House of Commons
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Business Before Questions
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
Our overarching objective of COP26 is to keep within reach the goal of limiting average global temperature rises to 1.5 °C. To achieve that, we have been asking countries to set out ambitious emissions reduction commitments and to come forward with adaptation plans, and asking developed countries to deliver on their climate finance promises and for us collectively to reach agreement on the outstanding elements of the Paris rulebook.
Julian Sturdy
Given the Government’s recent wise decision to recognise that environment-saving gene-editing technology should be recognised differently from GM—genetic modification—will Ministers use COP26 to champion this and other cutting-edge science and technologies that provide some of the best solutions to the problems of sustainability and climate change?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Science and innovation are crucial to tackling climate change and delivering green growth. Innovation will be discussed at the world leaders’ summit at COP26. On 9 November, we will provide a particular focus on discussing and indeed showcasing science and innovation’s role in tackling climate change.
Rob Butler
Along with the national and global policy objectives of COP26, many local voluntary organisations are already raising awareness of the impact of climate change, including Climate Action Wendover, in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the work that such organisations do is important in helping people to understand that the only way to reach net zero is by everyone changing the way they behave, at home, at work and in their local community?
Alok Sharma
I congratulate my hon. Friend and Climate Action Wendover on all their work in encouraging climate action from local residents and businesses. Local communities across the country are playing their part in tackling climate change, and the cities, regions and built environment day at COP26 will provide a focus on local community action.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister will know that there is widespread concern about a lack of clarity, as we get so close to COP26, as to what will actually be happening at the summit and what the priorities will be. What discussions has he had with the small island developing states to make sure that their concerns are fully represented, that they have a voice at COP26 and that we come away from it with something that really helps them to meet the challenges they face?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point. I have a regular dialogue with representatives of the small island developing states. I have been clear that one thing we want to do through this presidency is champion them and the developing countries that are at the frontline of climate change.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is good to hear that the COP President is interested in the challenges of those developing countries. Climate change’s most severe impacts fall heaviest on those developing countries that had least to do with causing it, and many consequences of climate change are already locked in, regardless of mitigation efforts. Given that, it is vital that COP26 includes an agreement on loss and damage compensation. Are the Government aiming for an equitable loss and damage agreement that compensates developing nations and recognises the disproportionate role of developed nations in causing that loss and damage?
Alok Sharma
Loss and damage is an issue that Ministers have debated at both the London ministerial meeting that I hosted and the pre-COP in Milan. Clearly, what comes forward at COP will be a consensus agreement, but I can tell the hon. Lady that we are determined to make sure that the Santiago Network is operationalised, and of course we will see that further discussions take place on this issue.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Given that more than a quarter of the increase in carbon emissions since 2000 has come from China, are we expecting a strong and prominent Chinese delegation at COP26?
Alok Sharma
There will be a delegation coming from China. As my hon. Friend may know, I was there in September, when I had constructive discussions. China, along with every other country, needs to come forward with ambitious plans to cut emissions by 2030 before COP26.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
The commitments by countries at Paris in 2015 bent the curve of global warming to below 2 °C. The International Energy Agency, in a report published last week, has concluded that if countries deliver on all their recent commitments, we are on course for around 2 °C. In order to keep 1.5 °C within reach, all countries, particularly the G20 nations, need to submit ambitious 2030 emission reduction targets and of course commit to net zero by the middle of the century.
Anna McMorrin
The Minister talks of ambitious plans, but the net zero road map published by the Government yesterday is weak on land and agriculture, and 20% of the UK’s annual emissions come from natural resources. No plan can claim to build back greener unless we do everything in our power to achieve the 2° target or, indeed, the 1.5° goal. Peatlands are the biggest carbon store and continue to be burned. The Government’s ban includes only a third of upland peatland, allowing the rest to burn, so what are they doing to shut down the loophole that they created?
Alok Sharma
The net zero strategy is a coherent and comprehensive plan that has been welcomed by many people and by business. It is about emissions coming down and the creation of jobs. The hon. Lady will know that we have already published a peat strategy, which I would be happy to share with her.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Does the COP26 President agree with me and the all-party parliamentary group for “left behind” neighbourhoods that sometimes the way to engage people is with things that matter to them, such as the cost of heating their house, as opposed to changing the green agenda every time? If we go for different agendas for people, we can get a lot more acceptance and buy-in.
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is a champion for his Sedgefield constituency and is right to point out that we can bring about change in a number of ways, thereby not only reducing the cost of bills but helping to cut emissions. There is a role for us all to play.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
With 10 days to go before COP, much is riding on the shoulders of the COP26 President and we wish him well, but to deliver the 1.5° target we have to cut emissions by 28 billion tonnes by 2030—a halving of global emissions. So far, the pledges made for Glasgow amount to 4 billion tonnes at most, so we are not yet where we want to be. Does the COP26 President agree that we need to be honest about the maths? If he does, what is his assessment of how much of the gap we can close at Glasgow to keep 1.5° alive?
Alok Sharma
The right hon. Gentleman and I agree that we have to ensure that we close the gap and halve emissions on the 2010 baseline by 2030. As I said in answer to an earlier question, so long as the commitments that have been made are followed through on, we are heading towards the 2° target, but clearly we need the G20 to come forward with its emissions reduction targets, and we will then need a consensus view on how we reach agreement for the next few years.
Edward Miliband
May I suggest to the COP26 President that the rest of the UK Government could make a difference, even in these final days, by not undermining his work? The Secretary of State for International Trade should not be giving big emitters a free pass by doing a deal with Australia that allows them to drop their temperature commitments; the Prime Minister should deliver on the promise made at the G7 to vaccinate the developing world by the end of 2022; and the Treasury should stop undermining the green transition at home and help to build the international coalition that we need by reversing the cut to overseas aid in the Budget. Does the COP26 President agree that acting on those suggestions would help him to deliver on his historic responsibility at the COP?
Alok Sharma
The whole Government are committed to our net zero strategy, which was published yesterday. It is about creating 440,000 jobs by 2030 and getting another £90 billion of inward investment, some of which we saw coming through at the global investment summit yesterday. The whole Government are committed to ensuring that we have success at COP26. The very fact that the Secretary of State for International Trade is sat next to me on the Front Bench shows her commitment to COP and to her work on adaptation.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I know that my right hon. Friend shares my view on the importance of unleashing investment for climate. Although a global green investment bank is not on the COP agenda itself, we are working with all levels of the global system—treasuries, regulators, multilateral development banks, central banks and markets—to mobilise private and public capital.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I congratulate my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench on the net zero strategy that the Government published yesterday. Unlike Opposition Members, I see that a net zero strategy backed by business is the way to go. Taxpayers are not going to pay the full cost, and it is down to us all to be committed to that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that because the UK has such strengths in our financial services sector, we can, by promoting greater investment in renewable technologies around the world, promote not just decarbonisation but better jobs and economic growth for all our citizens and those in the developing world?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Wind and solar power are now cheaper than coal and gas across the majority of the world, and continuing to invest in those unabated fossil fuels is likely to create a risk of stranded assets. The opportunities for business investment into green technologies have never been better, with green, high-quality jobs across not only the UK, but all countries, as they also invest in their green technologies and those revolutions that drive the opportunity to boost global GDP by up to 2.4%.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The UK works with all countries to deliver ambitious action on climate change and ensure that human rights are placed at the forefront of our climate action. Under the UK’s COP presidency, we are bringing forward a declaration for donor countries to support the conditions for a just transition from high-carbon industries into quality, decent, new jobs.
Wendy Chamberlain
Human rights abuses, such as the treatment of the Uyghurs in China, are hugely relevant to COP. An investigation earlier this year found that 40% of UK solar firms were built using panels from firms linked to forced labour in Xinjiang, China. How does the COP26 President intend to approach the need to work together with countries such as China while also meeting our moral obligations in relation to these abuses?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The allegations are, of course, a cause for concern. Further detailed investigations are required to establish to what extent that forced labour is present in the solar supply chain. We are thoroughly investigating those allegations. On 12 January, we announced a series of measures to help ensure that no UK organisation is complicit in human rights violations or abuses taking place in Xinjiang, including strengthening the overseas business risk guidance to support businesses making the right choices.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
I have met a range of society and youth groups in every country that I have visited in my COP role. Alongside that, I co-chaired the COP26 civil society and youth advisory council. Last month, I attended the Youth4Climate: Driving Ambition conference to hear at first hand almost 400 youth climate activists representing 186 countries.
David Mundell
The big disappointment for me is the chaotic and shambolic way in which SNP-led Glasgow City Council has approached this major global event that is coming to Scotland. Can the President reassure me that, whatever the inadequacies of the council, it will not detract from the event or its ability in future to positively reflect on communities in Glasgow and across Scotland?
Alok Sharma
We have had a good working relationship with delivery partners across the piece and it is very important that that continues. Obviously, my right hon. Friend has highlighted a number of local issues. If he wants to get in touch with me, I would be very happy to see what we can do to try to solve the problems.
Andrew Jones
Two weeks ago, I saw Harrogate High School, St Joseph’s primary school and Zero Carbon Harrogate promote their walk-to-school day. Talking to pupils, I found that their interest in environmental progress was very strong, so has my right hon. Friend shared the feedback on his consultations with other Government Departments to promote work such as sustainable transport both domestically and internationally?
Alok Sharma
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and, of course, Harrogate High School and Zero Carbon Harrogate for promoting sustainable travel initiatives. He will know that the COP unit is working very closely with other Government Departments to try to support business on sustainable transport initiatives. I want to give him one example: the Zero Emission Vehicles Transition Council is working with Ministers representing leading car markets across the world to accelerate the move to electric vehicles.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
As MP of the constituency where COP is taking place, I look forward to welcoming you all to Glasgow in the coming weeks. However, many businesses will be affected by COP and forced to close. They are finding it very difficult to get answers from the Cabinet Office on how much compensation they will be entitled to for the closure of their businesses. I would be grateful if the President could meet me to try to resolve some of these matters because businesses are very worried that they will lose out significantly as a result of COP coming to Glasgow.
Alok Sharma
As the hon. Lady will know, I have written to local Members of Parliament to tell them that businesses within the secure perimeter will be compensated for any loss of revenues. Of course, the number of people coming means that this is also going to be an opportunity for businesses across Glasgow to benefit, but I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the matter.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The 2019 decision of Surrey County Council to grant planning permission for four new bore holes is currently subject to a legal challenge, which will be heard by the Court of Appeal in November. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment on the specifics, due to the ongoing litigation.
Wera Hobhouse
The International Energy Agency has warned that if the world is to reach net zero by 2050, the exploitation and development of new oil and gas fields must stop this year, yet there are currently proposals for multiple new exploratory oil developments across the UK. With just 11 days to go until world leaders gather in Glasgow, how can the COP26 President justify these developments against the Government’s stated aim of keeping global warming to 1.5 °C?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I announced earlier this year in my former role, the Government will be introducing a climate compatibility checkpoint for any new licences issued, in order to assess whether any future licensing rounds remain in keeping with our climate goals. The checkpoint, which we have committed to launch by the end of this year, will be used to assess the climate compatibility of any future licensing rounds.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
Supporting vulnerable communities around the world to adapt to climate impacts is a top priority for COP26. We are encouraging improved adaptation planning, integration of climate risk into decision making, and increased and more accessible adaptation of finance to deliver effective, inclusive adaptation, and loss and damage action on the ground.
Ms Buck
The most climate-vulnerable states need and demand more assistance from the developed world for climate transition and adaptation. This has the potential to derail COP26, so can the Minister tell us: what are the Government’s aims for increasing the level of support at Glasgow to help transition and adaptation in the poorest countries, and particularly whether it is the Government’s intention to lobby for that aid to be in the form of grants, rather than loans?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Travelling the world this year in the role that I have the great honour to hold—UK International Champion on Adaptation and Resilience—has, if nothing else, made it clear that the challenges for so many countries are often ones of access to finance. The COP unit and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office have worked tirelessly all year to find better ways to ensure that access to finance, and to ensure that the $100 billion is committed by developed countries so that they have the finance they need to make those sorts of adaptive changes.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Success at COP depends in part on developed countries finally honouring that 2009 $100 billion promise, yet with just 12 days left there remains a staggering £14 billion shortfall and the German-Canadian delivery plan still has not materialised. Will the Minister therefore tell the House whether the Government agree that it is essential that the $100 billion commitment be met before delegates arrive in Glasgow, and whether she concedes that the UK is likely to have to reassess its own contribution in order that it is?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My right hon. Friend the COP President-designate has spent, and continues to spend, an enormous amount of time on ensuring that we can reach that $100 billion figure, which is a clear symbol of intent. He continues to have conversations with the Germans this week, before we get there. This is a key focus for the team and all those who know that it is a terribly important marker to meet, and we want to ensure that it is able to reach those who need it most.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
Overall, the NDCs that have been put forward are not adequate, because by 30 July 78 countries had still not published updated NDCs. However, the 113 updated NDCs that had been submitted would lead to a reduction in emissions of 12% by 2030. If we also take into account the subset of 70 countries with updated NDCs and net zero commitments through long-term strategies, those would lead to a 26% reduction in emissions.
Philip Dunne
In the COP26 President’s discussions around nationally determined contributions, has he come across a single country other than the UK that has committed to count international aviation and maritime emissions in its net zero strategy?
Alok Sharma
My right hon. Friend is right. This is just another example of the UK leading on climate ambition. We remain fully committed to global action to tackle international aviation and shipping emissions through the international processes at the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the International Maritime Organisation.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
When the UK took on the COP26 presidency, less than 30% of the global economy was covered by a net zero target; that figure is now 80%. Under the UK’s G7 presidency, for the first time every G7 country has committed to ambitious near-term emission targets aligned with net zero by 2050. However, to keep 1.5 °C within reach, every nation, particularly the biggest emitters, has to step forward in what needs to be the decade of ambition.
Laura Trott
The Government are setting ambitious five-year carbon budgets and we have set out how we are going to meet those, but will the Minister consider setting interim targets to reassure my concerned constituents that we are on track?
Alok Sharma
The net zero strategy has committed to provide a public update every year from 2022 on progress against the delivery pathway to net zero set out in the strategy, and this will include an update on progress against the targets and ambitions that have been set out.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
Waste management is a critical part of helping us to reach net zero across the planet. I was very pleased to see in the Duke of Cambridge’s Earthshot prize awards on Sunday that the Indians had a really interesting solution to the problem that ensured they could reduce their waste management and not have to burn their crops.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Alok Sharma
There is no festival better than a climate action festival. I congratulate Harrogate District Climate Change Coalition, which has brilliantly demonstrated that tackling climate change is an all-of-society endeavour bringing together business, civil society and government.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Alok Sharma
That is part of the discussion that needs to take place, but it is also vital that we reach agreement on the transparency framework at COP26 so that we know that the commitments being made are actually delivered on.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Business action is critical if the Government are to achieve the goal of reaching net zero by 2050. That is why, since the COP President-designate took on the role, he has been actively calling for business to join the race to zero—a UN-backed campaign supported by the UK Government. It requires businesses to take robust short-term action to halve global emissions by 2030 and to achieve net zero emissions as soon as possible. There are now 4,470 companies that have signed up to Race to Zero.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
It was a wonderful visit and I thank the right hon. Gentleman and the community for welcoming me so heartily. All these new technologies will help us meet net zero, not just in the UK but across the world. We want to continue to see investment in them. I know that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) will continue to champion these issues.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Alok Sharma
Reaffirmed by our 25-year environmental plan and our fisheries White Paper, the Government are committed to sustainable fishing and the principle of maximum sustainable yield. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we are also committed to helping industry to reduce the adverse impacts on the marine environment and to adapt to climate change.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
Only 13 of the G20 nations have committed to net zero by law. Does the COP President expect all G20 nations to commit to net zero by law at COP26?
Alok Sharma
I would like every country to step forward with a net zero target. When we started, it was 30% of the world economy; it is now 80%. Of course, we also need those nationally determined contributions to come forward before COP.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to questions to the Prime Minister, I point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, in addition to my duties in this House. I shall have further such meetings later today.
Rachael Maskell
David Amess and James Brokenshire were both tragically taken from us. Both served this place with integrity and served their constituents well. As we offer our heartfelt love and prayers to their families, their families have offered us a new path to a new politics, built on kindness and love.
Sarah Everard and Claudia Lawrence were both from York. Right now, women are feeling unsafe—many women are unsafe—and the very people who should be protecting us are telling us to engage with potential perpetrators to identify them, to flag down a bus or to know the laws of arrest better. That has taken a toll on confidence in the police. As women, we are confident and determined to change that, so that every girl and every woman can live at home without fear, can go to school or work without harassment, can go online without objectification and can walk our streets safely again. What steps will the Prime Minister take to ensure that women with lived experience can lead on this work, and by when?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady very much for her question. She raises a most important issue—one of the most important issues that this country faces. I want all people in this country, particularly women, to feel confident in our police force, and I believe that they can and should. What we are doing now, to ensure that women in particular feel safe at night, is investing in safer streets, better street lighting and more CCTV, but as I think the whole House understands, what we must also do is deal with the systemic problems in the criminal justice system. We must ensure that men—I am afraid it is almost always men—get prosecuted for rape and for crimes of serious sexual and domestic violence in the way that they should, that we secure the convictions that we should, and that when we secure those convictions, those individuals get the tough sentencing they deserve. That is what this side of the House believes in.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I will make sure that my hon. Friend has the relevant meeting as fast as we can organise it. I know that many parents, particularly those who have premature and sick babies, feel that the current system is not working well for them. That is why, I can tell my hon. Friend, we will legislate to allow parents of children in neonatal care to take extended leave. Details of the policy were published last year and we will bring forward the legislation as soon as possible.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Can I pay tribute to Ernie Ross, a formidable campaigner who served this place and his constituents with great distinction for three decades? I will pay my respects and tribute to James Brokenshire immediately after Prime Minister’s questions.
I thank the whole House for the way the tributes to Sir David were handled on Monday. We saw the best of this House, and I want to see if we can use that collaborative spirit to make progress on one of the issues that was raised on Monday: tackling violent extremism. It is three years since the Government promised an online safety Bill, but it is not yet before the House. Meanwhile, the damage caused by harmful content online is worse than ever with dangerous algorithms on Facebook and Instagram. Hope not Hate has shown me an example of violent Islamism and far-right propaganda on TikTok. What I was shown has been reported to the moderators but it stayed online because, apparently, it did not contravene the guidelines. I have to say, I find that hard to believe.
Will the Prime Minister build on the desire shown by this House on Monday to get things done and commit to bring forward the Second Reading of the online safety Bill by the end of this calendar year? If he does, we will support it.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the spirit in which he has approached this issue. I echo what he says about the need for co-operation across the House, because the safety of MPs—indeed, of all public servants and everybody who engages with the public—is of vital importance. The online safety Bill is of huge importance and is one of the most important tools in our armoury. What we are doing is ensuring that we crack down on companies that promote illegal and dangerous content, and we will be toughening up those provisions.
What we will also do is ensure that the online safety Bill completes its stages in the House before Christmas—or rather, that we bring it forward before Christmas in the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. I am delighted that he is offering his support and we look forward to that.
Keir Starmer
I think from that—this is not a challenge; it is to clarify—that the pre-legislative scrutiny will be finished in early December and the Second Reading could be before the end of this calendar year. We do need to get on with it.
Telegram has been described as the “app of choice” for extremists. If you can believe it, Mr Speaker, as we were paying tribute to Sir David on Monday—as we were paying our respects—Telegram users were able to access videos of murders and violent threats against politicians, the LGBT community, women and Jews. Some of those posts are illegal; all of them are harmful. Hope not Hate and the Board of Deputies have said that Telegram
“has facilitated and nurtured a subculture that cheerleads for…terrorists”.
Tough sanctions are clearly needed, yet under the Government’s current proposals, directors of platforms failing to crack down on extremism would still not face criminal sanctions. Why is that?
The Prime Minister
This Government have brought forward an online harms Bill and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has heard what I have said about the Second Reading before Christmas. In the collegiate spirit in which he began his questioning, I can tell him that we will continue to look at ways in which we can toughen up those provisions and come down hard on those who irresponsibly allow dangerous and extremist content to permeate the internet. I am delighted that he is taking this new tough line and I very much hope that he will get the rest of his party to join him in the Lobby with us.
Keir Starmer
I did start in a collegiate spirit, and I will continue in a collegiate spirit, because I listened hard to what was being said on the Government Benches on Monday about the concerns about this issue. We need to recognise the measures in the Bill, but we need tough and effective sanctions—that means criminal sanctions—and that does matter. It is, frankly, beyond belief that, as the Mirror reported yesterday, 40 hours of hateful content from Anjem Choudary could be easily accessed online. The Prime Minister and the Government could stop this by making it clear that directors of companies are criminally liable for failing to tackle this type of material on their sites. We do not need to delay, so in the collaborative spirit we saw in this House on Monday, will the Prime Minister commit to taking this away, looking at it again and working with all of us to strengthen his proposed legislation?
The Prime Minister
I have already said that we are willing to look at anything to strengthen the legislation. I have said that we are willing to bring it forward, and we will bring it forward to Second Reading before Christmas. Yes, of course we will have criminal sanctions with tough sentences for those who are responsible for allowing this foul content to permeate the internet, but what we hope for also is that, no matter how tough the proposals we produce, the Opposition will support it.
Keir Starmer
We are making progress. We have the Second Reading committed to before Christmas—that is a good thing—and I think the Prime Minister has now committed to criminal sanctions. At the moment, they are a fallback position at the discretion of the Minister. They should, in my view, be on the face of the Bill as the automatic default for the failure to act. If we are making progress on that, then we are beginning to address some of the issues that were identified across the House on Monday.
I turn now to the report of the commission for countering extremism, which was set up in the wake of the horrific Manchester bombings. Eight months ago, that commission made recommendations to plug gaps in existing legislation and strategy—gaps that extremists have been able to exploit and are continuing to exploit—yet Sir Mark Rowley, formerly head of our counter-terrorism policing, who led on those recommendations, said just this week:
“I have had no feedback from the Home Office on their plans in relation to our report on the absence of a coherent legal framework to tackle hateful extremism”.
Given the seriousness of the matter and the clear need for action, why have the Government not responded to this important work? Will the Prime Minister now commit to act swiftly on the commission’s recommendations?
The Prime Minister
The Government and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary work with all parties to tackle violent extremism. The UK has one of the strongest counter-terrorism and counter-extremism systems in the world, as a consequence of which we have foiled 31 terrorist plots since 2017. I pay tribute to the work of Sir Mark Rowley, with whom I worked extremely closely while I was in London, and all those who were involved in foiling those terrorist plots. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that they will receive the complete support of this House and of this Government; nor will we allow those who are convicted to be released early from prison, because that was one of the most important things that this Government passed and which the Labour party opposed.
Keir Starmer
Really, after the week we have just had, I do not want to descend to that kind of knockabout. [Interruption.] Either we take this seriously—I am taking my lead from what those on the Government Benches were saying on Monday about the need to tackle this—and go forward together, or we do a disservice to those we pay tributes to.
There are clearly problems with the Government’s counter-extremism strategy. Internet users are increasingly likely to come across extremist content online. The Government’s own independent reviewer has said that there is “no evidence” that the Government’s key deradicalisation programme is effective—that is the Government’s independent reviewer saying that—and we have seen a spate of lone-attack killings, with the perpetrator invariably radicalised online. We all, across this House, want to stop this, but at the moment things are getting worse not better, so what urgent plans does the Prime Minister have to fix these glaring problems?
The Prime Minister
I am all in favour of a collegiate and co-operative approach, in which case I think it would be a fine thing if the Opposition would withdraw their opposition to our measures to stop the early release of serious extremists and violent offenders. That is all I am trying to say, in a collegiate approach, and I am sure that that is what the people of this country would wish to see. But we will continue to do everything that we can to strengthen our counter-terrorism operation and to support all those who are involved in keeping us safe. Obviously, it is too early to draw any particular conclusions from the appalling killing of our colleague, but we will draw all relevant conclusions from that investigation.
Keir Starmer
The inescapable desire of this House on Monday finally to clamp down on the extremism, hate and abuse that festers online is incredibly welcome. However, closing down anonymous accounts would not have prevented the murder of Jo Cox or of PC Keith Palmer and, although we do not know the full circumstances surrounding his death, neither would it have saved Sir David. If we are to get serious about stopping violent attacks, we must stop online spaces being safe spaces for terrorists. We must ensure that unaccountable and arrogant social media companies take responsibility for their platforms. We must end the delays, get on with the legislation, and clean out the cesspit once and for all.
I have prosecuted terrorists and I have prosecuted extremists. I have worked with Sir Mark and others. Dozens of Labour MPs have worked hard on tackling social media companies on these issues. I started collegiately, and I will continue collegiately: we know what it takes, and we can help. Will the Prime Minister now capture the spirit that we have seen this week, and agree to work with us on a cross-party basis so that we can tackle violent extremism, and its enablers, together?
The Prime Minister
I am delighted to join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in committing to tackle online harms and violent extremism together, and that is what the Government are doing. That is why we brought forward the online harms Bill, and that is why we are investing record sums in counter-terrorism. In addition, I think what the whole country and the whole House would certainly want to see—and I say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a collegiate spirit—is a commitment by the Labour party in future to support measures, and not to allow the early release of terrorists and those convicted of such offences from prison. If we hear that from the Labour party, I think it would be a fine thing.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, who I know has a very active interest in this area. We will consider recent advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on reducing barriers to research with controlled drugs, such as the one he describes, and we will be getting back to him as soon as possible.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
May I join the Leader of the Opposition in sending condolences to the family of Ernie Ross?
In 11 short days, world leaders will gather in Glasgow for COP26. This is our best chance, and very likely our last chance, to confront the climate emergency faced by our planet. That is why it was such a devastating blow that, on the eve of COP26, the UK Government rejected the Scottish cluster bid to gain track 1 status for carbon capture and storage. Today, The Press and Journal, has said that there is
“no valid reason and no acceptable excuse”
for that decision, and it has called for an immediate U-turn on that colossal mistake. We know that the decision was not made on technical or logical grounds; this devastating decision was purely political. Scotland’s north-east was promised that investment in 2014, but it is a promise that has been broken time and again. Will the Prime Minister finally live up to those promises, or are they simply not worth the Tory election leaflets they are written on?
The Prime Minister
We remain absolutely committed to helping industrial clusters to decarbonise across the whole country, of course including Scotland. I know that there was disappointment about the Acorn bid in Aberdeen. That is why it has been selected as a reserve cluster. There can be no more vivid testimony to this Government’s commitment to Scotland, or indeed to fighting climate change, than the fact that the whole world is about to come to Scotland to look at what Scotland is doing to help tackle climate change. I congratulate the people of Scotland on their efforts.
Ian Blackford
People across Scotland are looking for answers today, and they are getting none. All they see is yet another Tory broken promise. It is bad enough that this UK Government are holding back carbon capture in Scotland, but they are proving an active barrier to renewable energy opportunities across the board. Tidal stream energy has the potential to generate 20% of UK generation capacity—exactly the same as nuclear. All the industry needs is a ringfenced budget of £71 million, a drop in the ocean compared with the £23 billion that this Government are throwing at the nuclear plant at Hinkley. But the UK Government are failing to give that support, threatening shovel-ready projects such as MeyGen in the north of Scotland. At the very least, Prime Minister, stand up today and guarantee a ringfenced budget for tidal stream energy and save that renewable industry from being lost overseas.
The Prime Minister
Actually, do you know what, Mr Speaker? I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on raising tidal energy. He is absolutely right. I have seen the amazing projects that are under way. I think the House will acknowledge that we are putting huge sums into clean, green energy generation. The right hon. Gentleman is far too gloomy about the prospects of Acorn in Aberdeen. I think he needs to be seized with an unaccustomed spirit of optimism, because the Acorn project still has strong potential, and that is why it has been selected as a reserve cluster. He should keep hope alive rather than spreading gloom in the way that he does.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for what he is doing for fishing, for coastal communities and for Brixham in particular. I understand that the fish market in Brixham was outstandingly successful the other day. We are going to make sure that we continue to support fishing and the seafood business across the country. The scheme has approved funding in Brixham, Salcombe and Dartmouth, and a further £100 million is being made available through the UK seafood fund to support our fisheries.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llefarydd.
If COP26 is to be successful, people must be at the heart of our net zero emissions strategy. For too long, the UK economy has left too many people behind, with wealth and investment hoarded in the south-east of England. Devolving powers over the Crown Estate would bring half a billion pounds-worth of offshore wind and tidal stream potential—assets, of course, currently controlled by Westminster—under Welsh control. Scotland, meanwhile, already has those powers. Will the Prime Minister support my Bill to devolve the management of the Crown Estate to Wales?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Lady already knows, the Crown Estate works closely with the Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales. I am sorry to have to tell her that my view is that the devolution of the Crown Estate in Wales would fragment the market, complicate existing processes and make it more difficult for Wales, as well as the whole UK, to move forward to net zero.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Well, Mr Speaker, I am not surprised to say that my hon. Friend is completely right. This Government are determined to give the people of this country the homes they need. We are building record numbers of homes, but we owe it to our kinder, gentler politics to be accurate about what is going on in our constituencies. This Government do not set local housing targets. I understand that the draft Bassetlaw local plan is subject to consultation. I encourage him and his constituents to make their views known.
Kirsten Oswald ( East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this anniversary. She is right to commemorate the victims of the Clarkston disaster. Our thoughts and our condolences continue to be with the families of those who lost loved ones. Of course, we must do everything in our power to make sure that no such tragedy is repeated.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes. It is vital that people should have the confidence to speak up against wrongdoing wherever they find it, particularly, of course, in the police. I believe that the people of Greater Manchester deserve better. I support and agree with what my hon. Friend says.
I will just say one thing. It is the responsibility of the Mayor of Greater Manchester to ensure that the police force acts—not a point that will be taken up on the Labour Benches—swiftly and decisively to address the failures that his constituents are currently finding.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
What we are doing is ensuring that we keep the costs of heating down with the price cap. We have increased the warm homes allowance by £150 for 780,000 homes. We have just given local councils another half a billion pounds to help poorer families over the winter. The most important thing that is happening in this country is that wages are going up. There is a huge jobs boom now, thanks to the policies that this Government have pursued.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a passionate campaigner on this issue and he has done a lot of good things in this area. No one should be criminalised simply for having nowhere to live, and I think the time has come to reconsider the Vagrancy Act—and also to redouble our efforts to fight homelessness, as I think we have done successfully over the pandemic but must continue to do.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I join the hon. Lady absolutely in condemning attacks on all public servants and particularly on NHS staff, who are trying to save people and help people in their lives. What we are doing—what we have already done—is to toughen the sentences for those who assault or harass public servants.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Given the recent tragic circumstances, there has inevitably been a focus on the security of Members and their staff. One aspect that is often overlooked is the fact that it is our staff who are on the frontline in receiving the abusive emails and correspondence, and they take the hostile phone calls. They are private citizens, simply trying to earn a living, put food on the table and pay for their rent or their mortgage, yet they are caught up in this vicious cycle of venom and abuse that is directed towards us. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to acknowledge the fantastic work that our staff do and give them the credit that they so rightly deserve?
The Prime Minister
I think that my hon. Friend spoke there for the entire House of Commons, because we all know that it is our staff, our caseworkers and our office managers who are so often in the frontline, who have to deal with anger, with intemperate behaviour and with abuse, and they cope with it magnificently. We all know the risks that they run in their daily lives and, indeed, we have seen how some House of Commons staff have paid for their sacrifice even with their lives. I thoroughly echo, support and concur with what my hon. Friend said.
Petition
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Rail links to Hull are among the poorest in the north of England, with train service reliability of 60% or lower. Currently, on average it is quicker to travel between Leeds and Hull by road than it is by rail. Electrifying the Leeds-to-Hull route via Selby and significantly upgrading the railway line between Sheffield and Hull via Goole will mean that cleaner, faster and more reliable trains can run in and out of Hull and bring 1.7 million more people and 49,000 more businesses within two hours of Hull.
I would like to note the work that my fellow Hull MPs are doing on this issue— including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner)—and the work that they have put into lobbying the Government, along with thanking the leader of Hull City Council and the East Riding of Yorkshire Council leader Jonathan Owen for their commitment to this issue. I further note the online petition, which has so far gathered over 433 signatures.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that rail links to Hull are among the poorest in the north of England; further that the current train service reliability of 60 per cent or lower means it is quicker to travel to Leeds by road; further the Humberside economy is increasingly supplying renewable energy but poor rail connections to Hull and the port do not encourage sustainable transport choices; further electrifying the Leeds to Hull route via Selby, and significantly upgrading the railway line between Sheffield and Hull via Goole, will permit cleaner, faster and more reliable trains to run in and out of Hull; further this will provide an electrified railway from east to west and allow freight to cross coast to coast more efficiently; further the Government has committed to a carbon neutral economy by 2050.
The petitioners therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to: prioritise the rail electrification of the Hull-Selby line and the upgrading of the railway line between Sheffield and Hull via Goole by inclusion in the forthcoming Integrated Rail Plan.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002691]
Speaker's Statement
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I said on Monday that the House would have an opportunity to pay tribute to and remember our friend and colleague, James Brokenshire. I would like to do so by inviting Members to join me in a minute’s silence in memory of James. Can we all please stand?
Mr Speaker
James was a politician who commanded affection and respect from colleagues, no matter which party they represented. In a parliamentary career spanning 16 years, James’s contribution to public life was immense. He served in successive Governments in ministerial roles across the Home Office, as well as serving as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and later as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. His commitment to serving his constituents in Old Bexley and Sidcup was also obvious to anybody who knew him.
I will always remember James for his positivity, for his good sense of humour and for being one of the most friendly, thoughtful and well-liked people in the House of Commons. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] His passing is a profound loss to us all. Our thoughts go out to his wife Cathy and their three children, who are here today to watch our tributes; I just want to remind people that the family are with us. It is great that they have turned up today—thank you.
We will now take points of order. The Prime Minister will start the tributes.
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the whole House will join me and you in expressing our deep sorrow over the tragically early death of James Brokenshire and in sending our heartfelt condolences to his wife Cathy and their three children Sophie, Jemma and Ben, who are with us today, for the loss of a beloved husband and father. The many tributes paid to James are a testament to the affection, respect and esteem with which he is remembered and to his skill as an able and effective politician who served his country under three Prime Ministers in some of the most sensitive and demanding positions in government.
I worked closely with James for the first time when I was Mayor of London and he was the hon. Member for Hornchurch and then for Old Bexley and Sidcup. I saw how much he cared for the interests of his constituents, always taking the time to stop and talk to people and listen to what they had to say. He was unflappable, earnest and sincere, and he brought those same down-to-earth qualities into other areas of his life—being photographed baking cakes in his kitchen or starting a Twitter frenzy on the vital question of whether he owned two ovens or four. Once, when challenged by an interviewer to choose between Southend and the south of France, his reply was swift:
“Southend. I’m an Essex boy and proud of my roots.”
He would be delighted to know that his birthplace has now achieved city status in tribute to his friend Sir David Amess, whose campaign he supported.
It was James’s diligence, composure and experience as a lawyer, steeped in the art of negotiating last-minute deals, that proved so valuable to the Government. He held five ministerial jobs, including two in Cabinet as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and every one of them was fraught with traps for the unwary and opportunities for error. The fact that he improved his reputation in each post shows that we have lost an astute politician of rare ability.
James served with particular distinction in the Home Office as security and immigration Minister, where he was fondly known by civil servants as JB: “Oh good,” they would say, “we’ve got JB on this one.” He often reflected that to work at the Home Office was to be on the receiving end of incessant incoming fire from the media. It usually fell to him to brave the barrage when things got really sticky, so it is no wonder that on his last day officials presented James with an authentic military-grade tin hat.
During that tumultuous period, which I remember well, James helped to keep our country safe. He oversaw the superb security operation that protected the London Olympic and Paralympic games in 2012; he was central to getting rid of Abu Qatada, sending him packing after more than a decade of legal wrangles; and he steered the groundbreaking Modern Slavery Bill through Parliament, giving the police and law enforcement agencies the powers that they need to combat some of the most dangerous and repellent criminals of all. Through all this, he would help individuals in need, and that included taking the time to meet people with direct experience of Government decisions. It was after a conversation with a homeless man in Bristol that he acted to strengthen the rights of tenants and give them a greater sense of security in their homes. We can only imagine how much more good he would have done if he had been given the chance.
James was in the prime of life, with a huge amount still to offer his country, and it was the cruellest of fates that he, a non-smoker, should have been struck down by lung cancer. His tenacious fight showed the depths of his courage and his character. As colleagues will remember, after his first bout with the disease he was back in this House within weeks, serving in Government and helping his constituents. He campaigned for better lung cancer screening, becoming the first Member to secure a debate on this issue in the House. He sought to dispel the stigma and misperceptions surrounding the disease, and when he fell sick again earlier this year, even in the midst of his ordeal he summoned the strength to record a video message encouraging others to seek help and early treatment. Every member of this House willed him then to pull through, but sadly it was not to be.
James was a gentleman politician, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) will allow me to quote her words:
“Politics and parliament would be the better if there were more people of his calibre involved and politics and parliament are the weaker for his loss.”
I could not agree more. James’s absence will be sorely felt in this House, in the great Departments where he served, and by all the people whose lives he touched.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
One of the first things I learned when I arrived in the House was that there are not many glamorous roles in opposition. No one gives you a guidebook on how to do these jobs; you are appointed, and off you go. Of course you can ask older, wiser heads, and you can appoint excellent staff, but generally you are on your own. There is one little-known exception to that rule—a secret in Westminster—and it is this: when you shadow a Government Minister of such decency and courtesy, and with such a sense of fair play that they reach out across the divide and provide helpful pointers, you are not on your own. And so it was for me. When, as a new MP in 2015, I was appointed as shadow Immigration Minister, I shadowed James Brokenshire.
I have to admit that I was unprepared for the vagaries of the Bill Committee rules—even years in the criminal justice system had not prepared me for the complexities of those arcane processes—but in one of my first outings in a Bill Committee, I almost missed my cue to make my argument. Now, some would see that as a blessing, but James was far too decent for that. He would not take advantage. He went out of his way to ensure not only that I was heard, but that I was heard with respect, and that was the characteristic—that was the character—that was James. From that day in 2015, we forged a friendship which lasted until his untimely death. On these Benches, my story is not an unusual one. Anyone who got to know James, who worked with him or against him, ended up respecting him and liking him and willing him to pull through.
At the time I got to know James, he was widely seen as an upcoming star of this House. As the Prime Minister has said, he had already played a key role in the creation of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and had begun to carve out a reputation as an unassuming but very effective Minister. He was a party leader’s dream: happy to roll up his sleeves and do the tough jobs with little regard for self-promotion. However, advancing your career in any walk of life is not just about hard work and talent, although James had those in abundance; it is about who you are, and it was little surprise when James got a full role in the Cabinet, first as Northern Ireland Secretary and then as Communities Secretary. He brought his calm and understated manner, his effectiveness and his respect for others to both roles, and he will be long remembered for that.
When someone is taken as young as James was, by a cruel disease like cancer, there is an inevitable sense that they were robbed of fulfilling their potential, and James was. He had achieved so much, but I strongly believe—we all strongly believe—that he had so much more to give. Characteristically, right to the end he was campaigning to remove the stigma from lung cancer in order to improve the lives of others—a cause I hope this House continues to champion in his memory.
James’s wife and young family are with us here today, and we send them our condolences. If I may say so, they should be very proud of their husband and father. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] They should know that across this House on all these Benches he commanded enormous respect and goodwill. Among his constituents, he was very well liked. He was a friend to many of us across the House, including me. Our politics is poorer without him. We will miss him, but we will all ensure that his memory lives on.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
On 30 April 2018, Mr Speaker said:
“It sounds as though mealtimes chez Brokenshire were enormous fun.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2018; Vol. 640, c. 6.]
That was when James said that he used to discuss local government with his father when his father was the chief executive in the borough that I then served. In that debate, James used seven words to describe his father, saying that he had a sense of
“focus and dedication as a public servant.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2018; Vol. 640, c. 10.]
James learned that lesson. He also said that private leaseholders should not have the costs of fire remediation passed on to them. In order to fulfil his dedication as Housing Minister, I invite the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to discuss how that can be fulfilled, because at the moment those costs are being passed on to those leaseholders.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I think we all share the real sense of sadness that, in the space of two days, we are meeting again to pay tribute to another deceased colleague. Two colleagues taken in very different circumstances, but both taken well before their time. James Brokenshire was a young man who clearly had so much more to give. That is what must be so tragic for his colleagues and friends on the Government benches, and we are all conscious of and compassionate to the pain they must be feeling this week. But most especially, we think of James’s young family. The thoughts and prayers of all on the Scottish National party Benches are with his wife Catherine, his son Ben and his daughters Sophie and Jemma. It is important to mark the manner in which the family have dealt with their grief, because I know they have been deeply involved in remarkable fundraising efforts since James’s untimely death. The spirit the family have shown since his death is no doubt a tribute to the way in which James himself dealt with his illness. All of us across this House looked on with deep admiration and awe at the sheer bravery he showed while bravely battling against the cancer that, sadly, ultimately took his life.
My own experience and engagement with James was mainly when he was a Home Office Minister. When he was Immigration Minister, I remember dealing with James in some detail on a particular case concerning a family in the highlands who were being threatened with deportation. I am glad to say that, after some considerable effort from all involved, the family eventually got the resolution they desperately needed.
I know from colleagues in Northern Ireland that, although his time there came during a politically delicate and difficult period, he remained on very good terms with all the parties during his period as Secretary of State. It is fair to say that that, in itself, is no mean feat for any British Secretary of State who serves there. I can only think it was because of the way he approached people and the way he approached his work.
It has been very rightly said that he was not a man who was interested in the insubstantial distractions of politics. He quietly got on with his job. He was, above all else, diligent and determined. The mark of the man, and our memory of him, will be of a dedicated Minister, a loyal friend and a dedicated father. James battled to the very end against his cancer. Now that his battle is over, may he rest in peace. God bless you, James.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I had the enormous privilege of working with James Brokenshire in government, first for six years in the Home Office and then in his roles as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and as Communities Secretary. James was a remarkable man, an outstanding Minister, a great constituency Member of Parliament and a true friend.
Words have been used by others such as “diligent” and “hard-working,” and he was both of those. As a Minister, he was assiduous in dealing with the briefs he read, thoughtful in his consideration of the issues and careful in his decision making, which is what you want from a Government Minister. He gave his time and effort because he understood the importance of the decisions he was making. He cared about people and he cared about the work he was doing, and that came through in all the decisions he made and in the way in which he reached out across this House to ensure those decisions were the right ones.
James was an outstanding Minister, but he was also a very good constituency MP. Very often if you try to contact a Minister on a Friday, they are in their office. More often than not, James was in his constituency. He understood that all of us are here because our constituents have placed us here, and anybody who is fortunate enough to become a Government Minister is only there because their constituents have placed them there. We should never forget that that is the basis of our being here and of our responsibilities.
James was a true friend. If, from what I and others have said, you get the impression that he was just a hard-working workaholic, I can say that James was great fun. Evenings with Cathy and James were evenings of fun and laughter. He was also a loving family man. I remember when he was first diagnosed with his lung cancer and he was stepping down from the Government. His first thought to me was about the impact it would have on Cathy and the family. He was a loving family man, he was out there in his constituency and he gave dedicated public service to this country.
The Government are the poorer for his loss, this Parliament is the poorer for his loss and our country is the poorer for his loss.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
James and I must have first met in 2003, when he was selected as the Conservative candidate for Hornchurch and I was the sitting MP. In 2005, James won and I lost. It is sometimes quite easy to be bitter and angry when you lose, but I could not be bitter and angry at James because he was such a nice bloke. He was so helpful. In the run-up to that campaign, during it and afterwards, I cannot remember ever having harsh words with James, never mind falling out with him. That is what I will always carry with me about him.
Since then, James and I always kept in touch. Obviously we both ended up in Parliament together, so we ended up working together. We always had a very pleasant relationship, and we always got on very well. I saw him quite recently, as most of us did. It was a few months ago, when he thought he had beaten the illness. Sadly, he had not beaten it.
As the former Prime Minister just said, this place is much the poorer for James’s loss, so is the country and, although it may be none of my business, so I suspect is the Conservative party.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I rise to make two points, about James and the work he did and about James as a friend.
I followed James in two ministerial positions. I took over from him as Minister with responsibility for modern slavery when he became the Minister for security and immigration, and then I followed him into the Northern Ireland Office. His were very big shoes to fill. Goodness me, the way that officials talked about him: “JB will do it, JB will sort it, JB has this organised.” It was quite overwhelming at times to follow in those footsteps and to see the work he had done.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) summed it up. James was diligent, he was careful in his decision making and he was thoughtful. He always remembered that people were affected by the decisions he was taking. He never took decisions in the abstract. He always thought about the people who would be directly affected.
I had to cover for James for a couple of weeks when he was Immigration Minister—I covered his role while he had a medical procedure—and, typical James, he made sure it was during a recess so that he did not take any time away from this place. I was astonished when one red box arrived for me and then two red boxes arrived with James’s work. Every single day, James was getting through at least double the workload that anybody else in the Department was covering, and he read every single one of those letters, particularly the letters about immigration. He dealt with them all personally, and he thought carefully about what he was doing to try to make sure that the people affected were helped.
In Northern Ireland, James Brokenshire should be the person who is remembered as the architect of the agreement that got Stormont back in January 2020. If not for James’s diligent work, Stormont would not be sitting now. He achieved so much, and I know from the messages I have received from people across Northern Ireland how warmly he was regarded there.
James was my friend. He had a great sense of humour. We keep hearing that he was nice. He was so much more than nice; goodness me, his sense of humour was wicked at times. He was so easy to talk to, but he also had judgment. He could give advice and wise counsel. We were both at his 50th birthday party, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it was a wonderful occasion. His family put on the most marvellous tribute, and we all learned so much about James and his life.
I will miss him so very much, and I am so grateful to have been allowed to speak in this debate.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
James was my constituency neighbour. I remember on election night, when I had just been elected, James came over to congratulate me and to introduce himself. While he was introducing himself, I remember thinking, “I know exactly who you are.” That just goes to show the humble person he was, never taking it for granted. We discussed having a catch up in Parliament when I had settled into my role, but due to the pandemic and his falling ill again, we did not get round to it and I am very sad about that.
I recently went to Bexley civic parade, my first in my role as an MP, and it was the first big event we had after the lockdown restrictions eased. I was walking alongside the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett), and I am sure he will agree that James’s absence was clearly felt. Although it was nice to be there with the right hon. Gentleman, it was oh so sad that James was not able to take part. It was then that the seriousness of his illness began to sink in with me.
Since James’s death, I have spoken to many community groups, individuals and Labour activists from his constituency, and they have had nothing but nice words to say. Anashua Davies said that James would often be seen on a packed commuter train. She remembers asking him to support her in the campaign for a second referendum, and he was never dismissive. He was always open to a bit of light ribbing from Labour activists on issues on which they disagreed. I know my Labour activists, and I know what she said is true, that he was a true gent.
Claire and her dad said that James supported many events with the Irish community. Teresa Gray said he supported the food banks when they first started in Bexley. Dave Tingle, who stood against James, told me that he went out of his way to help him when he had a fire in his house. The mayor of Bexley, Dave Easton, on behalf of staff at Bexley Council, said that James was a wonderful individual, totally dedicated to his residents—a man of utter integrity, who cared so much about Bexley. Daniel Francis and Grant Blowers both told me that James reached out to them when their wives had cancer. That was typical of James’s character: he was always inquiring about and offering support to others, even as he had his own battle with cancer. No matter where you were on the political spectrum, James represented everyone in Old Bexley and Sidcup. To James’s family, let me say: I hope you take comfort in knowing what high regard he was held in, in Bexley and beyond.
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
It is with mixed feelings that I address the House today: feelings of pride in having known my dear friend James Brokenshire, and feelings of deep sadness that he is not here in his rightful place to carry on the outstanding work that he did for his constituency, for my party and for our country. James and I share a birth year, 1968—I like to think it was a very fine vintage indeed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) rightly said, at his 50th birthday party, we were able to share really happy memories and positive thoughts about a life that had been well and fully lived. At that point, unbeknown to us, his friends—his family knew about the diagnosis—it was a life about to take a dramatic turn for James. The last three years have been challenging and tough for Cathy and the family, but they have also been positive in terms of what James achieved for research into and the profile of the disease of lung cancer. As we speak today, the Roy Castle Lung Foundation will already be richer to the tune of more than £50,000 because of the tribute page that has been set up in James’s memory by Cathy and the family.
I would advise all Members to look at the tributes on that page. I want to read out one, which is from an anonymous donor. This person clearly was an official who knew James well. He said this:
“I have not worked with anyone finer. A man of true integrity, always entirely across his brief, fiercely intelligent and incredibly kind. He was respectful to his officials, as well as rigorous in his questioning of and the testing of policy and legal positions presented to him. He was fantastic at distilling complex information into articulate and clear responses in Parliament. I had nothing but respect and admiration for how he did his job and his dedication to public service.”
Amen to that.
The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) mentioned Bill Committees. At one point, we thought that James was about to gather the record for the number of Bill Committees he conducted as a Minister. Indeed, in the particular Committee that the right hon. and learned Gentleman remembers, I was the other Minister sparring with him. We were lawyers together, but it was done with not just the respect for process, but a thought as to the outcome. James was rigorously focused on the outcome: what solution could we bring to the problem and what benefit could we bring to the wider country?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands said, the word “nice” just does not cut it for James. Let me give the House the adjectives I would associate with my friend: driven, quick, persuasive, funny, kind and decent. Don’t make the mistake of confusing those qualities with mere niceness; he was much, much more than that. Farewell, my friend. Thank you for everything.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
There is so much that we can all say and want to say about James, and I would like to try to give everybody who wishes to speak the chance to do so. So although we want to say so much, can we please try to say it as briefly as possible?
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
In the midst of life, we are in death. Here we have no continuing city. Those prophetic words tell us something of the suddenness of the passing of our colleague and friend, a much missed Member of this House. It teaches us that this is for real, there are no dress rehearsals, and we have got to live this life and live it well. Your colleague and your friend, and our colleague and our friend, lived his life well, he lived it dynamically and in a manner that was upright and noticed by those around him. The words “decent”, “honourable”, “kind” and “helpful” have all already been used today in this House and will remain as a true reminder of our colleague.
It is my honour to pay tribute to James Brokenshire on behalf of my colleagues here on the Ulster Benches. James was a well-respected Secretary of State. He was an unknown quantity when he first arrived, but, with due respect to the others who followed, he was much missed when he had gone. He was indeed a man who had genuine qualities that were reflected in the way in which he took decisions on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. His many years of service in Parliament are marked by service to the people of not only Great Britain, but all of the United Kingdom, which of course includes Northern Ireland. So we salute that memory, with honour and, I hope, with dignity. To his beloved wife Cathy and to his lovely children, we extend our sincere condolences, and we hope that they find some rainbow of hope over the deep valley of tears that they have wept.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
It bears repeating that James was a charming, kind, funny and intelligent man, devoted to his constituency, his country and, above all, his family. He was joy to work with, collegiate and considerate, as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned. Those of us who had the pleasure of travelling abroad with him will also know that, occasionally, as we would have said in Scotland, some drink might have been taken. In an era when we have come to question the conduct of some in our political life, he was courteous and good-humoured to a fault, at the Dispatch Box and beyond. I hope it is not going too far to say that James was self-effacing, humble and without ego, almost to the point that one might wonder what he was doing in this place to begin with.
James wanted something good to come from the illness that he suffered and with which he coped with such dignity and courage. There is an urgent need for lung cancer screening in this country to improve long-term survival and save lives. As the Prime Minister said, James was the first to hold a debate on the topic in the House of Commons, after returning to work following his initial diagnosis and treatment. Cathy and the rest of the family wanted to support a cause that he cared so passionately about. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland) has said, the Roy Castle Lung Foundation, of which, I am pleased to say, my wife is the medical director, has benefited by more than £50,000 because of the work that James did.
As we have seen with James, lung cancer is a disease that can affect anyone, young and old, male and female, smoker and non-smoker. Lung cancer is the UK’s most common cause of cancer. It is responsible for more than a fifth of all male and female cancer deaths. Approximately 48,000 people are diagnosed in the UK every year. When James passed away, on Thursday 7 October, another 95 people will have died on the same day of the same disease. It is sobering to think that one person dies of lung cancer every 15 minutes. James wanted me to give the message that less than a fifth of people with lung cancer are currently diagnosed at stage 1, and two thirds are not diagnosed until they reach stage 3 or stage 4. Symptoms are vague and can often be missed. We therefore need to find a way to get ahead of the disease that claimed James’ life all too early. We need a lung cancer screening programme, and I urge the Government to treat this with priority in our health policy. We cannot bring James back, but we can ensure that others live because of his legacy.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I rise to underline what has been said about how James was liked across the House. He was my parliamentary neighbour across the borough boundary between Bexley and my constituency next door in Greenwich, and we got to know each other when he moved to Old Bexley and Sidcup from Hornchurch in the middle part of his career in this House, if I can put it that way. I also faced him across the Committee floor when he was a Home Office Minister and I was a shadow Home Office Minister, and I got to know him a bit better then. One thing that I learned about James was that if you were going to face him across the Dispatch Box in the Chamber or in Committee, you had to be well-informed, because he certainly was. He did his job diligently, he was extraordinarily talented, and he was a convivial and decent opponent. I would just like to say to his family that I send them my deepest sympathies. They have lost a wonderful person and an extremely talented politician, and my heart goes out to them.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to my friend and our colleague, James Brokenshire, who, very sadly, as we have heard, lost his courageous battle against lung cancer only two weeks ago. To lose one colleague is a tragedy, but to lose two in two weeks is almost too much to bear.
There is so much that I wanted to share with this House about my experiences with James. Much will be and has been said about James the politician, but I want to talk about James, my friend—the James I met some 45 years ago at Staples Road County Primary School. We grew up in the same area of Epping Forest. We joined the local Conservative association. We fought local elections together, either as candidates, helping each other, or when helping others to get elected. We supported the fantastic Member of Parliament for Epping Forest, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ensure that she—you, Madam Deputy Speaker—was elected in 1997 and retained her seat at every election since. You must feel this loss as keenly as many of us here, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is unfortunate that you are not able to express that. James and I worked together to support Robin Squire in his attempt to regain his Hornchurch seat in 2001. That seat eventually sent James to this place in 2005, and that inspired me to find a seat that I could win.
James was the embodiment of all that is good. He was decent, honest and faithful. He demonstrated integrity and good humour in everything and was respected by all. Now, we have to say goodbye. Goodbye to James, taken from us all, especially from Cathy, Sophie, Jemma and Ben, all too cruelly and all too untimely. I send my deepest regrets and sympathies to them. As we have heard, as a tribute to James, Cathy has set up a muchloved.com page, and when I last checked well over £50,000 had been raised in memory of James and in support of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. I am sure we all agree that that is a fitting tribute, and I encourage people to visit that site—as Bob Geldof once said, “Give us your money”—because it will make a difference. But I look for the Government to do more. As we have seen throughout the pandemic, our UK science base is capable of extraordinary achievements at breakneck speed, when required. Now, as we move past the pandemic, it would be a fitting use of our science superpower status to lead the world in finding better treatments and cures for this cruel disease.
I could share with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, so many occasions on which James and I shared good times together, whether over a glass of wine at our Wasters Wine Club or just out on the campaign trail, but I fear that time is my enemy, so I will simply say: James, I will miss you greatly. Please, rest in peace, and, by the grace of God, rise in glory. Goodbye, my friend.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right in everything that he has just said. I am going to break the rules for one second to say that they were my boys—James and his friends in Epping Forest—when I was the new MP 25 years ago. They worked for the cause in which we all believed and I watched James grow from being a Young Conservative to being a Member of Parliament, to being a Minister, to being a Cabinet Minister, with great pride. Now, we will watch James and Cathy’s children follow in his footsteps. He was and always will be so proud of them, as we all are of James as our friend. He will be so greatly missed and never, ever forgotten.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am grateful to you for breaking the rules occasionally, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I want to add one adjective to the list that has been provided, and that is the word magnanimous. I think you could see, in every single moment of any engagement that you ever had with James, even if you were completely and utterly disagreeing with every single word in his sentence, paragraph or speech, that there was magnanimity in the way in which he dealt with you and in the way he dealt with everybody in this House. I can imagine it was exactly the same in his constituency.
I will let the House in on a secret, which is that there is something of a cancer survivors club here. I always hoped that James would always be in that club. He was magnificent with me when I had my cancer a few years ago, and I know that many others had exactly the same experience. Cancer is a bugger: you think it has gone away and then it comes back. You had no idea that it was there and suddenly find that you have stage 3 or stage 4 cancer. That is particularly true, as the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said, in relation to lung cancer. You think to yourself, “Why didn’t I spot it earlier?” So it is not just sadness and fear that you and your family are surrounded with; it is anger, guilt and all sorts of complicated feelings. I am sure that for many of those in the House who have had cancer there will be a sense of guilt that some of us are still here and James is not.
What does that leave us with? A simple feeling that we must—we must—devote ourselves, especially after this year of covid, to making sure that early detection is possible for everybody and for all the different cancers, and there are so many different kinds. It would be helpful if Mr Speaker could circulate the details of the memorial website so that we might all be able to contribute and a bit more money goes back into cancer care. We need to get a lot of the cancer trials back up and running. We need to make sure that people are not frightened of going to the doctor, that they get seen and that all the backlog is dealt with.
My final thought is this. I do not know whether Members have ever read Thomas Hardy’s book “The Woodlanders”, but at the end Giles Winterborne has died, and the woman who has always loved him addresses him directly and says:
“I never can forget’ee; for you was a good man, and did good things!”
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I would like to pay my tribute to my friend and parliamentary neighbour, James Brokenshire. He was a hard-working, efficient and effective Minister, and a strong champion for his constituents in Old Bexley and Sidcup.
