. I am just thinking about these duty holders, and the point raised by the hon. Gentleman is about remembering what the sector is.
Obviously, it is not just the firms that are building or constructing these developments: it is the insurers, the subcontractors and the people who provide the materials. The sector encompasses all those people as well, so how far do we extend these duties? Again, these are questions that we are going to have to deal with, perhaps through secondary legislation: how far do those appointments go? What do they look like? Who are we appointing? Who are we applying them to?
Those are all academic questions that I do not wish to tempt my right hon. Friend the Minister to answer today, because I appreciate that we will go into further detail about them, but I think that the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby triggers a further conversation that is definitely worth having. Broadly speaking, though, clause 33 is about doing what many of us would consider to be common sense, and for that reason—although it is quite surprising that we need it—I fully support it and hope that it becomes part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
To reiterate, the effect of clause 33 is that those who commission a building, design it, construct it, and may refurbish it will be required to make formal appointments, so that everybody knows what everybody else’s role in this is, and proper and effective enforcement action can be taken against them.
A principal designer has to be appointed, and the role of that designer is understood; a principal contractor is appointed, and the role of that contractor is understood. The new regulator will be able to hold the principal persons to account using the range of enforcement tools that we have discussed, and we have also discussed the mechanisms for funding them as effectively as possible. Local authority building control will also have a range of enforcement powers, so although this clause may be common sense—as my hon. Friend has suggested—it is an important mechanism for codifying building safety, while also making sure that there is sufficient flexibility in the law to take account of future changes in circumstances that the House of Commons may wish to rapidly respond to through secondary legislation, rather than writing all the law on the face of the Bill.
Although clause 33 is possibly common sense, and although it is yet another rather dry and technical clause, I reiterate that it holds everyone involved in building work accountable for the work they do. It makes them responsible for the work they do and the decisions they make, which will ultimately help to ensure that golden thread of information and the safety of buildings. As such, I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Industry Competence
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
The Government want residents to have confidence that those working on their building are competent to do their job properly and in compliance with building regulations, in order to ensure safe and high-quality buildings. This is vital to underpinning our reforms of building safety. Building regulations currently have minimal provisions about how design and building work should be done. Our intention is to set out more specific requirements relating to the competence of persons doing any design or building work.
Clause 34 therefore amends the Building Act 1984—which, as we know, is 37 years old—creating powers to prescribe in building regulations the competence requirements relating to the principal designer and principal contractor, the appointed persons, and any other person. We intend to use this power to impose in building regulations a general duty on anyone doing design or building work to have the appropriate competence to do their job in a way that ensures compliance with building regulations. Building regulations may also impose duties on those appointing the principal designer, the principal contractor and any other person, to ensure that those whom they appoint meet the competence requirements.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Will increasing confidence in the competence of duty holders be a vital part of restoring faith and confidence in the construction industry?
Christopher Pincher
Yes, I think it will be. We have seen a significant decline in confidence in the sector, and we have certainly seen a decline in trust. We believe that imposing competency requirements will contribute to the golden thread not just of information, but of trust, which we need to re-engender among residents living in in-scope buildings, and in the wider building sector more broadly. I agree with my hon. Friend, because I believe that it will help to reinvigorate trust.
The requirements will apply to all design and building work that is subject to building regulations—not just for higher-risk buildings—and to both organisations and individuals. For individuals, the competence requirements will relate to their skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours.
Shaun Bailey
My right hon. Friend is being generous in taking interventions. He touched on the skills piece for individuals. The running theme within the Bill is about co-operation and communication with different stakeholders. How important does he think it will be for the BSR to be engaged, particularly with further education providers, in order to ensure that the benchmarks that are set as a result of the clause can be met in the training that it provides to future members of the industry?
Christopher Pincher
I certainly think that trade bodies and professional organisations should develop suitable ways for their members to demonstrate their competence. I also want to ensure that the Building Safety Regulator has a broad reach within the understandable constraints of not losing or diluting its very important focus on high-rise and other in-scope residential buildings.
I will reflect on my hon. Friend’s point about reaching out to higher and further education providers, but if I may stretch the point a little, it is certainly the case that by working with our colleagues in BEIS and across other Government Departments, we are building a skill set in the construction industry—young people going into construction and becoming bricklayers or skill supervisors. We need to ensure that they have the wherewithal to build their careers, but we also need to ensure that their professional trade bodies are providing them with competence, and that that competence can be properly assessed by the Building Safety Regulator and its officials.
For organisations, the requirements will relate to the organisational capability—the ability of an organisation to carry out its functions properly under the building regulations. Where the principal designer or principal contractor is an organisation, subsection (3) enables building regulations to require the organisation to ensure that the individuals leading the work have the appropriate skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours to manage their functions. To provide more detail on how the competence requirements will apply, we have published draft regulations to sit alongside the Bill.
Selaine Saxby
Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that this new regime for driving up competence levels will not have a negative impact on industry capacity, particularly in areas such as mine—this might be slightly outside the scope of the Bill—where the sector already has issues with recruitment?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my hon. Friend. We certainly do not want to see skills and capacity further stretched. I will give her one example of the stimulant action that the Government have taken to support the sector. Last November we announced funding just touching £700,000 to train up 2,000 external wall system 1 assessors. I believe that their training commenced in January this year, so they will be coming on stream to provide the sorts of services that are needed. We certainly want to ensure that, in that instance and others, we have appropriate capacity to do the work required.
In addition, the Government intend to provide statutory guidance in the form of an approved document to support duty holders in meeting these requirements. This is a short but important clause, and I commend it to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
It is incredible that this is not part of the status quo, because we are talking about competence in the construction sector. Of course, this is a changing landscape, with everyone, as the Minister says, having the appropriate knowledge, skills and competence to carry out the new requirements of the regime. There is a lot of onus on the client and the principal contractor. Who assesses whether the principal contractor is competent? What does competent look like? Again, it seems that this may be outlined in guidance and secondary legislation. How do people know whether somebody is genuinely competent to construct or refurbish a higher-risk building? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments.
Shaun Bailey
I am mindful that just looking at this clause triggers a lot of thought processes. As the hon. Member for Weaver Vale has just said, we might have thought that this was already a given: that if we get someone to do a job, they should have the skills and qualifications needed to do it properly. It triggers some broader thought processes on how we embed these legislative and regulatory standards within the system more broadly.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his response to the intervention on education. Clearly, as a result of this clause, we will have to embed this within the culture, which will require that stakeholder engagement. I was heartened to hear my right hon. Friend say that he would take that away and ponder it.
The key thing, as with all of this, is how it will operate in practice. The sentiment of the clause is the right one: in order to ensure that people living in high-rise buildings are safe, those buildings must be constructed by individuals who know what they are doing, and the onus must be placed in statute on the organisations constructing these buildings to ensure that the competence and skills base is there.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon raised an important point in her intervention about getting the balance right. I think this does get the balance right, in that it ensures that we can still recruit to the industry, so that a flow of workforce still comes into it, but things clearly have changed since 1984. My right hon. Friend the Minister articulated that by highlighting that the existing regulations are 37 years old. Just to put that in perspective for the Committee, that is slightly before I was born. I was born in 1992—I do not know whether that horrifies some Members.
I am the grandson of a builder, and it is clear that building sites have changed in 40 years. The expectations and complexity of the jobs that firms are now undertaking require the ability to know that the competencies are there. We now have a raft of qualifications, and different levels of experience and needs, as I have said in previous contributions—I am sure everyone has noted that meticulously. None the less, it is important. Things have changed and moved on. We are operating and trying to regulate an ever-changing marketplace that has new technologies coming on board and new materials coming into play, and we need the individuals who operate in this space to have the skillsets and ability to react to that.
The one thing that I would say—perhaps this will be addressed in secondary legislation—is that in my profession, we always had to show continuous professional development. We had to show that we had not just sat there after qualifying perhaps 10 years ago, because things had moved on.
Ian Byrne
On the issue of competence, last week we touched on training—the funding of training and who is going to do it. We will need lots and lots of people, and that is a huge opportunity for this country, but who will monitor the competence? Will it be accredited? Will there be an agency to accredit it? Again, this all links back to the evidence that we have been listening to over the past two weeks about culture change. This can start right at the very beginning of somebody’s career, and it can be hard-wired in. It would be good to get an understanding of who will oversee the competence, and how the training will be delivered and—I am going to say the magical word again—funded.
Shaun Bailey
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. I am sure he and I are both passionate advocates of technical and vocational education, and this clause says that we have to treat the industry with some respect. That means having in place accreditation structures that are properly recognised. I get what he says about funding, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister has heard his plea. I say to the hon. Gentleman—if you will indulge me, Mr Efford—that he has a sympathiser in me, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will at some point have conversations with the Department for Education and the Treasury about how that looks. The hon. Gentleman is right. Ultimately, although this is a short clause, it leads to so many different things. That is the key thing. Ultimately, as he articulated well, if we are going to ask for this, we need to know what the accreditation models are and the FE providers need to know what the structures are for providing this training. All those conversations come out of clause 34.
Shaun Bailey
Of course, although I am not a member of the Privy Council just yet.
Mark Logan
My hon. Friend’s exchange with the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby got me thinking. I am interested to hear from the Minister in his closing remarks on the clause about the financial implications of ensuring that we have competency in the industry. What assessments has his Department, or indeed the Department for Education or the Treasury, made? In the longer term, what benefits does he see the clause giving to UK plc on the long-standing issue that the UK has had with productivity, vis-à-vis some of our peer countries in the G7 and G20, for example?
Shaun Bailey
I am not sure whether the question was to me or to the Minister, but I will give my opinion, as I am sure the Minister will give his.
From my perspective—you are being very indulgent, Mr Efford, so thank you—what clause 34 does for productivity is to push the point on accreditation and on being sure that people have qualifications, so that a young person thinking about where to go hears, “Come to this trade, because you will get skills, qualifications and accredited.” I know from my communities that a lot of the time it is about how something is pitched or framed. If we want to attract young people into jobs and skills, we have to say what they will get from it. If a young person can get accredited and feel, “You know what, I have a qualification, and can take this further. I can move forward and go different places with it”, that is one way to deal with the productivity issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East said in his intervention. There are many other ways as well.
I was trying to articulate a point on the role of the Building Safety Regulator in setting industry competence. We have said throughout our deliberations on the subject of safety that we cannot see the BSR only as the executioner who comes in at the end, when it has all gone wrong. It cannot do that; it has to be leading the way—that is the key bit. That comes back to the point that I made before—my hon. Friend doubled down on it for me with his intervention—which is about ensuring that the link-in with the different stakeholders allows us to implement what is going on in clause 34—to ensure that the training bars are there, the levels are in place and we know where we start. When we train up the next generation of people for the construction industry, they need a clear idea of the knowledge base that is necessary.
Shaun Bailey
I will make a probably revolutionary point: I might be a Conservative MP but, yes, trade unions have a part in this—110%. The discourse with the trade unions is beneficial. I, too, have benefited from positive relationships with my trade unions when necessary. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Again, part of that is the holistic approach. That is the whole point of how the clause has been constructed. It allows us to be flexible and to have those ongoing conversations, which will be important in the implementation of the legislation. My right hon. Friend the Minister is listening intently and absorbing this—I am grateful to him for doing so—and he will pass it on to his officials, because to make the Bill effective we will have to be as broad brush as possible with engagement.
To conclude—I am sure many hon. Members are disappointed—clause 34 as drafted, as I said about clause 33, does something that is basic, which is that people who undertake a job of work should have the ability to do it. I hope I have articulated that in some way in my contribution, but as I have said, that will trigger a lot of further conversations. We need this to work. We need to ensure that the people undertaking the work on these high-risk developments—which we still need, because we have a housing shortage and we need to build more houses and more places for people to live—have the relevant qualifications. To that end, the secondary legislation, the guidance note, the approved document referred to by my right hon. Friend the Minister, and the competence standards being developed by the British Standards Institution, will all be important. We need to ensure that they are translated into a workable approach that brings together all the different stakeholders —we have discussed trade unions, further education providers and the industry more broadly—so that when 16, 17 or 18-year-olds decide to follow this profession as a career, they know what is expected of them. Speaking from my own experience, it can be odd when people do not know what the benchmark is.
Mark Logan
This might be a bit of a long shot, but if there is more competency among the young individuals going to firms, might that not lead to fewer cases of malpractice and, indeed, bankruptcy down the line? Some of my constituents in Bolton North East have had issues with builders who have gone out of business and then subsequently set up other companies. I would be interested to hear what my hon. Friend makes of that particular point.
Shaun Bailey
I shall answer briefly. I am not entirely sure whether clause 34 would address those issues. Malpractice is a business competency issue. In terms of the ability to undertake the work, clause 34 sets the base expectations, but I do not think it will solve all of that. To sum it up, clause 34 sets the base, and will, I think, trigger further conversations, similar to those we have had today. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for being open to those conversations, which he has very much listened to. I certainly await the approved document and the BSI’s intervention with great interest. Thank you, Mr Efford, for indulging me today.
Christopher Pincher
Having listened to the debate, I feel that both Whips on duty may be concerned by the outbreak of political amity that seems to have gripped the Committee, with Liverpool extending its hand across the Chamber to shake the hand of West Bromwich West. It is a sight to behold and is possibly not to be seen again any time soon. The debate on this clause has been a useful one. It demonstrates the importance of getting competency standards properly understood and properly driven up.
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale said that it is amazing that we are talking about the issue of competency now. He is, of course, quite right. It is surprising that, with Governments of different stripes and colours over the last 37 years, none have acted in a comprehensive way to deliver the sorts of outcomes that Grenfell has taught us that we need.
1984 was a long time ago. None of us, I think, would want to now wear the clothes that we were wearing back then. Some of us could probably not even get into them. It is right, therefore, that we should revise the Building Act 1984 to meet the challenges of today and recognise that competency is something that we should address in this Bill. That is what we are doing.
We believe, with due respect to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, that industry must lead the way to improve the competency of those working on higher-risk buildings, and, with Government support, that is what industry has been doing. The competency steering group and its sub-working groups published a report in October of last year.
The Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West has suggested, is sponsoring BSI to create a suite of national competency standards for high-risk buildings. They include core criteria for building safety in competence frameworks and a code of practice, which sets out key principles to be used by different sectors to develop their sector-specific competence frameworks. It also includes the competence standards for the principal designer and principal contractor.
As we heard in evidence and in the line-by-line scrutiny we undertook last week, the Health and Safety Executive is setting up an interim industry competence committee. That will be followed by the statutory industry competence committee within the Building Safety Regulator, to ensure that once the Bill is in force we support the industry to raise competency and contribute a pipeline of people for the new regulatory regime.
To answer some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, he is right that unions have an important role to play. We had a conversation a week or so ago, and I pointed out to him that the National House Building Council has opened a bricklaying school in my constituency, supported by Redrow. It cuts in half the time it takes for bricklayers to learn their skills, become competent at their profession and receive an appropriate qualification. That is an example of industry working together with third-party organisations to provide the skills, supported by the Government, to ensure that buildings are built properly and effectively.
As I said in my earlier remarks, building regulations currently have minimal provisions about how design and building work should be done. That is wrong and we wish to address that. It is our intention to deal with that through this clause, and I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
Lapse of building control approval etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
This clause replaces section 32 of the Building Act 1984, that bell-bottom flare and platform-shoe Act that we need to reform in order to make it more competent. I do not mean to be flippant, but we need to make it more appropriate to the modern day. This clause also amends section 52 and schedule 4 of the Act, to simplify the process under which a building control approval given by a building control authority, or an initial notice issued by a registered building control approver, or a public body’s notice, lapses if work has not started after three years.
The changes will bring the Building Act in line with how unused planning permissions lapse automatically after three years if work has not started. Currently, if work has not started after three years, a local authority can issue a notice that any plans approval issued for that work has no effect, or to cancel any initial notice that has been issued for that work.
Rather than placing the onus on the local authority to identify and take proactive action to issue a notice that the building control approval has no effect, or to cancel the notice, the new section 32, and amended sections 52 and schedule 4, allow for the approval or notices to lapse automatically. This simplifies the system and saves the local authority the administration of having to issue the notice of cancellation.
Christopher Pincher
It looks as if my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West is about to intervene, so I will pre-empt him by giving way.
Shaun Bailey
My right hon. Friend Minister might intend to touch on this—if so, I apologise for pre-empting him—but in the scenario of a multi-purpose development, could he clarify what would happen if a developer of builder had started work on one building in a multi-building development? Would that still lapse? I am conscious that that is a way in which the system might be gamed.
Christopher Pincher
If the buildings are connected, so to speak, they will be treated as one. The new provision also rules out any possibility of a developer seeking to game the situation by starting work on one building on a multi-building site and using that to allow the approved building control application, or its initial notice, to continue to have effect for the whole site, even if the site is not built out for many years. It is only for those individual buildings on which work has started that the approval or notice will not lapse; if work has not started, the approval or notice will lapse. This should have the benefit of encouraging sites to be built out more quickly as developers will want to avoid having to resubmit applications. The issue of build-out is raised by colleagues across the House in a wider context, and we may address it in that wider context in another place at another time. Under powers in the clause, we will define in building regulations when work can be considered to start. These amendments will apply in both England and Wales. They are important and sensible changes to simplify how the Act operates.
This is a small but important change, and I commend clause 35 to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
As stated, it is about time that the scenario is brought up to date with the current planning regime. I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts—this touches on the future conversations that we will undoubtedly have in this place—on whether, if the build-out has not occurred within three years, the response should be to say, “Use it or lose it”.
Christopher Pincher
Our approach—the House’s approach—should always be to make good and effective law. We are all concerned when permissions are granted, be they for tall buildings or smaller buildings, but build-out does not take place. There can be perfectly good and legitimate reasons for that, but there can be less good and less legitimate reasons. The challenge that we have in this Committee and in a broader context with respect to wider planning reform is to ensure that in encouraging build-out, we do not unintentionally create new ways in which those who wish to do so can game the system. Neither do we want unfairly to disadvantage small and medium-sized builders, and we certainly do not want to disadvantage self and custom-build contractors, or people adding an extension to their home.
We have to make sure that we get the regulations right. I think we have attempted to do that through the small change made in clause 35. I am very happy to work across the Floor more broadly, but hon. Members can be assured that we will attempt to do similarly when we bring forward our more substantive changes to planning reform in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.— (Scott Mann.)
Building Safety Bill (Seventh sitting)
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted, except for the water that is provided. I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give one another, and members of staff, space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Clause 22 stand part.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Christopher Pincher)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I welcome the Committee back to its deliberations.
Clause 21 allows the Building Safety Regulator to authorise individuals to exercise powers on the regulator’s behalf. However, before making an authorisation, the regulator must be satisfied that the individual being authorised is suitably qualified to exercise that role. This power is designed to enable the effective functioning of the Building Safety Regulator’s functions in respect of higher-risk buildings.
Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review found that the regulation of higher-risk buildings could be improved by bringing together Health and Safety Executive expertise, local authority building control expertise and fire safety expertise from fire and rescue services. As we have already discussed, clause 13 enables the Building Safety Regulator to secure the assistance of staff from local authorities and fire and rescue services in its work on higher-risk buildings.
This clause goes further and consolidates the independent review’s recommendation, allowing the regulator to authorise others, including officers of these bodies, to exercise powers on its behalf. Under its general powers, the Building Safety Regulator will also be able to secure expertise from the private sector to deliver building functions on higher-risk buildings. In certain circumstances, the regulator may want to authorise such individuals to exercise powers, and this clause enables that to be done. The regulator will be able to authorise such individuals only where they have been appropriately trained to exercise these powers.
As some individuals will have more competence and expertise than others, the Building Safety Regulator will have discretion to confer different sets of powers on different individuals. For example, one person might be authorised to make applications for search warrants because they have appropriate experience, whereas another might be authorised to do site visits and seize documents.
In practice, that could work as follows: the Building Safety Regulator may request assistance with building control matters from the local authority, which provides an appropriately trained building control expert to assist with the regulator. The building control expert could be given Building Safety Regulator powers to enter non-domestic premises with or without a warrant. However, the Building Safety Regulator may decide not to designate this individual with the power to enter domestic premises, on the grounds that they do not have the necessary experience and training to do so. Deciding to enter domestic premises requires a balance to be struck between a person’s right to privacy—the resident—and the public interest in making entry to obtain, for example, evidence of wrongdoing. Not all those working with the regulator will have the necessary experience and training to make such decisions.
The full list of powers available is set out in schedule 2, which I will now turn to in some further detail. With the introduction of new duties and new processes into the building control regime, authorised officers will play a significant role in ensuring compliance with the new regime. This schedule provides officers who have been authorised under clause 21 with a suite of powers to enable them to assist the regulator in carrying out its building functions. This includes powers of entry, inspection and collection of evidence that mirror existing powers used effectively under similar regulatory regimes, such as the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. These powers are designed to be flexible and to be useful in every situation that authorised officers may encounter.
To ensure proportionality, as with existing practice, warrants will be required to enter residential premises or any premises where it is expected to be necessary to use force to enter. If an application is made to a magistrate for a warrant to enter domestic premises, additional powers may be requested, where required. Those are powers, first, to use force to gain entry; secondly, to collect and take away evidence; or, thirdly, take other personnel—for example, experts—on to the premises.
Compliance with the requests of authorised officers will be integral in ensuring the effective functioning of the new regime and will avert potentially dangerous situations for residents. As such, authorised officers have been provided with the powers necessary to enforce compliance where required. Paragraph 8 of schedule 2 provides that failure to provide information upon request to authorised officers will be a criminal offence. Deliberately providing information to the regulator that is false or misleading, when required to provide information or in the other circumstances in the clause, is an offence under clause 23.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that establishing criminal offences of obstructing the regulator’s work solidifies the regulator’s position, which is vital in ensuring residents’ safety?
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend is quite right: we must ensure that every player in the design, development and construction of in-scope buildings recognises the importance and powers of the regulator and the penalties that may apply should any attempt be made to obstruct or impersonate it. The offences will carry a maximum custodial sentence of up to two years to provide an effective deterrent to non-compliance. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises the power and veracity of the penalty.
I hope that members of the Committee will agree that this clause is key in enabling the regulator to carry out its functions effectively, drawing on the expertise and involvement of local authorities and fire and rescue services.
Clause 22 makes it a criminal offence to obstruct or to impersonate an authorised officer of the Building Safety Regulator. Under clause 21 and schedule 2, authorised officers will play a significant role in exercising powers on behalf of the regulator. This clause is designed to protect authorised officers by ensuring that they are not impeded and that they—and, by extension, the Building Safety Regulator—can go about their business of keeping residents safe.
Clause 22 does that by deterring and, if necessary, enabling the punishment of those who seek to obstruct or impersonate authorised officers—behaviour that could severely disrupt or sabotage critical building functions. The difference in penalties for obstruction and impersonation are proportionate to the expected gravity of each offence, reflecting the greater intent required to impersonate an authorised officer. The penalties mirror existing penalties for obstructing or impersonating a police officer and reflect similar provisions protecting staff of other regulatory bodies such as the Food Standards Agency and the Financial Conduct Authority.
The two clauses are crucial components of building the regime of the Building Safety Regulator and I commend them to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.
As the Minister rightly said in his introduction, clause 21 ensures that appropriately trained individuals secure the involvement of local authorities, key stakeholders and fire and rescue teams in working with the Health and Safety Executive and the regulator.
The current definition of at-risk buildings is those of 18 metres and above. I have said throughout proceedings on the Bill that the scope of “at risk” should be broadened, and we will debate that under later clauses.
We welcome the recommendations, which draw on the findings of the independent review conducted by Dame Judith Hackitt.
How will the regulator ensure that individuals are appropriately trained and qualified under the framework? An example arose yesterday on social media of a resident living in a block in Bournemouth. The block was signed off by a previous employee of the council but it has been riddled with fire safety issues that we in this room and beyond are all familiar with. The individual has now set up as a private contractor, free to assess so-called fire safety issues in other at-risk buildings.
Clause 22 is straightforward, and we agree with it. Although it is beyond the Minister’s remit, a £1,000 fine for impersonation seems little deterrent, given the amount of money involved in building construction. As the Minister said, current levels of fines under the justice system for impersonating police officers will apply.
Shaun Bailey
It is a pleasure to be back on a Committee with you, Mr Efford, and to see you in the Chair. I shall keep my comments brief because my right hon. Friend the Minister articulated most of the relevant points in his customary clear manner. I do not want to be repetitious.
Clause 21 is positive. It reinforces the non-siloed approach that we need to take to building safety. The Building Safety Regulator has the ability to work with different agencies and ensure it can meet its goals. The ability to gain entry to buildings and ensure compliance is important. We discussed the issue last week and it was clear that safety has to be at the heart of this. We must ensure that the mechanism safeguards residents.
We also discussed last week the need to ensure that the regulator is not beholden to anyone—that it is independent. I was heartened by the comments made last week by my right hon. Friend the Minister about the regulator always being the independent voice, especially in its engagement with third parties to deliver the objectives in clause 21.
Clause 22 deals with the criminal offence element. As I said in my earlier intervention, it reinforces the role of the Building Safety Regulator. It says to the industry and to stakeholders, “You have to take this seriously. You cannot stop the regulator doing what it needs to do to keep people safe.”
The introduction of a level 3 fine seems proportionate, but I implore the Minister to use a degree of flexibility. As circumstances change, things might need to become a bit more severe. I hope not. I hope that the Bill will lead to a sea change in the environment we have seen hitherto. The fact that we have put obstruction of the regulator on a statutory footing will reinforce that.
I fully support the clauses and wish them well.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West and concur with his sentiment that we must ensure that the Building Safety Regulator has the flexibility to do its job properly and the enforcement powers to ensure that all players across the in-scope sector recognise the importance and veracity of those powers.
As we move through the Committee’s deliberations we may disagree on matters of scope, but I hope that as we build the Bill—clause by clause and schedule by schedule—the House, of which this Committee forms a part, and the sector will recognise the powers that we are creating for the Building Safety Regulator and the importance of the law.
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale asked a couple of questions about clauses 21 and 22. He will know—he has heard me say it before in this Committee—that it is the responsibility of the Building Safety Regulator to build multidisciplinary teams that include local authority resources, fire and rescue service resources and those of others. We believe that the duty on them to co-operate will ensure the right level and that the right skills and expertise are available to the regulator.
We are working closely with the Health and Safety Executive to identify appropriate training arrangements for authorised officers. The powers available to authorised officers are very similar to existing powers available to local authority building control, the HSE and so on. We do not believe that new and further training and skills will be required, but I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point about training.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned enforcement and penalties. We believe we have struck the right balance in the penalties that apply to the obstruction or impersonation of an authorised officer of the Building Safety Regulator. If he rereads the explanatory notes, he will see that impersonation of an enforcement officer acting on behalf of the Building Safety Regulator is subject to a fine not of £1,000, but to an unlimited fine. If someone were to obstruct the regulator or an enforcement officer, the fine is £1,000. We have created that differentiation because we want to make it clear that impersonating an enforcement officer is a much more grave offence than obstructing an officer, even though that is an important offence in itself.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I am interested in the point that the Minister is making and in how the penalties for obstructing and impersonating compare with those for obstructing and impersonating other officials.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. For example, if an authorised officer of the Building Safety Regulator is obstructed, a level 3 fine of £1,000 may be levied. That compares with a similar fine for obstructing a police officer. However, given the nature of policing, the warrants held by police officers and the threats and difficulties that police forces can sometimes encounter, it is also possible for one month’s imprisonment to be imposed on an obstructer of a police officer. We have tried to make sure that the penalties are proportionate, and I trust that the Committee will agree that they are.
Having said that, I trust the Committee will see that clause 21 and schedule 2 enable the Building Safety Regulator to carry out its functions effectively, drawing on the expertise and involvement of local authorities and fire and rescue services. Clause 22, which we have just debated, enables the punishment of those who seek to obstruct or impersonate authorised officers, and I hope that the Committee will agree that these are good and proportionate clauses. I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Provision of false or misleading information to regulator
Question proposed,That the clausestandpart of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
The Committee will see that there is a theme running through the clauses numbered 20-something. Clause 23 makes it an offence to provide false or misleading information to the Building Safety Regulator in circumstances specified in subsection (1). The Building Safety Regulator will have powers to make a number of individual regulatory decisions based on the information provided by duty holders. As such, the Building Safety Regulator’s decisions have a direct effect on the safety of residents in high-rise buildings. It is therefore essential that correct information is supplied to the regulator to ensure that the residents in the building are safe and that the proper and requisite requirements of building safety are adhered to. This power aims to deter the provision of any information that could impair the regulator’s decision-making capability.
The independent review recommended a stronger enforcement regime in line with the approach taken in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This offence carries a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and/or two years imprisonment, which mirrors the maximum sentence for the similar offence in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Again, that takes forward the recommendation in the independent review. The weighty custodial sentence in this provision seeks to provide a strong deterrent against the provision of false or misleading information. This is to preserve and promote the effective functioning of the Building Safety Regulator and the safety of the building and residents.
We will come on to clause 138, but it is worth referencing it in the context of clause 23. It will allow for any officer of the corporate body to be held responsible for the same offence if they participated in the offence in the ways set out in clause 138. However, it illustrates that there are similar and sufficient powers for the BSR to apply to corporate bodies, and that again mirrors the provisions in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. This goes above and beyond the current building safety enforcement regime and it creates a stronger incentive for those who are directing companies to provide accurate information to the BSR. I hope that the Committee will agree to the clause. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24>
Review by regulator of certain decisions made by it
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
I will speak first to clause 24. The Government support the independent review’s recommendation that the new regulatory system should have
“a clear and easy route of redress to achieve resolution in cases where there is disagreement”.
I suspect that, from time to time, there will be disagreements. We are committed to ensuring that, where disputes occur in relation to regulatory decisions, they are resolved as quickly as possible for all parties involved. Our fundamental and overriding objective is to make sure that buildings and the people in them are safe.
The Building Safety Regulator will make a significant number of regulatory decisions under the new legislation. The approach to any disputed decision will be two-staged: first, an internal review by the regulator and following that, if necessary, an appeal to the tribunal. It will be in both parties’ interest that an independent team within the regulator carry out an initial review of any disputed decision. This will ensure swifter resolution for both parties.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Minister has mentioned a two-tier approach, so will he clarify whether that will put lengthy delays into the whole process?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my hon. Friend for asking that question. The very reason for having a two-stage process and an initial stage is to try to make sure that disputes that can be resolved quickly are resolved quickly and to minimise the number of disputes that go to the first-tier tribunal. That can be a more lengthy process. Our objective is to move as swiftly as we can through any disputes. We believe that will be for the public good.
As I have just said to my hon. Friend, clause 24 provides the legal basis for a person affected by the Building Safety Regulator’s decisions to request to have that decision internally reviewed. In the initial years of operation, we expect that there will be a substantial number of requests for review owing to the natural adjustment required by all industry actors to the new regulatory regime. We expect, and we intend, the Building Safety Regulator to make every effort to resolve disputes at the internal review stage. We believe that will be the swiftest way of achieving resolution. The right of appeal to the courts remains because individuals will be able to appeal against a decision made on review to the tribunal if they think it is unsatisfactory.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
The Minister has mentioned appeals. Will he say more about what the Government are going to do to ensure that the regulator is transparent in those appeals and in the outcome of the reviews?
Christopher Pincher
We certainly want the system to be transparent and the outcome to be agreeable to both parties, so that things can be done as swiftly as possible. We certainly want to make sure that the right resources are made available to all parties to ensure that that can be done. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the importance of swift and transparent resolution.
As I have said, the right of appeal to the courts remains and if I give an example of how the system may work in practice, it may assist the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. Relevant duty holders may have submitted a full gateway-2 application with all its constituent parts. The Building Safety Regulator, however, finds some of these documents to be not compliant, so does not approve the application to enable construction to begin. The developer then lodges an appeal—an internal review—against the Building Safety Regulator’s decision within the period prescribed. The BSR then decides the most appropriate form of review and how comprehensive the review will be. If the developer is not content with the final decision of the regulator, they can appeal that decision to the first-tier tribunal. I might add that this clause is intended for certain types of regulatory decisions, such as the example of the refusal of a gateway application, but it does not include enforcement decisions, which will be appealable directly to the tribunal. The clause reflects our intention that, where disputes occur in relation to regulatory decisions, we want them to be resolved as rapidly as possible for all parties involved.
Where disputes regarding the regulator and its decisions occur, and given that the BSR will make a significant number of regulatory decisions, it is in all parties’ interests for them to be resolved in an expedient and expeditious manner. Clause 25 therefore specifies that a decision by the BSR, if disputed, must initially be reviewed by the regulator’s independent internal review procedure before an appeal can be lodged with the first-tier tribunal. The intention behind this clause mirrors that of clause 24, because it seeks to ensure swifter resolution for both the individual who has lodged the request and for the BSR by providing an alternative dispute resolution procedure. It is important that disputes are swiftly identified and rapidly resolved, we hope, to the satisfaction of all parties. We believe that the two clauses provide an expeditious set of methods, so I commend them to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
Again, we welcome the ability to request a review and the provision for a first-tier tribunal, which will create the necessary expertise going forward. The detail of quite a lot of the provisions is left to secondary legislation, so will the Minister expand on some of that? Would he also provide some clarity on the persons directly impacted and an example of when the regulator would intervene because it is not happy with the work carried out by the developer? In what circumstances could the developer apply for a review?
Siobhan Baillie
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am a lawyer, so I would say this, but I agree that it is super-important for disputes to be dealt with properly. That was a key plank of the Minister’s explanation of the clauses. I am also pleased that a right of appeal to the court remains, but I will be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government will ensure that the regulator reviews decisions and whether there has been any assessment of how long reviews can take. We know that the issues are incredibly complicated, so there should be some investigation into that now and an ability for the regulator to check their own homework and for us to do so too.
When a developer lodges an internal review against the Building Safety Regulator’s decision within the prescribed period, the explanatory notes to the Bill say:
“The Building Safety Regulator decides the most appropriate form of review and how comprehensive the review will be.”
If the developer is not content with the final decision of the BSR, it can appeal that decision to the first-tier tribunal and that is what we were discussing earlier. The thing that shone out for me when we heard from the witnesses, particularly those affected by building safety concerns in their own homes, was the lack of trust in a range of policies and the legislation. It is therefore incumbent on us all to create the trust so that those people are able to rely on what we are doing. We have talked about transparency in the dispute resolution process and that is obviously key, but I would like to know a little more about how we will ensure that good transparency runs through the disputes process.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for Weaver Vale. We are clear that the process should be as collaborative as possible. We want it to be fair and transparent. When disputes arise, we envisage that the first stage of that dispute will be an informal discussion between the parties. That is normally part of the process that the HSE employs in other examples. If there is an internal review and if that is followed by an appeal to a first-tier tribunal, all those discussions and decision points will of course be publicly aired in the normal way.
What we want fundamentally to ensure is that the BSR has the flexibility to do its job effectively and to build casework and a casebook of knowledge and expertise that it can then use in cases as they develop. That is one of the reasons why—to answer the question from the hon. Member for Weaver Vale about secondary legislation—we are employing statutory instruments largely through the affirmative procedure. That will give the Commons in Committee and in the full House the ability to scrutinise, debate and vote on the issues. Fundamentally, it allows us as the Government, on the recommendations and advice of the BSR, to improve legislation rather than write it into the Bill and thus require further primary legislation should we find that events and examples arise to require that. We are trying to be flexible.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The Minister talked about internal discussions and internal reviews and, if necessary, going to the first-tier tribunal, which he said ordinarily happens under the HSE. How long might that process take? How long does it normally take under the HSE? Will he address the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud about the need to build trust into the system?
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. It is true to say that the first-tier tribunal element of any dispute resolution procedure can take months before a hearing is held. The tribunal is a busy organisation. It can, indeed, take a little longer, depending on the nature of the case, for a decision to be handed down. That is why informal discussion and decision between the appellant and the Building Safety Regulator are sensible in resolving smaller disputes, particularly in the early stages of the regulator’s existence when there are likely to be a number of disputes and a body of casework by which internal dispute resolution will be conducted. The two-tier mechanism is the right way of ensuring swift dispute resolution, enabling all parties to get on with their work.
Daisy Cooper
I thank the Minister for his patience on this point.
I note from the Minister’s use of language that it is “anticipated” that most cases will be dealt with informally at an early stage and that only exceptional cases will go to the first-tier tribunal. Can he assure the Committee that in the event of many cases going to tribunal and lots of leaseholders getting caught up in this lengthy, slow and bureaucratic process he will consider intervening to bring in other mechanisms to speed up the resolution of disputes?
Christopher Pincher
Without making any firm and final commitment to the hon. Lady, and as I said to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale, one of the reasons we are using secondary legislation in the Bill is to provide the Government, of whatever colour and stripe, and on the advice of experts such as the Building Safety Regulator, with the ability to make changes to the operation of the legislation as the terrain develops. As I said during our deliberations last week, we committed during the covid emergency to increase the resources of the Health and Safety Executive. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to determine in the spending review the exact amount, but we have committed to ensuring that the BSR and associated bodies have the appropriate resources to do their work. We expect a material number of dispute cases to occur, at least initially as the regulator beds in. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Lady says.
I am grateful to the Committee for its questions and deliberation. Clause 24 aims to ensure that where disputes occur in relation to regulatory decisions, they can be resolved as quickly as possible, which is to the advantage of all parties involved.
Clause 25 ensures that disputed decisions must initially be reviewed by the regulator’s independent internal review procedure before an appeal can be lodged with the first-tier tribunal—again, to ensure that a degree of consistency and transparency runs through the BSR’s deliberations.
With those final remarks, I commend clauses 24 and 25 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Cooperation and information sharing
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
As the Committee will have heard me say earlier and, indeed, last week, the duty to co-operate is key to the approach that we are taking in the creation of the Building Safety Regulator and its powers.
At the centre of the Government’s strategy to implement our improvements to the building safety system is the setting up of the first national Building Safety Regulator. To deliver its functions effectively, it is vital that the Building Safety Regulator is empowered to work closely with other public bodies with responsibilities for building safety and standards and for dealing with residents’ concerns.
Clause 26 and schedule 3 will foster and enable that joined-up working in two ways. First, they will create statutory information-sharing gateways and duties to co-operate between the Building Safety Regulator and other public authorities that have statutory responsibilities for the safety and standard of buildings and for supporting residents. These powers will apply only to specific functions relevant to building safety and standards and supporting residents; they will never override data protection requirements.
To take a practical example, when regulating high-rise residential and other in-scope buildings, the Building Safety Regulator will typically set up a multidisciplinary team, including the local authority and the fire and rescue authority. The Bill creates legal information sharing gateways enabling the authorities expected to be represented in this multidisciplinary team to share intelligence about residents’ safety, and use it to co-ordinate their respective operational activity. It is entirely appropriate that this collaborative approach to regulation is supported by reciprocal duties to co-operate between the Building Safety Regulator and local authorities, and between the Building Safety Regulator and fire and rescue authorities. We are also taking this opportunity to provide legal clarity for local authorities and fire and rescue authorities so that they may share information about building safety and standards issues across all buildings.
Secondly, the Building Safety Regulator, certain ombudsmen and the Social Housing Regulator are all likely to receive numerous complaints and concerns from residents. The Government intend that these bodies should co-operate and work together to support residents. For example, if a resident of a high-rise residential building sends an urgent safety concern to an ombudsman to be investigated, these provisions enable the concern to be passed to the Building Safety Regulator as the body able to take action.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
The Minister mentions the duty to co-operate between the Building Safety Regulator and other regulators, and the information-sharing gateways. Will he tell us a little more about that, and why ombudsmen and the Building Safety Regulator will need to work together?
Christopher Pincher
The reason is that it is entirely possible that a resident who has concerns will send them to an ombudsman, even though the Building Safety Regulator is the appropriate repository of that concern.
Shaun Bailey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being incredibly generous in taking interventions. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for St Albans mentioned ensuring efficiency in the broader process. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that by enabling data sharing we can ensure that concerns and complaints are addressed by the appropriate person? More importantly, it brings expediency to the process so that, if necessary, intervention by the regulator can be timely and a resolution can be found.
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Underlying our approach is the need to ensure an efficient and expeditious method of information sharing, whereby resolution is achieved.
It is also possible that, with effective information sharing, it will be possible over time for the Building Safety Regulator to understand the data flows between concerned residents and itself. The regulator will understand why information goes to ombudsman A or ombudsman N rather than to the regulator, and that will enable it and its multidisciplinary agencies better to communicate to involved parties what the correct and therefore most expeditious route to data sharing should be. By sharing data, everything can occur more quickly and people can be better informed.
Schedule 3 contains regulation-making powers enabling the creation of limited further information sharing gateways and duties to co-operate. For example, if evidence necessitated a change to the scope of the higher-risk regime, such that it proved essential that the Building Safety Regulator co-operated and shared information with further regulators, it is appropriate that regulations enable this.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for taking my intervention. Schedule 3 clarifies information-sharing powers on building safety and standards between local authorities and fire and rescue services. Will he provide further information on how personal and confidential data is to be managed appropriately?
Christopher Pincher
We certainly do not want inappropriate data to be shared. As I said earlier, these powers and data-sharing rights relate specifically to the work in hand of the Building Safety Regulator. They do not override ordinary data privacy rules and requirements. We shall certainly—as this House will want to—monitor that that data is used appropriately.
Given the potential significance of new duties to co-operate and of information-sharing gateways, any regulations creating them will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In a Committee of the House—if necessary, on the Floor of the House—therefore, there will be an opportunity to debate and vote on them.
Placing duties to co-operate and powers to share information on a statutory footing will encourage collaborative working to improve building standards and to ensure resident safety. That will all be done as expeditiously and transparently as possible. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
We support the clause and the schedule. They are pragmatic, common sense and based on learned experience—the experience of those who were ringing alarm bells for a considerable number of months with regards to Grenfell and other tragedies before that. The evidence is crystal clear: people being passed from pillar to post and information being lost and in some cases hidden from key stakeholders. Strengthening the provisions and the regulatory regime is most welcome. In 2018, I noted, Kensington and Chelsea was again found wanting by the Information Commissioner—on withholding information about building safety in Grenfell. The Minister was right, as were others in all parts of the Committee, about building trust in the new regulatory regime. That is vital.
Shaun Bailey
I feel that my contribution might be slightly repetitive, given the broad agreement on the clause in Committee.
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale was right that the clause is pragmatic. He was spot on when he said it is about rebuilding trust in the processes. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, I trained as a lawyer and I know the frustration when bodies do not share information with one another. We have to remember—the hon. Member for St Albans picked up on this in her interventions—we are dealing with people who do not understand the systems, but will have to access them. After looking at the array of information, should someone send their concern or query to the wrong body—unaware that they had done so—we have to ensure that it is still actioned. We are dealing with situations and problems that impact on people’s lives: this is about the safety of individuals in their homes. Where that happens, we have to ensure that seamless sharing of information and co-operation between the agencies—the clause does that.
It is also right for those organisations to co-operate with one another. As we touched on last week in our deliberations, we cannot have a siloed approach. Organisations have to communicate and work together. We have to build a structure within the legislative framework that not just enables that, but to a degree ensures it happens and almost makes it the default that they have to share information, because that is the system in which they find themselves—so there is no way they can avoid doing so.
That being said, the proof of how this will work is in how it is delivered operationally. What will be vital for the regulator to do and for my right hon. Friend the Minister to work on is to ensure that the operational delivery works, that the systems are there to allow that to happen and that the communications are there, that agencies are talking to one another and we have computer systems that do not just fall down at the first moment, but can operate. Once the system becomes operational, I will be looking at how it functions.
I am heartened to see an emphasis on data privacy. We have to get the balance right. Ultimately, we are dealing with personal data. We still need to ensure the right of individuals to have their personal data safeguarded, and their right to remain anonymous, where necessary, is also important. We must ensure that data is dealt with appropriately.
It is right to handle the situation by putting a duty on the different stakeholders. The way we have had to deal with these horrendous issues has been through a multifaceted, multi-stakeholder approach, so we are going to have to build networks. As is often the case, when the networks are built, there is then pressure to ensure that operational delivery works.
I support the clause and am heartened to see what is in schedule 3. We have to ensure that the clause can deliver, and it will be for my right hon. Friend the Minister, his ministerial colleagues and the civil servants to ensure that can happen. If the clause delivers and we ensure that it works, we will have a seamless system that people trust, and people will know that if they have concerns, they will be addressed.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. For me, this is about funding, as it was last week. We go back to delivery. As the hon. Gentleman says, this is absolutely and intrinsically about the safety of the people we are talking about, but without the funding for the organisations he mentioned—the fire authorities and the councils—it will fall down. Will the Minister ensure that the correct funding is ring-fenced for the organisations to be able to ensure the safety that is required for the people in the buildings?
Shaun Bailey
The hon. Gentleman touches on a really important point. I have a couple of points to address it. Last week, we heard from the Minister that there would be, broadly speaking, a new deal for funding. We also have to look at the procurement mechanisms that are used, in which I have a particular interest. They are really important and must be well scrutinised. We must use the procedures available in this place to ensure that that is done properly.
I was very heartened by what my right hon. Friend the Minister said last week on funding. As Members of this place, we have to ensure, in the ways we do as Back-Bench Members, that he follows through. I have found in the two years I have served as a Member of this place that funding is one thing, but making sure it is used effectively—not just properly—is another. One way to ensure that the organisations to which we say, “Right, build me a system,” can do that is to have the guidance in place, if, for example, we are talking about the systems that will have to be developed. The fire authorities’ primary function is to protect people. They are not whizz kids at building IT systems. We need to ensure that there is a method by which that could be done.
Equally, as I am sure the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby will agree, local authorities have many different duties. I think of my own local authority, Sandwell. It could have one department doing four things at the same time. They have to prioritise. They cannot be procuring systems at the same time as dealing with building safety. There has to be a way.
The clause has triggered a broader conversation. I want to stay within scope and I do not want to stray too far, but when we think about how we ensure co-operation, clause 26 highlights that there are broader discussions about ensuring that is done in the right way. I do not disagree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby on funding. The Minister touched on that last week. Let us see how that goes, and scrutinise it. Ultimately, it is about processes working.
This is the right clause. Sharing data and information will be important, but it is about ensuring that that can be done properly and that the systems are there. I am absolutely sure that my right hon. Friend will do his best to ensure that that happens in the best way possible.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West and other members of the Committee for their contributions. As a former IT professional, I spent 18 years implementing IT systems, so I will certainly not commit to this Committee or beyond that all the IT that the HSE and its associated bodies may use will work optimally all of the time. However, we certainly want the Building Safety Regulator to work optimally all of the time.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West mentioned the importance of the propriety of data and its use. We want to ensure that data and information can be shared effectively even if they are sometimes of a confidential nature where residents’ safety is concerned. The Bill allows certain public bodies to share information with the Building Safety Regulator, but it does not require them to do so. The ombudsman, of whichever source or nature, will be able to make decisions about what information to share based upon individual circumstances. When, for example, it appears that lives are at risk, we believe that it appropriate that the information could be shared with the Building Safety Regulator. That is why the shadow Building Safety Regulator in the Health and Safety Executive has already started to work with other public bodies to identify the sorts of detailed safeguards that will be required to ensure that personal information is appropriately protected, while issues that might pertain to risk to life are also fully understood so that data are properly and proportionately shared.
Shaun Bailey
I am incredibly grateful to my right hon. Friend; he is being generous in allowing me to intervene. Given his expertise as an IT specialist, does he not agree that one of the key things that we must do across Government when we implement these systems is take a lessons-learned approach? Will he assure me that he has looked in detail at some of the previous occasions when we have tried to implement such systems and that he will ensure that his officials will take away the lessons so that we can support the agencies in the most effective way possible as we set up the system?
Christopher Pincher
Once again, my hon. Friend flatters me in his description of my expertise. I have certainly had some experience of IT programmes in the context of Government that have gone awry. The national IT programme, Connecting for Health, is just one example. I certainly agree to keep a gimlet eye open on the way IT is deployed in this and other circumstances while still recognising the operational independence of the agency and the Building Safety Regulator.
My hon. Friend is right to ask for lessons learned. That segues nicely into the point made by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale when he talked about the importance of learned experience in the context of Grenfell. He is right. That is one of the reasons we want to make sure that the Building Safety Regulator and the associated multi-disciplinary teams have the flexibility to learn. Again, that is why we want to use effectively secondary legislation and regulations rather than primary legislation so that there is the flexibility to build the new authority.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the challenges of withholding information, and I refer him back to clauses 22 and 23 when we dealt with that issue and made it very clear that withholding information is a grave offence that can be punishable by a fine. He is right also to stress the importance of trust and flexibility. Again, that is a reason why we want to build the multi-disciplinary teams so that the BSR can co-operate with other expert parties. That will help to build the confidence of residents in high-rise blocks as well as that of developers, large and small, and those involved in the construction industry that there is the appropriate degree of co-operation and trust.
Mike Amesbury
There are a number of live applications to the building safety fund, and this is a practical plea on behalf resident leaseholders that many in the Committee will be familiar with. The information on progress is not being shared, and that is a genuine building safety issue that causes considerable anxiety. It has been raised on the Floor of the House, and it is relevant to the discussion that we are having now. It is a practical plea that many residents and leaseholders up and down the country have raised.
Christopher Pincher
I shall expand a little on the scope of this debate to answer the hon. Gentleman very briefly. He will know that we have put aside £1 billion of public money for the building safety fund, and a significant amount has now been disbursed. If there are specific examples of challenges around information being shared or the speed of delivery being effective, I will be happy to look at them.
In summary, clause 26 and schedule 3 will empower the Building Safety Regulator to work closely with other public bodies with responsibilities for building safety and standards. They will encourage collaborative working to improve building standards and ensure residents’ safety.
I am very grateful for the contributions that we have heard from across the Committee but, before I conclude, I should refer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby who asked about resources. He will know from our deliberations last Thursday that I made it clear that we have increased the resources available to the Health and Safety Executive by 10% of its total budget during the covid emergency. We have also committed to make sure that the Building Safety Regulator is appropriately funded. That is a matter for the spending review, but we have also—he will have seen this as we have progressed through the Bill—put in place clauses that will allow the Building Safety Regulator to charge and levy fees on appropriate parties to ensure that cost can be recovered. I hope that will give him some assurance that we have at the forefront of our minds appropriate funding to ensure that the Building Safety Regulator can do its work.
I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 27
Fees and Charges
Christopher Pincher
I beg to move amendment 7 in clause 27, page 14, line 24, after “fee” insert “or charge”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment 8 and clause 27 stand part.
Christopher Pincher
Let me begin by speaking to amendments 7 and 8. They are minor and technical, and they align the language on the charging powers in clauses 27 and 56—the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby will be taking close note—by inserting additional references to charges alongside fees. We will say more about that in future. The intention is to avoid any unintended ambiguities or inconsistencies in the charging provisions created by the Bill. The context is that clause 27 contains important provisions enabling the Secretary of State to introduce regulations that enable the Building Safety Regulator to charge.
Charging powers are necessary to deliver Dame Judith’s recommendations in the independent review that the regulator should charge, and to put the regulator on a sound financial footing. The amendments ensure that there is no ambiguity that regulations under clause 27 can allow the Building Safety Regulator to make charges as well as levy fees. Charges are a slightly broader concept than fees, because fees typically relate to a service. Someone provides me with a service, so I pay them a fee. A charge could go wider by covering additional activities, such as regulatory interventions needed to bring the regulated party back into compliance with the regime. The recommendations of the independent review indicated that where possible, regulated parties should bear the cost when their behaviour results in additional regulatory activity. When the regulated parties have caused such activity, they should potentially bear the cost. We therefore want the Bill to allow charges that meet the recommendations of the independent review to be applied. Fees and charges provided for in regulations under clause 27 will of course remain within the bounds set by “Managing Public Money”.
Let me turn now to clause 27 itself. The Government are committed to ensuring that the Building Safety Regulator receives the funding required to enable it to deliver.
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Gentleman is attempting to lead me down a path that I suspect he will return to later in the Committee’s deliberations. As I said, we want to ensure that should a regulated party engage in behaviour that results in additional activity for the regulator, the regulator should be able to charge. I will confine my answer to that very specific set of grounds.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
It is great to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Will the Minister explain a little more how leaseholders will be protected from unfair charging in relation to regulator fees?
Christopher Pincher
Yes, of course. Let me be really clear—we will discuss the building safety charge specifically in future deliberations—that we certainly do not want such costs to be passed on to individual residents or leaseholders. The point of the clause is to ensure that where regulatory activity is required by the Building Safety Regulator as a result of an identified party’s actions, that identified party pays for the cost. That certainly should not be passed on to leaseholders or other residents.
Shaun Bailey
I am incredibly grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; his characteristic generosity is shining through. I do not wish to lead him astray, but I am conscious of the broader spirit of what we are debating. We have just deliberated over clauses that talk about fines and sanctions. Will my right hon. Friend consider using the funds raised from that, and ensuring that they can be fed through to the regulator? I am sure he will agree that when it comes to funding, a holistic approach is a good way to ensure that we can maximise the resources this vital regulator needs.
Christopher Pincher
I will make some remarks about that as I advance through my speech on clause 27, but we certainly want to make sure that the Building Safety Regulator can recover associated costs from the regulated parties involved.
The independent review recommended that the regulator for buildings in scope of the new and more stringent regulatory regime should fully recover its costs from those it regulates. The recommendation reflected that duty-holders who require the most intervention by the Building Safety Regulator should pay more. The principle of charging within the building safety regulatory system is not new. Local authorities can already charge for building control work under the Building Act 1984, as can approved inspectors. The Bill needs to enable the charging of fees by the Building Safety Regulator, both to implement the independent review’s recommendation and to put the Building Safety Regulator on a firm financial footing.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
May I say once again what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford? My right hon. Friend mentioned the independent review’s recommendation that the regulator for higher risk buildings be funded by this full-cost recovery approach. Can the Minister explain why the Building Safety Regulator is going to charge fees and how those fees compare with those of other regulators?
Christopher Pincher
The Building Safety Regulator will charge fees in the normal way, and there will be a mechanism to levy that charge on an identified party. It will be the identified party’s responsibility to pay in the normal way. The fees are consistent with the sorts of fees that are paid through other regulatory mechanisms that local authorities, for example, employ, too. That comes with the caveat that we want to ensure that full-cost recovery is achieved by the Building Safety Regulator, so the charges will rather depend what the costs are. I trust that if there are charges for additional regulatory activity on the part of the Building Safety Regulator, it is in the interests of the identified parties not to cause that additional regulatory activity. That is another means of ensuring that everybody behaves appropriately.
Clause 27, alongside clause 56, provides the legal basis for the charging of fees by the Building Safety Regulator. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising the Building Safety Regulator to charge fees and recover charges from those it regulates.
Christopher Pincher
As I wish to maintain my 100% record of interventions, I will give way on this occasion.
Christopher Pincher
We will discuss the building safety charge in later clauses. I will make it absolutely clear at that point how appropriate costs may be passed on to leaseholders, what the caps are and what it is not appropriate to pass on, such as the examples I am giving here.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Lady.
The clause enables regulations to be drafted to allow fees to be charged for the Building Safety Regulator’s general functions in part 2 of this Bill, its functions regulating the higher-risk buildings in occupation and its functions under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The Government’s approach will ensure that fees and charges are appropriate. In line with the principles set out in “Managing Public Money”, the Building Safety Regulator will not make a profit on fees and charges for its regulatory activities. They are merely a means of cost recovery.
Setting out fees in secondary rather than primary legislation and allowing the Building Safety Regulator to put certain details in a charging scheme will ensure that fees can change over time. I hope that helps to address the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw asked.
Initially, the Building Safety Regulator will have to use assumptions to develop fees, but once set up it is standard practice for a public body setting a fee for cost recovery to recalculate fees based on actual experience. This allows the regulator to learn from experience and change the way it charges fees over time to ensure they are both effective in recovering the appropriate amount of money, and proportionate and fair to those charged. Making provision for fees in regulations allows for regular scrutiny of proposed charges through consultation and, importantly, by Parliament. To deliver the recommendations of the independent review and put the Building Safety Regulator on a firm financial footing, we expect that the regulator will charge the accountable person for regulating their actions under part 4.
We will have an opportunity to debate all the issues about which costs the accountable person should fairly be capable of passing on to leaseholders when we come to part 4. However, I will briefly reassure the Committee that part 4 of the Bill ensures that any costs associated with enforcement action by the Building Safety Regulator or resulting from any negligent or unlawful act by the accountable person cannot be passed on to leaseholders through the building safety charge, so the potential costs we are talking about in the clause cannot be passed on to a leaseholder in that way.
That safeguard provides a financial incentive for the accountable person to do the right thing, as I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, because the accountable person will bear the Building Safety Regulator’s costs when it has to tackle serious failures. The Government are working closely with the Health and Safety Executive to develop these proposals, building on its strong track record of successfully delivering cost recovery regimes—a track record that dates back to 1975, so it has some 46 years of experience.
The Health and Safety Executive rightly aims for the Building Safety Regulator to become a world leader in its field and to share best practice and expertise with international partners on a commercial basis. That is another means by which some funds can be raised. Subsection (6) enables the Secretary of State to approve commercial charging by the Building Safety Regulator. This power will be used only with the consent of the Secretary of State and in line with Government guidance on charging.
We believe the clause is vital to ensuring that the Building Safety Regulator has the funding required to enable it to do its critical work, that the accountable parties do the right thing and that any costs associated with these clauses are not passed on to leaseholders or residents through the building safety charge. I commend the clause and the amendments to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister. The amendments are a tidying-up and technical exercise that we quite naturally support. I heard what the Minister said about fees and charges, and obviously there have been a number of questions about those fees and charges potentially being passed on to leaseholder residents. I know that where there is a regulatory failure, and fees and charges are passed on to the accountable person, those cannot—I am seeking clarity on this one—be passed on to leaseholders. Is that the same for service charges as well?
Shaun Bailey
This might seem quite a technical clause and set of amendments, but it is an important one. I speak as the Member for the 14th most deprived borough in the country. I am conscious that we have to strike a balance, and I was quite reassured by what my right hon. Friend the Minister said.
Starting from the beginning, it is not uncommon for bodies to charge fees in respect of their activities, where necessary, and in particular bodies that exercise a function such as the regulator. In a way, clause 27 and the accompanying amendments are not uncommon in the nature of what we are discussing. The broader point, which has been made by Members on both sides of the Committee, is that we have to ensure proportionality. That was the key point made by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale.
We need to find a way to ensure that the regulator itself is financially stable and can carry out its work properly; it has to be able to undertake tasks that will be so important in keeping residents safe, and in ensuring that the industry knows it is being regulated and watched. A lot of the detail will be set out in secondary legislation, and it will be incumbent on all of us across the Committee to grasp the detail of that to ensure that it is done in the right way. I think of the leaseholders in my constituency who would not be able to afford ridiculous levels of service charge; it would not strike them as proportionate. However, there is clearly a balance to strike.
I listened to the intervention from the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston. She is a distinguished former council leader, and at some point she will have had to make decisions about what to charge for council services. It is difficult, when leading a public body, to decide how to balance those charges with the needs of the public. I do not envy anyone in that situation. Ultimately, we all agree that we want to deliver a public service in the way that has the least impact on the livelihoods of the people trying to use it. They are taxpayers too; they want to feel that they receive that public service when they pay their taxes.
Clearly, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has articulated, the key principle is ensuring that the regulator can carry on. What I am trying to express to my right hon. Friend—something that he has articulated in his contributions—is the need to be open-minded in terms of how that operates. We all accept that there has to be a fee-charging regime, but we have to ensure that it is proportionate and accepts the fact that the people at the right end of that are leaseholders and residents, and those are the people we are here to protect and serve. We need to make sure there is the right balance. I get the impression from the contributions made from across the Committee that there is acceptance that this has to be done. It is probably broadly agreed that the methods proposed in the clause are the way we need to do this but, as with much of our deliberation of the Bill thus far, the detail will come afterwards in the secondary legislation.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution and for the interest that the Committee has taken in this clause. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale asked about service charges, which are a well-established regime separate from the one that we are discussing here. I can reassure him on the question of costs. We recognise that the costs of the regulator will be a small fraction of the building safety charge and we will discuss that in greater detail under the appropriate clauses. To reiterate my earlier point, the Bill ensures that fees associated with breaches of the new regime can never be passed on to leaseholders. That is to ensure that the accountable person pays the costs of the wrongdoing and not the leaseholder. I hope that that is clear.
Clause 27 provides the legal basis for the charging of fees by the Building Safety Regulator, which is vital to ensuring that it has the funding required to enable it to deliver its critical work. Government amendments 7 and 8 ensure that there is no ambiguity about regulations under this clause allowing the Building Safety Regulator to make charges to identify parties as well as fees. I commend amendments 7 and 8, with clause 27, to the Committee.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Amendment made: 8, in clause 27, page 14, line 25, leave out “to be or” and insert “or charge to be”.—(Christopher Pincher.)
Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Service of documents
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
Clauses 28 and 29 are quite short, and concern how documents will be validly served by the Building Safety Regulator. Clause 28 is a technical provision, setting out how documents will be validly served, whether physically or electronically, on and by the regulator, in connection with its functions under parts 2 and 4 of the Bill.
It may assist the Committee if I point out that service of documents under the Building Act 1984, as amended by part 3 of the Bill, is dealt with in section 94 of that Act. Section 94 is itself amended by paragraph 58 of schedule 5 to the Bill, to modernise it and take account of the regulator’s role as a building control authority. We are amending an amendment to another Bill. The effective provisions of clause 28 essentially mirror what is already in the Building Act, but updated to reflect changes in practice since 1984.
Turning briefly to clause 29, this provides key definitions used in part 2 of the Bill, and provides for a specific place within part 2 as a helpful index of the terms contained within it.
Christopher Pincher
Without pressing the Committee further, I shall conclude my remarks there and commend it to the Chamber. The hon. Lady may wish to make a speech.
The Chair
If you put it in the form of a speech, then I am sure the Minister will have the courtesy to respond to you.
Mike Amesbury
Again, we have moved on considerably since 1984. If we take our minds back to 1984—I notice that some probably cannot—we have since seen the development of emails and various other things. This certainly brings those provisions up to date, with the narrative descriptions contained in clause 29. I will give way to my hon. Friend and colleague.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank my hon. Friend, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I wanted to pursue the question, which I raised with the Minister last week, on the definition of a residential building. Is it anywhere where one sleeps overnight—whether temporary, permanent, or one’s sole residential home? I listed a series of residential spaces that do not come under the definition of a normal tenancy or leasehold property, such as student accommodation, other forms of residential licences, hotels, guest houses, and so on. I wondered whether my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale could pursue this with the Minister in his contribution, referring to subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) of clause 29.
Mike Amesbury
I thank my colleague for her intervention. I am fairly confident that the Minister will oblige by furnishing her with an answer, if not now then soon.
Shaun Bailey
I am sure that many on the Committee are wondering what on Earth I could have to say about the service of documents. I would, of course, have given way to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth. I was hoping to rise to put an important question to the Minister, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale was able to help the hon. Lady.
I know this is an incredibly technical clause, but I speak from some painful experiences around service of documents in my previous life. While it might seem straightforward and we look at the clause and think, “OK, fair enough. It is very prescribed and descriptive”, I must say that having explained how service of documents works to numerous people, that is not the case.
My right hon. Friend the Minister articulated incredibly well how it will function. On the face of it, it is straightforward. We look at subsection (2) on how documents may be given and think, “OK, that seems pretty straightforward to me”. I implore him—I hope I am not going astray, Mr Efford, but I am sure you will tell me if I am—that we must ensure this is communicated to the people who will be utilising it. These are people who may not have a lot of experience of how documents are served. They are not doing this all day, every day. From my past life, I know the pain of having people who do not have the experience and are trying to do this themselves, and it causes issue after issue.
One thing that may come out of this, which touches on some of my previous comments, is around the idea of data share and co-operation. Without sounding flippant, the documentation we served and the information that would be exchanged using the process will be an important part of a vital regulatory process. It is vital that we ensure that is communicated as clearly as possible and the individuals who use the processes laid out in clause 28 understand how that operates. I do not want to see circumstances where legitimate problems and concerns are delayed because of a misunderstanding or issue with the process.
I reiterate my concern that if we do not ensure the provisions of clause 28 are translated down in a usable way to individuals, we run the risk of processes we have built up to now and have deliberated in previous clauses not being as effective as we would like.
I am glad that the clause understands that times have moved on. Gone are the days when things were couriered round. Email has been revolutionary. I remember from my professional life having to run round to another firm’s office to serve stuff. I was the junior so I made tea and served documents.
I am happy to see an understanding that the provision can be amended under subsequent regulations too. We have to be conscious that time and technology moves on, and we must ensure the process can continue and still function as things progress. While this may seem to be a very technical clause—I hope I have answered the question as to why on Earth I am speaking on this particular point—it underpins the importance of this process. Ensuring that the service of documents is done in a clear way and that those who utilise the process, from the large corporations down to the individual, understand how it functions properly will be key to ensuring that everything we have done up until now functions appropriately. I am heartened by the Minister’s contribution and he was very clear. I am glad to see that, as with most clauses in the Bill, there is a degree of flexibility in clause 28, and it is a vital part of this important Bill.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West. Let me assure him that it is our intention through the clause to ensure that neither he nor anyone else has to jump on their moped and serve papers in a rather more 1984 way than they may ordinarily have to, given that now, as the hon. Member for Weaver Vale rightly identifies, email and modern methods of communication allow for a much more speedy and clear way of serving documents. We want to ensure that the law reflects that.
On the questions raised by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth about in-scope buildings, I do not want to stray on to other amendments and clauses unduly, but let me to try to help her by reminding her of what I said last week. In-scope buildings are high-rise residential properties of seven storeys, or 18 metres, or more. Other in-scope buildings include care homes of the requisite threshold and student accommodation, for example, because we have said that such properties need to have two or more dwellings. She offered a list of other potential properties. I think she mentioned hotels, which are covered by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, and which tend to have a number of entrances and exits, and fire doors. Equally, prisons are covered by the 2005 order. I think there are seven immigration centres in the country, and none of them meets the height threshold that we have set out.
We have tried in all circumstances to act in a proportionate way that follows the advice and direction given to us by the independent review and Dame Judith Hackitt’s 53 recommendations. That does not, of course, preclude future changes to the Building Safety Regulator’s responsibilities. We have outlined how that may be done, and I am sure that we will go on, in further clauses, to do more of that. I hope that gives the hon. Lady some clarity on her question, which she managed, if I may say—tongue in cheek—to shoehorn into this clause. It is a skill not unknown to many of our other colleagues. I think that you have been guilty of that, Mr Efford—or rather, you have demonstrated the skill—in another context.
I remind the Committee that the clause essentially mirrors one that is already in the Building Act 1984. It updates it to reflect the changes in practice, as well as technology, since 1984, while clause 29 defines key definitions used in part 2 of the Bill, which we will further come to. They are technical clauses, which have none the less generated some interesting and, if I may say so, skilful debate, and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Scott Mann.)
Nationality and Borders Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 21st September 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesNationality and Borders Act 2022 View all Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 September 2021 - (21 Sep 2021)
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before we begin, I have a couple of preliminary announcements. I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Any doubt about that, please ask the Clerk at the end. We must ensure that Hansard gets the notes. Please ensure that all your mobile phones are switched to silent. I remind Members that tea and coffee are not allowed in Committee. If you want to have coffee, you have to go outside the Committee Room. Date Time Witness Tuesday 21 September Until no later than 11.25 am British Red Cross Tuesday 21 September Until no later than 2.45 pm Immigration Services Union; Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants Tuesday 21 September Until no later than 3.15 pm Derbyshire Police Tuesday 21 September Until no later than 4.00 pm Kent County Council; Westminster Council Tuesday 21 September Until no later than 4.30 pm Fortinus Global Ltd Tuesday 21 September Until no later than 5.15 pm National Crime Agency Thursday 23 September Until no later than 12.15 pm Migration Watch Thursday 23 September Until no later than 12.45 pm The Hon George Brandis QC; High Commissioner for Australia to the United Kingdom Thursday 23 September Until no later than 2.30 pm United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Thursday 23 September Until no later than 3.15 pm Siobhán Mullally, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons; Dame Sara Thornton, Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner Thursday 23 September Until no later than 4.00 pm Refugee Council; Refugee Action; Women for Refugee Women Thursday 23 September Until no later than 5.00 pm EPCAT; European Network on Statelessness; Immigration Law Practitioners Association
Today, we will consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider the motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and the motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral sessions begin. In view of the time available, I would like to take those matters formally. I have discussed it with the Minister and he agrees. I call him to move the programme motion standing in his name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.25 am on Tuesday 21 September) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 21 September;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 23 September;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 19 October;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 21 October;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 26 October;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 28 October;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 2 November;
(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 4 November;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 8; Schedule 1; Clauses 9 to 21; Schedule 2; Clauses 22 to 26; Schedule 3; Clauses 27 to 39; Schedule 4; Clauses 40 and 41; Schedule 5; Clauses 42 to 71; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 4 November.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
On a point of order, Sir Roger. On the initial list of witnesses there were some Home Office officials. On the present list, there are no Home Office officials, which makes it much harder for the Opposition to scrutinise the Bill. We had certain questions that we wished to pose to Home Office officials. I put it on the record that they were initially on the list of witnesses but are no longer there.
The Chair
That is not strictly a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the usual channels. That should be discussed between the Government and Opposition Whips. I had better ask for the relevant parties to do that privately, and to have a conversation with you. It is not something, I am afraid, that I can adjudicate, but you have made your point. The opportunity to discuss it was at the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday, where it should properly have been raised. It was not raised on that occasion.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Further to that point of order, Sir Roger. I may have raised it had the Programming Sub-Committee started at the time it was supposed to start. I arrived yesterday a minute before the start time, and the sub-committee had finished its work. I was going to make the point that Government witnesses had disappeared. We have now lost a couple of hours, and the opportunity for other witnesses to give evidence. I wanted to put it on the record that I was disappointed not to be able to make that point yesterday.
The Chair
The sub-committee was quorate when it started yesterday. Members are expected to be there in a timely fashion. I think that I am right in saying that we started on the nose of the time at which we were supposed to start. I take your point, but again it is a matter for the usual channels, not the Chair.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Tom Pursglove.)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public, and proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interests in connection with this Bill? Then, as a matter of record, there are no declarations of interest.
Good morning, Mr Featonby. We will now hear oral evidence from Jon Featonby, who is the policy and advocacy manager for refugees and asylum at the British Red Cross. Before calling Mr Charalambous to ask the first question, I remind Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we have to stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. As such, we have just under one hour for this session, until 11.25 am. Mr Featonby, I have introduced you, but could you please introduce yourself for the record?
Jon Featonby: I am Jon Featonby. I am the policy and advocacy manager for refugees and asylum at the British Red Cross.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed for taking the trouble and the time to join us this morning.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Jon Featonby: I will start off by saying that as the British Red Cross, we very much welcome this opportunity to give evidence to the Committee today, but the short answer to that question is that we do not think the Bill is going to meet those objectives at all. To build on that a bit, we take that from our role as the largest independent provider of advice and support to refugees and people seeking asylum in the UK. We work with around 30,000 people each year in all four countries of the UK, supporting people throughout the asylum process, from when they first enter it to when they get decisions, and in making decisions about what happens next. Through that work, we see that there are three key elements of an asylum system. First, it must be safe for people to access it; secondly, it must be fair and efficient and make decisions in a timely way and, thirdly, those people who are in the system, while they are in the system, should receive the advice and support they need.
At the moment, there are a number of challenges to that, as shown by the number of people taking dangerous journeys to reach the UK, the increasing backlog in asylum decision making and the length of time people are having to wait for a decision on their application. There are also challenges that local authorities, organisations such as our own and, importantly, people in the system face in terms of the support they receive, whether that is support with accommodation, mental health or other areas. We believe those should have been some of the priorities for both this piece of legislation and the new plan for immigration that runs alongside it.