During the past decade, I have been privileged to really get to know James and to work closely with him on so many issues and campaigns on behalf of our borough of Bexley. He was serious in his work, but he had a great sense of humour, which we experienced at many Bexley social occasions. We will miss him at all such future occasions.
James was a devoted husband and father. I pay special tribute to his wife Cathy, who gave such great support to James in so many ways over so many years. We are grateful to you, Cathy, and the family, for all that you have done in Bexley while James was a Member of Parliament.
James was a devout Christian and a man of honour and integrity who will be sorely missed locally and in Parliament. Our country has lost a great public servant, and in Bexley we have lost a real friend and an excellent Member of Parliament. We thank you, James, for all that you have done. We will always remember you with pride, love and affection, aware of all your commitments to causes that we must continue to support and develop in memory of a great man.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I first became a friend of James when he joined the shadow Home Office team about a decade and a half ago. It was a time of huge controversy and, as Members can imagine, it was a heavy-duty team. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and Dominic Grieve were members. There were four future Cabinet members in that team.
I thought that this incredibly self-effacing and amazingly modest man—certainly given our profession—would take a bit of time to get up to speed, but not a bit of it. In no time at all, he had a reputation as a safe pair of hands. That may sound terribly mundane, but it is not; it is a curse, because it attracts every hospital pass there is. You have seen how it works. I get in for the morning meeting and say, “Right, this is difficult. Give it to James.” “Oh, this one’s a nightmare. James will manage it.” “This one’s impossible, but James can do it.” That is how it worked.
Of course it became leitmotif of James’s career. Every job that he was given was both impossible and thankless: Minister of State for Security and Immigration under my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—what the hell?; Northern Ireland Minister dealing with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and co. and getting on with all of them; and, more seriously, taking on the Department of Communities and Local Government after Grenfell Tower. These he took and did. He did the impossible: he went into the ruck and came out the other side without a hair out of place—that is of course allowing for his haircut.
That was the James that we knew and loved. Our nation needs people like James. My right hon. Friend, the former Prime Minister, was right: we need people like James. When the unimportant flash and crackle of politics is gone, the nation depends on those like James who do their jobs brilliantly but quietly. James served this nation with great honour, total integrity and enormous skill and he will be sorely missed by all.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I just want to say two things. First, to James’s family, we do not get occasions like this in the Commons very often. There are not many of us who could command this kind of collective tribute from across the House, and that says that this was a very special man indeed.
Secondly, during the past few months, James dealt with his illness with incredible bravery. If you spoke to him, it was just like a normal conversation with James. It was like the world was just carrying on, and yet, behind all of that, he was carrying the most incredible burden and he did so with decency and bravery beyond anything almost anybody could have done, and that is an enormous tribute to him. We have lost, I have lost, this House has lost and this country has lost a great man, but, for me, I have lost a great friend.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I could spend a very long time talking about James Brokenshire. I knew him for the best part of a decade and a half. Indeed, for the past 11 and half years he served as my local Member of Parliament in Old Bexley and Sidcup, but James to me was so much more than that. He was a dedicated and exceptional public servant, but he was also a very loyal friend. Above all, James was a family man and my heart goes out to Cathy, to Sophie, to Jemma and to Ben.
The courage with which James faced up to his illness and the determination with which he fought it, his refusal to feel self-pity and his steadfast determination to remain positive really was the mark of the man. He was taken from us far too soon. His constituents and his country have lost a great public servant, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) has said, and we have lost a much-valued colleague. I will miss him terribly, but I will always be grateful for the privilege of having known him and the honour to be able to call him my friend. James, rest in peace.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, have more to say than I have time for. Others have talked about James’s ministerial career. I first met James when we were elected together in 2005, and when I became a Minister in the Home Office, he was my shadow. As others have said, you always had to be on your mettle, because you knew that he would be on the case. I often reflected on the fact that, when the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was Home Secretary, she was very lucky to have James in that post. I did notice that his portfolio seemed to grow in that Department, but every tricky area of the Home Office—having been a Home Office Minister I know all of those tricky areas—came to James because, in all the best traditions of this place, he was an assiduous and proper Minister. In a period when we have a lot of fracture in our politics and in society, and in an era when being a YouTuber or a celebrity is seen as something very important, James did the job really well and really properly. That is often underplayed, but it is really important. All of us, whether we are in government or we aspire to be in government, should use James and the work that he did as a model for how to do the job.
The last point I want to make is about his courage. When he was Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government post-Grenfell, he gave a ministerial direction to set up a £200 million fund to provide money to deal with some of the dangerous cladding. Many Ministers do not want to give ministerial directions—that is when they have to instruct officials that they are going to spend taxpayers’ money—and he did not do so lightly; he thought it through. I remember him saying to me in a conversation that, in one case, there were about 89 owners of a block, and if he had not made this decision, it would have got caught up forever and the people living in those homes would have suffered. There is still unfinished business there, as the Father of the House has said, but James set the tone and made a bold decision. He was courageous, he was good and we will miss him in this House.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
As we have heard, James was a model of what we would want our MP, our Minister, and, most of all, our friend to be. I first met James in the shadow Home Affairs team before the 2010 election and then as junior Ministers in the Home Office for four years, and he was the perfect colleague. Many was the evening we spent giving each other mutual support not just because of the pressures of the job, but because of the added pressures of working for an exceptionally demanding Home Secretary. He was diligent, thoughtful, collegiate, and an absolute team player. To revive an old cliché: he was absolutely a man whom you would go into the jungle with—he would have your back.
All these tributes to his political effectiveness are not just standard conventional remarks to make on an occasion like this. We can simply look at the facts. James was appointed and reappointed to a succession of really difficult ministerial jobs by all three Prime Ministers since 2010. Almost no one else has negotiated those particular rapids as successfully as James has. In paying tribute to him, of course we mourn with Cathy and the children, but we should also celebrate James’s political legacy, because, above all, he showed that it was possible to be a completely admirable human being and a successful Member of Parliament, and, in these times, that is a great and important memory to leave all of us.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It is an honour to contribute to this debate. So much has already been said about James. I regard it as a huge honour to have been a friend and to have seen him as a friend. High office is actually a very lonely place, as many people around this Chamber will know, and the ability to be able to speak to someone openly and not to think that that will appear on the front page of tomorrow’s paper or to be part of online speculation about yourself or colleagues is hard to find. When I was a Cabinet member, a Minister and a shadow Minister, James was someone I always felt I could speak to in total confidence: somebody who would give support, in a way that was for my benefit, not for any benefit to him; somebody who would be candid; and, as we have heard, somebody who would be funny about it as well, because you can be nice and be very funny too, with a wicked sense of humour. I am very grateful for the support that he gave me when I was a Minister.
I was also struck by James’s self-effacing nature. As we started this discussion, I looked at the last exchange of messages that I had with him about his situation, and it was his thanks to me for my concern. It was the fact that all of us had given him so much love and support over the period that he was so grateful for; he wanted to convey that and said it had sustained him in some of the most difficult times.
The final point I want to make is that I was actually with Sir David Amess in Qatar when we heard the news of James’s passing. David really was very upset by that news and was effusive in his tributes to James. I am sure that if he had been in the Chamber today, he would have wanted to make such a contribution. As we heard earlier, social media is not the friendliest place, but there is a great picture that was put up on Twitter, which shows Sir David in this Parliament, advocating the case for Southend as a city, with James sitting over his shoulder, laughing. That is the picture that I would like to retain in my mind of those two great parliamentarians—great men, who have contributed so much to our national life.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
The House has paid tribute to James’s kindness and his courage in facing his illness, but I would like to underline his effectiveness as a Minister and the consequences of that for ordinary people who perhaps are not aware of the impact. When he was Northern Ireland Secretary, the Bombardier aerospace company was facing a ruinous trade dispute with Boeing, which, had James not immediately sprang to life and activated the very considerable networks of influence and friends of Northern Ireland in Washington, would have been the end of that employer in Northern Ireland. As a result, against all expectations, the dispute was settled in favour of Bombardier, and many thousands of people owe their continued livelihoods to James’s brilliant advocacy.
It was fitting that James became Local Government Secretary because, as the Father of the House said, his father Peter had been the chief executive of Epping Forest District Council before he was the chief executive of the London Borough of Greenwich. James was widely admired, not just by his officials in the Department —although, as my right hon. Friends have said, that was universal—but by councillors of all parties, up and down the country. In fact, his permanent secretary, Melanie Dawes, described him as
“a dedicated, brilliant and kind man”.
I think she spoke for all of local government.
I last met James in July. Our daughters were classmates at school and we last met at the speech day, which was our daughters’ leaving day at that school, so my last image of James is a happy one: celebrating the wonderful success of his daughter; seeing her move on to the next stage of her life; having succeeded in raising a wonderful young woman. He will be greatly missed by his family and by this whole House.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you and Mr Speaker for allowing time for us to make these tributes to James—tributes that he would never have expected and which he deserves all the more for that.
Some of the tributes to James that I have heard have said that he took his work seriously but never took himself too seriously. That is true, but I think it should also be said that he was taken seriously—by those he worked with, by those in every area he had responsibility for as a Minister and by all those he sought to help. That matters, because if you want to get things done in politics and in Government, people have to believe that you care enough to want to help, that you have the capacity to help, and that you will put enough effort into helping to be effective. No one who dealt with James was in any doubt on any of those counts: they knew how much he cared; they knew he was capable; and they knew he was committed. That was true in every one of the difficult areas that he dealt with as a Minister and in every case brought to him as a constituency Member of Parliament.
I will remember for a long time the weekend that the Wrights went to visit the Brokenshires at Hillsborough Castle, when James was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In the course of that visit, I was struck by how James, who had not been in the job long at that point, was widely recognised and warmly welcomed at all the community events, which, James being James, he was keen that we all went to during that weekend. That included, I recall, a gathering of the llama farmers of Northern Ireland, of whom I think there were about four. James went, as always, to take an interest, not just to take a photograph.
When we contemplate the two empty spaces on these Benches this week, we think about underrated qualities in politics. James had in abundance those qualities that perhaps the parliamentary sketch writers are not terrible interested in, but which are fundamental to meaningful public service. He was intelligent, brave, determined, compassionate and wise. There was no Cabinet meeting that I attended with him and no Cabinet that he was a member of that was not immeasurably strengthened by his presence.
Of course, his family will miss him most. Cathy, Sophie, Jemma, Ben—you know that you have our love and prayers as you mourn him and as you are unfailingly proud of him, as so many of us are too. For the many of us who will think of him first and foremost as our friend, we will remember him that way, but all of us should remember the example he set of how to be a public servant, and strive to follow it.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
As Essex boys, James and I got on like a house on fire when we were both elected in 2005. Interestingly enough, as we became Ministers together, we shared Departments. I have listened very carefully to the fact that James got all the difficult bits and the Policing Minister didn’t—some of that was news to me!
When we were both shadow Ministers, we used to drive home together and we would chew the cud about many things as new Members of Parliament. James was a wonderful human being and he was a family man. We invariably talked about family things on the way home. I knew that I would have to move my daughters out of their school in Southend to my new constituency in Hemel Hempstead, and he talked to me about how difficult that was going to be for me.
I apologise to Cathy: we sat outside your house many a time when I was dropping him off, and he did not come in quite as soon as he should have done because we talked about other things as well, particularly his haircut. For those who did not know James in his early days here, he had a wonderful flat-top—and how carefully it was trimmed. We used to spend hours talking about it! People may think that men do not talk about that sort of thing, but we did. We talked about our kids and life in general, as well as the greasy pole.
When James went to Northern Ireland, he said, “You’ve been there, Mike. Can I take some advice from you?”. We have heard so much in this House about people taking advice from James, but he was a sponge; he wanted to listen to other people’s experiences, whether in the constituency or as former Ministers. He continued up that greasy pole while some firemen, like myself, disappeared down it, but he was absolutely brilliant at putting his arm around you when you needed that five minutes.
I phoned James a couple of weeks before his sad death, and we chatted about the usual banter and bits and bobs. I apologised for phoning him because it was obvious how poorly he was at that time, but he said, “Nah, it’s all right, mate. We’re Essex boys together; we can have a chat.” That was James, and I am so proud to have known him for so long.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The last word goes to Stephen Hammond.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
It is a particular privilege, Madam Deputy Speaker, to have the last word in these tributes to our friend and colleague. Like the last three of my colleagues who spoke, he and I were members of that very exclusive club, the 3-05 club—we were elected on 05/05/05. It was very clear to all of us in that intake that our friend James Brokenshire was going to rise to high ministerial office. On that, I do not need to say any more—my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) and many others have paid tribute to his effectiveness as a Minister.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland) rightly said that James was so much more than a nice man; he used a whole load of adjectives to describe him. The three I will remember, like most of the 3-05, is that he was collegiate, compassionate and charming. He congratulated all of us on our way up and put his arm round us and gave us sympathy on the way down—and I needed that more than most. I send my sincere condolences to the family.
Next week, on Tuesday evening, that exclusive club, a year late, celebrates 15 years in this House. The most fitting tribute we can pay to our friend and colleague is that there will be an empty chair and a toast raised. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Thank you all for the moving tributes to our friend James.
Sexual Misconduct in the Police
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call Harriet Harman to ask her urgent question, I wish to remind all Members that the House’s sub judice resolution means that no reference should be made to cases in which legal proceedings are active, which includes those where an individual has been charged with an offence. I would also ask Members to exercise caution in discussing matters that are subject to current police investigations. I call Harriet Harman.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like, first off, to endorse the heartfelt tributes that have been made to James Brokenshire and send my deepest sympathy to his family.
I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question—
Ms Harman
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on sexual misconduct in the Metropolitan police and in the police generally.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
Abuse of position for sexual purpose by a police officer is abhorrent, betraying the trust of victims from a position of power. The Government are working closely with the National Police Chiefs Council and other policing stakeholders as part of a new national working group to implement the right strategies, policies and products to help forces to tackle those officers abusing their positions for sexual purposes. In February last year, the Government strengthened the powers of the independent police watchdog, the Independent Office of Police Conduct. Now all allegations of abuse of position for sexual purpose must, by law, be referred to the IOPC. For the first time, the Home Office will also now be able to collect and publish data on issues of internal sexual misconduct by officers, and we aim to publish the first tranche of data in the new year.
But we are determined to go further. The heinous murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer shook our country to the core. I know that the thoughts of everyone in this House will remain with Sarah’s family. The public are in urgent need of reassurance; so too are the vast majority of police officers who serve with courage and professionalism and who rely on all their colleagues to uphold their values. This is why the Government are launching a two-part independent inquiry. The first part will examine the recruitment and employment of Sarah’s killer and whether there were opportunities to have intercepted him along the way. I would expect the second part to look at a range of relevant issues, from policing culture to whether enough is being done to identify and report patterns of behaviour of those individuals who could go on to abuse their policing powers. We will appoint the chair of the inquiry shortly and then agree terms of reference. The Home Secretary will, at that point, provide the House with an update. We have also asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to undertake an urgent inspection of forces to look at their vetting and counter-corruption arrangements, as well as focusing on how well forces can identify unacceptable behaviour.
We recognise that sexual violence is a broader issue in society and we must leave no stone unturned in confronting it. The Prime Minister will therefore launch a taskforce to drive cross-Government action and to help maintain public confidence in policing and our many thousands of outstanding police officers. The police have a unique and vital role in our society and we rightly expect them to meet high standards of behaviour and professionalism. Across Government and policing, we must continue working ceaselessly to protect the precious bond of trust between officers and the public.
Ms Harman
I thank the Minister for his statement and the work he and his colleagues are doing on this.
Wayne Couzens used his Metropolitan police warrant card, his Metropolitan police handcuffs and his police powers to kidnap and kill Sarah Everard. Since the full horror of this was made public at the sentencing hearing, there has been an outpouring about the failure of the police to deal with misogyny and sexism within the force. Women need to be able to trust the police, not fear them. That means that we need to be certain that allegations of sexism and misogyny result in immediate suspension—not just removal from the frontline but immediate suspension from the police—that findings of sexual misconduct lead to instant dismissal, that vetting and training is sorted urgently, and that if you are in a WhatsApp group that deals in sexual violence and misogyny you should not be in the police. The official inquiries that the Minister mentioned are under way are welcome, but even before those inquiries report, these basic issues should be tackled now.
We need firm leadership from the police—from the top of the police—in recognising that big change is needed, and a determination not to stand in the way of that change but to make it happen. I know the Home Secretary agrees with us on that. I do not believe that will happen under the current Metropolitan police commissioner, who should, I believe, step down so that this vital change can happen and happen now.
Kit Malthouse
Of course we all agree with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. and learned Member. This kind of behaviour has no place in British policing. She is right that we need to pay constant attention to the processes and products that policing has so that we can root out this behaviour and deal with it once and for all. She will know that the office of constable is a sacred and special one within our society, and certainly within our legal system. We must do all we can to protect its integrity, but at the same time recognise that even constables are owed due process, and that where complaints are made, we must have a robust system around those complaints and detecting abhorrent behaviour. Where that abhorrent behaviour is detected, the system must enable us to examine the behaviour, give a fair hearing, and then deal with those officers accordingly.
The right hon. and learned Member will know that there has been significant work in this area over the past few years following a report by the inspectorate back in 2019 that looked at the specific issue. The National Police Chiefs Council has, as I say, set up a working group in which the Home Office participates to try to strengthen these routes. The inspectorate reported then that excellent progress has been made but there was still much more to do, not least in the detection and internal reporting of these matters. I am hopeful that the inquiry, when it completes, will give us the tools we need and the work processes to pursue to enable us to make sure that the net is ever tighter in maintaining the integrity of British policing.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
We know that sexual abuse in our schools, our universities and our colleges is endemic. It is part of the culture that too many people still grow up with in our country, so little wonder it continues on into the workplace, including the police force. We have to change that culture. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the police, and indeed all employers, should stop using non-disclosure agreements to cover up allegations of unlawful behaviour at work, including sexual misconduct, and that anonymity should never be granted to protect the identity of police officers who are found guilty of sexual misconduct?
Kit Malthouse
I applaud the sentiments behind my right hon. Friend’s work in this area. NDAs are profoundly to be avoided. I cannot, I have to say, envisage the circumstances in which they would be used in policing, not least because, as I said earlier, following changes in the law, offences of this type have to be referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. Decisions are therefore taken independently in terms of the investigation and the proposed sanction. The disciplinary structure around police constables, which then follows those allegations or charges, is an independent one, run by an independent panel and with an independent qualified chair who makes decisions about disclosure or otherwise regarding the case. I cannot see that an NDA would necessarily be applicable in those circumstances, but she is right to point out that they are deeply undesirable.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I add my voice to the tributes we heard earlier to James Brokenshire. I worked with him, and always found him to be charming, committed and thoughtful.
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for tabling this urgent question. The killings of Sarah Everard, Sabina Nessa, Bibaa Henry, Nicole Smallman and others have shone a light on the epidemic of violence against women and girls. Zoë Billingham, from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, defined this epidemic in her recent report. She said:
“The problem is known, consistent and deep-rooted in its presence, and growing in the forms it takes.”
We cannot hope to tackle violence against women and girls unless we can be sure that those who are here to protect us will not turn on us. Every police officer I have spoken to since Sarah’s murder has said the same: they, more than anyone, want to root out any opportunity for perpetrators to join our police service, and they want to ensure that the culture and climate in every force enables victims to have the confidence to come forward.
To rebuild the trust and confidence of women and girls in police, there must be a comprehensive, independent inquiry on a statutory footing. The Minister said that the public are in urgent need of reassurance, and that is absolutely correct, but a non-statutory inquiry cannot act in the same way as a statutory one. It cannot compel witnesses to testify, it cannot demand documents and the evidence it hears will not be under oath, and we do not believe that is good enough. It is clear that we need to look at the whole system: the vetting process, the misconduct process, working cultures, misogyny and sexism within the police force and training processes. This could be a watershed moment, and it must not be left to women and girls to make this happen.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) asked this week, when will the Home Secretary implement the recommendations of Zoë Billingham’s report? When will the Government reform and invest in our police force, our criminal justice system and wider public services so that we are ready to start tackling this epidemic? For women and girls everywhere, and for our police officers who are devastated at the betrayal of everything they stand for, things cannot remain as they are. We would work with the Government, and thank them for it, if they took this moment to bring profound change.
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. On her substantive point about the inquiry, she will know that a statutory inquiry is a very long-winded affair to set up, and a non-statutory inquiry can be much quicker. She will also be aware that it is contrary to regulations, since a change in the law recently, for a police officer not to co-operate with such an inquiry, whether statutory or otherwise, and they would be subject to disciplinary proceedings if they did not co-operate. Having said that, if the chair of the inquiry feels that he or she is not getting the co-operation or the information they need, we have reserved the right to convert the inquiry into a statutory one.
The hon. Lady is right that the inquiry forms part of a suite of tools that we need to restore and enhance the confidence particularly of women and girls in our police forces. One of those processes is what we are seeing with the uplift programme, which is essentially a greater feminisation of UK policing. We have moved over the past 10 years from 25% of the force being female to just over a third, and we have a number of forces where more than half of new recruits are female. I am hopeful that that progress will mean that women and girls feel that the police force better reflects them and may result in better contemplation of these issues.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree that any barrel can have a rotten apple. Most of our police are law-abiding, honest folk going about their job, protecting us properly. I know also that he will agree that this is not just an issue for the Metropolitan police, but is something affecting the whole police family and the nation’s confidence in policing in our country. Can he assure me on two things? First, can he assure me that the widest part of the culture of the police understands that because they are there to enforce the law, that means they are not beyond it? Secondly, can he ensure that when a police officer changes to another force, they are vetted as if from scratch, rather than just for specific serious tasks, usually involving the carrying of a weapon? When people move too quickly between constabularies, as in any other job, it usually should ring alarm bells.
Kit Malthouse
On my hon. Friend’s second point, these are exactly the issues we want to learn from as part of the inquiry. He is right that we need to ensure that the vetting net is as tight as possible. He will know that police officers are vetted at a number of points during their careers, and often on transfer, as he says. We need to ensure that that is happening and has happened. If there are lessons to be learned, we will learn them. He is right that this is not necessarily a problem just for the police in one particular area or for the police as a whole; it is one that we have to face as a society generally. I have to reassure him that some of the strongest advocates for change, some of the individuals most outraged by previous events and some of those most committed to maintaining the integrity of the police force are police officers themselves.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
May I associate myself with the comments of others across the House and pass on my condolences to James’s family?
The murder of Sarah Everard has truly shocked and saddened us all, and I once again send my condolences to Sarah’s friends and family. We on these Benches welcome the independent inquiry and the announcement of a taskforce, but more details must be given on exactly what will be put in place. The statutory inquiry must be put in place.
I recognise that this issue is not solely confined to the Met. As recent inquiries and news have shown in Scotland, there is a real problem and a culture that pervades establishments. The Scottish Government are taking this seriously and will take any concerns or issues raised seriously and ensure that those responsible are held to account.
Dame Elish Angiolini referred in her report to “a canteen culture” and
“racist, misogynistic or emotionally damaging”
conduct. While good policing will not end male violence against women, trust in the police is vital, yet over the past 11 years, more than 750 Met police officers and staff have had accusations of sexual misconduct, including accusations of sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape and using their position of power for sexual gain. Of those 750, only 83 were sacked. Does the Minister feel that those figures reflect sufficient accountability and, if not, what action is needed to address that?
Kit Malthouse
I obviously cannot speak to the individual cases that the hon. Lady has outlined, but like most of the British public, I need to have faith in the independent structures that are put in place. All offences of that type must by law be referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, and all disciplinary proceedings within the police force are dealt with by independent panels chaired by legally qualified chairs. That is the due process that produces these numbers.
We hope that the work we are doing through the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the reforms that we have put in place around the IOPC and the lessons that will then come out of the inquiry will form a suite of information and tools that will help to bolster the faith that the vast majority of the British people have in the vast majority of police officers. As I say, our job is to help the police to rebuild that bond of trust, whether in Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland, and we will do our best to stand alongside them.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
A recent freedom of information request showed that more than 600 members of the police had been the subject of allegations of sexual misconduct since 2018. Most worryingly, nearly 10% of those had left the force before the disciplinary proceedings had concluded. In the public’s mind, that will raise a real worry that those people who do not have a black mark on their disciplinary record could rejoin an alternative force at a later date. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that those who are accused cannot leave the force and then rejoin?
Kit Malthouse
We brought about reforms in the law to produce a police barred list, which is there precisely to stop police officers who are convicted of offences or disciplinary matters from rejoining the police. My hon. Friend raises a good issue that, in theory, when a police officer rejoins the police, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) referred to, that should come up on their vetting report. As part of our inquiries, we will have to make sure that the processes are in place to detect exactly the kind of information that she is looking for. As I say, following this dreadful event—the killing of Sarah Everard— our job is to make sure that the vetting net is as tight as possible and those are exactly the sorts of areas that we will need to explore.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Minister and the police forces have rightly talked about the importance of rebuilding trust. When serious allegations are made against police officers about sexual assault or domestic abuse—offences that, by their very nature, involve controlling behaviour, the abuse of power, the abuse of vulnerable victims and misogyny—why are they not suspended immediately while investigations take place?
Kit Malthouse
The Chair of the Select Committee is right that such offences or allegations need to be dealt with swiftly and robustly, but she will understand that the decision to suspend a police officer primarily lies with the chief constable, for important reasons. Obviously, we are working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to make sure that we have a consistent approach to those kinds of offences across all police forces, but that is definitely a matter that falls into the area of operational independence, so the policy is decided on a force-by-force basis, albeit that the College of Policing issues guidelines. Given her long history in the area, I know that she will recognise the importance of a chief constable taking responsibility primarily for the suspension or otherwise of the officers in that force.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
The truth of the matter is that sexual violence against women is too common and, as a consequence, it shows up in our police service. A few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke at the Conservative party conference about the need for a broken windows theory of tackling crime. Against that background, what thoughts does the Minister have about applying that principle to the whole area of sexual violence? The simple fact is, if we let low-level sexual banter escalate, that is exactly what we end up with. Is it not incumbent on the whole of society to make every bit of sexually aggressive behaviour towards women and girls totally socially unacceptable?
Kit Malthouse
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. She is right that we can put in place all the structures and processes that we like but, unless there is a significant change in the culture, such practices will often go undetected. There is, however, a strong movement in British policing now to deal with the issue. For example, a large number of male officers are involved in the HeForShe campaign within the Metropolitan police, led by the deputy commissioner himself, in trying to bring about the recognition of the need for transparency and reporting, and the recognition that everybody has a job to do to help to root out that kind of conduct.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for securing this urgent question. I also thank all the good police officers who we have in our constituencies and here in Parliament. It is important to mention that, not just because it is true, but because whenever we talk about the police and bad apples, I for one am inundated with a lot of abuse on social media, especially from people with a thin blue line as their picture who claim to be former police officers. If they are former police officers and they levy that abuse towards me, I wonder what they were like when they were serving police officers and what they did on the street when they had all those powers.
Sarah Everard’s killing—her brutal murder—has shocked us all. Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman’s murder came before that of Sarah Everard and the police officers acted appallingly inhumanely by taking pictures of their dead bodies and posting them on a WhatsApp group. I understand that the officers in that WhatsApp group have still not been punished. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, we have to deal with the culture in the police force. At every single stage, whether the abuse is misogynistic, racist or sexist, we have to deal with it, because the same people are committing crimes over and over again. When police officers are accused of domestic violence, the police often surround them and protect them as if it is more important to protect each other than the public.
Kit Malthouse
I thank the hon. Lady for recognising that there are many thousands of police officers out there doing an outstanding job. I know that they will appreciate her recognition of their work. If she is receiving abuse online from individuals purporting to be police officers, ex-police officers or otherwise, I ask her please to report every single one.
Kit Malthouse
Well, I am grateful that she does, because gathering that kind of intelligence is exactly what we need. As she will know, there is an ongoing review of MPs’ safety and the kind of hatred and abuse that she and others have to put up with online.
In terms of the wider issue about cultural change, the hon. Lady is right. I cannot comment on the individual disciplinary proceedings around that horrendous murder in north London, but she is right that part of our restoring the trust and sense of integrity in British policing is making sure, when such events happen, that the disciplinary proceedings and consequences are swift and certain; that they are conducted with rigour and alacrity; and that there is transparency about them so that the notion that the police are defensive on those issues is completely dispelled.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I associate myself and my party with the tributes paid to James Brokenshire earlier, and I send my condolences to his family.
The Minister mentioned the increasing gender diversity in the police force. A way to continue that trend is to ensure that we effectively demonstrate that internal complaints are being dealt with appropriately. A Unison survey four years ago found that the more serious the behaviour, the less likely to challenge it police staff were. Some 39% said that they would find it easier to keep quiet. As a former police officer, I sadly suspect that little has changed. What consideration is being given to the management and encouragement of reporting of internal complaints, particularly those that do not necessarily become criminal but do constitute misconduct and suggest a potential course of conduct?
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who brings her experience to bear on this area. The message we get from the inspectorate, which has looked at the issue over a number of years and no doubt will again, is that there has been change and improvement in a number of police forces, but it is too patchy, and that the greater resource and greater use of software in many ways—for reporting and for detection—could be more widespread.
The hon. Lady will know that a number of forces have software that detects when officers are accessing certain kinds of material on databases about victims or witnesses, which is useful. We have had several situations where officers have been caught illegally accessing that information and disciplinary or criminal proceedings have resulted from that. As she rightly points out, however, there is still a hell of a lot more to do, and I hope and believe that the working group that the NPCC has set up, in which, as I say, the Home Office is participating, will bring about the real change she is looking for.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Any woman who rings the police seeking assistance when they are suffering domestic violence or any form of abuse has to have the confidence that the officers who turn up will treat the matter seriously. If those officers have themselves been accused of domestic violence or any form of abuse, are they likely to do so? Can women have confidence that those officers will treat their concerns seriously? Surely the police need to adopt and enforce a zero-tolerance policy so that women can have confidence in the police force.
Kit Malthouse
As I said earlier, these are necessarily matters that fall under the operational independence of a chief constable. One would hope that chief constables in those circumstances might, for example, place an officer on restricted duties or indeed suspend that officer if the allegation were serious enough.
Kit Malthouse
The right hon. and learned Lady is shaking her head, and I understand that she finds that unsatisfactory, but there are important reasons why chief constables must be the primary source of responsibility, both for suspension and for discipline, in maintaining the integrity of their own police force. Having said that, the inquiries and reviews that are under way will teach us lessons about what more we can and should do to improve this situation. I would hope and believe that, when we come back with the conclusions from those pieces of work, we can talk again about this issue.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I also want to pay tribute to my constituency neighbour my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for securing this really important question.
I want to come back to the Minister’s last reply, in which he mentioned that it is up to chief constables. The Minister will be aware of the former chief constable of Nottinghamshire police, Sue Fish, who has said:
“When I tried to address this I was denigrated, isolated, marginalised by many senior people because they didn’t see it as either important or necessary”.
That goes to the heart of the issue we are discussing. Police officers are still in post while those women and girls are fearful, and those women and girls are reporting it to their relevant police officers knowing that nothing will happen. That includes the many women and girls who have come to me in my Vauxhall constituency highlighting the issues of reporting crimes at Brixton police station. We have to change this culture, and warm words will not help those women and girls, so I want to ask the Minister: what help will the Government be giving to those victims?
Kit Malthouse
I agree with the hon. Lady that things have to change, and that is what we are trying to bring about. She will know that, if she has specific constituency cases of people who are dissatisfied, alarmed or concerned about their treatment at the hands of the police, they can go to the Independent Office for Police Conduct and seek satisfaction through that route. They do not have to rely on the police themselves.
As I said earlier, we have to divide two issues here. First, there are allegations of serious sexual offending, which must now by law be reported to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The issue generally of suspension or otherwise for a police officer does at the moment fall to chief constables. Obviously, they are accountable to the local police and crime commissioner—in the hon. Lady’s case, to the Mayor of London—and policy will be set between those two. As I say, there are important reasons why a chief constable must be responsible for the suspension or otherwise of an officer. That is separate from the requirement in law to report these offences to the IOPC, where an independent investigation can take place and then disciplinary proceedings follow, if possible.
I realise that many Members of the House believe that this process appears long-winded. Our job is to balance two things: the right of a constable to due process against the right and the need of the public, particularly women and girls, to have a sense of trust in the system. That is exactly what we will try to learn from and improve through the inquiries we are undertaking and the work that we are doing with the National Police Chiefs’ Council.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I understand that 750 police officers have been accused of sexual misconduct between 2016 and 2020, including 40 from Welsh police forces. While the numbers are in the public domain, in many cases the outcomes of the accusations are not, even though, as I think everyone here would agree, there is evidently an issue of legitimate public interest. I appreciate that the inquiry will be independent, but I think the public want to know that there is consistency of sanctions when the findings uphold those accusations. Could the Minister make a commitment to me that, in his dealings with the independent inquiry, he will be urging it to consider that within the terms of reference?
Kit Malthouse
I am happy to consider that issue—absolutely. As I said earlier in my statement, we are about—I hope in the new year—for the first time to publish internal force statistics which will give us the full picture. At the moment, we publish national statistics to do with the IOPC inquiries in this area, but a number of allegations are dealt with internally in a force. Once we have that data and it is out in the public domain, we will be able to make a judgment, exactly as the right hon. Member says, about consistency of disposal, and consider what more needs to be done.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
What concerns me about the response of the Minister so far to the issue of suspension of police officers who have been accused of domestic abuse or sexual assault is that this could lead and does lead to inconsistencies all around the country, and it seems to me that there is something the Minister could do. Has he had any conversations with chief constables about what the expectation would be when dealing with officers who have such allegations made against them, and whether suspension is the right way forward?
Kit Malthouse
As I say, I am merely stating a fact that, at the moment, suspension falls to the chief constable, but it is in the nature of this that, with 43 chief constables across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, there will be a variable approach. It is in the nature of any—[Interruption.] It is in the nature of any organisation that that is the case, in the same way that we have a variable approach to detecting and prosecuting different types of crime. Our job at the Home Office—[Interruption.] Please allow me to complete my answer.
Our job at the Home Office, exactly as the right hon. Lady is seeking, is to try to embed a sense of consistency of approach across all of those forces to make sure that the British people can have trust in their police whether they are in London, Manchester, Belfast or Edinburgh. That is the work we are trying to get done through this working group with the National Police Chiefs’ Council. It is very apprised of the importance of this issue, and I have been pleased by the commitment it is showing to this stream of work. I am hopeful that we will reach the greater consistency she seeks in the months to come.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Despite his horrific actions, several Met police officers, inexplicably and alarmingly, spoke in favour of the murderer of Sarah Everard at his sentencing hearing. It has also been reported that he was apparently referred to jokingly as “the Rapist” or “Rapey”, as well as having three previous allegations of indecent exposure. Does the Minister agree with me that offering such support to a brutal murderer reveals a disturbing and unacceptable attitude by some policemen towards women and towards the seriousness of this crime?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Lady has stated a number of matters as fact that may not be the case. I do not want to prejudge the conclusions, certainly of part 1 of the inquiry. The whole idea of that inquiry is to look at exactly the entire career of that monstrous individual to learn lessons about what may or may not have happened—for example, what previous forces knew about him, and whether he did have that nickname in the previous force—and what lessons we should learn from that about wider policy in maintaining the integrity of the police.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for giving us the chance again to discuss this essential issue, which cannot leave our radar. I was astonished when a female criminal solicitor recently told me that she and her female colleagues often experience ongoing ridicule and belittling from male custody officers at my local police station. I find this outrageous. Does the Minister agree with me that this disrespect towards female solicitors is very much part of the culture of misogyny within the police force, and that these disgraceful attitudes and behaviours must be tackled and rooted out of our police force?
Kit Malthouse
I certainly agree that those disgraceful attitudes should be rooted out, and I would urge the individuals affected to make a report and a complaint to the police force concerned.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. This is a very important issue, as has been illustrated. The Minister is aware that the bedrock of a successful police force is integrity and community relations. We have seen in the past in Northern Ireland what the appearance of two-tier policing does to the erosion of confidence. How does the Minister believe confidence can be restored within communities about the integrity of their police force, and in particular for frightened women?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the button, and there is no single answer to restoring, building or even maintaining that kind of trust. He will remember, because of his long history in this House, that some years ago a measure of confidence in policing was produced, and a huge amount of academic effort and work went into understanding what would move that confidence measure—what they could do in policing to shift it and grow confidence. Much of that research went into a dead end. In the end there were broadly two conclusions. One was to do a good job fighting crime, and the second was to be transparent and open, and to have a great relationship with the local community. That is what the vast majority of police officers aspire to. Our stream of work in dealing with the dreadful offences that are committed against women and girls across the country on a daily basis and driving those numbers down, while at the same time working hard to build and restore trust between the police and women and girls, and with all groups in society, must be critical for the health of British policing, and for our greater safety.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question.
Point of Order
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Monday, in answer to my supplementary question during Home Office questions, I believe—I have obtained guidance on the law from a senior lawyer—that the Minister for Crime and Policing most inadvertently misled the House, and I humbly invite him to take this early opportunity to correct the record. The Minister stated that the process for the rescheduling of compounds is that approval is given for a medicine by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and advice is then taken from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs about the rescheduling, as happened with Epidyolex. Nothing in the legislation requires MHRA authorisation for a compound drug to be moved to schedule 2 to 5 under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.
The effect of the Minister’s statement means that in practice, compounds will largely not be researched to become medicines. That would require market authorisation as, under the apparent new policy, which has so far never been presented to the House, compounds can never escape the rigours and expense of schedule 1. For British scientists that is a particular barrier to the exciting science around the psychedelic class of drugs that is now more easily developed and researched in North America than it is in the UK, where the science began. For those British scientists denied the opportunity to do that research, due to the costs imposed by the scheduling, it is a constant frustration that there is no recent scientific basis to support the scheduling in the first place.
The Minister’s statement was contradictory not only in logic, but also given recent precedent because—ironically, on the basis of the example given by the Minister—market authorisation for Epidyolex was granted two years after cannabis-based medicines and medicinal products as a whole were placed in schedule 2, precisely to facilitate the prescription of non-MHRA approved special medicines.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The Minister may wish to respond further to that point of order.
Kit Malthouse
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of his point of order. I have reviewed my words carefully and I do not believe I did, inadvertently or otherwise, mislead the House. He asked about the rescheduling of psilocybin, and I outlined general Government policy, which is—quite rightly—to follow MHRA authorisation on advice. He did not ask me about the law. His point on the law is, I believe, correct, but that is separate to the process of Government policy, which is to take advice on the rescheduling, or otherwise, or the use of substances, either medicinally or otherwise. I know he would not expect me to reschedule a hallucinogenic compound purely on his say so; he would expect me to do so following the examination of serious scientific advice, and that is what I was intending to communicate to him on the day.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record, and the Minister has responded. If further conversations need to take place, perhaps they could be outside the Chamber. This is obviously a complicated subject, and I suspect that even more detail could be entered into if we left it at that.
Decarbonisation and Economic Strategy
Wednesday 20th October 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Decarbonisation and Economic Strategy Bill 2021-22 View all Decarbonisation and Economic Strategy 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
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move, Lords Amendments Time for conclusion of proceedings Nos. 1 to 3, 12, 28, 31, 33, 75, 4 to 11, 13 to 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 64, 69, 70 Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments. Nos. 43, 45, 65 to 67, 94, 95, 46 to 63, 71 to 74, 91 to 93 Four and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings. Nos. 85, 36 to 42, 44, 68, 76 to 84, 86 to 90 Six hours after the commencement of those proceedings.
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place duties on the Secretary of State to decarbonise the United Kingdom economy and to reverse inequality; to establish a 10-year economic and public investment strategy in accordance with those duties which promote a community and employee-led transition from high-carbon to low and zero-carbon industry; to require the Government to report on their adherence to the strategy; to establish higher environmental standards for air, water and green spaces; to make provision to protect and restore natural habitats; and for connected purposes.
With just 10 days to go until the critical COP26 climate talks begin in Glasgow, it is vital that the Government show that they have understood the scale and scope of the climate and nature crises, and that they understand both the work to be done, and the opportunity that that presents to build better lives for us all. We do not need just a 10-point plan, we need a 10-year plan—a comprehensive green new deal that mobilises every part of Government, and every person in these nations: workers and investors, creatives and care workers, scientists and engineers, administrators and accountants, farmers and factory workers.
The Decarbonisation and Economic Strategy Bill, also known as the green new deal Bill, lays out the framework that would make that unprecedented mobilisation possible, and move us from talking to doing. I have stood up in this Chamber so many times over the past 11 years to make the case for bold action in response to the climate and nature crises, as have so many of my colleagues. In each of those 11 years, evidence of the accelerating emergency has become ever clearer, and sadly this year has been no exception. In August the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released what has been described as its “starkest warning yet”. Human activity is changing the earth’s climate in ways that are unprecedented in thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, with some of the changes now “inevitable and irreversible”. As its report set out, only rapid and far-reaching reductions in greenhouse gases in this decade can prevent climate breakdown.
However, just as the issues have become clearer over my time as an MP, so too have the solutions. In this millennium, energy sources such as wind and solar that move us away from fossil fuels have come of age. Those energy technologies have been matched by an explosion of social technologies, community wealth building, new co-operative forms of enterprise, and an understanding of the social and environmental value of, for example, a shorter working week. It has become increasingly clear that the economic path we have been following is destroying the ecosystem we depend on, increasing inequality and impoverishing lives. Not only is it trashing the planet, but it is failing to deliver for millions of people across the UK. If we fail to grasp that, we will fail the climate test. That means that we cannot limit our imaginations to tinkering around the edges of the problem, or to creating a world that is not quite so bad. We must expand our imaginations to encompass a world where we do not treat people, or our living breathing planet, as expendable.
Our greatest threat now is the delayers, and those who would kick creating a better world into the long grass because they profit from the current destructive system. On that, the Queen is entirely in agreement with climate activist Greta Thunberg when she complains that, “They talk, but they don’t do.” The time for talking is over. It is not inevitable that the news gets worse year on year. We can create a better world. All that is currently lacking is the political will. This is our chance. Every mind, every policy decision, and every spending decision should be focused on the transformation ahead of us.
The Bill sets out comprehensive criteria for a plan that would renew almost every part of our economy and society, together with the means to deliver it. It is not only my work, as it draws on expertise from across the House and every corner of the UK, including from the hon. Members for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), for Oldham East and Saddleworth, for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), and for North Down (Stephen Farry), who are co-sponsoring the Bill. The Bill has had input from scientists and civil society groups, unions and campaigners, and tax experts. It shows what we can do when we work together.
The first part of the Bill sets out targets to reduce emissions in line with our commitment to stay within 1.5° C of global heating, to restore nature and to reverse inequality. The Bill then sets out a framework for the reform of our financial and economic system so that the Government are free to work with all sectors to mobilise the resources necessary to invest in the complete renewal of our economy and society. That would put the Government, and not markets, in charge of the economy so that we are able to make the big economic decisions that will affect our futures.
We saw what was possible in the early phases of the covid pandemic. When they choose to, the Government can intervene on behalf of the people of this country. They can house the homeless, they can write off NHS debt overnight and—for a time, at least—they can put health and wellbeing above profit and growth. Now, we need those kinds of changes to be made on an everyday basis, not just as an extraordinary occurrence.
Doing that requires much greater co-ordination between the Bank of England, the Treasury and the Debt Management Office, so that we can manage the flow of money through the economy. Under the green new deal, credit creation, the availability of credit and the tax system would work together to benefit the whole of society. That would allow us to invest in renewable energy, clean transport, climate-friendly farming and warm homes. It would reduce inequality and increase incomes and tax revenues through the creation of skilled, well-paid jobs. Wealth taxes and measures to reduce tax evasion and avoidance would contribute, too.
A clear plan for Government investment would give private investors the confidence they need to put resources into the green new deal. Changing tax incentives on pensions and individual savings accounts to direct funds into the green new deal would bring long-term benefits to everyday savers and everyone in society. But we need to go further.
The Treasury’s own Dasgupta review of the economics of biodiversity calls for
“urgent and transformative change in how we think, act and measure economic success to protect and enhance our prosperity and the natural world.”
That means that GDP can no longer be our fundamental measure of progress. Instead, we should prioritise measures that help to guide us towards real prosperity, such as improvements in people’s health and wellbeing, the reversal of inequality, tackling the climate emergency, and the restoration and protection of the natural environment on which we all depend.
As so often, the people of the UK are ahead of the Government on this. Two thirds of UK adults think that the Government should prioritise the health and wellbeing of citizens over GDP growth. Other nations have led the way. New Zealand’s wellbeing budget, led by its Treasury, invests billions in tackling deep-rooted social and environmental problems, including the climate crisis.
Once management of the economy is transformed, the Bill makes provision for a green new deal commission, drawing in expertise from across society and informed by a series of citizens’ assemblies, to rapidly draw up a 10-year plan for the UK. That plan will set out how we decarbonise and diversify our energy supply; how we insulate the UK’s 29 million homes; how we transform the way we travel so we no longer depend on fossil fuels and our air is cleaner; how we invest in climate-friendly agriculture, and how we restore and enhance our environment, increasing the number of green spaces for us all to enjoy.
That means valuing the work that human hands do—the growing, the producing and delivery of the food that we eat; the shaping of the physical infrastructure, from warmer homes to low-carbon transport; and, crucially, the provision of care. It means creating good, unionised, secure jobs in every corner of the UK, delivering on the promise to level up.
This worker-led just transition will redress the historical mismanagement of industrial change and structural inequalities in the economy, to ensure that the green new deal enhances all our lives. New forms of business, from worker-owned co-operatives to community enterprises, will bring many more of us a stake in our future. Bringing key services into democratic ownership will ensure that our energy and water, our rail and mail, are run for the public good. And there are things we need to stop doing, too. There can be no more fossil fuel extraction, no more aviation expansion and no new plans for roads, where the money could far more effectively be spent on improving the existing network.
There is much work to be done. We have just a decade to turn this around. That is why this is our last best chance. By raising our sights to the horizon, we can create a world that is more humane and beautiful. One of my favourite cartoons shows a professor in front of a whiteboard. They have written up all the advantages of moving to a greener society, and a student says, “But what happens if climate change is a hoax and we’ve created a better world for no reason?” This is about creating a better world—that is what this Bill will do.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Caroline Lucas, Clive Lewis, Zarah Sultana, Wera Hobhouse, Nadia Whittome, Debbie Abrahams, Claire Hanna, Stephen Farry and Beth Winter present the Bill.
Caroline Lucas accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March, and to be printed (Bill 172).
Environment Bill: Programme (No. 6)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Environment Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 26 February 2020 in the last Session of Parliament (Environment Bill: Programme), as varied in that Session by the Orders of 4 May 2020 (Environment Bill: Programme (No. 2)), 22 June 2020 (Environment Bill: Programme (No. 3)), 28 September 2020 (Environment Bill: Programme (No. 4)) and 26 January 2021 (Environment Bill: Programme (No. 5)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after their commencement.
(2) The proceedings—
(a) shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and
(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mrs Wheeler.)
Question agreed to.
Environment Bill
Wednesday 20th October 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 20 October 2021 - (20 Oct 2021)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 28, 40 and 59. If the House agrees to any of these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
Before Clause 1
Purpose and declaration of biodiversity and climate emergency
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 12, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 28, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 31, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 33, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 75, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendments 4 to 11, 13 to 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 64, 69 and 70.
Rebecca Pow
I am delighted to be cracking on with the Environment Bill. It has dominated my whole life as an Environment Minister, but I hope we all agree that it has only got the stronger for it. Make no mistake that this is a landmark piece of legislation that will increase our resource efficiency and biodiversity, drive improvements in air and water quality, and put us on the sustainable trajectory for the future that I believe we all want and need.
Even though the Bill has not been before the House for some time, it has grown, developed and strengthened in that time. My officials have been working tirelessly with all others involved to bring forward a whole range of measures in the Bill. We have already launched five local nature recovery strategy pilots, we have appointed Dame Glenys Stacey as chair-designate of the office for environmental protection, and we have consulted on the extended producer responsibility, the deposit return scheme and consistent recycling collections in England.
The Bill is packed with positive measures, but I am delighted that the Government have improved it even further. [Interruption.] There is lots of agreement from the Opposition Benches—excellent. Lords amendment 4 and its consequential amendments will require the Secretary of State to set a new, historic, legally binding target to halt the decline of species by 2030. That is a bold, vital and world-leading commitment. It forms the core of the Government’s pledge to leave the environment in a better state than we found it.
In the same vein, the Government acknowledge that the climate and biodiversity situation is an emergency. I am very pleased to say that that was referenced by the Prime Minister himself, who pledged to
“meet the global climate emergency”
in his foreword to the net zero strategy, which was published just yesterday. However, addressing those twin challenges requires action rather than declarations, which is why the Government are acting now. We have committed to set a new historic legally binding target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I genuinely thank the Minister for all the incredible work she has done. She talks about the importance of biodiversity. Does she understand that I found it a little frustrating that the Government did not look in a better way and more closely at my amendment, which would have closed the loophole on sites of special scientific interest? Currently, the loophole allows an SSSI to effectively be concreted over, damaging the biodiversity she wishes to protect. Even at this late stage, will the Government look again at that SSSI amendment, please?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Obviously, we take SSSIs extremely seriously under their designations. There is a set pathway for SSSIs and for looking after them, but I think he will agree, if he listens to what I have to say, that the Bill contains some very strong measures on biodiversity, which are much needed and will help us to that trajectory of restoring nature.
I was saying that we have a legally binding target to halt the decline in species abundance. The UK was also the first economy to set a target of net zero emissions by 2050. Our target for the sixth carbon budget is world-leading. The “Net Zero Strategy” published yesterday builds on the 10-point plan, the energy White Paper, the transport decarbonisation plan, the hydrogen strategy, and the heat and building strategy, setting out our ambitious plans across all key sectors of the economy to reach net zero. This is an all-in approach.
Of course, it is not just our domestic approach that counts. Tackling climate change and biodiversity loss is our No. 1 international priority, which is why we are driving forward our COP26 presidency and playing a leading role in developing an ambitious post-2020 global biodiversity framework due to be adopted at the convention on biological diversity COP15. Therefore, putting the declaration in Lords amendment 1 in law, although well-intentioned, is not necessary.
Lords amendment 2 would require the Government to set a legally binding target on soil health. I would like to be clear with the House and the other place that we are currently considering how to develop the appropriate means of measuring soil health, which could be used to inform a future soils target. However, we do not yet have the reliable metrics needed to set a robust target by October next year and to measure its progress. If we accepted the amendment, we could be committing to doing something that we cannot deliver or might not even know if we have delivered. I am sure hon. Members and hon. Friends would agree that that is not a sensible approach.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am a little concerned to hear the Minister say that they are still not ready to go ahead. From my recollection of the past few years, we talked about this issue in the Agriculture Public Bill Committee and when this Bill was in Committee. Has work actually started on this and how long does she think the programme of work will take? Why is it taking so long?
Rebecca Pow
I am pleased that the hon. Member, like me, is deeply passionate about soil. I think I held the first ever debate on soil in Parliament when I was a Back Bencher. It is something that I am personally very keen on. We believe we cannot commit to set the actual target until we have that baseline of robust metrics. We consulted and are working very widely with experts and specialists. Indeed, a range of pilots, tests and trials are running related to soil. Instead, I can provide reassurance that the Government, as announced in the other place on Report, will be bringing forward a soil health action plan for England. It will provide a clear strategic direction to develop a healthy soil indicator, soil structure methodology and a soil health monitoring scheme. All those things are absolutely necessary before we can set the actual target, but there is a huge amount of work going on, on the soil agenda. I am personally pushing that forward, as is the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), with whom I am working very closely on this matter.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I know the Minister is personally committed to the soil agenda—I remember sitting with her on the Environmental Audit Committee—and I am sure she shares my concern about this being hugely delayed. She talks about the action plan, but the draft outline will not even be consulted on until spring next year. What can we do to try to speed that up? It is a massively serious issue, as she knows, yet the signals from the Government are that they are treating it with complacency.
Rebecca Pow
I completely disagree with the hon. Lady, although I am listening to what she is saying. There is no complacency whatever on this. In fact, soil will be one of the top priorities in our new environmental land management and sustainable farming initiative schemes. So it will be prioritised. It is the stuff of life. All farmers and landowners understand that we have to get it right. The soil health action plan will absolutely drive that forward, as have action plans in many other areas, such as peat. We are now bringing that all into being, so I can categorically say that this will happen. I really hope that that gives her some reassurance.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I thank the Minister for presenting the Bill. We really do need to get to this target quickly. We also have the situation whereby the World Health Organisation is reducing the amount of PM2.5 that can be in the atmosphere. Are the Government taking this very seriously—not only the target that we have had all along but the new target that the WHO is setting?
Rebecca Pow
My hon. Friend takes a huge amount of interest in this issue and I know my officials met him very recently to discuss the detail.
Rebecca Pow
I am just going to answer this question.
Yes, the WHO has already lowered what it thinks is the safe limit, which I think demonstrates how complicated the issue is. It would be wrong to set a number on the face of the Bill without being absolutely certain that it was the right one—as my hon. Friend understands. I have spent a great deal of time on this issue with academics and scientists, and I am happy to share with others if that is helpful. We must make sure we get this right before we set the target. To be clear, to achieve even the 10 micrograms per metre squared in our cities would require significant change in all our lives. It would likely introduce policies aimed at restricting traffic kilometres by as much as 50% or more, a total ban on solid fuel burning including wood, and significant changes to farming practices to reduce ammonia, which reacts in the air to form particulate matter.
Mr Sheerman
In the spirit of what we all felt and discussed after the tragedy of last week, I feel passionate about all these issues but I am determined to be good-tempered and pleasant to everyone in the whole of the debate. Along those lines, I have a passionate interest in clean air and have worked in this area for 27 years—I started an organisation called the Westminster Commission for Road Air Quality 27 years ago. The fact of the matter is, however, that this is glacially slow movement. We are poisoning pregnant women, older people and children in every town and city. Why are we not committed to sustainable development goals? Why do we not have a sustainable development community in every town and city? It all seems so glacially slow. I can almost see the spectral vision of Lord Lawson at the back there—that is what really worries me.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and for all his work in this area. In the spirit of being friendly, I have a smile on my face, but I would say that we are not moving slowly. He did not even reference the clean air strategy, which the WHO commended as being a world-leading piece of legislation. That is already bringing in measures across the country. There is also the £3.6 billion in the nitrogen oxide programme. The new air quality Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill)—who is sitting here, has a very big health interest. We are taking this extremely seriously. We need to look at the wider context and the Bill will then set the two targets—not just the average target, but the population exposure target, which is really important.
Geraint Davies
Given that the World Health Organisation had a target of 10 micrograms per cubic metre, which we are asking for in this amendment, and it is now 5 micrograms, does that not show that the only direction is down? Ten micrograms is a minimum standard that we surely need to achieve both to save tens of thousands of lives and to tell the world, through COP26—8.7 million people are dying every year of air pollution—that global Britain means showcasing the fact that we are willing to provide legally binding targets to deliver on public health, care costs, productivity and a cleaner, greener, better world.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We have met many, many times and we share a common interest in this issue. We are not arguing about its importance—[Interruption.] He is encouraging me—I thank him, but I do not need any encouragement actually; we realise how serious this is. The point is that we will be setting the target and we will be showing the world. We will announce that target next October, but we will consult on it before that. It would be wrong to set, for example, a specific number, if, indeed, we found that that number should be lower. I will leave it there.
We have to have a public consultation on this issue and we will do so early next year. Members of the public will want to understand not only the health impacts, but what impacts the measures that will be taken will have on their life. But we will not be sitting around. The consultation will allow us to bring forward the final target in October, and we cannot miss that target.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I understand that the Minister wants a consultation. I see good sense in that if we are to take the public with us, and I understand that she may be concerned about setting targets now. However, in areas such as mine—not inner cities, but suburban constituencies—there is a real issue with particulate pollution. We have a real problem with hotspots. Even if we are having a consultation until October, for heaven’s sake, can we not have a hotspots policy specifically to target areas where particulates are clearly high already? At least if we were doing that, it would be a reassurance to many of my constituents.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but we already have our clean air strategy, as I said, and our local authority fund, which we have recently increased by millions. I urge him to have a look at that fund and I urge his authority to apply. Many authorities are already taking their own measures because they know, for example, where the hotspots are. He makes a very sound point and the exposure target will really help those hotspots, which is why it is so important.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). Further to the point about air pollution and working with the public, is the Minister also aware of the potentially significant business opportunities for vehicle and, indeed, cycle manufacturers in shifting to a low-pollution approach? As the hon. Gentleman said, local authorities are natural partners, but there are also partners in the private sector that could benefit hugely if the Government were able to make a clearer statement and agree at an earlier point with the WHO’s target.
Rebecca Pow
I know that the hon. Gentleman is a keen runner and gets out and about, probably on his bicycle as well, and he makes a very good point. This is why our net zero strategy, our road to decarbonisation for transport and the £2 billion that we have invested in cycling and walkways are so important. All those funds are being incorporated when local authorities apply for their budgets to deal with their hotspots. The clean air zone areas, which we are bringing in across the country, take advantage of exactly the opportunities that he raises.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister is being generous and kind in giving way again. Has she seen the experiment in the cities of Oxford and London, where air quality detectors are on every waste truck? Every week, waste trucks go to every house in every street in the country. If we put those on every waste truck—and it is cheap—we would know the hotspots and the British public would know very quickly what sort of atmosphere their children were growing up in and what air we are breathing. Will she have a serious look at that and, in the process, discuss it with Sir Stephen Holgate, who is such a magnificent expert on all that?
Rebecca Pow
I would suggest a meeting with the new air quality Minister—actually, I meet Sir Stephen Holgate regularly, as he is one of our advisers. We are increasing monitoring across the country for exactly the purposes that the hon. Gentleman mentions: the better the data, the more we know what action we can take.
The targets that we are working on are being carefully approached with experts such as Sir Stephen Holgate, as well as others from Imperial College London and the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology. We have two expert panels: the air quality expert group, chaired by Professor Alastair Lewis, and the committee on the medical effects of air pollutants, chaired by Anna Hansell of the University of Leicester. That will ensure that we get the targets right and that they are informed by the latest atmospheric science and health evidence. We will, of course, share those findings with the World Health Organisation.