That work is also informed by the people we work with. We run the VOICES Network, which is a group of people with lived experience of the asylum system. They were among those who gave evidence to the Government during the consultation on the new plan, and when we speak to them about this legislation, one of their key messages, as people who have made that dangerous journey, is that there is nothing in the Bill or in the new plan that would have changed the decisions they made.
We absolutely agree that there are too many people making those dangerous journeys; we want to see a reduction in the number of people making dangerous journeys in small boats across the channel as much as anybody else does, but we do not believe the measures in the Bill will do that.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Jon Featonby: There is no simple answer to that; as the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, there is no silver bullet for many of these challenges. If there were, I am sure some country would already have come up with it. However, there are some key things that the Red Cross believes could be explored further.
The expansion of safe routes for people seeking protection is prime among those things. We welcome the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme announced recently. The UK has a good recent record of providing resettlement places, and we believe that on top of that Afghan resettlement scheme there is the need for a wider global scheme. There is the UK resettlement scheme, the successor to the Syrian resettlement programme, but there is no annual quota for that. On top of that 5,000 commitment for the Afghan scheme we would like to see an additional 5,000 for the global scheme.
We also call for refugee family reunion. One of the core bits of work that the Red Cross does in the UK is support refugees being reunited with their family members. As the new plan for immigration stated, family reunion is currently the largest safe route for people to get to the UK. Over the five years to 2019, 29,000 people arrived in the UK through refugee family reunion, compared with 25,000 through resettlement over the same period.
From what we see in our work supporting families, as much as that reunion is a moment of joy for so many people, there are other families whom the current rules do not allow to reunite. One of the prime examples is that the rules do not cater for adult dependent children. A parent in the UK who has refugee status can sponsor their parent, their partner or spouse and any children under the age of 18 to come and join them, but we see that often there are people whose child may have turned 18 or 19, potentially while they were in the asylum process, who face a difficult decision about whether they leave that child overseas, or just do not bring any of their family to come and join them.
We believe the Bill is an opportunity to expand the rules. One of our key concerns about the Bill, in clause 10 on the differential treatment of refugees, is that there is potential for family reunion to be limited, although the Bill does not quite state how.
Alongside those safe routes, we recognise that the UK cannot alone solve all those issues. However, it has a vital role to play internationally, ensuring that no matter where people are after they have been forced to flee their home, they can access protection systems, whether in the UK, France, Germany or close to the countries from which they first leave.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Jon Featonby: The starting point for the British Red Cross is that people’s protection should be based on their protection needs, and not on how they have entered the UK. Clause 10 provides a power that would move away from that and treat people on the basis of how they arrive in the country. It is difficult to ascertain what some of the impact would be, because clause 10 just creates a power for that to be introduced later in the immigration rules. Certainly, our concern is that the list of the ways in which leave can be differentiated for those people recognised as refugees is an example list and non-exhaustive, and there is therefore scope within the immigration rules to follow for that differentiated treatment to be undertaken in a much wider way.
In terms of the impact of that differentiated treatment, which I am sure falls within the Bill’s aim to deter people from making dangerous journeys, we certainly do not believe that it will do that. From the people we work with, we know it is rare for people making those journeys—even if they have any element of choice over where they are going to end up—to have any clear idea about what their rights and entitlements will be when they arrive, so we do not believe it would deter dangerous journeys.
We also believe there would be negative impacts from some of the ways people’s leave will be differentiated. Some of that concern draws on the evidence from Australia, which has used temporary protection visas, similar to those that clause 10 would allow to be introduced, on and off for the past two decades. One of the key findings is that that has increased the insecurity people feel when they have that protection status. This is a group of people who will have been recognised as refugees by the UK Government, but one way they will be treated differently is that those who have arrived irregularly will only get temporary protection for maybe two and a half years, which will then be extendable at each point.
The lack of security around that has an impact on not only people’s mental health, but their prospects for integration and their ability to get jobs and rebuild their lives. Employers looking at that type of temporary leave are less likely, we believe, to employ that person, compared with somebody who might have indefinite leave to remain, as a refugee arriving under the resettlement programme would have.
I have already mentioned our concerns about the potential impact on family reunion. It is important to note that those people arriving in the UK through family reunion are predominantly women and children; 90% of all family reunion visas currently granted are to women and children. Limiting access to family reunion for the refugee in the UK is taking away a safe route for his—in most cases—wife and children to be able to come and join him. The evidence from Australia was that where that happened, it incentivised and increased the number of dangerous journeys being made by women and children, which is something the British Red Cross believes should absolutely be avoided.
One of the other potential routes for differentiation is giving those people granted refugee status no access to public funds. Most of the refugees we support struggle when they are first granted status, and one of the main groups of people we support across all our services in the UK is people who are destitute, at all stages of the asylum process. Around one third of the people we have supported in our destitution services over the past year are people with refugee status, and often that is because they fall into the gap between Home Office and local authority support when they are first granted status and the Home Office support ends.
Without giving people access to the social security and welfare system, you risk embedding some of that destitution at that point as well. Not only is that bad for those individuals, putting them at great risk, but it puts extra pressures on local authorities. We see that within our services at the moment.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Jon Featonby: The issues with accommodation and the challenges the Home Office faces in providing it are well known and serious, and there is no simple solution to many of them. Some of the problems around the shortage of accommodation were caused by the covid pandemic. We welcome the Home Office’s move at the start of the pandemic not to evict people from asylum accommodation, but that obviously meant that fewer people were moving through the system.
Some of the challenges with the dispersal system and the shortage of housing are also caused by the increasing backlog in asylum decision making. There are now around 70,000 people waiting for an initial decision, the majority of whom have been waiting longer than six months. That includes people from places such as Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Eritrea, who will almost certainly go on to get refugee status, but the lack of throughput in the system has created that pressure. Several Members on this Committee represent areas that do great work hosting people through the dispersal system, but we do not think the Bill will do anything to help them.
The accommodation centres in clause 11 are part of the response to that pressure. As you rightly said, the Red Cross has raised concerns around some of the Ministry of Defence sites that have been used over the last year, and their suitability for people seeking asylum. In particular, we were operational in Penally Barracks in south Wales when that was open, and we continue to support people in Napier.
From our experience, we think that the best way to accommodate people while they are in the asylum system is within communities. They can feel a part of those communities and receive the support that they need. It is also beneficial for those communities, in terms of social cohesion. That relates to some of the negative impacts that we have seen, where people have been accommodated in some of the military barracks.
We also have some concerns about the way that clause 11 currently works. Reading the explanatory notes, what seems to be happening is that, rather than the Bill itself setting out the framework for an accommodation centre, it relies on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. That legislation was passed almost 20 years ago during a very different time: asylum applications were far higher, the length of time that people waited for a decision was far shorter, and far fewer people were then getting positive decisions after going through that system.
The 2002 Act has quite a few concerning aspects, including not allowing children in accommodation centres to access local authority schools. We see that as being quite serious. It may well be that the idea behind the centres, and the Government’s proposed use of the centres, would include families or children being accommodated there, but that is not clear from what is currently in the Bill. The Bill does, however, change the 2002 Act around some of the limits on the length of time that people can stay in one of those accommodation centres. Currently, under the 2002 Act, somebody in an accommodation centre could only be accommodated there for up to six months. The Bill gives the Home Secretary the power to increase that length of time.
It is noteworthy that, in the recent special development order, which was laid before Parliament to extend the use of Napier Barracks by an additional five years, one of the ways in which the Home Office changed the operation of that site was to limit the length of time that somebody could stay there to 90 days. Therefore, we would certainly see that one of the safeguards around the use of accommodation centres would be to limit the length of time that somebody could stay there, rather than extending it.
The Chair
I must offer other Members the opportunity to ask questions. I will come back to you if there is time, Mr Charalambous.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jon Featonby: There are 71 clauses and four schedules in this Bill. As far as we can see, from our reading of the Bill, there is one clause that directly targets people smugglers themselves. That is the clause extending the criminal sentence for somebody convicted of that to a life sentence. We absolutely welcome that tightening of people smuggling. We absolutely believe that one approach that the Government should continue to take is in targeting those people smugglers who take advantage of people trying to seek safety.
Our concern is about the other aspects of the Bill, which seem to be more about trying to deter people from making those dangerous journeys. As I said earlier, we do not believe that those clauses will have that impact.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jon Featonby: It is not clear that they have had any impact. I suppose that you could rightly say that one of the things the Bill does through clause 14 is move the current inadmissibility rules, which are in the immigration rules, into primary legislation. Those have been in force since 1 January, replacing what was the Dublin system, which the UK was part of when it was a member of the European Union.
Since those rules were introduced, 4,500 notices of intent have been issued to individuals. When somebody first arrives in the UK’s asylum process, they are interviewed by a member of the Home Office at the initial stage. Then, if, for whatever reason—there are five potential reasons—the Home Office believes that that person’s asylum claim may be inadmissible in the UK’s asylum system, a notice of intent is issued to that person at that instance. At that point, the person’s asylum claim is still live, but it does not go any further. There are no interviews and it is not substantively considered by the Home Office. The guidance that was introduced by the change in rules then gives the Home Office six months to try to get a return agreement in place, or to look further at that person’s claim to try to work out whether that claim is inadmissible.
What we have not seen since the beginning of this year is a decrease in the number of people making dangerous journeys. It is not apparent to us that it has deterred people. However, because of that in-built six-month delay, it has further increased the delays that people already face while waiting for a decision on their asylum claims.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jon Featonby: We pay tribute to the local authorities that are part of the dispersal scheme. We work very closely alongside them, and the ones that we work with are very proud of the roles that they play. However, we also recognise that the local authorities that support people are under quite a lot of pressure. There are not enough local authorities currently taking part in the dispersal system, and we encourage more to do so and believe that that should be a priority for the Home Office.
One of the problems with the increased delay, whether it is caused by the inadmissibility rules or by wider decision-making delays, is that people are left in limbo in the asylum system longer, unable to work and reliant on the Home Office for support. There is then a negative impact on people who do go on to get refugee status, on their ability to integrate and to stand on their own feet; they are more likely to have to rely on local authority support for a longer period.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jon Featonby: It is well known, and it was mentioned in the equality impact assessment published at the beginning of the week, that the cost of the asylum system has increased significantly over the last year. While we are not aware of a breakdown of the drivers of that cost, it is likely that a lot of it has been driven by the increased pressure on asylum accommodation, and in particular the increased use of hotels over the last year or so. One of the quickest ways to reduce that cost would be to get people moving through the system much faster again—making those decisions and reducing the pressures on the accommodation system.
Because the Bill will not deter people or reduce the number of people entering the asylum system—if anything, it is just going to increase some of the delays in the system—there is a danger that it will increase the overall cost. It is unknown at the moment what the cost of the accommodation centres might be. A contract notice was issued in August saying that they will potentially accommodate up to 8,000 people, but there is very little known about the cost of that.
Stuart C. McDonald
I know colleagues will have other questions on provisions relating to the asylum system. Does the Red Cross want to speak about the provisions relating to modern slavery or statelessness?
Jon Featonby: One of the roles of the Red Cross in the UK is that we work alongside police forces when they undertake anti-trafficking raids to disrupt situations of exploitation; we are there to work alongside police forces and local authorities to support people at those points. We also support people who have gone through the national referral mechanism and been found to be survivors of modern slavery in terms of what happens next—to support them with their onward journeys.
The Modern Slavery Act 2015 was definitely a landmark change. It has very much changed the way the UK has responded—it has improved it. We know from our work with other Red Cross national societies around the world that the UK is now seen as an international leader through that legislation. We are concerned, though, that this is an immigration Bill that contains a large modern slavery element; there is a danger that part 4 moves away from protection as a first port of call in cases of modern slavery. In particular, when we set up reception centres at anti-trafficking raids, we found that the vast majority of people who are taken out of situations of exploitation do not enter the national referral mechanism. When we monitored 10 reception centres, 170 people were taken out of those situations and only four consented to go into the NRM. Some of the changes to the NRM contained in part 4 of the Bill may raise those barriers.
However, there is also an opportunity in the Bill to improve the treatment of people who come out of the national referral mechanism with a positive conclusive grounds decision. We welcome the commitment in the Bill to offer immigration status to some of the people with positive conclusive grounds decisions. When people get a positive conclusive grounds decision and the support that they received while they were in the NRM ends, one of the challenges that they face is that, if they do not have a secure immigration status, it is very difficult for them to get on with their lives—to make decisions about what happens next. It potentially also means that, if they are unable to work and access local authority support or welfare support, they are at risk of being re-exploited. We have made recommendations in the past that people should get that status.
We feel that those provisions can be strengthened to make it clearer that more people will be able to access that immigration leave. At the moment, if the Home Office believes that somebody would be able to receive protection in their country of nationality, they are not eligible for that grant of leave. Having seen the need in people who have gone through the NRM, we believe that it should pretty much be a universal offer of leave at that point. We would like to see the Bill strengthened in that way. I pay tribute to the work of Lord McColl and Sir Iain Duncan Smith in particular for their campaign around this in recent years.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
The Chair
There are other Members who wish to ask questions, Mr McDonald. If there is time, I am happy to bring you back in. At present I have Jonathon Gullis, Paul Blomfield and Anne McLaughlin who are waiting to speak. Minister, would you like to come in now or wait?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I am happy to come in later.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Q
Jon Featonby: That is one of the reasons why we are concerned about the clause. We come from a different viewpoint in that we believe that people’s rights and entitlements should be based not on how they entered the UK, but on their protection need. People who go through the asylum system and fall into group 2 in clause 10 are people whom the UK has recognised as being in need of international protection, and they have refugee status.
We work with and have conversations with people who have been through the process. Maybe they arrived in the UK on a small boat or through some other irregular means. They tell us that these changes would not have impacted the decisions they made. It is very unlikely that people have a clear idea about what the UK’s asylum system looks like and what their entitlements will be when they are in it or when they go on to get status. Some people have very little choice in the country they end up in. They may well not have started out being involved in the smuggling networks in France. It could have been much closer to the country from which they have fled. The smugglers have much more control over where people end up.
Where somebody feels safe is subjective to the individual. There are many reasons why people in France may be unable to avail themselves of the protection system there. It might be that, because of how they were living in France, they were not aware of how they could claim asylum or the route to do that. It may be that they were treated in some way along that journey that meant they felt unable to avail themselves of protection in France. It is also important to note that the vast majority of people who do make it to France in search of protection stay in France. France receives, generally, at least three times as many asylum applications as the UK.
We do not believe that the differential treatment will deter people, and there are challenges around the differential treatment in clause 10. Stoke is absolutely one of the places in the country that we work with and pay tribute to. Abi Brown, the leader of the council, speaks very eloquently about how proud she is of the council’s role. However, clause 10 will potentially make it harder for those local authorities who support people. If people continue to come to the UK, go through the asylum process and get status and are then unable to reunite with their family members or have insecurities around the length of time they are going to get status, and, crucially, if they are unable to access public funds, that impacts on their integration prospects and ability to support themselves. That may well increase the pressures on local authorities.
Jonathan Gullis
You mention that some people say that they would still choose to make the journey despite the Bill. Those who are willing to make the journey, of which over 70% are 18 to 30-year-old men on their own, have put thousands of pounds into the hands of people smugglers by their own choice. They are willing to keep funding a smuggling entity in order to try to access the UK, because they seem to think the UK is a better deal than mainland France, Italy or Greece, which are obviously all part of the European Union and have the same protections that the UK does—the European convention on human rights and such. Ultimately, does that not show that the system is broken and the legislation is needed? We do need to make sure that illegal economic migrants crossing the channel are treated differently from people from Afghanistan, for example, who have taken the safe and legal route we provided through Operation Pitting.
Jon Featonby: We disagree that they are illegal economic migrants. They are people who have protection needs. Obviously, if they have gone through clause 10 and they fall into that group too, they have gone through the asylum system and it has been found that they are refugees.
We absolutely agree that action needs to be taken to reduce the number of people making dangerous journeys. There are too many people putting their lives at risk crossing the English channel to get here. Our concern is that we do not believe that the provisions within this Bill will deter that. We think the Government would be better off approaching this by increasing some of the safe avenues for people.
Afghanistan is a good case in point. Obviously, we now have the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme alongside the relocation programmes. We have been working with families as they arrive at airports and hotels across the country, and we see their relief and joy. However, that is only ever going to go so far in meeting the needs of the number of people who are likely to be displaced from Afghanistan and other refugee-producing places and situations, and there will always be people who take irregular journeys in order to reach safety. From the point of view of the Red Cross, it it paramount that people are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve because of their protection needs, and that they are helped to rebuild their lives and to enjoy that protection, if they get that in the UK or anywhere else in the world.
Jonathan Gullis
Q
Does it not make sense that we would provide good-quality accommodation? I think Napier Barracks was fantastic accommodation. It provided safety and shelter, had hot running water and sanitation, and provided yoga as well. We have Napier Barracks and others like it that we can use. What do you think about doing what Denmark is doing, which I think is a fantastic idea, and taking people to another country, such as Rwanda, and processing them outside the United Kingdom? That will also help to deter people from making these dangerous journeys.
Jon Featonby: On the point about accommodation, we recognise the pressure that local authorities are under. Part of our concern around the Bill is that there is nothing in it that we think will encourage more local authorities to take part in dispersal, or reduce the number of people entering the asylum system. The number of people claiming asylum in the UK at the moment is not anywhere near the historic highs of the early 2000s. It has gone up slightly over the last couple of years, but it is still lower than at the height of the movement from Syria in 2015 and2016. We do not believe that there are too many people claiming asylum. The UK should be able to deal with the number of applications at the moment.
What we have seen over many years, predating the covid-19 pandemic, is a slow down in the rate of decision making. That leaves more people in the asylum support system for longer periods of time and increases the pressure on asylum accommodation. That is why I again reiterate the point about the focus on decision making and ensuring that the Home Office is resourced to make good-quality, quick decisions as an absolute priority.
The point around accommodation centres is an interesting one. From the people we work with, we certainly believe that Napier has had a negative impact on the people accommodated there. It has not provided the environment that many people who have been through traumatic experiences require. At Penally Barracks, there was a live firing range on site, which was retraumatising for many people.
The Chair
Order. Mr Gullis, this is an opportunity to ask questions not to make speeches. I have to accommodate as many Members as possible. If there is time, I will come back to you later.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Q
Jon Featonby: The start of your question was a very good point, and yet as the Red Cross we are an auxiliary to Government for humanitarian purposes, as other national societies are to their Governments around the world. Regarding the things I have said today, Home Office officials have heard them from me several times before. We enjoy a good relationship with them and I hope they would reflect similarly back to us as well. We use the expertise from supporting people across the UK to reflect back what we see and to help the Home Office to meet some of the challenges it faces.
The precursor to the Bill was the new plan for immigration and the consultation on that. We took part in the formal consultation process and in some conversations with officials around that process. We also take part in frequent stakeholder meetings with the Home Office on a number of different areas, as well as having private dialogue.
Family reunion is one of the key areas for us. When the new plan for immigration was published, we welcomed the commitment to look at changing the rules around family reunion, to allow adults who had arrived through a safe route to sponsor their adult dependent children. We were disappointed then to see in the consultation response that that proposal has not been taken forward, but we continue to have dialogue with the Home Office around it, as well as on a report that we published towards the end of last year, which looked at the family reunion process itself and the safety of it for the family members outside the UK. We welcome the commitment within the consultation response to continue working with us in considering how those recommendations can be followed through.
Also, around the issue of the resettlement programme, we welcome the Afghan scheme, as I said, but we believe that there is more that can be done there and on family reunion, to make sure that more people are able to access safe routes rather than putting their lives at risk by taking desperate journeys.
Paul Blomfield
Q
Jon Featonby: At the moment, there is the Afghan resettlement scheme and the global resettlement scheme, which has an unset number. Family reunion may be potentially negatively impacted by the Bill.
Within the new plan, there is the commitment for the Home Secretary to be able to use an almost ad hoc discretionary power to be able to provide a safe route for people, and we very much welcome that. However, we believe that the Bill is an opportunity to go further, both on existing safe and legal routes, and to explore something like humanitarian visas, which would enable people to apply for asylum from outside the UK as well, because it is obviously noteworthy that the only way that someone can enter the UK asylum system is by being on UK soil.
Paul Blomfield
Q
Jon Featonby: On those elements, the view of the British Red Cross is that it will be quite hard to work out what the impact of some of those clauses will be without further detail about them becoming available. There is already a section 120 notice, which can be issued to people to make sure that they provide evidence as soon as possible within the asylum process, and there is a particular focus at appeal stage.
The Home Office has done great work over recent years in looking at some of the reasons why people do not necessarily provide all of their evidence early on in the process. There are particular groups that quite often will struggle to provide all of their evidence early on. For a woman who has been a victim of sexual, gender-based violence, for example, there are very good reasons and very strong evidence as to why she may not disclose all of the evidence very early on. When someone comes to make a decision on an individual’s asylum claim, a potential result of that individual not having disclosed some of the evidence is an impact on their credibility, and you could end up with people not being given protection even though they are really in need of it.
The Chair
I will call Ms McLaughlin, then the Minister, and then we will see how we are doing for time.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Q
Jon Featonby: As you rightly say, the British Red Cross is part of the Red Cross and Red Crescent global movement of 190 national societies around the world. Working with our international partners gives us that insight into what is happening globally.
We know that 75% of refugees are hosted by countries that border the ones that they fled, and 85% of refugees are hosted by some of the poorest countries in the world, so it is absolutely the case that most people who are displaced from their own countries stay within their regions. Almost everybody we work with wants to be able to return home at some point, which is why they stay as close to their home as they can for as long as possible. One of the other trends we have seen over the past decade is that the situations that produce refugees are lasting for longer, which means that people are living in those other countries for longer. That potentially results in more people looking to move on in order to be able to rebuild their lives.
The UK has about 35,000 to 40,000 asylum applications a year at the moment. Compared with other European countries, that puts us 17th in the number of applications per capita. We are fourth overall for the past year. Germany received four times as many asylum applications as the UK did last year. France received three times as many and Spain received twice as many.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
Jon Featonby: We are aware of that debate going on. I am also aware that the Committee is taking evidence from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees later in the week, which is, compared with the Red Cross, in a far better place to make comments on that.
From our point of view, that debate will probably rage on through the course of the Bill’s passage and after it becomes law, but it is important to remember where the idea of the refugee convention comes from. We can have a debate about article X or article Y of the convention and how this legislation fits or does not fit with them, but the convention was obviously born out of what happened during the second world war and built on international agreements before that. It is largely predicated on the idea that no one country can respond to global displacement on its own. To be able to do that and make sure the people who are displaced receive the protection they need, there needs to be an international framework based on solidarity and co-operation, and that is absolutely what the convention is part of. Obviously, the UK played a key role in its drafting.
One of our concerns about what is in the Bill, particularly around inadmissibility rules and reducing access to the UK’s protection system, is that what the UK says and does matters, so other countries look to the UK and take a lead from it. There is a potential negative impact. If the UK says, “We don’t believe that these people should be claiming asylum here”—not making a decision on their protection needs but just saying, “These people are inadmissible to our rules”—and they get pushed back to France, France could be within its rights to do the same, and you end up with a domino effect.
To return to what is happening in Afghanistan at the moment, one of the international community’s primary objectives should be to make sure that the countries bordering Afghanistan continue to keep their borders open so that the people who need to escape Afghanistan can do so. We saw that with the Syrian crisis and the role that Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, in particular, played in the region. There is the danger that if countries such as the UK prevent access to their protection system, some of those countries can—almost quite rightly—turn around and say, “Why should we continue to keep our borders open?”
Rather than getting into the ins and outs of the convention, we believe that it is important for the UK to continue to show that leadership by offering protection, whether through the resettlement programmes, which are absolutely among the world’s best, or through continued access to a protection system and the asylum system in the UK.
The Chair
I will now call the Minister. Mr Anderson, if there is time after we hear from the Minister, we will try to fit you in.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Jon Featonby: It should be, and it is right that it is a priority. There are too many people trying to cross the channel. It is well known that it is the busiest shipping lane in the UK. It is not said enough, but tribute should be paid to Border Force and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution because we have not seen huge numbers of lives lost, especially compared with what we have seen in the Mediterranean.
We would certainly say that although people continue to make those journeys, the primary focus should be on ensuring that people’s lives continue to be saved and that the loss of life stays relatively low. However, it comes back to the fact that we do not think the Bill will deter people from putting their lives in the hands of people smugglers or, as we are increasingly seeing, taking to small boats—relying not on people smugglers but on very small and even less seaworthy crafts.
There is no easy way to tackle the problem. There is no one simple solution. However, some of it will come down to the increased provision of safe routes. The more safe routes there are, the less likely people will need to take dangerous journeys. Something that needs to be a part of the UK’s international co-operation, and something that it can play an increasingly important role in, is making sure that people have access to protection systems outside the UK.
It comes back to the point about understanding why people make those journeys in the first place. People do not get on those boats on the French shores lightly—it is clear what the risks are going to be when they are there. Understanding what leads someone to that point is vitally important, and I am not sure that the Bill reflects what people with that lived experience would tell us. Some of that will require continued work with our European partners, in particular, to make sure that people have access to information, as well as to their protection systems, in order to look at the reasons why somebody may not have claimed asylum in France, for example.
A vital point that came up in the equality impact assessment published earlier this week is that when states such as the UK look to put in extra measures to protect their borders and asylum systems, they must ensure that does not lead to inverse reactions, which will just lead to people making more dangerous journeys. That is certainly what we have seen over the last 10 to 15 years. The harder it has been for people to make journeys when one route is cut off, the more people are generally pushed to make more dangerous journeys. We should be dealing with the root causes of why people make those decisions in the first instance.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Jon Featonby: It is largely about the points I have just raised. The explanatory notes to the Bill talk about breaking the business model, and absolutely there are the enforcement procedures regarding the people smugglers themselves. We agree that that should continue to be a priority. However, we need to look at why people turn to people smugglers, and that is because of a lack of other alternatives, whether that is accessing protection systems or those other safe routes.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Jon Featonby: That is a very good point. We believe that the modern slavery response needs not only to provide protection for people coming out of situations of exploitation, but to enable those people to take part in prosecutions to tackle people who are exploiting others, whether in the UK or abroad.
The challenges that we see people quite often face are, first, at times a lack of trust in the police or whoever else it might be, but also—probably more importantly and more pertinent to the Bill—a lack of security about their immigration status. The people we work with, who predominantly do not have a secure immigration status in the UK, are thinking about where they are going to sleep that night, and how they are going to feed themselves and their family, rather than how they are going to help the police through this, or potentially how they will have to recount quite traumatic experiences to support those prosecutions.
That is why we support the measures in the Bill to try to give more people secure immigration status. We think that will make a big difference, but we absolutely encourage the Government to go slightly further to ensure that more people can avail themselves of that protection, which would have a beneficial impact on prosecutions as well.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Jon Featonby: Potentially. Some of it depends on how it is implemented. We would probably like to see some changes to that provision. I touched earlier on the work that the Red Cross does at reception centres to support people when they first leave those situations of exploitation. At that point, people come out, they are in these centres, the Red Cross may well be there, but it is probably the police, local authorities and increasingly immigration enforcement. There are very few opportunities for people to get legal advice at that point around what the NRM entails for them.
The provisions in the Bill on legal aid are welcome, but they are only for those people who have ongoing protection claims. Most people who come out of those situations of exploitation will not necessarily have an ongoing asylum claim. We would welcome the broadening of the provisions in the Bill to make sure that it covers everybody who may be thinking about entering the NRM, so that they are able to get legal advice, whether or not they have an ongoing human rights or asylum claim alongside it.
The Chair
Thank you. This will have to be one final question from Mr Anderson and one final answer.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Q
Jon Featonby: It is very difficult for me to highlight any positives. That is one of the things that we will continue to raise with parliamentarians and the Home Office, because we do not think the Bill meets those challenges. The Bill is an opportunity to meet some of the challenges, particularly around the move-on period for people when they get refugee status, to make sure that the move from Home Office support to local authority support is as smooth as possible. We hope that as the Bill progresses such issues will continue to be debated. We do not believe that the Bill, as currently drafted, will alleviate any of the current pressures that local authorities face.
Stuart Anderson
Q
Jon Featonby: No.
The Chair
I am afraid that brings us effectively to the end of the time allocated for this morning’s sitting. Mr Featonby, the Committee is indebted to you. Thank you very much for joining us. The Committee will meet again this afternoon. The doors will be locked, so Members may leave papers in the room if they wish to do so. You will continue to take oral evidence this afternoon. Please leave promptly and observe social distancing as you go out the exit door.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Covid-19: Vaccination of Children
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking. This is 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 Chamber.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the vaccination of children against covid-19.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate, and draw Members’ attention to the three e-petitions that relate to this topic, which have amassed more than 100,000 signatures between them.
Vaccination has transformed public health over the last two centuries. As a science teacher, I remember teaching students about the amazing work of Edward Jenner, who famously developed the smallpox inoculation. Two hundred and fifty years later, vaccinations have again ridden to our rescue with the rapid development and roll-out of covid vaccines across the UK. The phenomenal success of the vaccination programme can be seen clearly in the data. Of the 51,000 covid-related deaths from January to July this year, 76% were of unvaccinated people, and a further 14% had received only a single dose. Just 59 deaths—0.1%—were of double-vaccinated adults with no other risk factors, and 92% of adults now have covid antibodies.
Those figures are a ringing endorsement of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s strategy to recommend vaccination based on the medical benefits and risks to the individuals concerned. The Government have repeatedly defended both this strategy and the independence of the JCVI, and resisted calls to prioritise the vaccination of teachers or police officers over those at higher risk of serious illness. That was the right approach, and the UK has led the world in falling rates of deaths and hospitalisations.
It was therefore surprising, to say the least, when the Government put political pressure on the JCVI to quickly reach a decision about the vaccination of children. On 3 September 2021, the JCVI announced that it was unable to recommend the mass vaccination of healthy 12 to 15-year-olds. The reason was that, although there are marginal health benefits of covid vaccination to children based on the known risks of the vaccine, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms, such as the long-term effects of myocarditis.
Paediatrician and JCVI member Adam Finn wrote in The Sunday Times that a high proportion of myocarditis patients showed
“significant changes of the heart. It is perfectly possible that these changes will resolve completely over time. But it is also possible that they may evolve into longer-term changes.
Until three to six months have passed, this remains uncertain, as does what impact on health any persistent changes may have.”
According to the JCVI, for every 1 million healthy children vaccinated, two intensive care unit admissions will be prevented, and three to 17 cases of myocarditis caused. With two doses, that rises to between 15 and 51 cases—finely balanced, indeed.
There is no rush to roll out the vaccine to children. We know that children are not at risk from covid; teachers are no more at risk than the rest of the population; the vast majority of vulnerable adults have been vaccinated; over half of children already have antibodies; and there is no evidence that schools drive transmission.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) is making an excellent speech, and she is quite right that the Government’s vaccination roll-out programme has been very positive. However, does she share my concerns about the message it sends out regarding parental authority if children as young as 12 are allowed to challenge their parents’ decision regarding their vaccination?
Miriam Cates
I agree with my hon. Friend: there are some very difficult issues around parental consent and the vaccine, and whether any child can know enough about the potential benefits and risks. This is going to be a very difficult question for schools, health authorities and parents. I will say more about that later on.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
The advice being given out on consent forms states that you get to see your family doctor. However, when I and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) challenged the former vaccines Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), on the ability of families to access their family doctor to get advice about vaccines, he could not and would not give an assurance that families could have that advice. Is not such access necessary, especially if the Government are stating on the vaccine form that you do have that access?
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call Miriam to continue, Members ought to realise that when they say “you” they are referring to the Chair. Can we please try to get the formalities right? I know that it is less important on Zoom, but we are now back.
Miriam Cates
My hon. Friend is right. It is widely known that access to GPs is challenging at the moment, and that presents challenges in this situation. It is widely understood that if a child can consent, contrary to parental consent, that is not a tick-box exercise; it is a matter for a medical professional to assess whether the child is competent to consent. If there are problems accessing GPs, there are clear issues here.
There is no rush to roll out the vaccine, and there is no evidence that schools drive transmission. Indeed, recorded covid cases are now at their lowest level since June, despite schools having been open for two weeks. It is also unlikely that vaccinating children will have a major impact on infection rates in the population as a whole, with the JCVI saying that
“the committee is of the view that any impact on transmission may be relatively small, given the lower effectiveness of the vaccine against infection with the Delta variant.”
However, instead of accepting the JCVI’s assessment and waiting for more evidence to emerge, the Government asked the chief medical officer urgently to review the decision based on the wider benefits to children, including from education. Last week, the CMO announced that he would recommend child vaccinations on the basis of these wider benefits.
That decision is a marked departure from the principle of vaccinating people for their own medical benefit, because those wider issues—educational disruption and concerns around mental health—are the consequences of policy decisions and are not scientific inevitabilities. Children in the UK have already missed more education than children in almost any other country in Europe, despite comparable death rates. Since January 2020, British children have lost on average 44% of school days to lockdown and isolation. That is not a consequence of covid infections in children, but rather a result of policy decisions to close schools and isolate healthy children.
According to the Government’s modelling, vaccinating children could save 41 days of schooling per 1,000 children between October and March. That equates to an average of just 15 minutes of education saved per child over this period—surely an insignificant amount, and negligible when we account for the time it takes to vaccinate and the subsequent days off school to recover from potential side effects. There is a much simpler way to stop harmful educational disruption, and that is to follow the advice of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and end the mass testing of asymptomatic children. This unevidenced and unethical policy is costing tens of millions of pounds a week—I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the exact cost—and is continuing to disrupt education. Even the CMO acknowledges that a vaccination programme alone will not stop school closures. Perhaps the Minister could clarify how the Government intend to end educational disruption.
On the potential mental health benefits from reducing the fear of covid, it is not covid infection that is making children fearful; it is the uncertainty, frustration, loneliness and anxiety that they experience as a result of lockdowns and harmful messages such as, “Don’t kill granny.” Children need not fear catching covid, but they have every right to fear policy decisions that cause them significant harm, and sadly we cannot vaccinate against those.
Nonetheless, the decision has been made, and we have to be very clear that the risks to children, both from covid and from vaccines, are tiny. Concerns should now focus on making sure that the necessary safeguards are put in place as vaccination is rolled out. The previous vaccines Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), assured MPs that there will be no differential treatment of children in schools on the basis of their vaccination status. That is crucial, because any suggestion that unvaccinated young people may be denied education or be subjected to social disadvantage will inhibit the ability of both parents and children to make a free and objective decision. While I appreciate Ministers’ commitments, children already face discrimination in some schools over mask wearing and testing.
We must also make sure that travel rules that differentiate between vaccinated and unvaccinated children do not amount to coercion when parents are making a decision. Can the Minister say how we will ensure that there is no discrimination in practice as well as in theory?
Vaccination must be a free and informed decision. Choosing to have or not to have the vaccine are both perfectly reasonable and sensible decisions where children are concerned. We must ensure that correct and impartial information is communicated and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, that there is access to health professionals where necessary. Parental consent must also be respected. Much has been said on this subject, but the heart of the matter is that parental responsibility and authority are foundational to society.
I am optimistic that these protections can and will be put in place. None the less, the way that the decision to vaccinate healthy 12 to 15-year-olds has been made should give us pause for thought. For no other cohort have the Government questioned the JCVI’s advice. Why have we departed from this stance when it comes to children and looked for reasons other than direct medical benefit to press ahead? When there are concerns about the future health of our children, why have we not waited for more evidence to emerge? I fear that this situation, rather than being an isolated incident, epitomises a worrying attitude to children that has been evident since the start of the pandemic.
Throughout the past 18 months, “protect the vulnerable” has been our clarion call. We have rightly made significant efforts to protect elderly people and those who are particularly susceptible to covid, but children, who cannot speak out, do not own property, and have no legal agency, are also very vulnerable. Yet during the pandemic, we have asked this group of vulnerable people to make huge sacrifices to protect the rest of us. The harms of lockdown for our children are significant and, for many, will be irreversible: lost education, missed opportunities, abuse and horrific online harms. The number of children presenting in A&E with acute mental health conditions has risen by 50% since the start of the pandemic.
A climate of fear and uncertainty has robbed children of the structure, routine and security that they need to thrive and has placed on them a heavy emotional burden from inferring that they may be responsible for the deaths of those they love. We have pretended that online learning is somehow a substitute for being in schools, and closed our eyes to the consequences of social isolation for children and young people.
Of course, we should raise our children to take responsibility for their actions, but as adults we should always shoulder the greater burden. We have imposed absurd rules on our young people, right down to deciding whom they can play with at playtime and whether they are allowed to change for PE.
However, we have not seen that much action to urge adults to take responsibility for their own covid risk by, for example, losing weight or exercising—something that would have had a far greater impact on our rates of hospitalisation and death.
Chris Green
Does my hon. Friend recognise that the Government, in their approach to lockdown, are creating some of the problems they believe make the situation worse? Weight Watchers and other organisations have said that people coming to them have put on an average of about 6 to 8 lb in weight, and are therefore physically more vulnerable now to covid and other health problems than they were before the pandemic.
Miriam Cates
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am sure we can all empathise with those who have put on some lockdown pounds. A study, I think last week, showed that countries where over 50% of the adult population is overweight have experienced 10 times the death rate. A really effective way of reducing our risk in future would be to divert some of the money we are spending on testing asymptomatic people into drives against obesity and for exercise. That is an excellent point.
Even now, as adults, we are able to move freely from home to work, to Parliament and to the pub with no restrictions, yet children are still subject to asymptomatic testing, and many are being forced to wear masks in school and are missing out on important opportunities. We cannot expect our children to face greater restrictions than we ourselves are willing to bear. As a mother, I have despaired as I have watched the impact of those restrictions on my children and others. The stories that I have heard from constituents, particularly the parents of disabled children and those with additional needs, are horrifying. Millions of families have had to endure this. I pay tribute to UsforThem, which is working tirelessly to stand up for children and campaign for their lives to be allowed to return to normal.
What has saddened me most is the negative attitude to children that seems to have pervaded so much of our public discourse—especially the view that teenagers have behaved irresponsibly throughout the pandemic. That view is just not borne out by evidence. A study by King’s College London shows that, despite half of adults saying that young people have been selfish by ignoring restrictions, all age groups have been “remarkably compliant” and perceptions of selfishness are driven by “fake stereotypes”.
We seem to have forgotten what it means to be a child. We have forgotten that playing with other children, taking risks, feeling valued and enjoying physical contact with others are vital to healthy development. As a society, I fear that we are becoming a bit like Grandma from Roald Dahl’s “George’s Marvellous Medicine”:
“‘You know what’s the matter with you?’ the old woman said, staring at George over the rim of the teacup with those bright wicked little eyes. ‘You’re growing too fast. Boys who grow too fast become stupid and lazy.’
‘But I can’t help it if I’m growing fast, Grandma,’ George said.
‘Of course you can,’ she snapped. ‘Growing’s a nasty childish habit.’”
Things did not end well for Grandma, and things do not bode well for us if we fail to understand the nature and importance of childhood. Children are not disease spreaders, they are not a buffer for our healthcare system, and they are not an economic inconvenience. They are a blessing, they are our hope for the future, and their nurture and welfare should be our primary responsibility.
I am heartened by the care that has so far been taken by the JCVI, the chief medical officer and Ministers to reassure children and parents about the decision to vaccinate our young people, but looking forward we must recommit to putting the genuine and long-term interests of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens at the front and centre of policy making and prioritise their welfare as we recover from the pandemic.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
It gives me deep and great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) on securing the debate.
Many of us, when we come to put a speech together, think of different ways and processes to do it. Some use the rule of three, and I want to refer today to three words that I hope my hon. Friend the Minister and her colleagues in government take notice of: “Do no harm.”
Regardless of the chief medical officer’s overruling of the JCVI, I would say that when it comes to our nation’s children and young people, the people in these roles should remember that their actions should do no harm. Our colleagues in government—whether newly appointed or not—should also be mindful, in respect of the electorate’s children, that they should do no harm. The new Minister will be aware of the strength of feeling displayed to her predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), and the Government in the recent urgent question on covid passports. It is, again, a fallacy that the direction that the Government wish to take will protect our children, especially as 50% to 70% of them are likely already to have contracted and survived covid-19, according to the Office for National Statistics. Are we really showing that we are doing no harm?
We are told that any vaccination programme would not negate potential future school closures, so what is the point? Where is the political backbone? Is the Government’s plan that any future upsurge in age 12-to-15 cases could be ascribed to an epsilon or a zeta variant, or perhaps an eta or a theta variant? Will anyone give an iota of credence to such an occurrence after what we have seen with hospital transference to care homes and the subsequent surge in cases in our older generation, and with the recent vaccinations and the delta variant that has emerged? We should be mindful as politicians on both sides of the House, and I note at this point that there are not even three Opposition representatives on the other side of the Chamber, although I do see that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), is in her place. We need to do no harm for myriad, if not a veritable plethora of, reasons.
I turn now to the so-called Gillick principle. As no trials that have been made public are definitive, I fail to see how any child below 16 can be fully informed and, on being fully informed, one would have to say that their teachers and headteachers cannot be either on the safety or otherwise of the vaccines, in particular in the light of the heart impacts on young males and the reported effects in more than 35,000 females of reproductive age reported in the UK national media this very last weekend. Can the chief medical officers and the JCVI, after their recent decision-making process, hold themselves to the maxim that they will do no harm?
Vaccine passports are not a first line of defence against a potential so-called winter wave of coronavirus, as Downing Street spokesmen are reported to have said. Our children of 12 to 15, like their older siblings and other under-25s who frequent nightclubs, bars and restaurants, are not to be used as a second line of defence either. I urge the Minister and her colleagues in Government to remember to do no harm. There is no medium or long-term study data. I admire Chris Whitty and his colleagues for many things that they have done in the past 18 months. However, citing educational disruption, or the fear of more of it, as a justification for child vaccination against JCVI advice seems a little desperate, as far as I am concerned.
We were told that all those at risk needed to be vaccinated. They have been. Many others have caught and survived covid-19. What real justification is there now to vaccinate those under 40 at all, some would ask? We have had millions of various vaccinations. How many of those under 40 without any underlying health issues have died or been hospitalised purely because of covid-19? So why are our children still taking tests after a whole summer of not doing so, as has been referred to? Is it perhaps because there are thousands, if not millions, of the tests sitting in warehouses? What sort of reason is that for imposing this sort of regime on them?
Are we ensuring that we are doing no harm? Are the zealots in the civil service, the NHS and Government going to stigmatise and demonise any parent who expresses concern about ensuring vaccination of our young children through fear and perhaps even lies, and about taking a vaccine that has had no long-term testing and does not stop someone getting the virus or passing it on? “Do no harm” starts to have a very hollow ring.
If covid risk for young people is much lower, while with vaccination there are heart risks for males—that is a real concern—and reproductive females are suffering side-effects, how does the Minister square that circle that we should do no harm to the young of the UK? That next generation will be paying for this Government’s and the Minister’s decisions for many, many years and, I fear, perhaps in more ways than one.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) on bringing forward the debate. We had a discussion beforehand about her ideas for the thrust of the debate, and I have to say that my ideas concur with hers. Much of what I will say has been put forward already.
It is good to see the Minister in her place. I wish her well in her new role. I look forward to working with her on issues that we will find we have an interest in. I am also pleased to see the shadow Minister in her place. She and I have many things in common, and one is Leicester City football club. We are perhaps not doing as well at the moment as we could do, but we look forward to better days in the future.
My boys are grown up and I am now at the grandparent stage. I do not have as much of a role to play in the childminding as my wife does, but I understand that this morning she started childminding at 5 am, which is an early slot, because the two boys’ parents are working, one from 5 am and the other coming back at 8 am. I know that Government have always been of the opinion that families are core and central to society, and that is what I want to see as well.
Of my grandchildren, the two biggest girls have isolated on two or three occasions. I am glad to say that they have never had covid, but none the less that is the system: if one child in the class takes it, the whole class is out. I concur with the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge that we need a better system so that we do not necessarily have to go to those lengths every time.
I am vaccinated, and very pleased to be so. I believe in the effectiveness of the vaccine, but I also believe in reasoned parental consent. I believe that parents have a right to determine the best course of action, in co-ordination with medical staff on best practice. I put questions about this to the former vaccines Minister, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), last week and the week before in the Chamber. I respect him greatly, because he is very good at his job and committed. However, I was not totally convinced by his answers. I say that respectfully because I was not sure that the final decision would always lie with the parents.
I am encouraged by the news this morning that 89.1% now have double jabs and 81.3% have single jabs. We are moving in the right direction, so there is good news on the vaccine front. The medical evidence is by no means empirical at this stage. There are strong suggestions that
“new scientific advice does not endorse universal vaccination of all children over 12 in the UK”.
If scientists are saying that, we cannot ignore them. They are saying:
“The latest advice recommends that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine should be offered to a wider number of children directly at risk from covid-19, and to children living with an immunosuppressed person. There is very good evidence that children who have covid-19 are much less likely to develop severe symptoms and much less likely to die from the disease than adults. While rare in children, serious outcomes from covid-19 have been studied in this group. The strongest risk factor is having some underlying health problems, including neurological and cardiac conditions or complex neuro-disability.”
The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge referred to those with disabilities. Reuben, the son of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), came home from school 10 days ago. Out of his class of 28, 26 children had covid. They had to self-isolate because my hon. Friend has asthma, and his case is quite serious. While we have to do things, there must genuinely be a better way. It is not the Minister’s responsibility to respond for education, but I am keen to find out what discussions she has had with Education Ministers on this issue, and how we could better handle it. That is what I would like to see.
My parliamentary private secretary has two children. One comes home from school and has to isolate because someone in the class has got covid, though they have not. They potentially bring it in to the house. I cannot understand, and neither can she, why they cannot go back to school. They have to isolate from the classroom but can interact with the family, including a sister who is in a different class. We need to have a better way of looking at that.
In my opinion, some parents may decide, following medical advice, that the jab is the safer option. The starting point must be that it is a matter of opting in, not opting out. I have read some incredibly interesting data from Israel that suggests that immunity gained after recovering from a bout of covid-19 is more protective against the new delta variant than vaccine-induced immunity. Natural immunity was estimated to be about 13 times stronger than having two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Natural immunity should be key to how we deal with this.
Added to that are our own data that show that children do not tend to become seriously ill. To me that underlines the importance of the Government allowing parents to determine. In saying that, there must not be any pressure applied by schools, such as restricting after-school sports clubs without vaccination proof. A child needs a normal life. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge referred to the impact on children’s mental health. The figures for Northern Ireland show that the effect on mental health, even for children at primary school, is greater than ever. We need social interaction. That is why I am pleased to be back in Parliament and to have social interaction with people again, which is the way it should be. It is also important for children at school. The hon. Lady also referred to obesity, which it is important to put into perspective. The role of parents in physical health at school and home is critical.
Sometimes people go overboard on restrictions that are not always necessary. We need to be aware of how covid safety should be carried out while having a normal life and protecting children, yet making parental input central and critical. I will finish with this comment: I believe in the vaccine and am totally committed to what it has done. It has given us a leadership in the world through our vaccination programme, and I thank the Minister and the Government for their leadership.
Karl MᶜCartney
I picked up on the hon. Gentleman’s comments earlier about being sociable and being back in this place, and I did not want him to sit down having made a speech without being intervened on, as he is probably one of the most social Members across the House. Well done.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Our friendship goes back to when our offices used to be across from each other on the same corridor, and I am very pleased to renew it again in this House.
I believe that we have seen a decline in covid due to the vaccine, and the benefits are clear to see. However, from a child’s perspective the tale is very different, and parental consent, hand in hand with medical guidance in specific cases, must be the way we move forward. I believe that is what we should be doing. I am pleased to have had the debate and I thank the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge again for securing it. I look forward to other contributions, which I hope will endorse what we have all said.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who made so many important points. I also appreciate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for leading on the debate; I know many people right across the country are grateful for it, because this is an area of immense concern as their children are being vaccinated or not, as the case may be.
The country has gone through a difficult time over a long period. Who would have thought in March last year that we would be in this position now, debating whether 12-year-olds would be vaccinated to deal with this disease? At the beginning, there was very little certainty or scientific understanding of what we were facing. The scientific understanding has carried on apace; there has been a huge global effort to increase it, and on the medical side there has been a huge advance in how we treat people.
Covid is far less dangerous now than it was at the beginning, and we need to be clear about that, including when we look at the Government’s statistics on how deaths and other concerns are presented. To this day, they still show the overall death rate as including those deaths in the first and second waves. That makes us believe that we have not rolled out an effective vaccines programme and that doctors and people in hospitals are not far more effective at treating the disease itself. We are in a far better position, and that must be more clearly understood.
Initially, in January this year and December last year, the vaccine roll-out was pitched as protecting the most vulnerable: those who are old and those who have particular health challenges. Then, before we knew it, the ages were coming down and down. We got to age 18, and at the same time it was not a single vaccination, but a double vaccination that would give people the necessary protection. Now we are in the position of giving a booster vaccination to people in the near future. Initially it is being proposed for the over-50s, but will that come down as well?
The point I am making is that we have not been given any certainty over what the Government and their advisers deem to be success. It seems as though, because the system has not been given clarity about what success is, it carries on and on and the next group, the next group and the next group receive the vaccination. However, we know that in the first and second waves the connection between transmission, hospitalisation and death was strong. We know from Government data that, in the third wave, the connection between transmission, hospitalisation and death is fundamentally broken; it is nothing compared with what it was at the beginning. Our approach to covid therefore ought to reflect those facts.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I recall the pervasive disapproval that attached to my family when my children were at school and it became apparent that my wife was refusing to use the powerful chemical solution for the control of nits. When we come to schools being collectively vaccinated, the decision of some parents or children not to be vaccinated will undoubtedly be a matter of common knowledge—there is certainly the danger of that. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that it will be difficult to prevent that general disapproval and all that may flow from it from being attached to parents or children who have decided not to be vaccinated?
Chris Green
My right hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. In school settings, it will be incredibly difficult to do this, and it will be variable. It will depend on the culture of the school and the school leadership. Some schools will be open and objective, and will say, “We will respect you, the family, for the decisions you make on behalf of your family,” but I am pretty certain that other schools will have a very difficult and challenging atmosphere for those 12-year-old children and their families if they do not comply.
I think that is a very dangerous route for us to go down and will cause so much pressure. That leads on to an immensely important point. Traditionally in the United Kingdom, our approach to vaccinations has been one of non-compulsion. Our vaccination take-up across the board has been very high because people trust the vaccination programme and that these things, which we can take voluntarily, are there for our own good. We do not need coercion to take them; they are there for our good so we will take them. What repercussions will we face in years to come now that there is a toxification due to the imposition of these vaccines?
What, furthermore, do we see? We see that the first and second waves had a huge impact on us, but the third wave is far less impactful. All our vaccines are effective against all variants of concern. We see compulsory vaccination in the care sector, no doubt shortly to be rolled out into the national health service, and therefore after that to other sectors in society. We see the establishment of the idea of vaccine IDs and domestic ID cards. There is a pause at the moment in England, but those causes are being advanced in Scotland and Wales. In many ways, we can objectively say that we are almost through the worst of the pandemic, yet the more draconian or authoritarian measures are being introduced at this stage. It is perverse.
Miriam Cates
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. He makes a very good point about trust in vaccinations, because we have an outstanding system of child vaccinations in this country, with very high uptake and no compulsion at all. That is predicated on the fact that parents know that those vaccines are without doubt in their children’s best interests. Polio, measles and all those other diseases are child killers and life-altering. Even if the risks are low, they are considerably higher than the vaccine. Therefore, understanding and trust are vital. Does he agree that it is very important to have transparency around the concerns now so that parents make a free decision and it does not impact on the outstanding roll-out of other vaccines that are very much in our children’s best interest and vital for continued public health?
Chris Green
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Confidence needs to be restored in the wider vaccine programme. There needs to be a renewal of focus, because vaccinations for infants have dipped—slightly, but they have dipped. For older children and teenagers, the wider vaccine programme has dipped more substantially, so we need a significant catch-up in our broader vaccine programme.
We will also see increased concerns as drug companies seek approval to get the age for covid vaccines reduced to five years old. We therefore see the potential for an undefined point at which we can declare our position a success. If we do not have a clear understanding of what success means, will Government advisers say, “We now have approval for drugs to be given to five-year-olds, and that is the next step”? That question is for my hon. Friend the vaccines Minister, whom I welcome to the Front Bench. Will she clarify a couple of points? We here, broader society and health professionals outside the scope of Government can understand the end point. Professor Whitty said that at a certain point we will be able to treat the coronavirus as we treat influenza. What are the objective criteria by which we and others can judge that?
I asked the Minister’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), about the transition point when we as a society understand that we have moved from a pandemic disease where we need restrictions and other lockdown measures, and when we move to an endemic disease where we treat coronavirus as we treat influenza and other diseases, many of which are incredibly dangerous to people who are vulnerable—influenza is very dangerous for vulnerable people. We need to know when coronavirus goes from pandemic to endemic. We need objective criteria, because when the previous vaccines Minister replied to me, I could define what he said as, “We come out of pandemic status tomorrow” or, “We come out in 10 years’ time.” I do not think that is good enough when schools and families need more certainty.
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers at 10.38. I call Andrew Lewer.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
Thank you for chairing this debate, Dame Angela. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for securing a debate on this immensely important topic and for speaking so convincingly.
Despite what has been said, the JCVI’s recommendation on the mass vaccination of children aged 12 to 15 is clear. “The margin of benefit” in vaccinating healthy 12 to 15-year-olds is “too small” to support such a policy. That was the conclusion reached when the question was asked, as it should be in the case of medical decisions, about what would be in the best interests of our children’s health.
Throughout the pandemic we have continually been told of the importance of following the science. I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) to her ministerial position, but will she explain why we are now disregarding the science and the experts who clearly said that it is not necessary nor advisable on the basis of the evidence we have for that cohort to receive a covid-19 vaccine? Given “fake news”, some people seize on any lack of clarity or inconsistency to be anti-vax, which I am not, and that is a real risk when the Government override trust, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) delineated so well.
If it is because of extraneous factors that have been mentioned in recent days, such as protecting children’s mental health and ensuring they miss no more school, it must be said that both of those problems have their root in Government decision making. School closures are a political choice. Testing regimes are at the bureaucratic insistence of the Department for Education. The fear that some children might have of dying from covid-19 has come from a created climate of fear, because the evidence shows that both children who are perfectly healthy and those who have underlying health conditions face a mortality rate from covid-19 of two in every 1 million. Children are therefore not at risk of death or serious illness from covid-19. In fact, most children are asymptomatic or experience a mild illness. Given that most vaccines do not prevent transmission and that those most at risk due to age or underlying health conditions have been double-vaccinated, this recommendation is not only unnecessary, but could be dangerous. We should be protecting our children and not taking unnecessary risks with their health in favour of some vague notion of perceived benefit to wider society.
Chris Green
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that initially the Government’s perspective was that we need a double vaccination for both protection and longevity of protection, yet 12 to 15-year-olds will receive only one dose, giving them relatively short-term protection? That is not consistent with the general stated aims of the vaccine programme.
Andrew Lewer
My hon. Friend very capably highlights yet another inconsistency. It is important to remember that any child who gets seriously ill or, heaven forbid, dies from a vaccine does so because of a policy decision and not a disease.
Turning to parental responsibility, many constituents who are parents have expressed their deep unease at the Government’s recommendation, and even more so that under the ill-advised Gillick principle children will be able to consent to taking the vaccine against their parents’ wishes. The Gillick principle has been cited as something that is set in stone and could never be changed, and as a sort of legal precedent as if this House, which exists to make law, could not override it, as many other things have been overridden apparently quite straightforwardly in the last couple of years.
The Gillick principle—it is unfortunate it is named after her given her background—means that children will be able to consent to taking the vaccine against their parents’ wishes. It has long been accepted in this country and in the thinking of my political background and heritage that children under the age of 18, and certainly under 16, should be the responsibility of their parents, that they should be guided and protected by them, and that parents, as adults, will make decisions in the best interests of their children. Only in exceptional circumstances should agents of the state interfere in that relationship and override a parent’s wish for their child.
I am deeply concerned by the increasing trend away from the Gillick principle. Just last week, we saw the High Court hand down a deeply concerning judgment that children under the age of 16 will be able to consent to taking puberty blockers without the need for parental permission. We are descending rapidly down a slippery slope. It is a mistake to allow children to circumvent parental control, especially when the long-term consequences of the vaccines are not yet clear. There has been limited research and data collected on the efficacy and safety of these vaccines for children.
I have been contacted by local teachers in my constituency of Northampton South who are receiving concerned emails from parents accusing schools of implementing this policy. I want it to be clear that this is a Government proposal and schools will have no liability in carrying out injections. I also want clarification from the Minister that vaccines will not be administered by school staff.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
Dame Angela, I have worked out from your timings that I get 20 minutes to speak—
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
Order. The latest that I will bring in the Front Benchers is 10.38 am, so you do not have to take the full 20 minutes.
Derek Thomas
I am pretty sure I will not. I congratulate the Minister, who until last week was my favourite Whip and is now the vaccines Minister. It is a great honour to do that job, and I am sad we have to come up against this particular policy because across the board the vaccine programme has been remarkable. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) on securing the debate. The issue is agitating and concerning, and enormous numbers of people, including parents, schools and many others, feel it is a step too far.
I am a Conservative. I joined the Conservative party because of a belief in giving people freedom of choice, the ability to deliver and develop their own destiny, and the opportunity to live full, vibrant and fulfilling lives. I think this particular policy goes right against that, and I feel uncomfortable with it. It feels wrong, and I believe it is wrong to introduce this vaccination programme for children aged 12 to 15, considering all that has been said about consent this morning. Before I get started, may I just say that I feel privileged to be in this room where such great points and speeches have been made, because we care about families, children and how our schools are supported in a very difficult and unprecedented time?
Earlier in the year I went to visit St Clare medical centre in my constituency, which was delivering the vaccine programme with great fervour. It has an amazing system going on. In fact, with other primary care networks in my constituency, it was mentioned in dispatches for the incredible effort it put in to get the vaccine out to the most vulnerable people. My constituency was the fifth in the country in getting the most people vaccinated by the February half term.
I observed the logistical challenge and triumph of rolling out the vaccine programme and talked to the practice manager. She described why the additional workload was acceptable: a massive volunteer army was motivated and mobilised, there was an incredible collaboration of GPs, the NHS and all sorts of organisations that had got behind this, and there was organisation across the primary care networks. She said that all of that extra effort—the long weekends and the massive amount of work that went into it—was possible and worthwhile because it was part of the national effort. It really struck home that people right down at the end of the country, in the most beautiful part, who are often tucked away and not necessarily engaged in national efforts, were so enthusiastic and determined to make this work. West Cornwall primary care networks were mentioned by the Secretary of State at the time for their incredible effort in getting vaccines to people in such a quick and effective way.
During the roll-out of the vaccine programme, Ministers fiercely defended the decisions made by the JCVI. The JCVI determined the priority groups—who would get the vaccine and when—and Ministers refused to intervene. They were determined not to intervene, not even to prioritise teachers as schools opened in September last year. They refused to intervene to prioritise the police when some 10,000 policemen descended on my constituency in Cornwall for the G7. There was great concern about that, but Ministers refused to intervene to allow police officers of all ages to have the vaccine ahead of the priority groups set out by the JCVI. Why now, with the help of the chief medical officers, do the Government reject the advice of the JCVI? That advice states:
“The margin of benefit…is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year-old children”.
It also says that
“any impact on transmission may be relatively small”.
In other words, schools would still be disrupted because the vaccine does not manage transmission. I, along with many others, recognise the wisdom of the JCVI’s advice JCVI in this area. We were surprised when, just weeks later, the Government and chief medical officer seemed to take a completely different course. I was relieved when the JCVI made its case and gave that very sound advice. Like many others, I was then disappointed and concerned that the Government seemed to go against it.
The reason for my concern is that the decision to override the JCVI advice will undermine confidence in the vaccine roll-out programme. Up until now, because of the way the JCVI has operated, the country has welcomed the approach, has supported it and had confidence in it. I wonder whether the Government are actually doing it a disservice by potentially undermining confidence in the roll-out. So far, the great strength of the vaccine roll-out is its voluntary nature, based on sound advice and a national united effort.
My fear is that the decision has been made for seemingly unsubstantiated reasons. There are gaping holes in the argument that it will minimise disruption of children’s education. My fear is that it risks turning a national effort into a tool to pressure children, undermine parents and drive an inadvertent wedge between families and schools. Under a new Secretary of State, the Government’s primary priority should be allowing schools to do what they do best: educating children. I ought to declare an interest as I have three children, who are in school at this very moment—or so I hope.
At the beginning of the year, I secured an Adjournment debate on the experience of schools. They have had a blooming rotten time, with changing advice and all sorts of things coming down from Government; they did not know if they were coming or going. What has really concerned schools, teachers and headteachers is that they have taken on a new role—trying to manage children’s health and parts of their welfare—that they never signed up for. It is not that they are unwilling, but that they do not have the time or resources, and they might even add the expertise, to take on those additional responsibilities when what they want is to educate children and give them the best start in life.
All Members’ constituency offices have supported schools in the bizarre work they have had to do to manage parents on different sides of different arguments when it comes to managing covid in schools. I have had parents who are furious with a school for insisting on face coverings in parts of the school, both before that was the official advice and since; I have also had parents furious with a school for saying children do not have to wear a face covering in the classroom. Those poor headteachers and staff have had to deal with that along with all the pressures of teaching children.
What do we do? We make their job a whole lot more difficult by putting schools at the centre of a decision that most of us in this room do not believe is robust or stands up to what scientists have said. We have asked them to take on the additional responsibility of vaccinating 12 to 15-year-olds, and to manage the various pressures that come with it, when all they want to do—all they thought they were doing—is go back to school in September, catch up and give their children a happy, healthy and wonderful experience being educated. I really feel for our children.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman has referred to one school where there were different opinions between parents about their children. There are different opinions in schools, but it is important to have a policy that is uniform across all schools. Does he feel that when the Minister replies, she could mention any discussions with the Secretary of State for Education about having a uniform policy which applies to all schools? Then the schools would have one rule they could all adhere to.
Derek Thomas
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because I was going to come on to that. We are entering into a very difficult situation. We need to protect schools and enable them to do their job, not drive a wedge between parents and schools. At the same time, we want schools to be very clear about their responsibilities and how they can manage issues of coercion, peer pressure and so on. It is a tricky issue for the Minister to grapple with.
I would like the Minister to ensure and confirm three things. I imagine that it will make up the vast majority of her work over the next few weeks, now that the Government have made their decision. Obviously, many of us would rather they had ditched that decision and instead made sure that the vaccine got to people in developing countries who really need it. If we really care about keeping this country and the rest of the western world safe—if that is our priority—then supporting the vaccination of the whole world, instead of our children, is the answer. However, that is a separate issue that the vaccines Minister probably cannot address on her own.
In line with the intervention I have just received, can the Minister make it absolutely clear that parents have the information they need, that they understand their rights, and that they are very clear about schools’ role in providing the vaccine and supporting children to have the vaccine, if that is what parents wish for their children? Can we also ensure that the vaccine is given only when informed and voluntary consent is clearly given—when it is definitely there, free from peer pressure and coercion?
We are now asking schools to somehow play referee in a situation that should never be in their remit. The desire to get on top of covid and get things going again could lead to a situation where things go wrong and become difficult in the school environment.
Karl MᶜCartney
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way right at the end of his speech, as he was asking the Minister a few questions. Does he know or can the Minister refer in her remarks to the strength of any vaccination that might be given to children under the age of 16?
Derek Thomas
I will not even attempt to answer that, other than to say that it is interesting that it is a single dose as that raises the question of what happens next. Will there be boosters of a single dose in time or is this a curious attempt to somehow get the whole country vaccinated and then we will wonder what to do after Christmas? My hon. Friend raises a good point and I hope the Minister responds to it.
We must ensure that parents are clear about their rights and that they are supported to know what is right for their children. Can we ensure that the vaccine is never used and cannot be used as a condition of access to education for any children, including those in special schools or those in care? Whatever the situation, we must ensure that there is no opportunity for the vaccine to be a condition of education. We must not give up on that, although I do not think for a minute that that is the intention.
The JCVI has done a fantastic job leading the national roll-out of the vaccine and has made us one of the most successful countries in the world in relation to the vaccine. Can we allow it the freedom to monitor the vaccine roll-out for children as it goes forward and to continue to offer advice on it? If it then says that the benefit margins are too small, can the Government properly review the roll-out and be bold enough to stop it, if that is the advice that is given? We need to ensure that the public can continue completely to trust the advice and the vaccine programme as it is today.
In conclusion, when will asymptomatic testing come to an end? It is costing a fortune, it is bizarre to test healthy children and it is not right to continue to do that. How can we ensure that we do not just protect the UK public but those around the world? What is the next step? Our policy is to give one jab to 12 to 15-year-olds. What is the Government’s and scientists’ thinking about the next step in making sure that our children continue to go to school? Please can we get back to giving vaccines just because of the health of individuals and not to protect the school environment, the community or even, dare I say it, the economy?
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I welcome this timely and important debate, which has been secured by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates).
My Labour and I colleagues strongly welcome the fact that children aged between 12 and 15 are now being offered their first dose of a covid vaccine, following advice from all four of the UK’s chief medical officers. That is something we have been calling for since June. It will have both direct and indirect health benefits for children, and it will help to keep them in school, which is vital after all the face-to-face learning they have missed out on and the impact that it could have on their long-term life chances. Vaccinating 12 to 15-year-olds will also help their families and the wider community by helping to keep infection rates down.
The latest figures show that there were 36,000 new infections in the last 24 hours. There are 7,847 people in hospital with covid-19. The average number of daily deaths over the last week has risen to a tragic 142. In my own city of Leicester, rates remain highest among 11 to 16-year-olds, with a considerable increase over the last month, so there is not a moment to waste.
We have been calling on the Government since the start of the summer to press ahead with a vaccination programme for children. Back in June, the shadow Minister for Schools, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), argued that if covid vaccinations for children were found to be safe, as the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency clearly says they are, they should be rolled out over the summer holidays, before the beginning of the new academic year, to help to keep disruption in schools to a minimum.
In July, the shadow Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), pressed the Health Secretary on why covid-19 vaccinations were being given to children in the United States, Canada, Israel, France, Austria, Spain and Hong Kong, but not here in the UK. I am sad to say that, at that stage, the Government failed to act. Although we are rightly proud of the amazing vaccination programme delivered by our NHS, the truth is that we are now being overtaken by other countries, and that is due in no small part to the vaccination of children.
France was one of the first to offer vaccines to children, back in June, and now 68% of children aged 12 to 18 have received a single dose. In Italy, the figure is 62% and in Spain 79%. Israel, the United States, Canada, Sweden, Poland and Switzerland have also raced ahead. While our Government spent months delaying on this vital issue, countries across the world acted, and they are now streets ahead of us in protecting children, their education and the wider community. It is vital that we catch up.
Miriam Cates
I thank the hon. Member for the important points that she is making. Does she believe that it is important to follow what other countries are doing, and to roll out the vaccine almost on the basis of an international competition, or is it more important to be safe? Does she not think that the fact that we were in advance of many other countries, and we broke the link between case rates and deaths early on, gives us more space to breathe and allows us to take longer to make finely balanced decisions about vaccinating children?
Liz Kendall
I am sure the hon. Lady is not suggesting that all those other countries have made decisions that are not based on the evidence, because to say so would be insulting to them. I believe that we should base our decisions on evidence and advice from the experts, and I will come on to say more about that. That is what has happened in other countries. I just wish we had done it earlier in this country.
Miriam Cates
The hon. Lady is absolutely right; I am not saying that other countries are not basing decisions on their own evidence. I am saying that the success of our programme was based on the JCVI’s advice and its particular method of offering vaccination based on individual medical benefit, which gave us an incredible advantage that could have allowed us to wait a further six or nine months to make this decision.
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
Prior to the hon. Lady responding, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge must remember that she has to put questions.
Liz Kendall
Thank you, Dame Angela. I will come back to this point, because several hon. Members have talked about what the JCVI recommended, and I hope I will be able to set out a little more information about what it actually said later in the debate. Before I go on to talk about the evidence—
Liz Kendall
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to make sure there is time for the Minister to respond and for the hon. Lady who secured this debate to speak again at the end. I want to make some important points about the evidence, but may I first say something about some deeply concerning and troubling incidents in my Leicester West constituency?
I am appalled that some of our headteachers have received threats via letter and on social media—including threats of legal action, and even death threats—accusing them of supposedly promoting illegal medical experimentation on children. That is disgraceful and completely unacceptable. As Jane Brown, the headteacher of New College in my constituency, says, we need to call this out. Schools are having a tough enough time as it is, without being bullied, too. I hope that when the Minister—I welcome her to her place—rises to speak, she will join me in condemning those threats and intimidation, and in once again making it clear that vaccination will be voluntary and no child will have the vaccine forced upon them. It is also vital to stress that although schools are the venue for the vaccination, the delivery of the programme will be done by the NHS and arrangements for consent are exactly the same as for all other vaccinations and medical procedures. I hope that the Minister will say what the Government are going to do to try to deal with the threats and intimidation, which I fear are growing.
I turn to why my Labour colleagues and I so strongly welcome the CMOs’ decision. As always, we are guided by the evidence and the advice from experts, which show that covid vaccines for children are safe and effective to use, with the benefits exceeding the risks on an individual basis. That is the view of the MHRA and the equivalent regulators in Europe, the USA and Canada. The JCVI agrees that the benefits of vaccinating 12 to 15-year-olds exceed the risks—in other words, that for people in this age group, it is better to be vaccinated than not.
In their decision to recommend the universal vaccination of 12 to 15-year-olds, the four CMOs took as read the JCVI and MHRA view that the benefits exceed the risks, and they then looked at the wider benefits. It is not true that the JCVI advice has been undermined, as I have heard several times in this debate. The JCVI says that
“it is not within its remit to incorporate in-depth considerations on wider societal impacts, including educational benefits. The government may wish to seek further views on the wider societal and educational impacts from the chief medical officers of the 4 nations, with representation from JCVI in these subsequent discussions.”
The JCVI recommended that wider societal impacts were looked at. Doing so is not undermining the JCVI’s decision; it is putting it into practice. The CMOs consulted with a wide range of organisations, including the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the Faculty of Public Health and many others.
In making their decision, the CMOs said that the most important issue for 12 to 15-year-olds was the impact on education, which is vital in itself and one of the most important drivers of public health and mental health. The CMOs note that the
“impact has been especially great in areas of relative deprivation which have been particularly badly affected by COVID-19”.
That is, in areas of the country precisely like those that I represent in Leicester West, which were in lockdown far longer than any other part of the country. Children have lost out on an average of 115 days of class learning. That could have a huge impact on their later life chances, not to mention the knock-on impact on their ability to fulfil their potential and earn, and all the impact that has on the wider economy.
The CMOs rightly say that missing out on schooling has health ramifications, as educational attainment is a key determinant of a person’s health throughout their life. It has an impact on their wider social mobility and their future likelihood of developing co-morbidities. It can affect the likelihood of obesity, smoking and alcoholism, and it can affect their life expectancy. That is not to mention the widely recognised mental health benefits of education in both the long and the short term.
Children cannot afford to miss out on any more face-to-face learning, given the effects on their educational opportunities and the wider impact. As the CMOs said,
“the additional likely benefits of reducing educational disruption, and the consequent reduction in public health harm from educational disruption, on balance provide sufficient extra advantage in addition to the marginal advantage at an individual level identified by the JCVI”.
Recommending vaccination for this age group is not undermining the JCVI’s advice; it is putting it into practice. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health agrees. It says:
“We believe that vaccination could benefit healthy children, irrespective of any direct health benefit, in enabling them to have less interruption to school attendance, to allow them to mix more freely with their friends”
and
“to help reduce the anxiety some children feel about COVID-19.”