Rebecca Pow
I am going to plough on for a bit, because I think I have been pretty generous so far. The two targets that we will set—a concentration target and a population exposure reduction target—will work together to both reduce PM2.5 in areas with the highest levels and drive the continuous improvement that we need. A focus on reducing population exposure, not just a concentration-based target, recognises that there is no safe level of PM2.5, and a scientific approach is absolutely the right way to go. We recognise that this will not be easy and that we need to engage with society to bring it along with us.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Minister is a doughty champion on this issue so I rise with some degree of trepidation. May I ask her one question? The data is all going in one direction. Do the Government have the power, if they see something so pressing, not to have to engage with consultation, so they can just say, “On the face of this, it is absolutely clear that the time for action is now. We don’t have to consult—just get on and do it”? Is that within her arsenal?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, but I think we would have as many critics for not consulting as we did for consulting, so that is the right way to go because there are always other views. I think we have agreed how important it is by saying that we have to set a target. Not only are we setting one target, but we have agreed to set two, and there can be all sorts of other targets within that.
Simon Hoare
I was not criticising the decision that the Minister has taken to consult on this issue. I merely inquire, in a spirit of curiosity, whether she as the Minister or the Secretary of State have the power—to use at some point—to set aside any requirement for consultation and just to act? Theoretically, is that power there?
Rebecca Pow
I imagine my hon. Friend knows the answer to that.
Rebecca Pow
The method we choose is to consult and to take expert advice in everything we do, particularly in a Department such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is rooted in science. I will move on now, and I hope that I have made it very clear throughout all this discussion about air quality that, for the reasons I have laid out, we cannot support this amendment.
To turn to amendment 12, I would like to reiterate much of what Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park said in the other place. Our world-leading targets framework will drive action by successive Governments to protect and enhance our natural world. Introducing legally binding interim targets, as the amendment proposes, would be both unnecessary and detrimental to our targets framework and our environmental ambitions. The amendment would undermine the long-term nature of the targets framework: it would force us to meet legally binding targets every five years on complex environmental systems.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
We are so delighted to see my hon. Friend in this role, taking the Bill through, but why does she think that there is a temptation for Parliament to legislate for targets, which the Government seem to find very unhelpful? Will she reflect on the fact that the public at large are getting very little hard data or measured metrics about how we are doing onr4321a achieving all these goals? Perhaps the answer is not to legislate for more targets, but for the Government to acknowledge that they need to do much better at accumulating data and presenting it to the public, so that the public are engaged and have more confidence in what the Government are doing.
Rebecca Pow
Data is key, and science is key. As I mentioned—and I was slightly disparaged—that is why we want to do the soil health monitoring: to gather the data. When I talk later about storm sewage overflows, the House will hear that our approach is very much about getting the data. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the more we can explain things to the public, the better. Personally, I do not think that we do that enough. Perhaps the press could help us.
We were talking about interim targets. Certain habitats take a very long time to change or recover, such as peat bogs, native woodlands and the marine environment. Five years would potentially be too short to get a result. This should not be just a tick-box exercise towards a five-yearly target. The Bill’s very robust statutory cycle of monitoring, annual reporting and five-yearly reviews, combined with regular scrutiny from the office for environmental protection, will ensure that we meet the interim targets set in the environmental improvement plans.
Hon. Members who were on the Bill Committee will be well aware of the whole process of reporting, monitoring and feeding back, which is constant. It comes under scrutiny as well, so even though an interim target is not legally binding, we will still be held to account for meeting it and heading towards it. If it is not right or if we are not making enough progress, the OEP will certainly have something to say about it, and indeed so will Parliament when we come to report on it. I recognise the concerns raised by peers, but it is our view that the changes made in the other place would lead to a detrimental impact on the enhancement of the environment and should be reversed.
I turn to Lords amendment 28, which I have been informed by the parliamentary authorities invokes financial privilege, but on which I still wish to reiterate the Government’s position. The Bill embeds environmental principles that will guide future policy making to protect the environment. The Government firmly maintain that exempting some limited areas from the duty to have regard provides flexibility in relation to finances, defence and national security.
First, the exemption for the armed forces, defence and national security remains essential to provide vital flexibility to preserve the nation’s protection and security. Defence land and defence policy are fundamentally linked. If the duty were applied to defence policy or Ministry of Defence land, it could result in legal challenges that could slow our ability to respond to urgent threats.
Secondly, applying the duty to taxation would constrain Treasury Ministers’ ability to alter our financial position to respond to the changing needs of our public finances. The Treasury’s world-leading Green Book already mandates the consideration of environmental impacts, climate change and natural capital in spending. That applies to spending bids from Departments, including for a fiscal event.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am very conscious that a lot of Members want to speak and that the debate has to finish at 4.36 pm, so I think we need to bear that in mind.
Caroline Lucas
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is only my second intervention, and it will be my last for the moment.
On environmental principles, may I ask the Minister about the consultation on the policy statement? As I understand it, the Government’s response to it is still delayed. Can she tell us when we can expect to see it and why it has been delayed for so long?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for that question. In true Government-speak, I will say “shortly” and move on.
I make it clear that the exemption for
“spending or the allocation of resources”
refers to central spending decisions only. Individual policies that involve spending by Departments will still need to have due regard to the policy statement. Spending review and fiscal event decisions must be taken with consideration to a wide range of policy priorities, including macroeconomic issues that are too remote from the environmental principles for those principles to be directly applicable. For example, principles such as “polluter pays” cannot be applied to the allocation of overall departmental budgets.
I turn to the office for environmental protection. Lords amendments 31 and 75 would remove, respectively, the power for the Secretary of State to offer guidance to the OEP and the equivalent power for Ministers in Northern Ireland. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to establishing the OEP as an independent body. However, as the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible to Parliament for the OEP, the guidance power is required to ensure that there is appropriate accountability and that the OEP continues to operate effectively.
I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised about the power for the Secretary of State to issue guidance for the OEP. Our Government amendment (b) will therefore reintroduce the additional provision, first added in the other place, to ensure that Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly can scrutinise draft guidance before it is issued. The Secretary of State must respond before final guidance can be laid and have effect. The guidance power is not a power of direction; it will simply ensure that there is appropriate accountability and that the OEP continues to operate effectively. That is why the Government believe that it should remain part of the Bill.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What would happen if the Northern Ireland Assembly said that it did not agree with the legislation proposed here? Would Westminster overrule it?
Rebecca Pow
Northern Ireland is included in this, but it has to decide whether it wants to commence the powers. It is up to it to do so.
Lords amendment 33 relates to the OEP’s enforcement powers—a complex issue, but an important one. I want to be clear with the House about what the amendment would do: it would remove protections for third parties brought into the OEP’s process of environmental review that have been specifically designed in recognition of the unique nature of this type of legal challenge. That is unacceptable. The OEP will be able to bring cases to court, potentially long after the decisions in question have been taken and outside the standard judicial review limits. Impacts on third parties must therefore be considered.
To give an example, quashing planning permission or consent for a block of flats many months or years after the decision was taken, when significant building works might already have commenced, would result in substantial hardship. We need to ensure that the key principles of fairness and certainty are upheld for third parties who have acted in good faith on the basis of certain decisions. The amendment would offer no such protections for third parties, so we cannot accept it.
I will conclude by briefly mentioning other Government amendments made in the Lords in relation to devolution, which I hope this House will support. Those amendments will, among other things, promote co-operation between the OEP and devolved environmental governance bodies and create clarity and consistency on the use of the environmental principles across the Union.
I am pleased to be backing the Environment Bill
Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measure:
Health and Social Care Levy Act 2021
Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Act 2021
Safeguarding (Code of Practice) Measure 2021.
Environment Bill
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:32 - The House divided: - Ayes: 307 / Noes: 185 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:46 - The House divided: - Ayes: 305 / Noes: 179 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 185 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 307 / Noes: 180 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:05 - The House divided: - Ayes: 297 / Noes: 182 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:18 - The House divided: - Ayes: 268 / Noes: 204 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 174 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 290 / Noes: 179 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the shadow Minister, let me reiterate that this debate must finish at 4.36 pm. There are a number of speakers, and I urge brevity so that we can get everyone in. I cannot impose a time limit, because we are debating Lords amendments, so it will be up to all Members to help each other out if they want to speak.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I want to start by marking the wicked and senseless murder of Sir David Amess. I was not able to speak in the tributes on Monday, but I do want to place on record my sorrow and send my prayers and thoughts to Sir David’s family, to his staff in the House and in Southend, and to his constituents. I also want to extend condolences to the family, staff and constituents of the late James Brokenshire, whose passing was untimely and very sad indeed. Both colleagues will be much missed throughout the House.
On a happier note, I want to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), to her position as Minister for Air, but, sadly, she seems to have disappeared into thin air! That is a bit of a worry.
Here we are, back in the House and back discussing the Environment Bill, 629 days after it received its First Reading. I am grateful to the Lords for their careful consideration of the Bill, and for succeeding where this House was unable to do so and making it fit for purpose. As we approach COP26 in Glasgow, a Bill fit for purpose has never been more needed. The world is watching, and the world is waiting for leadership from the British Government. The Bill could and should be stronger, it could have passed through the House much sooner, and it had the scope for real cross-party involvement; but alas, thanks to this Secretary of State and this Prime Minister, it was not to be.
Lords amendment 3, tabled by my noble friend Baroness Hayman, is about tackling toxic air, and it is so, so important. I am grateful to her for taking up the baton of Labour’s focus on cleaning our air and our lungs. Nearly 60% of people in England now live in areas where levels of toxic air pollution exceeded legal limits in 2019-20. We cannot go on as we are; we require real leadership, which is why Labour will be supporting Lords amendment 3 and voting to ensure that it remains in the Bill.
This Conservative Government’s approach to air quality has been ruled unlawful multiple times. Following Labour’s best efforts to amend the Bill in this place, the Lords succeeded in writing into it enforceable targets to bring air pollution below the harmful levels set by the World Health Organisation. The time for hot air from the Government Benches is over, and I encourage all colleagues—I am thinking particularly of the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish)—to realise that now is the time to adopt a proper and comprehensive approach to cleaning our air in this Bill. Please come and join us, and let us get this done.
In raising the important topic of air quality, I want to pay warm tribute to Rosamund Kissi-Debrah for all her campaigning work in the wake of the avoidable, tragic and devastating death of her daughter Ella. I read the letter that Rosamund wrote to the Prime Minister today, and I agree with every single word that she said.
Matt Rodda
I had the pleasure of meeting Rosamund, and I can only say that my heart goes out to the family and that it is the most awful situation.
My hon. Friend is making excellent points about the importance of air quality and the need for a much tougher approach from the Government, and I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will listen. Does my hon. Friend agree that a dramatic improvement in the Government’s approach to water quality is also important? There is a serious problem with sewage being swept into our rivers, notably in my area in Berkshire, which is downstream from a number of effluent works.
Ruth Jones
I do agree, and I am sure that that topic will be dealt with by my fellow shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), very appropriately when we debate the next group of amendments.
I want to share some of Rosamund’s letter to the Prime Minister, from which I quote:
“Ella was hospitalised 28 times in 28 months and admitted to ICU five times, fighting back from the brink of death. Her condition meant her lungs frequently filled with mucus, which made her feel as if she was constantly suffocating.”
I was disappointed to hear the Minister say today that she is delaying the consultation about air quality until next October, because that means that an additional 36,000 to 40,000 people in the UK could die prematurely every year owing to exposure to air pollution. Among them are between 22 and 24 children and young people who die from asthma every year, eight to 12 of whom live in London. The UK has one of the highest death rates from asthma in Europe, whereas in Finland, a country with better air quality, not a single child dies of asthma in a year.
As Rosamund goes on to say, the Environment Bill is our once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that children born now—including our own children—can grow up breathing safe, healthy air. Those are powerful words from a mother determined to ensure that no other parent experiences the loss of a child and no other child loses its life because the Government refused to act. Labour will not stop in the fight for cleaner air, and if this Tory Government will not act, Labour will. Let me make clear again that we will deliver a stand-alone clean air Act when we win the next general election.
As we have heard, this Bill creates the Office for Environmental Protection, but fails to give it the powers that it needs. A strong, effective and trusted OEP is, in the words of my noble friend Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, essential to underpin all the other measures contained in the Bill. As the OEP will be scrutinising and holding Ministers to account in respect of their compliance with environmental laws, rules and regulations, it is vital for the OEP to be strong and independent, and to engage properly with all devolved nations in our United Kingdom.
It is also beyond comprehension that since the Bill worked its way through both Houses, Ministers have actually weakened their own proposals for this new office. If that approach continues, the OEP will become a lapdog rather than a watchdog, and this will be simply another missed opportunity for the Secretary of State. It is because of that missed opportunity that Lords amendment 31 in the name of Lord Krebs, Lords amendment 33 in the name of Lord Anderson, and Lords amendment 75 in the name of our former colleague from South Down, my noble Friend Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick, are so important. They strengthen the powers, reach and scope of the OEP, and they have our full support.
I thank Lord Teverson for Lords amendment 1, which requires the Government to declare a biodiversity and climate emergency. How can anyone disagree with that? I also thank Baroness Bennett for Lords amendment 2, which seeks to ensure that soil health and quality remains a priority area for environmental improvement; and, of course, I welcome Lords amendment 28 from Baroness Parminter. This amendment removes the exceptions in the Bill for policy making on defence and security, tax, spending and resource allocation from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles. If the Bill is going to mean anything and if Ministers are serious about tackling the climate emergency, they will support those amendments today.
Lords amendment 12, in the name of Baroness Brown of Cambridge, is an important component of the fight to make this Bill fit for purpose. It seeks, very simply, to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to meet any interim targets that he or she sets. It is obvious why targets are required, and it is obvious why we need to be able to track our progress, monitor our focus and honour our promises. The amendment received cross-party support in the other place, and I hope that it will do so in the House today.
At every stage of this Bill, Labour has proposed fair, balanced and objective amendments that seek to make the Bill fit for purpose and, moreover, actually help us tackle the climate emergency and set out a real place to protect our environment and preserve our planet. I have said to the House before that we do not have time to waste: the climate crisis worsens each day, and real action is necessary. But that requires a strong Bill, not a half-hearted attempt that does not recognise, or match, the seriousness of the challenge in front of us.
Disappointingly for many in the sector and for the future of our planet, nothing in the Bill will stop the UK falling behind the EU on the environment and environmental standards. Over the past year, as well as dealing with the coronavirus pandemic we have seen fires raging across Australia, the US and the Amazon, at the same time as glaciers are melting away in the Arctic and Antarctic. We are seeing increasingly erratic and life-threatening weather patterns in our cities and rural areas alike.
This Bill needs energy and dynamism, and the amendments before the House today make a bad Bill better. I hope that Ministers will simply and finally do the right thing. They should accept these fair and balanced amendments from their lordships’ House, and I urge them to work with Labour to deliver a real plan to protect our environment and preserve our planet.
Neil Parish
It is a pleasure to speak to Lords amendment 1 and to this first group of amendments. I very much agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on David Amess and James Brokenshire. They were great colleagues in the House and we miss them very much. I send my condolences to their families.
I wanted to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), but I cannot do so at the moment because she is not here. She will be a great asset to the environmental team. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) does a great job, but I am sure that some help will be needed with this huge subject and I look forward to my hon. Friend helping her with it.
I welcome the progress of the Bill, and I appreciate the fact that the Government have been open and willing to engage on some of the issues raised. I have no doubt that the amendments put forward by the other place have shaped the Government’s thinking and will make the Bill stronger. The Government might not support the Lords’ amendments, but I urge them to take notice of them as the Bill is finally brought to fruition.
On another positive note, I commend the Government for setting up the interim Office for Environmental Protection. I also welcome the appointment of Dame Glenys Stacey as its chair, because I believe that she will do a very good job. I hope that the OEP will be able to improve the environment by ensuring that some cases can be settled before they even get to court. That will be a really strong role for the OEP. I also want to ensure that the independence of the chair and the OEP is maintained. I have confidence in the present Secretary of State, but we need to ensure that those offices are independent for all time. Soil health, including organic matter and soil erosion, are also important issues for the way forward, and we need to ensure that we get them absolutely right.
Lords amendment 3 would set out a stringent target for cutting PM2.5 and I completely agree with the intention behind the amendment. I want us to commit to matching the World Health Organisation limits by 2030, and as I said in a question to the Minister, the WHO is reducing those levels. However, the Bill as it stands includes a legally binding duty on the Government to set an air quality target by this time next year, October 2022. We have had a lot of consultation on this, and I urge the Minister and the Government to get on with it. I look forward to their setting that target, and if they do not have to wait until October 2022, please will they not do so?
I would welcome some detail from the Minister on the timetable for the public consultation next year. When will it be launched, how long will it run and when will the results be published? This really is a pressing issue, so we cannot let that target date slip further. I would also be grateful to know whom the Government plans to consult on the targets. How will they engage with non-governmental organisations, businesses and the wider public? Will the consultation include the option to express support for matching WHO guidelines on PM2.5? Current UK limits are 25 micrograms per cubic metre. The WHO’s recommended limit is 10, and that was set in 2005. It has spent the last five years reviewing its guidelines and it has just updated them. This new limit is half its current limit, at 5 micrograms, which is five times lower than our current UK limit. I hope that the Government will consider any new WHO guidelines that have come out by the time of the consultation next year. I do not want to see us consulting on matching a target that the WHO set in 2005 and that is no longer relevant.
The WHO also confirmed last year that the guidelines should be the minimum goal. I would like that number to be as low as possible. These particulates are among the most dangerous pollutants. They are small enough to pass through the lungs into the bloodstream and into our organs, so ideally the legal limit should be zero, because there is no safe level of PM2.5. I know that this would be almost impossible, but bringing that number as low as possible would still mean saving thousands of lives. As we drive to achieve much lower carbon emissions in this country and across the world, we must remember that air quality affects our day-to-day lives. It affects people’s health every day and is potentially killing people as we speak.
We have to ensure that this is one of our great priorities. It is so important, because poor air quality is directly affecting people’s health and lifespan in some hotspots in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) made the point that we need to concentrate on those hotspots by working with local authorities across the piece to deliver better air quality. When our Joint Committee comprising four Committees of this House looked into air quality, we saw that it was not just DEFRA, Transport and Local Government but virtually every part of Government that would help to deliver better air quality.
Sir Robert Neill
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does he agree that constituencies such as mine would be more reassured if the Government were to set up some sort of taskforce to pull together these various agencies? Funding is available to local authorities, but there is a lack of strategic focus to enable everything to be pulled together. That is something sensible that we could do to reassure people that the can is not simply being kicked down the road until next October or beyond.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about a taskforce. Whether it is a taskforce or an individual, somebody needs to pull all this together to make sure that it actually happens. That is absolutely key as we move forward.
Neil Parish
The hon. Gentleman has made many interventions, but I will allow him one more.
Mr Sheerman
This is a very quick one. The hon. Gentleman and I share this passion, and he knows that a number of our towns are trying to make themselves sustainable under the United Nations sustainable development goals. Many councils now have a climate change emergency resolution and climate change commissions, but they do not quite know what to do. Does he agree that, given that we have all these groups in these towns and cities, we should go for 500 towns and cities in this country, such as Huddersfield, that are committed to becoming truly sustainable under the UN sustainable development goals?
Neil Parish
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that short intervention! We have taken evidence from the Mayor of Bristol. He talked about air quality, and he told us that the M32 comes right into the centre of Bristol, but the trouble is that the Mayor has little control over what happens on that motorway. That is why I very much agree with joining up what the Government and local authorities are doing across the country. We can do more, and there needs to be more urgency about it.
We must remember nine-year-old Ella, whose death was caused by exposure to air pollution. Her primary source of exposure was traffic emissions. We cannot have our children growing up in a world in which the air they breathe could potentially kill them.
On that note I stress that, although a broad reduction target could help drive improvements across the country, we also need strong limits on concentrations in particular hotspots. We need action on that quickly, as it would ensure that everyone benefits from a minimum level of protection. Without such action, people living in pollution hotspots could be left behind and existing health inequalities could be widened, so this is something we need to address.
The US and the EU are considering tightening their own limits. If we want to be world leading, we need an ambitious target and we need it quickly. However, I know this is a complex issue and the solution cannot be delivered overnight. It is one thing to set a target, but it is another thing to meet and deliver that target. Reducing overall air pollution needs a dramatic reduction in emissions from transport, homes and farming. I have no doubt that it will be difficult to do and that a proper, well-thought-out strategy is needed, but I know the Government are not afraid of setting ambitious targets.
Setting an ambitious air pollution target can also help to drive action to meet the Government’s commitment to net zero by 2050. Pollution from road transport, as well as from domestic and industrial burning, is also a cause of greenhouse gas emissions. We have an opportunity to tackle both climate change and air pollution at the same time, and we can help the planet and protect people’s health. I support a binding commitment to publishing a target after a full consultation, but I make it clear that this is an urgent issue and I will continue to hold the Government to account. October 2022 must be the absolute last point at which we set a proper target on reducing PM2.5 in law.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I rise principally to speak to Lords amendment 29, but first I would like to associate myself with the shadow Minister’s remarks about James Brokenshire and Sir David Amess. I always very much enjoyed their contributions in the House, which I am certain we will all miss. I also add my deepest condolences to the family, friends and staff of those two much-loved and missed Members of this House.
The urgent drumbeats accompanying the global crisis that faces us have become near deafening. We all pin our hopes on COP26 and the possibility, even now, of real commitments and agreements on the dramatic actions that we all, as politicians and as people, have to face up to, but increasingly the mood music is not as positive as we would all like to see. Sadly I hae ma doots, as they say.
Consequently, although I will mainly be speaking to Lords amendment 29, I must highlight once again my disappointment at the sheer length of time this Bill has taken to get near the statute book. It is pretty shameful that it likely will not receive Royal Assent before COP26, the largest and most important conference of its kind in the world, and the largest and most important conference that the UK has ever hosted. There are still too many areas in which the Government continue to drag their heels. Here we are, scrambling to get this Bill through Parliament a few days before hosting the most important climate conference to date. What a way to show the rest of the world that the UK Government have their priorities in order.
I am disappointed that the Government continue to consider that the Ministry of Defence and the activities of the armed forces, of national security and of tax and spending are exempt from proper scrutiny, particularly when so much of our land and sea are affected by those activities. My own research, for example, found a pretty shameful safety record on the nuclear sites located in Scotland. That could well have impacted on the local environment, but it will clearly continue to be difficult to measure how effective the MOD is with regard to its environmental responsibilities.
I am also disappointed that England has not yet followed Scotland’s lead on a deposit return scheme and is so far behind on implementing one. Litter knows no borders, particularly on our shared coastline, as we know. This really matters.
The Government have taken a very relaxed attitude to the extensive number of munitions dumps scattered around our shores, which apparently do not need to be regularly checked. I point hon. Members to the decades it took to get the MOD to accept responsibility for the clean up of radioactive particles from the beach at Dalgety Bay in Fife for a further understanding of why we in Scotland do not think those exemptions should continue. As I understand it, exemptions were not part of the Climate Change Act 2008, so why are they part of this legislation?
I have made those points before, so I will leave it there. As I have said many times, this Bill is principally concerned with English environmental issues. I am heartened by many of the amendments made in the other place, many of which we already observe in Scotland, including Lords amendment 3 requiring air quality measurements to be in accordance with WHO guidance. Although this Bill is properly a matter for English MPs to decide, I wish Opposition Members well in their efforts to retain many of the Lords amendments within this legislation.
Although those few aspects of the Bill that affect Scotland had previously received legislative consent from the Scottish Government, we now see that the UK Government have inserted Lords amendment 29 into the Bill without seeking consent from the Scottish Government. They were not even consulted on that change. Despite the grave concerns and objections expressed from Scotland since then about this move, the UK Government have clearly simply doubled down on pushing it through. So this Bill, like many post-Brexit Bills, which at first sight might appear to be centred on English-only areas, must be partly looked at through the lens of devolution.
In this Lords amendment, we see the UK Government simply not being able to help themselves. Instead of Ministers doing their jobs, focusing on the climate crisis and getting this Bill through in an appropriately urgent fashion, they have taken time out to undermine the powers of the Scottish Parliament. The UK Government could have simply included Scottish Ministers in decision making, but we are forced to go through this rigmarole instead, because, it appears, of nothing more than petty point scoring.
Surely effective environmental policy requires all of us to be working cohesively across these isles, which is why clear and consistent underlying principles are so important. They guide the actions of law makers and let the public know where we are going. The Scottish Government’s environmental guiding principles in the continuity Act, passed last year, underpin the environmental actions of the Scottish Government in a UK outside the EU. They are also meant to apply to UK Ministers in their reserve strategy. Lords amendment 29 contradicts the continuity Act by disapplying Scottish environmental principles and, yet again, undermining devolution. I have to say I cannot help but view the interference from this place in a devolved area, inserting an amendment to alter an Act already agreed to by the Scottish Parliament, as a hostile action. Reaching legislative fingers into legislation already passed by the Scottish Parliament, agreed to by the Scottish Labour party at the time, among others in that Parliament, and retrospectively altering that intention seems a deliberate, provocative and aggressive act. It clearly negates a decision made by our Scottish Parliament in a devolved area that should apply in all circumstances where actions impact on Scotland, whether they relate to a reserved area or not. I will be pressing Lords amendment 29 to a vote, and I hope others can support us against this infringement on devolved powers. I call on the UK Government to do all they can to deliver this Environment Bill in a way that is fit for purpose while also respecting devolution and the democratically elected Government in Scotland. It really is not as difficult as they imagine.
If this UK Government’s post-Brexit leadership hints at what is to come, I do not feel positive about environmental protections. I cannot put it better than the Institute for Public Policy Research report, which called the UK Government’s commitments to environmental standards “considerably weaker than expected”. The EU is one of the world’s leading bodies in the fight against climate change and our departure from it leaves us open to backsliding on environmental policy. As a member of the EU, the UK Government were being held to account and forced to match the EU’s high standards. Brexit threatens that. This Bill, unlike the Scottish Government’s EU continuity Act, does not include a non-regression clause.
The Bill states:
“The Secretary of State must report on developments in international environmental protection legislation which appear to the Secretary of State to be significant.”
That is not good enough. The climate crisis is too critical an issue for us to rely on the whims of one parliamentarian alone and keep our fingers crossed that they do the right thing. One Minister’s idea of a significant development may well not be another’s. It is also worth reminding ourselves that if the UK Government fail to match EU environmental standards and this affects trade or investment, the EU would legally be well within its rights to introduce proportionate measures, including tariffs, in response. The UK Government claim that they do not need to formally maintain EU rules because they will going even bigger and better, but can they be trusted to maintain EU standards now that no one is looking over their shoulder? When I was reading through the record of the debates in the other place, I was struck by what seemed a pretty obvious mistrust of Government assurances that extensive parliamentary scrutiny in itself would be sufficient to address the clear misgivings on the Government’s intentions in regard to this Bill. We all have bitter experience of the promises made by this Government about, for example, the scrutiny of trade deals, with the promised permanent Trade and Agriculture Commission still to be formed, despite trade deals apparently being under discussion around the world. It was therefore interesting to note the suspicion expressed by their lords and ladyships, which led them to vote on and agree the large number of amendments we are considering.
Scotland has the strongest climate targets in the UK and we lead the way in tree planting, the decarbonisation of public transport and, as I mentioned, matching WHO standards on air pollution. Environmental policy is all-encompassing and must be a chief consideration when we make energy, transport, investment and planning policies. It cannot be treated as an afterthought, with us working out merely how to implement the bare minimum of standards. The Scottish Government lead the way in environmental action in the UK and are truly committed to fighting climate change and environmental damage. I urge the House to consider this matter and vote for the removal of Lords amendment 29 from the Bill.
Sir Robert Neill
I am sure that all of us who were friends of David Amess and James Brokenshire appreciate what has been said today from the Opposition Benches.
I wish to concentrate, briefly, on Lords amendment 3. I very much agree with the speech by the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and I am grateful for what he said. I appreciate the intentions of the Minister and the Government, but I must confess that I have a nagging concern about the removal of an amendment without putting something firmer, by way of action, in its place.
Let me explain my reasons. First, I can see that if we are to have a target, it must be achievable, and I can well believe that for targets as ambitious as those in the amendment to be achievable we must take the public with us, which implies not just consultation but a much greater degree of transparency on the data, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) indicated, along with an honest conversation with the public about the sort of choices and changes that may be involved. I fear that if we do not do that, we will not take the public with us in the way that we ought to. The sooner that process starts, the better—frankly, it should be starting now.
Some of us are aware of the scientific data and modelling on these matters, and that presents important issues with which we must grapple, but it is not good enough that we know; we also have to be frank with the British public about what is involved. I hope that Ministers will use the time available to do that in a—I am tempted to say aggressive—vigorous and focused fashion. We should not just have a nice conversation about it but get it out there and make sure that all the available means of making the public aware are used to the full.
Secondly, I accept that for legal obligations to be any use, they ought to be realistically enforceable. I can see some difficulties with what might be achieved and why the Government might have some qualms about writing some of the specifics into the Bill, but it is already a long time since the coroner’s report on the tragic case of Ella Kissi-Debrah, or Ella’s case, as it is often known. That case happened not a million miles away from my constituency. The south London coroner who heard that inquest deals with inquests in my constituency as well. It happened in the neighbouring borough. My constituents use the South Circular Road, which the coroner found—I have no reason to dispute the finding—was the key cause of the pollution that caused Ella’s death. Indeed, it is almost within a stone’s throw of some parts of my constituency, so the issues are absolutely real for us as well. I can think of schools in my constituency, such as Valley Primary School in Bromley, that are right by a heavily-trafficked road, so I can understand the concerns of the parents there just as much as the parents in Lewisham and elsewhere.
A hotspots policy is important, then. Of course, the Minister is right that local authorities have the means to implement policies, and the London Borough of Bromley has done so—it has brought in local policies in both Bromley town and the Shortlands area—but there are issues. The level of pollution in urban areas such as Greater London, which after all runs across and does not acknowledge borough boundaries—never mind London borough and country boundaries—requires more funding and certainly more targeted funding. I come back to the point that I made in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton. We need to have, if not a taskforce, a mechanism to pull together and drive greater co-ordination and focus of the various agencies and pots of funding that are currently available. If I had a sense that that was going to be tackled without waiting till October—if that was going to be put in place while we do the consultation—I would be happier about removing the amendment, which is not perfect in itself, but does at least have the benefit of holding Ministers’ feet to the fire. It is what Ministers do when this goes back to the other place that matters—what assurances we can be given that we will tackle this as a matter of urgency.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I join colleagues in sending our love, prayers and thoughts to the families of David Amess and James Brokenshire on their terrible loss.
I want briefly to talk about the office for environmental protection and say why I hope the House will support Lords amendment 31. The OEP is the answer to the question. It is at the heart of the Bill. Having left the European Union, everyone asked themselves, “Who is going to oversee the enforcement of environmental law?” and the Government have come up with the OEP, which we all support. On many occasions, in answer to the question, “Who will ensure that these targets are met?”—for example, that on halting species’ decline—the reply from Ministers has been, “The office for environmental protection”.
Ministers have repeatedly said, as the Minister has again today, that they support the independence of the OEP, including in enforcement, yet they want the power to issue guidance to it about the way in which it enforces its responsibilities. I simply say that the great still unanswered question in this particular debate about the Bill is; why do the Government want this power?
When Lord Goldsmith was debating this in the other place, he said that
“a guidance power is necessary to help ensure that the OEP continues to carry out its functions as intended.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 September 2021; Vol. 814, c. 880.]
That sentence is laden with meaning. We could say that it contains a touch of gentle warning. We could argue that it suggests that the Government are not wholly confident that the OEP will go about its work in the way that Ministers intended, because they want to be able to issue guidance about the way in which it does its job. I simply say that, having looked at the debates in the Lords and heard what the Minister had to say today, I still have not heard an answer as to why this guidance power is required. In practice, could the OEP ignore such guidance? We do not actually know what the guidance would contain, and I am not aware that Ministers have given a single example of what they would try to say in such guidance.
Other public bodies have very important functions. For example, as far as I am aware, the Equality and Human Rights Commission is not subject to similar guidance from Ministers about the way in which it carries out its work. Ministers have said that it is not about direction, but it is about accountability. Could someone explain to me exactly what the difference is between the two things? I am not sure that I see a difference and nor did the Lords in the other place. That is why I think we should stick with what is contained in Lords amendment 31.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt this debate, but colleagues may or may not be aware that, this week of all weeks, there is now a demonstration in Parliament Square involving Piers Corbyn. The people there have erected a gallows—gallows to be used against Members of Parliament. I would suggest that at the very least it is not only crass and unthinking, but that it must also be a breach of public order. I simply rise to ask whether there is anything that can be done about it.
Hilary Benn
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very glad that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) has raised this matter, because I saw that set of gallows as I was coming into the House today and I spoke to the police outside the gates. I said, “I don’t know who the protestors are; I couldn’t see. If they are protesting against capital punishment in other countries, good luck to them, but if they have put that gallows and that noose there, directed at us, especially given the events of the last week, it is not only crass—that is a very gentle description of what they have done—but scandalous.” The police officer to whom I spoke said, “Well, we could go over and have a word with them.” It is not acceptable, because it is a threat. We should be able to carry out our job without being threatened by people out in Parliament Square. I hope that the House authorities might be able to follow up the point, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for their points of order, and completely understand the concerns that have been expressed. I also understand that the authorities have been informed by the Speaker’s Office about the situation. Mr Speaker has also informed me that there may be a statement later if necessary and that these issues would be covered in it. I suggest that we leave it at that. Thank you.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I associate myself with the points of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). May I also briefly pay tribute to Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire for all their many decades of combined public service? I think it is fair to say that in both cases, it was always service with a smile.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central. I rise to speak to Lords amendment 3, as did the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). A number of my constituents have understandably raised this amendment with me, given the terrible experience that we are still having in Newcastle-under-Lyme with the emissions from Walley’s Quarry. It is clear from the experience of my constituents, particularly those nearest to the quarry in Silverdale, Knutton and Poolfields, that poorer air quality has a profound effect on the physical and mental health of a community. The predominant concern with landfill gas is obviously hydrogen sulphide, but there is also methane, sulphur dioxide and particulate matter, which is the source of the amendment.
I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow)—the previous waste Minister—for her engagement on this issue throughout. I also thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), for her engagement and for coming to Newcastle-under-Lyme. This is not a party political matter and it has not been treated as such in the community; it is a matter of justice for the residents who are suffering so terribly. I welcome the new waste Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), to her place, and thank her for her promised visit to Newcastle-under-Lyme, which I am sure will be arranged shortly through her diary.
Lords amendment 3 would require the PM2.5 air quality target to be less than 10 micrograms per cubic metre before 1 January 2030 and to,
“so far as practicable, follow World Health Organization guidelines”.
I firmly believe that we must improve air quality in all its senses as soon as possible, but I thank the Department for its engagement on the issue. Like the Chair of the Select Committee, I accept the Government’s view on the amendment—that is, that rushing to put targets in Bills in unwise and consultation is needed. I think that consultation is needed for two reasons. First, any target needs to be fully evidenced and deliverable, because, as we have already seen experienced elsewhere, there is not much point putting targets into law that we do not think can be delivered. Secondly, the target has to be widely accepted by the public and business. We have to take our constituents with us on all elements of this agenda. We saw yesterday with the heat and buildings strategy that a number of people are not that willing to make the sacrifices that might need to be made. That is why the Government have to take into account the sacrifices and changes that we are going to ask people to make if we are to make our lives greener and better.
As DEFRA’s own report after a workshop on modelling PM2.5 concentrations says, there is quite a lot of difficulty in accurately modelling where we are going to be five or 10 years from now on a range of different policy scenarios in relation to emissions reductions. It is clear that the vast majority of the country will be well below the 10 microgram per cubic metre limit, but the report also identifies that primary emissions of fine particulate matters in urban areas such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) will remain an important factor. There is considerable uncertainty on the future trajectory, but it might mean removing up to half of all cars from roads, including electric vehicles, as well as potentially a ban on solid fuel burning. This may be what some Opposition Members think is necessary, but it would be a very significant change to our way of life. It would necessitate action from all parts of society—individuals, businesses and public bodies—to manage that transition. It is not something that should be taken lightly and without due consideration. We have to take our constituents with us on these things, rather than putting impressive-sounding but unachievable targets into law.
All that said, I do welcome the Government’s commitment, as the Minister said, to a swift and thorough consultation on these matters. I hope that as part of the target-setting process she promised will take place in the coming months, sufficient consideration will be given not only to health in the literal sense but to mental health and a wider sense of wellbeing in terms of air quality. The experience we have had in Newcastle-under-Lyme is not just that there has been an effect on people’s physical health, particularly on those with pre-existing conditions, but that living with the odour has definitely impacted my residents’ mental health, and again it has been worse for those with pre-existing conditions.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I was going to speak on the targets issue but in the face of the time available I am not. On the question of air quality, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Without wanting to over-egg it, there is an issue about the lack of monitoring equipment. In my own authority, it turns out that the air quality monitoring equipment in certain areas has not been functioning properly for the past three years; it has been giving out false readings. It is really important that we have quality data that people can have confidence in so that we can take them with us that air quality is actually improving. Perhaps, through him, the Minister can take that on board.
Aaron Bell
I thank my hon. Friend. I could not agree more about data. I used to work in data before I was in this place. My experience with landfill was that once we got the monitoring stations around there, people would start to have more faith in the data. It is still not real-time and that needs to be addressed. However, I appreciate that that is not speaking directly to the amendment, and I think Madam Deputy Speaker wants me to wrap up.
When the Minister does the consultation, I ask her to look more broadly at the issues of odour and hydrogen sulphide, as well as limits on those, and perhaps to look at some of the suggestions I made in the ten-minute rule Bill on odorous emissions in the previous Session. What we have gone through in Newcastle-under-Lyme is an exemplar because it is about something people can smell rather than something they are breathing. There are lessons for us to learn from that and lessons that DEFRA can take forward in its consultation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I would just like to inform the House, further to the points of order raised previously, that I understand that the gallows has been taken down and arrests have been made under the Public Order Act.
Tim Farron
I am pleased to hear that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let me also say a quick word about James Brokenshire and Sir David Amess. First, their families can be assured of my ongoing prayers for them in the months ahead. We talk about the importance of disagreeing well. Sometimes we think that means that we have to agree and be all mushy and all think the same things. The great thing about Sir David and James is that they held really firm convictions but were able to hold them with grace and kindness. There is a little lesson for all of us in that. In that spirit, I thank the Minister for her engagement on this Bill and how open and accessible she has been. It has been a lengthy affair, but that applies very recently as well, and I thank her for it.
I will quickly rattle through three bits of the Bill: first, the World Health Organisation target set out in Lords amendment 3. As we head out on this new adventure outside the European Union, the aim should be to have higher standards, or at least standards as high as those that we set as members of that union, but it looks as though we are going for those that are lower, and that is very regrettable.
We have already heard about the enormous health impact of poor air quality, and it is not just in big cities. In Kendal—in my community and on the edge of the Lake District—Lowther Street has been rated as one of the 200 most polluted streets in the United Kingdom. It is everywhere that this issue matters. We know the impact on asthma, on lung function and on people being hospitalised for cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. Sadly, we heard accurately about the appalling impact and the loss of life, particularly of Ella, but also of thousands of others each year. I do not see why the Government, much as I respect what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) said, would set themselves unambitious targets that they could achieve when they could set harder targets that would be more of a challenge. The Government should not be disagreeing with Lords amendment 3.
Geraint Davies
I rise briefly to support Lords amendment 3, which would put legally binding World Health Organisation limits of 10 micrograms per cubic metre into law now. The arguments that have been put in place against that—that we might have some other target in October 2022—are fine, but let us have a minimum standard now. Nearly a year is a long time when we have a target to be achieved by 2030 and we can focus rational expectations.
We know that 64,000 people are dying a year. We know that globally it is 8.7 million. We know we are hosting COP26. We profess to be global Britain. My view is that this measure ticks all the Government’s ambitions and boxes. The Government talk about NHS prevention and limiting the amount of money spent on the NHS. The Royal College of Physicians says that the cost of air pollution is £20 billion a year. The World Health Organisation says it costs £60 billion a year in lost productivity and NHS costs. If we are serious about increasing productivity, we should improve air quality standards. In terms of value, if we saved even £3 billion of the £20 billion—on the lower number—we could invest that in a stream that would generate an investment of about £300 billion in capital for green infrastructure to head towards net zero.
We have talked about the problem with dementia, which is massively related to air quality, and an incremental increase in PM2.5 can increase mental health hospital admissions by a third. We have heard from the Government about levelling up, but we know that air quality particularly hits the poorest and the most diverse areas. Having a cap of 10 micrograms would make a lot of difference to levelling up.
We have talked about pathways and how we will get there without getting rid of cars and wood burners. We need to devolve power to local authorities to give them responsibility. Frankly, the situation is that wood burners generate 38% of PM2.5 and 2.5 million people have them. In urban environments, we need to stop selling them and phase them out. We may have to compensate people. Otherwise, we will never hit those targets and the targets will get away from us.
We certainly do not want the Government to have an ambition to double the amount of incineration by 2030, which they have. The latest incinerator in north London will generate 700,000 tonnes of carbon a year, as well as ultra-fine particulates that will give rise to leukaemia. We need to get our act together. We have the opportunity. People such as Stephen Holgate are already saying that they want a guiding light of 10 micrograms. We have heard the case of Ella Kissi-Debrah, who died at the age of nine and would be 17 now—that is how long we have been waiting after her death, despite knowing that she died of air pollution. Of course, we also need an office for environmental protection that has teeth, as there is currently in the EU.
In a nutshell, people have the right to clean air and the Government have a duty to deliver on that right. Let us get on with it and do it now.
Caroline Lucas
I start by adding my voice to that of others who have paid tribute to Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire. I knew neither of them really, but I can see how much I missed in not knowing them. They sound like they were absolutely the very best of us and I send my love and thoughts to their families. My heart goes out to them.
This Bill is meant to be a once-in-a-generation piece of legislation. It has been described by the Government at various times as a flagship or a lodestar, and it is about time it started to live up to that kind of rhetoric, given that the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world with 15% of its species now threatened with extinction. With that in mind, I welcome the improvements that have been made to the Bill in the other place, many of which address issues that have been raised repeatedly in both Houses. I also welcome the amendments that have been tabled by the Government to set legally binding targets to halt the decline of nature.
The Bill has a very long history: it was first proposed in 2018, has been repeatedly delayed and, last year, was absent from Parliament for more than 200 days. I urge the Government not to now create further delays and to accept these crucial amendments from the other place to make the Bill law before COP26. That is the kind of leadership that people are looking for from the country that will host that key meeting.
On Lords amendment 1, which requires the Prime Minister to
“declare that there is a biodiversity and climate emergency domestically and globally”,
I am utterly dumbfounded that the Government cannot agree to it. They may argue that it does not meaningfully change the Bill, which may be the case, but it is none the less incredibly symbolically important. With the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent report spelling a “code red for humanity” with 1 million species now threatened with extinction, we know that an emergency is upon us.
As Lord Deben said in the other place, refusing to accept this amendment
“will send the wrong signal, at a time when we should be united in sending the right signals, so that in all discussions people will know precisely where Britain stands.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 September 2021; Vol. 814, c. 618.]
I therefore urge the Government to rethink their position and to listen to the scientists raising the alarm, to the young people on the streets worried for their future, and to the parliamentarians in this House. There are now less than two weeks until COP26 and if the UK is serious about demonstrating leadership, rejecting this amendment just seems so contrary to what we need to see—so perverse.
Soils and air are the very substance of what the Bill is about. Lords amendment 2, tabled by my noble Friend—I do not often get to say that—Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, sets soil health and quality as a priority area for long-term target setting. Soils, as we know, are the complex ecosystems upon which all life on this beautiful planet relies. A staggering 25% of the world’s biodiversity lives in our soil. Britain’s soils alone store almost 10 billion tonnes of carbon. It is not simply dirt that can endlessly be abused and neglected; it is life itself. Its health is absolutely essential if the UK is to succeed in achieving its climate and biodiversity targets, yet we lose more than 3 million tonnes of topsoil every year in the UK. In its recent independent assessment of the UK climate risk, three of the Climate Change Committee’s eight urgent priorities relate to the impacts of the climate crisis on soils, and just today a new report was published that identifies poor soil health as a threat to national security.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to publish a new soil health action plan for England to ensure that soils are sustainably managed by 2030. That is desperately needed, but I am concerned that the draft outline will not even be consulted on until next spring. It is also positive to hear that the Government are exploring the possibility of a new target on soil health under future Environment Bill regulations, yet soil health merits proper referencing and legal protection through this Bill to take it beyond one Parliament. When our soils are rapidly degrading, we need that target now, so I urge Ministers to review their decision on Lords amendment 2.
Many hon. Members have spoken very eloquently about Lords amendment 3 on air pollution, and I would simply echo what others have said about the perversity of this. At a time when the WHO has just slashed the guideline limit for air pollution, the fact that we are refusing even to bring ourselves in line with the current—out-of-date—pollution target just seems to be incredibly perverse. Everyone has the right to clean air, as others have said, and we should be acting on it.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
On tackling air pollution, does the hon. Member not agree that, to take people off road and on to rail, it is about time the Government built the western rail link to Heathrow? It would benefit people not only in my Slough constituency, but in the south-west, Wales and the west. That is the only way because if we are serious about tackling the climate crisis, rather than just talking about it—the Government committed to it in 2012, but have still not yet dug a single spade—it is about time that we moved forward on these transport infrastructure projects.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and if people are travelling to Heathrow, I would far rather that they went by train than that they drove, so to that extent I would certainly agree with him.
Interim targets are obviously needed to achieve the long-term targets in the Bill. It is extraordinary for the Minister somehow to feel that there is some kind of contradiction between interim targets and long-term targets. They are not in contradiction with one another. The interim targets mark the progress towards the long-term targets, so to hear her oppose those seemed very odd. Baroness Brown of Cambridge put it very clearly in the other place when she said that
“it is easier to predict the impact of actions to support such systems over a five-year timescale than it is to predict outcomes in 15 or 20 years”,
and that
“evidence shows the effectiveness of the combination of statutory interim targets and a legislated long-term goal.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 September 2021; Vol. 814, c. 841.]
I would press upon the Minister that these two ideas are not in contradiction.
I would like to speak briefly in support of Lords amendment 28, which would, like amendment 1 that I tabled on Report, ensure that the MOD and the Treasury—and, indeed, anyone spending resources within Government —are not, rather perversely, excluded from having to consider the environmental principles. These five principles should be the very cornerstone of our environmental law, so it is deeply concerning that time and again the Government seek to put these Departments beyond reach. As the Minister is well aware, the Ministry of Defence owns significant amounts of land, including a third of our sites of special scientific interest, and protecting and restoring these areas will be absolutely essential if the Government are to deliver on the leaders’ pledge for nature to reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. Essentially, when we know that just 3% or 4% of land is effectively managed for nature and that so many protected sites are in an unfavourable condition, we absolutely need action on that.
The exclusion of the Treasury is, if anything, of even more concern. If we ever needed a lesson on that, we have seen in the last few weeks how there appears to have been a battle between No. 10 and the Treasury over some key decisions when it comes to the heat and buildings strategy or the net zero strategy. Sadly, it looks as if the Treasury has won, because we are not seeing the finance behind those plans that we should. We are seeing things such as the continuing freezing of fuel duty since 2010, which is directly responsible for emissions being up to 5% higher than they would otherwise have been. I urge the Minister to look again at including the Treasury in this provision. Again, it seems very perverse to leave it out.
Lords amendment 31 would strengthen the independence of the office for environmental protection, which is essential if we are to have the strong watchdog we have been promised. When Ministers control the OEP’s board and budget, it is entirely inappropriate for it then also to be bound to consider their guidance on enforcing breaches of environmental law. I fear that such guidance, if coming from someone who controls the purse strings, will feel an awful lot more like an insistence than some gentle suggestions. The OEP needs to be brought in line with the approach taken to other agencies that enforce breaches of the law, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Information Commissioner’s Office. I do not see any reason why it should be treated differently.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for her earlier comments about Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire. I have not had an opportunity to say anything, but in my 29 and a half years in politics, this has been one of the toughest weeks for Parliament. I know we will all miss both Sir David and James, as we loved them so dearly. Thank you for your comments—I appreciate that.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, rise to support Lords amendment 3. My Vauxhall constituency, just across the river, is the start of the congestion charging zone, and it contains some of the most polluted roads in the country. Data from the Taskforce for Lung Health found that background levels of PM2.5 in Lambeth were more than 25% higher than the 10 microgram per metre cubed recommended limit. In some areas of Vauxhall, PM2.5 levels are nearly 50% higher than that target. The taskforce also found that nearly 7% of deaths in Lambeth were linked to that issue, with devastating impacts on every age group.
We have all mentioned Ella Kissi-Debrah, who was just nine when she died as a result of severe asthma, which was induced and exacerbated by air pollution. She was hospitalised 28 times in 28 months, and last year she became the first person to have air pollution listed as a cause of death. My constituents in Vauxhall cannot wait any longer, and they keep putting themselves at risk because of that difficult air pollution. The roads putting them at risk are the roads they must use to access shops and amenities, or to get to work, school or play, whether by foot, bike, bus or scooter. They are the roads that people, including me, must send their children along to school every day.
Last week, I visited St Anne’s Primary School in my constituency, which was identified by the Mayor of London as one of the 50 schools in the most polluted areas of London. Although it was good to visit that school it was also quite sad, because during the visit the headteacher showed me a state-of-the-art living wall that is using vegetation to protect the children from all the air pollution coming from the main roads. Such innovations are impressive, but why must schools take such measures to protect our young children? That is not right.
The Government have said that they will consult between January and October next year on air quality targets, but how many more targets do we need? The data is there. The data is choking us—no pun intended. It already exists. We know from a 2018 report by UNICEF that the effects of air pollution are more serious for children than for adults. We know from data released last week by City Hall that the areas with the highest levels of deprivation, or those with a higher proportion of people from non-white backgrounds, are more likely to be exposed to high levels of air pollution. We have the tools at our disposal to set that target, so why can we not do so now? As the mother of a 4-year-old and a 6-year-old living in an inner-London borough, I do not want my children growing up with that pollution, nor do I want the children and young people I represent in Vauxhall to continue to grow up with such high levels of pollution. Let us set that target once and for all, bring an end to this, and bring
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I very much echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) said about air pollution. Earlier, the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), mentioned that the Mayor of Bristol had spoken of the M32 going right into the heart of the city. It is the border between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire). It goes through those inner-city areas, and we know that children living in those areas are particularly at risk.
When we have discussed that in various Select Committees and during the passage of Bills, I have found the Minister’s attempted justification for not adopting the World Health Organisation targets very weak, and I am afraid that the same is true today. Surely people’s right to have a log-burning stove is more than outweighed by the fact that there are 40,000 deaths a year because of air pollution. Surely that is far more important. However, other Members have more than done justice to the need to back the Lords on their air pollution amendments, so I want to talk briefly about Lords amendment 1, which has not been spoken about much.
There is no question but that we are in the midst of climate and ecological emergencies that simply are not being taken seriously enough, not just by the Government but by many others who, through their actions, are contributing to the problem and not helping to find solutions. I am usually quite sceptical about the value of grand declarations if they are not backed up by action—and often they are not backed up by action—but I think that formal recognition in the Bill of the gravity of the situation could make a difference.
We have led the way on that in Bristol. We formally declared a climate emergency in 2018 and a biodiversity emergency in February last year. As a result, we have a wide-ranging “one city” ecological emergency strategy, which serves as a blueprint for action on that front. Really, that is what it is about—not just making the declaration, but using that declaration as a way of stressing the urgency and driving action.
I support the Lords amendments on the office for environmental protection. The Bill should have been in force, and the OEP ready for action, for the end of the Brexit transition period. There is just no excuse for the Government’s delays and prevarications—or, it has to be said, for their reneging on their promise to base the OEP in Bristol, which I will not stop reminding them about. We have ended up with precisely the sort of governance gap that many of us warned about, which is shameful. However, now that we are where we are, we ought to accept the Lords amendments, which would ensure that the OEP is independent in nature, that it is able to properly hold Ministers to account for environmental wrongdoing, and that it has control over its own budget.
Finally, the fact that we are so far away from meeting our environmental obligations on air pollution, water quality—I think that will come up in the next group of amendments—and protection of biodiversity only reinforces the case for a strong OEP and more accountability for Ministers. However, there is nothing in the Bill to compel Ministers to act early to meet targets or take action where interim targets are missed. We have these long-term targets way into the future—we have a 25-year environment plan—but if we do not have binding interim targets, it is so easy to kick things into the long grass and say that we are working towards a date at some distant point in the future. We then find that that distant point in the future is suddenly upon us and nothing has been done to ensure that we reach the targets.
Lords amendment 12 would ensure that there are binding interim targets in the Bill, which is so important for our ability to hold the Government to account and to see incremental change that will get us to our final ambition. That needs to be kept in the Bill.
Rebecca Pow
With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate. May I reiterate the condolences that have been expressed? I was not able to be in the Chamber earlier. I have not worn my environmental leaf suit today, as a mark of respect to those two great men—Sir David Amess, who did so much on animal welfare, which is very relevant to my Department, and James Brokenshire. I think we all feel the same about them. We are proud to have known them, and we send our condolences to their families. I am terribly sorry.
I thank all hon. Members across the House for their contributions. As ever, whatever our differences, we listen to what has been said and work very closely together on these matters. I will whizz through some of the questions and comments that were raised before summing up.
Let me refer first to the comments by the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), just to get the devolution issue clarified. She talked about this Government not respecting the Scottish Government. The power of the Scottish Parliament to legislate respects the exercising of reserved functions by Ministers of the Crown. That was tested recently in the Supreme Court, which agreed with the Government. That judgment by the Supreme Court directly supports Lords amendment 29, tabled by the Government.
Rebecca Pow
I am going to leave it there, because I have so many comments to get through.
I want to refer now to particular questions and comments raised about the OEP. We heard some comparisons with the EU, in particular from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), with whom we have had some very constructive discussions, as he said—I thank him for those comments. The OEP’s enforcement powers are different but will operate more effectively than those of the European Commission. The OEP will be able to liaise directly with the public body in question—that does not happen with the European Commission—to investigate and resolve alleged serious breaches of environmental law in a more timely and targeted manner.
On environmental review, the OEP can apply for judicial review remedies, such as mandatory quashing orders, subject to appropriate safeguards. That will work to ensure compliance with environmental law. The Court of Justice of the EU cannot issue those kinds of remedies to member states, so we truly believe the OEP is stronger, not weaker.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) mentioned the guidance power. Paragraph 17 of schedule 1 already requires that:
“In exercising functions in respect of the OEP, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to protect its independence.”
The guidance power does not grant the Secretary of State any ability to intervene in decision making about specific or individual cases. The OEP does not have to follow the guidance where it has clear reasons not to do so. It has to provide its own enforcement policy. I think Dame Glenys would take issue with the idea that she is somehow heading up a weaker organisation. I do not think she would have taken on the job if she felt that that was the case.
On the biodiversity emergency, we have set a duty to set an additional legally binding target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030. If that—not to mention the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday—does not demonstrate that we understand there is an emergency I do not know what else does.
Soil was mentioned by a number of colleagues, all of whom agreed that we need data. Our soil health action plan, to pick up on the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), demonstrates that we really mean business with soil. Many of our other policies will be about working on soil health. It is not just about what is in the Bill; it is about all our wider policies whereby we are taking soil health extremely seriously.
Air quality was rightly raised by many hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), and the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale and for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi). On what is the right number for the target, I reiterate that whatever the WHO said—whether 10 micrograms per metre cubed or now five—its analysis has not and did not outline a pathway to achieve that target. That is why it is so important that we gather the evidence and the science. I was so pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton himself pointed that out and agreed that this is the right approach. So many people today have mentioned the importance of getting the evidence and the data right.
I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, but I assure him that we are not waiting for targets to be set to tackle the problem of air pollution. We are taking action now. One example is the legislation to phase out the sale of house coal and small volumes of wet wood, and to introduce emission standards for manufactured solid fuels for domestic burning across England. That was one of the big steps we have taken to cut down on PM2.5.
Sir Robert Neill
I am grateful for what the Minister says. Will she meet me to discuss the sort of mechanism we were talking about, so we might get a better focus on this issue?
Rebecca Pow
I hear what my hon. Friend says and I will reiterate that to the new Minister with responsibility for air quality. My hon. Friend makes good points. Many other measures are in place connected to our air quality strategy, but he may be right that they need to be pulled together in a clearer way. We acted on many of the measures on which the coroner gave us guidance after the very tragic case of Ella Kissi-Debrah. Our hearts go out to that family, and I am thankful for all the input.
Regarding amendment 1, I must reiterate that actions are what are necessary to combat the climate and biodiversity emergency, not legal declarations. On amendment 2, the soil health action plan will provide strategic direction to develop the metrics that we need for the soil health target, and I point hon. Members to the written ministerial statement on that. On amendment 3, we will continue to collaborate with experts to ensure that the consultation on air targets is based on the best evidence. In setting targets, we need to carry out detailed modelling, as I said.
Amendment 12 fundamentally undermines the long-term nature of the targets framework. It removes necessary flexibility and forces us to meet legally binding targets every five years on complex environmental issues. Regarding amendment 28, the Government firmly maintain the position that exempting some limited areas from the duty to “have due regard” provides necessary flexibility in relation to finances, defence and national security.
Turning to amendments 31 and 75, I must stress that the guidance power is required to ensure appropriate accountability for the OEP. Finally, amendment 33 is not acceptable because it removes all protections for third parties who were brought into the OEP’s process of environmental review. The Government are confident of their position on these matters and I hope that Members will support us in returning this position to the other place, so that we get our world-leading legislation onto the statute book.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Just to explain the process, I am anticipating five votes; the first vote will take 10 minutes and the others, consecutively, eight minutes, so I really would not go too far from the Lobbies. There will be three from the Labour party, one from the Lib Dems and one from the Scottish National party. If Deirdre Brock would approach the Chair while the first Division is taking place, I will explain the process for the SNP Division, because it is a bit more complicated.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 2 disagreed to.