We need to move swiftly on this. We need to strain every sinew to get children vaccinated, to help them, their families and the wider community. I hope that when the Minister rises to speak, she will say what more the Government are doing to encourage this and, critically, to make sure that the appalling threats to our schools are effectively dealt with. I look forward to her response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for securing this important and timely debate on the vaccination of 12 to 15-year-olds against covid-19. She quite rightly highlighted the importance of vaccine roll-outs and the programmes that we have had for many decades, and I thank her for that.
Before I respond to the various questions and points raised by hon. Members, I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), for his efforts in successfully delivering the vaccine programme, with more than 93 million doses administered in the UK and more than four fifths of adults receiving the protection of two jabs. I aim to build on that very solid foundation in my new role.
I also put on record that I am very grateful to everyone who has played a crucial role in the success of the vaccine roll-out, from our brilliant scientists, clinical trial participants, the armed forces, NHS England, frontline healthcare workers, vaccine volunteers and local and central Government. Our jabs have already prevented more than 112,000 deaths, 230,000 hospitalisations and more than 24 million infections. They have built a vast wall of defence for the British people.
Earlier this year, our medicines regulator, the MHRA, approved the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for 12 to 17-year-olds. The MHRA authorisation decision confirmed that vaccines are safe and effective for this age group. On this decision, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation recommended vaccination for 12 to 15-year-olds with serious underlying health conditions. In August, the committee advised an initial dose of the vaccine for all healthy remaining 16 and 17-year-olds. The JCVI then looked at whether we should extend our offer of vaccination to all 12 to 15-year-olds. It concluded that there are health benefits to vaccinating this cohort, although they are finely balanced.
However, the JCVI’s remit does not include the wider impacts of vaccinations, such as the benefits for children in education or the mental health benefits that come from people knowing that they are protected from this deadly virus. The JCVI therefore advised that the Government might wish to seek further views on those wider impacts from the UK’s chief medical officers across all four nations. The Secretary of State and the Health Ministers from the devolved nations accepted that advice. Our CMOs consulted clinical experts and public health professionals from across the United Kingdom, such as those from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. I trust that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), who raised concerns about professional advice.
We received advice from the four chief medical officers, and it was made publicly available and deposited in the Library for Members to read in full. The unanimous recommendation of the UK’s chief medical officers is to offer all remaining 12 to 15-year-olds a first dose of the Pfizer vaccine, with further JCVI guidance needed before any decision on a second dose. The CMOs have been clear that they make this recommendation based on the benefits to children alone, not on the benefits to adults or wider society.
I can confirm that the Government accepted this recommendation. We are now moving forward with the same sense of urgency that we have had at every point in our vaccination programme. I am delighted that a 14-year-old in Essex yesterday became one of the first children in the country to receive a covid-19 vaccination in school.
Chris Green
Will my hon. Friend set out exactly why it is recommended for adults to have two doses and perhaps later a booster dose of the vaccine, but for children it is a single dose?
Maggie Throup
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I reassure him that the evidence is continually being observed and recorded. Further advice will be taken on whether a second dose is needed for the younger age range. Evidence is being gathered all the time.
I appreciate that there are questions about how the process of consent will work in circumstances where parents and children disagree. I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) that, as with all vaccinations for children, parental consent will be sought. The consent process is being handled by each school in its usual way and provides sufficiently for parents to give their consent. Children aged 12 to 15 will also be provided with information, usually in the form of a leaflet for their own use and to share and discuss with parents prior to the date on which the immunisation is scheduled.
Parental, guardian or carer consent will be sought by the school age immunisation service prior to vaccination, in line with other school vaccination programmes. That service will carry out the vaccinations, and I trust that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South. The school age vaccination service has vast experience of dealing with a number of other vaccine roll-outs in secondary schools, such as the human papillomavirus vaccine and the three-in-one teenage booster that protects against tetanus, diphtheria and polio. The clinicians who work on these roll-outs are very well equipped and very well versed in dealing with vaccines in schools.
In their advice, the four CMOs have said it is essential that children and young people aged 12 to 15, and their parents, are supported in whatever decisions they take, and that they are not stigmatised for accepting or not accepting the vaccination offer. Individual choice should be respected. It is the opportunity to be vaccinated that is on offer, in a fair and equitable manner.
To those who remain undecided, I say this. The MHRA is the best medical regulator in the world. It has rigorously reviewed the safety of our vaccines, and it only authorises those that it concludes are safe. Vaccines for children and young people are no exception. We continue to have a comprehensive safety surveillance strategy in place across all age groups to monitor the safety of all covid-19 vaccines that are approved for use in the UK.
I will now address some of the interventions and questions from hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge asked a number of questions. I reiterate that the CMOs sought advice from experts in the field; it was not just the information they had themselves. It is only right that, based on that advice, 12 to 15-year-olds are able to take up the offer of the vaccine in a fair and equitable manner.
My hon. Friend asked about disruption to education from the programme. NHS England already has plans in place for the mop-up programme, which is not likely to be on school sites, to minimise disruption to education and the rest of the immunisation programme.
Miriam Cates
I very much appreciate the point and the reassurance the Minister is giving, but even the CMOs acknowledge that the vaccine programme in and of itself is not going to end disruption to schools. Whether people choose to have this vaccine or not—which absolutely should be a free decision, as the Minister says—what is more important is the policy making around having consistent rules in schools, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, but also ending mass asymptomatic testing, which is picking up cases that it does not need to pick up and is itself causing disruption. How will the disruption to schools end, even if vaccination does go ahead and cover a wide population?
Maggie Throup
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is important that we do whatever we can—use whatever we have in our toolbox—to make sure that children are able to continue with their education, and vaccination is one part of that. I know my hon. Friend is passionate, as am I, about making sure that children get a full education, and that the pandemic does not affect their futures. My hon. Friend raised several other questions and, if she will allow me, I will write to her in response to any I do not answer in my speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) raised questions about guidance for schools on the vaccination programme. How the programme will work has been set out very clearly, including in the formation of the consent process, most recently updated on 17 September 2021. I would like to reassure my hon. Friend, who highlighted the three words “do no harm”, that robust monitoring arrangements are in place for the vaccination of 12 to 15-year-olds, and that further data will be available shortly.
I join the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) in absolutely condemning the threats and intimidation of headteachers, school staff and anybody who enters school premises. That is a big issue, and my advice is that headteachers who have received such intimidation should rapidly contact the school age immunisation service, which is well versed in addressing it. They should not be afraid to speak to the police and the local authority too. I assure her that that issue is extremely high on my priority list, which, as she can imagine, is getting longer.
It is important that we remember that our teenagers have shown great public spirit at every point during the pandemic, and I thank them for that. They have stuck to the rules so that lives can be saved and people kept safe, and they have been some of the most enthusiastic proponents of vaccines.
Chris Green
Certain drug companies are now looking to get approval for vaccinations for five-year-olds. Does the Minister rule that in or out in the United Kingdom?
Maggie Throup
My focus at the moment is on ensuring the effective roll-out of the programme for 12 to 15-year-olds. We must ensure that the booster programme is rolled out effectively, and encourage the last few people who have not yet had the vaccine—I think it is about 5 million—to take up that offer.
Karl MᶜCartney
I am conscious there are a few minutes left in this debate, so I want to refer quickly to three more issues. First, the Minister may have noticed that the first speech in support of the Government’s position came from an Opposition Member, who claimed to be speaking on behalf of all Opposition MPs, although there is only one here.
Secondly, a point was made about the seat of the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and the number of young people who have, I believe, covid, although she did not give the actual number. However, if school children were not tested over the summer, surely they are now being tested in school and the incidence of those with covid will be rising. Therefore, I am being very gracious to both Front Benchers—
Karl MᶜCartney
It is, but I am coming to the end of my comments, Dame Angela. I am conscious of that. When I was growing up, there was a very famous pop song called “Don’t Believe the Hype”. Surely that is something we should all be taking notice of.
Maggie Throup
I will take my hon. Friend’s comments on board. More than half of 16 and 17-year-olds across the United Kingdom have had the jab, despite most having become eligible only last month, which shows young people’s enthusiasm to come forward and play their part.
At every point in our vaccination programme, we have been guided by the best clinical advice. The advice that we received from the four chief medical officers last week sets out their view that all 12 to 15-year-olds will benefit from vaccination against covid-19. We will follow that advice and continue that vital path to ensure we keep more and more people in this country safe.
Miriam Cates
I thank all hon. Members who contributed to this important debate. I also thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their speeches. We are united in our desire to get back to normal, in our desire for children to have normal education, and in our praise of the vaccine programme, which has protected so many adults across this country.
To finish, I reiterate the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green): what is success? Where does this end? How do we get back to normal? I do not believe the vaccine roll-out among children will get us there. We need determined political leadership that puts the welfare of children front and centre, ends educational disruption and allows us to move forward with their future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the vaccination of children against covid-19.
Project Gigabit
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the Chamber.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Project Gigabit and community-led internet service providers.
It is a massive pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I also offer a massive welcome to the Minister. I am hugely grateful for the opportunity to raise a massively important issue to rural communities. This is a half-hour debate, yet it is great to see friends and colleagues from Cumbria and beyond who share my concerns.
We want to talk about the extremely urgent issue of Project Gigabit. The deadline for applications for the broadband voucher scheme is in three days. After that, the Government plan to cancel, or at least park, the scheme for now. Every day we become increasingly dependent on digital technology, not only for leisure but for work. The covid pandemic has led to more of us working from home, so access to quick, reliable and affordable broadband has never been more important than it is today.
In my community, one in four people in the workforce works for themselves. The impact on small businesses, particularly start-ups, of a very high quality broadband connection is utterly transformational—or something that can delay their access to the world of commerce. I welcome the Government’s Project Gigabit on paper, with its promise to deliver at least 85% gigabit-capable coverage across the UK by 2025. However, I am alarmed that this well-intentioned scheme will, in practice, result in thousands of rural homes, many of which were on the verge of being connected to hyperfast fibre-optic broadband, missing out altogether.
I am talking about towns and villages that have been working with the community-led internet service provider, Broadband for the Rural North or B4RN—known to most of us as “barn”. I am delighted that Michael Lee, the chief executive of B4RN, is with us today in the Gallery. B4RN has brought hyperfast broadband to more than 9,000 properties across Cumbria, Lancashire and Northumberland. It offers 100% of properties in a community a fibre connection to the premises, no matter how hard they are to reach, and with no additional cost passed on to the individual. It even offers free connections to schools, churches and village halls.
It has been able to do all of that through the Government’s various voucher schemes. In the last quarter alone, B4RN has connected 587 more properties to the network, though its plans for the next few years have been put into serious doubt because of Project Gigabit’s procurement process. B4RN’s business model gathers vouchers from households in a rural area and then pools them to deliver a scheme that connects every home, including those that are the most remote and difficult to reach. It then delivers immensely fast broadband at speeds that BT will only deliver if customers pay through the nose, and they would be lucky even then.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter forward for debate. The fact that there are representatives here from many parts indicates the importance. Does he feel that, when it comes to funding, the hardest-to-reach parts of the UK find the cost of installing as a group project an issue, as it is for some of my constituents? Then it can be extended to the smaller parts of communities and further afield. Does he feel the Minister should respond clearly to what he has said, and ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can benefit?
Tim Farron
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. For us, B4RN has done something unique from a not-for-profit angle, to fill in the gaps from the grassroots up. That is a model that we should see emulated in other parts of the country, rather than have it accidentally—I would say—snuffed out by a good idea at Whitehall that turned out to be a bad idea in practice.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He is making a very good speech. The problems facing my vast, remote constituency are similar. Does he agree with me that the Scottish Liberal Democrats’ proposed scheme of broadband catch-up zones is much to be commended? Does he also agree that the UK Government would do well to take that on board, to avoid rural communities in our constituencies and other parts of the UK playing perpetual catch-up with urban communities?
Tim Farron
My hon. Friend knows all about remote and rural communities, which make us in Cumbria look bijou, concentrated and urban by comparison. Yet, obviously, the challenges we face are very similar. Yes, understanding that the most difficult-to-reach parts of our country broadband-wise are the ones where we should start, rather than the ones we fill in after the fact, is something that we have pressed successive Governments to take seriously. B4RN tackles that.
The great shame is that the Government’s decision to end the voucher scheme in just three days’ time, while the procurement process takes place, will basically turn Project Gigabit into “Project Pull the Plug” for many of our towns and villages. Rather than allowing B4RN to carry on connecting our communities, the Government will instead allow big multinational companies with a track record so far of failing to meet rural need in Cumbria with a free shot at connecting properties in our communities. The difference between them and B4RN, however, is that they will not connect 100% of the properties. The Government will say that they are only obliged to connect 80% of properties—which they could probably have connected commercially anyway, but have not. We all know where the other 20% will be, do we not? They will be the most rural, the most remote. The communities that B4RN offered hope to will now be victims of “Project Pull the Plug”.
Successful community providers such as B4RN have pulled people together, strengthening communities in the process as volunteers literally go shoulder to shoulder to dig trenches and to connect homes and businesses. Personally, it was a real privilege for me to join residents digging in Old Hutton and to build lasting friendships in the process. Landowners large and small had waived payment, because they know that B4RN is not for profit and that the beneficiaries are their local neighbours. Communities such as Old Hutton, once the least connected place in Cumbria—I tell you, Dame Angela, that is saying something—now have world-class connections, thanks to B4RN and to Ministers in the past who listened.
Today’s debate will give us an insight, if the Minister will forgive me for saying so, into whether she will be one who listens. Her predecessor was a very nice man, but on this he did not listen. He visited Mallerstang in the constituency of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) and met Michael Lee, the chief executive of B4RN, who explained why removing the voucher scheme would kill off so many schemes that could connect rural communities in Cumbria. The Minister came, got his photograph and must have left behind everything he was told—or, he let it in one ear and let it slip out the other ear on the train ride back south.
The Government’s plan for rural broadband bears all the hallmarks of one of those great bright ideas dreamt up in Whitehall—a bright idea that, in reality, does inexcusable damage to rural communities, all the more inexcusable because so many of us have explained patiently and in detail why that is so. However, it does not need to be that way, and the Minister has the power to fix it today. If communities where B4RN is demonstrably engaged and actively planning are moved into the deferred procurement scope, and if voucher application remains open for those communities during the procurement process, B4RN will be able to continue to help level up remote rural communities through the delivery of future-proof fibre-optic infrastructure.
Our rural communities are under enormous pressure. The Government’s failure to restrict second home ownership and continuing to permit innocent tenants to be evicted so that landlords may quadruple their income through holiday lets mean that the very survival of many of our villages is at stake. Access to fast broadband is one way to ensure that local families can afford to remain in our area and to make a living—to run their businesses, to maintain a foothold in Cumbria, and to be able to stay there and raise their children there, keeping schools open and communities alive. For the Government to pull the plug in that way would be either cruel or foolish, or both. They may no longer pretend that that will be an unintended consequence of their plans, because we have shown them clearly what the consequences are.
Even if we believe the Government when they say that the voucher scheme might be replaced in a year or so, that will be too late, because all that might be left to connect will be the 20% of properties that BT and co chose to ignore. The voucher scheme will be of little use then, because B4RN depends on pooling funding from the vouchers of all the community in order to connect all the community. By securing the business of the towns and villages, it builds up the money to connect the homes, farms and hamlets that are most rural and otherwise financially unviable. The Government’s procurement plan, which abandoned the hardest-to-connect 20%, will be the death of the B4RN business model. When the Government designed the plan, they did not know that—fair enough—but now they do and they have no excuse. The Conservatives will be killing off rural broadband in Cumbria. They know that, and today we will find out whether they care.
The Minister will need to look these communities in the eye, especially those that the Government choose to dump, and explain why she has chosen to pull the plug. Hot off the press today I can reveal the communities that the Conservative Government have chosen to pull the plug on: Kirkwhelpington, Great Salkeld, Storth, Woodburn, Sedbergh, Kirkby Lonsdale, Nateby, Lazonby, Melmerby, Brough Sowerby, Crosthwaite, Hugill, Far Sawrey, Kirkby Ireleth, Hawskhead and Claife, half of Skelwith Bridge, Ackenthwaite, Whassett, Broughton-in-Furness, the Rusland valley, Lowick, Great Langdale, Skelton, and 548 properties in the village of Burneside. There is a list of other communities still hugely at risk because of Project Gigabit’s procurement plan, but B4RN will do everything it can to deliver within a year. I make the decision on the hoof to not name them because it would take acres of time and I do not want to blight them. There is a massive chance that they will succeed because B4RN will do everything it can, despite all the odds stacked against it.
Every one of the communities that I have listed will rightly feel that they have had the rug pulled from under them by the Government. Those communities were pulling together, voluntarily giving up their time and energy, and working with a tried and tested B4RN model to deliver to some of the most remote parts of our country. Getting connected is a matter of life and death for some of those communities. It is about the ability to learn, trade and communicate. It is the difference between communities thriving and being sustainable and being cut off and therefore unsustainable.
Jamie Stone
Is there not an international aspect to this? If the United Kingdom is to compete and succeed on a world trade stage, it could mobilise the skills and abilities in some of the remotest parts of the UK as part of that victory.
Tim Farron
That is absolutely right. Traditionally, it is hard to earn a living in remote areas, but with high quality broadband we can live in a glorious place. I often say that if someone could live and raise their kids in South Lakeland and make a living, they would. We have an opportunity to do so. That applies to many other people and Members who have similarly glorious constituencies.
The Government’s decision to end the voucher scheme this week will be a body blow to the communities I have listed and to the others that I have chosen not to list for now. It is all the more cruel because of the real hope that our communities were offered that, through the B4RN model and the voucher scheme, they could and should have been connected. When B4RN comes to a community, it does not just build a world-class fibre optic network; it builds a community. It becomes a focus of energy, endeavour and a collective triumph against the odds. Communities that have been through the B4RN process are glued together with new friendships, new common interests and a new sense of community.
The Minister should know that the damage her decision will do to our communities goes far beyond the technology and to the very heart of those communities and community life. Those of us who have been through the experience and are proud to vouch for B4RN and for the hundreds of volunteers who have delivered the connections are at a loss as to how the Government can ignore that lived experience.
I have two simple solutions to solve the crisis, and then I will draw my remarks to a close. First, will the Minster commit to ensuring that all properties in areas where B4RN is already demonstrably engaged are given deferred scope procurement status? That will ensure that those areas are not part of the initial procurement scope of the regional supplier and that a B4RN build supported through voucher funding will still be available.
Secondly, will the Minister allow any pre-registered packages associated with deferred scope areas to remain open through the rest of the procurement process to ensure that the B4RN build programme is not disrupted? How can the Government claim to be levelling up when they are removing the chance for people living in the most rural areas of Cumbria, Lancashire, Northumberland and elsewhere to access hyperfast fibre-optic broadband in their homes?
This is a model that the rest of the country could learn from and emulate. Instead, it appears that Ministers—at least so far—have not been interested in learning from success and instead want to impose failure. That is why I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak today and to plead with the new Minister to listen to B4RN, to local MPs and, more importantly, to our communities, and not to be the Minister responsible for promising Project Gigabit but delivering “Project Pull the Plug”.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela. I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on securing the debate. We are neighbouring MPs and we share very many similar issues, so I very much welcome this debate. What I do not welcome, however, is the hon. Member and his party colleagues starting to put out literature in my constituency, including pieces and photos by him. May I remind him that we share the same issues, but we do not share the same constituency?
Rural connectivity is a huge issue for Penrith and The Border and for rural Cumbria, and it has been brought into sharp relief during the pandemic. 4G coverage in the north-west is around 73%; that needs to be improved. My constituency of Penrith and The Border has some of the hardest-to-reach areas in the whole United Kingdom; 11.6% of households have a speed of less than 10 megabits per second.
I very much welcome the fact that the Government are prioritising Cumbria in the roll-out of the gigabit programme and with the shared rural network. The £5 billion of funding is welcome for the United Kingdom, and I will keep banging the drum for Cumbria to be at the front of the queue for that. The £5 billion shared rural network is very important. We know that sometimes the fibre will not get to every household, so we need to extend 4G coverage to get to some of the hardest-to-reach areas, and I welcome the fact that that is happening in Cumbria as well. The forecast of 4G coverage of 73% will go to 88% with the shared rural network, which I welcome. I also welcome joint funding initiatives across Government through the Borderlands programme, which has earmarked approximately £28 million for the 4-gigabit programme.
I had the great pleasure of welcoming—the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to this—the previous Digital Minister to my constituency, to Mallerstang near Kirkby Stephen, to see the great work of B4RN in connecting households. We had the pleasure of actually connecting up one of the households ourselves.
I am working closely with parish councils, service providers such as B4RN, BDUK—Building Digital UK—the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and Connecting Cumbria. I believe that we need to work together to secure these deliveries for our hard-to-reach communities. I very much recognise the anxiety that communities are feeling about this procurement process and the voucher scheme now. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale about that.
I make a plea to the new Minister not to let this procurement exercise cause anxiety for these communities, but to allow the people who have worked closely with providers such as B4RN to keep the exercise going so that we have continuity and so that these community projects can actually be delivered. There are many, many schemes across Cumbria that are almost over the halfway line, and they need just a bit of extra time and a bit of Government support, so I make the plea to allow the voucher application system to remain open during the procurement process.
It is important that we allow communities to continue to work with providers such as B4RN so that some communities can be moved to the deferred procurement scope, and then we will not pause the process for these households and communities that are desperate to get connected. We can then stop the mad dash to get over the halfway line, and give communities and providers time to get people connected. I make a plea also that, after the procurement process, the providers work together. There is plenty of rural United Kingdom and rural Cumbria to go around. We want people to work together sensibly so that households are not left out, so I make a plea for everyone to work together.
I also make a plea to Opposition politicians: let us all work together; let us not play political football with this. We can work together—central Government, local government and communities pulling together. We all want the same thing: we all want better broadband and better connectivity. We have much more chance if we all work together, with the Government, to secure that aim.
The Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for securing this very important debate and for making what I thought was a compelling speech. I wish today to assure him, for the very same reason: we want to do the right thing for his constituents and for all residents and business owners in rural and hard-to-reach areas. We want to make sure that they are not left high and dry in the nationwide gigabit upgrade.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted that access to high-speed broadband is important for schooling, for businesses and for building communities in more rural areas, and we all understand this from the very difficult past 18 months. I know that that determination is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) and other colleagues in the Chamber today, including those from the highlands. The Prime Minister promised to end the spinning wheel of doom and he keenly follows the progress we are making to connect the country to lightning fast, reliable gigabit broadband. I will set out some of the progress we have made before I turn to the situation in Cumbria.
Working with Ofcom, we have given the commercial market a long-term framework that supports investment in gigabit broadband. We have reduced the barriers to roll-out, alongside further legislation that will help even more with issues such as wayleaves where we can get the infrastructure laid. We have also introduced active incentives for financial investment. As a result, our plan is working and gigabit-capable broadband is rolling out rapidly. Since January 2019, the UK’s gigabit-capable coverage has increased from 5.8% to nearly 50%, and that is expected to rise to 60% by the end of December. In addition, the Government and major providers’ joint investment of more than £1 billion is filling those gaps in rural 4G coverage.
There is a lot more diversity now in the broadband sector. I appreciate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale’s comments about larger providers, such as Openreach, but our local full fibre networks and rural gigabit connectivity programmes have awarded contracts to multiple operators, many of them smaller providers such as Gigaclear, Airband, Fibrus, Axiom, Quickline, Truespeed, Full Fibre and Wessex Internet. Our gigabit broadband voucher scheme has suppliers actively providing connections to communities in rural areas in every part of the UK.
However, we have to accept—as we do—that the market will not go everywhere, which is why we are backing Project Gigabit with £5 billion so that hard-to-reach communities are not left out. That is how we want to level up and ensure that our rural communities have the same chances and opportunities as our urban towns and cities. We are adding to the half a million rural homes and businesses already covered by Project Gigabit, thanks to our support. Through Project Gigabit, the Government are going to provide support to ensure coverage is available to the final 20% of premises that the market will not reach. That is a considerable undertaking that is going to involve everybody, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said. It is very important that we work together on that.
As part of Project Gigabit, we are investing more money—up to £210 million over the next three years—in gigabit vouchers. That builds on the success of the previous voucher programme that began in May 2019, which has subsidised the cost to connect more than 88,000 homes and businesses to gigabit-capable broadband so far. Our nationwide task is a lot larger, and if we are going to reach every home and business, the Government have to subsidise broadband networks to around 5 million premises. We have already made great strides with that objective, but we still have the most challenging parts of our four nations to reach. If we are going to get that done quickly, the lion’s share of the work has to be done through Government procurement contracts, working with both local and regional suppliers. I am very pleased to say that Cumbria is scheduled to be the first area to go into the procurement process. Provided that suppliers confirm the proposed project is viable, the procurement will get under way within the next few weeks.
While residents and businesses in Cumbria will be the first to benefit from our programme, it means the county is also at the forefront of our learning and understanding. Far from being cloth-eared, as I know the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has stated in his local paper, I want to reassure him that we are listening hard to people’s concerns and we continue to be open minded about the best approach. I hope this debate is the opening of that conversation, certainly with me in my new role.
My officials have met B4RN several times and examined each project it has put forward in a lot of detail. I am pleased that the chief executive is here today and, in fact, I understand that my officials are going to meet him later today. Not only that; my excellent predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), visited Cumbria last month and met communities in the midst of the broadband build. He also met B4RN and listened to the concerns, and I shall be happy to keep that conversation going.
I cannot stress enough how much the Department admires and applauds B4RN in its unique community-minded approach. As a network provider, it is almost unique in the UK. We do not want to dampen that enthusiasm or that business model. I have come from a position in the Cabinet Office where we were looking at how to transform the UK’s procurement regime now that we have left the European Union. One of our key drivers is looking to get more social value into the money the Government spend, as well as diversifying supply chains and encouraging small and medium-sized enterprises to get involved. I certainly do not want to crowd people out.
Residents involved in every one of B4RN’s projects tirelessly work to drum up support and interest and to persuade landowners to grant permissions to cross their land and so on. That is seriously impressive community work. I welcome that the vouchers have been used to provide coverage to 3,500 premises in Cumbria. I hope that that number will continue to grow, but our task—let us be honest here—is to help in the region of 60,000 premises, so the procurement approach has to do the heavy lifting when it comes to the Project Gigabit programme.
Tim Farron
I apologise for interrupting the Minister’s helpful speech. The 60,000 figure is very important, but does she recognise that as things stand, unless she defers the deadline for the voucher scheme on Friday, the communities that I have listed, which I got from B4RN, will be in limbo at the very least? While they could have looked forward to a connection very quickly, over the next year or so, they will now be at best put back several years. Can she not think of a way of doing both: of ensuring that she connects the 60,000 she talks about, while not dumping and pulling the plug on those communities that I just listed?
Julia Lopez
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern for those communities. We all appreciate the importance of broadband in those places. I think the best thing to do from this juncture is that the meeting between officials and Mr Lee goes ahead, and I ask for an update from that meeting and we talk about the best approach going forward.
My team in Building Digital UK has undertaken extensive work, along with the local authority teams in Cumbria and other areas, to get ready for the first procurements. A detailed consultation has been undertaken with the commercial market to identify the least commercial areas in which to subsidise build. That will ensure that taxpayers’ money is fully focused on levelling up the communities that would otherwise miss out. We know that some suppliers will be able to provide coverage more quickly with vouchers to communities where they are already active with projects. We will therefore accommodate that as far as we can in our approach.
However, not all planned voucher projects get off the ground and result in the intended coverage. It is important to ensure that the procurement process is ready to pick up those areas rather than leave anyone behind. We need to ensure that the existing voucher schemes really are credible. For that reason, we are structuring the procurement so that we do not slow down current voucher projects, while providing a back-up option through procurement so that residents and businesses do not miss out. It is about ensuring that there is a balance between supporting early coverage in areas where there are firm plans using vouchers, while ensuring that communities do not get left out and that we do not have to continually change the premises included in procurement. We need to ensure that those procurements are stable.
Jamie Stone
I am listening with great interest to what the Minister is saying. It is curious that no Scottish Members are present apart from myself, because the situation in Scotland is very patchy indeed with regard to broadband. May I cast a fly across the Minister? If it could be demonstrated by Her Majesty’s Government that the roll-out of broadband is highly efficient in such areas as Lakeland, would that not be a blow in favour of keeping the United Kingdom united?
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention, because the Union is so important to all of us in the Chamber. I want to do what I can in my ministerial role to support the connectivity of all four nations in our country.
As some of us have mentioned, the world is in the middle of a digital revolution and covid has accelerated that process, digitalising almost every part of our everyday lives and making the infrastructure that connects us more important than ever. That is why it is at the top of the Government’s agenda. As I mentioned, I will ask BDUK for an update from the meeting with Mr Lee in the coming days. I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for his very important and compelling speech.
Question put and agreed to.
Decarbonising Aviation
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking. This is line with Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the Chamber.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered decarbonising aviation.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Gary. I thank colleagues for taking the time to participate in this important debate, which my constituents, and no doubt those of all Members, will be watching with interest. My constituents in Putney are under the flightpath and they have plenty of opportunity to have a close connection with planes.
If we are to achieve our net zero ambition and turn the tide in the fight against climate change, we need to fight on many fronts. Aviation is a front we simply cannot retreat from. I am sure the Minister is ready with a list of the ways in which sustainable aviation fuel is going to save the aviation industry, but I hope to hear more than that: about how we can incentivise alternative ways to travel, or not travel, and a new commitment to look again at Heathrow expansion, as it is not compatible with the decarbonisation strategy published in July. Sustainable aviation fuel alone will not mean that we can head off into a new era of guilt-free flying. We must also have a reduction in flights and an associated increase in public transport, if we are to achieve net zero at the necessary speed.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Does she agree that one of the best ways of decarbonising aviation is by reducing demand and that one of the most effective ways of doing that would be through a frequent flyer levy? Given that just 15% of people take 70% of flights, a frequent flier levy would be a fair and effective way of reducing aviation demand.
Fleur Anderson
I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to look at a range of ways to tackle carbon in the aviation industry. I am disappointed that the “Decarbonising Transport” paper does not include measures such as the one that she has recommended. Too often, sustainable aviation fuel is used to give the illusion of environmental action, but there is a danger of greenwashing because of an over-optimistic assessment of how quickly we can scale up alternative fuel use and how sustainable these fuels really are.
The aviation industry is vital and valued for travel, jobs, trade and connecting us to the world, but it is also responsible for about 7% of global warming and is, mile for mile, the most damaging way to travel for the climate.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. Another factor that needs to be considered is how long aircraft can be used. These vehicles are built to last, so it takes significant time before operators need to replace them or swap them out for ones that are more environmentally friendly. We know that the pandemic has led to some airlines retiring their aircraft earlier than planned, so does she agree that the Government could provide financial incentives for airlines if they choose more sustainable aircraft in the future?
Fleur Anderson
I agree that airlines need to be able to replace their aircraft to speed up the level of decarbonisation, so we need incentives for that as well.
A return flight from London to San Francisco emits around 5.5 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per person, which is more than twice the emissions produced by a family car in a year and about half the average carbon footprint of someone living in Britain. Even a return flight from London to Berlin emits around 0.6 tonnes of CO2 equivalent, which is three times the emissions saved from a whole year of recycling.
My constituents in Putney know this all too well. We live under a major global flightpath, so we know what it is like to have thousands of tonnes of CO2 dumped on us every day from above, and to have to suffer the noise from the aircraft. The bottom line is that to achieve net zero, moving to sustainable aviation fuel is essential, but this is an industry in its infancy. Millions of tonnes can currently be produced, but we need billons of tonnes of fuel to be produced every year to meet demand.
We cannot move to sustainable aviation fast enough, so reducing flights must be built into jet zero plans, but it is not at the moment. It will take at least two years for the airline industry to return to pre-covid levels. We should be taking this opportunity to have hard conversations with the aviation industry about sustainability in respect of not only the fuel used but the number of flights taken. We should not allow the Heathrow expansion and third runway plans to go ahead. We should make it easier, cheaper and quicker to take train journeys instead of short plane trips and build in incentives for train travel. France has banned short-haul internal flights where a train journey shorter than two and a half hours could be provided as an alternative. Where are the equivalent bold moves from the Government?
I was pleased to see the Government launch the long-awaited decarbonising transport and jet zero consultation strategies earlier this year. I was also pleased to see the “Green Fuels, Green Skies” competition have such a good take-up and produce such an innovative winner, and to see the first British Airways flight using sustainable aviation fuel just five days ago. However, I am disappointed that the Jet Zero Council has met only a handful of times since it was established last year. Just how committed is it to change within the industry? I am also disappointed with the decarbonising transport strategy. The aviation section is a house of cards: it rests on extremely optimistic assumptions and speculative technological breakthroughs, which are either in their infancy or do not yet exist. It could all fall apart very easily. There is very little policy basis.
To be clear, it is important that we invest in and enable technological innovation and breakthrough; we will not be able to achieve net zero without it. However, the focus should be on what is actually possible and can be delivered now. We need concrete policy, not a wing and a prayer. For example, the Climate Change Committee progress report recommends aviation tax reform to address the imbalances between aviation and surface transport. Will the Minister comment on whether there are plans to look into that?
Can we rely on alternative fuels? In 2010, the aviation industry pledged to source 10% of its fuels from sustainable sources by 2020—so far, so good—yet by 2018, it had managed to source a grand total of 0.002%. Sustainable aviation fuel production today is still less than 1% of overall jet fuel supply, despite being pitched by the industry as the panacea for decarbonisation. It is a wonderful feat of science and technology that the first UK commercial-scale alcohol-to-jet fuel facility has recently been commissioned to be built in Wales. However, the current global target for approximately 50% alternative jet fuel use by 2050 would require three new biojet fuel refineries to be built every single month for the next 30 years. Today, there are just two facilities.
The Government are putting their faith in the market, but the market is not delivering at the pace required to respond to the climate emergency. Airbus is developing a hydrogen plane, which may enter service in 2035, and electric flight relies on batteries that are far too heavy to be used even for short haul, let alone for long haul, so we cannot rely on those. We need a plan B. We need to know what additional policy measures will be required to deliver net zero aviation should the promised technological breakthrough not occur.
That brings me to Heathrow expansion and the need for robust plans to reduce demand for flights. To be serious about decarbonising aviation, the Government must rule out plans for expanding Heathrow. Heathrow is the largest single polluter in the UK and its emissions account for half of all UK aviation emissions. Its expansion proposals allow for 260,000 additional flights per year, on top of the existing 480,000. That would pump between 8 and 9 megatonnes of extra carbon per year into our atmosphere. It will require operational restrictions at other UK airports as well, if the UK is to stay within the carbon budget. That is hardly levelling up. In fact, even the mere act of constructing the runway and the works associated with that are expected to result in an additional 3.7 megatonnes of CO2 emissions up to 2050. Moreover, neither Heathrow nor the Department for Transport have comprehensively considered the non-CO2 impacts of Heathrow’s expansion proposals, which would have a significant impact on the climate.
The long-haul journeys that make up 80% of aviation emissions from Heathrow, and that would make up the overwhelming majority of the additional 260,000 flights per year that would depart from the expanded Heathrow, will not be affected at all by the technological breakthrough in sustainable aviation fuel. There is no avoiding it: expanding Heathrow will guarantee a huge increase in kerosene burn, and the chances of the technological breakthrough needed are slim indeed.
I am sure that many colleagues here in Westminster Hall have followed the legal wrangling and the twists and turns surrounding the third runway. Frankly, this is a question that should never have entered the courts—why has it even got there? Any Government who were serious about achieving net zero would not entertain for a second the notion of an expanded Heathrow. Such a notion is fundamentally at odds with the Government’s own climate commitments and with the Environment Bill that they hope—one day—to pass. It is embarrassing that these plans were again given the green light in the year that we are hosting COP26, and that is not even considering the impact of the noise and the increased carbon dump over the green spaces and people of constituencies such as my constituency of Putney.
It is really simple: either Heathrow can be expanded or net zero aviation can be pursued. It is not possible to have both. At the very least, the Government should initiate a review of the airports national policy statement. However, if they are serious about decarbonising aviation, I hope that the Minister who is here in Westminster Hall today will announce that they will rule out Heathrow expansion all together.
I conclude by putting three questions to the Minister. First, what is the Jet Zero Council’s plan B? If the technological breakthroughs do not happen and sustainable aviation fuel cannot be produced and delivered quickly enough, then what? Secondly, why is the Department for Transport refusing to consider how to disincentivise frequent business travel by plane and make it easier, quicker and cheaper to take the train for short journeys instead of flying, and to reduce long-haul journeys, as was recommended by the Climate Change Committee in its 2021 progress report?
Finally, will the Minister commit to review the ANPS before COP26 later this year, rather than waiting until the jet zero strategy is finalised? Will he also commit to including an assessment of Heathrow expansion in that review? And will he join me and the Prime Minister in lying down in front of the bulldozers should the policy statement remain in place?
The climate crisis is here; it is now and it is real. There is no room for conjecture, complacency or cop-outs. Decarbonising aviation requires decisive action now, not deferred solutions that may not even come to pass. I really hope that the Minister listens closely to the whole of the debate today and to the concerns that are raised, and ensures that the jet zero strategy is realistic and consistent, and contains the bold policy interventions required to deliver our decarbonisation.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), my constituency neighbour, on securing this really important debate. As her constituency neighbours mine, I obviously share many of her concerns about the flightpath, Heathrow expansion and the impact that unrestrained aviation growth might have on the health and welfare of people—not just my constituents, but people across the country.
I can probably do no better than to illuminate further some of the points that the hon. Member has already made so well. I will start with the Government’s jet zero strategy for aviation. She ably pointed out how the delivery of jet zero depends so heavily upon the development of new technology. As she said, what will we do if that technology is not developed? It seems very clear to me, and indeed it was recommended by the Climate Change Committee, that alongside the technological development that we all want to see, either of hydrogen engines or some other form of technology, we really must see some demand management of our airspace, of flights and of aviation.
The last time I had the opportunity to raise this matter with the Prime Minister and to ask him what he wanted to do about the ANPS, I asked him directly if he would amend it to rule out Heathrow expansion. I was very disappointed that he said it was “a private matter”. I do not think that it is a private matter. For all the reasons that the hon. Member for Putney laid out, it is of the utmost importance for everybody across this country that if we are serious about getting to net zero, and if jet zero is going to be a part of that, demand management for aviation has to play a role, because we cannot just depend on the development of new technology. The very first thing we must do, before anything else, is to rule out expansion at Heathrow airport, so I join the hon. Member for Putney and many other MPs—not just across west London, but across the country—in once more asking the Minister to review the ANPS.
However, I am not pessimistic about the possibility of developing new technologies. I have had some really interesting conversations with people who work in this space, and it seems to me that the prospect of hydrogen powering aircraft in the future is not just a very real possibility, but is actually happening. I have also heard tell of electric flights, and have been invited to go on one. I have politely declined so far. I would like that technology to be a little more developed first—I have heard about those heavy batteries.
It seems to me that there is a great opportunity here for the UK to be right at the front of transport technology. We are a developed economy; we are an island, for whom international travel is critical; and we have the technology, the engineering capability and the will to do this. I believe that decarbonised aviation, alongside many of the other technologies that we are developing to meet the challenge of climate change, can be at the forefront of delivering the green jobs that will be so essential to our sustainable economy in the near future.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Lady is making a powerful case about the jet zero strategy. Does she agree that that strategy is overly dependent on carbon offsets, and that increasingly, climate scientists are pointing out that carbon offsetting is actually very limited, given that all sectors in all countries need to get to real zero and there are limitations on how much carbon dioxide forests can absorb? Instead of playing accounting games, we should be treating the climate emergency as a real emergency.
Sarah Olney
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. More and more, I hear people talking about adapting to climate change instead of tackling it, and I am really concerned that people are doing exactly that, or thinking about exactly that: operational solutions to enable us to carry on exactly as we are, rather than tackling the problem at its root. This is not just about climate change; it is about biodiversity in all its forms, and it is so important that we come up with solutions that radically reduce carbon, rather than push it elsewhere and pretend it does not exist.
To sum up, the technological possibilities and what they might mean for our economy and skilled jobs right across the country are really exciting, but the Government must publish a proper strategy for how they plan to get there. If they want to prioritise hydrogen, we should make sure that we focus on green hydrogen, and on making sure that the production of hydrogen continues to be as carbon-free as possible. However, what I really want is for the Government to pursue a strategy of reducing demand alongside developing those technologies, and to take the opportunity offered to us by covid—the enforced changes to working patterns, and the facility we have all now gained for using Zoom for all manner of things, including parliamentary debates—to think about our approaches to travel, to really prioritise the travel that is necessary and to think seriously about how we are going to decarbonise aviation.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Gary. I rise to contribute to this debate as an aircraft engineer. There are precious few of us—or engineers of any description—in Parliament, and these technically challenging debates are sometimes the poorer for it. Others have spoken about the need to support airports, and I fully endorse that priority. That effort is led in this place largely by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), and I am sure he will touch on that topic later on. Similarly, we need to act on the pressing need to support aircraft manufacturing and maintenance in Scotland and the rest of these islands, recognising the tremendous expertise that exists in the sector and the value that it has for the economy.
In this debate, I wish to shine a light on design issues, especially the twin problems of realism and pace within the design dimension, which I feel are not being properly addressed, much less owned. The UK Government talk an average game when it comes to net zero, but the investment and the road map have been pushed out almost entirely to make space for political rhetoric, much of it hyperbole. Perhaps if we put a gun on a new sustainable prototype aircraft, the UK Government would get their act together. With just a fraction of the investment lavished on the Typhoon multi-role combat aircraft, UK taxpayers could have a real global competitive advantage in renewable aviation businesses all over these islands. The absence of investment leaves industry to do what it can, which is good up to a point, because it is the industry’s engineers and scientists who will get us out of the inertia of conventional propulsion systems consuming fossil fuels and into the next generation of passenger aircraft, but they will not do it without game-changing Government investment.
I invite the Minister to agree with me that in the effort to get beyond hydrocarbon propulsion, batteries are intensely limited in their role. With current battery technology, they will always be limited to only a few hundred miles, and even then battery aircraft are some way off being commercially available. They are somewhat of a distraction from the real prize of engineering a solution to medium and long-haul transportation.
The Minister will know that the trouble with using batteries, not jet fuel, is that a craft that sets off with 10 tonnes of batteries will still have 10 tonnes of batteries at its destination. By all means, let us invest in short- haul regional aircraft—locked-up, prototype-tested, type-approved—and get them into service, if for no other reason than that we can then shift the focus on what we really need to deliver, which is a wholesale reimagining of long and medium-haul travel.
The rest of the UK could learn from the extraordinary work being led by Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd, serving Orkney and Shetland and assisting in the development and proving of short-range commercial electric aircraft. Nobody—certainly not me—doubts the potency of lithium-ion-powered aircraft, but nobody has overcome the critical weight and duration conundrums yet.
I know the Minister will not mind my pointing out that, like me, he is a bit of an aviation geek. I therefore have no hesitation in highlighting aircraft such as the de Havilland Comet, the Fairey Rotodyne, the Harrier Jump Jet and the Avro Vulcan—aircraft developed on these islands that represented a quantum leap in aircraft design and performance—all of which were facilitated by colossal Government investment. Where is that investment now? I do not know how much Government investment went into the now terminated Airbus/Rolls-Royce E-Fan X, which substituted one turbo fan on a BAE 146 regional jet for an electric fan powered by a battery linked to a gas turbine on board generator. It was not the last word in outside-the-box thinking, but I am advised by Rolls-Royce that it was a valuable test bed for high-powered electrical architecture on board aircraft. Other Members have touched on hydrogen, and my personal view is that that is the route out for us. I invite the Minister to set out how he is going to facilitate that.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I say to the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) that that was incredibly informative and really constructive. It was worth coming, if only for the entertainment. That was very good.
As the MP with Heathrow in his constituency, I obviously have a special interest. We have been through a brutal period over the past 18 months. It has been grim in terms of loss of jobs and the impact on the community. There are whole families who are dependent on work at the airport, and the situation has affected the local economy and the way of life and wellbeing of so many people.
My last conversation with the Chancellor before I stood down as shadow Chancellor was about the need to have an aviation strategy to deal with covid, and to build on that for the long term to tackle climate change. I said, although I was not listened to, that the best thing would be to get the industry together—employers, companies, unions and local communities. I said it was better to listen to the unions, because they are more independent of the fight that will go on between individual companies. The unions were already looking at how we could come through the covid crisis and be honest with people about the future. We cannot return to the way it was; we cannot return to a policy of continuous expansion. That cannot happen if we are really going to tackle climate change.
I have five points to make, and I am sorry if I bore people by repeating them in debate after debate. First, there is the principle of doing no further harm. The third runway will set us back and, as we go into COP, undermine people’s confidence that we are serious about tackling climate change. Let me give some background to the Prime Minister saying that he would lie down in front of the bulldozers. At his first election as the MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, I asked at my count, which was before his, “Will he make the same commitment as his predecessor, John Randall”—who people may remember is now in the House of Lords—“who said he would lie down in front of the bulldozers with me?” Of course, Boris could not help himself. As soon as the count was over, he got up and said, “I’ll be with you, John.” Bizarrely, when the vote came up in the House of Commons, he was on a one-day visit to Afghanistan. I suppose that was pure coincidence.
Before COP takes place, we need a clear statement opposing the third runway expansion at Heathrow. It is the iconic battleground in this country—and, in fact, in Europe overall—for tackling climate change. I welcomed Climate Camp into my constituency and it turned the third runway campaign from an nimbyist issue into a global one through the publicity and campaigning that took place. Climate Camp was 1,000 people turning up overnight, camping for a week and demonstrating and so on. It transformed the whole debate, but it will be insignificant in comparison with the protests that will take place if the Government try to force through a third runway, so we need a clear statement.
Secondly, we need to minimise the existing harms. That means managing demand, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said. The best way to manage demand is, to be frank, through taxation, including VAT and fuel duty, and through frequent flier policies. We should also be assessing whether, in the world of Zoom and Teams, the level of business travel using aviation is absolutely necessary. It behoves us all to question all our transport undertakings, but the Government need to publish guidelines to discourage unnecessary business travel.
Thirdly, as the hon. Member for Angus said, we need a scale of investment in research and development that we have just not seen under this Government or previous Governments, whose policies have been more about predict and provide to meet escalating demand. We now need a scale of investment in research and development in alternative fuels, including batteries enabling short-haul flights, which undoubtedly will be developed. I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from—he knows much more than me—but I think that with such investment, we have in our universities and research institutes the engineering creativity to be world leaders on that front. I am old enough to remember the incredible work that was done on engines including the RB211 up in Barnoldswick, where I worked at the time.
As we develop new methods, the Government then need to step in, as they did with cars, with some form of aviation scrappage scheme. Sometimes I resent handing over money to some of those companies because, as we have seen during the covid crisis, they have used it not necessarily to support the sector or the local economy, but to maximise their profits. A well-constructed scrappage scheme was undertaken—sometimes it is difficult to mention the name—by Peter Mandelson, and it was incredibly successful in transforming the environmental effect of the car industry. That is needed.
Finally, I will make a local plea: we need a just transition. If we are serious about a just transition, it means supporting the aviation communities that surround airports—in my constituency, that means Heathrow, but there are others. What they need now is support to develop alternative economies for the future.
One of the things that I suggested to the Chancellor before I stood down from the Front Bench is that, for my constituents in particular, but also for outer London, west London and all the other aviation communities, we need an individual taskforce bringing together the Government, local authorities, local communities, trade unions and the companies themselves to start planning the alternative skills training that is needed, the alternative investment, and other forms of logistics, including aviation and other employment opportunities. In that way, we can build confidence in the idea that we can decarbonise the aviation sector. At the moment, I do not think people have that confidence.
I make this plea: we are running out of time, and I do not want to keep doing this every year. This debate is like a hardy perennial. I do not want us to keep turning up and having this debate without seeing an awful lot of progress.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for setting the scene for this debate. There have been some incredible contributions so far, but I want to take a slightly different angle. I agree with the points that other hon. Members have made, and I hope the Minister’s response will encompass some of my thoughts about how we move forward.
I am the MP for Strangford, as people know—if they do not know that after 10 or 11 years, there is something seriously wrong in this place—and I am a frequent flier because I have to be. The fact is that Irish sea divides us water-wise—the Northern Ireland protocol also divides us, but I will not mention that—so for me to come here to work, I have leave from Belfast City airport and fly over here. The journey from leaving the office to getting here takes about three and a half hours. The flight takes approximately an hour. I do that every week, and so do other right hon. and hon. Members—colleagues and friends in my party and others. The hon. Members from the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party travel in the same way because it gets us here within a certain period of time. The alternatives are to go by boat or take the ferry over and drive down. We could do that if we had two or three days to spare, but it eats into our time as constituency MPs. I am a very active one, as others in this House are—I am not saying I am the only one. The fact is that our time is precious and we use it accordingly, so I am a frequent flier because I have to be.
Margaret Ferrier
On the back of the Secretary of State’s statement to the House yesterday, we heard about the aviation industry’s worries about its ability to recover from the economic impact of the past year or so. Obviously, it is equally important that it contributes to the net zero goal. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must ensure that it is properly supported in its work to decarbonise and is not faced with further unaffordable costs?
Jim Shannon
That is exactly what I am going to say. I think there are options for the aircraft sector. I want to make a plea for Belfast City airport, Belfast International airport and City of Derry airport—all integral parts of my economy back home. People in Strangford can travel 25 minutes up the road to Belfast City airport, and many of my constituents work in that airport and at Bombardier—Spirit AeroSystems, as it now is— manufacturing aeroplanes and wings. It is very important that we look at this sector, which is an economic provider for my constituency. If the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) is looking for work, I understand that engineering jobs are available in Northern Ireland. If he wants to move that way, I am sure we would be more than glad to take him away from Scotland.
I am a supporter of our aviation industry, and in my opinion it goes hand in hand with sustainability. The sustainability of aviation depends on its ability to adapt and find ways forward, and that can only come with clear and adequate support from this place and from our Minister. I greatly respect him and appreciate his hard efforts for this sector. I know from personal engagement with him that he is very committed to it and that his response will be very much along those lines. We can talk about environmental issues—I am an environmentalist—until the cows come home, but if we are not prepared to put the work in to milk the cows, all the talk has been pointless.
Aviation is a major employer in my constituency. It is a world-class, innovative aerospace sector that generates jobs for pilots, baggage handlers and tourism operators, not just in the constituency of Strangford but around the greater Belfast area and across Northern Ireland. All are invested in reaching our goals and targets for sustainability, which is important. Bombardier has a factory site in Newtownards in my constituency, as well as sites in east Belfast, Newtonabbey and elsewhere. I understand the importance of Bombardier/Spirit in aircraft manufacture. Pre-covid, UK aviation employed over 900,000 people in the UK. A lot of our constituents are depending on us to get this right.
When I put my views forward today, I put them forward in a constructive fashion. I am not saying nobody else is, by the way. I am trying to find a way to balance environmental issues with the need to have an aviation sector that can create jobs for the future—to bring the aviation sector into the future with carbon-neutral goals and the support that is necessary to achieve them. That is where we are all united: we have the same goals. We look to our Minister and our Government to deliver on them.
It is clear that stronger partnerships between the United Kingdom Government, the aviation sector and key low-carbon innovation partners are required, and I would love to see them. Maybe the Minister can give us some ideas about how that would happen. Jet zero is possible, but only if the industry is supported by Government. I know that we often say that, but until we get to the stage where it is sustainable, when Government financial support can probably ease off, that is how it will work.
We can, of course, simply require changes to be made, the bare minimum will be done and corners will have to be cut from an industry that is more insecure than ever before. However, if we take this challenge together, we can achieve lasting change and do the right things. That is what we should do.
There is no sense in placing so much pressure on businesses that they cease production within the United Kingdom and simply move to other bases elsewhere, because then we lose the jobs, we lose the economic opportunity and we find ourselves in an untenable position. We should be working alongside them. Other bases and other companies, of course, may not have the environmental measures that are more costly than their profit margins allow. The question is how we do that, and how we encourage and retain the jobs. If we insist on costly changes but ensure that there is support to make them viable, there is an appetite within the industry to embrace sustainable environmental change. That is what we are all saying. The hon. Member for Putney referred to that, as did other previous speakers, and those who come after me will probably say the same.
Sustainable Aviation has highlighted a number of issues where it believes Government support is the key to success, and makes two suggestions. It says:
“Increased investment in the Aerospace Technology Institute (ATI) is needed, to enable the technological innovations that will make net zero flight a reality, e.g. hydrogen power. The current endpoint of the ATI programme is March 2026, and budgetary commitments are already being made out to then. An extension of funding is vital if the ATI is to continue to fulfil its remit and support clean growth.”
Perhaps the Minister will update us on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and I are meeting the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on Thursday to discuss hydrogen, which previous speakers have spoken about. There are some fantastic thoughts and ideas in North Antrim that will help not only aviation firms but lots of companies. If we look to where the opportunities are, we can achieve change.
With the Government’s recent funding support, aerospace modernisation can help to deliver better environmental performance ahead of more radical innovations. Aerospace is critical national infrastructure that has not been fundamentally upgraded since the 1950s, and a full modernisation programme must be delivered in time. I would like to understand the Government’s strategy on these two critical issues. I know the Minister will give a constructive response to the debate and assure us that, behind the demands, there will be support. That is the way it works. We have ideas, and we need the Government to help us to get to the point where we can achieve a future that enhances the industry, protects the environment and, crucially, protects UK-based jobs in every aspect of aviation. Jobs are as important in my constituency as they are in everyone else’s.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Gary. I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on bringing this important debate to this Chamber. We have had a fascinating exchange of ideas this afternoon. I echo everything that has been said so far on long-term technological changes which are exciting and a great opportunity.
In the meantime, we need to look at the demand for flying and how we reduce it, particularly in terms of cost. It is ridiculous that the cost to the environment is not embedded in the cost of flying. It is ridiculous that I can fly for less to almost any destination in Europe that is over 100 miles away, but to get from London to my constituency, which is under 100 miles, costs more by rail. That cannot be right.
The Government have legislated for net zero by 2050. That is too slow for Liberal Democrats. It is clear to us that, in order to stop increasing climate chaos, we need to cut most emissions by 2030. There is no ducking some of the challenging choices we need to make. Farming, shipping and heavy industry are sectors where getting to net zero is a challenge and so is aviation.
The problem is not currently with flying. The problem is with the jet fuel that powers our aircraft. Each aircraft uses an incredible amount of fuel. A jumbo jet carries about 240,000 litres of jet fuel, the equivalent of one-tenth of an Olympic-size swimming pool. It burns through that fuel at a rate of four litres per second. I am aware that an aircraft engineer is in the Chamber today and that my knowledge pales into insignificance compared to his.
We need to do much better on emissions from aviation and we need to do it fast. The good news is that there are alternatives and today I want to make the case for synthetic fuels. Those are made from hydrogen and carbon captured from the air. In theory, this would mean capturing and re-using the carbon dioxide that is already in the air, rather than putting it into the sea bed. The Government favour carbon capture and storage, but what about being more ambitious and making carbon dioxide itself part of the circular economy?
If the UK invests in the right technologies, synthetic fuels can be just that; properly carbon zero and sustainable in the long-term. As I understand it, synthetic fuels are no more and no less than hydrogen combined with carbon dioxide. However, to be fully net zero, the hydrogen used has to be green hydrogen. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) has already said: it has to be green, not blue hydrogen because green hydrogen is made from renewables and blue hydrogen is made from natural gas, which is a fossil fuel. That means heavy investment in renewables. Currently, the Government say that green hydrogen is too expensive, but I am still waiting for an answer on whether they have made a proper long-term cost analysis between green and blue hydrogen.
As I understand it, synthetic fuels behave in a similar way to conventional kerosene and can be mixed with kerosene. Therefore, aeroplane engines and aircraft design would not need to be significantly changed. The Government already have an existing mechanism in place to make mixing aircraft fuel mandatory via the renewables transfer of fuel obligation. Gradually, we can use kerosene to get to low carbon and carbon zero, if we reach to the point where we mix carbon dioxide with green hydrogen to get synthetic fuels.
I would like the Minister to look at these alternatives. I understand that scientists from the University of Leeds have made that proposal and are in conversation with the Government. If not, I am happy to put him in touch and would love to be part of that conversation because, to me, there seems to be at least a possibility of a solution. Now is the time for the aviation industry to begin to change, and for the Government to ask the aviation industry for their plans on how to get to net zero.
However, as we have heard already this afternoon, changing aircraft fuel is not the only important thing. In the short term, we must also reduce the number of flights. I fully agree with everything that has been said this afternoon. As the hon. Member for Putney mentioned, France has recently banned short-haul internal flights where train alternatives exist. The Liberal Democrats believe that we could replicate this. The UK should ban flights where direct rail transport is available for the same journey, taking up to two and a half hours, unless planes are alternatively fuelled.
There should also be a sustainable alternative to flying, such as rail. We need good transport infrastructure across the country, and it must be affordable for passengers. As has also been mentioned this afternoon, we should reform air passenger duty to target the most frequent fliers. I disagree with the hon. Member for—
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I should know that. We should target the most frequent fliers and introduce VAT on first class and business travel. We must also ensure that there is no net increase in airport runways across the UK. That is the most important issue this afternoon.
I could not agree more with all hon. Members who have spoken in this afternoon’s debate. The aviation industry has been through some difficult times in the past 18 months—I do not deny that—but it has received a lot of Government support along the way. I believe that the aviation industry can become net zero in time. It will be challenging, but it can be done. We need the political will, the Government’s support, and a Government that set out a clear strategy.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Gary. I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing today’s debate and for leading it so thoughtfully at the start. She said that if we are to achieve net zero targets, we need to fight on many fronts, and that aviation is a front we cannot retreat from. I could not agree more. She also referenced the British Airways’ perfect flight. I am not sure that is a title that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) would have come up with—she is no longer in her place.
The perfect flight was by an A320neo, which flew from Heathrow to Glasgow airport, in my constituency, using sustainable jet fuel. Continuous climbing and descent, with help from NATS, helped to achieve a reduction of CO2 emissions of 62% compared to a similar flight 11 years ago. That shows the importance of utilising all of the tools we currently have as we transition—hopefully—to greener technology, and of airspace modernisation, which I will come to later.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) said that delivery objectives are dependent on new technologies, and pondered the question of “What if they do not come along?”—a point made by many others. The Bill presents a great opportunity for the UK to be at the forefront of transport technology—two points that we can all agree on—and decarbonised aviation can be at the forefront of the green jobs we need for the UK’s sustainable future.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who I see often in aviation debates, understandably, started off by rightly inflating the ego of my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan). I will come on to his contribution shortly. The right hon. Member asked for a clear statement opposing the third runway at Heathrow before COP26, and I suspect that the Prime Minister is itching to give just that. He also floated the idea of an aviation scrappage scheme, but, from the travails of the last 18 months or so, God help the aviation Minister trying to go to the Treasury with that particular request.
The hon. Member for Westminster Hall—sorry, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—rightly spoke of the importance of Bombardier to Northern Ireland. He also floated the Northern Ireland protocol and then, frankly, dropped it as quickly as he brought it up. He spoke about frequent fliers and those who had to be frequent fliers—this is an important point—when the alternative is the train and the extra time that that takes. I have some sympathy with that point. I take the train on a semi-regular basis, but I fly a lot more, not just to support jobs in my constituency at Glasgow airport. If I took the train week in, week out, that is a lot of extra time that I would be away from my family and that is not, at this point, a sacrifice that I am willing to make—although my family might give a different answer, if they were asked.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) made a very fair point about the difference in cost between air and rail travel. Rail and for that matter buses outside London are far too expensive, in all parts of the UK, and we must address that. She also spoke about the difference between green and blue hydrogen and asked the Government for more considered work on that point.
I come lastly to my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), who brought a level of expertise often missing from these debates. He described the aviation Minister as an aviation geek. He seemed affronted by that, but I am quite happy to admit that I am an aviation geek. [Interruption.] Oh sorry—he is an aviation geek; we have managed to get that on the record, so that is fantastic.
My hon. Friend spoke from the experience of his past career in aircraft engineering and maintenance. I have to say my inbox over the last 18 months has been rather full of communication from engineers at British Airways maintenance about some of the tactics that British Airways has employed. I have been in regular contact with many workers in that sector.
My hon. Friend rightly compared and contrasted the UK Government’s investment in defence programmes such as Typhoon with that in sustainable civil aviation. I also hear his well-made point about the weight of batteries, which is why they are currently not an option on any medium or long-distance flight, only on local, regional or near-regional flights. He mentioned the Vulcan and our great tradition of fantastic aircraft well ahead of its time. That took me back to my younger days at airshows like Leuchars. The Vulcan was an astonishing aircraft. I am not sure it would be within current noise levels, let alone emissions levels, but it was well ahead of its time and was a fantastic aircraft.
We need projects such as the Ampaire hybrid-electric aircraft that is operated as part of the sustainable aircraft facility at Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd at Kirkwall airport in Orkney—a centre that was funded to the tune of nearly £4 million as part of the Scottish Government’s commitment to a net zero country. HIAL plans to decarbonise all its airports or at least make them carbon-neutral. Its chairwoman, Lorna Jack, said:
“HIAL’s mission is to create social benefit and economic prosperity by building Scotland’s sustainable regional airport group of the future.”
The plans are designed to match the Scottish Government’s ambition to be the world’s first zero-emission aviation region by 2040, which is being enacted in a partnership of the Scottish Government, local authorities, Transport Scotland and our airports and airlines—in particular, Loganair, based at Glasgow airport in my constituency. That airport is also playing its part, achieving carbon neutrality status in 2020, as it gets ready to welcome the world in the coming weeks to COP26 in Glasgow.
Loganair, through its GreenSkies programme, became the first UK regional airline to commit to being fully carbon neutral by 2040 to manage and mitigate the environmental impact of flying. While using immediate means of mitigation, the airline is tackling the long-term goal of introducing sustainable aircraft into its fleet, with live trials taking place in the Orkney Islands this summer on developmental aircraft powered by hydrogen and renewable electricity as the first step to fully converting Loganair’s fleet to net zero by 2040.
Orkney seems to be the place to be. It is a centre of world-leading renewable investment and technology, so it is only fitting that that cutting-edge research and development is taking place there. Using renewables for inter-island travel has the potential to not only revolutionise air travel in Orkney, but also help reduce dependence on diesel ferries, a real multiplier effect for the local economy. With the summer’s installation of the world’s most powerful tidal-powered generator off its coast, Orkney is showing how the advanced renewable technology being rolled out today is helping to support the development of the aviation sector of the future. That is only a first step, but as battery and energy storage technology advances, it cannot be long before short and medium-haul flights can encompass fully electric propulsion, making huge dents in aviation emissions across these isles and demonstrating world-leading technology on a day-to-day basis.
The live data shows that Orkney is generating more renewable electricity than it can consume. The iniquities of the network charges and the glacial pace of inter-connector investment that penalise rural and island communities like Orkney are for another debate. Had I got into BEIS questions this morning, I would have asked about that issue earlier. Using those renewables to provide quick, efficient connectivity and exporting energy to the grid for other aviation use will help to shape a future for aviation that is far more sustainable.
There are other routes to zero carbon, such as the ZeroAvia programme, which uses hydrogen fuel cells with a fully renewable cycle from electricity generation to electrolysis and powered flight. Again, that is a technology at its first—perhaps second—step, which has the potential to not only harness renewables in the aviation sector, but also spur development of hydrogen fuel cells and an improved hydrogen infrastructure, with spin-off for other industries. I hope to see real progress in the area in the next year or two, and I hope to get up to Orkney to see these revolutionary passenger aircrafts and the associated infrastructure.
I note that the transport decarbonisation plan has a commitment to consult on, among many other things, a target of reaching net zero by 2040 on domestic aviation only. I understand and appreciate that the aviation mix is somewhat different for England, particularly the south-east, in terms of large widebodies for medium and long-haul routes, but I think it is a little weak to consult on the domestic front. We need leadership, not continuous consultation. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I think there are four consultations alone, just in the aviation section of the decarbonisation plan. The UK Government should follow Scotland’s lead and match ambition for a zero-emission region for England by 2040, at the very least for domestic aviation.
Decarbonising aviation is also about using what we already have smarter and better—levelling up, dare I say—and boosting efficiency throughout the industry. Of course, as many Members have mentioned, the Scottish Government would like to see a modal shift from air to rail for shorter journeys, but the fact remains that demand for medium and long-haul air travel will be here for some time. The challenge is to minimise its impact and for Government to intervene when needed to regulate and steer investment, crucially, and change. I am pleased that the Department for Transport took on board the recommendations of the Airspace Change Organising Group earlier this year, although, as I have said previously to the Minister, it is disappointing that the Jet Zero Council did not invite a representative of the group to help their work.
Modernising and remodelling the UK’s airspace is another tool that can reduce the impact of aviation emissions. I hope that as the Government take forward the results of the jet zero consultation we see far greater engagement with ACOG as a crucial piece of the decarbonisation jigsaw. Improved connectivity for non-London airports is also vital. Too often, passengers looking to travel outside of these islands are forced to change at Heathrow or another London airport to reach their final destination. Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Inverness have been assiduous at cultivating route development to miss out the south of England’s crowded skies, but too often there is a feeling that UK Government policy is led by what is good for those London airports, not for connectivity as a whole. Direct connections from airports outside of the south-east of England to destinations in Europe and elsewhere will help to reduce unnecessary journeys, maximise efficiency across the board and boost regional economies. It is a win-win. The quicker the Government move from their London-centric approach thus far, the better.
Fully decarbonising air travel and aviation is among the biggest challenges in tackling climate change and carbon emissions. It will not be easy, or indeed cheap, but investment in a real strategy now, rather than after delayed and dragged-out consultations will produce game-changing results as we move forward.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Gary, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing what is a very important and timely debate, given that only a few weeks remain until the UK hosts COP26, where transport emissions will, of course, be a key item on the agenda. We have heard some excellent and informative speeches, including those by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who spoke out against the expansion of Heathrow. Other Members talked in more detail about proposals to decarbonise aviation and some of the obstacles in the way.
Given that it remains the largest contributor to UK emissions, decarbonising our transport sector must be a priority for the Government. Aviation is a key part of that and accounted for 7.3% of UK emissions in 2018. Sadly, we have seen the progress on decarbonisation of transport flatlining over recent years. Progress has been made in some areas, such as in decarbonising the energy sector, but it is disappointing that so little has been done and so little progress has been made on transport.
Aviation is one of the most difficult sectors to decarbonise, but as we have heard from hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), there are solutions. There are sustainable aviation fuels derived from waste; there are electric or hydrogen-powered planes for at least short-haul journeys in the foreseeable future; and there is airspace modernisation.
Ministers in Westminster Hall debates probably hate it when speeches finish early, so there is more time for them to answer. Normally, they can say, “Well, if only I had time to answer all these questions—”. I will ensure that the Minister has lots of time to answer what are quite a few questions from me and other Members.
Where are we on some of the things that are out there? For example, the EU is proposing to mandate the use of blended aviation fuel, and the UK is consulting on more ambitious proposals. Can the Minister update us on that?
On airspace modernisation, I know the Government have committed some funding to sponsors. When I took on the green transport brief, I was sceptical about technological solutions to aviation. I thought it was just a way of deflecting the conversation from managing or reducing demand. Having met lots of companies that are involved in this space, I now see that there is potential, although with the limitations that various Members have mentioned in terms of battery weight, hydrogen storage and the whole debate about carbon capture and storage. I have come to realise that there is more potential than I thought, albeit quite far into the future and not current enough to address the issues that we need to address today.
When I first had a conversation about airspace modernisation, I was fascinated at the extent to which straightening out air travel and avoiding a huge amount of banking, particularly above Heathrow, could make a difference. Can the Minister tell us where we are with that?
I would also like to hear the Minister address future funding for the Aerospace Technology Institute. People who are developing new technologies appreciate the funding that they have had, but will there be an ongoing source of funding? Will that be covered by the spending review? Moreover, a whole raft of airport infrastructure would be needed to support the use of hydrogen planes, so how would that be funded? That is my last question for now, although I will probably have more as I go on.
As I have said, a lot of these developments are for quite far into the future. There is potential for electric planes to be used for short-haul flights and for hydrogen-fuelled planes to be used for longer flights. I am not convinced that there is an answer for the longest haul flights as yet, but action needs to be taken now on emission reductions, and that means that difficult decisions have to be made on capacity and demand management.
The Labour party’s position on Heathrow is clear: the new runway would not meet our four tests on air quality, noise pollution, national economic benefit or our climate change obligations. That is where we stand on that.
I was pleased that we finally have the transport decarbonisation plan. I waited a long time for it and kept being told that it was due shortly. There is good stuff in it on electric vehicles and heavy goods vehicles, but it falls short on aviation. As the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) has said, there are so many consultations and, while it is important to consult, they can be a way of kicking things into the long grass when we need urgent action now.
The targets to achieve net zero emissions for domestic aviation by 2040 and for international aviation by 2050 are welcome, but as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) mentioned, they rely heavily on carbon offsetting. That is problematic for a number of reasons. Carbon capture and storage technology is by no means guaranteed to reach a point at which it can be relied on to offset a significant amount of emissions, particularly if other sectors also need to rely on offsetting. More natural carbon solutions such as tree planting do, of course, have a big role to play in offsetting emissions, but rapidly increasing rates of deforestation—whether from deliberate destruction, or from wildfires in many parts of the world—mean that we cannot rely on that either.
Back in July, I asked what proportion of carbon offsetting in aviation is expected to come from engineered carbon removal and storage, and what proportion is expected to come from natural carbon solutions. At the time, the Minister said that the Government did not know, so is he able to enlighten us further today? It is really worrying that the Government cannot come up with a response to that question, because even in its more optimistic scenarios the Climate Change Committee projects that over 20 metric tonnes of residual carbon emissions from aviation in 2050 will have to be offset elsewhere. That figure amounts to about half of the 40 metric tonnes of CO2 attributed to aviation in 2019. With such a large proportion of emissions depending on offsetting, we need certainty about the pathway to achieving these targets, not vague projections and a reliance on technology that may not be ready in time.
I am concerned that this focus on offsetting stems from a refusal by Ministers to even contemplate demand management measures when it comes to aviation. We know that aviation has had an incredibly difficult year and a half due to the pandemic, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has said. That is partly due to a refusal by the Government to put forward a climate-conditional support package to get the sector back on its feet, as Labour has repeatedly demanded.
Once travel rates return to pre-pandemic levels, we have a responsibility to the planet to ensure that demand does not soar to unsustainable levels and undermine progress towards reaching net zero emissions, but the Government are simply ducking the decisions they need to make in this area. In its 2021 progress report, the Climate Change Committee recommended that the Government act to ensure there is no net expansion of UK airport capacity. However, just weeks ago, the Government refused to reassess the airports national policy statement, which would have provided an opportunity to do just that.
The CCC also recommended that the Government reform aviation taxes to ensure that aviation journeys are not cheaper than surface transport, as a few hon. Members have already mentioned. However, at the moment, the only open consultation on aviation taxes is advocating reducing air passenger duty on domestic flights, in contrast with the regular hikes in rail fares. That is clearly a ludicrous prospect in the middle of a climate emergency, and it is only made worse when we read the small print and see that this tax reduction would also apply to private jets. There can be absolutely no rationale for that. Any Government serious about decarbonising aviation and setting an example ahead of COP26 would immediately scrap those plans, and I would welcome it if the Minister could explain how on earth a tax cut for the most polluting form of transport can be compatible with a trajectory to net zero. We should be investing in rail instead.
The Government have also repeatedly refused to consider a frequent flier levy to address the fact that 70% of UK flights are taken by the wealthiest 15% of the population. That clearly needs to be addressed. Representations have also been made to me about whether zero air passenger duty on zero emission flights would be one way of stimulating that sector, but I know that that prospect is some way in the future.