Clause 2
Environmental targets: particulate matter
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3.—(Rebecca Pow.)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am anticipating a vote on the next Lords amendment, and it will be eight minutes for this and every other Division in this section. I call the Minister to disagree with Lords amendment 12 formally.
Clause 4
Environmental targets: effect
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 12.—(Rebecca Pow.)
Rebecca Pow
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 43.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 45, and Government amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendment 65, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 66, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 67, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (e) in lieu.
Lords amendment 94, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 95, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 46 to 63, 71 to 74, and 91 to 93.
Rebecca Pow
As we turn to amendments focused on the protection of nature, I would like to remind the House of some of the significant changes that the Government have made to the Bill since its introduction, which I hope hon. Members support. We have extended the requirement for biodiversity net gain to cover nationally significant infrastructure projects, which ensures that new nationally significant infrastructure projects, such as new roads, railways or airports, must contribute to our vision of a nature-positive future. That will also enable the Government to extend net gain to major projects in the marine environment once a suitable approach has been developed.
We have added a power to increase the period for which habitat must be maintained beyond 30 years across the whole net gain policy. The Secretary of State must keep under review whether the period could be increased. We have made it a legal requirement for the Government to produce guidance on how local planning authorities should have regard to local nature recovery strategies.
I turn to storm overflows. All the detail that I am about to outline demonstrates an absolute commitment to tackling the environmental harm caused by storm sewage overflows, on which we have taken significant action. Lords amendment 45, the majority of which has been put forward by the Government—I urge hon. Members to look at it—introduces an entire new chapter to the Water Industry Act 1991 on storm overflows to address that. It places a statutory requirement on the Government to produce a plan to reduce discharges from storm overflows and their adverse impacts before 1 September 2022, and commits the Government to taking action and reporting on progress to Parliament. We will also be required to produce a report on the actions that would be needed to eliminate discharges from storm overflows in England, and their costs and benefits, before 1 September 2022.
Caroline Lucas
I certainly support the direction of Lords amendment 45. However, I want to ask the Minister why she is omitting lines 7 to 14 of the original amendment introduced by the Duke of Wellington in the other place, which would put a legal duty on water companies to take immediate action to tackle sewage pollution and so forth. Why has she taken some of the teeth out of this amendment?
Rebecca Pow
I hear what the hon. Member says, and for once I am really pleased that she almost supports what we are doing. I am outlining what we have put into the Bill since it was last here to demonstrate how we will be reducing the harm from these sewage storm overflows. The cumulative impact of all this will be to actually address the issue that we all so want to address. Crucially, we will have sewerage management plans in which water companies will have to explain and detail how they are going to be delivering a resilient sewerage system. We expect those plans to include considered actions for reducing storm overflows and their harm in line with the ambition set out in the Bill.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
As there is a lot of concern about this on both sides of the House, can the Minister give us some encouragement about what pace of change we can look forward to under her proposals? I think people want some reassurance that this is going to be tackled quite soon.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my right hon. Friend for that, and honestly, people are coming up to me left, right and centre about this. I feel as strongly about it as everybody else, so I am so pleased we have got this into the Bill. I have to say that a lot of it is thanks to working with my right hon. Friend the Member for—[Hon. Members: “Ludlow.”] I have been to Ludlow, but I have a lot of data in my head! I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) would agree that we have worked unbelievably constructively to get what was going to be in his private Member’s Bill into this Bill, which is absolutely the right thing to do. I hope we are demonstrating that this is happening quickly. For example, we are requiring water companies to put in monitors above and below every storm sewage overflow to monitor the data. They will have to start that right now, because the sewerage plans coming forward in the Bill are already under way.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Minister will know that I am one of the people who keeps talking to her about this, and I pay tribute to her for all the work she has done on it. Yes, there are all these duties to report, to produce plans and so on, which is great, but should there not also be a duty on the water companies to actually do something, rather than just to report on what they have or have not achieved? If amendment (a) to Lords amendment 45 succeeds, will she consider whether it is possible to have a more tightly drawn, concise and effective duty on water companies?
Rebecca Pow
We have been speaking about this. I hear what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying, and I am listening. I am going to say that there is a dialogue, but I will leave it at that. However, there is so much more that will help with this issue, and the wider issue of water pollution, than what is in this Bill. I think he would agree that there are a lot of water issues to be dealt with that the water companies will be held to account for. One of the very strong things we are doing, which is not in the Bill, is producing our draft policy statement to Ofwat, the regulator. For the first time ever, we have put at the top of the agenda that it will have to get the water companies to address storm sewage overflows. I think we would all agree that they are necessary in an emergency, but they have been used far too frequently. I hope by all of this we are demonstrating what are doing, and that is why I am taking so long going through it. It has not started right now—well, not all of it—but when it does start, it will make a huge difference to the progressive reduction of harm.
Mr Dhesi
As has been said, it is great to hear about these plans, and we have been hearing about them for some time. Once we set aside all the blurb and the peripheral extraneous issues being outlined, are there any targets or deadlines? When will all English rivers be sewage free?
Rebecca Pow
I would argue that it is not blurb. The way we direct such changes is through policies such as these, and they will start to happen immediately. Water companies are totally aware of the policies, and through such measures we will cut down on harmful sewage storm overflows. Under the Bill we must also set a range of water targets. We have set up the storm overflows taskforce, which will report early next year on what the target should be for elimination. We will also have targets in other important areas of water quality, including phosphates, nitrates, waste water—all those areas are important and will be tackled. That is coming down the tracks imminently.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
The Minister is bringing in a fantastic Bill, but it is sad that we are not implementing the measures that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) brought before the House in his private Member’s Bill. They would have made it illegal to have sewage discharges after a certain date. The question “when?” is the right one, and the balancing argument is about how much it would cost, and how much it would add to consumers’ water bills. Does the Minister have that data? Do we know how much would need to be invested in each water area, and how much that would impact on bills, so that we can quantify how long it would take to do at a reasonable pace? That is what we need to know. Perhaps there will be a compromise on this issue, but at the moment I am afraid I am likely to follow my right hon. Friend into the Lobby in support of the Lords amendment.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend. This is an important issue and we have thought about it. The Government will come back and report on the costs and benefits; we are doing a whole analysis of that. As an approximate estimate, to get rid of or eliminate storm sewage overflows would cost between—these are very wide figures—£150 billion and £660 billion. One must consider the cost of bills, because there will be an impact on those. That is why I made the point earlier that a lot of other areas in connection with our rivers and our water are really important. We must also deal with those, and it must be proportionate. My hon. Friend is right, and we will soon have the data from our storm overflows taskforce, and from our duty to report on what the cost benefits would be of completely eliminating storm overflows. Such things are used far too frequently, but they are also an emergency measure that should potentially always remain, just in case we have to deal with huge floods.
Another area of work that needs to be done—we are doing it—involves levelling up and what was MHCLG but is now DLUHC, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities,. It is about sustainable development and what we do with drain water, all the rest of the water, and separating out our systems. This is a cross-departmental issue, and we are tackling some really important matters in the Bill.
The Bill also requires us to set and achieve at least one target in the priority area of water. Our policy paper, which was published in August 2020, set out the objectives for the water targets we were considering. Those include reducing pollution from agriculture, waste water, abandoned metal mines, and reducing water demand. All those issues are significant to the whole area we are talking about.
Outside the Bill, we have committed to undertaking a review of the case for implementing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 in England. That schedule would set mandatory build standards for sustainable drainage schemes on new developments, which so many people have been calling for. Those are not mandatory at the moment, but to really have an effect, they need to be. We are reviewing that and, based on what we find, we will be working with DLUHC on that very issue.
We have moved further; with Lords amendments 46, 47, and 74, we will require water companies to do near real-time reporting of storm overflows and water quality monitoring upstream and downstream of storm overflows and sewage disposal works so that we have fully transparent data. People called for transparency of data in the debate on the previous group of amendments, and we will have it in relation to the impact of those things on our waters.
The first part of Lords amendment 45, new section 141A of the Water Industry Act 1991, was introduced in the other place by the Duke of Wellington and seeks to place a duty on sewerage undertakers to progressively reduce the harm from storm overflows and to ensure compliance with that duty. We have listened carefully to Parliament and, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow will agree, we have moved on this matter more than anything else in the Bill. I hope that I have made clear everything that we are bringing forward.
That is not to say that we are not listening; we are. I am confident in all the things I have outlined, together with the draft policy statement for Ofwat, which states that we expect it to
“incentivise water companies to significantly reduce the frequency and volume of sewage discharges from storm overflows.”
That is the pointer for the water companies really needing to work on this issue. I know that a group of colleagues from the Portsmouth area are banking on that. They are working with the water companies in the area on pollution issues. They have brought all the bodies together in a partnership to tackle their sewage overflow issues, and they need what is in the Bill to point them in the right direction. We have their full support, and I commend them for all the work that they are doing. There is a whole group of colleagues doing that.
We have been clear that we want to see fewer discharges of untreated sewage into rivers, lakes and seas. I am personally determined to see that happen, and I am really proud of the actions we are taking. Lines 7 to 14 of Lords amendment 45 are therefore unnecessary, and I ask the House to support amendment (a) to leave them out.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
There are a number of sewage works on the River Wharfe upstream of my constituency, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore)—I see that he is in his place—and we both have bathing water quality issues because of that. It would be useful to know, using the example of Portsmouth that the Minister gave, how the Bill will help us unlock that with Yorkshire Water to ensure that people are not bathing, in effect, with effluent, which is what happens nearly every day on the River Wharfe.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was proud to be part of getting bathing water designation in Otley. It is the first inland bathing water area that we have designated—we have loads around the coast—and it was a great project. However, he makes a good point, and when we are setting targets for water quality, the bathing water quality issue will very much be part of that.
I turn to Lords amendment 43, which would require that pesticide use in Great Britain can be authorised only if a competent authority is satisfied that there will be no negative effect on the health of honeybees or wild pollinator populations. I am as keen a supporter of bees and pollinators as anyone else here; I garden for wildlife and I do not use pesticides. I listened very carefully to the debate on this issue in the other place, but I am confident that there is effective regulation of pesticides to avoid harm, including to pollinators. We have consulted on a draft national action plan on the sustainable use of pesticides, which aims to minimise the risks of pesticides to human health and the environment. We will publish a final national action plan for pesticides by the end of this year. Central to the plan will be support for integrated pest management. We are supporting a shift towards greater use of IPM techniques. IPM involves designing pesticides out of farming systems as far as possible and includes increased use of nature-based, low toxicity solutions and precision technologies to manage pests, all of which will benefit pollinators.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I just have a very quick question. It is important that the farming sector and the industry understand pesticides and co-operation in farming, as that happens every day. What discussions has the Minister had with the National Farmers Union, for example, to work alongside it and ensure it does not have any issues?
Rebecca Pow
We work incredibly closely with our farmers. We could not do any of what we are trying to do without bringing our farmers on board. After all, they manage, own or run at least 70% of the land. Many are already doing good really work on integrated pest management. With some of our new grants we have launched for innovation and tech in particular, we will be working with them to go further down this road, especially through our environmental land management scheme, sustainable farming incentive and so on.
Our healthy bees plan 2030 sets out how we will work with beekeepers and bee farmers to improve honeybee health, and we are improving our understanding, including by supporting a national pollinator monitoring programme. Alongside all that, current pesticide legislation requires that pesticide products and their active substances have
“no unacceptable effects on the environment…having particular regard to its impact on non-target species”
which includes impacts on bees and other effective pollinators such as hoverflies, moths and beetles. Risk assessments made for active substances are subject to public consultation and establish the key risks posed by pesticides. We continue to make decisions on pesticide use based on scientific risk assessment.
Turning to Lords amendment 65, biodiversity loss is a defining challenge for our generation and we must act now. This landmark Bill ramps up domestic action, including a requirement to set a legally binding target to halt species decline in England by 2030. The powers under clause 113 and 114 form an important part and support the ambition for domestic nature recovery. We will bring forward a nature recovery Green Paper before the end of the year, which will set out our approach to driving nature recovery in England. It will include consideration of the scope to amend the habitats regulations, as well as broader exploration of our approach to site designations and species protections.
In adapting our approach to nature conservation, I agree we must maintain and enhance protections. The powers have been tightly drafted and already contain strong safeguards. In exercising those powers, the Secretary of State must: have regard to the particular importance of furthering the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity; be satisfied that the changes do not reduce the level of environmental protection provided currently by the habitats regulations; and test this with Parliament and secure its approval through a vote. To be satisfied that there has been no reduction in protections, the Government have also publicly committed to consulting with the office for environmental protection and Government statutory nature advisers. We also remain bound by international nature conservation law and committed to those obligations. Therefore, I see no need for the amendment and I urge the House to oppose it.
Turning to Lords amendments 94 and 95, our world-leading due diligence measures will help to tackle illegal deforestation in supply chains by prohibiting larger businesses operating in the UK from using certain forest risk commodities, produced on land illegally occupied or used. Forest risk commodities are associated with wide-scale conversion of forest. Examples of those commodities include beef, cocoa, leather, soya, rubber and palm oil. This comes as the UK prepares to lead by example at COP26 in two weeks’ time.
Kerry McCarthy
Does the Minister not accept that legal deforestation is becoming as much of a problem as illegal deforestation? If it is deforestation per se of the Amazon, that is a bad thing. Bolsonaro is relaxing the rules in his country, and it is happening in other countries in the region as well, and as a result we are increasingly seeing products entering our supermarket supply chains that are linked to deforestation—there was a story last week about cheese being sold in UK supermarkets. That is bad regardless of whether the Government of the country authorised it or not.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady and take her point, but we have to work with other Governments to bring forward our legislation. Many of these countries—Brazil is a specific example—have protections but, in many cases, are not upholding them. This Bill will have an effect, if we can demonstrate that they are not upholding their protections and our products are coming from there. That all has to be in a transparent survey, and data has to be recorded by businesses, so the onus will actually also be on them, because they do not want to be seen to be selling products that are causing deforestation. We have worked extremely hard to get that provision into the Bill and we believe that it will help to make a difference on this issue.
Given the pioneering nature of the policy, we have included a statutory requirement for a review every two years to make sure that the policy is delivering as intended and that the things that are happening, exactly as the hon. Lady suggests, do not happen. However, conducting a review after just one year of the requirements coming into force, as the amendments require, does not provide sufficient time to understand the policy’s effectiveness.
Simon Hoare
Some months ago, my hon. Friend gave very generously of her time, with officials, to talk to my constituent Jim Bettle about the timber regulations, as she will remember. Can she say when the review of the UK timber regulations is envisaged, because that neatly ties in with what she is talking about?
Rebecca Pow
Yes. My hon. Friend’s constituent came specifically to talk about charcoal and those issues. We have our timber regulations already in place to deal with illegal deforestation. I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact date for any review of that, but I can get back to his office with further details, if he would like.
In simple terms, in respect of the amendments, there would be not be enough data to understand how the legislation impacts against our policy objectives in one year and businesses would just be submitting their first report on the due diligence exercise. We will instead need to focus our efforts in that vital first year on ensuring effective implementation and enforcement and making sure that regulated businesses understand and are meeting their responsibilities under this legislation. That is critical to the regulations having their intended effect.
Alex Sobel
As well as having deforestation goods enter the supply chain in the UK from the Amazon in Brazil, which is of vital importance, they are also coming from West Papua, Borneo, Indonesia and the Congo river basin, and a lot of it is legal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said. We are seeking trade deals around the world. He do we ensure that businesses and Governments understand their obligations in the trade deals to ensure that we do not have further deforestation not just in Brazil, but in other countries?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Obviously, our businesses will have an obligation under what we set in our Bill, but equally, there is a whole session devoted to this at COP26, discussing exactly the issues that he raises in the wider sphere of agriculture and forestry across the globe. I urge him to follow what happens there.
On Lords amendment 66, I am very pleased to announce that we will be taking action on ancient woodland, thanks to the persuasive arguments put forward by Baroness Young of Old Scone, who has been a champion for ancient woodland, as have many Members of this House. I also put on record the Government’s thanks to the Woodland Trust for its partnership and support in updating the ancient woodland inventory. It continues to champion the need for a detailed and up-to-date inventory of this irreplaceable habitat, which is much needed; I thank the trust for stepping in to do that work. It is music to my ears particularly, because I set up the all-party parliamentary group on ancient woodland and veteran trees with the Woodland Trust when I first came to this place as a Back Bencher. I know that the Secretary of State is also passionate about ancient woodland.
I can also announce that we will undertake a review of the national planning policy framework to ensure that it is being correctly implemented in the case of ancient and veteran trees and ancient woodland. Should the review conclude that implementation can be improved, we will look to strengthen the guidance to local authorities to ensure their understanding of the protections provided to ancient woodland.
Secondly, I am pleased to announce that we will consult on strengthening the wording of the national planning policy framework to better ensure the strongest protection of ancient woodland, while recognising the complex delivery challenges for major infrastructure.
Finally, we will amend the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2021 alongside these reforms to require local planning authorities to consult the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities if they are minded to grant planning permission for developments affecting ancient woodland.
John Redwood
Is the Minister saying that if this change goes through, another HS2-type assault on ancient woodland would not be allowed, whereas the last one was?
Rebecca Pow
What it will mean is that, yes, there will be much more credence given to the value of ancient woodland. At the moment, ancient woodland does not necessarily win, because one can have the infrastructure, or whatever it is, if one can demonstrate that there are wholly exceptional reasons for getting rid of the ancient woodland. This approach will really strengthen the position: it is a really big commitment to ancient woodland, which is like our rainforest. We have to do something about it—and we are, which I hope will be welcomed.
Rebecca Pow
Thank you.
Although I must ask hon. Members to reject Lords amendment 66, I hope that they will support our approach and my announcement today, which will deliver effective action to protect our precious and irreplaceable ancient woodland.
The intention behind Lords amendment 67 is to introduce additional formality to the process for entering into conservation covenants and to require such agreements to contain specific terms. There is a balance to be struck: conservation covenants must be flexible tools and straightforward to create, but they must also be robust. It is important that they are not entered into lightly or without due consideration and forethought—sounds a bit like a marriage contract, doesn’t it?
Having reflected on concerns raised in the other place, and with particular thanks to the Earl of Devon, we acknowledge that an additional layer of formality when entering into conservation covenants would provide some reassurance to landowners. We therefore propose an amendment in lieu to require that conservation covenant agreements be executed as deeds. Government guidance in this space will also be drafted to provide clear support on the relevant formalities required for conservation covenants.
I hope that hon. Friends and Members will support our proposals. I look forward to their contributions.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Before I start, I want to send condolences and thoughts on behalf of Plymouth to Sir David Amess’s family, his staff and his community. We have seen our fair share of tragedy over the summer in Plymouth, and Plymouth stands with Southend at this time.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
Would my hon. Friend agree with me and my beleaguered constituents in Whitstable that this is not an unusual occurrence, and that it is happening more and more frequently? On the Whitstable coast, for example, it is ruining the lives of kayakers, sailors and swimmers and ruining the tourist industry. The removal of the lines in the amendment that have teeth would be a real disappointment.
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. As a regular wild swimmer myself, I recognise that this is a concern not only to people who swim in our nation’s rivers but to those who value their biodiversity. I think that the Minister has underestimated the strength of feeling in this area.
There is a way through this, however. There is a route that could result in progressive improvement in the reduction in the number of raw sewage discharges, that could simultaneously collect the required data and that could protect our environment without big increases to bills, with appropriate investment and a sense of urgency from Ministers. There is a route for that, and I suspect that further compromises will be necessary on this point when the Bill returns to the House of Lords and then comes back to us. I do not think we are yet done with this.
Matt Rodda
Does my hon. Friend agree that the key is to focus the big water companies on this issue? They have significant resources; they are large, wealthy businesses. Many people use our rivers, including many residents in Reading who live next to the Thames, the Kennet and the Loddon who are affected by this and very concerned about it. We are downstream of a number of effluent emissions, and people want to see real action from Thames Water.
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly good point. People want to see action. This is not something that concerns only politicos; the public want to see proper action as well. We need to put pressure on the Minister to do the right thing, and I am afraid that more pressure will be put on her on a cross-party basis. What she has announced is a step in the right direction, but it does not reach a compromise that is acceptable. We also need to put pressure on the water companies. Water companies such as Southern Water have presided over huge amounts of discharge into our natural environment, but it is not just those companies. Southern has had an enormous focus as a result of its huge fine for deliberately venting sewage into the sea, but we need every single water company to step up. To achieve that, we need pressure from the companies’ shareholders to do so and also pressure from Ofwat.
Ofwat needs to prioritise action to deal with raw sewage outflows into our rivers much more in the business plans. If it is not incentivised or required to do that, it will not do it. That is the power the Secretary of State and the Minister have over water companies under this privatised system. They have the power, but they are choosing not to use it to put in the investment that we need. That is why we need to see further improvement on this amendment, and I suspect that there will be further improvement on it, but I would also encourage the Minister to find a good answer to the question that was posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi):
“When will all English rivers be sewage free?”
That seems a simple question, and our constituents want to know the answer. If she cannot provide the answer, we must recognise that there is a bigger problem here that we need to look at.
Turning to habitats, I am proud that the British people have an ambition to protect the environment. All of us are here reflecting the views of our constituents who want to see more action to protect the environment. Not everyone knows how much carbon is emitted from their community on a daily basis, but we all recognise how many trees there are and the volume of the birdsong chorus in our communities. Nature matters. Dr Andy Purvis from the Natural History Museum has said that the UK has
“led the world in degrading the natural environment.”
We only have half our biodiversity left as a nation; we have lost an awful lot of species and habitats and we cannot risk losing any more.
The habitats regulations, which are the first line of defence in providing strict protections for the UK’s finest wildlife sites and endangered species, are so important, yet clauses 113 and 114 essentially give the Secretary of State the freedom to do what he likes with those regulations. He is required only to “have regard” to the need to enhance biodiversity when making changes, but “having regard” is not sufficient when we are in a climate and ecological emergency. That is why we are seeking to protect Lords amendment 65, which would ensure that powers to amend these regulations did not weaken their important environmental protections and could be used only for environmental improvement. I struggle to understand why anyone would not agree with the case that the Lords have made on that.
The public want to see us protect our forests and woodlands, and they want to see us plant more trees. The Climate Change Committee, the independent body set up to advise the Government, has been clear that we need to raise our current 13% forest cover to 17% by 2050 if we are to have any chance of meeting our climate goals, but we know that the Government’s slow, pedestrian and managerial approach to tree planting means the target will not be met until 2091. Their action does not match their soundbites, as it must if we are to hit our climate goals.
Planting more trees in England is strongly supported by the public, by business, by local councils and, looking at their press releases, by Ministers as well, so why are Ministers failing to plant sufficient trees? It is not because they do not enjoy enough support, it is not because the public will not support further measures and it is not because the public will not support further spending on this, so what are the obstacles and inhibitors that stop Ministers from delivering more trees? We need to see further action on tree planting by mobilising more of the power of the state to get this done.
On an issue where there is cross-party and full public support, we need Ministers to do better than they are at the moment. England is being left behind in the UK’s family of nations when it comes to tree planting, and we are being left behind on the global stage, too. If Ethiopia can plant 5 billion trees a year, including planting 350 million trees in a single day on 29 July 2019, why can we not have similar ambitions and scale of delivery?
Although we should be planting more trees, we must also be careful of losing trees, which is why Labour supports Lords amendments 94, 95 and 66. We know that deforestation, legal and illegal, is increasing alarmingly across the planet, but we also know that, far too often, we measure the impacts only within our own nation. Our global consumption and global supply chains must be taken into account if we are to prevent deforestation. Allowing illegal deforestation to become legal deforestation is a “get out of jail free” card that does nothing to get our planet out of trouble, so we need to see further advances. I am glad the Minister is making progress on certain commodities that come from stressed areas, but I encourage her to go further and do more.
Briefly, could the Minister ask the Financial Conduct Authority to issue new guidelines to financial institutions on deforestation risk? No British bank should be bankrolling deforestation internationally.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I have a simple question for my hon. Friend, following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said. How do we differentiate between illegal logging and legal logging? There is no such mechanism known to humankind, so it is a farce, frankly, to say that we will ban illegal logging and allow legal logging in the Amazon rainforest.
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend raises a good point, and it is why we need firm action not only from the Government but from the supply chain. We also need enforcement of our high standards, which must not be undercut in any trade deals. Food and produce produced to lower standards abroad must not undercut domestic industries or our environmental and animal welfare standards.
I thank Labour peers, Cross Benchers and peers from other parties for their work on this Bill. Until the votes earlier, the Bill was in a much better place than it was at the start. I deeply regret that the Government are whipping their MPs to remove many of those improvements, and I hope Conservative Members will consider what further pressure can be put on Ministers to improve the Bill.
On the important issue of river sewage, I want to work on a cross-party basis with Ministers to find a better compromise. I do not think what we have just heard will convince Opposition Members or Conservative Back Benchers, but there is a route through this, and that is firmer action and a clear timeline as to how we will address this problem.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to be in the Chamber physically to discuss the Environment Bill, which the Select Committee I am privileged to chair considered in pre-legislative scrutiny. I share the pleasure of the Minister and the House that, at last, this Bill is at the point of concluding its passage.
I will confine my remarks to Lords amendment 45 and Government amendment (a) thereto. I do so because the origins of much of the work, as the Minister has been generous to admit—the Government amendments and amendment 45—stem from the private Member’s Bill I was fortunate to be able to introduce to this House before covid struck.
John Redwood
Is there a possible compromise? The Minister said that the regulator could set and enforce targets and extract penalties; would that be a way forward? Could we get the Minister to come up with some tough regulatory targets that fall short of the absolute guarantee of a legal statement?
Philip Dunne
There will be targets—there are water-quality targets in the Bill anyway—and the Minister referred to the guidance that she is on the point of finalising for the next pricing review period for Ofwat. My Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee, is currently conducting an inquiry into water quality, and we will make some recommendations to strengthen that guidance, so there are tools that can be used. That does not, though, get away from the fact that in my view there should be a primary legislative duty on water companies, to persuade them to treat this issue with sufficient seriousness.
People, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), have quite reasonably asked what the proposal would cost. Last week, our Committee heard evidence from Thames Water, which is currently investing in the largest capital treatment-works programme in our lifetime. It is a £4.6 billion investment, the purpose of which is to take away 37 million tonnes of sewage, out of a total of 39 million tonnes spilt legally into the Thames by Thames Water. It will have a huge impact on the reduction of the amount of sewage that is legally spilt into the Thames. The cost will be an increase of £19 per household in the bills of Thames Water’s water-rates payers in London. That illustrates quite well that, although the costs of improving the network are going to be significant —possibly huge: the Minister gave a range that is even bigger than the amount the Government have spent to combat covid—it will take decades.
When we asked the Secretary of State about this issue last year, when he appeared before our Committee for a different inquiry, he acknowledged that we will not deal with the problem of exceptional spillages out of water-treatment plants until such a time as the drainage system completely separates surface water from foul water. There are something like 200,000 km of combined sewers underneath our streets and fields. While they are combined, it provides the opportunity for water-treatment plants to be overwhelmed by excessive rainfall. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, made the point that it is meant to happen only on an exceptional basis, but it absolutely is happening routinely. We discovered that information after the Government put pressure on the water companies to introduce event-duration monitors, which they have now done across almost all the network. That is giving rise to the information that The Guardian is collating that shows that the completely unacceptable spillage of sewage into rivers is routine. It has to stop. That was the intention behind my private Member’s Bill and is the reason why I continue to talk about this subject ad nauseum. I am much looking forward to the day when this Bill receives Royal Assent and I can get on to other matters.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The Question must be put no later than six minutes past 7. Colleagues can see that there is a lot of interest, so will they please show some time discipline?
Deidre Brock
These amendments are almost entirely focused on English environmental matters, and many Members, as you have noted, Mr Deputy Speaker, wish to speak from English constituencies, so I will make this contribution short.
Lords amendment 43, while laudable in its intentions, inappropriately constricts the powers of Scottish Ministers in a devolved area. Although I absolutely support its general aims, those decisions should properly be made by the Scottish Government and Parliament and not by this Chamber or indeed the other place.
In closing, I wish to acknowledge the shadow Minister’s comments about tree planting in England lagging behind the rest of the UK. In 2019, more than 80% of the UK’s tree plantings were delivered by Scotland. I urge the Government to listen to colleagues on these Benches and get a move on.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate today as I have I sat on the Environment Bill Committee and, as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, was part of the water quality inquiry. Because of time limits, I will restrict my remarks to proposed new section 141A of the Water Industry Act 1991 in Lords amendment 45.
May I say more widely that there is a lot to be proud of in this Bill and, as we come to discuss these finer matters, we should not take away from the hard work that has taken place over the past few years? I congratulate the Minister and the Secretary State, my constituency neighbour, on all the hard work that they and their Department have done on this. It has taken a lot to get cross-party agreement, and, during the Bill Committee, we were never in disagreement on the direction of travel; it was always on the semantics of what needed to happen and where. That says a lot about this Parliament.
As we have heard, steps have been taken in the Bill, with sewerage undertakers being required to produce comprehensive statutory drainage and sewerage management plans, setting out how a company will manage and develop its drainage and sewerage system over a minimum 25-year planning period and how storm overflows will be addressed through those plans.
The Government have amended the Bill on a number of occasions to respond to Members’ concerns on storm overflows. Amendments to the Bill at Committee stage in the other place would require the Government to produce a statutory plan, as we have heard, to reduce discharges from overflows and the harm that they cause and to report regularly to Parliament on progress. Further amendments were made on Report, which will place new duties on water companies, requiring them to report overflows in real time. We have heard about this, too, and it is already starting to happen. None the less, it beggars belief that this has not been happening routinely for years and that we have had to rely on voluntary groups, as we found out in our inquiry, to do a lot of this monitoring work upstream and downstream. It is really welcome that the water companies will now be compelled to do this from now on.
I look forward to the Government being required to publish a report before 1 September 2022 explaining the actions needed to eliminate storm overflows, including their costs and benefits. This report will provide Parliament, the public, and the water industry with upfront, clear and comprehensive information on the feasibility of the plan and the cost of elimination. Between the Government plan on storm overflows and the new elimination report, I believe that we are on track for real transparency from the Government and from the water companies. It will mean that the public can see how far we have to go on this huge issue.
However, the Government could go further. I am constantly pressed on this matter by Surfers against Sewage, which is based in my constituency, and by a large number of passionate constituents, and I share their frustrations. Without the legal duty, there is nothing to compel water companies to take immediate action to tackle sewage pollution, which could mean that our rivers continue to decline indefinitely and irreversibly. The cynic in me understands why the Government cannot commit to this at this stage. It is my opinion—and it is only my opinion—that were the provision put in the Bill, the water companies would be compelled to say that, as the Government have put it in the Bill, they have to pay for the infrastructure upgrade. To pay for it, therefore, we either have to put up taxes or put up bills. That is a conversation that must happen down the line; it is not right to compel the Government to do that right now. That is the only reason why I am supporting the Government on this matter at this time, but they should be reassured that I will be pressing DEFRA again and again to make sure that we get this matter absolutely right.
I understand that we are not at the end of the road yet and that the Bill is yet to become law. When it does become law, people can judge the commitments and the publications of the Government—for example when we have the Government report on the costs and benefits of eliminating storm overflows. Last week the Environmental Audit Committee questioned the five chief executive officers of the water companies, including Susan Davy of South West Water, who I have met a few times to discuss upstream thinking projects on farms and so on. There was an acknowledgement and an agreement that Cornwall’s rivers are in trouble for many different reasons. At this point, I declare an interest: my husband is, and has been since his youth, a keen salmon and sea trout angler, as well as a bass charter fisherman and now a commercial fisherman for the under-10 metre fleet, but—this will become relevant in a few minutes—he does not use nets.
Tony Lloyd
Lords amendment 43 addresses a real and important issue. Although I listened carefully to what the Minister said to the House, it simply did not go far enough. We know that the decline in the population of pollinators has been serious. For example, it is estimated that we lose some £500 million-worth of Gala apples every year. If we add up the other fruits and vegetables that rely on pollinators, the economic cost is enormous. But this is more important than simply the economics of the agricultural industry, although that is important.
The decline in pollinators is also about habitat loss, as the Minister said, but the Government are not yet doing enough to restore those habitats. We also know that the impact of pesticides is real. The Minister said that the Government follow the science, but we do not have the science on this. We do not know about the impact, for example, of the joint use of products such as fungicides and pyrethroids. We know a little bit about the impact of neonicotinoids on the honey bee, but we do not know about the impact of neonicotinoids on other pollinators. We simply cannot follow the science if that science does not exist.
When we were leaving the European Union, one of the Government’s commitments was that we would maintain the ban on neonicotinoids because of the known impact. They do not simply kill honey bees directly; they also prevent the reproduction of honey bees and possibly of other pollinators, and make the nervous system of the honey bee no longer functional so that solitary bees, for example, which are also important pollinators, may simply not return home to feed their brood. We do not really know the impact of neonicotinoids, except that it is bad.
The right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) made an important point earlier, when he said that Ministers come and Ministers go. I say to the Minister that an important lesson in life is this: never trust Ministers to make decisions unless we have transparency. We can respect individual Ministers, but we need a consistency of approach that outlasts individual Ministers. On the question of the protection of pollinators, it is important that we have transparency and the capacity genuinely to follow expert science—to build that scientific base, but with expert science.
Earlier this year, we saw that the Secretary of State was prepared to use the exemptions from the neonicotinoid ban to allow the use of neonicotinoids with respect to the sugar beet crop, because there was enormous pressure from the sugar industry and, to a degree, from some sugar beet farmers. In fact, the Government did not follow the science then, because the experts advised the Government that that was the wrong decision, but Government Ministers still made that decision. They were wrong; the experts were right. The funny thing is that a good number of farmers who have been made aware of that feel that they were hoodwinked by the Government. Some have said that they would not use neonicotinoids next year on the basis of what happened this year. That is important, because the reason we need Lords amendment 43 is that it allows us to move on to the basis of genuinely following the science, genuinely protecting the farming industry where that is appropriate, and absolutely guaranteeing that we protect pollinators—not just honeybees but across the piece—from the impact of pesticides and the damage they can do.
I implore Members to think very seriously about this. It should not be a partisan, party issue; it goes way beyond that. If you believe in the value of pollinators, and quite frankly our agricultural system would be destroyed without them, then please—
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech about the importance of pollinators—not just honeybees, although they are hugely important—and the economic and environmental benefits of these very valuable insects. Does he agree that it would have been better for the former Minister to have listened to a broader range of advice about neonicotinoids? Does he also agree that it would have been wiser for the Government to continue to follow the regulation from the European Union and not to try to diverge from that in this important area, and indeed others?
Tony Lloyd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope that the Minister does listen. Although the Government recognised that there was no need to use the exemption this year because of the weather conditions, that may not apply next year or the year after, so we need to follow the experts in a way that they most certainly were not followed by the Government.
Amendment 43 is not partisan; it is in the interests of everybody. I hope the whole House will seriously think about supporting its retention.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
There is a lot covered in this group of amendments, but in the interests of time I will limit my remarks to the three Ps of pollinators, pesticides and poo. We are beekeepers at home. As I speak, my husband is processing the honey from our seven hives in our kitchen. For reasons I have never fully understood, this seems to involve coating every single implement in said kitchen in honey, so I am quite resigned to going back on Friday evening to a kitchen that resembles the aftermath of a house party thrown by Winnie the Pooh. Wish me luck.
Starting with pollinators and pesticides, the UK already has legislation that regulates pesticides that was transferred from the EU. It takes a tougher, hazard-based approach to regulation rather than the risk-based approach that many other countries use. The Bill requires that pesticides have no unacceptable effects on the environment, having particular regard to its impact on non-target species, which of course includes all pollinators, not just bees. Amendment 43 would replicate part of this existing framework, which sounds to me like a recipe for confusion. It also seems to be jumping the gun on the new national action plan for sustainable use of pesticides, which I look forward to seeing before the end of this year.
So, on to poo. Storm overflows designed for emergencies are now being used as a daily method of sewage management. In Rushcliffe in 2020, Severn Trent recorded storm overflows at three points in the village of Radcliffe-on-Trent alone, totalling 6,854 hours, while in the village of East Leake, the sewage treatment works there discharged 58 times for a total of 715 hours. Yet Severn Trent has still not acknowledged the need for a new pumping station. I welcome the measures in the Bill that will require water companies to publish data on storm overflows both on an annual basis and in real time, especially because it took my team months to extract the data that we needed from Severn Trent.
The Bill also puts a duty on water companies to produce comprehensive statutory drainage and sewerage management plans, including how storm overflows will be addressed. Those plans will cover a minimum 25-year horizon, which is crucial, because much of the problem in Rushcliffe comes from investment in drainage and sewerage not keeping pace with development and new homes.
The Bill also puts a duty on Government to produce a statutory plan to reduce discharges from storm overflows next year. I believe that is the right approach, because it acknowledges two things. First, it acknowledges that reducing storm overflows is the responsibility of a wider range of actors than just water companies. As the Rivers Trust has said, delivering a plan will require contributions from the whole of society, and in particular landowners, developers, highway constructors and homeowners, to divert surface water away from sewers. I am concerned that proposed new section 141A of amendment 45 covers only sewerage undertakers, leaving other significant stakeholders off the hook. We need a comprehensive strategy that addresses the problem from all angles.
Secondly, as implied by the first point, and as has been discussed today, this is going to cost a lot of money. Initial estimates, as the Minister said, range between £150 billion and £650 billion, and it will probably require some fundamental changes to how we do things. Neither of those is reason not to tackle the problem. I firmly believe we should do so, and the Bill makes a first, important step towards doing that, but we need to ensure that we understand the costs, the likely customer bill increases and the trade-offs against other areas that we want to see water companies investing in. While I support the aims of the amendment, and I acknowledge and thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for all his work in this area and in strengthening the Bill to date, I will not be voting for the amendment tonight. We need to go further, but we need to make sure that is based on data.
The final thought I offer is that although debates such as this naturally focus on what is not in the Bill, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) in recognising all the great things that are in the Bill and the huge, fantastic job that the Minister has done, including on strengthening protection for ancient woodlands, the conservation covenants, the scrutiny of forest risk products in the supply chain and a legally binding target to halt species decline by 2030. That is just in the part of the Bill we are discussing now, and I think those things are worth celebrating.
Tim Farron
I want to say very briefly that I am deeply concerned that the Government have chosen to disagree with Lords amendment 43. We recognise that there is a gap in the authorisation process for new pesticides, which does not look at the long-term impact of pesticides on bees and other wild pollinators. Others have spoken about the vast importance of bees and wild pollinators to biodiversity and, frankly, to our capacity to feed ourselves as a country. I am yet to be convinced that the Government are acting in the wisest long-term interests of our environment and our agricultural economy by refusing to accept that entirely reasonable amendment from the other place.
Like others, I am about to talk poop—not for the first time, as I am sure others would add, and nor for the last. Lords amendments 45 to 48 are a collection of reasonable amendments that seek to add pressure on the water companies and Ofwat to ensure that we do not see the dumping of untreated or poorly treated sewage into waterways and lakes without significant penalties or the possibility of local communities getting action quickly to rectify those matters.
In my community in south Cumbria, we suffered as a consequence of Storm Desmond. We saw the River Kent polluted so very badly by a storm overflow from the Wattsfield treatment works just outside Kendal, and it basically killed the entire fish population of that river. That was Storm Desmond, which, by the way, was meant to be a one-in-200-years event. I can tell the House that in a 10-year period, we had three at least one-in-100-years events. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the idea that storms are the only time there are sewage overflows is absolute nonsense and the water companies hugely abuse that loophole.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
There are five hon. Members seeking to catch my eye and I propose to call the Minister soon after 7 o’clock, therefore the arithmetic can be done. If everybody takes two to three minutes, they will all get in, but if not, some people will not be called. That is not up to me; it is up to all of you.
Tim Loughton
I wanted to speak on interim targets in the first group of amendments, but given the time constraints, I have saved myself for sewage. I rise to support the Duke of Wellington’s amendment, which is the most important amendment we are faced with this evening.
I acknowledge that this is a landmark piece of legislation. I congratulate the Minister on the way that she has listened and on the length that she has gone to on the sewage issue. Frankly, however, when it comes to sewage discharge, my constituents do not want another taskforce, an aspirational target, or a discretionary duty of care. They do not even want more consultation. They just want a legally enforceable obligation on our water companies to stop them routinely discharging raw sewage into our rivers and seas. That is the bottom line.
The Bill, as it is framed, does not go far enough. Without that legal obligation, water companies can still cause harm by their sewage discharges and there is no guarantee of any immediate action to tackle sewage pollution. I shall be supporting the Duke of Wellington’s amendment because my constituency has a coastline with some of the best kitesurfing in the country at Lancing, because I support Surfers Against Sewage, and because I am a coastal MP for a constituency where we have had many instances of discharge.
I am afraid that we are served by Southern Water, which is the worst offender. Although the new management have made great progress from all the illegal cases of discharge that went on, for which they have been handsomely and quite rightly fined, it is still happening too much on a routine basis. I support the private Member’s Bill brought in by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), as did the Minister, so why are its provisions not in the Bill if the Government are serious about this?
Storm discharges are happening far too often. I understand the implications of extreme weather conditions and that, if we do not do something about it, we will have sewage popping up from under manhole covers and into people’s homes and gardens, but we should be doing more about increasing capacity to deal with those events, and I am afraid it is just not happening. We are talking not just about raw sewage, but about primary treated sewage, which is still doing a lot of harm when it gets out. This can only get worse with the huge house building pressures that we have in the south-east in particular. The pressure is going to get greater, but I am afraid that the capacity to deal with it is not increasing at a commensurate rate. The requirements on sewage companies to do a clear-up when there have been discharges are not nearly tough enough.
People have had enough of this. We are weary of excuses about learning lessons, and about how a certain company is going to do better in the future and has no greater priority. The amendment needs to send out a strong message to put water companies on no uncertain notice that enough is enough and that there will now be a legally enforceable obligation to do far more, taking all reasonable steps to ensure that untreated sewage is not discharged from storm overflows and proactively demonstrating that they have done so. They must show that they have improved the sewerage system, with the Government and their agencies bringing all their forces to bear to make sure that they abide by that, and that when they do not, they are properly punished. That is the minimum our constituents should expect. I hope that is what the Duke of Wellington’s amendment actually achieves. It is what my right hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill would have brought in, and I urge the Government to think again about that.
Caroline Lucas
I will be brief, but I will simply continue this theme about Lords amendment 45, which, as many hon. Members have said, simply does not go far enough. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for all his work on this and for his chairing of the Environmental Audit Committee, where this has been such a key issue for us.
One of the reasons why I want to speak about this follows on from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), because I too have Southern Water in my constituency and, frankly, its record has been abysmal. In July, it was ordered to pay a record £90 million fine after an investigation by the Environment Agency found that it had caused almost 7,000 illegal sewage discharges between 2010 and 2015, which lasted a total of 61,000 hours—the equivalent of over seven years. What is shocking about that is that these discharges were happening not by accident, but because Southern Water knew that the penalties were not serious enough to deter it from doing it. That is the real concern. That followed its being fined £3 million in 2019 and ordered to pay back £123 million to customers to compensate for serious failings in the sewage treatment works and deliberately misreporting.
There is a major issue here. It has affected my constituency, where back in 2019, over 50 discharge notifications were issued in Brighton and Hove, whereas in 2020 absolutely none was issued at all. Essentially, the system is not working properly. We need to have the legal duty that was in the Duke of Wellington’s amendment. Without that, there is essentially nothing to compel water companies to take immediate action to tackle sewage and pollution. That legal duty is in line with the Government’s stated ambition, and I do not understand why they will not put it in the Bill.
Briefly, I also support Lords amendment 43. Others, including the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), have made a really powerful case for why that matters so much. I simply want to put on the record as well that I was disappointed that Lords did not uphold their previous support for protecting rural residents on the issue of the impact of pesticides on human health, because that is a big exposure problem too.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
With genuine thanks to the Minister and her team, I will speak to Lords amendment 45 on storm overflows. It is not rocket science why I and many of my colleagues receive so many emails and so much correspondence about river pollution, as the thought of sewage in our rivers is revolting. I know one lady who chose to swim the length of the River Severn, which is more than 200 miles. She got to Gloucester, but ended up in hospital because she had swallowed some raw sewage. This is a health and biodiversity issue; it is about leisure and living. I can see the River Severn from my home, and we all want clean and good quality waterways.
I will keep my remarks brief. I backed the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne). Stroud is an incredibly environmental area, and smart environmentalists challenge me all the time. Unusually, that Bill managed to satisfy the majority of people, which is because my right hon. Friend consulted campaign groups, individuals and the public. He went to water companies and tried to find wording, language and a private Member’s Bill that works. That “what works?” approach is important. Not without regret, therefore, I will be backing the amendment from the Duke of Wellington that mirrors the private Member’s Bill. I think we need that hard action in the Bill now, and to then work out how we make it work from that point. We see technology changing. A business in my constituency is working to take raw sewage and turn it into aviation fuel. We just do not know what is around the corner, but if we get the Bill in place, good things will happen, certainly for our rivers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I want to bring the protection of pollinators from pesticides to the Minister’s attention. She has replied to that issue, and provided some reassurance. However, I am aware that my local council back home is cultivating areas of biodiversity to strengthen the bee population. We are all aware that honeybee hives and the honeybee population has reduced by some 40% in recent years, which has also affected the decline in the butterfly population. Can the Minister reassure me that work is being done to address that figure of 40%?
The Minister has reassured me about the agriculture sector and the critical input of farmers. However, I am aware that pesticide authorisation in the UK is being undertaken by the Secretary of State with the consent of the devolved nations, but that after Brexit, the UK no longer has oversight of pesticide use in Northern Ireland. Again, I highlight the difficulty of the protocol. In this House I advocate for change, but it is change that cannot apply to Northern Ireland. I understand that importance of that.
I am firm believer that we are good stewards of the wonderful creation that we have been granted, and we should make use of the beautiful world we have in the best way. That is why I am supportive of a number of amendments tabled by the Government, and others, during the passage of the Bill. I encourage the Government to reach out and educate the young people of today, who seem to know more about the environment than do the old hands and people of my generation. It is important that the children of today have something left for them tomorrow, and with that in mind the message must start in this place. This Bill is a decent foundation to begin the work that needs doing to secure the future for our grandchildren’s children, and so much for the future.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It gives me real pleasure to speak about the Bill once again, and I thank the Minister, who has worked incredibly hard to bring this hefty Bill through the House. It was a pleasure to sit on the Bill Committee. Let me use my short time to focus quickly on Lords amendment 45, which deals with water quality and storm overflow. As the Minister will be aware, I represent a constituency that contains the first river to be recognised with bathing water status in the UK. Dealing with and improving water quality is very dear to my heart. Although we have that bathing water status, that is very much the start of the process, because it is putting pressure on our utility company, Yorkshire Water, to clean up the River Wharfe. I very much want Yorkshire Water to put in that level of investment over the next five years, to ensure that our River Wharfe is cleaned up and we achieve good bathing status.
I want to highlight the very good work in the Bill that can work alongside Lords amendment 45, including Government amendment (a) to that Lords amendment and the original clause 76, which makes it compulsory for sewerage undertakers to produce a drainage and sewerage management plan to address the impact of overflow on rivers. That will come alongside legally binding targets that will, in the short term, lead to more assessment of drainage and wastewater issues. In the long term, those plans will improve the resilience of our rivers during extreme weather and guarantee a reduced risk of sewage getting into the River Wharfe through surface water flooding.
Rebecca Pow
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. It has been a heated session, but I think that shows how strongly we feel about these issues.
I will touch first on storm overflows, which dominated the session. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for his moving and powerful words, as ever. I have great sympathy with him, because I too have been wading in effluent for quite some time now. I take what he says. We also heard vociferous speeches from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas); my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton); my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), who truly outlined the complexities of dealing with the storm overflow issue—it is not straightforward and there is not one answer; my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), who was very clear in what she said; my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) and for Keighley (Robbie Moore); and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).
I have listed all the things that we are doing on this issue that were not in the Bill before. This is all new. We have the statutory plan that the Government have to produce on discharges, we have the new duty on water companies to publish data on overflows, we have reporting processes, and the water companies have a duty to monitor water quality. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), also spoke powerfully on this issue. We have had much conversation about it, and I think we are coming from the same place, but I say to him that we also have the drainage and sewerage management plans, which will set out how the water companies will manage their sewerage systems, and the Government have been really clear that we expect storm overflows to be addressed in those plans. That is very clear in the explanatory notes.
One Member asked, “What’s happening right now?” From now until 2025, water companies will invest just over £7 billion on environmental improvements in England, and £3 billion of that will be spent on storm overflow improvements. This work is starting now, and it is really important to flag that. It is not the case that nothing is happening; there is a great deal happening, but there will be a great deal more happening as a result of the Bill.
We believe that new section 141A of the Water Industry Act 1991 introduced by Lords amendment 45 is redundant, and I ask the House to agree to our amendment (a) to leave out lines 7 to 14 of that Lords amendment. I will say, though, that we are listening. We have listened all along and we have acted all along. The Government are absolutely committed to reducing sewage in our water. Nobody thinks sewage in water is a good idea, and I hope we have demonstrated that we have been very strong on that.
Let me quickly correct something that I mentioned about ancient woodland in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who is no longer in his seat. On the NPPF, in relation to policy under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that would not bind decisions under the Transport and Works Act 1992 on hybrid Bills. I just wanted to correct that. However, I can reassure the House that biodiversity net gain will cover nationally significant infrastructure projects. That is very important.
Pesticides were talked about a great deal. We have listened carefully, but I am confident that we have got the correct existing regulations in terms of bees and all our pollinators. I hope everyone agrees that we are bringing through some very strong and exciting measures on the protection of ancient woodlands, which I announced together. I hope the House will support our amendment in lieu on conservation covenants, which will provide reassurance to landowners. We are not supporting Lords amendments 94 and 95. On Lords amendment 65, we will be publishing a nature recovery Green Paper that will set out robust protections for the future.
On those grounds, I really hope the House will support our position tonight. I thank everyone for their contributions to this debate.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 43.
Rebecca Pow
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 85.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 85, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.
Lords amendments 36 to 42, 44, 68, 76 to 84, and 86 to 90.
Rebecca Pow
I am very happy to finish these proceedings on a really positive note. I am delighted to offer amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 85 to expand the scope of the single-use items charge. Amendment (a) will allow the charge to be imposed on single-use items made from any material, not just plastic. This charge will help us to future-proof the Bill and protect the environment for generations to come by providing a powerful tool to incentivise the right shifts towards more reusable alternatives to single-use items and towards a circular economy. We want to take this opportunity to strengthen our hand and encourage citizens to reduce, recycle and reuse.
I also urge the House to accept the relatively technical amendments made to the Bill in the Lords that will improve both the Bill and delivery. They will support the swifter and more effective implementation and operation of extended producer responsibility measures, allow consistency in enforcement powers for waste tracking in Scotland, and provide clarity on the exercise of search and seizure powers for waste crime. We have also accepted all the recommendations of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and the remaining amendments implement those recommendations.
Luke Pollard
I am glad that the Minister has listened to the concerns that were expressed about the throwaway economy and the throwaway culture that we have seen. Since the pandemic hit us, much of the progress that had been made in addressing single-use plastics has gone into reverse, with more single-use plastics being used and more being disposed of, including the emerging threat to much wildlife of PPE being disposed of in an inappropriate way. I am glad that the Minister has taken action to listen to the concerns of the Lords, which will now include extension of the single-use charge to other items that accompany this. That is a positive step and Labour Members support her in doing so. I invite her to look again at some of the other aspects around this that we have discussed today.
It is important to finish this Bill soon. It is an okay Bill—it is bit meh—but we do need the measures in it to be put in place soon. I know that it will be considered again by our friends in the Lords next week.
I invite the Minister to have words with those programming Government business to see whether this Bill can be brought back before COP26. Although I would like this Bill to go much faster and further, and although there are bits that are clearly insufficient, it is a step forward. Besides, I know that the Minister has plenty of press releases saying, “Landmark Environment Bill” ready to be sent, and I would hate to think that she would not get a chance to do so before COP26. I would be grateful if she brought forward those measures beforehand, but the Opposition welcome this positive step forward to address our throwaway culture.
Lords amendment 85 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (c) made in lieu of Lords amendment 85.
Lords amendments 36 to 42, 44, 68, 76 to 84, and 86 to 90 agreed to.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1, 2, 3, 12, 28, 33, 43, 65, 66, 94 and 95;
That Rebecca Pow, Selaine Saxby, Heather Wheeler, Ruth Edwards, Luke Pollard, Mary Glindon and Deidre Brock be members of the Committee;
That Rebecca Pow be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Security Update
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I have agreed to the request from the Government to make a statement, as I believe this is a subject that the House will want to be informed about at the earliest opportunity. It is a subject on which all colleagues will have strong views, especially in view of the death of our colleague Sir David Amess. However, I remind Members that it is the case that a police investigation is ongoing. It is therefore important that Members do not say anything that might impede that investigation or any court case that might follow. I therefore ask Members please not to speculate on the circumstances around our great friend and colleague, Sir David death.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about right hon. and hon. Members’ security.
Operation Bridger was established in response to the murder of our dear colleague Jo Cox as a nationwide police protection programme to provide security measures to all Members. Following the devastating and horrific attack on our dear friend Sir David last Friday, I asked each police force to review the security arrangements for all Members with immediate effect. I am assured that, since I commissioned that review, every Member has been contacted by their local police force to reassess their individual security arrangements in the wake of this tragedy. If any right hon. or hon. Member has not received contact, they should please speak to me after the statement.
In parallel with that review, the joint terrorism analysis centre has conducted an independent review on the risk facing Members of Parliament. While we do not see any information or intelligence that points to any credible, specific or imminent threat, I must update the House that the threat level facing Members of the House is now deemed to be substantial. That is the same level as the current national threat to the United Kingdom as a whole. I can assure the House that our world-class security and intelligence agencies and counter-terror police will now ensure that this change is properly reflected in their operational posture.
I will always ensure face-to-face contact, robust debate and the wider benefits of our democracy are defended and protected, but we must all take this change in risk seriously. I would like to urge all Members to access the range of security provisions and support available under Operation Bridger and through the parliamentary security department and the Metropolitan police’s parliamentary liaison and investigation team. As well as for our own sake, we have a duty of care to protect our staff and the general public.
I know that every single Member will take, register and act upon on the advice that is given to help our country be kept safe from terror, and, of course, to enable our own conduct when it comes to making sure that democracy is defended and protected. I commend this statement to the House.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for the advance briefing before the statement and for the time that I know she has taken to speak to many Members of the House on an individual basis.
We are brought together this evening in the most devastating circumstances. We were all shaken to the core by Sir David’s death. It has been impossible not to be moved this week by the powerful tributes across the House from his many, many friends. What made the pain even harder was that it came so quickly after the murder of our friend and dear colleague Jo Cox. Our thoughts are with their families and loved ones, whose lives will never be the same again, but who will no doubt take enormous pride in the remarkable contributions that Jo and David made to this country.
I know that in the face of such unspeakable hatred we stand united and unshakeable in this House that those who use violence in an attempt to divide us shall never win. We refuse to be intimidated by these dark forces. That also goes for the vile individual or individuals who erected a noose in Parliament Square today.
Yet in order to stand firm in the face of such threats, we must do everything possible to guard against these violent positions, not least as we hear, as the Home Secretary has set out, that the threat level to MPs has been raised to substantial. We accept the assessment made by the joint terrorism analysis centre that the threat has increased. We must now take the necessary steps not just for our own safety, but for that of our staff and constituents.
I would like to take a moment to thank the police; the security services; your offices, Mr Speaker; and Commons staff for the extraordinary work they do to protect us. I am grateful, too, to policing representatives for the briefings they have afforded me and I thank them for all they do.
May I ask a few questions of the Home Secretary? Is she confident that our police, security services and Members’ security will have the resources they need to guard against this increased threat? Can she say more to Members and their staff about the additional guidance and support that may now be required? Can the Home Secretary update the House on when the wider review she announced of Members’ security will be published? Can she also outline whether she will look more widely at the protection of all those in public life, including those serving in local government?
I welcome the swift action promised by the Prime Minister in that the online harms Bill will be delivered swiftly, and I was particularly glad to see mention of criminal sanctions for company executives—a much-needed reform that we have long argued for on the Opposition Benches. Opposition Members are committed to doing everything possible to address these challenges, as we know how appallingly high the stakes are. I know the whole House is committed to doing everything possible to address the awful events of last Friday. Hatred and division will never overcome us. In that spirit, we work together collectively to do all we can to make sure something like that cannot happen again.
Priti Patel
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and, I must say, for the joint and collective recognition that we have a shared responsibility in how we conduct ourselves and how we act. If I may say so, that has been reflected in the way in which, organisationally, everyone across the House has come together—from the support given by you, Mr Speaker and your team, and of course the Lord Speaker at the other end of Parliament, to the parliamentary policing support and the teams that we all depend on for MPs’ security in our own constituencies.
There has been an incredible effort nationwide, and I want to pay tribute to all police operatives under Operation Bridger for the work they have been doing. As ever, my thanks go to the intelligence agencies, the security services, JTAC and counter-terrorism policing. The work has been quite remarkable—it really has.
The right hon. Gentleman made a number of points, and to be fair they are points that we touched on in the Chamber on Monday. It is very sombre that we are having this statement today after the terrible tragedy that took place on Friday. It is also a recognition of the fact that we want our democracy to be defended and, rightly so. We want to conduct our business in the open and transparent way that all Members have successfully done over so many generations.