With the COP26 climate conference just a few weeks away, it is time for Ministers to face the facts on aviation and stop relying on vague future predictions that will simply not deliver in the timescale we need them to. The climate crisis is worsening every day. Aviation has to play its part, and I hope that today the Minister will come up with answers—things that will start to make a difference now, not decades in the future.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
I remind the Minister to leave three minutes for the mover of the motion to respond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I will absolutely ensure that I leave that time, Sir Gary. This has been an interesting and well-informed debate. I am grateful to everybody who has contributed and I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing the debate. We have heard from the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Angus (Dave Doogan), the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—who need not worry, because he is an institution and we all know who he is—and the hon. Members for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) and for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), as well as the Opposition Front Bench speakers.
We all agree that aviation decarbonisation is a critical issue for the UK and, of course, for the entire world, as the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) rightly said. Equally, the fight against climate change is one of the greatest and most pressing challenges for the world. However, while it is a challenge, it also presents an opportunity. I echo entirely what the hon. Member for Strangford said. He spoke about the opportunities in North Antrim. He is right, but there are also opportunities all over the UK as we reimagine the way that we fly, as we shift the aviation sector towards a more sustainable flightpath and, ultimately, zero emission flight. The whole country can then look to benefit from that technology, which I will come on to in a minute. I know that the hon. Member for Angus will be particularly interested in that.
Wera Hobhouse
Is the Minister looking seriously at progress in the production of synthetic fuels?
Robert Courts
I thank the hon. Member, who raises a very good point; I will answer her question when I get to that section of my speech.
I entirely hear the concerns raised by hon. Members, but I feel that the UK Government are leading on this and I want to spend a few moments explaining why that is the case. On our overarching approach, we are confident that by working in partnership with industry, non-governmental organisations, academics and, of course, the public, we can deliver net zero aviation by 2050 through technological solutions and not through restricting the freedom to fly.
I think that the hon. Member for Bath said that the problem is not with flying, but with emissions. I agree with that and I will explain why we will be able to get there. We want to encourage the growth of the sector as it encourages innovative new ways to cut aviation emissions while protecting the benefits of travel, which we probably all agree are cultural, economic and social. It also binds our binds our country together, as I experienced recently when I flew back from Aberdeen.
The Government take this issue seriously and have a strong record on it. We have shown steadfast commitment and are the first major economy to pass laws to end our contribution to climate change by 2050, making us one of the first major economies to legislate a net zero target. We have also set the most ambitious climate change target yet, in the sixth carbon budget, which aims to reduce carbon emissions by 78% compared with 1990 levels, in line with the recommendations of the independent Climate Change Committee. Also in line with those recommendations, the Government have formally included, for the first time, the UK’s share of international aviation and shipping emissions, meaning that those emissions can be accounted for consistently with other sectors.
July was another milestone in our pathway to jet zero as we published the jet zero consultation. I hear what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) says about consultations, but I think we should be using the extraordinary expertise that we have in the industry. We must get this right and we need to ensure that we are working and moving forward in a collegiate fashion.
Gavin Newlands
I very much hear what the Minister is sayings, but could he give an indication of the timescales for the four consultations? When will they report back and when will we see action?
Robert Courts
I will hopefully cover that as I go through. It depends which consultation we are talking about. On this issue, the consultation has closed and we will be giving responses shortly. I cannot give precise timescales, but I understand the need for urgency and of course we will move as quickly as we can.
The consultation outlines our approach to reach net zero carbon emissions—or jet zero, as we call it—by 2050, so that we maintain those huge benefits of air travel, and we have clear goals and solutions. There are five policy levers, which are perhaps better understood as three plus two. The first lever is to increase the efficiency of our existing aviation system. I suggest that hon. Members may wish to think about this in terms of timescale: what happens now, what can happen in the shorter term, and what can happen in the medium term.
On the efficiency of our existing aviation system and aircraft, the hon. Member for Angus will realise that, broadly, if we were to see an airliner fly over us today, it might look similar to one from 30 years ago but it would be twice as efficient—to use very approximate figures—because of carbon fibres and engine technology. Those aircraft efficiencies are happening already with the technology that we have. It is not enough, but it is helping.
The hon. Member for Bristol East is quite right to say that airspace can help cut emissions to ensure that fuel is not wasted. If we are more efficient about the way in which aircraft approach airports, that will obviously help. We passed the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 in the previous Session. The Civil Aviation Authority is currently reviewing the airspace modernisation strategy and is working to distribute the funds that we gave to further that process. That is the first part: aircraft and airspace.
The second part is about developing ambitious plans for a UK sustainable aviation fuel industry. I will come to that in a bit more detail in a moment. That is not the immediate progress, but the next stage. The third part is about accelerating the development of zero emission flight. That is the sort of thing that we see on the front of the more advanced, new airframe types—the futuristic things that we read about. Those are the first three parts, which go together—that is why I say there are three plus two. The fourth aspect is about developing carbon markets and greenhouse gas removal methods, while is the fifth is about how we influence consumers to make sustainable travel choices, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members.
Through the strategy, we will commit the UK aviation sector to reach net zero CO2 emissions by 2050, but we want to go further. We have consulted on a UK domestic aviation target by 2040. We have also consulted on our ambitious proposals to reduce emissions from airport operations, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, and sought views on what additional measures might be required in order to achieve that. As I have said to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, the consultation has closed and we are considering that at the moment.
I want to update the House on the Jet Zero Council, which is the partnership between industry and senior leaders in aviation, aerospace, and academia that is driving the delivery of new technologies. It also involves the Royal Air Force, which joined recently, and I am very excited and encouraged about. I encourage all hon. Members to look at the excellent work that the Air Force is doing on net zero, particularly the leading work taking place at RAF Brize Norton in my constituency.
Kerry McCarthy
Are trade unions involved at any of the Jet Zero Council discussions?
Robert Courts
The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and I am grateful to her for it. I have a great deal of sympathy with people who ask for the membership of the Jet Zero Council. We have to have a finite number of people on the council, simply because it is a technical body and has to be able to produce results, but trade unions are involved in the sub-groups, which I will spend a moment talking about, particularly to put right some of the misunderstandings.[Official Report, 29 November 2021, Vol. 704, c. 8MC.]
In June, we had the successful third meeting of the Jet Zero Council. The hon. Member for Putney said that she was disappointed that it had not met. I know what she means, but I ask her to remember that it is a plenary body. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding; I hope I can put it right. At that stage, the Transport Secretary announced plans to formalise and broaden the zero emission flight delivery group, and to establish new sub-groups on ground infrastructure, regulation and commercialisation. I will come to the sub-groups in a moment.
Emma Gilthorpe, the Jet Zero Council chief executive officer, has established new governance arrangements and is really driving them forward. There are two key workstreams at present: sustainable aviation fuels and zero emissions flight. She has also been holding the momentum in between the council meetings because, as we all know, often the work takes place in between, rather than at, meetings, at which people report. If I can put right the misunderstanding that the hon. Member for Putney perhaps fell into inadvertently, the most recent meeting was the 29th meeting across the council’s delivery groups, sub-groups, steering group and plenary council. I hope that that helps and reassures the House about some of the things that we are doing.
I want to spend a few moments talking about sustainable aviation fuels, because they are so important. This is where I will come to the points made by the hon. Member for Bath. It is possible to drop fuels into existing aircraft types, and the synthetic fuels that she mentioned are a form of sustainable aviation fuel. That is part of the mix that is being considered. As I will explain in a moment, the Government are essentially providing the initial money to develop all of those things. I will give her another good example in a moment. This is the sort of thing that we often read about in the papers—turning waste into jet fuel, for example, which is one good example of what can be done with waste, although I accept that perhaps there will be a need for more than that.
The Prime Minister’s 10-point plan announced a package of exciting measures that are designed to introduce the production and use of sustainable aviation fuel. The £15 million “Green Fuels, Green Skies” competition aims to support innovative SAF production technologies at commercial scale, so that they can be produced in the UK and then reduce emissions in the UK. Eight projects have recently been shortlisted for funding. If hon. Members would care to look at the website—I think that the hon. Member for Bath will be particularly interested—they will see that the first project listed, which was in July, combines carbon dioxide captured from the atmosphere with water. It is direct air carbon capture and storage, which I think is what she was asking me about. That is one of the shortlisted projects. Essentially, the answer to her question, “Are synthetic fuels being considered as part of SAF?”, is that they are certainly part of the technological mix, and what we are doing is putting in the money to see them developed. I hope that answer assists her.
The £3 million for a SAF clearing house to build and further develop UK testing and certification expertise is a big part of this process as well. We have also finished consulting on proposals for a sustainable aviation fuels mandate to drive the development and uptake of SAF, which also provides greater support for the development of synthetic fuels, which the hon. Member talked about, as we look to maximise their development.
The consultation sets out a variety of potential SAF uptake scenarios, going up to 10% SAF by 2030 and 75% by 2050, but I am really keen to emphasise the point that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North made, which is that this is not fantasy stuff—it is happening right now, as we heard from him when he talked about the recent British Airways flight to his constituency.
I will try my best to respond to everyone’s points, Sir Gary; I am conscious that I may run out of time, as I want to leave some time for the hon. Member for Putney to respond to the debate.
Robert Courts
On zero emission flights, we are working with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the new aircraft technology that we have all heard a great deal about today.
The Government have invested heavily in aerospace research and development—£3.9 billion of match funding, from 2013 to 2026, guided by the Aerospace Technology Institute. The hon. Member for Angus listed some of the great British aircraft from the past—we could be here all afternoon talking about those—and our plans for the future. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said how much he had enjoyed that speech; well, there is plenty more where that came from, if he would like to listen to the hon. Member for Angus and me talking on the subject.
The FlyZero project is one of the key projects run by the ATI. The hon. Member for Richmond Park made some very good points—I agree with many of the points she made—about the excitement generated by the new technology. We have heard about the Airbus project, which is one of the projects on the way. I saw ZeroAvia’s first flight of a hydrogen aircraft last year; ZeroAvia is now working on a 19-seater. Nuncats has a solar-powered battery aircraft, which I saw at Old Buckenham recently. It is very exciting, particularly for connecting people in the developing world. I also recently saw Ampaire’s electric flight from Exeter. That is particularly exciting when we consider the novel uses of this technology.
The hon. Member for Angus asked about battery technology. He is right, of course, that batteries are very heavy, which is a big challenge. Does electric play a part? Yes, it probably does. Does hydrogen play a part? Yes, it probably does. But it is probably not for a Government Minister to say so at this point. What we should be doing, and I suggest that we are doing it, is to put the money—the R&D funding—in place, so that we find out what the answer is. As I have said, electric probably plays a part. The hon. Member rightly talked about the work that Highland and Islands Airports Ltd has been doing, and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North talked about the work that Loganair has been doing. Both companies are world-leading.
The hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and for Strangford both told us about the reality of this interconnected world and the importance of aviation. Batteries and electric may well play a part in the sorts of journeys that they make.
We are continuing to look at these detailed plans. As part of the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, the zero emission flight infrastructure was launched recently, and there are many innovative ideas coming forward to progress R&D. We will announce some more successful projects shortly.
I think that the hon. Member for Bristol East asked me about the emissions trading scheme at one point. Perhaps she did not and I misunderstood her, but I will tell her about it anyway. The scheme will cover all domestic flights, flights from the UK to the European economic area and flights between the UK and Gibraltar, and it goes further than the EU scheme that it replaces. We have reduced its cap by 5% and we will consult on putting it on a clear net zero trajectory.
I am very keen to stress that this is not a domestic-only issue; it is a global problem that requires a global solution. We are continuing to work with the International Civil Aviation Organisation in particular to make sure that we drive the ambition and do the technical work on the feasibility of this long-term goal.
Through ICAO, we are also leading members of the carbon offsetting and reduction scheme for international aviation, which is the first worldwide scheme to address CO2 emissions in any sector. We are strong supporters of that, although I accept what hon. Members have said, that we cannot rely on that alone. None the less, in the short term it is probably part of the picture. COP26 gives us a great deal of ambition to show how we are leading on this. I look forward to explaining more about that in due course.
I will say a word or two about airport expansion. We take our commitments on the environment very seriously. I will quote from page 38, paragraph 3.41, of the jet zero consultation document, with regard to the impact of covid:
“even if the sector returns to a pre-COVID-19 demand trajectory, as we have assumed in our analysis, we currently believe the sector can achieve Jet Zero without the Government needing to intervene directly to limit aviation growth. The industry’s need to rebuild from a lower base is likely to mean that plans for airport expansion will be slower to come forward.”
We built that into the consultation process. I hope that hon. Members got that reference; I can provide it, if need be.
The hon. Members for Putney and for Richmond Park and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made a number of points about Heathrow expansion. They made their arguments with great courtesy, passion and power. The Government have been clear that Heathrow expansion is a private sector project, which has to meet strict criteria on air quality, noise and climate change, as well as being privately financed, affordable and delivered in the best interests of consumers. I hope they will understand that I cannot comment any further, in case there were to be a planning matter that would prejudice any further consideration by Ministers. None the less, I refer to that section in the jet zero consultation.
I am conscious that I am now out of time. I hope I have dealt with all queries from right hon. and hon. Members. If I have not, I will do my best to do so in writing later. I hope that what I have outlined today has made it clear that jet zero is a priority for the Government and that we are delivering on it with great enthusiasm and pace.
Fleur Anderson
I thank the Minister and all Members who have contributed to a very important, timely and strong debate, with many points for the Minister to take away and new ideas on how to go about meeting this challenging opportunity. There is a high awareness among the public that they want to do the right thing when they are flying. That has come through loud and clear; our constituents could not be more sure of that. They are looking to the Government for leadership on this issue.
There are exciting opportunities for us to lead the world in research and development for new sustainable fuels. We are looking at those being delivered in the 2040s, but they are not here now. What do we do about the emissions that are happening now? What do we do now about the damage being caused to the environment? We have to look again at reducing demand right now, until we have established that we can deliver on sustainable aviation.
That could be the carrot with the stick to present to airports. We could say, “You can expand but only if you can show that you can be sustainable along the way.” I look for more leadership on that. I look forward to the Minister returning to his desk with the loud, clear message that we do not want to see an expansion of Heathrow. Its expansion would undermine all the other extra work that is going on towards jet zero. I understand that he is not able to comment now, but I look forward to a new comment being made before COP26 that firmly rules out the expansion of Heathrow.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered decarbonising aviation.
School Building Conditions
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered school building conditions.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I asked for this debate due to a profoundly concerning situation in my constituency. Russell Scott is a large primary school in Denton, Tameside. It is a good school, and the excellent headteacher, Steve Marsland, is a national leader in education. The school is very popular in the local area with both parents and pupils, and currently has 466 pupils on its roll.
I impress on the Minister that this is not the usual case of an MP calling for money to be spent on his or her schools. I could make the case that a number of schools in my constituency would, due to their age or unsuitability for modern teaching and learning, benefit from a new school building, but with Russell Scott the problem is not the aesthetics, the age or the unsuitability of the learning space; it is a potentially unsafe and failing building.
I should perhaps declare a bit of an interest: I am a former Russell Scott pupil. I attended the school between 1978 and 1982, first at the original Victorian school building and then, from 1981, at the then new school building, which is the current building.
Russell Scott was refurbished in 2015 at a cost of £2.7 million. That is not an insubstantial sum of money. The work was done by the collapsed construction giant Carillion on behalf of Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council. The purpose of the refurbishment was to remodel the internal space of the school and increase places for its yearly cohort, but in fact Carillion’s refurbishment has caused irreparable damage to the fabric of the school and left it in dire straits. Since the refurbishment was completed, the headteacher and the chair of governors have shared their concerns over the poor quality of the building, as well as the potential health and safety risks to staff and children. Following those concerns, an independent defect report was commissioned by Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council and completed in August 2017. The report found that there were severe issues with the building.
The obligation to carry out the extensive remedial works fell to Carillion; however, as this House will no doubt be aware, the company went bust, leaving the council responsible. Since then, the council has spent £670,000, not on the structural defects, but attempting to maintain the condition of the school and bring it to a safe enough standard for it to remain open to staff and pupils. The investment represents almost one fifth of the total school condition funding that the council received in the same period for all of its schools in the metropolitan borough of Tameside. Despite the size of the investment, it has not even begun to address the scale of the problem at Russell Scott. There are substantial defects and structural issues, the sheer scale of which I do not have time to cover in a half-hour debate. I will, however, give a brief overview of the key areas of concern.
There is significant damage to the external and internal drainage, and the drainage system does not have the capacity to accommodate the additional toilets incorporated within the building. As a result, on several occasions sewage has leaked into the school building and classrooms. Flooding is a regular occurrence. The floors are uneven, leaving some of the fire doors unable to open and close correctly. The roof is leaking and defective and, worse, the structure of the roof is failing. External access ramps are damaged and not compliant with building regulations. The pressure of the flood water has caused the floors and unsupported slabs to crack. The foundations are shot to pieces. The fire doors were not installed correctly and do not meet fire or building regulations.
We have heard about the playing fields of Eton. The playing fields of Russell Scott resemble the Somme in 1916. Carillion illegally tipped, without licence, waste from its other construction sites on to the school playing fields and reseeded them, leaving rubble, glass, metal and wood exposed to children playing on them. They have been closed since the school returned six years ago. The list could go on and on and on, and it makes for totally unsuitable teaching and learning environments. I fear it is only a matter of time before the school becomes unfit for occupation, and when that happens there are no surplus places in local schools to accommodate its nearly 500 pupils. It is simply a crisis waiting to happen.
The question is, how do we address the defects? Repairing the school will cost an estimated £5 million, on top of the £2.7 million refit it had just six years ago. The defects are so severe and so structurally embedded that the surveyors cannot guarantee that the £5 million further refurbishment would resolve all the issues. The best option, then, is for Russell Scott to be totally rebuilt, and the potential cost of a new build is in the region of £10 million. That option has been endorsed by seven different professional disciplines, including independent architects, building surveyors, health and safety consultants, and civil engineers.
The simple fact is that Tameside council cannot afford to rebuild the school. That is a whole different subject for another debate, but it highlights the perfect storm that we are now in and the need for the Government to work collaboratively with the council. School condition funding allocations for Tameside this year are just over £1.3 million for all its schools. That would not even come close to covering the cost of the rebuild. Additionally, Tameside council is attempting to close a £25-million budget gap, which has been exacerbated by a decade of reductions to its revenue support grant.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Others of us have suffered from Carillion’s inability to deliver on contracts, so my heart goes out to my hon. Friend and his school. Is there any way for the local authority or anyone else to draw back money for Carillion’s failures?
Andrew Gwynne
The advice that I have is that that will be very difficult and probably a futile task by the local authority. One of the real issues that rankles, not just with me but with the headteacher, the chair of governors, the whole governing body and the local authority, is that there is no comeback on these shysters. It is not just Carillion but its subcontractors that did a botched job and took a hefty sum of public money, destroying a perfectly good, structurally sound public building in the process.
I have talked about the funding problems that Tameside council is experiencing, but the issue is even more serious because its budget gap and other financial pressures basically mean that it is unable to borrow to fund the project. Bluntly, it will be served with a section 114 notice if it even tries, so precarious are its finances. I recognise that there are many pressures on capital budgets, but I believe that Russell Scott is an extraordinary case that requires national intervention and help. I am pleading with the Minister for that. The school was poorly refurbished by a contractor that we are now essentially unable to hold to account in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) suggested. The issue is now financially beyond the scope of the local education authority, Tameside council, to address on its own.
The situation at Russell Scott is causing significant distress to staff, who are having to teach in completely unsuitable conditions, and will no doubt be affecting the learning experiences of pupils at a pivotal age.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Just as my hon. Friend describes his school, I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to All Saints Roman Catholic School in York, which is over 400 years old. It has accessibility challenges as well as many of the construction problems that are being described. To refurbish a listed school costs an excessive amount of money. That school needs to be rebuilt and brought on to one site. Does he agree that we need to ensure that the estate is fit for purpose, particularly as this issue affects the learning opportunities of young people?
Andrew Gwynne
I absolutely do agree. I do not know my hon. Friend’s school, so I take her word that it is in the kind of condition that Russell Scott is in. I could list other schools in my constituency that need to be rebuilt. There is a fundamental issue here about how we upgrade our school stock so that it is fit for purpose for the 21st century and fit for the best possible teaching and learning experiences, which all our children deserve. I fully support her in trying to get improvements for her 400-year-old school in the magnificent city of York.
Given the reasons that I have outlined, I raised Russell Scott at Education questions, and the then Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), promised me a meeting with Baroness Berridge, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the School System. I and representatives of Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, both elected members and officers, were very grateful to Baroness Berridge for swiftly arranging a meeting. She was very open in recognising the severity of the situation. She advised us of a possible route that could, if the Government’s officials agreed with the structural assessments of the council’s officers, potentially open the door to the Government’s capital rebuilding programme. I think that the next stage of the programme that can be accessed will be in 2023.
I understand that the capital programme is much in demand. While 50 new schools a year for the next 10 years sounds a lot—and it is in one respect—the fact that they are spread across the whole of England means that demand is always going to outstrip supply, and the application process for funds will no doubt be incredibly competitive.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), I have a number of schools in Vauxhall, just across the bridge here, that are in desperate need of refurbishment: Wyvil School, Allen Edwards Primary School, Vauxhall Primary School and Walnut Tree Walk Primary School. These are schools where, unfortunately, there is water coming through the roof, and teachers are having to place buckets to catch it. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to ramp up school capital funding? The Government’s levelling-up agenda has to mean levelling up in all our schools across the country.
Andrew Gwynne
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. To some extent it is a separate debate. I agree with her that education has to be the key to levelling up communities like mine and hers, and ensuring that all young people have opportunities to excel and be the best, whatever they are destined to be. It is the challenge of teachers to find out what that something is and to encourage pupils, nurture them and allow them to grow. In some communities, that needs an extra boost, and I certainly agree with her that levelling up is part of that. Her children, just like my children, deserve to be taught in the very best facilities.
As I said, I could list myriad schools in my constituency that I would want to be rebuilt. However, I make a special case for an exceptionally serious situation that one particular school finds itself in because of the shockingly poor work of Carillion. Baroness Berridge also assured me that Government officials would develop a robust contingency plan for the event that the school became unsafe to use. That is crucial, because there is not capacity in Tameside, as I have said before, to accommodate almost 500 extra pupils. I am not sure that there are 500 places in total across the whole of the Tameside primary estate, but there are also the logistics of having 500 children from Denton in the south-east of the borough travelling to 30 different schools. It is just not feasible, even if the spaces were there, and they are not.
I am aware that the Department for Education has undergone profound changes over the last week and that Baroness Berridge has been replaced by Baroness Barran. It is incredibly remiss of me not to have welcomed the Minister for Schools, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), to his new position at the Department for Education. I might say glowing things about him, depending on his response. I have always found him to be a very decent Member of Parliament and colleague from across the Floor. I know that he will do his best with this case to ensure that we can forward the issues at Russell Scott as best we can. I have every confidence in that.
Can the Minister reassure me that what Baroness Berridge said in our meeting last week still stands? If so, can he advise what the point of contact should be within the DFE or Tameside council and the relevant officers over the coming months, as we work collaboratively to address this serious situation? Tameside council has said it is more than happy to share its independent surveys with the team at the DFE. That is the first step, and I hope we can come to a common position on those findings and work a route through from there.
I would also be grateful if the Minister could assure me that the DFE is already working to implement the contingency plans that Baroness Berridge mentioned were of the utmost urgency. In the event of a building failure—we could literally be one or two severe weather events away from one—we will have a major problem if we have not thought about how we deal with accommodating almost 500 pupils.
Russell Scott serves a fairly deprived catchment in a heavily built-up urban environment. The children have wonderful opportunities there. The staff are second to none, and no child is left behind—one of them became a Member of this House.
I am really grateful to be given the opportunity to speak about this issue. The children at Russell Scott deserve to be taught in a safe and secure environment. There is a lot of talk in this country and from the Government Benches about the need to level up. I agree with that—I have always agreed with the need to level up those parts of the country that, sadly, are lagging behind. Here is a real opportunity to make a tangible difference to the lives of pupils, staff and parents in a part of my constituency. I hope the Minister agrees that the issue is of the utmost importance, urgent and serious and that he recommits to facilitating the work that was just beginning prior to Baroness Berridge’s departure.
The Minister for Schools (Mr Robin Walker)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I congratulate the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) on securing this debate and speaking up for the school that he himself attended. He has made a passionate and clear case.
I also take this opportunity to say how pleased I am to be addressing the Chamber today as the Minister for school standards. I am looking forward to working alongside the new Minister for the school system, Baroness Barran, to ensure that our schools are working effectively and to provide every child with the best start in life.
As a constituency MP who has written over the years to the Department about a number of condition issues, I have great sympathy with where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. I recognise also that he says that this is an exceptional case.
I recognise that well maintained buildings are essential to support high-quality education so that pupils gain the knowledge, skills and qualifications they need. All pupils deserve an effective and safe environment to learn in, which is why maintaining and improving the condition of our school estate is a Government priority. The Department does not directly own or manage the school estate, but it has an important stewardship role and we are focused on supporting those responsible for school buildings to improve schools throughout the country. We do that through annual capital funding, delivering rebuilding programmes and offering guidance and support for the sector.
Mr Sheerman
What is the Department going to do about the quality? Who gets on the list of people who are reputable enough and have enough of a track record to be good contractors? Is it not time we have the good list and the not-so-good list and that those come from the Department because it has so much knowledge about who is in the contracting industry?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman speaks from his enormous experience and he raises a sensible point. It is for the Department to work with local authorities and the various commissioning bodies to ensure they are working with the most reputable people. We all know—and successive Governments have worked with—some businesses that do not succeed.
In the case of Carillion, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish has given some shocking examples of the way it behaved, particularly with regard to the playing fields. That should not have been the case. The hon. Gentleman has raised the condition issues facing a specific primary school in his constituency. I understand the challenge the school is facing with its buildings, many as a result of the refurbishment and the expansion carried out by the local authority with Carillion in 2015, about three years before the company went into liquidation.
I recognise that Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council can no longer pursue Carillion for redress on that project, following its liquidation in 2018. It has invested its own capital funding to address issues at the school over recent years. As the hon. Gentleman said, the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary with responsibility for the school system recently met him and representatives from the council to discuss those issues. I have been speaking to her successor today. I alerted her to the debate and can assure the hon. Gentleman that she is determined to deliver for the school system in a way that achieves value for money but also delivers according to need.
Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council has assured us that the school is currently safe and operational. I know, however, that a number of issues remain, such as leaking roofs, uneven floors, inadequately installed fire doors and, most significantly, the inadequate drainage that has led to repeated flooding. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Department will continue to engage with the council and, where appropriate, with the Environment Agency and local water boards to consider the wider level of surface water flood risk within the schools and what support would be required. We look forward to reviewing the detailed condition reports from the council once they have been submitted. I checked with officials ahead of the debate: we have not seen them yet, but we are certainly happy to make sure that they are properly engaged with.
I reassure the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that the Government treat every school throughout England on a consistent basis. As I will set out, our condition funding and rebuilding programmes are targeted at schools in the worst condition, regardless of which constituency they are in and whether they are academy trusts or local authority maintained.
Andrew Gwynne
I perfectly accept what the Minister is saying, but does he recognise that one of the flaws of the condition survey is that it is basically sending somebody to look at the school? Aesthetically, Russell Scott looks modern—fit for purpose, wonderful—but we do not have to scratch very hard to see that that is not really the case. However, it was given an A grading by the school condition survey.
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point; I was just coming to that. Our school condition allocations are based on a consistent way, regarding the relative condition of schools. The data provides a consistent picture of relative condition, helping to inform funding allocations. We recognise, though, that it is a non-invasive survey and that does not assess structural issues, for example, which appear to be the issue in this case. It is not intended to be a substitute for the more detailed condition reports that local authorities use to prioritise investment across their schools, based on local knowledge.
We are currently consulting on the approach to prioritising schools for future rounds of the new school rebuilding programme and we expect there to be opportunities for evidence of severe condition needs to be submitted for consideration for that programme. More broadly, I am pleased that six schools in Tameside have benefited from new or refurbished buildings through the Department’s priority school rebuilding programme. In 2021-22, Tameside council also received an annual school condition allocation of £1.3 million to address condition issues at its schools and, over the past five years, it has received £9.1 million in total.[Official Report, 23 September 2021, Vol. 701, c. 2MC.] In February 2021, we announced that Tameside will receive £6.3 million to provide new school places needed in 2023.
Rachael Maskell
I want to refer back to All Saints school. The school was inspected following my meeting with Baroness Berridge, and although it was acknowledged that it had significant premises challenges, it has not yet progressed on to a capital funding programme. Will the Minister look at how a school such as All Saints can go forward in that programme?
Mr Walker
The hon. Lady has made her case very clearly, and I can assure her that officials have been engaging with the diocese about the school. I am certainly happy to make sure that my ministerial counterpart in the Lords, who is responsible for this area, follows through on that commitment.
The Department expects schools and those responsible for school buildings to manage their estate in an efficient and effective way, working proactively to comply with the relevant regulations, and to plan maintenance programmes. That is why we are supporting schools with advice, tools and resources such as good estate management and guidance on managing asbestos. We also provide support to get best value, including free access to our procurement frameworks.
I move on to how the Department provides support in maintaining and improving the condition of the wider school estate. Responsibility for identifying and addressing concerns in schools lies with the relevant local authorities, academy trusts or voluntary aided school bodies. They can prioritise available resources and funding to keep schools open and safe, based on local knowledge of their estates. Day-to-day maintenance, checks and minor repairs are typically funded from school revenue; we also provide annual capital funding to schools and those responsible for school buildings so that they can invest in improving the condition of their buildings and meet their duties to maintain a safe school estate.
The Department has allocated £11.3 billion in condition funding since 2015, including £1.8 billion in the financial year 2021-22. We also provided an additional £560 million in 2020-21 for essential maintenance and upgrades, on top of more than £1.4 billion already allocated during that year. Schools access capital funding to improve the condition of their building through school condition allocations or the condition improvement fund. School condition allocations are provided to eligible responsible bodies to invest in their schools on the basis of local knowledge. Since 2015, allocations have been informed by consistent data on the condition of buildings across England, so that funding is targeted to where it is needed most. Every school is treated consistently.
The condition improvement fund is an annual bidding round for eligible schools. Bids are robustly assessed against published criteria, and in 2021-22 the funds supported 1,400 projects at 1,200 schools and sixth-form colleges. The fund gives the highest priority to condition projects that address compliance and health and safety issues, which include fire protection systems, gas safety, electrical safety or emergency asbestos removal.
We also provide schools with annual devolved formula capital allocations to spend on smaller projects or purchases in line with their priorities. Capital funding for future years will be determined by the spending review, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, as well as the hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), who intervened on him, for the extent to which their speeches inform and reinforce our submission to that review.
In addition to annual condition funding, we centrally deliver major rebuilding programmes. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the Prime Minister announced a new school rebuilding programme last June; we have confirmed the first 100 schools in the programme as part of a commitment to 500 projects over the next decade. The programme will transform the education of thousands of pupils around the country, and continue to benefit children and their teachers for decades to come. It will replace poor condition and ageing school buildings with modern facilities, and all new buildings delivered through the programme will be net zero carbon in operation, contributing to the Government’s ambitious carbon reduction targets.
The first projects include primary and secondary schools, as well as a sixth-form college and special and alternative provision settings. One example is Lytham St Annes High School in Lancashire. The original school building was built in the 1950s, with later extensions in the ’60s and ’70s. The Department is funding the replacement of the main building and sports hall, with a separate sports hall in a new build two-storey block.
The programme represents a substantial investment in schools in the midlands and the north of England, with 70 of the first 100 projects located in those regions. We have published the methodology used to prioritise the first 100 schools, and we are consulting on how schools could be prioritised for inclusion in the future. We want that to be inclusive and effective. The consultation closes on 8 October, and we will set out plans for future rounds of the programme in 2022. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish will appreciate that I cannot make specific commitments about future rounds of the funding, but he has set out his position very clearly and placed it firmly on the record. It will certainly be taken into account.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a named official—a point of contact—and I am very happy to follow up on that after the debate; he will understand why I will not name an official on the Floor of the Chamber. However, my understanding is that conversations about both the application for support and the contingency planning are going on between my officials at the DFE and those people at Tameside council. I am certainly happy to take this forward, and I congratulate him on making his case so strongly.
Question put and agreed to.
LGBTQ+ Afghan Refugees
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
We have at least seven Back-Bench speeches, so no one should be thinking about speaking for more than three minutes from the Back Benches in this debate, which will last for 60 minutes, not 90 minutes.
May I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission? Please give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the Chamber.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered LGBTQ+ Afghan refugees.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and I thank hon. Members for being here today. May I start by paying tribute to our armed forces and diplomatic staff for their courage and professionalism during the evacuation operation in Afghanistan?
There is a long history of LGBTQ+ people in Afghanistan being disproportionately targeted and subjected to homophobic, biphobic and transphobic sexual violence, forced marriages, honour killings, conversion practices and execution. In the former Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the death penalty was imposed for consensual same-sex conduct under the Afghan penal code of 2017. Even before the Taliban took control last month, there were no known LGBTQ+ advocacy organisations or networks in Afghanistan, and the Taliban takeover has now sent many LGBTQ+ people into hiding out of fear. Under the rule of the Taliban, simply being LGBTQ+ will result in extra-judicial executions and the death penalty, which is sanctioned by the Government. Clearly, it is not safe for LGBTQ+ people to remain in Afghanistan, but it needs to be noted that the majority of LGBTQ+ Afghans will stay in the country.
The Taliban’s stance on the death penalty for same-sex relationships is clear. In an interview with the German newspaper Bild in July, a Taliban judge, Gul Rahim, stated:
“For homosexuals, there can only be two punishments: either stoning or he must stand behind a wall that will fall down on him. The wall must be 2.5 to 3 metres high.”
Even LGBTQ+ Afghans who have escaped to neighbouring countries are still at huge risk. Neighbouring countries, such as Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, are not safe for LGBTQ+ people.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for securing the debate. On the issue of fleeing Afghanistan to other countries, I am keenly aware of the point that they make. Do they agree that doing transfers of LGBTQ Afghans into such countries must be done extremely sensitively if they are accessing the Afghan relocations and assistance scheme launched by the Government or fleeing to those countries through any other system?
Kate Osborne
I thank the hon. Member and agree with him. I will touch on that a little later in my contribution.
Many LGBTQ+ Afghans will not be safe to come forward and identify themselves because their families and communities can also be the source of their persecution, and officials in host countries may also be a danger. Will the Government call on and hold accountable those in neighbouring states to ensure that their borders are open, that they do not ill-treat people in need of protection, and that emergency humanitarian support is delivered to those in need at all stages of their migration? That has become even more critical, as a briefing I was at just this afternoon told us how large numbers of humanitarian services are still suspended in Afghanistan.
The UK is rightly one of many countries offering resettlement to Afghan refugees. I would also like to see the UK take a leadership role in ensuring that in every settlement programme LGBTQ+ people are prioritised and their needs met. To do this, the UK Government should immediately bring together partnering Governments, refugee organisations and LGBTQ+ civil society organisations to ensure the inclusion and safety of LGBTQ+ Afghans throughout their resettlement processes.
Will the Minister work with our partner countries around the world to name LGBTQ+ people as a priority in all Afghan resettlement programmes and to commit to pathways tailored to LGBTQ+ Afghans, including legal status, humanitarian protection and a commitment to their permanent residence?
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on introducing a debate on such an important issue. Would she agree that this Government have to acknowledge the individual cases that Members have raised? I raised the case of one human rights defenders organisation that supports LGBTQ+ people in Afghanistan and did not even receive the courtesy of a response that included the name of the organisation. I had a blanket response. This Government need to do better and properly tailor their support for LGBTQ+ Afghan refugees.
Kate Osborne
I agree with the hon. Lady that the response, if there has been one, from the Government has often fallen well short of being anywhere near good enough.
Fundamentally, we want the Home Office to consider the needs and risks of LGBTQ+ Afghan people. The Government must also immediately provide assurance that no LGBTQ+ Afghan refugees are currently being assessed to be removed from the UK back to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Does she share my worries that in 2017 the Home Office published guidance that demonstrated that they were prepared to return LGBTQ+ people to Afghanistan and regarded that as safe for them, as long as they did not do anything to “attract…public outrage”?
Kate Osborne
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns. I believe that guidance may have been changed in 2020, but perhaps the Minister can help with that in her response. Ultimately, we should not, under any circumstances, contemplate sending LGBTQ+ people back to Afghanistan.
Following on from that point, I want to focus on the resettlement of LGBTQ+ refugees in the UK. The Government’s vulnerable persons resettlement scheme for refugees from Syria was highly praised for its focus on the most vulnerable people. When the scheme was launched, the Government committed to accepting LGBTQ+ refugees, but no data was made available by the Government or the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to confirm whether or how many LGBTQ+ refugees were resettled to the UK. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will ensure that LGBTQ+ people are included in the UNHCR’s prioritisation profile for the resettlement of refugees from Afghanistan and with a defined, accountable process for this community to access protection and resettlement that meets their needs?
I welcome the prioritisation of vulnerable people under the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme and the inclusion of LGBTQ+ people once again. However, will the Government ensure that family reunification applications are responsive to all family configurations, including those of LGBTQ+ families, for example recognising that Afghans with same-sex partners will not have had access to legal recognition for their relationships.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. As she says, the Government have talked about a new settlement scheme for Afghans who are most at risk, and it is welcome that LGBTQ+ people are included, but does she share my concern that those that are still trapped, both in Afghanistan and in neighbouring countries, there is very little information and advice that we can give them on how they can access that scheme or when it will be available?
Kate Osborne
Yes, I do share those concerns. Again, I ask the Minister to address that point in her response.
The Nationality and Borders Bill plays into the situation. While the support for LGBTQ+ Afghan refugees from the UK Government is welcome, the provisions in the Nationality and Borders Bill will create significant dangers and obstacles to asylum and permanent residence for LGBTQ+ people facing similar levels of persecution. Many people who have been welcomed into this country’s LGBTQ+ community would not be here under this potential law and would not have had the chance to rebuild their lives free from homophobia, biphobia and transphobia. Enacting the Bill as it stands would undermine the UK Government’s commitment to being a global leader in advancing the rights and dignity of LGBTQ+ people. The UK is convening a global LGBTQ+ summit in 2022 and co-chairing the international Equal Rights Coalition of 42 states.
The inherent contradiction in the Bill is that those arriving by their own means are treated differently. They are penalised for making their own way here. Can the Minister confirm that LGBTQ+ people who travel via third countries will not be subject to different treatment, as set out in the Nationality and Borders Bill? The Bill also introduces provisions for accommodation centres outside the UK while people’s applications for asylum are assessed or, before that, while it is being decided whether their asylum claims are admissible in the UK.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing this debate. I am sure she will agree with me that there is great concern about the way in which the Bill paves the way for processing refugee applications from abroad, which will make it much more difficult for LGBTQ+ people to provide the evidence in the environment of the camps in which they are likely to find themselves. They may find abuse and threats to their person in those camps as well.
Kate Osborne
I thank the right hon. Lady for her contribution. These types of accommodation centres pose risks to LGBTQ+ people seeking asylum, such as those from Afghanistan. The isolation of offshore processing would also make it more difficult for LGBTQ+ people to prove their sexual orientation or gender identity, as required to be granted asylum. They would find themselves in an impossible situation—being compelled to hide their sexual orientation or gender identity from those around them, while at the same time being expected to provide evidence of it to the Home Office. Will the Minister work with Government colleagues to remove plans to put people in offshore accommodation centres, given the risk of violence and abuse towards LGBTQ+ people?
I will end by reiterating that the UK Government need to do all they can to help LGBTQ+ Afghan refugees to survive, resettle and thrive. It is crucial that the UK Government‘s policies are stress-tested against LGBTQ+ people’s safety in the evacuation and resettlement efforts.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
We have eight speakers and 32 minutes. Two speakers have not submitted a written request to speak, but I am going to include them, although the tradition is to write to the Speaker in advance to ask to speak in these debates. I will call Angela Eagle first, and then we will move from party to party.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I will not take up my full time. I will share it out so that colleagues who are dealing with this important issue will have time to contribute. I hope the Minister is going to give us some answers. We have had access to Ministers about Afghan resettlement generally, but we have had no real details, and very few of us have managed to get the people we tried to get out of Afghanistan during the airlift out.
We see here with LGBTQ+ Afghan refugees, who are at mortal risk, that it is very difficult for them to get out of the country in a safe way or to exist in the country in a safe way. The Prime Minister said we should judge the Taliban by their actions. The death penalty for those who are LGBT, particularly gay men, has been confirmed. What are the Government going to do to rescue those who are in peril in Afghanistan because of their sexual orientation? Will the Minister confirm that no one currently in the UK as an asylum seeker will be sent back to that perilous situation? Will she give us details of how Afghan LGBTQ people are going to be rescued from the perilous situation in which they find themselves after the Taliban takeover?
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing the debate. Our hasty, chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan has left the country in despair. Most in danger are women, minorities and, in particular, LGBT people. Often in this place, we consider decisions that we have made in the abstract, without dwelling on the consequences. Today, I would like to report the experiences of one young gay man. He is a teacher in Kabul, and of course I will keep his identity secret. I am grateful to Openly, the LGBT+ news website for the introduction. He says:
“The Taliban are everywhere, all holding guns. I have spent all my savings. I am trying to keep a little in reserve for bribes—I have sold my laptop. I received a call from one of my foreign friends who told me that a bus for LGBT+ people was leaving for the airport. When we reached the main gate…we waited for seven hours. The heat was appalling, and we only had sips of water to drink.”
His long wait was in vain. He could not get into the airport. The bus of desperate gay people fleeing for their lives had to abandon its mission. The young teacher reports his fear that the sexual orientation of everyone on board the bus had become known, exposing them to even greater danger. He continues:
“When I got home from the airport, I felt humiliated and devastated. I had lost all the future plans I had worked so hard for. But I did receive a message from my beloved boyfriend. He said he was trying to get into the airport with his family, as they had a special emigration visa. I have never felt lonelier in my entire life. He means the world to me. We have always considered our bond inseparable.”
Within days, the situation had deteriorated. We all saw it on our TV screens. Imagine the horror of being there. My contact continues:
“The evacuation of Afghan people has come to an end. Afghan LGBT+ people have been abandoned by every foreign country. The Taliban has taken control of Hamid Karzai International Airport. Kabul seems empty. There are no women and girls on the streets going to work, school or university…My boyfriend has been in contact. He is now safe in a refugee camp in Qatar. But we cannot communicate easily. I have no idea where he is going and when. I may never see him again…All I want now is to escape to a country where I can be safe and free with my boyfriend, continue my studies and be the best version of myself.”
The next day he writes:
“I woke to hear of a gay man raped and beaten by the Taliban. The stress is eating me up.”
That is the last entry I have. It is truly heartbreaking testimony, the story of a young gay man, a teacher in Kabul, just one of many who failed to make it out as we abandoned Afghanistan. I hope the Minister will carry his story with her back to the Home Office and dwell on it while considering the Nationality and Borders Bill. We owe people like the young teacher renewed hope and sanctuary.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I join the congratulations to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing the debate. I follow an extremely moving account from the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) about the personal circumstances of the people we are trying to assist. I have a couple of points to make, briefly and hopefully well within the time allocated.
The hon. Member for Jarrow made clear a number of issues about finding and establishing people’s credentials and the difficulty associated with that for LGBT people in societies such as Afghanistan. I welcome the statement on Afghanistan last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), then a Minister at the Home Office, when she undertook to give us a point of entry, in order to get advice from officials in the Home Office who have to make these difficult decisions. It is incredibly important that there is a dialogue between people who are supporting LGBT people trying to make these asylum claims, so that they can be assisted to assist the Border Force to make the judgments necessary, in order to ensure that our country is kept safe while these individuals are enabled to be safe.
I welcome that undertaking; it is incredibly important. We failed to achieve it during the conduct of Operation Pitting. I am interested to know how many Afghan citizens got out, courtesy of the United Kingdom evacuation operation. I can understand to a degree why it may be the case that there were no LGBT people who were evacuated under that third group of people at risk, not least because we had not identified them as a cohort. They have now been so identified by the Prime Minister in his statement, which was a point reiterated by my hon. Friend, whom I congratulate on her appointment as Minister for Prisons and Probation. There are some old boys kicking around who have had that title before and would be happy to give advice, if sought.
I am also very pleased that she appears, from the list of Government responsibilities, to have kept responsibility for Afghan resettlement. It is a credit to her that, having held that responsibility for only a month, she is in a new role and different Department, but is being invited to continue because she has got across her brief so well. There are enormous hopes invested in my hon. Friend that this issue will be dealt with sensitively and effectively.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing this important debate. In this tragic chapter of warfare displacement and human suffering, it is our duty as one of the main occupying powers in Afghanistan to act responsibly and honour our humanitarian obligations.
LGBTQ+ Afghans are among the most vulnerable. They bear the brunt, not just in the aftermath of the conflict, but in the ongoing persecution that stems from the former Afghan Government, the current Taliban regime, the unsafe resettlement camps, the hostile neighbouring third countries and, perhaps most saddening, at times from their own families and communities.
The multiple threats to LGBTQ+ Afghans’ lives show that they have been disproportionately targeted. We have heard horrific stories of people being humiliated publicly on the streets, forced into marriage and tortured. As if that were not cruel enough, we have heard today both former and current regimes in the country advocating the death penalty. They suffer indignity and persecution just for loving someone of the same sex.
In the aftermath of war there will be an inevitable rise in the number of refugees and asylum seekers. That is why I support all the calls made today by Stonewall, Rainbow Migration and others for LGBTQ+ Afghan refugees to be given safe haven in the UK. Although I welcome the Government’s recent commitments to take in those refugees as part of the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme, it is hard to put faith in a Government who have deported 15,000 Afghans from the UK over the past decade. I understand that this particular circumstance has changed, but it is worth mentioning that, as recently as 2017, the Home Office stated that
“a practising gay man who would not attract or seek to cause public outrage would not face a real risk of persecution”.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Does the hon. Lady agree with me that the Minister might like to explain what that actually means to the Members here today?
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Absolutely. I am hoping for that explanation at the end of the debate, because it is a disgrace that the Government, having said that, would give themselves credit for the inadequate support they continue to give to LGBTQ+ Afghans.
To make matters worse, the Government’s Nationality and Borders Bill will drastically limit the ability of those facing persecution to apply for asylum in the UK. It will only guarantee temporary protection for refugees travelling via a third country. Inhumane offshore accommodation conditions; raising the standard required for someone to prove they are LGBTQ+; not allowing adequate time for vulnerable LGBTQ+ applicants to present themselves to immigration officials: all of that is in this damning Bill, which is another indictment of the Government’s cruel and inhumane immigration system.
I want to highlight a letter to the Prime Minister from my local borough of Lambeth which states that
“the environment for LGBTQ+ people in Afghanistan is harsher at present than almost anywhere else in the world.”
It goes on to say:
“The actions you take to secure the human rights—and indeed the lives—of LGBTQ+ Afghans will speak volumes…I call on your Government to act quickly to protect the lives of all LGBTQ+ people in—and displaced from—Afghanistan.”
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the work that is taking place in Lambeth. I am her constituency neighbour, and only yesterday we opened the first LGBT+ retirement home in my Lambeth constituency. Can the Minister explain how we will continue to support LGBT people in this country and people who want to seek safe haven here?
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I thank my constituency neighbour for her intervention, and I am sure she joins me in fully supporting the calls of the local council in our neighbouring constituencies to secure the protection of LGBTQ+ Afghans. What is left for this Government to do is heed that message of compassionate leadership and act quickly, act responsibly, and above all honour this country’s moral and legal obligations to some of the most vulnerable people in the world.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Gary, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for having secured this important and timely debate. I am also grateful to our armed forces, diplomatic staff, and NGO workers for all their efforts with the evacuation programme.
We all know what Taliban control of Afghanistan means: the oppression of women and girls, the suppression of minorities—including the Hazara people, Sikhs, and Hindus—and not least, the persecution of LGBTQI+ people. LGBTQI+ people are living in fear for their lives, at risk of the death penalty for their sexuality, and across this House, we should all be very concerned and alarmed. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow quoted a Taliban judge, and I will repeat those shocking words:
“For homosexuals, there can only be two punishments: either stoning, or he must stand behind a wall that will fall down on him. The wall must be two-and-a-half to three meters high”.
There are countless more stories of LGBTQI+ people in Afghanistan being disproportionately targeted and subjected to homophobic, biphobic and transphobic sexual violence, forced marriages, honour killings, conversion practices, and execution.
In the face of this oppression, we must hear from the Minister today that this Government will commit to supporting those who are fleeing it, in the face of the most unimaginable threats. That means committing to things that actually protect those LGBTQI+ Afghans, not just preaching empty promises and hollow words. I hope we will hear that the Government will heed the advice of Stonewall and Rainbow Migration, who are calling for a meeting that brings together resettlement countries, resettlement agencies, civil society groups from the LGBTQI+ community, and experts to ensure that robust processes are developed for the assessment, protection and resettlement of those refugees. Additionally, the Government must urgently give permanent residence to LGBTQI+ Afghans, so that once they have arrived in this country, they will not be at risk of being deported to the conditions I have described. I believe the figure of 15,000 was quoted with regard to this Government’s record on deporting people back to Afghanistan. That is a shameful record.
In this country, although we cannot pretend that the struggle for LGBTQI+ rights has been entirely won, we know that conditions are safer and that people will be welcomed with open arms, not least by organisations such as Stockport Pride in my own constituency. Its work celebrating the LGBTQI+ community in the Stockport borough is a sign of hope that progress and change can be made. If we want to be a country that is outward-facing and principled, I hope that the Minister will listen to what Members of this House are describing today, and pledge to immediately address this crisis.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing this debate. We were all shocked at the speed with which the Taliban overthrew the Government of Afghanistan last month. The fall of Kabul was a worrying reminder of the fragility of that country—how easily 20 years of progress could be undone in just a few short weeks.
Under the Taliban and their repressive, archaic laws, being LGBT+ is a huge risk. There have already been reports of abhorrent acts of persecution and criminalisation of the LGBT+ community in Afghanistan, as we heard in other powerful speeches. It is no surprise that members of the LGBT+ community in Afghanistan have gone into hiding and are isolated from their families and friends—often their only source of support—for fear of exposure and the consequences it brings.
I am proud that the UK has played a leading role in supporting members of the LGBT community escape from Afghanistan. Under the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme, those at risk of persecution will be relocated to the UK, and among those deemed to be the most vulnerable are Afghan members of the LGBT community. It is important that those who escape to neighbouring countries and arrive at offshore processing centres are protected, as neighbouring countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan all persecute LGBT+ people. It is unsurprising that members of our community are concerned for their safety.
I hope that members of the LGBT+ community who wish to leave will be supported to do so as swiftly as possible and will not be left stranded. It is, however, important that we remember that not all members of the LGBT+ community will want to leave Afghanistan. More must be done to continue to hold the Taliban Government to account on human rights grounds.
I am proud of the steps we have already taken to support refugees from Afghanistan, and I look forward to hearing the Minister outline her commitment to continuing to support those who are still in Afghanistan.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Streeter. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for proposing this incredibly important debate. Many in this Chamber will struggle to describe some of the things that have been said. I have a huge amount of respect for the work of the diplomats and the armed forces in this challenging time.
Like all crises, what is unravelling in Afghanistan today will fall hardest on the most vulnerable in Afghan society, and certainly on LGBTQ+ people. Afghans have been living in a state of protracted crisis. Before withdrawal, 18.4 million people, nearly half of the population, required humanitarian aid, 30.5 million people, more than three quarters of the population, required some form of assistance from the state or non-governmental organisations, and 19.1 million people, nearly half the population, lived below the poverty line. A humanitarian crisis is a human rights crisis, and we cannot partition it off from LGBTQ+ rights. Many LGBTQ+ people are living in fear and joining the stream of people who have left Afghanistan over the past 20 years.
I am sad to say that, despite the human rights situation on the ground, those refugees have not necessarily received a warm welcome in the UK. In 2010, before US and British troop withdrawal, Germany welcomed just under 148,000 Afghan refugees. The UK took only 9,351. For LGBTQ+ people, the story is worse. Human Rights Watch provides insight into how LGBTQ+ refugees have been treated. It quotes an annexe from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s guidance on Afghanistan from 2017, which says:
“the only option for a homosexual individual…would be to conceal their sexual orientation to avoid punishment.”
At the same time, we have heard about the immigration office guidance, which says:
“it may be a safe and viable option for a gay man to relocate to Kabul.”
Those conflicting departmental statements show that the Government did not have LGBTQ+ people at heart. Notably, the UN advises that asylum seekers
“cannot be denied refugee status based on a requirement that they change or conceal their identity, opinions or characteristics in order to avoid persecution.”
I tried looking for the documents quoted in the Human Rights Watch article, but thankfully they appear to have been deleted. At least, the links are broken. I hope that the Minister can clarify what the Department’s official position was at the time, either in her response or in a note after the debate. Suffice it to say that the Government do not appear to have a very good record on delivering support to LGBTQ+ asylum seekers. I am glad that they have said that the resettlement scheme will include LGBTQ+ people, but I will be watching its implementation carefully. We also know that transphobia, homophobia and biphobia exist in the UK. What training will relevant staff receive on this issue, particularly about the situation on the ground in neighbouring countries?
The problems that LGBTQ+ asylum seekers face in claiming asylum are well documented. I have heard numerous shocking stories of how asylum seekers have had to prove their sexuality, and the offensive way their testimony has been dismissed. Without safe routes, LGBTQ+ asylum seekers fear for their lives and do not know how to get to safety. The Government’s new Nationality and Borders Bill will only make that situation worse. Can the Minister give her assurance that refugees coming here on the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme will not be subject to the same intrusive and, frankly, abusive lines of questioning? The Government have so far failed in their obligations to LGBTQ+ asylum seekers. Rather than baking those failures into Afghan resettlement schemes, Ministers must ensure that the system treats applicants with the human decency that they deserve.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Sir Gary, for calling me in today’s debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for calling today’s debate and the many organisations such as Stonewall and Rainbow Migration which have provided excellent briefings.
I have serious concerns for the LGBTQ+ community in Afghanistan and in third countries in the same way that I do for religious minorities. I believe the systems are insufficient to provide the necessary security and confidentiality to ensure that people can make a safe journey to a place of sanctuary and I call on Government to look at this. To make any declaration could be a death sentence. While many are waiting for the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme to be announced, the detail is important in order that people can make the right choices about their future right now and in future.
With many countries absent in advancing the concerns of the LGBTQ+ community, it is important that the UK takes the lead. I urge the Minister to do so in her role. While we all ask significant questions, how will anyone now leave Afghanistan safely if their reason for leaving is because they are LGBTQ+? If there is no safe way of stating this, they will be placed with others wanting to flee.
Last night, I heard how sting operations are being undertaken in Afghanistan to out people who are LGBTQ+. This is really disturbing. If people are able to flee, we know that neighbouring countries such as Iran and Pakistan are unsafe for them to go to. How does the Minister propose to address that in her discussions with colleagues at this time?
Perhaps most worrying of all, I understand that the UNHCR process for refugees uses local agencies. While the principle may be positive, there is serious risk that some of these agencies will be homophobic, biphobic or transphobic. Rather than advancing an application under the UNHCR, they could end up putting that person at risk. Will the Minister look at this specific issue and raise it with the UNHCR? In these countries, where people have to conceal their identity, how do the UK Government plan to prioritise these people in practice under the ACRS? We have not had the detail we need. It would be helpful if the Minister could share some more detail today, because people need to know how to plan their passage to safety.
Finally, I want to raise the issue of alternative routes to safety. In view of these extensive risks, many people may make their own passage to the UK. Why the UK? Because we have a proud history of upholding human rights; because it is one of the safest countries to be in; and because there are so many good local organisations, such as Time To Be Out in my constituency. We are the only human rights city in the country. This organisation, Time To Be Out, supports LGBT refugees and asylum seekers specifically in resettlement. Will the Minister amend the Nationality and Borders Bill to ensure that these Afghan refugees and so many besides are given a really warm welcome to the UK rather than criminalised and discriminated against, let us face it, because of their sexuality?
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Thank you for keeping to time. In fact, most of you have spoken for less than four minutes, so we have made up a few moments. I am sure that the Minister will want to take advantage of that. We now move to our Front-Bench speeches.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing this important debate. We have heard a number of hon. Members speak movingly of the terrible plight faced by LGBTQI+ people in Afghanistan, which is now back under the Taliban. We have heard some important questions for the Minister to answer, but before I turn to those questions, I would like to say something particularly about the plight of lesbians and bisexual women in Afghanistan, who are discriminated against twice over, both for their sex and for their sexuality.
We all know that women face particular oppression under the Taliban. As we heard in briefings from Stonewall and Rainbow Migration last night, being a woman considerably decreases someone’s ability to move or to act to protect themselves in Afghanistan. Lesbians are even less likely to come forward to UNHCR or other humanitarian agencies if they reach a third country, because as women they are even more likely to experience persecution within their homes and from family members, and to have less mobility and fewer resources open to them. If they make it to the United Kingdom, it is often hard for them to prove their sexuality, because they have led such hidden lives and have often been in forced marriages.
Perhaps the plight of lesbians and bisexual women underlines in particular why some aspects of the Nationality and Borders Bill are so problematic for LGBTQI+ people. The requests made of the Minister by hon. Members today can be summarised under three headings: support for LGBTQI+ people who make it to a neighbouring host country—some of those countries will not be particularly sympathetic environments—co-ordination of the international response and a willingness to create safe routes to the United Kingdom and then to treat people humanely once they get here.
In relation to neighbouring host countries, I ask the Minister to focus on questions about what efforts the United Kingdom Government can engage in, in partnership with organisations on the ground, to ensure that the needs of this vulnerable community are met if people make it to one of the neighbouring countries, and to ensure that there is expert support and expert legal advice and assistance relevant to their identity and their expression of how they live their lives.
Will the Government ensure that LGBTQI+ people are considered a priority and that the particular risks they face in their ongoing passage into a safe place are taken into account? Will the Government keep a close eye on those neighbouring states, through their international channels of diplomacy, to ensure that people who manage to get out are treated appropriately?
Looking at the international response, will the Minister hold an urgent cross-agency meeting to bring together resettlement countries, resettlement agencies and those in the LGBTQI+ community in civil society, to ensure that there is a robust process? Will she also ensure that LGBTQI+ people who are fleeing Afghanistan do not find themselves in detention facilities that could exacerbate existing trauma and put them at further risk?
One very important question for the Minister, which a number of hon. Members have asked, is whether she can confirm that all current deportations or removals of Afghanis have been halted in the light of the Taliban takeover? If not, can she confirm how many Afghans are facing a current risk of deportation or removal from the United Kingdom?
We have heard repeatedly how important it is that safe legal routes are created for people to come to the United Kingdom, that people are not treated as criminals on arrival and that they are treated humanely when they get here. Can the Minister please address specifically the issues raised by hon. Members in relation to the Nationality and Borders Bill, and aspects of the Bill that will be particularly problematic for LGBTQI+ people, such as the burden of proof? We have heard that many gay people in Afghanistan are living lives where their sexuality is not at all open, and that will be the same for transgendered people. Can the burden of proof please take that into account? Likewise, can the Government please look again at the unreasonable deadlines in clauses 16, 17 and 23 of the Bill?
Finally, can the Minister give us a guarantee that if LGBTQI+ people manage to make it to the shores of this country, they will not be hived off to be detained in some hostile environment pending the outcome of their application for asylum?
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a particular pleasure, Sir Gary, to serve under your chairpersonship today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing such a crucial and timely debate and I add to her tribute to all the diplomats, officials and members of the armed forces who worked on Operation Pitting.
I must set out at the outset that this debate is personal for me—and, I suspect, for many Members—not just as an openly gay man but as someone of faith, as someone who has worked on issues relating to Afghanistan, both inside and outside government, in the last decade, and as someone who has visited the country in person. I have also witnessed in person the difficulties for LGBT+ asylum seekers in our immigration system, including at detention centres, and the often dehumanising processes that they face on top of the traumas they have already suffered in fleeing from persecution and, in many cases, violence and threats of death.
I also have a strong and proud Afghan community in my constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth, and like many Members in Westminster Hall today I have taken up cases on behalf of many individuals; I think that I am dealing with more than 300 individual cases, including those of LGBT+ individuals trapped in the chaos of Afghanistan in recent weeks. Although I can say that there were some successes, I am sorry to say that there are many people who we have tragically failed. I think in particular of one LGBT+ individual who is highly at risk and whose case I raised multiple times with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office. I had my hopes up after I received a call from a Home Office official, but sadly I believe that that individual is still in Afghanistan and that their life is at risk. I hope that I can take up their case directly with the Minister after the debate.
I thank all colleagues for their incredibly powerful and in some cases heartbreaking speeches. I also thank all those organisations and individuals involved with this issue, particularly the all-party parliamentary group on global lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights; Stonewall; Rainbow Migration; the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association; Rainbow Railroad; and other organisations, such as Kaleidoscope Trust. These organisations have not only spoken up but—better still—acted in recent weeks to assist our LGBT+ fellow humans in Afghanistan. They also do so much week in and week out for those around the world facing persecution because of their sexuality or gender identity. Much of that work is unseen and unheard, not least because of the obvious risks for those who they are trying to assist.
I also pay fair tribute to some of the junior Ministers—they know who they are—who have met me and others in recent weeks to discuss what more the UK Government can do to assist urgently to save lives, and I hope that in the future the Minister who is here today can be part of the conversations that we agreed to continue to try to assist people practically.
The facts relating to Afghanistan are stark and grim, as we have heard from so many speakers already. Of course, the situation before the Taliban takeover was already incredibly serious, as highlighted by ILGA, but it is no surprise that with the Taliban takeover many LGBT+ people in Afghanistan are literally fleeing for their lives. We heard that terrible comment from the Taliban judge, Gul Rahim, who said:
“For homosexuals, there can only be two punishments: either stoning, or he must stand behind a wall that will fall down on him.”
There is no more horrific comment than that, but that is the reality for so many people in Afghanistan today.
I also share the fears expressed about what systems are in place for those fleeing to neighbouring countries that also have repressive regimes—countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. In fact, consensual sexual acts between same-sex adults are criminalised in 72 UN member states today and only 50 countries recognise trans people’s rights to have their gender identity legally recognised. Of course, this is not just an issue relating to Afghanistan.
I am sorry to say that many reports have highlighted how the Home Office’s asylum system is failing LGBT+ refugees and often leaving them worse off. I am also sorry to say that I concur with much of the evidence from the organisations that have contacted us that many LGBT+ refugees feel like they are treated like criminals, are particularly badly treated when they are in detention and even put at risk.
I have two quotes from the report by Stonewall and the UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group:
“Trans asylum seekers face particular threats of violence in detention. One trans interviewee reports being placed in multiple male detention centres, even though she made it known that she identifies as a woman.”
The report also said:
“LGBT asylum seekers find it difficult to settle back into society after their experiences”
elsewhere in the immigration system. I can think of a case that I have dealt with only in the last week of an LGBT+ asylum seeker in my own constituency. When I contacted the Home Office, it did not even know that that person was living in my constituency, yet they had been moved away from the support networks that had grown up for them. I am glad to say that that decision has now been reversed, but if that is the sort of thing that is going on, we have a very long way to go.
We have to ensure a warm welcome for all those arriving in this country, regardless of their sexuality or gender identity, and that specific resources, training and support are put in place to ensure that people are treated with the dignity they deserve. I praise the Welsh Government, which I know has been working with the Home Office on the support that we can provide to the Afghan resettlement scheme, including in my constituency.
I have a few key questions for the Minister. How many LGBT+ individuals were evacuated under the various evacuation routes, including those for UK nationals and residents, the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, and those for special cases? How many of those individuals are now being counted under the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme? Is there an allocation for places under the ACRS for LGBT+ people? How will those people be identified and supported? How will these schemes work with organisations such as the UNHCR and ILGA Asia to ensure that people are properly identified in-region? Is there work going on with other likeminded countries? I think of the US, Canada, Australia and European Union partners. Many of them will want to do the same. Is there formal co-ordination? Are there discussions going on at the UN General Assembly session in New York this week? What is being done about the risks in the region? Finally, I wholly concur with the questions raised about the Nationality and Borders Bill—questions about evidence and of delay in process. The system is already difficult enough; should we be making it even harder for LGBT+ asylum seekers? Surely not. I hope that the Minister will have some answers.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Minister, please leave one minute after your response for Kate Osborne to respond.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Victoria Atkins)
Of course, Sir Gary. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to be back in Westminster Hall. I join all hon. Members who have thanked our military, our forces, our Border Force officials, our civil servants and our diplomats who worked against all odds to evacuate 15,000 people under Operation Pitting. That evacuation exceeded the expectations of those who were involved with it.
I put that on record, because I know that hon. Members will have corresponded with the Home Office and others about people still in-country. We will, of course, continue to discuss those cases. That is very important. However, we should put on record the fact that that evacuation helped to rescue 15,000 people from Afghanistan in incredibly difficult circumstances.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on bringing this debate, and on passionately setting out her concerns about the fate of LGBT+ people who remain in Afghanistan, and indeed for those in other countries in the region. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. I know that, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), said, many speak for particularly personal reasons. I hope that he and others will understand that we all share their very real concerns about the safety of LGBT+ people, not just in Afghanistan, but across the world, as we contemplate some of the harsh regimes that still exist, sadly, in this century.
We have heard, only too clearly, the horrifying reports of the experiences of people who are left behind. The words of the Taliban, as quoted by the shadow Minister, are indeed very chilling. I hope that I can reassure hon. Members that both the Foreign Office and the Home Office are working with Stonewall, Rainbow Railroad and other specialist charities to help LGBT+ people known to be at risk.
The hon Members for Jarrow and for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), as well as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), asked about what more we are doing internationally. We are seeking to increase multilateral co-operation on this important issue. Indeed, this afternoon, the UK is hosting a special meeting of the Equal Rights Coalition, which we co-chair with Argentina, to discuss the situation in Afghanistan and ensure that the specific requirements of LGBT+ people are considered as part of the humanitarian response.
Victoria Atkins
I will just finish this point. I am mindful of time, as there is a lot to get through.
We very much hope that by continuing to work together, including through the coalition, that we will improve international co-operation to help people known to be at risk. We are also working with the international community to ensure a co-ordinated approach to Afghanistan, including helping to deliver the UN Security Council resolution setting out expectations for safe passage for all who wish to leave, urgent humanitarian access, and respect for human rights and the prevention of terrorism.
In addition to that, our wider international human rights work includes our network of over 280 diplomatic missions, which monitor and raise human rights in their host countries. Sadly, of course, we currently have no support in Afghanistan because of the perilous security situation there. However, those diplomatic efforts continue around the region, and our UK missions are very much working, I am told, to promote human rights.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
How can the Minister square those comments with sending Afghan LGBTQ asylum seekers back to Afghanistan two weeks prior to the fall, as long as they did not create “outrage” in the local community?
Victoria Atkins
I am not familiar with the cases that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I hope he will bear with me. I appear here as the Minister responsible for Afghan resettlement, but if he wants to raise those cases with the Minister responsible for immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), I know that he will want to deal with them. As I say, I do not have knowledge of those cases.
Many Members understandably asked what more we can do to support LGBT+ people from the region, who we welcome and will welcome. One of my constant pleas to colleagues across the House is to encourage local councils to play their part in offering permanent accommodation to our new Afghan friends. We have new offers of accommodation since I addressed the House last week, which is pleasing, but we need to encourage every single council to play its part.
In relation to Operation Pitting, we were able to call forward a number of people outside the established ARAP scheme. Some of those who arrived in the UK and who are in accommodation will form part of the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth asked me for numbers, and I regret that I cannot provide those numbers at the moment. Again, I hope that he and others will understand that we are using a trauma-informed approach in our conversations with the people we have welcomed. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that people may not feel able to share their personal circumstances related to the topic of this debate at this stage. We are being very careful in the way that we deal with them and that is part of our commitment. Through our work so far, with the policy statement issued last week and my statement to the House, we have been clear that LGBT+ people are part of the vulnerable cohort that we are carefully considering for the future.
A number of colleagues asked about documents. As I said in my statement last week, we will be taking a concessionary approach for Afghans similar to that which we took for Syrian nationals in 2015, because we understand that many people will have fled without documentation or have had to destroy it. Again, I ask Members to please look at the policy statement we issued.
As part of our warm welcome, we have announced that people who arrived under ARAP or who form part of the citizens’ scheme will have indefinite leave to remain. This is significant progress for those people because it will mean that they can live, work, contribute and settle into our community. We are working with international partners, and I have already met the UNHCR to discuss how we can work together. There is a great deal of work going on with other international organisations, because we want to ensure that as and when the security situation changes—I hope improves—with the Taliban, that we are able to reach the very people about whom we are all so concerned.
I hope that in this short time I have been able to give hon. Members the direction of travel for the Government. I remain, as always, happy to discuss this and other policies with hon. Members.
Kate Osborne
Thank you, Sir Gary, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their powerful and important contributions. We can be in no doubt as to the plight that LGBTQ+ Afghan people face right now.
I thank the Minister for her response. I ask her to consider and adopt the following: that LGBTQ+ Afghan refugees must be given permanent residence in the UK as otherwise they will have to hide their identity while living here for fear of persecution should they one day be removed; an assurance that LGBTQ+ people are included in the UNHCR’s prioritisation profile for the resettlement of refugees from Afghanistan; and finally, assurance that no LGBTQ+ Afghan refugees who are currently being assessed will be removed from the UK back to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
Written Statements
Fortification of Flour: Folic Acid
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
I am today announcing the Government’s decision to introduce mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid to help prevent neural tube defects in foetuses. The Government initiated a consultation in 2019 on the issue of folic acid fortification. Our response is published today and confirms that we will proceed with fortification of non-wholemeal wheat flour, which is the most used type. This was the “baseline” option in the consultation and accompanying impact assessment.
Neural tube defects are birth defects of the brain, spine, or spinal cord. They happen in the first few weeks of pregnancy, often before a woman even knows that she is pregnant. The two most common neural tube defects are spina bifida and anencephaly. These can be devastating conditions, and the Government are fully aware of the effect these have on the individuals themselves and their families.
There is strong evidence that many neural tube defects can be prevented by increasing women’s intake of folic acid, which is why existing pregnancy advice to women who are trying to conceive or who are likely to become pregnant is to take a daily supplement of 400 micrograms of folic acid until the 12th week of pregnancy.
However, we know that in the UK around half of pregnancies are unplanned. In those which are planned, it has been estimated that only half of all mothers took folic acid supplements or modified their diet to increase folate intake. This has led to calls for mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid, so women can get it from dietary sources other than foods that naturally contain it, and is why we consulted on the proposal.
I am grateful to the many people who took time to respond to the consultation which helped us accurately consider this policy.
I have agreed with the Governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland that we intend to implement this change on a UK-wide basis. We will now commence detailed discussions with stakeholders on the precise details of the fortification and labelling requirements, and agree the appropriate lead-in times. In order to minimise impacts on industry, this will be co-ordinated as part of a wider review of The Bread and Flour Regulations 1998 and The Bread and Flour (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1998 being undertaken by DEFRA—alongside the Food Standards Agency in Northern Ireland and Wales, Food Standards Scotland in Scotland, DHSC, and the Scottish and Welsh Governments. Following those discussions, and in co-ordination with the progress of the review of the wider bread and flour regulations, we will consult on the draft legislation to implement this policy, and include a full impact assessment on the mandatory folic acid fortification.
[HCWS296]
Machinery of Government
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of government change.
Responsibility for the operation of the vaccine damage payments scheme will transfer from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Department of Health and Social Care. This change will take effect on 1 November 2021.
[HCWS297]