On that note, that is exactly why, through the agencies and Government structures, we have stood up the wider work of the defending democracy team in the Cabinet Office, which will look at other elected representatives. The right hon. Gentleman touched on the issue of councillors and other elected representatives, as I did in the House on Monday. We all collectively acknowledge and know—many of us have been in some of these roles previously in public life—that there are public servants across society and our country who, day in, day out, do a great deal of work in representing their communities and, importantly, in delivering public services. They have been subject to abuse, for example, and that is part of the wider work taking place.
The wider review taking place on policing is all linked to Operation Bridger, and rightly so, because that is the structure that has been set up, and is effective. We are constantly working to enhance that. Our role is to close down any perceived gaps in security, or even risks for MPs and wider assessments that may materialise. Of course, again, that is a collective effort.
My next point—and I am sure that all hon. and right hon. Members will appreciate the context in which I make this remark—is that it is not for us to publicly and openly discuss our security measures. We protect ourselves by working with the agencies and police. We act in a responsible way on the basis of the advice and guidance we are given, and, I should add, the support that we are given, as Members of this House to enable us to function and do our jobs as elected representatives. I would just like to emphasise that point to all colleagues, and colleagues will understand the context in which I make that remark.
Finally, all Members should be aware that through your good offices, Mr Speaker, and the support teams you have, you and I will continue to keep all Members of this House updated. Of course, there are protective security measures and packages available to Members, which we will be sharing, and we will once again be reiterating the support that is available to all Members.
Mr Speaker
Before I call Dr Lewis, let me say that, with the Home Secretary, we will be sending a letter to all Members of the House with a further update and we will try to keep the House informed as much as possible. I reassure the House that meetings between each of our offices have been going forward continuously to ensure that we are doing the right thing by everybody. I would add this to what the Home Secretary said. You are being contacted about doing service. Please do not do this because that gives information we do not want to give. The other part of that is: what will happen to the data that you are giving? It puts not just you at risk, but others at risk.
Dr Lewis
May I draw particular attention to the wise words of the Home Secretary in what I think was her penultimate point about the discussion of security measures that MPs decide they will or will not take? Most right hon. and hon. Members have ideas about ways in which their security can be improved. It is very unwise—is it not, Mr Speaker?—for us to state what those ideas are in public. I am sure that, like me, every Member present in the Chamber was contacted by local and national media asking, “How are you going to proceed in future? Are you going to continue with face-to-face surgeries? What changes will you make to your arrangements?” Does the Home Secretary agree that it is quite inappropriate for the media to ask such questions, and it is quite counterproductive, and indeed self-endangering, for us to answer them?
Priti Patel
I thank my right hon. Friend for his observation and comments, as well for as his question. This has been a sombre week for all of us in this House —it really has. We have lost colleagues through the most appalling attacks, first Jo Cox, and then Sir David Amess. It is not for us to be publicly discussing security measures at all. As the House has already heard me say, I urge all hon. Members, for the sake of protecting the public, our staff and our functioning democracy, to respect some of the parameters that we are speaking about now. We must also respect the fact that, to carry on in our roles as elected representatives, we have to take advice that should not be in the public domain—advice that we listen to and that will effectively shape our own behaviours. That will lead to greater public protection from safeguarding and security. We all have a responsibility to follow the words of my right hon. Friend and be very conscientious about what we say when it comes to security.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
May I associate myself fully with the remarks of the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary? I thank and pay tribute to all those involved in work to keep us safe. I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, particularly so quickly after Home Office questions on Monday. It is vital—our security and working practices are being debated—that we are kept abreast of the broad thrust of what is going on and I back the points that have already been made. Details of what is going on must be kept private.
We are also fully behind the Home Secretary remarks about making it our mission to protect democratically elected representatives, but also to protect a key part of that representative role, which is meeting and interacting with our constituents. It is imperative that we consider the implications for everybody, not only MPs but our staff and everyone who works in the House of Commons and beyond. As the shadow Home Secretary said, we must consider every level of democracy, including our hardworking councillors. We should always be careful that by adding extra protection to one group we do not make another group vulnerable. I am pleased with the Home Secretary’s reassurance in that regard.
These first urgent steps are welcome, and I join the Home Secretary in encouraging colleagues to take up the extra measures that have been offered to them. As she said, it is important not to lose sight of the broader cultural change that is required, and transforming a political culture in which harassing, intimidation and threatening politicians is seen as something that comes with the job. That is not something we can do overnight, but we should all work together to ensure that it happens.
Priti Patel
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I think we can judge by the tone of the House, in the light of the tragic events that have taken place and the reasons we are here having this discussion, that we are absolutely united in our determination to work together on this. This is also about the safety of our citizens and our country, and our ability to function and conduct our business as democratically elected Members of this House, while ensuring that other pillars and aspects of society where a great deal of great work takes place—good, important work by other elected representatives—are also safeguarded. Safeguarding the sanctity of our conduct around democracy and delivering the service to the British public is vital.
Alongside that, let me briefly touch on the point about the cruel environment, frankly, of the online space. I absolutely echo the words that were said earlier today, including by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, about working together. The online space has become far too permissive of too much cruelty and harm, and it is not just levelled and leveraged towards elected Members of Parliament. We see children, and people of different races and different religious groups, targeted and affected by some of the most awful, barbaric statements. That is what has to stop and change. That absolutely means that we have a lot of work to do in this space, but we will hold those responsible for hosting such cruel material on their platforms to account because we absolutely want to bring an end to this.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Many of us are very worried on behalf of our staff, so can the Home Secretary please make sure that there is good private reassurance, advice and additional support for them? They often face objectionable things too.
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak about our staff, and with that acknowledge the incredible work that they do to support us, which enables us to go about our business as constituency MPs. On that point—I know that this has been touched on in the House already, today and earlier this week—our staff are subjected to some of the most appalling abuse. It comes to us, but they are the ones who receive it, see it, take the telephone calls and, sadly, receive the emails. Again, we will continue collectively to provide support to them. In the light of the substantial support that has been provided to MPs, I would like to restate that members of staff, working with their Members of Parliament, should feel free to come to speak to PLAIT and the parliamentary authorities about some of the measures that they can adopt, through what is on offer through the House and the wider work, to ensure that they feel assured about their own safety and security and ways of working outside the Palace of Westminster and while they are here.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and, through her, express my thanks for the huge amount of work being done by the police and the Security Service to keep us safe. She will know that some of the targeting online that undermines democracy is particularly aimed at black and minority ethnic MPs, and that there is increased targeting of women MPs too. Could she say something about her approach to that as part of the security assessment?
Priti Patel
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. First, the type of appalling abuse that we have seen online is abhorrent and unacceptable. I still find it incredible that—actually, through many anonymous platforms as well—the most cruel and appalling abuse comes towards elected Members of Parliament of all backgrounds, but female MPs have been subjected to the most appalling abuse, and there should be no tolerance of that whatsoever.
There is work taking place through Mr Speaker’s office and the wider parliamentary security teams around online profiling—I think that is probably the best phrase to use—linked to looking at MPs’ profiles online and giving all MPs support when they are subjected to abuse and harassment online. Many of those measures are already in place—the right hon. Lady, and hon. and right hon. colleagues, will be aware of that—but there will be further information coming to all colleagues about what more will be done on that basis, how they can be assured and how they engage with the teams in Parliament.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, but I will pick up with her, after the statement, a particular MP’s case in this regard. We are 650 individuals representing 650 constituencies covered by a number of police forces. To pick up on the comments by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), there is a variety of support available to us. What I want to ask the Home Secretary is: what support will be in place for individual forces to help Members to make the right decisions about the support that is available to them? It is not for MPs to decide what is the best support; it is about taking those recommendations on the threat assessment, so we can take appropriate and proportionate support to protect ourselves and our staff.
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady makes a very important point, but what I would say is that this is at a national level. All police forces, through Operation Bridger, are absolutely engaged. There is national policing leadership through Counter Terrorism Policing and the National Police Chiefs Council—she will be familiar with the structures around that, in particular. Part of this work—I would like to emphasise this to all colleagues—is ensuring consistency across the United Kingdom and across all police forces for all Members of Parliament. That is why I stood up this work over the weekend: to ensure that all hon. Members and right hon. Members had been contacted, particularly as we were in a weekend situation with Members out and about in their constituencies, plus looking ahead to this weekend and future weekends—consistency of communication, consistency of advice, consistency of support to all Members and docking in with the wider parliamentary security that is stood up through the Parliamentary Liaison and Investigation Team and through Mr Speaker’s office.
Finally, I emphasise to all MPs that, as ever, through the discussions and dialogues they have with their police leads and their police forces, particularly in constituencies, the support and resources are absolutely in place—they are there. However, in the light of the changing threat, the changing and evolving picture, resources and guidance will constantly change should we need to do anything else in terms of advice and support for Members of Parliament. This is an agile system. I hope all Members have seen that in the response and support they received in a very short and concentrated period of time post Friday. We will continue to update all Members and that will come not just from the parliamentary side here, but at a local level through their local police forces.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the leadership you have shown and for the absolutely palpable care that you have for us as Members of the House of Commons in your communications. Long may that continue. May I say to the Home Secretary that our staff will very much appreciate what she said a moment ago about the support that is available to them? On the subject of consistency, may I just ensure that Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will be absolutely a part of the process? If we are going to have a consistent message about what is available and the funding being there to pay for things, it is no good if that consistency does not extend to the rules that IPSA applies. If I could encourage her to pick that point out—I am sure she is already doing so—we would all appreciate it.
Priti Patel
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, it is through Mr Speaker’s offices and diligent work and support for all Members that that has absolutely been picked up and addressed. As I emphasised to all colleagues in the House today, we have to be agile and flexible. When it comes to providing support to MPs, that is clearly something IPSA will be engaged in. It will be working with all colleagues to make sure that that message is carried through.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I appreciate the tone that the Home Secretary has taken in going through this update this evening for us. I was interested in what she had to say about other elected representatives, such as councillors. In due course, it would be helpful to hear more about what that might look like. I am particularly interested in some reassurance in relation to staff members, as other hon. Members have said, not just here but in our constituencies. They are there when we are here. I wonder if she is able to say a little more about the ongoing support that she anticipates being available to them, so they too can feel reassured about their wellbeing.
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the point about staff members not just here in the Palace of Westminster, where we have incredible support across the parliamentary estate—I think all right hon. and hon. Members would agree with that—but at a constituency level, and I should emphasise this, through engagement with local police forces. That equally applies to constituency offices, when it comes to local policing and engagement and through the policing work—through Op Bridger—post-today, in particular, with the threat-level change. That ongoing dialogue and support will absolutely be in place. But I would like to say to all colleagues that, while we are here, clearly, our constituency staff must be supported and protected, and they will have, through Operation Bridger, a contact point in the constituency for policing that they should absolutely engage with to cover not just MPs’ security, but their security and their place-of-work security, and to go through the diligence, checks and all the measures that we know that we need to follow.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I am grateful for the Home Secretary’s statement. I wonder, though, whether she shares my concern that there was no tangible evidence of a threat to David, there was no tangible evidence of a threat to Jo, and there was no tangible evidence of a threat to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). That must clearly inform both our deliberations and the thinking of all police forces as they engage with us as Members for our security, because I believe that, across the Chamber, the unknown quantity is the most concerning element for our safety and, critically, for our teams, who may be left behind.
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct on this. This comes back to the agility across police forces to respond and to protect not just us, but members of the public who engage with us in our constituencies. Even while we are here, members of the public go into our constituency offices constantly, putting letters in, making appointments and doing things of that nature. That is why I absolutely urge all right hon. and hon. Members—obviously, I know that this is taking place right now—to continue to work proactively with their local police forces, stay in touch with them and engage with them, and that is both for right hon. and hon. Members and staff.
Business without Debate
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Electrification of the Hull to Selby railway line
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Rail links to Hull are among the poorest in the north of England, with train service reliability of 60% or lower. Currently, on average it is quicker to travel between Leeds and Hull by road than it is by rail. Electrifying the Leeds-to-Hull route via Selby and significantly upgrading the railway line between Sheffield and Hull via Goole will mean that cleaner, faster and more reliable trains can run in and out of Hull and bring 1.7 million more people and 49,000 more businesses within two hours of Hull.
I would like to note the work that my fellow Hull MPs are doing on this issue— including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner)—and the work that they have put into lobbying the Government, along with thanking the leader of Hull City Council and the East Riding of Yorkshire Council leader Jonathan Owen for their commitment to this issue. I further note the online petition, which has so far gathered over 433 signatures.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that rail links to Hull are among the poorest in the north of England; further that the current train service reliability of 60 per cent or lower means it is quicker to travel to Leeds by road; further the Humberside economy is increasingly supplying renewable energy but poor rail connections to Hull and the port do not encourage sustainable transport choices; further electrifying the Leeds to Hull route via Selby, and significantly upgrading the railway line between Sheffield and Hull via Goole, will permit cleaner, faster and more reliable trains to run in and out of Hull; further this will provide an electrified railway from east to west and allow freight to cross coast to coast more efficiently; further the Government has committed to a carbon neutral economy by 2050.
The petitioners therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to: prioritise the rail electrification of the Hull-Selby line and the upgrading of the railway line between Sheffield and Hull via Goole by inclusion in the forthcoming Integrated Rail Plan.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002691]
NHS Dentistry: Lincolnshire
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Smiles are very important. When we smile, it makes us happier and it makes those around us happier, but unfortunately many of my constituents are struggling to smile because they have problems with their teeth and just cannot get an NHS dental appointment. That has left some of them in very significant pain and discomfort.
Many constituents have contacted me to share their experiences: people waiting years to access NHS dental care; children unable to access NHS orthodontic care, with a choice between hugely expensive private treatment and doing without; service families posted to Lincolnshire struggling to get an appointment. Figures show that just 41% of adults in Lincolnshire have accessed NHS dental care in the past two years, and less than a third of children have accessed it in the last year.
Access to specialist treatment is even more limited. Lincolnshire has gone from having three full-time consultants in orthodontics, based in Boston, Grantham and Lincoln, to just one permanent consultant two days a week, based in Lincoln. Unlike neighbouring counties in the east midlands, Lincolnshire has no specialist dental services either in paediatrics or in restorative dentistry, which means significant travel out of county for patients who require more specialist help.
It is therefore perhaps not surprising that 80% of Healthwatch complaints in Lincolnshire relate to problems with access to NHS dental services. I would like to speak about how we could improve the situation for my constituents.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The circumstances are just as bad as my hon. Friend suggests. Indeed, Lincolnshire is the worst served of any midlands county, with the lowest proportion of dentists in the population. There are detrimental effects on children, as she said, and it is the poor who tend to suffer most. Finally, given her professional expertise, I wonder whether she could comment on those who have undiagnosed conditions that a visit to the dentist might reveal, notably oral cancer.
Dr Johnson
My right hon. Friend is a big champion for his constituents and for ensuring that they have good dental care. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who cannot be here this evening, is also vigorously campaigning to improve access to dental care in rural areas such as her constituency, particularly in Mablethorpe, where urgent care has now been restored and where she is committed to seeing non-urgent care renewed.
The journey to being a dentist begins at university dental schools, which are heavily over-subscribed. The Government trained 21% more dentists in 2018-19 than in 2008-09. It was forward-thinking of them to increase the number of dentists; given the increase of only 7% in population, one would have expected it to result in more dental care. However, that has not happened in practice, for two reasons: partly the increase in part-time working and flexible working, but particularly the dramatic increase in the number of dentists working in the private sector as opposed to the NHS. What is the Minister doing to increase the number of dental students still further? What is she doing to ensure that they are trained particularly in areas of low provision?
I note that there is currently no university dental school in the east midlands—or in East Anglia either, in fact. It is well known that people often stay where they train; it is therefore perhaps not surprising that there are fewer dentists in Lincolnshire. Does the Minister agree that, building on the success of the Government’s investment in opening a new medical school in Lincoln to train more doctors, we should build an east midlands dental school in Lincoln, creating a centre of excellence locally for specialist services and thereby increasing the number of local dentists being trained?
There is already a precedent for opening dental schools in under-served areas: the last school was opened in Plymouth to serve a deficit in the south-west. Following the establishment of Lincoln Medical School, the addition of an adjunct dental school would be a welcome addition to Lincolnshire and the surrounding area. It would boost training and skills opportunities for young people in Lincolnshire and the wider east midlands and increase the retention of new local dentists, while helping to address access to routine NHS dental care and specialist care for patients. I also ask the Minister what efforts are being made to increase local specialist provision for paediatrics and restorative dentistry.
Following their university careers, graduates become foundation trainees, and we need to look at where we place our foundation trainers and trainees. Newly qualified dentists need to work in a foundation job to get an NHS provider number, but they can work in a private practice without one. That is something of a disincentive for people to work as NHS dentists. We also need to consider where the postgraduate training takes place. For example, there are currently six full-time training places at Grantham Hospital, just outside my constituency, but this year it has been given only two new graduates to fill those places. That is creating a reliance on temporary and overseas staff to deliver services, but it also means that there will be fewer dentists trained locally and therefore fewer dentists for the population.
Does the Minister agree that all new dentists should work their foundation year in the NHS, as doctors do, and does she agree that, given that trainees often stay where they train, the foundation places in areas of low provision should be filled first? Would she consider “golden hellos”, such as those provided in some medical specialties in areas with low provision, to attract more dentists to under-served areas?
At the heart of the issue of NHS dentists moving into the private sector is the current target-based dental contract that was introduced by the Labour Government in 2006. It was widely considered unfit for purpose even before the pandemic, which has only served to highlight its flaws, and I am aware that the Government are rightly looking to replace it. The present system effectively sets quotas on the number of patients whom a dentist can see. NHS dentists are commissioned to deliver a set number of units of dental activity—UDAs—which caps the number of dental procedures that they can perform in a given year. If they deliver over 4% more than they have been commissioned to deliver, they are not paid for the extra work; moreover, they have to bear the cost themselves of any materials used, any laboratory work, and all other overheads. That penalises dentists who treat patients in the greatest need.
The contract also penalises dentists who under-deliver on the activity that they were commissioned to deliver, perhaps owing to difficulties in filling a practice vacancy. In addition, it pays a set amount for particular types of treatment, regardless of the number of teeth that need to be treated. For example, a dentist would be paid three units of dental activity—worth an average of £75 —for one simple extraction, but would also be paid £75 for an entire course of treatment including six fillings, three extractions and a root canal treatment, which would not be enough to cover their overheads. That means that the system effectively punishes dentists for taking on new patients with high levels of dental need.
There is also—believe it or not—a huge variation in the value of UDAs. I said that the average was £75, but in fact, across England, dental practices are paid anything between £15 and £45 per unit of dental activity delivered, with an average value of £27.50. In Lincolnshire and Leicestershire, the value is between £18 and £38, with an average value of £25. For example, in Spalding, Lincolnshire—in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)—two NHS practices just over a mile apart are being paid £23 and £28 per UDA respectively, a difference of more than 20% for the same work in the same town. That illustrates how dysfunctional Labour’s dental contract has become, making it more difficult for practices with lower UDA rates to recruit because they cannot pay the dentists whom they hire as much for the same work. When we compare this with private practice, where remuneration is based on actual work done, it is clear why this flawed contract has had a devastating impact on recruitment and retention among NHS dentists.
Research by the British Dental Association shows that nearly half all dentists plan to stop providing NHS services or to reduce their NHS commitment, and more than a quarter plan to move to fully private provision in the next 12 months. That has been seen in Lincolnshire, where there has been a net drop of 30 dentists providing NHS services in the year to the end of April 2021.
I am pleased that the Government have recognised the problems that this contract is creating, and are piloting alternatives. It is crucial that they deliver on their commitment to roll out new contractual arrangements by April 2022. Within the new contract, remuneration needs not only to reflect the number of dentists working in high-need areas, but to address the problems of attracting dentists to work in rural areas.
Dentists trained overseas can play an important role in filling vacancies in under-served areas. They already contribute to our NHS, and many more wish to come here, but despite the lack of NHS provision, dentists are not currently on the shortage occupation list. Moreover, it is possible for dentists from countries such as those in the EU where we recognise the equivalence of university dental qualifications to come and work here in the private sector immediately, but additional paperwork and training, with additional costs, are required for them to work in the national health service. That is a clear disincentive to working in our health service, and I would like the Minister to elaborate on what she is doing to remove bureaucratic burdens such as those that limit NHS capacity.
The covid pandemic has further exacerbated problems with access to NHS dentistry. In the spring of 2020, all routine dental care in England was necessarily paused for two months. With social distancing, gaps between treatments and decontamination between patients having been essential since then, dentists have been able to see only a fraction of their usual patient numbers. In North Kesteven alone, 22,733 NHS dental appointments were lost between April 2020 and March 2021, further adding to the unprecedented backlog.
In the short term, to address the impact of covid-19 infection prevention and control protocols limiting the number of patients who can be seen, funding for ventilation equipment could drastically reduce the time lost between seeing patients by reducing the number of times the air is changed over an hour. Currently, after each aerosol-generating procedure—which includes most courses of dental treatment including drilling—dentists are required to leave the treatment room empty for up to an hour, which dramatically lowers the number of patients they are able to treat. The experience of my constituent Emma highlights this. Her seven-year-old daughter is still waiting for a routine check-up from November 2019, and Emma is being told that the surgery is running at 50% capacity due to coronavirus prevention controls.
This fallow time can be reduced, and patient throughput increased, by installing high-capacity ventilation. However, this can cost a practice up to £10,000. England does not currently invest in ventilation for dental practices, although the devolved nations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland do. Capital funding for ventilation equipment would have a transformative effect on the throughput of patients, and would in effect pay for itself through increased patient charge revenues from paying NHS patients. Could the Minister please outline what review mechanisms are in place to reduce dentists’ covid measures—particularly now that the fantastic vaccine programme this Government have put in place means that more than 90% of people have antibodies—so that dentists can increase capacity from 65% to 100%?
Lincolnshire is proud to be the home of the Royal Air Force, including RAF Cranwell, RAF Digby and RAF Barkston Heath, which are in my constituency of Sleaford and North Hykeham. Repeatedly moving location can pose particular difficulties for service families as they find themselves on lengthy dentists’ waiting lists. My constituent Karen waited five years for her and her three children to access an NHS dentist after her husband was posted to my constituency, and she is still having difficulties in securing adjustments for her disabled son. Our veterans, cared for by the Ministry of Defence during their service, often find it difficult to get an NHS dentist at the point of retirement. The Armed Forces Bill will enshrine in law the military covenant, our commitment to our brave service personnel and their families. Will the Minister outline what work she is doing to ensure that military families and veterans can access high quality NHS dental care wherever they move to, in order to meet their particular challenges of moving around frequently?
Without significant changes soon, the problems facing NHS dentistry in access and in the recruitment and retention of dentists will continue to grow. My constituents in Lincolnshire deserve to be able to see an NHS dentist, and dentists working in Lincolnshire deserve a contract that correctly rewards them for the work they do and addresses the perverse incentives that currently exist. After a decade of work on the new system, there can be no more delays. I hope the Minister can give me assurances that the Government will stick to their commitment to roll out new contractual arrangements by April 2022, so that my constituents can smile once more.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) on securing this important debate. I am really pleased to hear dentistry getting some more parliamentary time and being put on the radar, because it is such an important issue. I am aware that there are long-standing concerns around dental access in parts of the east midlands. In my response I will consider the impact of covid on access to dentistry. We are aware of this, and I will focus on it initially. However, we have to acknowledge that there were problems in accessing NHS provision before covid. Even once we are through the recovery from the pandemic, we will need to address those issues once again. They will not disappear once the pandemic has passed.
As my hon. Friend highlighted, dentistry posed a significant risk during the pandemic because of the aerosol-generating procedures. I thank all the dental teams across the country who showed such resilience and dedication during this period, because they kept going and provided urgent care while facing considerable risk and anxiety. The steps we took during the pandemic ensured the safety of both dental patients and staff, but they have led to a reduction in the number of patients who can be seen.
We have worked closely with NHS England to consider the level of NHS dentistry that can be safely delivered in the environment of a pandemic. The thresholds that have been set for dental practices since the start of the year are based on what is achievable while maintaining infection control measures.
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know the UK Health Security Agency published new guidelines on 27 September that include three pragmatic changes to infection prevention and control measures, with a focus on elective care that allows providers to start making further safe changes to open up their services. I take her point, and I will consider what more support can be given for ventilation to help dentistry premises open up further still.
In the light of the reduction in activity, dental practices have now been asked to deliver as much care as possible, prioritising urgent care, care for vulnerable groups and children, and delayed planned care. Practices are now being asked to deliver 65% of their units of dental activity and 85% of contracted units of orthodontic activity from 1 October. Our figures suggest that we are starting to see a natural return to pre-covid levels of activity in dentistry, and I am pleased to see that in England urgent care has been back to pre-pandemic levels since December. We have made real progress there.
Sir John Hayes
It is widely acknowledged that the Minister brings both understanding and diligence to her role. Does she recognise that there are particular problems in rural areas such as Lincolnshire? We hear a lot in the place about urban deprivation and metropolitan needs, but we hear rather less about rural deprivation. In healthcare, public services and dentistry in particular, our county is peculiarly deprived. Will she take particular measures to help rural places such as Lincolnshire?
Maria Caulfield
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I was going to address. Officials tell me that the areas where we are seeing significant gaps are referred to as “sheep” and “seagulls,” with the sheep being rural areas and the seagulls being coastal stretches. They are the two areas of the country with a significant shortfall in NHS dentistry provision, and they are the two areas on which we will particularly focus.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
My constituency contains both sheep and seagulls. One of the problems, of course, is that rural villages and market towns are attracting increasing populations and we are seeing massive planning applications. I cite Barton-upon-Humber in my constituency as one example. What work is the Department doing with local authorities to make sure that, where there are major planning applications, public services and particularly dentistry are sufficient to meet the need?
Maria Caulfield
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and across Government Departments we are discussing the provision of both general practitioners and dentists for new developments. I am keen that dentistry is on a par with GP provision, because it is often an afterthought. I am keen that we push it up the agenda, and this debate helps.
Dr Caroline Johnson
Will dentists have a voice on care panels in the new integrated care systems?
Maria Caulfield
I thank my hon. Friend for that query. I am keen that dentistry has a louder voice than it does now.
As I was saying, part of this debate is about raising the profile of the issue. I reassure her that there are a number of things happening, particularly in her region. NHS England Midlands and East, which covers the east of England, is putting in place a number of initiatives, about which I wish to reassure her. Additional weekend dental sessions are going to be commissioned, to take place up to March next year. There will be additional clinical capacity to reduce waiting lists where a general anaesthetic is required, particularly for children. NHS England has also begun a procurement exercise to address the lack of orthodontic access across the region, particularly in Lincolnshire. To get us through the pandemic recovery phase, we will work closely with NHS England to ensure that that is happening as fast as possible.
In the short time available, I wish to turn to the long-term plan to address the shortfall that was there before the pandemic. We are taking up some of the suggestions that my hon. Friend has made so eloquently in this debate. The core of that is about ensuring that the NHS dental contract is renewed, because we are in a perverse situation where the contract sometimes acts as a disincentive. She made points about over-delivering or under-delivering; people can be penalised, and we can understand why dentists walk away from NHS contracts. This Government are focused on addressing that.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
In my short time as a Member of Parliament for greater Lincolnshire, in Great Grimsby, I have been able to solve lots of constituents’ problems, but the one I have not been able to solve is dental care. A large dental practice went bust and I seem to be involved in some sort of dark art when I ask what is happening with those patients. Nothing has happened, nearly two years down the line. Will the Minister consider them as well, because I have constituents in terrible situations and I am unable to get anywhere to solve this?
Maria Caulfield
I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that issue with her. She represents a coastal constituency, and this emphasises the point about where there seem to be gaps in provision.
I am pleased that we are being able to take specific action, both nationally and locally, to improve recruitment and retention, because that is key. This includes widening access to dental careers and utilising the skill mix in dental practices. It is not always the dentists who need to be used and we need to upskill some of the dental workers in dentistry too, so that we can understand the oral health needs of patients in specific communities. As part of that work, Health Education England is looking to address regional shortages by ensuring that training place numbers are better aligned with the needs of local populations and that we are targeting provision. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham about a dental school and I will look at that suggestion. She rightly says that students tend to stay where they train, and we need to look at where the gaps are. The number of dental school places is increasing and we are getting more students through, but I will look at her suggestion.
I feel that I have not specifically addressed the situation in Lincolnshire as a whole, which is the subject of the debate, so let me reassure my hon. Friend that a number of measures are in place to address the issues there. We have introduced additional face-to-face weekend dental sessions from August this year through to March next year; there are dedicated urgent dental slots for 111 patients; and we are trying to address some specific local gaps in Mablethorpe by commissioning urgent NHS dental care sessions on a temporary basis. We also want to improve recruitment and retention specifically in my hon. Friend’s area. Health Education England is working in Lincolnshire to recruit newly trained dentists but should perhaps look at a dental school to support that effort even further.
My hon. Friend raised orthodontic issues, which are very important for young people’s health. NHS England Midlands and East has begun a procurement exercise to address some of the backlog. Patients with a clinical need to start treatment quickly will be contacted. I reassure the House that any patient who was referred before they turned 18 but has not yet started treatment will still get free treatment, even after their 18th birthday, because the backlogs are not their fault.
I know that I have not answered all my hon. Friend’s questions, but I hope she knows that we take this issue extremely seriously. The provision of dentistry is a complex policy area for which there is no quick solution, so I shall not make promises tonight that we cannot deliver, but we are serious about trying to address the issues. I hope I have been able to provide some reassurance that, although this issue is challenging, as the new Minister responsible for dentistry I am committed to playing my part in not only supporting the covid recovery but driving forward long-term improvements. We want to see a contract that is attractive for professionals and that ensures equality of access for all, across rural regions and coastal regions.
Dr Caroline Johnson
Before the Minister sits down, may I ask her to meet me later this week, or perhaps next week, to discuss further the impact on military personnel in particular?
Maria Caulfield
Yes, absolutely. I have not been able to address that in my speech but I am keen to meet my hon. Friend and other colleagues who have particular shortages in their areas. I want to hear what is happening on the ground and make sure, as we go forward, that the problems are addressed and we start to see improvements. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and other colleagues.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) (Amendment) Order 2021
Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking. This is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk—we never used to say that a few years ago. Similarly, officials in the Public Gallery should communicate electronically with Ministers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) (Amendment) Order 2021.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2021 (SI 2021, No. 988).
Trudy Harrison
It is a pleasure, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, in my first statutory instrument Committee as a Minister.
These amendment orders relate to the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) Order 2019 and the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) Order 2019. Although the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 3) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021 is subject to the negative procedure, the Committee should be aware of that third order when considering the two amending orders before us today. Together, they support the effective management of Operation Brock and strengthen the enforcement regime that underpins it.
Operation Brock is a co-ordinated multi-agency response to cross-channel travel disruption and is owned by the Kent Resilience Forum. It replaces Operation Stack and has been specifically designed to keep the M20 motorway in Kent open in both directions, with access to junctions even during periods of severe and protracted disruption. The amending orders remove provisions from the 2019 orders relating to the transition period and covid-19, putting Operation Brock on a long-term footing. They also remove the sunset clauses due to expire on 31 October. I am grateful that time has been found to hold these debates ahead of the expiry date.
The legislation was first put in place in 2019 in preparation for a potential no-deal departure from the European Union. It was updated in 2020 before the end of the EU transition period, and again in 2021 in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The No. 1 2019 order provides powers to traffic officers to support Operation Brock and sets the amount of the financial penalty deposit for breaching restrictions created by the three orders. The amount of the deposit for breaching the restrictions introduced by the instruments is set at £300. The No. 1 amendment order we are considering removes the sunset clause and references to redundant offences from the Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) Order 2009, to reflect amendments made by the other amending orders. The No.2 2019 order restricts cross-channel heavy commercial vehicles from using local roads in Kent other than those on the approved Operation Brock route when Operation Brock is active. The amending order updates which roads are restricted and removes the sunset clause.
To complete the picture, the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 3) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021, which is subject to the negative procedure, will remove the existing sunset clause provisions from the No. 3 2019 order. The amending order updates the sections of the Kent motorway network. The No. 3 2019 order restricts cross-channel heavy goods vehicle access to when Operation Brock is active, including the contraflow on the M20 and use of the M2, thereby reflecting updated operational requirements. Provisions relating to local haulier permits are retained. The third amending order removes provisions relating to M26 queuing permits, the Kent access permit, cross-channel permits, the prioritisation and expedited return schemes and covid-19 provisions. It also removes references to redundant offences from the Fixed Penalty Order 2000 and the Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) Order 2009 to reflect changes made by the amending orders.
The draft orders are vital to enable sensible traffic management in Kent. Operation Brock has proved to be an efficient and effective traffic management measure in mitigating traffic disruption at the short straits and must continue to be available should significant disruption occur in future.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Gary, and I welcome the Minister to her first SI Committee—although this is not our first outing together, as we have done a Westminster Hall debate.
As is now well known, the haulage sector is having a really difficult time; some of us will be joining the Road Haulage Association and lorry drivers outside Parliament today. It is National Lorry Week, and drivers want to talk to MPs about the difficulties that they are facing, many of which have already been well reported. It has to be said that the Government have not really helped, first by refusing to admit that there was a problem with HGV drivers, despite countless warnings from the industry—there is a shortage of at least 90,000—and then by tinkering around with measures wholly inadequate to deal with the scale of the crisis.
Kerry McCarthy
They are, Sir Gary; my very next sentence leads me wonderfully into the SI itself.
We have seen the inevitable U-turns on visas for overseas drivers and now the Government are admitting their failure to establish reliable contingency measures to avoid chaos at the border for both hauliers and local residents in Kent. I have spoken to many representatives of the Kent community about the impact of the situation on the ground.
Given the removal of the sunset clauses from Operation Brock’s emergency measures, what was a temporary measure is now in effect being made permanent or at least open-ended. I am glad that the requirement for a Kent access permit, which effectively created an internal border in Kent for hauliers, has now ended, but we have some concerns about the remaining provisions.
The unfortunate reality is that the long-running consequences of the Brexit deal have left us with a real risk of serious congestion and disruption on the roads around our ports and borders; the community in Kent particularly suffers from that. Given the need to mitigate the potential for chaos on our roads and, particularly, the ongoing pressures on UK supply chains, which I mentioned at the beginning, Labour will not oppose the measures, but nor will we give them our endorsement, as we have reservations about the effect of Operation Brock on local communities.
The Government have now had over 18 months to work out arrangements alternative to Operation Brock, which, as I said, was intended to be temporary, and to bring forward measures that have the consent and input of local communities. All we have seen is the permanent extension of what was intended to be a temporary arrangement. The measures are deeply unpopular locally and have cost the taxpayer a significant amount of money. The communities in Kent deserve assurances that their journeys and commutes will not be disrupted by gridlock and that their local roads will not become a permanent lorry park due to the Government’s failure to plan and ensure a smooth exit from the European Union.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady recall that there was considerable disruption at Calais while we were still a member of the European Union, due to the MyFerryLink industrial action and the activities of French fishermen? This is not something new since we left the European Union.
Kerry McCarthy
That was an incident—a particular situation that occurred. This is an ongoing thing that affects us every day. Anything that disrupts a supply chain and makes it more difficult for HGV drivers to get from A to B is obviously going to add to congestion and disruption on our roads and the impact on the local community.
One of the things contributing to the shortage of HGV drivers is the fact that we do not have the facilities that are found in European Union countries. If better facilities at the lorry parks were looked at as part of the measures, that would help to deal not just with the situation in Kent that we are discussing today, but with the wider issue.
Mr Goodwill
Will the hon. Lady also note that one of the other reasons for Operation Stack was the bad weather in the channel, which caused the suspension of ferry services, leaving us to rely solely on the tunnel? We are likely still to get bad weather in the channel, so it is not just a Brexit-related measure.
Kerry McCarthy
I am not saying it is just a Brexit measure but, clearly, we are here today discussing these SIs because of what has happened in the last few years—primarily Brexit.
I would welcome clarification from the Minister on whether the Government are actively looking at alternative arrangements for Operation Brock, and whether its provisions are now intended to be permanent. As she said, the sunset clause has been removed from the legislation—does that mean it is now a fixture, or is that just to remove the need for us to keep coming back to renew the legislation?
Given the ongoing pressure on UK supply chains, it is vital that commercial flows in and out of the country face as little disruption as possible. The long-term solution is not a reliance on emergency provisions but something in place that ensures efficient operations at borders, close co-operation with the European Union and working with industry and local communities to identify ways to minimise the disruption.
The Chair
A couple of colleagues have caught my eye, who I know will speak very narrowly on these instruments.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and a great pleasure to welcome the Minister to her first Delegated Legislation Committee on the Front Bench. I apologise for breaking the habit of a lifetime and speaking from the Back Benches at an SI Committee.
To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol East, the communities in Kent have, over the years, suffered hugely from disruption at the channel ports, particularly my own in Ashford. For my constituents and others around Kent, Operation Brock is unwelcome whenever it is imposed, frankly, but it is a lot better than Operation Stack. The phrase in the Minister’s speech that I most applauded inwardly was when she said that Operation Brock was relacing Operation Stack. I hope that means that Operation Stack will never be seen again, because closing the M20 all together caused genuine misery and economic and personal dislocation for many of my constituents.
I am pleased that we have managed to get the movable barrier and make Operation Brock possible, but it is also the case that whenever it is imposed, it causes difficulties. It is more dangerous—there are two fairly narrow lanes and a lot of lorry traffic. Domestic motorists driving their cars in that environment often feel quite threatened by it, so it should be used as sparingly as possible. My one plea to the Minister is that she use her best endeavours to ensure that it is used as infrequently as possible. There is a tendency among the authorities in charge of it to put it on as a precautionary measure—we saw that earlier this year—and then leave it on for weeks on end. That angers many constituents, quite rightly, because they see it as an unnecessary use that dislocates their daily lives and makes their journeys more difficult. They will accept it when there is genuine crisis and obstruction at the channel ports, but they do not want to see it used almost routinely, whenever there is a possibility of problems at the channel ports. The one thought I want to leave with the Minister is that Operation Brock is better than Operation Stack, but it should still be used very sparingly and only when absolutely necessary.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and I welcome the Minister to her place.
I grew up in Folkestone. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) is right about the disruption that Kent has faced over many years because of challenges at Calais or bad weather. Travel disruption is not a new phenomenon in the county. Now, as an MP further up, with two motorways—the M20 and M2—going through my constituency, I know that any travel disruption causes major issues.
As my right hon. Friend said, it is clear that Operation Brock is better than Operation Stack, although it is not perfect. To reiterate his point, we should maximise the agility of the system to ensure that it can be removed as quickly as possible after being exercised, because although residents of the county accept that it is an alternative to Operation Stack and something that can provide a better flow of traffic along the major networks, it does cause problems in itself.
Finally, I thank the members of Kent Resilience Forum for all they are doing to support the flow of traffic through the county. It is an exceptionally difficult job working with all the different partners and indeed with Government, and we appreciate the hard work that they are doing.
Trudy Harrison
I thank the hon. Members for their consideration of these instruments and in particular I thank the shadow Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford for their comments. Tackling the haulier shortage does not actually pertain to this Committee debate, but I hope you will allow me to respond to the shadow Minister’s question, Sir Gary. We recently announced a significant package of measures, including plans to streamline the process for new drivers to gain their HGV licence and increase capacity for HGV driving tests. As driver shortages across Europe demonstrate, this is a widespread problem caused by a range of factors, including an ageing workforce.
Earlier this month, the Government announced a package of new measures to tackle HGV driver shortages. One thing that would really put drivers off would be dealing with unmanaged congestion, and if we fail to agree these instruments today that could be an added challenge for drivers of heavy goods vehicles, and indeed all drivers.
Mr Goodwill
Does the Minister also agree that extending the cabotage rules from two journeys to two weeks will result in fewer foreign trucks traversing Kent, because they will be able to ply their trade in the rest of the UK for longer?
Trudy Harrison
My right hon. Friend has a great deal of experience in the Department for Transport and I thank him for his comments, but I shall stick to the aspect the draft orders deal with.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford for his collegiate and collaborative work alongside his Kent Resilience Forum. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford in thanking the Kent Resilience Forum because it has been difficult over a period of many years, but by working together we will stand the best chance of solving these challenges.
On the methodology for instigating Operation Brock, the Kent Resilience Forum partners constantly review the threat and risk associated with possible disruption at the ports and any impact this may have on road networks and local communities. Consideration is given to the daily flow rates and reasons and the likely duration of disruption. Implementing Operation Brock is always the last resort measure. It is costly to put up, run and take down, so the decision is not taken lightly. Consideration is given at the tactical and strategic levels of the Kent Resilience Forum, and there is a suite of plans that can be used, with Operation Brock being one option.
The shadow Minister also said that she would like to see improved facilities at lorry parks. I assure her that Sevington in the Ashford constituency, which will provide about 1,100 lorry parks as well as excellent facilities, is one of our significant plans going forward. On the amount of times that Brock has been activated to date, while I think I am straying from this particular debate, I want to reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford that the decision is not taken lightly and it is one of many measures that is undertaken to minimise disruption. These instruments are essential to ensuring we have an effective means of continuing to have appropriate traffic management systems in place to avoid lengthy queues at the border. I hope the Committee has found this debate and my responses informative and will join me in supporting these orders.
Question put and agreed to.
HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN KENT (NO. 2) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2021
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2021. (SI 2021, No. 988).—(Trudy Harrison.)
Draft National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Monetary Penalties) (Turnover of a Business) Regulations 2021
Draft National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Notifiable Acquisition) (Specification of Qualifying Entities) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when not speaking; this is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Similarly, officials in the Public Gallery should communicate electronically with Ministers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Monetary Penalties) (Turnover of a Business) Regulations 2021.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Notifiable Acquisition) (Specification of Qualifying Entities) Regulations 2021.
Paul Scully
The commencement date for both statutory instruments is 4 January, which is the same date as the full commencement of the National Security and Investment Act 2021. If Members will indulge me for a couple of minutes, I will first remind the Committee of the purpose of the 2021 Act and why it is vital for the UK’s national security. The UK economy thrives as a result of foreign direct investment. Over the last 10 years, more than 665,000 new jobs have been created as a result of over 18,000 foreign direct investment projects. I am sure the Committee agrees—indeed, the House has demonstrated its assent by passing the legislation—that an open approach to investment must include appropriate safeguards to protect our national security and the safety of our citizens.
The 2021 Act provides the Government with updated powers to scrutinise and intervene in acquisitions to protect national security, as well as to provide businesses and investors with the certainty and transparency they need to do business with the UK. The Act establishes a call-in power for the Secretary of State to scrutinise qualifying acquisitions and a voluntary notification option for firms that wish to gain clarity on whether the Secretary of State will call in their acquisition, and, subject to these regulations, creates mandatory notification requirements in 17 sensitive sectors where it is considered that national security risks are more likely to arise.
The draft National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Monetary Penalties) (Turnover of a Business) Regulations set out how the Secretary of State will calculate a business’s turnover when calculating monetary penalties resulting from non-compliance. We generally expect compliance with the 2021 Act to be high and the need for the Secretary of State to issue monetary penalties to be rare. It is important that the Act comes with sufficient deterrents to non-compliance. This SI is laid under the delegated power in section 41 of the Act. Sections 32 and 33 create offences of completing a notifiable acquisition without approval and failing to comply with an interim or final order. Both these offences can result in the imposition of a monetary penalty.
The maximum fixed penalty that can be imposed on a business for an offence under section 32 or 33 is the higher of 5% of the total value of the turnover of the business and £10 million. The maximum amount per day for a daily rate penalty that can be imposed on a business for an offence under section 33 is the higher of 0.1% of the total turnover of the business and £200,000. With these regulations, we have ensured that global turnover is taken into account when calculating the total turnover. No efforts to get around the penalties will be successful, for example through changing accounts approaches. These are important and well-balanced regulations, necessary for the effective functioning of the 2021 Act.
I now turn to the draft National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Notifiable Acquisition) (Specification of Qualifying Entities) Regulations 2021—in likelihood, the SI of much greater interest to the House and noted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee as an instrument of interest.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
On a point of clarification about the definition of “turnover”, certain foreign investments will be acquiring businesses with debt in possession or that have very little revenue but a significant amount of intellectual property value. When it comes to appropriate penalties, what is the consideration given to those two particular circumstances?
Paul Scully
We have spoken to businesses to get the balance right. There are clearly complexities in these issues, and those will be determined in terms of the enforcement powers. We have decided that the figure and the impact we have calculated around that is the right balance to strike.
The notifiable acquisition regulations specify descriptions and activities of qualifying entities, the acquisition of which must be notified to the Secretary of State as a notifiable acquisition. Acquisitions in the scope of mandatory notifications that are completed without the Secretary of State’s approval will be void and therefore have no effect in law.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
My understanding is that section 6(2) of the National Security and Investment Act provides that
“A notifiable acquisition takes place when a person gains control…of a qualifying entity”.
What precautions, if any, are in place to ensure that people are forewarned that a gain might cause difficulties? Otherwise, is it simply that matters kick in after the acquisition rather than having a forewarning system before the acquisition?
Paul Scully
As I said, there is a voluntary notification process, and the investment security unit in the Department will be able to offer advice and give forewarning. With this measure, while protecting security and our citizens, we want to give certainty to business. We certainly do not want to be deterring investment in this country; it has been a success story for the UK for so many years. Again, I think we have got that balance right.
These are really important changes to the UK’s investment screening system. Sectoral expertise has been vital for ensuring that the mandatory notification is proportionate and targeted, and we have taken great care and time to get that right.
Alongside the introduction of the NSI Bill in November 2020, the Government launched and ran an eight-week public consultation on the proposed descriptions in the 17 areas of the economy referred to in the draft regulations. After that, we published revised definitions in March. We undertook further targeted engagement with stakeholders in key sectors such as communications, synthetic biology and suppliers to the emergency services to develop further the proposed descriptions to provide businesses and investors with further clarity. I place on the record my thanks for the extensive input we have had from cross-sector organisations in getting the definitions right.
The regulations strike a careful and appropriate balance between ensuring that our national security is safeguarded and keeping the number of businesses caught by the mandatory notification requirement to a necessary and proportionate level. Furthermore, to monitor the impacts on business investors, and particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, the Government have chosen to include a shorter three-year post-implementation review in the regulations instead of the more standard five-year period.
The Government intend to publish extensive guidance across all 17 areas of the economy specified in the regulations to assist parties further in understanding the requirements. In response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire, that will help give that certainty to businesses pre-acquisition. My Department will continue to engage daily with businesses to help them understand the Act’s requirements.
These are detailed and technical statutory instruments that give effect to the purpose of the NSI Act. They have been carefully developed and tested to ensure that they give maximum clarity to businesses while allowing us to protect the UK’s national security. I commend them to the Committee.
2.39 pm
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir George, to consider these two pieces of legislation.
As the Minister said, these regulations are made under the National Security and Investment Act 2021. I thank the Minister for setting out some of the background to that Act. During the passage of that legislation through Parliament, I was clear, as were colleagues, that the Government need new powers to deal with evolving national security threats in corporate transactions. Labour supported the legislation because it was legislation demanded by Labour, and we support these SIs too, as they are critical to the effective functioning of the new investment-screening regime.
I will say something about each of these SIs in turn, starting with the turnover of a business regulations. As the Minister has set out, this relates to the civil monetary penalties that the Secretary of State can impose under the new regime. Section 41 of the Act sets out the maximum fixed penalty and, where applicable, the maximum daily rate penalty that may be imposed. Where a business commits an offence, the maximum fine is the higher of 5% of global turnover or £10 million. I do not recall intellectual property or other assets being referenced in the Act.
Section 41 also enables the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying how the maximum penalties applicable to business should be calculated and to amend the maximum penalty amounts or percentage rates. The SI is made under section 41(8) and 41(9) of the Act and does three things: it clarifies that, for the purposes of penalties, businesses include sole traders; provides a statutory definition of where one business controls another; and establishes the test for determining the turnover of a business for the purpose of calculating maximum penalties.
We support the principle that the new regime should be underpinned by robust enforcement mechanisms, and it is important that the Secretary of State has the relevant powers to punish and deter non-compliance with the regime. However, such penalties make the need for clarity and certainty even more important.
During the Committee stage of the Act, I asked whether the monies received by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy from the payment of penalties could be put towards a specific purpose, rather than going into the general Consolidated Fund. I urge the Government to think about that again. Would it not be fantastic if this money was, for example, spent on supporting our great innovators and start-ups to further build on our domestic resilience in these sectors?
I turn to the specification of qualifying entities regulations, which establish descriptions of qualifying entities for the purposes of section 6 in the Act. In other words, this SI defines the sectors that will fall under the scope of the mandatory regime. A notifiable acquisition takes place when a person gains control of a qualifying entity of a specified description. As Members will know, a buyer must give notice to the Secretary of State before making a notifiable acquisition in one of the 17 sectors, so the responsibility falls on the buyer to understand whether the acquisition it is contemplating is notifiable.
As the Minister set out, the definitions contained in the 17 schedules have been refined in response to stakeholder feedback following earlier consultations on the scope and definitions of the 17 sectors from November 2020 to January 2021. This led to important changes in all 17 sectors. For example, the scope of the mandatory regime within the artificial intelligence sector has been significantly narrowed to focus on only three higher-risk applications: the identification of objects, people and events, advanced robotics, and cyber security.
We welcome the fact that the Government have continued their consultation with business and wider stakeholders to refine the mandatory sector, but there is a lack of transparency in who has been involved and what the impact has been. I think it would benefit the Committee if the Minister described how the key changes made by this statutory instrument differ from the draft definitions published in March 2021, and why those changes have been made. For example, the reference to “Critical Suppliers to the Emergency Services” sector in the March proposals has become “Suppliers to the emergency services”, and the definitions of goods and services used by the emergency services have also been amended. Can he set out why those changes have been made? We see that changes have been made, but we do not know who has been consulted. It would be helpful to understand what changes have been made and why.
The Minister will know that there remain concerns about the definitions. The BioIndustry Association, which focuses on synthetic biology, has said most recently, so after the consultation, that:
“Synthetic Biology is defined too broadly in the legislation, meaning companies developing medicines and technologies with no national security implications will be captured. This risks imposing a long, unnecessary process for biotech to receive funding and could deter investment in the sector, and subsequently the development of medicines for patients.”
The Minister spoke about the level of consultation without giving specifics on how many businesses had been consulted. The BIA goes on to say:
“It is important that the new regime works well and is effective. Even once the regime commences, the BIA encourages the Government to listen to industry about how it is being perceived.”
I would be grateful if the Minister gave some indication of how he intends to continue engagement with industry and business on these issues.
There is a lack of transparency on the consultations that have led to these amendments, so can the Minister confirm what engagement he has had specifically with small businesses and organisations that represent small and medium-sized enterprises? As he will know, the Act’s impact assessment notes that 80% of transactions within the scope of the mandatory regime will involve SMEs. SMEs are the lifeblood of our economy, and it is from the growth of SMEs that we hope to build back not only better but more sustainably and fairly. That is why Labour has consistently called for SMEs to be consulted by the Government, listened to and provided with comprehensive guidance on how to navigate this new regime.
Staying with the question of guidance, I note that to date the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has published only one piece of sector-specific guidance, for the higher education and research-intensive sector. In the Bill Committee, I and my hon. Friends repeatedly highlighted the importance of prompt and accessible guidance so that firms operating in the relevant sectors understand whether their businesses are affected.
I say to the Minister directly that, based on conversations I have had with stakeholders—including university research departments and university start-ups, but also investment and equity finance organisations, and indeed law firms—there remains significant confusion as to who may be impacted by these regulations, and indeed by the Act. That is seen as having a chilling impact on foreign direct investment in this country and—something we raised in the Bill Committee—as a job creation scheme for lawyers. Many legal firms are already setting up workstreams to address that but, as we all know, small and medium-sized enterprises do not have the benefits of large legal firms, so not to provide the kind of guidance that we have asked for is putting such enterprises at a huge disadvantage.
Will the Minister therefore confirm what wider sector-specific guidance will be published, and according to what timetable, in advance of the regime coming fully into effect on 4 January? If the regime is to operate effectively, it is critical that businesses understand how to interpret whether their activity falls within the scope of the regulations. I suggest to the Minister that he needs to do more on this over the next 12 weeks, if we are to ensure—as I emphasise yet again—that small and medium-sized enterprises are not unduly and negatively impacted by the regulations.
Before concluding, I want to say something about the important context of the draft SIs. Owing to a weak pound and lower equity prices on the FTSE when compared with other international markets, private equity firms are acquiring UK companies at the fastest rate since 2008. Unprecedented levels of dry powder mean that that is only set to continue.
The Act gives the Secretary of State the power to call in transactions across the economy, not just in the 17 mandatory sectors where that decision has given or may give rise to a national security risk. Clearly, however, the success of the new regime in protecting our national security interests, such as in the supply chain, is dependent on the Secretary of State’s willingness to use his new powers. The indications are not good.
To take Morrisons, for example, it is a much loved British company, which has been rooted in communities up and down the country for more than 100 years. It is the second-largest fresh-food manufacturer in the UK, supporting thousands of farmers across the country. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and others have been clear for months that Morrisons is also of strategic importance to the country’s food security. Labour is clear that food security is an essential part of national security, and yet there is no indication that the Secretary of State has considered the impact of that transaction on the country’s food security.
Labour supports the two draft SIs, which will play an important role in shaping the scope of the new regime and the consequences when the rules are not followed. Labour is calling for greater transparency and greater guidance to support our small and medium-sized enterprises. We are aware that the public will be watching closely how the Government use their powers under the Act to protect our vital national interests.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George.
I, too, will support the draft regulations, but I have a couple of points for the Minister to pick up on in his summing up. First, on the turnover of a business regulations, he said earlier that they had been drafted to prevent a business from moving its turnover out of the reach of United Kingdom legislation. Is he completely satisfied that the regulations are tight enough to prevent turnover from simply being moved around in a circle between different companies, whether officially in the same group or under the same ownership?
We see that kind of thing happening all the time when a business is about to become insolvent: all the turnover and assets get moved into a business that will continue, and all the debts and liabilities get dumped on the company that is about to go into liquidation. If companies are able to find ways of doing that in order to avoid paying the debts of the liquidated company, they can also find ways of doing it to minimise the financial impact of failing to comply with the regulations. I would appreciate an assurance from the Minister that the loophole that exists in relation to businesses about to put themselves into liquidation will not also be there for businesses that want to understate their turnover to avoid the size of the penalty that they should incur.
My second question is about the Specification of Qualifying Entities Regulations. I am looking in particular at the schedule dealing with data infrastructure, and I do not think that anyone would query any of the designated public sector authorities that are included, but some appear to be missing. It may simply be that I have misheard, or it may be that some of them are included within a wider umbrella designation elsewhere in the list, but, for example, the National Audit Office is there but, as far as I can see, Audit Scotland is not. Audit Scotland does not audit UK Government functions, but it does carry out a lot of public audit work in Scotland; I do not know what the exact arrangements are for Wales and Northern Ireland.
As far as I can tell, the vast majority of local authorities and health authorities are not included. It might not be immediately obvious that the data infrastructure for a health authority could be critical to national security, but if we think first of all about what happens to national wellbeing if that goes badly wrong, and secondly about the data that health authorities hold on every citizen on these islands, it becomes quite clear that we need to protect health authorities from malign foreign influence. On local authorities, we should remember that in most parts of the UK, local authorities are responsible for critical transport infrastructure. Apart from motorways, most of the transport infrastructure is controlled and managed by local authorities, and considering the potential harm to wellbeing—not quite to national security, but certainly to national wellbeing—if something goes badly wrong with the data infrastructure of a social services authority or an education authority, the implications could be quite significant.
Could the Minister perhaps outline what the thinking is, not so much about the authorities being included at this stage, but about the examples that I gave just now—the kinds of public authorities that do not appear to be included? Do the Government intend to keep that list under review? If it becomes obvious that there is an issue with data infrastructure supplies to local authorities, for example, how quick and easy will it be to close that loophole before it can be exploited?
Paul Scully
I thank hon. Members from both sides of the room for their valuable contributions. First, let me have another go at responding to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire: turnover does not include stock and assets, but it does include any income that derives from their use. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central raised with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), now Education Secretary, when he was covering this subject in Committee, the question of where the fines go. As she knows, the fines are going to the Consolidated Fund, but none the less, she makes her case powerfully.
In terms of what changes have been made to the definitions since the consultation, the scope of a number of descriptions—communications, critical suppliers to Government, data infrastructure, energy, suppliers to the emergency services, and synthetic biology—was narrowed following the publication of the consultation response, and a few descriptions were amended. For example, in the area of communications, qualifying entities carrying on activities in the UK that related to public communications supply chains were removed from the definition, substantially narrowing the activity of the qualifying entities captured. For critical suppliers to Government, two of the five limbs of the definition set out in the Government response to the consultation were removed, again to narrow the scope of the definition. Those two limbs were the provision of services to facilitate the security of network and information systems, and the guarding of premises to insure against unauthorised access or occupation and against outbreaks of disorder or damage.
In the area of data infrastructure, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glenrothes, the Government response to the consultation provided a definition of a public sector authority using the meaning of “contracting authority” in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. The final regulations revised the definition of a public sector authority to a much narrower list of authorities, set out in a table within the regulations. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point: I would say that first of all, the purpose of that table is to make sure that the notifications to the Secretary of State are proportionate and balanced. None the less, we will review this SI within three years, rather than the normal five years, to ensure that we lean into this and get it right, to give certainty to businesses and to ensure that we capture the whole gamut of the areas that he raised.
In terms of energy, changes were made to clarify the infrastructure activities carried on in the UK and captured within this description. Suppliers to the emergency services, as the hon. Lady mentioned, and several meanings in the definition, published in the Government response to the consultation, have since been amended and narrowed to provide an objective list of activities, captured for the purposes that require self-identification. The applicability of each activity to each type of emergency service listed has been narrowed to ensure that the activities of qualifying entities, captured by mandatory notification, are as targeted and proportionate as possible.
Finally, on synthetic biology, new paragraph 6 was added to the definition to create exceptions relating to human or veterinary medicines, or immunomodulatory approaches, which is not easy to say.
The hon. Lady also asked who was consulted on this and what was said. We are proactively and extensively engaging across all the relevant sectors. For example, our policy colleagues at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy have attended meetings with techUK members, the AI Council, an aerospace, defence, security and space group webinar, and an electricity industry forum. We conducted targeted and extensive engagement with organisations most likely to be affected by the NSI Act, including companies that invest in or acquire entities in the 17 mandatory areas of the economy, and those providing legal or financial advice in UK acquisitions.
We have met and spoken to more than 200 cross-economy organisations through workshops, teaching and presentations, including the Law Society, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, techUK, international investors and UK universities. Tailored communications have been sent out to more than 100 industry bodies in those mandatory areas of the economy, including 70 major law and financial services firms, 36 international investors and 550,000 businesses via Companies House.
Additional care has been taken to ensure that we can reach small and medium-sized enterprises, because the hon. Lady is absolutely right that they need to have the capacity to be ready and will be affected by the regulations. We have used associations, such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Confederation of British Industry, so together there is a network of 580,000 businesses. We will continue to ensure that we work with SMEs in particular, to give them guidance ahead of time, because we need to keep on engaging directly with businesses around this Act, ahead of the full commencement.
The first tranche of detailed guidance has already been published to assist businesses, investors and advisers in understanding the Act and how to comply with its requirements. We have established a BEIS expert panel, which includes business representative organisations, higher education bodies, investment associations, law societies and others, that has provided detailed feedback on the draft guidance, ensuring that the guidance is fit for purpose, rather than rushing it.
Our second tranche of guidance will be published ahead of regime commencement, to continue to aid the interaction of parties with the new investment security unit and to ensure compliance, including how to submit a notification form and guidance around notifiable acquisitions. A communications campaign will focus on delivering teaching and guidance to that cross-section of businesses in the UK and internationally.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes asked about turnover and whether we were confident about getting this right; absolutely, we are. If the Secretary of State and a business disagree on the business’s turnover, the Secretary of State can overrule the business. Clearly, the Secretary of State has to act reasonably under public law duty, so it does not give him a free pass, but it is a fallback option if there is a disagreement on business turnover for the reasons mentioned.
Peter Grant
I am grateful for that answer. When assessing a business’s turnover, can the Minister confirm whether sufficient attention will be paid to previous years? If a business has a big turnover for several years and it suddenly drops, looking at a single year will not necessarily flag that up. However, if that is noticed, it may well raise suspicions that turnover is being artificially depressed. Will that kind of examination be standard practice whenever a business’s turnover is being examined?
Paul Scully
As is set out in the statutory instrument, annual turnover is calculated by taking the turnover for the available period and scaling it up to a full year—if there is not even information for one year. None the less, the Secretary of State will have to take a view, albeit under his public law duties, to ensure that turnover is a realistic. There must be an effective deterrent against a breach of the rules, which is why in some cases the Secretary of State may even deal with a subsidiary business with a small turnover that is funded and controlled by a large, wealthy parent business. Indeed, the subsidiary may have been established specifically to carry out the acquisition in question and may not even have a turnover, full stop, at the point when the Secretary of State is calculating a penalty. That is why there is scope for the Secretary of State to overrule and take the wider view that he is asking for.
I hope that I have covered most of the areas that were raised and provided sufficient clarifications and assurances to hon. Members on today’s statutory instruments. Both SIs are essential for the effective operation and running of the NSI Act and the provision of a safeguard for the UK, and I commend them to the Committee.
The Chair
Before I put the question, I want to say that an awful lot has been said and written since the tragic murder of Sir David Amess last week about how we conduct ourselves. I think this afternoon’s proceedings have been a model for how parliamentarians should conduct themselves. The debate was respectful and constructive, and the Minister’s responses reflected that. It is worth putting it on the record that sometimes we do get it right, and this afternoon is one such occasion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Monetary Penalties) (Turnover of a Business) Regulations 2021.
Draft National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Notifiable Acquisition) (Specification of Qualifying Entities) Regulations 2021
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Notifiable Acquisition) (Specification of Qualifying Entities) Regulations 2021—(Paul Scully.)
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
AUKUS: Impact on Anglo-Chinese Relations
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I encourage hon. Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government and House of Commons Commission guidance. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering or leaving the room. Daniel Kawczynski will move the motion.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of the AUKUS pact on Anglo-Chinese relations.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am pleased to have secured this debate on AUKUS, the new British naval alliance with Australia and the United States, which will play a pivotal role in maintaining peace and security in the Indo-Pacific region.
There is no doubt in my mind that both Russia and China are threats to the United Kingdom. Make no mistake: Russia and China are both grave threats to freedom, to the western world in particular and to true democracy in general. The discussion is not about whether they are a threat but about the type of threat they present and the degree to which they endanger us.
Russia’s threat is predominantly cyber, but China’s threat is much larger: it is multidimensional, complex, far reaching and interconnected. China’s threat is based in economics and logistics, including manufacturing, supply chain and minerals. We have spent 18 months suffering the reality of that, and we must now recalibrate our investment and trade policy in order not to be so over-dependent on China in the future.
I started asking questions of our own Government about the situation in the South China sea on 4 January 2016—nearly six years ago. I asked the Foreign Office—the then Foreign Secretary was Mr Hammond—and the reply came from Hugo Swire. I asked what the United Kingdom Government’s attitude was on the situation in the South China sea. This is the first time in my 16-year career that I pay tribute to the BBC, but having watched a BBC documentary on the situation in the South China sea, which very clearly highlighted the extraordinary situation in which China is stealing hundreds of atolls from neighbouring countries, pouring concrete on them and turning them into giant military installations, I asked the British Government what their view was. The answer came back:
“The UK takes no position on the sovereignty of the Spratly Islands or other disputed features in the South China Sea.”
That was a serious mistake by the Conservative Government at that time.
Under Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne, we had a policy of maximum engagement with China in order to safeguard and protect the massive, multibillion pound investments that it was pouring into our country—conveniently overlooking the growing and increasing human rights abuses that were taking place in China and China’s nefarious conduct in the region.
Of course, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, we expect China to be a strong country, to have a strong military and to have a capability sufficient to defend her national interests. However, during the course of the debate, I will share with hon. Members the extent of China’s recent hostile activities towards her smaller, more vulnerable neighbours—activities that go beyond those UN Security Council responsibilities. China is starting to look like a large regional power attempting to bully and subjugate its neighbours. Who are those countries? Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia. Remember those names and the significance of those countries to the United Kingdom, not only historically but from a trading perspective today—Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia.
As I have outlined, China has stolen hundreds of those atolls from each of those four nations, pouring concrete on to them, turning them into military outposts and trying to take control of the whole South China sea. Just think about the significance of that statement. We rightly admonish Russia about what it is doing in the Kerch strait, restricting the access of Ukrainian ships to the sea of Azov. That is a walk in the park compared with what is going on in the South China sea.
Let us not forget that 60% of global maritime trade goes through the South China sea—$5.3 trillion of trade passes through that waterway. China is attempting to take control of all of it and to restrict the movement of international shipping in order for China to have the confidence of stretching its empire that much further south, so being able to control the region that much better.
I pay tribute to our own Navy, which has been at the very forefront of pursuing freedom-of-navigation exercises through the South China sea. I dread to think what would have happened by now had the United Kingdom had not taken such a pivotal role in ensuring that our ships were at the forefront of protecting the right of passage through that waterway.
I want to come on to outline why I am concerned about China. Some people might accuse me of being anti-Chinese or slightly hysterical about the threat emanating from China, but let me give some evidence for why I think that China is becoming an increasing threat. I have already been warned by various Chinese publications here in the United Kingdom that I am on a watch list and that if I continue to speak out and scrutinise Anglo-Chinese relations, I will be the next Tory MP to be put on China’s sanctions list. If so, I will scrutinise China even more, because—I want the Chinese ambassador to know this—the British way is not to be bullied and intimidated.
We are all British parliamentarians, and we have a duty and responsibility in this House to challenge our own Government and our Government’s policy towards China in a sensible, pragmatic and democratic way. If this debate pushed me into being sanctioned, I for one will not relent from that ongoing scrutiny of my own Government and their conduct towards China.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I am impressed with the force of what my hon. Friend has said so far. As one of the seven parliamentarians who wears the badge of honour of having been sanctioned by the Chinese Government, we would be delighted to welcome him to our numbers and to present him physically with a badge for that extraordinary honour, which has been bestowed on us counterproductively by the Chinese Communist party.
I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. He has not yet touched on the question of Taiwan. Filling in atolls with cement is a serious breach of international law and we should be concerned about it; the constant flying over by Chinese jets into Taiwanese airspace, which has accelerated recently, is a much more aggressive, bellicose and worrying act. Does he agree and will he mention that in his comments?
Daniel Kawczynski
I was aware that my hon. Friend was one of those esteemed colleagues to have been sanctioned already by the Chinese Communist regime, and it would be an honour to serve alongside him with that accolade. Yes, of course I will be coming on to Taiwan. He anticipated that key issue, which I intend to raise. Some of us Conservative MPs enjoy regular meetings with the Taiwanese ambassador at his embassy, where we listen to Taiwan’s perspective, and I appreciate doing that.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the word “communist”. Of the 365 elected at the last election, I am the sole Conservative MP who was born in a communist country, so I know what communism is. I used to go back to communist Poland to see my beloved grandfather in the 1980s, when martial law was in place and General Jaruzelski—the Soviet puppet who was controlling Poland—was running the show, so I know what the communists are and I know what they are capable of. Let us not forget that under the veneer of China’s highly flourishing capitalist society, there beats the heart of a rigid communist politburo that seeks to control its own people in a way that is completely unacceptable, and is unimaginable here in the United Kingdom.
Yes, to answer my hon. Friend, the former Japanese ambassador came to my office to highlight to me personally the ongoing and increasing violations of Japanese airspace by many Chinese planes, deliberately invading that airspace and testing the Japanese resolve. My hon. Friend also highlighted Taiwan, and I will take a moment to pay tribute to the President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen. That lady has demonstrated a huge amount of courage, fortitude and bravery in how she has stood up for the people of Taiwan, and she is not prepared to be bullied by China. In terms of size, it is like comparing a mouse with a lion: Taiwan is tiny and has microscopic military resources compared with communist China, yet it is determined to maintain its independence and fulfil the wishes of the representatives who have been democratically elected by the Taiwanese people.
We must stand by the Taiwanese people. This is the equivalent of what was going on in central and eastern Europe under communism, and it was Margaret Thatcher coming to the Gdansk shipyards in 1987 and 1988 that gave the succour to Lech Wałęsa to carry on, despite all the odds that were stacked against him. He said that in a television interview: “The communists came this close to destroying Solidarity. We were about to give up, but it was the help and solidarity that came from Britain, particularly Margaret Thatcher, and the resources that were sent from Britain to help us in our struggle for freedom and democracy that gave us the will to carry on and ultimately bring communism down.” As my hon. Friends will know, when that domino effect of communist regimes crumbling started in 1989, it started in Warsaw, the city of my birth.
My hon. Friend the Minister is doing a splendid job in her new position at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—I watch her international trips and the statements that she makes, and I have every confidence in her. However, as a Minister in the Foreign Office, she will know that the Chinese have recently been shooting and killing Indian soldiers on their border with India. China is getting into an increasing number of border disputes with India, and of course, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and others have been at the forefront of highlighting the suppression of the Uyghurs in western China.
From everything that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and his colleagues have said, I am sure that he will agree with me—he must intervene if he does not—that what is happening to the Uyghurs is equivalent to ethnic cleansing. The Chinese Communist Government are trying to ethnically cleanse millions of people from western China in order to be able to control that territory, and if we are going to turn a blind eye to that sort of activity—ethnic cleansing on an industrial scale—what is the point of our having stood up to Serbia and the other countries in 1991?
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend is being very generous. The only thing I disagree with is that it is not just ethnic cleansing; it is genocide, and of course, this House has voted to acknowledge the genocide that is still going on in Xinjiang province against the Uyghur people. It is not just the Uyghur people, either: this has been happening against the Tibetans since 1959, and is starting to happen in Hong Kong as well. The Chinese Communist party has form and needs to be called out, so I am glad my hon. Friend is contributing to that today.
Daniel Kawczynski
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, I was being rather contrite and measured in referring to the policy as ethnic cleansing. He is of course correct, and I will utilise his word: what is going on in western China is genocide.
I will repeat what our Government, the Prime Minister and others have said. I saw something in the media this week. The Prime Minister said we must not discount Chinese investment in our country. I understand we are in a precarious economic situation. I understand that it is tempting to accept tens or hundreds of billions of dollars from China, but, as I will come on to say, China has a 1,000-year strategy to control global economies, and we must not fall into the trap.
Again, I agree with my hon. Friend. I am old enough to remember the agreement that Margaret Thatcher signed in December 1984. In that meticulous agreement that we entered into with the Chinese, my understanding is that we did not have to give up all the territory, but we did it for one country, two systems, and China has completely trashed that agreement—not after 100 or 200 years, but just a few short decades—and it has been put in the bin. The most heartbreaking thing that I heard the other day was a young man from Hong Kong who said to me, “We have come to expect and we have acclimatised ourselves to smelling tear gas on our streets on a daily basis.” The Chinese intend to do everything possible to snuff out and destroy the embryonic stages of a democratic movement in Hong Kong. Yes, we have a responsibility to the Uyghurs and to our other partners in the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which we will be joining, but—goodness me—we have no greater responsibility to anybody in that region than we do to the people of Hong Kong who have stood with us and fought with us for generations.
If an MP has the temerity to challenge the dangerous conduct of China, they will, as I have said, be put on a sanctions list. I am extremely pleased that Mr Speaker has now banned the Chinese ambassador from entering this House. It is extraordinary that the ambassador from a fellow permanent member of the United Nations Security Council cannot step into this building. I applaud the courage and bravery of our Speaker. It is intolerable for us to allow the Chinese ambassador into this building while hon. Friends such as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is put on the sanctions list and is threatened, bullied and intimidated. What signal would we send to the Chinese if we allowed the Chinese ambassador to come here and enjoy our receptions and debates, and have the privilege of being able to lobby Members of Parliament, when our own colleagues are being sanctioned?
I now come to AUKUS, which is the purpose of this debate.
Daniel Kawczynski
Well, I am a politician, Mr Davies. You have to give me some leeway to give you a brief synopsis up front. Thank you for your patient indulgence.
With regard to AUKUS, we need to celebrate. I am having this debate because I want to send a copy of it to all of my members in Shrewsbury. I rang my association chairman—we have about 500 members in the Shrewsbury Conservative Association—and I have asked for a copy to be sent to all of my members because I think we ought to celebrate the signing of AUKUS. It is extraordinary how little coverage it has received in the press and that the United Kingdom is the only European country that has been asked to join this extraordinary military-naval pact with America and the United States of America.
Daniel Kawczynski
Forgive me—Australia. I would describe AUKUS as historical allies joining forces again, reinforcing their military bonds, tempered over the heat of many conflicts. The USA, UK and Australia have come together to confront emerging threats. The three of us had to intervene during the second world war to prevent the Japanese empire causing chaos and instability in the region. Now again, I am afraid, those three countries have to come together, in advance of seeing the threat of the Chinese hurtling towards us and other important countries.
Although China was not named in the joint statement, the implication was clear in the opening paragraph:
“we resolve to deepen diplomatic, security and defense cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region”.
Artificial intelligence, quantum technology, cyber-warfare, long-range strike capabilities and a nuclear component are primary areas covered by the pact. It may be noted that in all those areas there is direct competition between China and the United States of America for supremacy.
One person who knew how to deal with the Chinese was the great Singapore statesman, Lee Kuan Yew. Many people told me ahead of this debate to listen again to that great man and how he managed to protect his tiny microstate of Singapore, despite all adversity and threats. I have been watching some of Lee Kuan Yew’s speeches, both in Singapore and in London during his many visits to our capital city. I would like to share with colleagues one thing he said that particularly struck me. He decried the British leaving Singapore in 1971. We had military bases there and he foresaw the dangers ahead of the British leaving.
Hon. Friends and colleagues will know that in 1971 we were going through a period of economic malaise and—how shall I put it?—a lack of self-belief and political courage, and introspection. That is why, under Ted Heath and Mr Wilson, we made those catastrophic mistakes of short-termism, yet again. Remember that the Chinese have a 1000-year strategy. Here there was short-termism, a lack of self-belief and a lack of understanding and appreciation of our reputation in the region from key allies. That led us to leave Singapore in 1971. I hope AUKUS is the prelude to a wider security pact with more countries, and potentially more negotiated British naval bases in countries in the region.
Let us take a moment to recognise and appreciate the extraordinary privilege and prestige that we have as the only European nation with a permanent naval base in the Arabian sea. The Minister will be very cognisant of that. That naval base in Bahrain plays a critical role in maintaining peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two protagonists in that region. Can you imagine, Mr Davies, what would happen in the Arabian gulf if the British did not have a presence in Bahrain? I hope that what we are doing in the Arabian gulf will be replicated in the Indo-Pacific region. AUKUS is the embryo—the prelude—to that.
Mr Davies, you will be pleased to know that I am coming towards the conclusion of my statement. I will refer briefly to the CPTPP. I campaigned for Brexit and I am very proud that my constituency of Shrewsbury voted for Brexit. Now that we have left the European Union, an organisation that is shrinking every day as a percentage of global population and output, we have the opportunity to join the CPTPP, a $9 trillion market in exactly the same region in which AUKUS will operate. It is an economic partnership of 14 countries that, combined, are much larger than the European Union and growing, rather than shrinking, like the European Union.
Let me read out the statement I prepared earlier about why we must now marry our military responsibilities in AUKUS with our forthcoming membership of the CPTPP, and how there must be a unique synergy in tying these two projects together. We can send countries all the arms and armaments we like, but it will mean nothing if China strangle them economically. No one can fly a war plane if they cannot afford the fuel to feed it. China is fighting an economic battle that requires an economic response.
As mentioned, we have ready allies in the region who are more than willing and able to provide support in countering the Chinese. Vietnam and Indonesia, in particular, have the capability to meet our economic needs and those of our allies, in the same way that China can. There are few, if any, restrictions on what countries such as Vietnam can do, relative to what China can do.
I do not know about hon. Members here, but I have very important, large institutions in Shrewsbury—I will not embarrass them now—both in the public and private sectors, who have approached me to say, “We are worried and concerned about our over-dependence on Chinese investment. They are pouring resources into our institutions and are slowly, but inextricably, trying to take control of them. What do we do, Mr Kawczynski?”
The answer to this is the CPTPP. I say to my constituents, “If you need investment from Asia or the far east, please be aware that we applied to join the CPTPP on 1 February 2021 and that negotiations started on 1 June. When we finally agree to be the first ever European country to join the CPTPP, then that free trade scenario will afford us and be the catalyst for a potential massive recalibration of the investments that we accept in this country, and in the exports and imports that we have with China versus the other 14 countries, in particular countries such as Vietnam.”
I would like to ask the Minister, what can the Chinese provide us with that the Vietnamese cannot? I would rather give my money to the Vietnamese, the Singaporeans, the Malaysians, the Indonesians, the Indians, the Japanese and the Australians. All these countries are friendly nations who have nothing but good intentions towards the United Kingdom. What is the purpose of continuing to pour money into China, with this massive dependency on imports from that country?
Finally, Mr Davies, may I make one important last point about Diego Garcia, the British Indian Ocean Territory? In 2018, the Foreign Office asked me to visit the British Indian Ocean Territory, a chain of approximately 30 or 40 islands in the middle of the Indian ocean. What I saw there was absolutely breathtaking and mind-boggling. I have never seen such vast naval and air force installations in my life. This is a critical base that has already been used for wars in the middle east, for supplies, logistics and all the rest of it. We have just entered into an AUKUS military alliance with America and Australia, and yet Mauritius is trying to take these islands from us through the United Nations.
I want hon. Members to know, and this is one of the reasons I keep tabling written parliamentary questions on this issue, that when we gave Mauritius her independence in 1965, it was made abundantly clear—I have read the treaty documents many times—Mauritius would have her independence but would not have control over the British Indian Ocean Territory, which is literally hundreds and hundreds of miles away from it. Hon. Members will know that the British Indian Ocean Territory is actually much closer to the Maldives than it is to Mauritius, yet Mauritius is taking us through every conceivable route at the United Nations to steal—I use that word deliberately—these islands from us. I will also use parliamentary privilege to say that I would not be surprised if the French were not using their influence with the Mauritius Government to facilitate this action, because who do we think would have a naval base in the British Indian Ocean Territory if it was not controlled by Britain but taken over by Mauritius?
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
May I congratulate my hon. Friend on an outstanding speech? Indeed, it is one of the most outstanding speeches that I have heard in this Chamber in my time in Parliament. I will just inform my hon. Friend and the House that when I was a shadow Foreign Office Minister I studied the issue of the Diego Garcian people. When we gave Mauritius independence, they were fully compensated—the families were fully compensated. The wise ones invested and now have houses; the unwise ones spent all the money. There was then a further round of compensation, because it was deemed that they had not been given enough, so they have been fully compensated for any familial ties that they might have had to Diego Garcia.
Daniel Kawczynski
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Not surprisingly, I completely concur with everything he has just stated. I would also say to him that in addition to the treaty—the Minister will know about this—we gave Mauritius £4 million as final settlement. Hon. Members will remember how much £4 million was in 1965. Mauritius took that money. Now, 50 years on, Mauritius is trying to overturn—
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
Order. Please can we bring it back to AUKUS? Also, we will have to begin to time-limit the few people we have to speak.
Daniel Kawczynski
Sorry, forgive me—I had to get in the British Indian Ocean Territory, because I would argue that it is a critical part of the AUKUS strategy.
My final comment is an appeal to the Minister, which I have briefed her officials about. When she replies to me to say that we will never give up the British Indian Ocean Territory until we no longer have a military requirement for these islands, may I ask her to change her view? It should never be the case that we will hand these islands back, even in the very rare circumstances that there is no further military requirement for them. They are part and parcel of, and intrinsic to, our long-term strategy of AUKUS and bringing Britain back into the Indo-Pacific, to ensure that we use our position on the UN Security Council and our military might to help our new economic partners in the CPTPP and beyond to maintain peace and stability in this crucial part of the world.
Several hon. Members rose—
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
I think we have three Members who wish to speak, who by my reckoning each have about eight or nine minutes each to speak, before 10.28 am.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Davies; it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, on a topic that I have some interest in. First, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing this debate on the AUKUS path and on putting forward a very comprehensive summary to introduce it?
I am also very pleased to see the Minister in her place. I think she and I came into the House at the same time. I have watched her progress and I am very pleased to see her here; I think this may be her first Westminster Hall debate as a Minister. If it is, we are very pleased to have her here to answer our concerns, which I am very sure will happen.
I must say that when I first learned about the agreement that we have struck with our allies—which will see the three countries collaborate on new nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy and work together on areas such as cyber and artificial intelligence—I was pleased. Indeed, I was ecstatic. I am very supportive of and encouraged by that pact, and I put that on record when the Prime Minister came to the Chamber to make those comments.
I understand that this is not the work of a one-day or two-day event, but the culmination of much work contained in the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy, which highlighted the need for the Indo-Pacific alignment. The tilt is necessary because, as our Prime Minister said, the region is critical to our economy, our security and our global ambition to support open societies, so the AUKUS pact is one we need. We cannot do this on our own, even though we have historical influence in the area. It is a partnership that involves Australia and the USA. Japan and other countries will no doubt also be a partner to that, as I think it is something we can grow and do more with.
Our Commonwealth sibling, Australia, has been clear about the need in this area. Our increased actions in the region have indicated our seriousness and our dedication to it. We have increased naval exercises in the South China sea over the past few years: HMS Albion conducted a US-style freedom of navigation operation by the Paracel islands in August 2018, and in early 2019 the Royal Navy conducted two joint military exercises with the US navy in the South China sea. I understand that more of those will take place in the next months. That co-operative working has been beneficial, and the AUKUS pact is a natural enhancement of those ties and relationships, so I totally and absolutely support it and see the benefits, not only for us, but for the world, in what we are doing.
As the Library briefing puts it:
“The AUKUS submarine deal is concerned solely with naval nuclear propulsion. It does not involve the transfer of nuclear weapons to Australia. As such, AUKUS does not contravene the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Nor does it contravene the or the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty.”
The deal has been done in a way that enhances our relationship and our partnership. New Zealand, which is a signatory to that treaty and has a long-standing anti-nuclear stance, has already stated that Australia’s new nuclear submarines will not be permitted in its territorial waters, so let us be clear about what is happening and what we are trying to do.
The remit is clear and, to be completely honest, the reaction of the Chinese Government would suggest that, rather than there being nothing to see here, there is something to see and they are at pains to ensure that we do not see it ourselves. Chinese influence reaches across the world, as the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham has outlined; it is not just here and in the far east, but everywhere—every country in Africa. I remember when I went to Kenya with the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, some four or five years ago. Who was building the roads in Kenya that we drove on? China. It has built its relationship across every country; it goes in and makes partnerships with all the Governments, and then has access to all their mineral supplies and strips them of all those things. That is influence that we had, and those are important issues for us.
I have spoken about the atrocities against the Uyghurs in China, which both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) referred to, for many years. The first time I highlighted them was during a debate on International Human Rights Day, just before Christmas 2015. In the years since, the world has become more aware of the atrocities carried out against those people, and yet those actions have not ceased—if anything, they have become more barbaric.
The AUKUS pact is so important to combat the issues happening in China and the persecution of the Uyghurs—the word genocide has been used, but it is clear to me that ethnic cleansing has taken place against them, and every person here has spoken on that in past debates. Christians are also persecuted in China, and there are examples of churches burned or demolished, people put in prison for their beliefs or denied access to jobs, education and health. We have also spoken about the Falun Gong in many debates. They are a people with a specific religious belief—a very gentle people, but a people who have suffered commercial harvesting of organs among their people. Again, that report was made here some time ago in London, condemning China in the eyes of the world for what it has done.
Those things concern us greatly and make us all the more aware of what is taking place and the need to underline the vital importance of the AUKUS pact. China is a nation that sneers at our belief system; they will hold themselves only to their own standards, as if they are the only ones that really matter—as if the rest of the world does not have standards. Well, yes we do, and our standards are much better than what they have—that is a fact. They dare to say that what we are doing is not acceptable.
The outcome of this is that we are feeling the impact of China’s economic influence. What the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham said about the price of containers is really important. This stuff is coming to Northern Ireland and coming to the UK; I can tell hon. Members from the experience of my own constituents that a container of goods from China that used to cost £3,000 now costs £15,000. It is time for the world to look elsewhere for the products they buy. The AUKUS pact is so important because it underlines these issues for us.
As the hon. Member said, I fully support Taiwan; again, the AUKUS pact will also address this issue. I read in the paper that the USA is to supply 60 F-16 fighters to Taiwan, which has asked for them as a matter of urgency. It is time these things were in place and that our support for Taiwan was on record—our military manoeuvres will be part of that as well. Today’s paper suggested that the pension funds should look at other ways of investing their money—not in Chinese properties or businesses but in other companies that are not involved—so there are lots of things we can do.
Today’s debate is about the AUKUS pact. I finish with this. How do we deal with this? Do we back off and say that we accept the treatment of the Uyghur Muslims, the Christians or the Falun Gong, if China will play nice with us again? Will we look the other way if they ask us to? Will we dissolve our pact with like-minded allies? The answer, quite simply, is no; that can never happen. It will never happen. We must build our relationships, but on reasonable terms, and we will not be bullied. I welcome the AUKUS pact and this debate today. I welcome the message it sends. I support the Government, the Prime Minister and the Minister here today on this particular journey, and I thank the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham for bringing forward this debate.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Davies, for allowing me to take part in this debate. I would like to thank the Minister; she and I have not always agreed on everything, but we have moved on, and I am glad to see her here. I give sincere congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski); his was one of the highest-quality speeches that I have heard in this Chamber. This is an incredibly important debate, and I am sorry that it is so thinly attended.
You have given me about six minutes, Mr Davies, so I will motor on, but I want to make one or two important points that were not in my speech, but that arise from what my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham said. Perhaps the most important thing he said was that now that we have freed ourselves from the straitjacket of European Union trading arrangements, we need to participate fully in the Indo-Pacific tilt and its trading arrangements. He is quite right that it is one of the fastest-growing regions in the world. It is certainly growing much faster than the European Union, which is, if anything, retrenching in terms of percentage of world GDP; he is 100% right on that. I hope we succeed in our CPTPP negotiations. He is also 100% right to talk about naval bases. Ironically, that is exactly what the Chinese are doing; they are expanding their naval bases those in Sri Lanka and Djibouti being just two examples. China is doing exactly what he urges us to do. At Diego Garcia and Guam there are two very significant American bases, which will be maintained at full strength.
My hon. Friend is also right to say that we should reduce our dependency on Chinese investment in this country. Unprecedentedly in my 29-year parliamentary career, I have called for an urgent question. It is on the Chinese purchase of Newport Wafer Fab. It makes our highly sophisticated microchips, which are extremely difficult to make; we have some of the world’s best technology, and we are selling it to the Chinese. These microchips are the basis of every piece of electronic equipment. It was crazy to allow this, and I still appeal to the Minister to look at this again, because it was not very sensible.
I have been actively engaged with members of the Chinese Government at the most senior levels for the last 20 years or so. I am also deputy chairman of the all-party parliamentary China group, so I can claim to have some insight into the Chinese psychology. What one really needs to look into is: what is the psychology driving China when it takes an action? How will it react to this trilateral security pact? Since 2010, the relationship between the UK and China has been pragmatic and often mutually beneficial. For example, the UK was the first western nation to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. It is still one of the largest foreign countries trading renminbi. I think we have to be pragmatic. I do not think we should cut off our trade with China; I just think we should diversify it.
I totally agree with Members who have mentioned the serious human rights violations in China, which we in the UK abhor and rightly express our concerns about directly with China. That does not mean that we should not be friends with the Chinese on a people-to-people level; nor should it prevent our Governments from having responsible dialogue. China is too big and strategically important not to engage with. The message I want to leave this House with is that if we stop engaging with China, we stop having any influence with it. It is absolutely essential to engage, and we have done throughout history. We have engaged with people whom we do not like and do not approve of. We do not approve of their human rights violations, but we still engage with them. That is what we ought to be doing with the Chinese.
The People’s Republic is extremely strategic and long-term in its thinking—as my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham said, it has a 1,000-year strategy. When it sets out to achieve something, it invariably does. I would like my hon. Friend to focus on this line: while it might protest about AUKUS publicly, privately it will respect the fact that the west is standing up to its imperial ambitions. There is no doubt that China wants to become the dominant superpower in the world in regards to political, economic and military influence. We must accept that, but that does not mean we should stop dealing with it. We need to find a sensible way to work with China.
The Chinese are spending huge amounts of money on upgrading their submarine, space and ballistic missile capabilities. According to the Financial Times, in August they tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile, apparently to the surprise of the US and western intelligence. Why it was a surprise, I do not know, because we have known for several years that they have been trying to develop these weapons. Such demonstrations show the advanced capabilities of China’s modernised military.
We have witnessed the deterioration in Australian-Chinese relations and the bullying attitude to Australia over trade, which, of course, has spurred Australia on to spend a significant amount of its GDP upgrading its submarine capability to a nuclear-powered capability, so that it can spend more time at sea, hopefully undetected.
I fully welcome the AUKUS pact. I think it is the right thing to do. Hopefully, the UK as well as the US will take part in the production and technology of those submarines. AUKUS has been, to many, a bold step. We are pushing our global Britain credentials with a bigger role in the Indo-Pacific region. Importantly, as my hon. Friend says, we are working closely with our allies—something talked about in the integrated review. He mentioned the number of countries in the CPTPP partnership. One important country he did not mention, and which I would like to mention on the record, is South Korea. We have a trading agreement, and a good relationship, with it. It is one of those countries north of the South China sea that is also troubled by Chinese incursion.
There are still many areas that require productive and sensible China-Anglo dialogue. COP26 is an important milestone for the future of the UK’s climate change agenda and ambition. The UK produces around 1.1% of the world’s emissions, whereas China emits around 28% and accounts for almost two thirds of the growth in emissions since 2000. Clearly, we can set a good example to other countries to decarbonise more quickly and make a real difference to climate change, but we need alliances with other countries, so that they can do the same. We need China to come on board with that agenda. Any fallout over AUKUS will have consequences for other matters, as I have demonstrated with COP26, but I would like to think that it is of benefit to both the UK and China to continue with a constructive dialogue.
While we will always have our differences, and I do not hesitate to articulate our views vociferously to the Chinese when I talk to them, particularly over human rights, overall it is in both sides’ interests to have a realistic but frank dialogue in the future. The idea of breaking off all dialogue with China, as some would advocate, is simply cutting off our nose to spite our face. Worse still, as I have said, we would lose the chance to influence Chinese thinking on issues such as climate change.
This has been an important debate. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to take something from it: that while we want to stand up to China, we want to have a dialogue with it; that its human rights activities are unacceptable; and that we should start to reduce our reliance on Chinese investment.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.28 am, so Mark Logan has just under eight minutes.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Davies. This is my first Westminster Hall debate, and is one of the very few debates in which I have spoken since I was elected to Parliament in December 2019, because I am a PMP: a pandemic Member of Parliament. To concur with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), it is great to see the Minister in her place, and I congratulate her on having one of the most important jobs in Government. It is also great to see Opposition Members here.
I will start by responding briefly to a few points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), before making a short speech—in brevity, there is wit. Having lived in China for over a decade, I always find it slightly misguided to put Russia and China in the same category, but that has become a habit in western rhetoric in recent years. When one is on the ground in each of those countries, one sees very different dynamics in play. In China, there is a real belief that today can be better than yesterday, and that tomorrow will be even better. On a personal level, many of the values of its people can be very similar to ours. Parents there want the best for their kids, which is why we have around 200,000 students from China in the UK. There is a fixation on prosperity over everything else—one does not always get that in Russia.
There was a lot of chat about threats from China, but there is a huge amount of opportunity to be gained from working and collaborating closely with China in a whole host of areas—for example, on climate change, COP26 and what comes after it. Unlike many of my Conservative hon. Friends, I have not given up on China yet. Like my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), I still think we can influence China’s direction. However, we will not do so if we stand on the sidelines, hector and use an overly hawkish tone.
The reality of the 20th century was that the United States existed and one had to work with it; one could not just ignore the United States and operate with Canada, Mexico or whoever else. The same applies to China in the 21st century. We should closely navigate a balance between the opportunities and the threats in this bilateral relationship.
A point was made about China’s diplomacy with different countries and how countries have been pushing back. There is truth in what my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham said, but it is more of a mixed bag. Developing countries across the belt and road, for example, have quite positive views of China’s impact on them. I call on our Chinese counterparts to work a bit harder on the diplomatic front, because the wolf warrior diplomacy that we have seen over the last two years is not helpful when it comes to trying to have—to borrow a Chinese phrase—a harmonious relationship.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham referred to China as a communist country, but anyone who has studied China, and wannabe Sinologists like me, often wonder whether it is. Is it communist, Confucianist, or more Marxist than Leninist? On China’s Leninism, my hon. Friend said something that chimed with me when he spoke of the Politburo and its influence on society. There is an argument that Leninism, along with state capitalism, might explain China better than communism or any other label.
Lastly, I want to respond to my hon. Friend’s fantastic point about Lee Kuan Yew, in Singapore. What the west needs is its own version of Lee Kuan Yew. He was one of the most successful politicians of the last century, from any country, and was able to lead Singapore—a country of between 5 million and 7 million people—I am looking over at the officials for the exact figure; perhaps they can get it from Wikipedia. Singapore has done a fantastic job of navigating relations between the east and west, and there is much to learn from that.
My daughter is half Chinese and half Ulster Scots—I am looking at the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—as her father is from the lovely county of Antrim. That is a very special mixture. China does not always sneer at the west, to use the hon. Member’s words; in fact, part of its success over the last 30 or 40 years is that it has learned so much from us. That is why it has sent hundreds of thousands of students to the west, and why its cityscapes can look so similar to those in the United States. The problem sometimes is that the US and China are so similar: they both want to be No. 1. They want to compete with one another; their people are very ambitious. There is much to learn from both the east and west, and much to gain from China and the UK working closely together.
We can see that from the members of the Chinese diaspora living in the United Kingdom. They are among the highest-performing students at primary school, secondary school and university. They have some of the highest incomes of any ethnic group, and some of the lowest levels of mental illness and crime, when we compare them to many countries with recorded labels. Those on the eastern and western fronts can learn from each other, politically and culturally.
I am conscious that I have roughly one minute left, Mr Davies. We need to be cautious about using words such as “adversary”, because I do not think that China has previously taken the UK to be an adversary. It has not seen us as the enemy, and I say that having lived there for 13 years. The Chinese people’s opinion and perspective of the UK is that it is among the best of the 200 countries around the world. Looking at the British Council statistics from last year, only France and Germany usually outshine us. There is an awful amount of good will towards us from the Chinese people, and we should not obfuscate that. We should be cautious about the words we use.
I will close on the issue of Sinophobia. I am cautious about AUKUS. It is an interesting development, and the jury is still out on the extent to which it could feed into a security dilemma or bring more peace to the region. From the UK perspective, my worry is that the increasing narrative vis-à-vis China—one of negativity—is having an adverse impact on Chinese, east Asian and south-east Asian communities in our country. Thank you very much for the time today, Mr Davies. I look forward to following up with colleagues after the debate.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. As this is the first time I have spoken in Parliament since the tragic and senseless loss of our parliamentary colleague, Sir David Amess, I wish to put on record my own deep personal sorrow and condolences to his family for his loss.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing the debate. It is an important issue, and there is no doubt about his passion for the subject and for defending the AUKUS deal. There is also no doubt about his clear and persistent disdain for the EU, which came through very strongly in his words. The hon. Gentleman made some very important points about the behaviour of China that I agree with, particularly on its human rights record. Before I get to the substance of my speech, I would say that nobody should ever be bullied or intimidated about speaking out on these issues. That is just not acceptable under any circumstances.
AUKUS is directed against an increasingly aggressive China, but it has had the short-term effect of triggering one of the worst inter-ally crises in living memory. The fallout with France that ensued in the aftermath of the AUKUS deal announcement only plays into the hands of the Chinese. The French Foreign Minister was quoted as saying that the UK was engaging in its usual opportunism, which was why they did not recall the UK ambassador alongside the US and Australian ambassadors.
Maintaining unity with European allies and demonstrating military co-operation are not mutually exclusive. The French should have been involved at each and every stage of this pact’s development even if, ultimately, they would not play a leading role. This UK Government have squandered unity with key European allies who have existing, established presences in the Indo-Pacific area—namely the French—just for membership in this pact.
Common challenges are better faced when countries can trust each other, and that has never been more pertinent than in this case. Diplomatic duplicity and misleading allies is foolish at any time, and cannot contain China—if that is indeed the objective of the UK Government, apart from burning diplomatic bridges between the UK and France by giving Australia access to sensitive technology in the form of nuclear-powered submarines. I must say that our view, unlike that of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), is that this is tacitly encouraging nuclear proliferation, which we in the Scottish National party are morally, economically, environmentally and strategically against.
Despite the passionate defence from the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, the AUKUS pact is indicative of UK fears that its status has diminished and is threatened by China. Better decisions will be made here in Westminster only when the UK embraces the fact that it is a middle power. Reluctance to accept that is leading to all kinds of fallout, as we have seen played out on the world stage.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I would question what the hon. Gentleman says about nuclear proliferation. If these submarines were going to carry nuclear weapons, he would possibly have a case, but these are only nuclear-powered submarines, and nuclear power is a relatively well-known technology that is certainly not covered by the treaties.
Drew Hendry
The hon. Gentleman would make that point, and that would be his defence; I would expect him to do that. However, the fact is that there will be nuclear weapons—nuclear-powered submarines—patrolling as a result of the deal. That is a matter of fact.
Australia has been under pressure since its Prime Minister called for an independent investigation into the origins of covid-19 in China. As we have heard, China has already imposed huge tariffs and restrictions on Australian exports, including wine, beef and barley, and banned coal imports outright. However, that Chinese aggression abroad is only matched by its aggression at home. There have been deadly skirmishes on the Indo-Chinese border. There is the appalling genocidal treatment of the Uyghur Muslims, the ongoing militarisation of the South China sea, military aircraft incursions into Taiwanese airspace, the widespread persecution of the Christians and the Falun Gong, and increased intimidation of the groups in inner Mongolia and Tibet. China has also trashed the Sino-British agreement, and stripped away residual rights of Hongkongers.
In part, this deal seems to message that the international community will not allow aggressive behaviour to go unchecked. Unfortunately, in reality, the posture of this Tory Government towards China remains ambiguous. Although China is described as a “systemic competitor” in this year’s integrated review, there have been several statements confirming that the UK does not want diplomatic tensions to undermine economic relations with Beijing, and that this is merely a war of words.
For instance, the Deputy Prime Minister stated in a leaked message to civil servants that the UK
“ought to be trading liberally around the world”,
regardless of whether our commercial partners comply with human rights standards. That was reiterated by the Foreign Secretary when questioned on this very leak at the recent Tory party conference. Perhaps the Minister might want to clarify her own view.
For the time being, it appears that UK-China relations will be binary and played out on two different levels—one diplomatic and the other economic. China regards the AUKUS pact and in many ways the phrase global Britain as confirmation of the UK standing on the side of the United States in a new cold war between Washington and Beijing. China also believes that a declining Britain does not have the capabilities to become an influential player in the Indo-Pacific region. Some have argued that the UK role in this alliance, in particular, is merely that of a third wheel. There are questions about whether this lack of meaningfulness is worth the provocation it has caused.
If this is an attempt by the UK to forge a meaningful security role post-Brexit, it is not that. More effort should be made to begin talks of a UK-EU defence and security deal. It underlines the reality that, after promises of taking control, the UK’s foreign and security policy is now ultimately decided in Washington.
Daniel Kawczynski
I must pick the hon. Gentleman up on the important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). Those submarines are powered by nuclear power; they do not have nuclear weapons on them. Bearing in mind that the hon. Gentleman said how strongly the SNP thinks about reducing carbon, surely it is more appropriate to have submarines powered by nuclear rather than diesel. Does he not understand that?
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
Mr Hendry, could you begin to wind up your remarks?
Drew Hendry
I was going to before I took the intervention, Mr Davies. I will move as swiftly as I can towards the conclusion of my comments. The fact is that using nuclear power anywhere—on a submarine or elsewhere—means there is residual environmental waste that will go on for many half-lives. To have nuclear-powered submarines patrolling is not a solution to an environmental issue. That is a preposterous position.
The UK remains outside the Quad and the ongoing stately voyage of HMS Queen Elizabeth in the South China sea is more symbolic than substantive. The deployment has been noted for not carrying enough aircraft and for depending on US and Dutch escort vessels.
There are still questions to be answered about what the UK will get out of the partnership. The UK is clearly not going to be building the submarines after the mess it made of the latest Astute class hunter-killer boats that it cannot even scrap. That comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. It cannot even scrap the nuclear subs that we see as rusting hulks left to degrade in the water at Rosyth.
There have been vague references to wider co-operation in areas such as artificial intelligence, but the only specific programmes mentioned, such as those to supply the Australians with Tomahawks, joint air-to-surface standoff missiles, and long-range anti-ship missiles, concern American weapons systems. Perhaps the Minister can detail what is actually agreed.
The French Foreign Minister has already suggested that the UK is just the fifth wheel on the carriage. More broadly, the main issue is what this co-operation will do. Will it impede China’s intentions in the regions? A little perhaps, but not significantly. There was not much in terms of strategic commitments. Instead, there were lots of theatrics, a statement of intent and a promise of new submarines in 20 years’ time. That is no substitute for a joined-up, long-term strategy, decided between the US, UK, the EU and other like-minded partners. China’s long-term challenge will not be met by submarines alone.
Finally, it is right to be concerned about the ability to engage China on climate change. It is still unclear whether Xi Jinping will attend COP26. It would be a great deficit if he were not there because of decisions made at Westminster. Planetary health cannot suffer as a result of this.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. I would also like to thank the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for securing this important debate on a crucial matter.
Hon. Members will recognise that we live in an increasingly uncertain world. Liberal democracy is no longer the only show in town. In fact, a study for the University of Gothenburg showed that for the first time since 2001, democracies are outnumbered by authoritarian regimes. That was before the coup in Burma and the Taliban’s advances in Afghanistan.
We are duty bound to respond to the world as it is, not how we would like it to be. The UK and its allies therefore need to wise up, not to provoke and inflame tensions, but to deter aggressive and bellicose behaviour that threatens British interests and those of our allies and our liberal democratic values.
It is in that spirit that Labour Front Benchers welcome AUKUS and its increased defence co-operation with our allies. Australia and the US are two of our closest security partners, and sharing resources and intelligence and co-ordinating with democratic allies should always make Britain safer. However, this partnership will only make Britain safer if the UK Government enter into the agreement with a view to AUKUS complementing the defence and security responsibilities we already share with a large number of our other allies. The Labour party supports AUKUS, but we must be absolutely clear that it should not create a perception that we are turning our backs on our other democratic partners and allies. The UK Government must therefore make clear to the other two members of the Five Eyes partnership, Canada and New Zealand, that we value those relationships, and that AUKUS will enhance, rather than diminish, the work of the Five Eyes.
Even more critically, we must re-assert our unwavering commitment to NATO and the European security partnerships that are of such fundamental importance to the security of the British people. It was therefore troubling to see the way in which AUKUS was announced: in a cack-handed manner, without our European partners being properly informed or consulted. It seems that we disposed with the diplomatic norms that are expected of a close ally. The conduct around the deal has caused considerable damage to relations with France, much of which should have been foreseen and could have been avoided. Diplomatic rows that allow NATO to be weakened do not serve our interests, but play directly into the hands of others. France is a crucial NATO ally: for example, British and French soldiers are currently serving side by side in Mali to counter terrorism and support UN peacekeeping. The world is crying out for the UK to get back to its long-established role as an alliance builder, yet for every relationship this Conservative Government try to strengthen, they tend to damage another. This is not the way to go about international relations, or to run a proud and influential country such as ours.
To be clear, it is the Labour party’s view that it absolutely makes sense to develop our political and economic ties in the Indo-Pacific. We support building deeper partnerships across the region, particularly with its democratic Governments, but this Government are tilting—or, more accurately, lurching—because they are unbalanced, because they lack the anchor of a strong and effective relationship with Europe. While the UK lacks that anchor, we continue to risk the threat of increasingly powerful headwinds blowing us off course. It is therefore critical that this AUKUS arrangement does not mean resources being redirected from Europe to the Indo-Pacific, and that it strengthens our NATO alliance and other strategic partnerships.
The Government must stop setting up false binaries. We need an alliance-based foreign policy that strengthens our ties with Europe, our ties with the democratic countries of the Indo-Pacific, and the transatlantic relationship. It is not either/or that is the basis of a successful alliance-based foreign policy, but both/and. Can the Minister make a firm commitment today that her Government will maintain that same level of resources and engagement with NATO in the decades ahead? Can she also be clear about how she intends to rebuild those critical relationships, most notably with France?
With the AUKUS partnership going ahead, it is of course vital that Britain gets its fair share of the economic benefits. Jobs and investment simply must come to the UK, and the Government must put the interests of British workers front and centre during this 18-month proposal period. Will the Minister outline how in the eyes of her Government, UK businesses, communities and workers stand to benefit from the AUKUS programme in tangible terms?
Given the sensitivities involved in sharing nuclear technology, it is important for the deal to be pursued in a way that is consistent with all our international obligations. The Government must ensure that AUKUS meets all our commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and adheres to relevant International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. Clearly, we recognise that Australia has no intention whatever to acquire nuclear weapons, nor does AUKUS enable that in any way. However, questions have been asked about the use of highly enriched uranium as a component of the deal, because of the precedent that might be set that other countries might seek to take advantage of, given that UK and US nuclear submarines operate using such uranium. Will the Minister therefore confirm whether the intention is to use a submarine design that requires highly enriched uranium and, if so, whether that material will be supplied from the UK?
More broadly, AUKUS should be matched by stronger efforts to support nuclear non-proliferation arms control and multilateral disarmament. The global non-proliferation architecture has come under increasing strain in recent years. Ministers have been bystanders, publicly doing and saying nothing. Before, the UK was a leader of global efforts to promote multilateral disarmament. It is high time for us to rediscover leadership of the issue.
AUKUS has been billed as wider co-operation between the UK, the US and Australia beyond the collaboration on submarines, but there has been precious little detail about what that will involve. How do the Government intend to make the partnership meaningful in other areas, in particular on broader technological co-operation?
The wider context of the agreement is the threat to an open and secure Asia-Pacific region. China’s recent actions pose risks to UK interests and to our allies. China’s increasingly aggressive stance threatens a stable trading environment, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It is important to address those risks. We have seen increased tension in the region, threats to freedom of navigation, efforts to undermine international law in the South China sea and completely unreasonable economic and diplomatic pressure applied to Australia simply for calling for an international inquiry into the origins of covid-19.
China’s aggression towards Taiwan is deeply troubling. We have seen a big increase in the number of Chinese fighter jets and bombers buzzing Taiwan’s air defence identification zone in a clear attempt to intimidate Taiwan’s democratically elected leaders. The country in the region that is destabilising the status quo is China—let us be in no doubt about that—so China’s calls about other countries destabilising the status quo are deeply ironic. Those moves raise tension in the region and create the risk of an accident or miscalculation that could have dire consequences. The UK Government and our allies need to make it clear to the Chinese Government that such actions are dangerous and counterproductive.
AUKUS is not about provoking China, but about deepening co-operation between like-minded allies who share a commitment to each other’s security and a vision of a peaceful and open Indo-Pacific region. After the Government’s failed “golden era” approach, the UK must now ensure that the new arrangement increases rather than decreases our ability to influence China. The Labour party will take a strong, clear-eyed and consistent approach, seeking to co-operate with China where we can on issues such as climate change and global health, while standing firm in defence of human rights, freedom and security. On security, we believe that AUKUS in tandem with NATO can play an important role in rebalancing a relationship that, under consecutive Conservative Governments, became far too weighted in favour of Beijing, to the detriment of the British people.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, may I mention that David Amess was an esteemed member of the Panel of Chairs, who chaired these sorts of debates? He is sadly missed and fondly remembered by all members of the panel—by all of us as friends. I wanted to put that on the record.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Amanda Milling)
Thank you, Mr Davies. You are absolutely right that David Amess will be sorely missed by everyone in the House. I, too, put on the record my sincerest condolences to his family. We are thinking of them at this really difficult time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for securing the debate. I am also grateful to Members across the House for this wide-ranging discussion on such an important matter.
I will pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan), whose first time it is in Westminster Hall. This is my first time in Westminster Hall for about three years—I think I secured a debate on a very different subject, which I had to have cancelled when I was appointed to the Whips Office. As I say, it has been a wide-ranging debate, and I want to be clear at the outset that AUKUS will help to support peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. It is not aimed at any one country. As many Members have mentioned, the defence and security relationship between the UK and Australia, as with the United States, is long-standing. Both are trusted allies with whom we share a vision for the world. For more than 70 years we have worked together, along with other allies, to protect our shared values and to promote security and prosperity. The formation of AUKUS recommits us to that vision.
A number of Members have mentioned the non-proliferation treaty, and there have been some claims that AUKUS will lead to nuclear proliferation, undermining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and fuelling an arms race. I can assure hon. Members that AUKUS will do no such thing. The programme will be consistent with our international obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which we, like the US, take extremely seriously. Australia remains committed to its obligations as a non-nuclear weapons state, including to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Australia has impeccable non-proliferation credentials, and it has made it clear that it does not and will not seek to procure or manufacture nuclear weapons. Australia is committed to the highest safeguarding standards, to ensure the safety and security of nuclear material and technology.
I turn to the integrated review and the wider Indo-Pacific tilt. The integrated review underlined the UK’s commitment to diplomatic security and economic engagement across the Indo-Pacific region. By 2030, the Indo-Pacific will represent more than 40% of global GDP. I returned at the weekend from a tour of the Philippines, Singapore and Japan, in my first visit to the region as Minister for Asia. I saw at first hand the enthusiasm of our Indo-Pacific partners for greater UK engagement. The deployment of the UK carrier strike group is an embodiment of our commitment to the region’s security, and I had the pleasure of visiting HMS Queen Elizabeth in Singapore. I eventually got on board the aircraft carrier. I remember visiting it when it was being built in Scotland, I think in late 2015—I had to go to Singapore to get back on to the aircraft carrier. I was able to discuss our commitment to the region’s security with Commodore Steve Moorhouse, the commander of the carrier strike group.
We have recently become a dialogue partner of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and applied to join CPTPP, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham mentioned. CPTTP membership is a key part of the Government’s plan to position the UK at the centre of a network of modern free trade deals that supports jobs and drives economic growth. AUKUS is further demonstration of our long-term commitment to the Indo-Pacific region, helping to build closer and deeper partnerships. It is on that basis that we will have further collaboration, which will help to enhance our joint capabilities and operations. The UK has a range of enduring security interests in the Indo-Pacific and many important defence relationships, and AUKUS will supplement them.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) mentioned NATO. The UK and US are already leading members of NATO, the world’s most important defence alliance. The work done by AUKUS will support our shared goals in new regions. AUKUS is good for NATO and good for Euro-Atlantic security. As the Prime Minister said in his statement to the House, the UK’s commitment to NATO is “absolutely unshakeable”. That in no way affects our commitment to European security or to NATO.
A number of Members mentioned Taiwan and the recent tensions in the Taiwan strait.
Amanda Milling
I am struggling for time, as I need to give my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham time at the end.
We are clear that the numerous Chinese military flights in recent weeks near Taiwan are not conducive to peace and stability in the region. We need a peaceful resolution through constructive dialogue by the people on both sides of the Taiwan strait. We have no diplomatic relations with Taiwan but a strong unofficial relationship based on dynamic commercial, education and cultural ties. We support Taiwan’s participation in international organisations where statehood is not a prerequisite. We are also committed to defending the UN convention on the law of the sea in the South China sea. In September 2020, my predecessor set out our legal analysis on the South China sea in full to Parliament for the first time. We objected to Chinese claims that we consider inconsistent with UNCLOS, which we have reiterated in subsequent statements.
I will turn briefly to UK-France relations, which was mentioned by both Front-Bench speakers. We have a long-standing security and defence relationship with France. We are close NATO allies and have an excellent history of operational co-operation. The Defence Secretary spoke to his French counterpart before the announcement. We will continue to consult each other daily on international defence and security arrangements.
Turning to China, as the integrated review made clear, China’s increasing power and international assertiveness is likely to be the most significant geopolitical factor of the 2020s. As G20 members with permanent seats on the UN Security Council, we must work together, from increasing trade and rebuilding the global economy to co-operation in science innovation. Co-operation with China will be vital to tackle transnational challenges, particularly climate change and biodiversity loss. But as we engage, we will not sacrifice our values or national security. China is an authoritarian state with different values from the UK. The Government consistently take action to hold China to its international obligations and commitments, including responding robustly to its human rights violations in Xinjiang and its breach of the Sino-British joint declaration in Hong Kong. We will continue to speak and take action to promote our values and protect our national security. Working with international partners, we have imposed sanctions in respect of Xinjiang and led joint action at the United Nations, while continuing to build our domestic resilience.
I am conscious of time, as I want to give my hon. Friend a couple of minutes to wind up. AUKUS opens a new chapter in Britain’s friendship with one of our closest allies. The project will help safeguard the security of the Indo-Pacific, and make the world a safer place.
Daniel Kawczynski
I thank the Minister for her comments. Since 2014, China has launched more submarines, warships, major amphibious vessels and auxiliaries than the total number of ships currently serving in the navies of the UK, Germany, India, Spain and Taiwan combined. France lost out in the initial setting up of AUKUS simply because it had the wrong commercial solution for Australia and the United Kingdom had the right one.
I am grateful to hon. Members who have participated. My only concern is that some Opposition parties appear, certainly in my eyes, to be promoting French commercial interests rather than those of the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of the AUKUS pact on Anglo-Chinese Relations.
Artificial Intelligence
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Geraint Davies (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 or leaving the room.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future impact of artificial intelligence on the economy and society.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I called for this debate because artificial intelligence will very soon affect every aspect of our lives. The past demonstrates that everyone will willingly allow this to happen—just look at the rise of the internet algorithm. We willingly hand over our data, enabling service providers to produce complex algorithms that sell us more products and get us to click on specific websites. The question cannot be whether we stop the rise of AI; it should be whether it can be effectively regulated. Naturally, I was pleased that the Government published their national AI strategy last month, which at least began the conversation about how we can manage this technology so that it benefits our economy, workforce and society.
Let me give some examples, starting with the driverless car. We must realise that it will probably not be long before insurance companies acknowledge that fewer accidents will occur than in man-driven vehicles. Furthermore, research suggests that advances in technology will enable X-rays directed by AI to diagnose cancer far more quickly and far more accurately than the best of our consultants.
While some of these technologies may seem far off, they have already taken over many unskilled low-paid jobs. After all, it was not that long ago that we ordered McDonald’s coffee in person. Then, one day we were met with a giant screen. Personally, knowing full well the implications of that over time, I deliberately went to the counter and ordered my coffee in person to protect people’s jobs. I did so until one day when the counter was not manned and a nice lady stood next to the giant iPad and said, “Come on. Use this.” Now, every time I go to McDonald’s, I use the giant screen. The nice lady has gone. That is the crux of the issue. AI technology is often introduced to aid the pre-existing workforce. Yet, just like McDonald’s, managers eventually realise that their workforce can be replaced wholesale, and the AI technology is what is left—doing what humans were doing, but doing it better.
Let us take another example: mowing the lawn. While many people find gardening a chore, our desire to keep pristine gardens means that the gardening and landscape business can employ 160,000 people. Yet, as those people retire they are likely to be replaced by artificial intelligence technology as it becomes more capable, because employers will not be liable to provide sickness pay or holidays. AI can cut grass; how long before it can cut hedges and pick soft fruits?
Throughout covid, we have seen the classroom change too. Am I saying that we should remove the teacher? Of course not, but with the rise of AI will we always need teaching assistants, administrative staff or examination boards? I do not know the answer, but it is essential that we start asking these questions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is important to have a debate on this subject and Westminster Hall is a great place to have it. UK GDP could be up to 10.3% higher by 2030 because of artificial intelligence and its impacts from consumption-side product enhancements, and more importantly as a result of widening consumer choice and making available more affordable bespoke goods. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time that the Government, especially the Minister, backed the AI brokers by ensuring that there is a skilled workforce? There is a workforce to be formed out of AI, and that is what we should be focusing on.
Nick Fletcher
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention and I will come on to exactly those points later.
I do not think that a red wall Conservative can ever make a speech without mentioning Brexit and trade deals. In light of Brexit, AI will probably be more utilised than ever before to move goods across borders. In warfare, too, the rise of drones to maintain and expand our geopolitical influence is already apparent, yet drone technology is already being used in combination with AI and we see armies across the world, from France to Russia, using AI-controlled drones in conflicts.
Let me reflect briefly on the Departments that could be affected by the examples that I have given: Transport; Health; Work and Pensions; the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; Education; the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; the Department for International Trade; and the Treasury. It is quite a list. So, what is the problem? Well, it is what I want to highlight today, so that, as parliamentarians and as a Government, we can start to have a frank and honest discussion on this issue.
First and perhaps most worryingly, the rise of AI technology is likely to decimate people’s jobs. I have heard it said, “Well, people have threatened that before,” and looking at the unemployment figures we see that Britain had some of the lowest unemployment figures ever before the pandemic. However, this new AI revolution will be different from the industrial revolution when it comes to employment.
As a result of the massive expansion of AI in many sectors, AI will affect many people’s lives and pretty much every job sector. AI will infiltrate everything, everywhere. And just as with internet algorithms, we will all be willing participants. Will it happen overnight? No. It will take time. As I have already alluded to, there has been increasing use of AI for many years. However, the gradual rise of this technology means that policy makers, the Government and the public are not aware of its creeping challenges. Little by little, we as a society are becoming more dependent on it, and little by little it is making life’s many tasks more manageable.
So, which jobs will be affected and—more importantly —when? Let us start with jobs in call centres and fast food restaurants, as well as driving jobs, which, yes, means every taxi driver, every delivery driver and every HGV driver. In total, that amounts to over 600,000 people. Warehouse workers, shop assistants, postal workers, parking attendants—the figure for all those jobs is over 3 million people. If that was it and the list did not expand further into security, education, health and defence, I am confident that a forward-thinking Conservative Government could manage such economic stresses. Yet even when we are discussing the jobs that are most at risk, we must remember that employees in such jobs are often younger people, so our young people’s future is most at risk. One of my biggest beliefs is that the devil makes work for idle hands and the worst idle hands are young ones. A young person with no job often believes that they have no value. Although that is not true by any stretch of the imagination, we cannot have an entirely new generation of young people thinking it about themselves.
I am sure that many people who are interested in this subject are fully aware of the game Go and the experiment to see whether AlphaGo, an AI programme, could beat a renowned Go player, Lee Sedol. For those people who do not know, Go is apparently one of the hardest games in the world to play, with an almost infinite number of moves and, most importantly, no real patterns for AI to follow. Consequently, many people were amazed that AI won the first three games. Personally, I never doubted that it would. Yet what struck me was Lee Sodol’s reaction. When he lost the third game, it seemed to destroy him. To me, he looked empty—a person with no value. Now, if an educated man of that calibre can be made to feel worthless because of the abilities of an AI programme, we can imagine what future generations trying to enter the workforce may feel like as a result of AI.
Lee Sodol won the fourth game, which brought his pride back, despite the fact that he then lost the fifth game. It should also be mentioned that AlphaGo went on to beat every other competitor while playing them all at the same time. To me, that proves not only the infinite capability of AI, but the damage that it may do to individuals, unless we look ahead and consider ways in which we can use AI while still keeping people feeling valued within our workforce.
That brings me to the national AI strategy. Pillar 1 of the strategy, “Investing in the long-term needs of the AI ecosystem,” talks extensively about the lack of AI skills within the economy. An AI Council survey found that only 18% of 413 respondents from the fields of academia, business and the public sector believed that there was sufficient provision of training and development in AI skills for our workforce. Clearly, there is an AI skills shortage.
However, while the strategy mentions the “Skills for Jobs” White Paper, published in January this year, and states that it will work to ensure businesses have the necessary skills to utilise AI technology through the skills value chain, it offers little in acknowledging the huge problem before us. The industries I have mentioned employ nearly 4 million people, most of whose jobs are to be made essentially redundant in the coming years. A reskilling scheme from the Department for Education, here and there, will not tackle the issue at hand and ensure that millions of individuals, many of whom we currently consider skilled workers, will not become unemployed over the course of this century.
If we have learned anything about the levelling-up agenda, it is that people in places such as Don Valley want to have jobs that provide value and meaning to their lives. Let there be no mistake: unless we sufficiently equip huge numbers of our workforce over the coming years, many will never secure work, let alone skilled, meaningful work. Getting this right is key to the Government maximising the impact of their levelling-up agenda. A good start may be establishing a new college in Don Valley that specialises in coding. I say to the Minister, let our economic revolution begin in Doncaster.
That is the employment issue covered, but if AI touches every aspect of our lives, then why not the democratic process itself? We recognise that individuals, myself especially, are not infallible. MPs make mistakes, and Governments too. People sometimes initially vote against what seems to be their own interest, yet despite this we accept that democracy is the best form of Government or, as Churchill said,
“democracy is the worst form of government—except for all the others”.
If we accept that AI can apparently make more efficient decisions, what role does that leave for MPs and even for the ordinary voter?
AI challenges how the state should be run, what the public wants or what piece of AI technology it believes is most efficient. I welcome that the Government have committed to a strategy to work with international partners on shaping international norms and standards relating to AI, which puts the shared values of freedom, fairness and democracy at the heart of the development of this technology. Can the Minister let the House know exactly how democracy will be underpinned through such work? Can he inform those listening to the debate what work is currently being done with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to come to an internationally binding agreement that ensures artificial intelligence will not be developed in a way that will subvert the democratic process?
It is important that we begin these discussions now, because the rise of AI is inevitable. We cannot stop it and history teaches us that every move to oppose the rise of technology is doomed. That is why we had an industrial revolution, while the Luddites became a mere footnote. AI is already here and both hostile countries and our allies are using it. Therefore, we must engage with this technology if we are to maintain our position as a leading world economy. It is fantastic news that the Government have begun to think about balancing regulation with innovation in the national AI strategy, yet we need to do much more if we are to avoid facing severe societal and economic destruction as a result of this emerging new technology.
I finish by stating that I know this debate is difficult for the Minister. I will be the first to admit that I do not have the answers to the problems posed, but I look forward to working with the Minister and stakeholders in order to fully utilise the benefits of AI, as well as mitigate its inevitable effects. The Minister will no doubt agree that it is important for us to recover from covid, with the entire global economy in mind. In the light of that, we must work with our international partners, just as we have done to beat covid, to work on regulation of AI so our democratic way of life is preserved.
In conclusion, when it comes to AI, I first ask the Minister and the Department to continue to embrace this technology and work with businesses to ensure there is adequate research and development investment in this industry. Secondly, I stress to the Minister how important it is to integrate AI within the levelling-up agenda. The Government should therefore plan ahead so that young people in places such as Don Valley get the technical skills at college to build artificial intelligence programmes in the future. Lastly, while embracing AI, the Government should be wary of its potential to cause disruption within society and should mitigate any negative effects of this emerging technology.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (George Freeman)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies; to be back on the Front Bench to make the case for science and technology in this country; and to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), who has done his constituency and constituents a service by raising these important issues, and in exactly the spirit of our late and lamented colleague, Sir David Amess. We need in this place constituency MPs who speak for the fears, worries, anxieties and concerns of their constituencies, as my hon. Friend eloquently has. I hope to address some, if not all, of the points he made. I reassure him that they were well made and well heard and are important to the Government as we set out our plans for the UK to be an AI powerhouse.
I am framing my new role as Minister for Science, Research and Innovation around two key projects. First is the mission to be a science superpower. In many ways we already are, but we need to maintain that to be able to grow a modern, innovative, prosperous and high-skilled economy. Secondly, crucially, is to ensure that, off the back of the pandemic, the opportunities created by Brexit and debt challenges owing to the global financial crisis and the pandemic itself, we build a much more innovative, productive, high-skilled and competitive economy by harnessing technology and innovation, to make the UK an innovation nation.
Fundamental to my mission is to make sure that the benefits currently enjoyed—not only, but heavily—in the golden triangle are spread so that we can build clusters of new sectors, new jobs, new companies and new technologies all around this country. That means not only in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, strengthening the Union, but in constituencies such as mine, which is not 40 miles from Cambridge but feels 100 years away, and like my hon. Friend’s, which hear of this technology revolution but do not see the opportunities on their own doorstep. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for so fluently raising these issues.
Of course, we already use AI across whole rafts of our society and economy to huge public benefit. I have seen, through my own career and as the former Minister for Life Sciences, the incredible power of AI software in looking at genomic and phenotypic records and very quickly—in a way that no number of scientists on their own could—identifying opportunities for new drug discovery or targeting drugs at the right patients, which has huge benefits for patient safety. In cyber-security, AI is right on the frontline of our ability to counter some quite mischievous and dark forces, in terms of both national security and economic fraud. AI already plays a crucial role for the environment. For example, in agritech, using AI with satellite data helps to identify where to apply chemicals in isolated parts of a field; rather than spraying a whole crop or field, AI identifies, by field patterns and visual optics, where chemicals need to be applied. In fact, the use of AI in plant genomics allows us to develop a whole raft of drought and disease- resistant crops, helping sustainable development.
In air traffic control, thankfully, huge computing power is applied to ensure that planes never bump into each other; it is important to have pilots when there is an emergency, but actually the AI at the heart of our electronic air traffic control system is keeping us all safe. AI is also used in other ways, including in the gaming sector, which is a huge driver of innovation and opportunities in this country, often rather below the horizon. I dare say that there is probably a cluster of games entrepreneurs in Don Valley. The gaming industry in this country is huge and drives a lot of innovation in AI that then has applications in healthcare and broader industry.
My hon. Friend raises an important point about public trust and confidence. I am positive about the importance of this technology for creating opportunities and jobs but, crucially, the public must be with us, and they must have confidence in our regulatory framework. I am glad that he referred to the report of the taskforce on innovation, growth and regulatory reform, which I led with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). In that report, we argue that leaving the EU presents an opportunity for the UK not to race to the bottom but actually to race to the top: to set values-based regulation for innovation that reflects the values of the people of this country.
In a whole raft of new technology sectors, the world is grappling with how to regulate: AI, autonomous vehicles, nutraceuticals, functional foods, clinical trials and digital health. We are respected internationally as a setter of standards. As my hon. Friend made clear, standards must be embedded in the values that go with the Union Jack around the world. If we can regulate with values in a way that supports innovation, I am very confident that his constituents will benefit.
That goes right to the heart of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor’s historic commitment—it is the first time in my life that I have heard such a strong commitment from Conservative leaders—to end the low-wage economy that is reliant on overseas labour. The only way to do that is by harnessing innovation to create a more productive, more competitive economy. That is the way to raise the living standards of all of our constituents—my hon. Friend’s and mine. Having heard the Chancellor and the Prime Minister announce that groundbreaking commitment at party conference, I am not sure that it has yet sunk in: that the Conservative party is absolutely determined to raise the living standards of people around the country, to raise wages and to move on from a 40 or 50-year cycle of economic boom based on very cheap labour. That is good news for my hon. Friend’s constituents as well as mine.
The computing revolution led to huge fears that we would see the automation of everything and mass redundancy, but in fact the UK has become a huge global software and computing power, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. I am confident that, if we deal with the issues that my hon. Friend raised and get the regulation and skills environment right, we will similarly become a powerhouse for new AI industries.
I will deal with the important points that my hon. Friend raised on skills, public trust, levelling up and ensuring that these technologies create jobs all around the country, values and security. In fact, I will go this afternoon to the Pacific Future Forum in Portsmouth to join leaders from the economies of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. There I will highlight the UK’s commitment, through our global science superpower mission, to an international framework for the safe use of AI and to using our collective liberal democratic economic heft and values to ensure that the west is developing these technologies without inadvertently leaving ourselves open to dark forces.
I will summarise where we stand and why this is such an opportunity. At the moment, the UK ranks—believe it or not—third in the world in terms of the development and deployment of AI technologies, behind only the USA and China. That is an extraordinary global advantage. AI is going to be as transformational as computing, and we are currently in bronze position in the Olympic medal table. We have a huge lead. It is important that we do not drop that lead, and that we build on it to create a prosperous economy. A third of Europe’s AI companies are here in the UK, which is twice as many as any other European country. We are also third in the world for AI investment, behind only the US and China, attracting twice as much venture capital investment into AI companies as France or Germany. We are in a very strong place in the global race to harness AI.
I turn to the points my hon. Friend made on skills, because they are very important and the Government take them seriously. Since the AI sector deal that we launched in 2018, we have been making concerted efforts to improve the skills pipeline, not just to ensure that those vital high-technology skills are there for industry but to ensure that all—his constituents and mine—have an opportunity to participate in this economy. That is why we have increasingly focused on reskilling and upskilling: so that, where there is a level of displacement, there is redeployment rather than unemployment.
That is why, through the Office for Artificial Intelligence and the Office for Students, we have funded 2,500 more postgraduate conversion courses. Those include courses particularly for students with a background not in science, technology, engineering or maths and students with a near-STEM background. There are also 1,000 scholarships for people from under-represented backgrounds, particularly women, black and disabled students. Those courses are available across the UK and, as my hon. Friend referenced, Sheffield Hallam University within the Sheffield city region is leading in this, and is one of the universities delivering those courses, which are hugely popular with students. I see that no Opposition Members are present, but Government Members will be pleased to remember that at the recent Conservative party conference the Chancellor announced that the programme will be doubled, creating 2,000 more scholarships.
South Yorkshire is quite a powerhouse in AI, with Sheffield University. There are 16 sectors for doctoral training in AI across the country, of which Sheffield is one, training 1,000 more PhDs. There is the Sheffield centre specialising in speech and language technologies—an area where the university has long pre-eminence. Like so much of the UK, South Yorkshire is in the process of reinventing itself and its economy, and I have every confidence that it will do it as well as everywhere else, not least because of Sheffield Robotics, a leading company and employer in that region.
Sheffield’s advanced manufacturing research centre currently offers more than 300 apprenticeship places to local jobseekers in the AI sector, so there is a lot to be proud of and confident of in the region. We are also seeing applications of AI at the Centre for Child Health Technology in Sheffield as part of the Olympic Legacy Park, where AI is being put to use to assist clinicians in identifying tumours via scanning. In the national AI strategy, the Government committed to supporting the National Centre for Computing Education to ensure that there is a wider reach and access to AI courses for people all around the country.
My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of the Government gripping this matter strategically, and I want to reassure him on that. The Council for Science and Technology wrote to the then Prime Minister in 2013 to advise on what it called the coming age of algorithms and the need for new research to look into these matters. The Government created the Alan Turing Institute, which is now the national hub of expertise on AI and data science. Following the independent AI review in 2017, we created the Office for AI and now the independent AI Council.
We also announced at the time the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, which is really important and goes to the heart of some of my hon. Friend’s concerns. If we are to lead in harnessing these new technologies we need to lead in regulation based on values and ethics, and reflect them as he did in his speech. I am very pleased that the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation was a recommendation from the Royal Society and the British Academy in their separate data governance report. Earlier this year, to improve public discourse on AI the CDEI engaged widely with the public and published its findings in June. We are committed to trying to grow that conversation. It recommended that the Government develop a standard for transparency on algorithms in the public sector, which I am delighted to say is work now close to completion. We have to lead this through the public sector as well as the private. That, again, speaks to the importance of values.
The international dimension is vital. I reassure my hon. Friend that in my first four weeks I have already chaired meetings with other western democracies on the importance of research security, because AI can be used for industrial espionage and intellectual property theft. It is an issue that we take very seriously, and I am jointly responsible with the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), for the Office for AI, which develops a cross-Government approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley referenced, the national AI strategy sets all that out.
We have required regulators such as the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Competition and Markets Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority and Ofcom to specifically consider the risks and benefits of AI within their sectors. Earlier this year, through the CDEI and the Office for Artificial Intelligence we set out with other regulators a project to remedy skills gaps in terms of knowledge of AI in the regulatory landscape. Every regulator will need to think about how it uses AI, and the risks of AI in its sector. Internationally, we have set up the Global Partnership on AI, the first multi-lateral forum, and we co-chair the data working group. The UK is playing a leading role in international discussions on AI ethics and potential regulations, including at the Council of Europe, UNESCO and the OECD, which is partly why I am going to the Pacific Future Forum this afternoon.
Time is against me, but I hope that I have addressed some of my hon. Friend’s points, and reassured him that we take them very seriously. We will harness the benefits of the technology to create those hundreds of thousands of jobs only if we bring the public with us, which we are committed to doing.
Question put and agreed to.
Access to Cash
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, and to give each other space when moving around, or entering or leaving the room.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to cash.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. Given recent events, I feel it is important to take a moment to pay tribute to our wonderful colleague, Sir David Amess, who was a regular contributor to Westminster Hall debates. His presence here will forever be missed.
I am pleased to have secured this debate, particularly as our ability to physically access cash has been restricted as we continue to tackle coronavirus, and given the recent increase to the contactless card spending limit from £45 to £100.
I come to this debate with a specific constituency interest in mind. One of the jewels in the Pontypridd crown is the Royal Mint, based in Llantrisant. It is a major local employer, and I must give its tourist attraction, the Royal Mint Experience, a quick plug. The Royal Mint is the manufacturer of UK coins, and is not directly involved in policy on the use of cash, but it is a key contributor to ensuring that certain skills, and the capability to circulate coins, still exist in this country. I was joined there by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), only a few months ago; we struck coins, and met young people on the kickstart scheme. I will, however, try to refrain from reminding the Minister that despite all the country’s coins being made in my constituency, we sadly see precious little money in return from the Government. Perhaps that is a matter to be discussed another time.
Instead, I will focus on the sad, widespread repercussions of reduced cash flow, which is having a major impact on high streets up and down the country. Many have been hit by multiple bank closures, including in my constituency of Pontypridd and across Caerphilly. Banks not only provide vital services for a huge range of community groups, but are often the epicentre of our high streets, and are vital in encouraging local trade and footfall for surrounding businesses.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
In West Dunbartonshire, we have seen a huge decrease in the number of banks, and I congratulate the hon. Member on making that point. Do they agree that if we are moving to a cashless society, that cannot happen in a vacuum, and that the Government must step up to ensure that people have access to cash in local communities?
Alex Davies-Jones
I completely agree. It is vital that the Government step up to ensure that this transition to a cashless society—if that is where we are heading, which seems to be the case—is made quickly. I will return to this point later, but I must begin by placing on the record my gratitude to all the organisations that have supported me and my team in preparing for this debate, notably the team at the LINK group, who have assisted with many of the stats I will refer to; I am particularly grateful to them for their expertise. In addition, Cardtronics found time to advise us on the potential repercussions of losing more and more free-to-use ATMs, for which I am thankful.
Put simply, when it comes to how we access and spend cash, it is clear that our habits as a nation are changing. In my household, physical cash is essentially non-existent, and I often actively avoid carrying cash. In a world where tools such as Apple Pay mean that I can pay with my phone, my watch, or even just my face, carrying a large amount of cash seems to add an element of risk, and it ultimately feels largely unnecessary.
This stands in stark contrast to my attitude towards cash when I was growing up. I still remember the genuine thrill I felt as a youngster when I received what I suppose would be considered a wage for completing my household chores. That £3 per week felt like my ticket to freedom, and I loved to collect my pounds and pennies in my piggy bank, all to be spent, no doubt, in one go on something like Bliss magazine, the latest Tamagotchi or Steps’ latest single. This fondness and nostalgia for the Great British pound is widespread. According to the access to cash review interim report, “Is Britain ready to go cashless?”, despite the increasing use of cards and electronic payments, approximately 8 million people, which is 17% of the country, said that cash feels like an economic necessity.
For me, years down the line, I have changed not only my spending habits, but my attitude to cash. What was once seen as an exciting physical representation of my earnings is now something I tend to actively avoid. However, I recognise that plenty of people feel completely differently, with many preferring to use cash for security or cash management reasons. It is important to acknowledge that when we talk about access to cash, acceptance of cash is part of that debate as well. That is where the marked difference between the needs of those living in my semi-rural constituency of Pontypridd and those in inner-city dwellings becomes even more obvious.
In London, it is not uncommon for businesses to be entirely cashless. That is in stark contrast with the many small businesses in my community that rely on cash payments, due to the cost or impracticalities of accepting card transactions. I am pleased that there appears to be widespread support for the preservation of free-to-use ATMs, which are vital for protecting access to cash.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Does she agree that people should only need to travel short distances to pay in or take out cash, and that cashback should be readily available without purchase?
Alex Davies-Jones
I completely agree, but “a short distance” in my constituency of Pontypridd would be vastly different from “a short distance” in other constituencies.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend, neighbour and fellow Taff-Ely MP on securing this debate. She will know that I have spent many years working on this issue.
Our constituencies are similar in geography. The UK Government’s response is to say that people will have a cashpoint within a kilometre. I know my hon. Friend’s constituency well, and she knows mine well. Mine has ranges of mountains and hills, and there is often only one road coming into and out of a valley. The reality is that although “a kilometre” is a measure of distance, it can feel vastly different to constituents depending on how they travel, and whether they are relying on bus or train services to access cash. The Government need to understand that this is not just an issue in cities, where transport is free-flowing and connectivity is often very good. In seats like ours, there can be huge differences in how people can access cash.
Alex Davies-Jones
I completely agree. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point. In constituencies such as ours, we are not exactly talking about a kilometre as the crow flies. People would need to travel on several buses or walk a much greater distance to reach a free-to-use ATM.
Many Members before me, including the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) to name but two, have been particularly vocal in their support for free-to-use ATMs. Thanks to LINK and UK Finance, we know that ATMs remain the most popular way of withdrawing cash—about 93% of cash withdrawals take place at a cash machine. There are 53,500 ATMs in the UK, 12,500 of which are pay-to-use. Only 41,000 are free to use. Some 94% of cash withdrawals are free of charge, but it will come as no surprise that cash withdrawals have dropped significantly. Coronavirus has undoubtedly expedited the move towards a cashless society.
As of August 2021, ATM usage is down a whopping 45% on pre-pandemic levels. This worrying trend impacts us all, but we can all agree that it is the elderly and the most vulnerable who are likely to be most impacted. Some groups of people may be nervous about using technology and may fear the potential cyber-security repercussions of using contactless payment systems. Others may struggle to remember their personal identification number, or may simply not have the form of identification available to set up a complex banking service.
I was also shocked to learn from the Treasury Committee report on increasing financial inclusion that there are still around 1 million people in the UK without a bank account. Some older, lower-income households rely on cash to budget because of a lack of access to online banking. In the conversations about the importance of cash and access to cash, we must acknowledge the clear regional divides that still persist. For example, here in London, 75% of card usage is now contactless, yet parts of my constituency simply do not have the broadband infrastructure to support contactless payments. The lack of investment in basic infrastructure means that many businesses in my area, through no fault of their own, are restricted in their ability to expand or develop. Our country is likely to follow the path taken by our friends in the European Union, notably Sweden, and become increasingly cashless to keep up with modernising in a global economy, but that modernisation cannot come at the expense of some of our most vulnerable groups, with communities and regions being left behind once more.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Perhaps I can encourage my hon. Friend to pay tribute to the community credit unions that have branches, and that actively encourage people to bring cash in and that help them to take cash out. Does she agree that community credit unions need more support from the Government to expand their networks and offer more services, so that they are even more attractive?
Alex Davies-Jones
I completely agree. In my constituency we have Dragonsavers, a vital service for local community groups, and the Welsh Labour Government are looking to set up Banc Cambria, so that we have banks on our high streets. They are looking at where it would be feasible to open branches.
While it is rare for me to have reason to doubly praise the Government, I am pleased to see that the plans outlined by the Treasury earlier this year suggest that people should not have to travel beyond a reasonable distance of around 1 km to withdraw or deposit cash. Such commitments are vital to the survival of cash circulation in this country, but as has been mentioned, only if the local geography of our towns and cities across the UK are taken into account when considering that 1 km radius.
For hon. Members not familiar with the south Wales valleys, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) and I can assure them that our hills and beautiful valleys are not for the faint-hearted. These geographical barriers cannot be ignored when factoring in access to cash for community members, both now and in future. I therefore hope to hear from the Minister exactly how the Treasury plans to safeguard those vital services, particularly for those living in rural and semi-rural constituencies such as mine.
There is some hope, though. As hon. Members will be aware, LINK is a not-for-profit with a strong public interest remit that runs the UK’s largest free-to-use cash machine network. Instead of owning and operating those machines, LINK’s job is to ensure that every community has free access to cash by paying commercial incentives to ATM operators to put free machines where they are needed.
Indeed, after representations from a number of residents, I was thrilled to see LINK secure a new ATM at the village store in Efail Isaf in my constituency. The ATM is now secured for a minimum of five years, and it will go a long way to helping those in our area. For two years, LINK has invited communities to request free-to-use ATMs such as this one, and in that time it has installed more than 70 of them in response to local demand, alongside a year-long trial that saw LINK working with partners to develop a new way of accessing cash, by allowing consumers to withdraw cash over the counter from participating retailers.
I am pleased to see innovative steps being taken to secure access to cash for all those who need it. What will be essential, however, is maintaining those fantastic services. I truly believe the Government must act on the recommendations recently produced by Cardtronics and the Federation of Small Businesses, which ask Her Majesty’s Treasury to mandate bank membership of LINK in order to protect its fantastic withdrawing and free-to-use ATM delivery schemes.
In addition to my very real concerns about the impact of a potentially cashless society on certain populations, this conversation must also address the many logistical challenges and concerns around the largely inevitable shift to a cashless world. We need a long-term solution, whereas I fear the Treasury is currently in denial about the fact that we seem to be heading at a record pace for an almost wholly cashless society.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Speaking of the work of Cardtronics, one of the recommendations to the Government on protecting cash is that we should protect cash acceptance in our businesses. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is something the Government needs to consider?
Alex Davies-Jones
I completely agree. For many businesses in my seat in Pontypridd—in the market, for example, we have some brilliant stores—it is not feasible to take cards. We are talking about an average transaction of £1 for Welsh cakes from our great Welsh cake shops, for example; it just is not feasible for a business to take card payments when they are charged for those. It would massively reduce their profits and make their business completely unviable.
Steps can now be put in place to ease the shift to a cashless society. We have seen neighbouring countries switch their entire currency; while I am very reluctant to turn this into a debate on the euro, in fear of somehow reigniting the Brexit debate, if other nations have managed such a transition, we should be able to follow suit. With that in mind, I hope the Government’s promised access to cash Bill will include some form of commitment to setting up a regulatory body to ensure a smooth transition. That regulator could work with different interest groups, infrastructure providers and charities such as Age UK to support those most impacted through this transition period.
Of course, this recommendation has been well researched, notably by Natalie Ceeney, who chaired the initial access to cash review. I hope to hear more from the Minister on the issue, along with a timeline on when we can expect the legislation to come forward to the House.
My final point concerns the worrying trend of bank closures that we are seeing up and down the country. While I fully recognise that the Treasury is unable to interfere in decisions made by private corporations to remove their presence from the high street, we must acknowledge the devastating impact that those closures have on the availability of, and people’s access to, cash.
In preparation for this debate, I spoke to a number of people living in my area who have sadly been impacted by decisions made by both Lloyds TSB and HSBC to withdraw three branches from my constituency. While not all banking services relate to the process of depositing or withdrawing cash, it is undeniably those basic services that are the most missed when a bank chooses to leave the high street. With the role of the post office ever changing, it has been quite a confusing time for many residents in my area, who have felt forced to shift their ordinary banking practices as a consequence of these closures. With this in mind, I am particularly interested to know what plans the Government have to improve the availability of deposit-taking facilities across the county; I hope the Minister will refer to this in his remarks.
Ultimately, we need to see this promised access to cash Bill sooner rather than later; the big changes are happening in our communities right now. People across the country are already being negatively impacted, and I fear many more will be excluded unless action is rapidly taken. The Government have made a start, and I commend them on their commitment to preserving access to cash, but they need to follow through with specific action to protect those constituents of ours who fall into potentially vulnerable categories. I look forward to hearing from the Minster, and hearing what hon. Members have to say on this important issue. Diolch.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
There are a large number of people wishing to speak in this debate, so I suggest an informal three-and-a-half minute time limit, so that as many people as possible can take part.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mrs Miller, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones)—I hope I have said that correctly—who is also a friend.
Access to cash is a massive challenge for the next few years. Although our use of electronic payments via card or mobile phone has increased, and although almost all shops now accept non-cash payments—a move accelerated by the pandemic—there is still a large minority of people, particularly older people, who cannot access electronic payments. According to the Library, in the constituency of Hyndburn, we have gone from having 15 local units in 2015 to just five in 2021. To get more information about the scale of this problem in Hyndburn and Haslingden, I put out a physical banking survey in the town of Haslingden, which recently lost a bank branch, and an online survey in the town of Hyndburn. We have also recently lost our Barclays branch in Accrington.
The results were informative. First, I had a 20% response rate, which many Members will know is a huge return on any survey. This confirmed that this was a real issue that people felt very strongly about. Secondly, and perhaps unsurprisingly, there was an age difference; 80% of respondents who did not have easy access to an ATM were of the older generation—aged 56 or above. In general, the older the respondent, the more they found access to cash was limited. Similarly, 46% of respondents to my survey did not use online banking, and more than three quarters of that group were aged 66 and over. Most interestingly given the context of the debate, an overwhelmingly large proportion of respondents said the biggest improvement to banking services that they would like to see in the area was not only access to cash, but access to ATMs that did not charge. This is an important point to remember.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware of the research by NatWest showing that many people who use paid-for ATMs are go further to use them than they would if they used free-to-use ATMs? Does she agree that more research is needed as to why people are heading for paid-for ATMs when they do not need to?
Sara Britcliffe
I agree with my hon. Friend, who knows about this issue across Lancashire and in constituencies such as mine; I was not aware of the research conducted but agree that more is needed. It is not enough to simply map where the nearest ATM is; we need to ensure that everyone has access to free-to-use ATMs that do not disadvantage those who cannot afford to pay a fee.
If I may ask for the patience of my colleagues, I would like to drill down into the numbers and look at how people responded to the survey. I asked, “Do you have easy access to an ATM near your home?” About 60% of people said no, or “only somewhat.” When asked to explain, the majority of those who said “only somewhat” had access only to fee-charging ATMs. If I were to take this survey further and drill down into much tighter geographic areas, I would bet that the more rural an area, the less able to access cash people are. In some ways the conclusion is obvious: the fewer the people, the fewer the cash machines. If, over the ATM map, we layer a map of fee-charging cash machines, it becomes obvious that the more rural an area, the more likely that people will not only struggle to access cash, but will have to pay for it as well.
I also met with Cardtronics, and will briefly mention what it suggests. It states that the Government must protect ATMs:
“ATMs are the only sustainable national infrastructure that can maintain free access to cash 24/7 and must be protected through independent calculation of the interchange fee paid to ATM providers.”
It also says that the Government must protect key schemes:
“Membership of LINK and the Post Office banking framework should be made mandatory for banks to ensure these schemes are protected to ensure access to cash”.
It says that the Government must protect cash acceptance. There is a huge opportunity to work with local post offices, which would go a long way towards solving this problem and ensuring that all our constituents have easy access to cash.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on securing the debate.
Cash may no longer be king, but it is still pretty royally used. Its use did drop during the pandemic, but NatWest says that cash use is now at 75% of pre-covid levels. There were 35 million separate cards used to withdraw cash in August. The average adult withdrew £1,500 in 2020.
After the last debate, I received two letters. I received one from an older lady, who said that the online she had ever used was a washing line, and she certainly did not want to know any more about it. I also had a letter from a young mum who relied on cash. She said that she used cash so that she did not overspend: she could not spend any more than she had in her purse.
People worry about safety and security. What happens if connectivity drops? What about the security of the physical card, particularly with the £100 limit? What about internet scams, fraud or card details being stolen? Some 15% of people still prefer cash to budget when shopping, and 28% worry about fraud risks. Post offices can help, but, with post office closures and the difficulty of getting people to take on post offices, they are not the answer any more.
As we have heard, it is also about where you can spend your money. The pandemic has led to more refusals. There was an attitude that cash is a bit dirty, and that was used as an excuse. In June, almost one in five people had cash refused by a business, and the majority of businesses said refusals were due to covid. We have to get away from that attitude. People still want to pay with cash: 81% want a range of payment options, including cash, and 24% would not shop at a business that did not take cash. It is vital to keep that choice. I commend the Which? cash pledge campaign to encourage businesses to sign up to accepting cash.
We cannot move to a two-tier society in which some people have the choice of any shop and others have their choice restricted. It is no good having cash available if the only local shop one can reach does not accept it. If cash acceptance is not going to be voluntary, we need legislation. I would like to know when the result of the White Paper consultation will be published. Is there a role for the Financial Conduct Authority in ensuring access? Although 90% of people will have access within 1 km, what about the 10% who will not? Who ensures that access? We need the legislation as well.
It is more and more urgent. Every day it becomes more difficult to row back. While cashlessness might suit many people, we cannot leave people behind. We cannot railroad them into accepting something that does not suit their needs. We cannot sleepwalk into a cashless society. As the song goes,
“you don’t know what you got til it’s gone”.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on securing a debate on what has probably been my favourite subject in my time in Parliament. As a member of the LINK Consumer Council, it is a subject that I am interested in. One hon. Member described at great length what LINK is, so I do not need to repeat that, thank goodness.
Hon. Members have described at some length how the use of cash is important to the most vulnerable in our society. I will quote one survey, which is from the organisation Which?, which found that two in five people reported being unable to pay with cash at a shop and did not have another payment method. Two in 10 people in that situation could not buy the medicine that they needed. That should surely show us why it is important to protect access to cash as a source of spending power and to insist on the acceptance of cash by shops, as the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) said.
Back in December 2020, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and I were at a slightly less well-attended debate to talk about this issue. We urged Ministers and the industry to move rapidly towards addressing it. Rarely, I am going to praise a Minister—shock, horror—and say they have moved at some pace, both the industry and Government, by conducting the consultation we have heard about.
Industry bodies such as UK Finance, as well as Natalie Ceeney, who has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Pontypridd, and the banks themselves have worked hard, looking at what will best address the challenges that we face. The main project they have identified is called a shared banking hub. There is one in Cambuslang in Scotland and one not far from Southend, if it is worth observing, in Rochford. Both of those have worked extremely well. Banks have come together, shared premises and the consumers have loved it. It has moved the debate on from closing bank branches to how to provide more access to financial services.
We are now reaching the crunch moment. You may not be aware of it, Mrs Miller, but right now in the darkened corridors of the City of London, banks are discussing how to make access to cash happen, and they are going to resolve all these issues by early December. I say to the banks, they have to put up or shut up. They have to roll up their sleeves, dot the i’s and cross the t’s, overcome the commercial nerves and stop jockeying for commercial positions. They should not get lost in an alphabet soup of ACAG, JACSG and WDSG, and should stop the arbitrary waffling, focus on shared branches—what level, how many and how they are going to pay for it.
The investment that shared branches would require would be a tiny fraction of their turnover. They have no excuse. They have been discussing this for more than two years. If they do not resolve these issues, the likes of me will be baying for their blood. I will demand financial penalties commensurate with the investment that is forgone. We need to change now. I have seen in my constituency that they know the legislation is coming. They are shutting branches as we speak. There should be a compulsory moratorium on all bank branch closures from 1 January 2022 until the point at which that legislation takes effect. The banks have no further excuses. We have been on this issue for long enough. The time has come. We have solutions out there; we know what will work; we know the legislation is coming; we know that the FCA is the best vehicle to oversee it. Get on with it.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on a highly informed and amusing contribution.
I am going to make two points. It is very simple: all of us need cash. As some right hon. and hon. Members know, my wife is disabled. When I go away on a Sunday or Monday—or possibly on a Tuesday, in a good week—to come here, she gets on okay by herself during the week. One thing she always asks me to do is get cash. On the days before I leave to come south, I have to go to the cash machine and get out £70 or £80. That is how life is; she needs that money.
In recent weeks, we heard the sickening announcement that Virgin Money is going to close its branch in Wick. That leaves one bank in the big royal burgh of Wick, Caithness. It is a sickening litany of closures in what I think is the furthest constituency from London on the British mainland. I listened with amusement to the idea of 1 km. Hon. members from Wales are correct that the mountains do get in the way. In the entire county of Sutherland, a geographical area of 5,250 sq km, we have only one branch in Golspie. That is the nature of the problem. My constituents are sick and tired of it. Each time they hear the news again, there is a sadness about the whole issue.
However, in fairness to the Government, good experimental work has been done. Trials have been carried out with idea of banking at post office hubs, which have been well received. I say to the Minister and the Government, push on, forge ahead with those hubs. Some of the remoter constituencies in England, Wales, the and the highlands and other parts of Scotland, such as the constituency of the right hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack), would be the perfect places to experiment with those hubs, because rurality militates against access to cash.
I have one final point, and I will be brief, Mrs Miller, to help you. I am going to repeat slightly a speech I made yesterday about post office closures. I talked about a fishing village called Balintore in Easter Ross. The local shop said, “We can’t work with the post office any longer. It’ll have to go.” The community, particularly the hall committee of the Seaboard Memorial Hall, got together and talked to the post office. Hey presto, we have a post office back in the village, although it will be temporary.
My final message to the Minister and the Government is that they should work as closely as they can with the communities that are involved, because very often they will come up with an innovative suggestion, even down to basic routes for mobile banks, the best times to visit communities, and the best ways to get such hubs up and running. I speak with passion because, on behalf of my constituents, I am so heartily sick of seeing my vast constituency drained of access to cash.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller, and to take part in another debate on access to cash. I commend the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) not just for securing the debate, but for setting out the issues. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for his passion on this issue, which he has pursued relentlessly in Parliament and with the Minister. The Minister has always offered good grace and helpful engagement, but as my hon. Friend intimated, we are at the crunch point and need action.
In her contribution, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) touched on something that the Minister and I have not always agreed on. I feel that the Government have not done enough to convey the message that cash is safe. During the covid crisis, cash was no less safe than using a PIN pad and terminal. The Bank of England and many other international authorities confirmed that, and I do not think a clear enough message was given out that cash was safe. We also know that many retailers and other service providers have just used covid as an excuse to move to cashless payments, rather than there being some safety or security issue.
As we have discussed, the issues of acceptance and access are interlinked. Of course, the third key issue is the ability to deposit cash, which remains incredibly important for many voluntary and smaller organisations. To give an example from my local community, people do not go to coffee mornings, when they are allowed again, with their iPhones.
Jamie Stone
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way—he is an old friend indeed. Does he agree that there is an additional safety aspect to somebody having to travel a long distance with a lot of cash on them?
David Mundell
Indeed I do, and I think the hon. Member for Pontypridd made those comments in her opening remarks. We have to have the three elements: access, acceptance and the ability to deposit. Like the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), I have a very large constituency—in fact, it is the largest constituency in the United Kingdom outside the highlands—where many of these issues of rurality are to the fore, so the issue of the 1 km within a rural context has to be properly addressed. We also have to have a better understanding of how engagement with post offices will work.
I remain very concerned about the post office network. I recently had four post office closures in significant communities, because a well-known retailer decided that it would no longer have post offices within its premises. Just glibly saying that the post office has a role might be right, but it is not as simple as that. We need to understand the basis on which it will underpin the availability of cash. I welcome the progress since the last debate, and I hope that we can achieve the same level of progress in the coming weeks, with a response to the White Paper and an understanding of the timescale. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys said about the crunch, the banks have to put up or shut up. If they do not put up, we have to take the necessary action here in Parliament.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. On behalf of many of my Slough constituents, I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for ensuring that this issue has been given time for debate in Parliament.
Like many hon. Members in Westminster Hall today, I am here simply to ask that people still have a choice; there is simply no reason why cash and card payments cannot co-exist. We cannot have a two-tier society, excluding those who through personal choice or necessity use cash, particularly because that can impact the most vulnerable.
Indeed, in 2019 the independent access to cash review found that those more likely to use cash than cards tended to be on a lower income and less likely to have digital access. They tended to be older adults; people with certain physical or mental health problems; those who are financially excluded, for example those who are homeless, so could not gain access to a debit card; people living in addresses with poor digital connectivity; or people living in areas where local shops do not take card payments. Eliminating cash from our society is akin to abandoning these groups of people and with that action it is already becoming more difficult to use cash, because facilities to withdraw cash are depleting in number.
In Slough alone, much to the consternation of many of my constituents, we have lost over 20 ATM or cashpoint machines since 2018, and in the last nine years in the south-east of England we have lost nearly 600 bank and building society branches. Research has shown that about a quarter of customers have a preference for cash, primarily for budgeting and control purposes, but also to avoid the discomfort and security risks that they associate with card and contactless payments. That shows that although there are certainly people who need to use cash, there are plenty of people who simply prefer to use it.
Who can blame them? The Financial Conduct Authority has shown that between April 2018 and the end of that year there were 302 major IT failings that caused a multitude of problems for card customers. Security breaches and cyber-attacks on banks have become increasingly common, and many people have legitimate concerns about privacy and data sharing linked to their card usage. An immense amount of data is held on every transaction that we make: the amount; when we make a payment; what websites we visit; and what type of purchases we make. All of that reveals a great deal about our whereabouts, lifestyle, financial means and much more, and it is used to fine-tune marketing for customers by holding a vast array of data on their financial behaviour. That is why many people detest and fear living in a Big Brother society, where their every move virtually is being tracked.
Today, I ask the Minister for his plan and the active steps he will take to halt this trend. Will he say whether he will act on the recommendations of the access to cash review to guarantee access to cash wherever someone lives or works; to ensure that cash is accepted; to take steps to make cash sustainable for longer; and to treat cash as its own system, with a joined-up regulatory approach?
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Miller.
It is also a pleasure to participate in this debate this afternoon and, as others have done, I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on securing it. The debate is on a topic that comes up very frequently in conversations I have with local residents in surgeries in my constituency. In a rural area such as the Scottish Borders, the recent closures of the TSB banks in Hawick and Kelso and the planned closure of Virgin Money in Galashiels mean that for some residents their nearest physical bank branch is miles away in Edinburgh—and when I say “miles away” I mean 50 miles away, which is totally unacceptable. I can very much relate to the earlier comments by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) regarding the impact of bank closures on rural communities, such as those in many parts of Scotland.
That local picture mirrors a national trend. It is estimated that there were over 13,000 bank and building society branches in 2012, but by March 2020 that figure had dropped dramatically to only 8,000.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on securing this important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) is quite right to refer to bank branches. In my own high street in Prestatyn, over the last five years the number of ATMs has dropped from six to zero, due to the closure of bank branches. Does he agree that incentivising local businesses to host ATMs is one possible way forward?
John Lamont
I am grateful for that important point, with which I absolutely agree. It is important for local business that hosting cashpoints is cost effective. I am aware of a number of businesses that have tried to host cash machines, but it has turned out not to be a financially viable option for them.
Although cash use understandably decreased during the pandemic, that should not be a reason to move away from cash completely, and banks should certainly not use it as a reason to close local branches. I have seen at first hand that many local residents and businesses in my constituency use and rely on the vital services that their bank branches offer. Too often, large banking firms present evidence of reduced footfall as a justification for closure, but those figures do not reflect the fact that those vital bank branches provide services to customers week in, week out.
People often to prefer to deal with other people, face to face, and that is compounded by a lack of confidence in using online services as an alternative. Other constituents face difficulties in accessing online banking. For some local businesses, poor connectivity makes card payment machines unreliable, and residents who face connectivity problems cannot rely on the broadband service to access secure banking services. The SNP Scottish Government’s botched roll-out of the R100 scheme has simply compounded matters for many residents in local communities, but that is a longer debate for another day.
Amid the closure of local branches, I welcome that the UK Government have ensured that customers can use banking services across the network of more than 11,000 post office branches. Nevertheless, post offices do not provide the full range of services that bank branches can, including financial advice and planning, as well as privacy, which is clearly important for many residents. I totally share the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) about the suitability of the post office to provide alternative services.
To conclude, I again congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypridd on bringing this important debate. I welcome the UK Government’s commitment to protecting access to cash, complemented by initiatives to tackle digital exclusion. There will always be a place for using cash, so maintaining access to the financial services that support my constituents in the Scottish Borders must be an absolute priority for the Government.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for securing the debate and for the way she introduced it. I, too, think that banks should be mandated to stay as members of LINK, and that the pressure on banks relating to costs and to their desire to maximise profits, which has led to so many bank branches closing, is unlikely to dissipate any time soon unless Ministers take action.
The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) referred to a big meeting that is taking place in the City, but I fear that it will not lead to a whole slew of new bank branches opening. In fact, the pressure on banks to continue the programme of closures means that we will continue to live with it unless Ministers take action. The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) mentioned post office closures. I fear that those are the beginning of a pattern of closures that Royal Mail is also likely to engage in unless there is ministerial pressure to bring about a change of heart. The ability to withdraw and deposit cash is absolutely what makes the bank closures important. If Ministers will not mandate banks and post offices to maintain existing numbers of bank branches, it will undoubtedly become much harder for people to use cash.
I will use my remaining time to drill down into and encourage the Minister to look at one potential solution: community credit unions. Although they recognise the cost of community branches having a physical presence in their community, they have made a deliberate policy decision to go ahead and set up branches. Unless those credit unions can be helped to expand and offer a wider range of products, they too will face difficult cost pressures.
I know that the Minister is committed to bringing forward legislation to allow some expansion of credit union services, and I welcome that. It would be good to hear that the timescale for that to happen was being sped up. From what I gather, it is a set of changes that, welcome as they are, are not yet ambitious enough. I therefore gently encourage him to consider a more specific programme to encourage a whole range of commercial and public sector organisations to encourage people to join their local community credit union. Why not establish with employers, for the first time, a right to save: the right of the employee to go to the employer and say, “I want to save a small sum of money”—however small—“through a payroll deduction service”—perhaps with a credit union that the employer has sat down with and chosen—“and in that both help myself to be more financially resilient, and help my credit union and my community to grow and offer the services that are necessary”?
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on bringing forward this debate.
Of course, most of us still want access to cash. For some, it is still their preferred method to manage their incomes and their outgoings; for many, it is still something they use—less frequently, but it is still required. I read with interest this morning on the BBC that:
“People are taking out more money when they visit ATMs, with the average amount climbing more than £10 to just under £80 in the last two years.”
My immediate thought was, “Cash is making a comeback,” but the next line said:
“But they’re using cash machines 40% less than before and withdrawing £44 a month less.”
I thought, “Is this because there are fewer ATMs? When people find one, are they taking out more money, so that they do not run out before they find another one that is working and is free to use?” However, Nick Quin, head of financial inclusion at LINK, has said:
“Covid has turbocharged the switch to digital”.
While cash usage is down in every constituency in the country, some have seen a 20% drop, while others have seen a drop of as much of 60% over the same time. Different parts of the UK are moving at different rates. It comes as no surprise that the most deprived areas of the country are likely to be using more cash than the wealthiest. Some 5 million people still rely on cash, and as we have heard, and 1 million people do not have a bank account. The average adult withdrew £1,500 in 2020. Cash will remain an important part of life for many people for a long time to come. That is reflected in the UK Government statement that they are
“preserving the long established, traditional services like cash that are integral to people’s lives.”
However, the reality is somewhat different. Access to cash is getting harder.
In my constituency of Inverclyde, the number of free-to-use ATMs has dropped from 87 to 68 in three years. Across Scotland, there has been a 16% reduction, which is compounded by the loss of 400 bank and building society branches, a 34% reduction—which in truth leaves me none the wiser, because I do not know what we are doing as a society. Are we working towards a cashless society? Is it the UK Government’s belief that we are moving towards a cashless society? If so, what is their timescale?
I have a number of issues with a cashless society that have to be addressed. For it to work, we require technology that is robust, secure and available 24/7. Currently, it is not. Only last Saturday, mid-way through preparing a meal for friends, I realised that I was missing a key ingredient. I went to my local convenience store, and there on the front door it said, “Cash only”, with a sign on the ATM saying, “Out of order”. By good luck rather design, I had a fiver in my wallet, and my Nigella Lawson fish curry was a huge success. Cash saved my curry, but what if we had relied on entirely on cashless transactions? What if there was a serious situation, where somebody had to pay a bill to stop the electricity being cut off or needed to pay for a taxi, bus or train to get to a loved one in distress, and cash was a thing of the past and the technology had been compromised?
What I am looking for from the UK Government is a destination and a plan. I remember when we transitioned from old money to decimal. It was a perfectly natural thing for me—as a very young child—but I had to try to explain to my gran, who was used to 12 pence to shilling and 20 shillings to the pound, that, from 240 pennies in a pound, there was now going to be 100. “Where’s my other 140 pennies?” She was baffled by this. To handle these concerns, there was a UK-wide advertising campaign to explain where we were going, what it would mean and how we would get there. If people’s fears are to be allayed and those that require cash are not left behind in a two-tier system, we need to look at a hybrid system that accommodates cash and electronic transfers. To make it work we need a strategy that encompasses a network of ATMs on the high street and in convenience stores with post office services and bank counter services. We need cash without purchase and banking hubs that serve our communities.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Ronnie Cowan
I am sorry, but I do not have time. Most importantly, the roles of each part of the system need to be clearly defined so that they complement each other, and when technology fails there must be a safety net to ensure that people can still top up their meters, purchase food and access public transport.
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
We have three speakers left and seven minutes, so perhaps Members will be kind to each other. I call Rachel Hopkins.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on securing this important debate.
We have heard much about how the pandemic has accelerated the trend in consumers moving away from using cash and towards digital payments, but cash is still critical for many people and local small businesses. If someone is on a low income, has a physical or mental health problem, is financially excluded, has poor digital connectivity, struggles with budgeting or lives in areas where local shops do not take cards, they will be disadvantaged by the continued reduction in access to cash.
Cash appears to have declined less in constituencies with higher deprivation, such as mine, during the pandemic. Protecting cash is an important sticking plaster. While total reliance on cash is due to wider structural issues such as a lack of digital access—whether that is due to a lack of physical devices or data or due to language—if that access continues to decline, vulnerable people will be at risk of being left further behind.
Between 2018 and 2019, the number of free-to-use ATMs fell by 13%, and the number of pay-to-use machines rose by 38%. According to LINK, in Luton South the number of free-to-use ATMs has reduced by 30% in three years from 140 to 98, with the total number of ATMs reducing by 16%. We cannot allow the creation of cash deserts where consumers cannot access cash. The Treasury’s 2019 access to cash review found that 47% of the population would find it problematic if there was no cash in society.
Finally, there is the issue of managing personal finances and the huge increase in personal debt. I have heard much about that from the Luton citizens advice bureau and from the debt advisers who work in the Salvation Army in Luton South. People who are pushed into using cards, digital or contactless find it less easy to manage their money, particularly if they are on low incomes or are vulnerable, as I have already said. They trip into increasing their personal debt. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what analysis has been done on the decrease in cash use and the increase in the preference for digital, and on the impact of the increase to £100 in contactless payments? What impact has there been on rising personal debt? I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on securing this important debate at a time when access to cash is becoming increasingly limited. I thank many organisations who have campaigned on the issue, including Disability Stockport, the GMB union and Cardtronics for their informative briefings. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) tabled an early-day motion in July this year on this matter and I was pleased to add my name to it.
We are experiencing a long-term decline in cash usage in our country. While those with the right technology see many benefits, vulnerable consumers such as older adults, those on low incomes and the digitally excluded often depend on cash to help with budgeting, and they are experiencing an access-to-cash crisis. In the past three years my constituency of Stockport has seen a 24% drop in free-to-use ATMs as a result of a reduction in the fees that banks pay to ATM providers, making an increasing number of machines unviable. That has led to many of my constituents facing an acute cash problem, including those with physical impairments.
That is why the chief executive of Disability Stockport, Mr McMahon, wrote to me recently to set out how the issue has an impact on so many people. He informed me that, although disabled people readily recognise the need to introduce new ideas and embrace the benefits that modern technology may bring, they are also understandably wary as previous changes have resulted in greater exclusion from services, with many describing them as
“inaccessible or just plain impossible”.
For example, Disability Stockport cites an example from earlier this month of a couple in their 80s who asked the charity for help with downloading ID and other information just to apply to the council for their path to be altered. The charity also notes the challenge caused by the speed of change, which often happens at a pace faster than elderly or disabled people’s ability to adjust. That inevitably results in a situation whereby, when alternative options are unavailable, a large number of people end up being disenfranchised. I urge the Minister to consider all those with physical impairments or limited access before introducing any changes. In addition, considerations must be made of vulnerable individuals whose specific disability may make them more susceptible to fraud or financial abuse.
Simply put, the systems that dispense cash should be retained for as long as people require them—however small a minority they become. I urge the Government to protect access to cash and review forthcoming legislation, which is likely to focus on protecting a bare minimum level of access as opposed to maintaining standards at a level that all consumers want.
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Order. I ask the final Back-Bench speaker to finish by 3.28 pm.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on securing today’s important debate. As we have heard, we could all be forgiven for thinking that we do not need cash any more, particularly with the onset of technology, such as online banking, contactless payments and Apple Pay. Technology is convenient in helping some people organise their budgets and pay their bills, but we must not assume that it is convenient for everyone. We should be mindful that a lack of access to cash can cause real issues—for some people, it can be detrimental to their quality of life. As we make advances in technology, it is essential that we do not leave people behind and I fear there is a real danger of doing so.
In the communities of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, which I am proud to represent, access to cash is important. I am sure there are many similar geographically isolated communities and people who use services in these communities every day. These services include the corner shop, paying for doorstep milk deliveries, the window cleaner, the bakery that delivers bread door-to-door, or the local social club or pub. The list goes on, and many of these services rely solely on cash.
Over the last two years, I, along with many other Members here, have been working with LINK to identify isolated communities that did not have access to a free-to-use cash machine and as a result were unfairly paying a fee to withdraw their money. As a result of this work, at the latter end of 2019, LINK provided two additional cash machines in two isolated communities in my constituency: Bedlinog and New Tredegar. During the past two years, these two machines have distributed over £2 million to local people without charging withdrawal fees, saving local people thousands of pounds and with the majority of that money spent locally. Much of that time has been during the pandemic and that confined people to local areas, but even so this clearly demonstrates how communities rely on cash.
Access to cash is hugely important and we urgently need to focus on it given the number of banks and post offices that have closed in recent years. When the banks closed, residents were told not to worry as they would still have banking services and access to cash at post offices, but in some communities the post offices were the next to close. I had this very issue in the community of Treharris, where they have been without a post office for over two and a half years. We need a joined-up approach.
Finally, only a week ago I spoke to an elderly constituent who made the change—although she was not very happy about it—from having her state pension at the post office to having it paid into her bank account. Despite this, she still withdraws her pension amount from the bank every week as she relies heavily on the cash for her weekly budgeting, and she told me that she simply could not cope any other way. It is clear that we need action. I hope the Minister will give us reassurance and some indication of how the Government will address this issue in the forthcoming legislation.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for bringing this debate forward. I share her sincere and passionately held views on the issue; I and many other Members have participated in access to cash debates on umpteen occasions. Despite the huge consensus on what we need to do and what the problems are, I do not see much change, but we all agree that we need direct Government intervention to halt the decline of cash and to protect access to cash for our communities. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard): we need to just “get on with it”.
The access to cash Bill will be an important piece of legislation, but we need to see it. Covid has placed our cash infrastructure in an even more precarious situation. We need clear protections for the future of cash payments which, as we have heard, are so important to so many people, including those who simply do not have the option to pay by card and those who simply want to pay by cash for budgeting or other reasons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) reminded us, more than 5 million people still rely on cash, and that must not be forgotten. Cash transactions are very important for many people, and will remain so for considerable time to come. We have heard as much from every single Member who has spoken today.
Alongside that is the loss of free-to-use ATM cash withdrawals. We know that withdrawals from cash machines dropped significantly at the height of the covid pandemic. My fear, which I know is shared by Members around the Chamber, is that that will feed further closures of free cash machines across our communities. Increasingly, ATMs are charging for access to cash, and I am afraid that the situation is becoming normalised.
Patricia Gibson
I just want to make this point. To help address the situation, we need to make sure that banks pay their fair share so that their customers can get free access to cash. By cutting the interchange fee, banks have saved £120 million, but the financial brunt is being borne by those who live in less affluent communities. That is a disgrace. The more affluent the area in which someone lives, the less likely that they will be required to access their own cash through an ATM. That is unjustifiable by whatever measure we care to use. It is another example of banks expecting others to pay for the so-called service that they want to provide. They do not properly renumerate post offices for taking over basic banking, which they have abandoned in so many of our communities, nor do they properly renumerate the ATM providers.
A pattern is emerging and the banks need to explain themselves. It seems to me that they are simply not fulfilling any social obligation or any duty of care either to those to whom they expect to provide a service or to those that provide that service on their behalf. If the access to cash Bill is to make any real difference, it must hold them to account for their responsibilities.
Of course, it is welcome that the Financial Conduct Authority is to oversee access to cash and provide analysis of what needs to be done where in order to support it. The issue has become more critical because banks have left gaps in our provision. As a result, our sub-postmasters need more financial support. Banks need to stop taking them for granted, given the essential role that they play in our communities, doing the job that banks are no longer interested in doing. It is worth remembering that throughout the pandemic, post offices continued to serve our communities and we relied on them then, as we do now. Many banks closed their doors during the pandemic. So much is expected of our post offices, but sub-postmasters are leaving the service because they are under so much financial pressure. Many are simply shutting up shop, as it is much more challenging to make a living now.
Sadly, post offices have been systematically run down over the years by successive Governments. I remember the 2000s, when the previous Labour Government stripped post offices of many of their functions. Then, in 2008 it was announced that 2,500 small and rural post offices would have to close, with Scotland disproportionately hit with 600 closures, six of which were in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran. Since then there have been so many bank closures that seven towns in my constituency—Kilbirnie, Kilwinning, West Kilbride, Stevenston, Ardrossan, Dalry and Beith—have no bank at all.
Now we have an access to cash crisis, with sub-postmasters expected to do so much of the heavy lifting without being properly paid to do so. The threats to our cash infrastructure, with the banks abandoning our towns, with sub-postmasters under intolerable financial pressure, with free access to cash being increasingly difficult to find and with many being increasingly locked out of paying by cash, mean that urgent action is needed if we are to protect our financial infrastructure and ensure that we have a society where financial inclusion matters.
The situation is critical, and the contents of the access to cash Bill will be the crossroads where the Government have a real opportunity to step in to do something to stop the decline. I think we can all agree on what needs to be done, but we need to start with the banks and their responsibility to communities and consumers. I look forward to the Minister’s telling us more today about the meaningful actions he expects the access to cash Bill to provide and when we can get sight of it. The future of our financial infrastructure depends on that Bill, so its content will determine the future of cash.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on securing the debate and thank all Members who have contributed. It is clear how keenly the issue is felt by so many of our constituents up and down the country.
My hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd, for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Slough (Mr Dhesi), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) and for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) all spoke about how important access to cash is for the most vulnerable in their communities. They also talked about how many small businesses still rely on cash, especially in areas with poor broadband. We heard from colleagues across the Chamber who represent both urban and rural constituencies, so we know that the issue affects a wide range of areas, although clearly, as we have heard, there are specific issues in rural areas.
The pandemic has brought many changes to our lives. In some cases it has sped up trends that were already occurring. It has accelerated the move away from cash to online purchasing and contactless payments. That has put pressure on the cash system and contributed to a decline in the use of cash to make payments. Withdrawals from cash machines are more than 40% lower than pre-pandemic levels. For many people, this is a shift that they are embracing as digital payments bring greater control and convenience. We in the Labour party support innovation in payments and a thriving FinTech industry. We want UK businesses to create jobs and wealth in the sector, but we do not want a drift towards a cashless society with no thought of the consequences for social inclusion or national resilience.
For the low-paid, older people and those in remote communities, the shift away from cash brings challenges. As has been mentioned, a significant range of evidence shows that many people remain reliant on cash and vulnerable to the rapid changes in this area. That has been evidenced in the debate, particularly by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who talked about his constituency. FCA research shows that 5 million adults use cash for most of their purchases. The Bank of England found that 1.2 million adults in the UK did not have bank accounts, and an analysis in Which? showed that one in six people have struggled with the shift towards cashless payment as a result of the pandemic. Lower-income households and those that do not have or cannot use the internet are much more likely to depend on cash.
There is evidence that during the pandemic, cash use declined less in constituencies with higher deprivation. The access to cash survey carried out a few years ago estimated that 70% of the population would still need cash in the future. Even as technology changes and advances, there is an important duty to maintain an easy-access and free-to-use cash network. We believe that is essential because we do not want to see a proportion of society cut off from full participation in society, unable to access goods and services. We also believe that it is important not to force small businesses to go cashless simply because it becomes too inconvenient and troublesome to work with cash.
There are also important resilience arguments for maintaining a cash network. The covid pandemic exposed weaknesses in our national resilience regarding personal protective equipment and ventilator capacity. We do not know what the next crisis will be. It could be a cyber-attack or some sort of technological breakdown—in those circumstances, cash would be essential. That is why it is important not to drift towards a cashless society without thinking through the consequences. Too often, we have seen banks rush to close branches without recognising the impact on the local community. At the same time, the number of free-to-use ATMs fell by 13% between 2018 and 2019, while the number of pay-to-use machines went up. Many of those pay-to-use machines are in deprived communities.
The Government promised legislation on the issue as far back as March 2020, but the consultation was not published until July 2021. We have also seen changes to allow cashback without purchase and access to cash pilots to show how banking hubs could work. The Government say they are analysing the responses to the consultation, and I look forward to their response in due course. However, I have a number of questions for the Minister on the issues raised today.
First, what do the Government actually mean by access to cash? Does the Minister accept that it must be about more than limited-hours access through local shops, and that it must include both ATMs and either branches or bank hubs, where people can transact business and deposit cash? Do the Government believe that access to cash includes face-to-face services? Labour believes that we need a comprehensive ATM and branch network, because access to cash is about not only withdrawing cash, but being able to deposit cash, for small businesses, as raised by some of my colleagues.
Secondly, do the Government believe that competition law should change to allow banks to co-operate in banking hubs, rather than leaving towns and villages with no banks at all? Thirdly, what are the Government doing to ensure that the agreement between the Post Office and banks continues, so that people can access banking services through the Post Office? Finally, on the Government consultation, when does the clock stop on what comprehensive coverage looks like? Legislation was first promised in March 2020; thousands of ATMs and hundreds of bank branches have closed since then. The Association of Convenience Stores says the clock should stop at that time. The consultation was launched in July 2021, but there have been more closures since then. Legislation will most likely be introduced next year, and there will be even more closures by then. When will the Government declare a moment to say what comprehensive coverage looks like, and that we are not going backwards from there?
I hope the Minister will be able to answer those questions shortly. However, most importantly, I hope that the Government will recognise that now is the time for action. If they delay for much longer, the most vulnerable in our society will be left behind. I think we all agree that that should not be allowed to happen.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I commend the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for her speech and for securing the debate. She set out many of the core issues and gave a very fair assessment of them, which was echoed by the 13 speeches from Back-Bench Members and three interventions that we have heard this afternoon.
I have been the Minister for this issue for quite a long time, and I very much feel the urgency in resolving it while I am still around. I appreciate having the opportunity to update hon. Members on the Government’s efforts to protect cash and, in particular, the recent consultation on legislation to do exactly that.
As a number of colleagues said, many people still rely on cash and the infrastructure that delivers it. It is changing rapidly, but we need to recognise that it is an imperative for everyone’s daily life. That is especially the case for more vulnerable groups, be it in Pontypridd or in my constituency of Salisbury. Just today, we have seen more bank branches close, including one in Amesbury in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) once again showed his encyclopedic understanding and depth of knowledge and powerfully expressed the urgency with which we must address the matter.
During the pandemic, there was evidence of access to cash being stretched. However, I am pleased that the Treasury was able to work closely with financial regulators, such as the FCA, and industry to maintain that access while protecting the safety of staff and customers. The vast majority of people were able to get hold of the cash they needed throughout the pandemic. Indeed, the share of the UK population who lost access to a source of cash within three miles during spring 2020 never exceeded 0.1%. In this conversation, I have always been very aware of the fact that—as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), with whom I have met separately, said—we have to deal with a very wide range of constituency interests, with very urban constituencies and very sparsely populated constituencies. That guides me as I contemplate what next to bring forward from the Government’s perspective.
Margaret Ferrier
With the closure of many high-street bank branches, many communities are finding it hard to get essential access to physical money. A pilot post office bank hub in Cambuslang, in my constituency, provides face-to-face services for customers. Would the Minister agree that the scheme could be rolled out UK-wide?
John Glen
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. I visited her constituency last Thursday and saw that facility first hand, and I will say a little bit about it in a moment. It was a great example of banks coming together and working with the Post Office to find a practical solution—one that many colleagues in the Chamber have raised in previous debates.
We are in a strong position to build on our success in meeting the needs of local communities across the country over the long term. Access to cash across the UK remains extensive. Over the last year, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Payment Systems Regulator have undertaken important work to map cash access points across the UK. That has shown that access remains comprehensive, even though it is evolving. As of the first quarter of this year, more than 95% of the population were within two kilometres of a free cash withdrawal point. I would say to the hon. Member for Pontypridd that, as of August 2021, Pontypridd itself had 76 ATMs, 50 of which were free to use.
However, we are in no way complacent about access to cash. I recognise that we need a range of solutions. We understand that cash remains important for millions of people across the UK. That means that we have a responsibility to protect the cash system and ensure that it is sustainable. That means two things: being innovative in the provision of cash while ensuring that we maintain sufficient coverage.
The Government have already taken decisive action in a number of ways to support the widespread availability of cashback without a purchase from shops and other businesses, including legislative changes as part of the Financial Services Act 2021. That is a significant step change, and the industry is really on board with it. We have already seen the success of cashback without a purchase as part of the community access to cash pilots, which are trialling bespoke cash access solutions across a number of areas.
The hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) raised the issue of the role of credit unions. On my visit to Glasgow last week, I was pleased to meet with Glasgow Credit Union and discuss some of the legislative changes required to allow them to expand the provision of services. The notion of a bespoke solution in individual communities is very much uppermost in my mind as we move forward. It was great to hear how well received those pilots have been by the local community in Cambuslang, where I visited the post office bank hub pilot and saw at first hand the impact that innovative industry solutions can have. The hub is a post office counter service, and different bank representatives come there on different days. When a customer’s bank representative is not there, other representatives can also help them.
I am delighted by the industry’s announcement that, following the Government’s changes to the law, cashback without a purchase will be rolled out to thousands of shops over the coming months. When it comes to ATMs, LINK, which, as a number of hon. Members have mentioned, runs the UK’s largest ATM network, remains committed to protecting the broad geographic spread of free-to-use ATMs, and it is held to account against that commitment by the Payment Systems Regulator. The Government also continue to fully support the post office banking framework agreement, which allows 95% of business and 99% of personal banking customers to deposit cheques, check their balance and withdraw and deposit cash at the nation’s 11,500 post office branches. The Access to Banking standard and FCA guidance force the banks to look at their mitigation responsibilities to maintain face-to-face banking services in situations where branches close.
On top of that, the Government are doing more. As several hon. Members have mentioned this afternoon, we have been developing new legislation that will enable us to protect cash over the long term. The most recent step in that process was the consultation on proposed legislation, which closed less than a month ago, on 23 September. That consultation was designed with a simple principle in mind: finding that crucial balance between supporting the use of cash and embedding flexibility as the cash landscape continues to evolve.
At the most fundamental level, that has meant setting out proposals for new laws to ensure that people need to travel only reasonable distances to pay in or take out cash. Through our actions to date and these proposals, we seek to support the continued use of cash in people’s daily lives, including supporting local businesses in continuing to accept cash. The consultation also set out proposals on what sort of organisation should be within scope of legislation to ensure that industry, especially banks, continues to play a key role in supplying cash, be it through their own branches or through funding customer transactions at ATMs or post office counters.
It is crucial, of course, that any legislation is coupled with appropriate regulatory oversight, and that has been another important aspect of the consultation. We want regulators to have appropriate powers and responsibilities, but without imposing unnecessary burdens on businesses. We believe that the FCA is best placed to play the leading role in holding firms to account on access to cash, so that the needs of consumers and businesses are met.
The Government also intend the Payment Systems Regulator and the Bank of England to maintain their existing functions regarding retail cash. As I mentioned earlier, the co-ordinated actions by the FCA, PSR and the Bank of England on cash as part of the covid-19 response have shown that co-operation between the regulators at both strategic and operational levels works well.
For all that the Government are doing to preserve access to cash, it is also worth acknowledging that the trend away from the use of cash towards cards and other digital payments has been both significant and accelerating over the past 18 months. That brings with it many opportunities, such as the potential for cheaper and more tailored payments, as set out in the Government’s recent response to the payments landscape review call for evidence, which was running in parallel.
It is important that digital connectivity is in place to help individuals and businesses to seize those opportunities, as has been mentioned by many hon. Members this afternoon. That is just one of the reasons why the Government are striving to ensure that no one is left behind in the transition to digital. To improve digital connectivity, the Government’s £5 billion Project Gigabit is helping to deliver lightning-fast, reliable broadband, including in Wales and therefore in towns such as Pontypridd.
We are working with industry to target a minimum of 85% gigabit-capable coverage by 2025, and will seek to accelerate roll-out further to get as close to 100% as possible. Action is also being taken to improve mobile connectivity in rural areas, recognising the challenges of getting to that complete coverage. The Government are providing £510 million for the shared rural network, and by 2025 that will expand 4G mobile coverage to 95% of the UK.
Out of respect for the hon. Member for Pontypridd, I looked into what is happening in Wales. The shared rural network programme is helping to reduce partial mobile phone notspots in Wales, and in the South Wales Central area, where her constituency is located, 4G coverage from all four operators will increase from 82% to 90% by the end of the programme.
Our consultation on proposed legislation closed on 23 September and the Government will set out the next steps in due course. I hope hon. Members will understand that it was only three and a half to four weeks ago, but I acknowledge the urgency that has been expressed this afternoon. I take it to heart, and I recognise the determination to get this done as quickly as possible.
I also acknowledge the recognition by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) of the imperative for banks to come forward with proposals. The Government are always open to constructive suggestions from the banks as to what they wish to do in the meantime, but I cannot say much more at this stage. What I will say is that the Government remain absolutely determined and committed to legislate to ensure that people have access to cash over the long term. In doing so, we need to strike a balance between, on the one hand, being open to innovation and, on the other, ensuring that people are not financially excluded by losing access to cash. That is what we will do.
I sincerely thank Members for their thoughtful and constructive advice and contributions, and I can assure them that I will continue to work with Members from across the House. I do not see this as a partisan matter at all. I will continue to hear from them and to work with them to come up with an enduring solution next year and beyond.
Alex Davies-Jones
It has been a complete pleasure to take part in today’s debate. We have had a broad range of speakers from across the House, all showing a consensual approach to the importance of preserving access to cash. As the Minister alluded to, it is indeed a rarity for debates held in this place to be so consensual, and this is not a party political issue. I hope that we can continue to capitalise on that consensus going forward.
I said at the beginning of the debate that I recognise the impact that coronavirus has had on people’s desire to carry, accept and access cash, and I really believe that we are living in changing times, where modernisation is key. Many of my comments focused on the impact of reduced cash circulation in the context of the individual, but a number of Members have rightly raised issues around the difficulties of businesses that carry cash. With bank closures on the rise, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), cashing up at the end of the day may no longer be the simple task it once was for a small business. Small, independent businesses have been hit the hardest throughout the pandemic, and we must now ensure that we prioritise them going forward.
With that in mind, I very much welcome the comments from the Minister on the urgency to resolve the problems that we have raised today. I also welcome his commitment that no one will be left behind in the digital connectivity roll-out—a promise on which I will ensure he is held to account. I hope he recognises that although good progress has been made on the access to cash Bill, it needs to be accompanied by a real-life approach to supporting people through what is inevitably a transition to a cashless society. That will need very close attention if we are to support our must vulnerable populations.
The Minister’s comments will help us to move in the right direction, and I am grateful for that. I look forward to seeing his promises enacted in future legislation put forward by the Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered access to cash.
Yemen: Humanitarian Situation
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I would encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking—that is in line with guidance—and to give each other and members of staff space when they are seated and when entering and leaving rooms.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the humanitarian situation in Yemen.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Miller. [Interruption.] Sorry, let me find my notes—I just had a little rush to change seats.
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
That is no problem. I know that a couple of colleagues wish to intervene. That is entirely in order, as Gill Furniss has said that is okay.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Would my hon. Friend take an intervention?
Valerie Vaz
I am very grateful. I do not think that my hon. Friend knows how important this debate is to me. Having been born in Aden, and now seeing it war-torn in such a way, I am extremely concerned about what is going on there. I would like to return, at some stage, and I feel that, with the help of Martin Griffiths, the penholder, we can possibly find a road to peace. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Gill Furniss
Very much so. I will come to that in more detail further on in my speech.
As the chair of Labour Friends of Yemen and a long-time advocate for peace in the country, I am pleased to have secured this important debate. I will preface it by saying that it is impossible to detach the humanitarian crisis from the ongoing civil war in Yemen. Until there is a lasting peace in the country, it is impossible to see how the large-scale intervention required to redress the humanitarian crisis can be delivered.
I start by reminding the House of the sheer scale of the humanitarian situation in Yemen. Aid agencies line up with statistics that are so stark that it is devastating that the global community has not done more to protect innocent lives. Last month marked seven years since the start of the Yemen civil war—a conflict that has created what the UN has labelled
“The worst humanitarian crisis in the world”.
The already bleak situation in the country has been made worse over the past 20 months, as violence has escalated, torrential rains have caused flooding and we have seen a locust infestation, a fuel crisis, covid-19 and the devaluation of the rial. In its latest update, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimated that there are 20.7 million people in need, including 12 million in acute need. The agency has warned that, without additional resources, yet more people could fall into the acute need category.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke to the hon. Lady beforehand, and I congratulate her on bringing this issue forward—it is very close to my heart as well. It has been seven years since the war in Yemen broke out and, as she said, it is the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. Just recently, 155 Houthi rebels were killed by the Saudi Arabia-led coalition, as the battle for Marib in northern Yemen intensifies due to its being rich in oil. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is finally time for the United Kingdom to step in and insist on investigating war crimes, given the recent news that the UN Human Rights Council voted against renewing the body’s mandate for investigating war crimes in Yemen? It is basically saying, “Saudi Arabia, you can do whatever you like in Yemen, and no one can touch you.” It is absolutely outrageous, is it not?
Gill Furniss
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He is absolutely right to say that. This has been flagged up over and over again with international communities. We did, in fact, visit the French Assembly, where other MPs from across Europe also tried to have a go at this. The time has come when action must be taken, or there will be no Yemen left, and no Yemeni people.
It is estimated that 4 million people have been displaced. Rather than showing any signs of improvement, the crisis grows grimmer with every passing month. OCHA has also estimated that the conflict and humanitarian crisis have caused an estimated 233,000 deaths. Those are mostly due not to the conflict itself but to indirect causes, such as a lack of food and a deterioration in the health service infrastructure. That does not include the country’s covid-19 deaths, which are very likely to be higher than the official statistics.
The war has created an environment that has allowed a multitude of disasters to take root. The country’s health infrastructure has been significantly damaged; half of its health facilities are no longer functioning, and those that are lack equipment as basic as masks and gloves. Many healthcare workers and teachers, who I will touch on further in a moment, have not taken a regular salary in years.
In that context, diseases such as cholera and typhoid have been allowed to run rampant: the UN has estimated that there have been more than 2.5 million cases of cholera in the country, with more than 4,000 deaths. Famine is widespread, with more than half of Yemenis not having enough to eat, and a quarter of Yemenis, including 2 million children, are suffering from malnutrition.
The problems have been made worse by natural disasters such as widespread flooding. The worst flood in a generation hit just as covid arrived in the country in spring 2020. It impacted on more than 100,000 people. Furthermore, the flooding season often brings with it the risk of a cholera outbreak. The Centre for Disaster Philanthropy stated that the outbreak that occurred during the rainy season in 2019 was the second worst outbreak in global history. It is still not officially under control.
I draw particular attention to the impact of all that on children. UNICEF stated that the country has become a “living hell for children”, with the damage to schools and hospitals severely limiting access to education and health services, robbing children of their futures. In July, UNICEF gave a stark warning that the number of children facing disruption to their education could rise to 6 million.
The report UNICEF published alongside that headline figure makes clear the devastating impact of the conflict on those children. It explains that the consequences of such a significant disruption to children’s education will be severe, now and in the future. Children are vulnerable to being forced into child labour or recruited as fighters, with more than 3,600 recruited in the past six years, and girls are forced into child marriages. Those children are being trapped in a cycle of poverty and unfulfilled potential.
Of those teachers who are able to teach, 170,000, or two thirds, are not receiving a regular salary. Perhaps most devastating of all, since March 2015 there have been 231 attacks on schools in Yemen, killing innocent children and reducing schools to piles of rubble. That brings into question the shameful logic of the member states of the UN Human Rights Council earlier this month—I will touch on that further in a moment.
The rights of children to learn must be a top priority. Education is the most powerful tool to combat inequality, poverty and deprivation. The Government must reaffirm their commitment to that and, at the most senior levels, push to end attacks on schools, ensure salaries for teachers and allow international support for long-term education programmes.
I want to touch on the decision made just last week by the UN Human Rights Council. I welcome the UK’s decision to back the Dutch motion to renew the independent investigators’ mandate for another two years to monitor atrocities in the conflict. Unfortunately, the motion was defeated, due to the opposition of a bloc led by Russia. Without that oversight, a real concern is that bombings of schools and civilian sites will increase. The decision has been criticised by humanitarian charities around the world, including Save the Children, which called it a “devastating blow” for the people of Yemen. The Minister will be as disappointed as I am. I strongly encourage him to ensure that the Government make their concerns known in the strongest possible terms.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that an environmental and humanitarian disaster is also about to happen because of the abandoned oil tanker that fell into Houthi hands? If not addressed by the UN Security Council, it could cause devastation across the whole region, plunging yet more people into starvation and famine, and having other impacts. A year ago, I wrote to the Minister asking him take the lead. I hope that he will do so—he has not yet—and that he will take the lead on this as penholders with the UN Security Council.
Gill Furniss
I thank my hon. Friend for making that good point. I, too, made representations to the Minister when we learnt that news in the west. We are all very worried about the impact on the entire region should the tanker be allowed to decay and presumably become a massive danger to the populations in that area.
Given the wide-ranging impact of this humanitarian crisis, it is frankly unfathomable that the UK has cut its aid to Yemen. It flies in the face of the ever increasing challenges that face an ever increasing number of Yemenis. Cutting this vital lifeline has cost lives and will continue to do so. Will the Minister tell us whether there has been an assessment to determine the impact the cuts have had and will continue to have on the ongoing suffering in Yemen?
The Minister has said that the aid funding that has been announced will be a floor, not a ceiling. If there is a country where the Government could make good on those words, Yemen is it. If funding remains at the level announced, there will be a staggering 59% cut from the amount spent in the 2020-21 budget. I invite the Minister to update the House on exactly how much funding will be allocated this year. Human suffering is of such a scale that the Government must do more both to push for lasting peace and to save lives in the meantime. As the UN Security Council penholder on Yemen, we have a significant role to play in bringing about peace.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
Since the bombing of Yemen began, the public value of arms contracts between the UK and Saudi Arabia has totalled £6.5 billion. International aid to those in need of humanitarian relief is cut, while arms companies continue to profit from the war. Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation is intolerable and demands a threefold response? First, there has to be an immediate increase in aid. Secondly, we have to stop the arms trade with Saudi Arabia. Lastly, we need to find a peaceful, long-term resolution to bring an end to this conflict through intervention by the international community.
Gill Furniss
My hon. Friend has made nearly all my points—I am sure the Minister has heard them loud and clear and will address them in his speech.
In response to an urgent question in February, the Minister said he could not commit to a suggestion from the Chair of the Defence Committee to offer to host a UN summit to look at the political options. Has the Minister given that suggestion any further consideration?
Those of us who take an interest in Yemen often get a sense of déjà vu when listening to the Minister’s responses. We are well aware that the Government believe the only way to bring an end to the conflict is through a political settlement. However, the UN special envoy, Martin Griffiths, has said that the end of the conflict and humanitarian crisis is not in sight. If that is the case, it is a dereliction of our duty as a forward-thinking, global Britain to cut aid funding as more and more Yemeni lives and livelihoods are destroyed. I urge the Government to take a fresh look at the situation in Yemen and commit to doing whatever can possibly be done to secure a lasting peace for the people of Yemen.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Miller. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) for securing this important debate. The situation in Yemen is beyond despair. As the hon. Lady rightly said, it remains the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, with two thirds of Yemenis—more than 20 million people—requiring some form of humanitarian assistance.
The crisis results from a perfect storm of poverty, war and economic collapse, and has been exacerbated by the covid-19 pandemic. It is clear that any sustainable solution can only really begin when the conflict comes to an end. The hon. Lady says that it is not the first time I have said that, but it is true none the less. That is why the UK Government are working and have worked with countries in the region and the wider international community to bring about peace, as well as playing our part in directly addressing the humanitarian suffering. Today, in response to the various questions, I will give an overview of the work we have done and are doing.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) for securing this debate, but like all of us, I wish we did not have to be here. Can the Minister give us more information, because unless there is a political solution, this will be going on for another seven years? It seems that there is a real unwillingness on the part of the main players to come round the table. Can he give us any hope that the UK and UN interventions will make that meeting happen, so that we can negotiate peace in the near future?
James Cleverly
I know that the hon. Lady and other Members in the Chamber and elsewhere take a very close interest in this issue. She and I have discussed it both formally and informally. I wish that I could give her the certainty that she asks for. The sad truth of the matter is that at this point, I am not able to do so. However, we will continue to work with partners in the region, including those who are directly involved in the conflict, and indeed, when the opportunity arises, directly with representatives of the Houthis themselves. That channel has been denied to us recently, but we will nevertheless continue to work with anyone and everyone we feel can help to bring about peace in Yemen, so that the real work of rebuilding the country and its society can start in earnest.
In terms of humanitarian support, the UK Government have been one of the largest donors since the crisis began, having contributed more than £1 billion in aid. We pledged £87 million this year and have already distributed 85% of it. While I am conscious that our contribution this year is smaller than in previous years, for reasons the House is very familiar with, the importance of the timely distribution of our aid cannot be overstated. Despite financial pressures at home, we remain of the largest donors to the UN appeal.
Our funding this year will provide at least 1.6 million people with access to clean drinking water. It will support 400 clinics to offer primary healthcare and it will feed 240,000 of the most vulnerable Yemenis every month. We are working with partners to ensure that priority is given to those suffering the most from food insecurity, to marginalised communities and vulnerable displaced people, and to those living in conflict-affected areas.
Sadly yet predictably, the conflict has been particularly hard on women and girls. Reports of gender-based violence have risen significantly since the conflict began. That is totally unacceptable, and it is why we are co-hosting the international gender co-ordination group with the Netherlands later this month to boost international efforts to tackle gender-based violence. To improve the life chances of newborns and young mothers, we have funded UNICEF to provide over 2 million pregnant women and new mothers with nutrition counselling and education since 2018, and we expect to support more women with reproductive health services over the next year. Since 2018, we have helped 85,000 women receive trained medical support during childbirth, and we expect to support 50,000 more by March 2022.
Anna McMorrin
Of course, those are all good things to be doing, but will the Minister answer the question of when the cut in aid of 50% is going to be reversed?
James Cleverly
I and other Ministers have made it clear that the reduction in official development assistance spending is driven by the worst economic crisis this country has faced in 300 years. Luckily— no, not luckily; thankfully—because of our world-class vaccine roll-out programme, our economic recovery seems to be working at pace. We have the fastest recovery among our G7 partners. Hopefully that will mean we are able to recover to the 0.7% level, which we are committed to returning to as soon as possible. Unfortunately, I am not able to give an accurate prediction of the future trajectory of the UK economy and, therefore, cannot give the hon. Lady a specific point in time. It remains our aim and commitment to return to 0.7% as soon as the economic conditions allow.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Minister for his attention to this subject. Could I ask a double-headed question? I am sorry, but time is obviously limited. What accountability is there to ensure the money is actually going to where it should go, and when was the last time the Minister spoke to Martin Griffiths?
James Cleverly
To answer the second question first, I speak with Martin quite regularly. I cannot remember the precise date on which I last spoke to him, but he and I have an excellent working relationship, and we speak quite regularly.
With regard to accountability, we take the prevention of aid diversion incredibly seriously. We probably have one of the most robust donor frameworks, and we always ensure that where possible, we minimise aid diversion, because we know—particularly in areas of conflict—that diverted aid can go to reinforce the conflict, rather than to humanitarian aid. Work is ongoing in this area, as it is in all others.
Sarah Champion
I am sure the Minister is aware that Martin Griffiths is no longer the UN penholder, but he is, of course, the co-ordinator for UN humanitarian relief. Will the Minister detail whether he has had a meeting or conversation with Hans Grundberg, who is the new UN penholder?
James Cleverly
As I say, Martin’s role has changed, but he is still an influential player. I spoke with Hans shortly after his appointment.
To further expand on the point that the right hon. Member for Walsall South made, to ensure that humanitarian spending is effective, we channel our support through organisations with a strong record of delivery and fund the independent monitoring of our own programmes. Ministers and officials co-ordinate closely with other donors, the UN and non-governmental organisations to maximise the effectiveness of the global response and improve access to, and conditions in, Yemen. For example, in August, I had discussions with David Gressly, the UN resident humanitarian co-ordinator for Yemen, and I stressed that UK aid must not be diverted from those in need. At the UN General Assembly, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) recently urged parties to allow humanitarian access across the country in accordance with the principles of international law.
Aid alone, however, will not solve the crisis facing Yemen and Yemenis. We are working with the US, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates through the economic quad to help support the stabilisation of Yemen’s economic crisis, as well as through the joint economic programmes of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the United States Agency for International Development. We are providing technical support to the Central Bank of Yemen on foreign exchange and reserve management, as well as technical advice to the Yemeni Prime Minister’s executive bureau to deliver much-needed economic reform. We are also working closely with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to provide development finance that can help alleviate Yemen’s hard currency crisis, which is driving depreciation of the Yemeni rial in Government-held areas.
The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), my former opposite number, has mentioned the Safer oil tanker and the environmental impacts, as well as the catastrophic economic impacts, that it has created. She is right to highlight it; she is wrong to say that the UK is not doing enough. If I remember rightly, she wrote to me in September 2020, exactly two months after I raised this issue, so I can assure her that the Government and I are very alive to it. Indeed, I brought it up when I had a face-to-face meeting with a representative of the Houthis during my trip to Oman in October 2020, highlighting the importance of allowing access to that ship and for repairs or transfers to take place.
Anna McMorrin
I appreciate the Minister’s answer on this issue. Can he tell me what access the UN is going to have to that ship following that conversation? As we know, four times as many tonnes of oil are on it as were on the Exxon Valdez, which would lead to a catastrophic disaster if it leaked.
James Cleverly
I am precluded by time from going into the detail for which the hon. Member strives, but I have written extensively on that issue and can forward her links to the various statements and calls for international co-operation that I have made, including directly with the Houthis, which I would like to think have played a part in some access to that ship being allowed—but nowhere near as much as is deserved. I hope right hon. and hon. Members will forgive me, but I am conscious that we are tight on time and I want to get through a number of important points before we finish.
The conflict has been punctuated by reports of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. The UK Government condemn all violations, including the denial of humanitarian access and the recruitment and use of child soldiers. We monitor, collate and analyse such reports and support the UN-led verification of them, as well as the production of the UN Secretary General’s reports on human rights and children affected by armed conflict.
Accountability is key. The UK regrets that the mandate of the group of eminent experts on Yemen was not recently renewed in the UN Human Rights Council. The group provided crucial reporting on human rights in Yemen. The UK Government urge all parties to respect international humanitarian and human rights law, and we are working to secure a political solution that creates the conditions for legitimate government to improve the protection of human rights.
As I said at the start of my speech, covid-19 has compounded an already dire crisis. It continues to rip through the country, with reports of overwhelmed intensive care units in both Sana’a and Aden. In the last financial year, the UK provided £30 million to mitigate the impact of covid-19 in Yemen, which helped boost the resilience of the primary healthcare system. COVAX has allocated 2.3 million vaccine doses to Yemen, thanks in significant part to the UK’s £548 million donation and ongoing support. We are discussing vaccination roll-out with the World Health Organisation and other partners and are working to ensure equitable access across the whole country.
As I said at the outset, the key to solving Yemen’s humanitarian crisis is ending the conflict and negotiating a political settlement that holds. As I said earlier, I spoke to the incoming UN special envoy Hans Grundberg in August to offer the UK Government’s continued support for his work to bring the parties to the negotiating table. We will do all that we can to support those efforts, including as the UN Security Council lead on Yemen.
Although the conflict and humanitarian crisis in Yemen do not get the media attention they deserve, the UK Government are nevertheless working doggedly to alleviate the suffering of the Yemeni people, and we are using our diplomatic and humanitarian expertise to do so. We continue to be one of the top donors to the UN-led response, but we know that the only way to end the humanitarian crisis in the long term is a peaceful settlement to the conflict. That is why we have played and will continue to play a leading role in moving the peace process forward and supporting the work of UN special envoy Hans Grundberg.
Question put and agreed to.
Carbon Capture and Storage
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with the current guidance, and also to give people space when moving in and out of the room.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered carbon capture and storage.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. Two decades ago, when I was environment editor of The Times, a report came across my desk of a new-fangled concept called carbon capture and storage—CCS. I phoned an environment group, whose blushes I will spare, and asked them what they thought. They took a big pause, and then said, “We don’t like it.” I asked them why they did not like it. They said, “Not sure.” A few months later I wrote another article on carbon capture and storage; I phoned the same environment group and asked what they thought. They said, “We’ve worked out why we don’t like it now.”
Carbon capture and storage, more trendily and officially now known as carbon capture, usage and storage, is often seen as a surreal, “Dr Strangelove” type of technology that mad scientists and big businesses have concocted. However, the truth is that carbon capture and storage is natural; it is what nature has been doing for 3.5 billion years. When life on Earth started, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 4,000 parts per million. First bacteria, then multicellular organisms and then plants started sucking up the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and burying it. Life sucked trillions of tonnes of CO2 out of the atmosphere and stuck it under ground as coal, as natural gas, as oil, and as carboniferous rocks such as limestone and chalk—the Grand Canyon and the white cliffs of Dover are made of rocks created by life out of the carbon in the atmosphere and then buried underground. Nature has continuously captured carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and stores it temporarily in the biosphere as plant and animal matter, and stores it permanently in the geosphere. [Interruption.]
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Order. The Division bell has rung. I understand there might be up to five Divisions. If we can reconvene here as quickly as possible after the final Division, I will start the debate again when we are quorate. I urge Mr Browne to be in his seat quickly after the final Division. It will probably be about an hour.
Anthony Browne
I will resume where I finished, if I remember rightly. I was saying that nature has continuously captured carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and stored it temporarily in the biosphere and permanently in the geosphere. The process has continued for billions of years, and the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide fell steadily to 200 parts per million about 20,000 years ago, which was a staggering 95% drop. However, atmospheric carbon dioxide started rising again. By the start of the industrial revolution, it had crept up to 280 parts per million, but in the last century we have reversed natural carbon capture and storage at an astonishing rate as we have dug up the fossil fuels and cut down the trees and stuck the carbon within them back into the atmosphere. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at about 420 parts per million—a jump of about 50% in a geological blink of the eye.
The last 10,000 years—the Holocene period in which we live—has been remarkably benign from a climate point of view. Steady, moderate temperatures have allowed human civilisation to flourish, but we are now undoing that. The whole point of the net zero mission is to stop carbon dioxide levels rising further so that we can keep our benign environment.
We can and should promote natural carbon capture and storage. We should plant more trees, restore peatlands and increase the carbon-rich organic content in soil. However, there is only so much land that we can plant with trees, so that can only ever be a small part of the solution. What we are talking about today is therefore industrial carbon capture and storage.
Many people in the environment movement are worried about industrial carbon capture and storage, and some are outright opposed. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the environment, I think that those fears need to be taken seriously. We can all agree that we should do CCS only if it is robust and locks away carbon away permanently. Otherwise, there is literally no point. The overriding fear is that CCS will create a moral hazard that means we will give up on other ways to get to net zero, but the UK and other Governments are totally committed to getting to net zero by the middle of the century and there is no scenario in which CCS can get us to net zero on its own. Whatever we do with CCS, we must increase renewable energy production, move to electric vehicles and phase out coal power and gas boilers. That is already happening, as we have seen with the announcements this week.
What CCS can do is enable us to transition to net zero more quickly and at far lower economic cost. Do not just take my word for it: the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the UK’s Climate Change Committee both see carbon capture and storage as essential for reaching net zero. The CCC’s sixth climate budget declared that CCS was a necessity, not an option, and that the UK needs to capture between 75 million and 180 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year by 2050, starting off with 22 million tonnes by early 2030, which is just nine years away.
CCS is currently the only technology we know of that can significantly decarbonise industries such as steel, cement, glass and chemicals. Unless we go back to the middle ages, we will still need those industries, and only CCS can ensure that we get to net zero without forcing those industries overseas, which would just export our pollution and lose us jobs. CCS can help produce low-carbon hydrogen that can power carbon-neutral boats, trucks and trains, and other industrial processes. CCS can also cut the cost of getting to net zero, which is an issue of rising political concern. The International Energy Agency has estimated that the cost of tackling climate change will be 70% higher without CCS.
There are various offshoots of CCS. The normal CCS will not reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; it will just dramatically slow down the increase. But there are technologies that will reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: greenhouse gas removal. Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage—BECCS—is one being piloted by Drax, and direct air capture is another. Greenhouse gas removal could help mop up residual emissions that are otherwise impossible to eliminate, but BECCS has become controversial in the environment movement partly because of concerns about how sustainable it is to grow the biomass. That must be addressed. There is also concern about the carbon accounting from BECCS: when we import biomass from other countries, we are taking credit for carbon captured in another country. That is a valid criticism, but it is an argument about adjusting our carbon figures rather than giving up on BECCS.
Last year, I hosted virtually the global launch of the Coalition for Negative Emissions, bringing together stakeholders from around the world who are interested in removing greenhouse gases. The potential impact is enormous, particularly if economies of scale mean that the costs of removing a tonne of carbon dioxide come down. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcement yesterday, in the net zero strategy, that they will target greenhouse gas removal of 10 million tonnes a year by 2030, and that they will amend the Climate Change Act 2008 to include engineered CO2 removals. That might be controversial among some environmental groups, but it is simply irrational and unscientific to include CO2 molecules removed from the atmosphere by a tree but not those removed by humans.
I have participated in many debates on CCS, and normally at this stage someone says that we should not support it because it is an unproven technology, but that is not true. The science is actually quite straightforward: it is stripping carbon dioxide out of the emissions from power plants and factories, liquifying it, transporting it by pipeline or boat, and then storing it. Most aspects of this are already done. For example, there are already 8,000 km of pipeline carrying CO2 around the US for industrial use.
The storage point is more complex. It needs to be stored permanently, and the preferred place to do that is in geological formations, up to 3 km below the surface of the earth. One such perfect place to do that is under the North sea, where natural gas and oil have been stored by nature safely for millions of years without leaking out. Again, this is not untried technology. The first commercial CCS site in the world was opened in 1996, some 25 years ago, at the Sleipner gas field between Norway and Scotland. Since then, it has been taking 1 million tonnes of CO2 out of emissions every year and sticking it a kilometre underground. That single CCS plant has reduced Norway’s greenhouse gas emissions by 3%, compared to what they would otherwise have been. That site is monitored closely and there has been no leakage. The Global CCS Institute, a US think-tank, now reports there are 26 operating CCS facilities worldwide in the US, China, Australia, the middle east, Canada and Europe.
However, it is true that CCS is untried and untested technology in the UK. We do not have CCS yet— we have fallen behind. That is why I welcome the announcement yesterday that the Government are pushing ahead with two new CCS clusters at HyNet North West and the east coast cluster. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister and colleagues about that.
There are lots of very powerful reasons why the UK should lead on CCS. The UK has a particular national advantage when it comes to CCS, and CCS could bring particular benefits to the UK. Our oil and gas industry means we already have the skills and infrastructure to develop CCS. As gas and oil extraction declines, CCS can take over. It is estimated that rolling out CCS will save 50,000 jobs in industries such as steel, cement, chemicals, ceramics and glass, and CCS can become a sector in its own right, creating 10,000 more jobs. The ideal locations for these jobs would be in the former industrial heartlands of north-east Scotland, Teesside, Humberside, south Wales and Merseyside. There could be no better example of levelling up.
We have the natural geological features. We have as much carbon storage capacity underground as the rest of the EU combined. Many European countries will not be able to do their own CCS, as they have neither the geology nor the industry, and this creates a huge export opportunity for the UK, capturing carbon dioxide and burying it underground on behalf of other countries. The UK is not doing any CCS yet, but we are almost uniquely positioned to be a CCS superpower.
The creation of a CCS industry is not going to happen by itself. We have companies that can develop CCS, but they have no financial incentive to do it. They are not going to invest billions of pounds only to find out there is no possibility of generating revenue. What they need is a predictable, long-term regime that makes CCS commercially viable, and that is the lesson from Sleipner in Norway. That was not built as a loss-making experiment; it was the result of a commercial decision by the Norwegian state oil company, now Equinor, to avoid paying carbon taxes by burying the carbon instead.
In the UK, we know how to set up regimes to nurture the creation of a new industry. We did it with offshore wind power. By setting up the contracts for difference regime, the Government facilitated the creation of a world-leading power industry that has worked better than almost anyone dared to dream. Costs have fallen so much that it has become competitive and wind now produces more electricity than any other source.
The good news is that this Government are committed to CCS, more than any previous Government, and I strongly commend them for it. They underlined their commitments in last year’s 10-point plan for climate change, promising to invest £1 billion a year in the technology. They reinforced that commitment yesterday with the announcement that they are moving ahead with support for the first two CCS clusters. They also raised their ambition, which was a surprise to me, saying they wanted to capture 20 million or 30 million tonnes of CO2, up from just 10 million tonnes, which was the previous announcement, bringing the amount in line with what the Committee on Climate Change says is needed.
This is all welcome news, but it would not be much of a debate if I just said that the Government are doing everything perfectly. Indeed, I have some asks, although the announcements yesterday address some of them. My first ask is simply this: please keep calm and carry on. In 2007 and 2012, the Government launched competitions for CCS, but in both cases they subsequently cancelled them. That was so damaging to confidence in the industry. Such a stop-start approach risks repeating the mistakes of nuclear. Where once we were a world leader in nuclear power, successive Government wavering over decades meant that we ended up dependent on other countries. On CCS, will the Government please have the courage of their convictions?
My second ask is that the Government support CCS in next week’s spending review. Given yesterday’s announcement, I presume that that is a foregone conclusion. The Carbon Capture and Storage Association states that its members can reach the 10-milion tonne removal target for a maximum cost of £1.2 billion a year—that target has now gone up to 20 million tonnes, so the big question is whether it can still be done for £1.2 billion. That is about one quarter of the peak annual subsidy that launched the wind power industry, so as economies of scale kick in for renewables and as subsidies decline, they can be redirected to CCS.
My third ask is that the Government produce a long-term financial structure for the industry, so that companies can invest with certainty. That is the biggest ask of the industry. The levy control framework was a huge success for offshore wind, largely because it gave companies a 10-year funding horizon, within which they knew the revenues that they could make. That gave companies the confidence to invest at scale.
Yesterday, the Government announced the industrial decarbonisation and hydrogen revenue support or IDHRS scheme. That is very welcome, but I understand that it is only for the current spending review period and that the first two CCS clusters announced yesterday will not be operational within that time. Therefore, I would welcome confirmation of how the Government will ensure that CCS clusters have sustainable revenue once they are operational. If the CCS funding is subject to three-year spending review horizons, rather than a 10-year horizon, businesses will be reluctant to invest in the sector as much as they otherwise would. The Government should give CCS the same long-term certainty that they previously gave wind power.
My fourth ask is that the Government should set out a long-term vision for the development of CCS—we had a taste of that yesterday—for it to become a fully competitive, financially sustainable sector. That is a vision that would go above and beyond the clusters it would initially fund. To reap the full benefits of CCS, practice needs to be embedded across industry and the country. The Government need to establish a fully functioning market for carbon in the UK now that we have left the European emissions trading scheme.
My fifth ask is about the need for independent monitoring of the CCS clusters that go ahead. Environmental groups will rightly be looking like hawks for signs of any leakage of CO2 out of the ground, or for game-playing by the industry. CCS companies cannot be allowed to mark their own homework. We also need clarity on the Track-2 process as soon as possible, to keep up momentum in the industry. I also urge the Government to look at the 1 GW hydrogen target as a minimum, because industry feels that it could do far more than that, which would be welcome.
Finally, I have a request to make of environmental groups. We all agree that tackling climate change is the most important challenge we face. Yes, they must hold Government and industry to account, but for all our sakes they should please not start campaigning against CCS itself. Let the debate be driven by science, not other motives. Rather, they should work with the Government and industry to ensure that CCS plays the vital role in getting to net zero that the IPCC and CCC expect of it.
The Government are committed to supporting CCS. They must now ensure that the UK is no longer left behind, but can reap all the environmental and economic benefits of becoming a CCS superpower. We did it with wind power and we can do it with CCS. We can deliver another great green success.
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
For complete clarity, we restarted the debate at 5.29 pm, so the wind-ups will start at about 6.05 pm. My maths says that if Members can speak for under four minutes, we will get everyone in—just as a guide.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) on securing this extremely important debate. I was trying to find something to disagree with him on, and I struggled to do so.
I am absolutely delighted, with my Teesside and Humber colleagues, that we will be at the forefront of Britain’s carbon capture, utilisation and storage plans as part of the east coast cluster. I have long made the case that Teesside should be the home of the first cluster, because it offers the best opportunity to decarbonise industry of anywhere in the UK. With the east coast cluster, as everybody now knows, almost 50% of the carbon emissions in the UK could be removed.
I set up the all-party parliamentary group on carbon capture, utilisation and storage about seven years ago, when it was not exactly fashionable to talk about it. We wanted to ensure that the Government recognised the importance of CCUS in achieving net zero. To her credit, the former Energy Minister Claire Perry got on board, but she was badly let down by her Government and the then Chancellor, George Osborne, who at the stroke of a pen the night before Budget day set the industry back several years. Had he not stripped away £1 billion pounds of funding that dark day, we would already have a maturing carbon capture and storage industry and a much cleaner environment.
However, we are where we are, and we need to get on with the job. The east coast cluster will make huge inroads in cutting emissions, and I am extremely pleased about the economic possibilities that the cluster presents for our area. We cannot afford for the Government to let us down again; we must ensure that this time we get the project over the line. There is simply no time left. Industries are already struggling and if further action is not taken soon, they will be unable to continue and we will fail to meet our environmental targets.
Earlier today I attended an energy-intensive industries roundtable on energy prices and listened to Debbie Baker from CF Fertilisers—the company in my constituency that found itself at the centre of the recent carbon dioxide crisis. It has huge energy costs, huge gas transportation costs and huge carbon costs as well. It desperately needs the Government to take action in those areas. I hope that the Minister will recognise that it will take a wee while before we get the CCUS infrastructure in place, so it is critical that other action is taken in the shorter term to ensure that we do not lose companies such as CF Fertilisers and those in other energy-intensive industries in my area and across the country.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire talked about keeping calm and carrying on, and that is critical. He covered the issue of spending and the need for the right funding regime, and I agree with him on that. I hope that the Minister will take some time to outline how the funding mechanism will work to give us that clarity. I am pleased with what the Government are doing. I will not get many pats on the back from some colleagues for saying that, but I am pleased because it will make a difference for Teesside. I hope that the Government will ensure they deliver on that this time.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) on securing and leading this important debate, shining a spotlight on the exciting prospects posed by carbon capture. This new technology will play a vital role in tackling climate change and reaching our net zero target by 2050.
The Government have already invested heavily in ensuring that carbon capture is used across the country. That is abundantly clear in Tees Valley, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) for welcoming the Government’s steps there. Only yesterday, it was announced that the east coast cluster has been selected by Ministers to develop carbon capture facilities. I was delighted to learn that Net Zero Teesside, which will be based at Teesworks, will receive a share of the £1 billion carbon capture and storage infrastructure fund. That will enable the creation of the new common infrastructure needed to transport CO2 from industrial plants across Teesside to secure offshore storage in the southern North sea.
Championed by our phenomenal local mayor, Ben Houchen, and spearheaded by local industry, the carbon capture cluster will remove 50% of the UK’s industrial cluster CO2 emissions and support our national energy transition to achieve our net zero target. The project will capture 10 million tonnes of carbon—the equivalent of that produced by 3 million homes, while creating 25,000 skilled jobs by 2050 in a variety of sectors from construction to low-carbon technology. It is essential that the Government continue to invest in exciting technology to achieve their 2050 net zero target, and I welcome the steps already being taken in Teesside.
The support of the Government is immense and I am grateful for it. However, we cannot ignore the vital role that the private sector will play in assisting our energy transition. In Darlington, we have the excellent Cummins engine manufacturer, which will continue to build on Darlington’s proud engineering history as it develops a hydrogen engine. With £14.6 million of Government-backed funding through the Brunel project, the carbon-free engine will revolutionise our road haulage sector and stop 11 million tonnes of carbon going into the atmosphere.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. My father worked for the Cummins engine company for 40-odd years. That was almost next door to the Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Company, which has now gone to the wall. Does he agree that that was a great sadness, and that the Government let the company down?
Peter Gibson
I am grateful for that intervention. Having worked extensively with the administrators, local government and the unions in respect of Cleveland Bridge, I assure the hon. Gentleman that every step that could have been taken to save that business was taken.
In conclusion, Darlington and the wider Tees Valley were there at the beginning of the first industrial revolution. Once again, we are centre stage in the clean, green revolution as we stride towards net zero, which carbon capture is central to.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Thank you very much for chairing this meeting, Mrs Miller, and huge thanks to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) for securing the debate. I have to agree with my colleague, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham)—the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made a number of excellent points. I would only disagree with one, and that is the number of jobs he said would be created as a result of carbon capture and storage. In fact, it was a drastic underestimation, given that the Scottish cluster would support an average of 15,000 jobs a year to 2050—many of which are direct jobs, with a number of indirect jobs—and that is an average. That is a significant number of jobs that would be supported by just that one project.
It was decided yesterday that the Scottish cluster will be a reserve cluster, rather than one that will be progressed in track 1. That is hugely disappointing. As the hon. Gentleman noted, successive UK Governments have previously pulled the rug out from under carbon capture and storage. What was done to us in relation to Peterhead makes this feel like another kick in the teeth, particularly when the Government have been clear that the Scottish Acorn cluster project has met all the criteria for going ahead. It is just an arbitrary decision that only two are going ahead, rather than three.
The Scottish cluster is ready to go. We can make the track 1 timetable. The Government have accepted that we meet all the criteria. I do not understand why the Government have taken this decision in the face of the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations about how much carbon capture is needed to meet our climate change obligations, or even in order to meet the Government’s own climate change obligations.
I have been working alongside Acorn and Pale Blue Dot for a significant number of years. This morning, I spoke with poor Charlie, who works at Acorn, who must be fed up of seeing my face on Zoom meetings and in person, because we have met so often over such a number of years. I have been and continue to be a champion of the Scottish cluster for many good reasons. It has the potential to capture 60% of the UK Government’s 2030 targets. It is forecast to deliver 1.3 gigawatts of low-carbon hydrogen by 2030. Under the existing memorandums of understanding, it has a diverse group of 10 CO2 customers, which meet more than 60% of the Government’s target. It will also reliably unlock 30% of the UK’s CO2 storage resource, which is absolutely huge.
I see absolutely no reason why the Government have chosen only two clusters. I am not criticising the fact that the Government are finally proceeding with CCS—I think that is great. However, it seems so arbitrary and deeply unfair that the Scottish one has been put in reserve, given that it is ready and given that we can progress it right now. I would love the Minister to answer why the Government have chosen to progress only two and, if they continue to progress only two and not move to three, how they will meet the storage obligations. How will they meet the carbon capture suggestions made by the Climate Change Committee, which the UK Government have said they will do? How will they meet those targets if they do not progress the Scottish cluster?
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on carbon capture and storage, which follows the truly fantastic news that the UK’s first decarbonised industrial cluster—the east coast cluster—will be based in Teesside in the north-east. The cluster will provide the region with more than 25,000 jobs by 2050 and bring in upwards of £2 billion in investment. 9,000 jobs will be created in construction alone.
The ECC is further evidence that the UK’s transition to cleaner, greener energy will breathe new life into post-industrial towns such as Hartlepool, thereby transforming the north-east into a shining beacon of innovation and modernisation.
It is undeniable that carbon capture and storage, which has the potential to halve the cost of achieving net zero by 2050, will be crucial to ensuring that the UK meets its commitments on climate change. Furthermore, CCS is capable of producing hydrogen, which is the fuel of the future, with near zero greenhouse gas emissions. My Teesside colleagues present will know that my enthusiasm for hydrogen is one of the many reasons why I have been fighting so hard, both here in Parliament and in my constituency, for a new nuclear reactor for Hartlepool power station, beyond the current plans for decommissioning in 2024. Just as we cannot achieve net zero by 2050 without carbon capture and storage, we cannot do it without nuclear.
As a proud Brexiteer and the Member of Parliament for a constituency that voted by nearly 70% in favour of voting the European Union, it is truly wonderful to see the UK bolstering its status as a world leader in so many areas, including the transition away from fossil fuels in favour of new and exciting green technologies such as carbon capture and storage. I know that my constituents in Hartlepool stand ready to play their part in bringing about a bright British future following our departure from the EU.
It is particularly appropriate that Teesside and the wider north-east should be at the forefront of cutting-edge technologies such as carbon capture and storage. It was in the north-east that Britain’s first industrial revolution was smelted by great inventors and innovators such as George Stephenson, Robert Stevenson, William Armstrong and Joseph Swan. Just as the industriousness, enterprising spirit and ingenuity of the north-east drove economic growth and productivity in the 18th and 19th centuries, my constituents, and those of my Teesside colleagues, will do so once again by participating fully and boldly in the new green industrial revolution.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller.
It is in all our interests to stop climate chaos, and we must work together globally and nationally to find and implement adequate solutions. Carbon capture, utilisation and storage—CCUS—is the new big buzzword. As global warming is caused by emissions of carbon dioxide, a logical solution is clearly to capture the damaging gas. However, not all proposals are as sustainable in the long term as they seem. The Government have a clear favourite: to capture the CO2 that is produced by burning fossil fuels, and to store it back in the Earth’s rock. It would allow Britain to continue extracting fossil fuels, burning them and pumping the carbon dioxide back into the seabed, where it is out of sight. That would be easy and very convenient for the existing fossil fuel industry, but not so fast. At best, it would not add to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The question is: why not put all the much-needed investment into renewable energy, which is really where the future lies?
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I do not disagree that we should be investing in renewable energy, but why should we not do both?
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, because it is always the argument that certain things are too expensive. All sorts of renewable energy production projects, including the use of tidal energy, have been rejected because they are too expensive. There is only so much investment that the Government can make, which we understand. Why not put it into renewable energies, rather than putting it into projects that keep the fossil fuel industry going? The Government should make it clear that the aim has to be to keep fossil fuels in the ground. They should do that now and support the development of renewable alternatives of power. It cannot be business as usual for the fossil fuel industry.
However, there are more ambitious ideas that involve the capture of CO2 that is already in the atmosphere. It would mean that we remove some of the carbon dioxide that is sitting like an invisible film around our atmosphere. The Minister will know that such technology is called direct air capture. It, too, is not very well developed yet, but it seems to be a far more future-proofed direction to go for any Government. It is the way both to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and to produce a gas that can be used to make the replacement for fossil fuels.
One of the possibilities is to combine CO2 and carbon monoxide with green hydrogen and produce a synthetic fuel that could be used in aeroplanes. I have made that point to the aviation Minister, and I hope the Government are listening. The technology has been thought of by a number of universities, among them the University of Leeds. This synthetic fuel behaves in similar ways to traditional aircraft fuel and can even be mixed with it. It would be one solution for aviation to become net zero.
Any of these new technologies will need to overcome many hurdles and need millions in investment, but they exist and they open up the possibility of a truly circular economy that will be much more future proof. I urge the Government to look beyond short-term fixes to keep the fossil fuel industry going and to look at CCUS for negative or carbon-zero emissions as one of the great opportunities for getting to net zero.
The Government need a clear vision for the long-term future of the planet. They must be clear that fossil fuel extraction and consumption will become the past not just as late as 2050, but long before that. Carbon capture to keep the fossil fuel industry going would be the wrong decision. We need long-term, good strategic decisions from the Government.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) on securing such an important debate.
I start by welcoming the announcements made yesterday in the net zero strategy, which set out the UK’s plan for carbon capture and storage. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer), I am delighted that the east coast cluster has been chosen as a track 1 cluster that will benefit from the Government’s carbon capture and storage infrastructure funds over the coming years. I also pass on my congratulations to the University of Sheffield Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, a partner in that bid.
The UK has committed to net zero by 2050, and we have become the first major economy in the world to pass legislation to reach such a target. The Government are right that we cannot reach that target by emissions reductions alone, so carbon capture and storage is vital to reducing our net output of greenhouse gases. It is simply impossible for many of our major industries to eliminate carbon emissions with current technology and energy use.
The Humber region is one of our most important industrial areas, but it emits 12.4 megatonnes of carbon a year, or 40% of the UK’s industrial emissions. These industries are vital to our economy and our security, as well as to jobs and livelihoods. While of course the Government should support and encourage industries such as steel to reduce emissions, we must be realistic about what is achievable. That is why projects such as Zero Carbon Humber, which has the potential to absorb 50% of the industrial cluster’s carbon dioxide emissions, are so important. This is a brilliant opportunity for UK industry, and with Government investment the commercial barriers to using our geological reservoirs for carbon storage can now be overcome.
In addition, the deployment of carbon capture and storage can deliver support for tens of thousands of new jobs, as many hon. Members have said. Not only is that good news for existing industries, but it offers huge potential for new ones. One of the key requirements for reaching net zero is to reduce our reliance on petrol and diesel cars and increase the use of electric vehicles. It is good news that £1 billion has been invested in Nissan’s plant in Sunderland, which aims to produce new generation all-electric vehicles in the not-too-distant future.
However, as things stand, we do not have the capability to produce all the components of electric vehicle batteries here in the UK, making us reliant on other countries—particularly China and the US—for elements of the manufacturing process. Not only is that a supply chain risk, but it means that we are missing out on the opportunity to add an enormous amount of value here in the UK.
James Durrans & Sons, a brilliant carbon engineering business in my Penistone and Stocksbridge constituency, has a long history of cutting-edge manufacturing and success all over the world. The company has ambitions to develop a new facility for high-temperature graphitisation that would enable the UK to produce 30,000 tonnes of anode-grade synthetic graphite a year for electric car batteries. Europe’s only producer of needle coke, the starting material, is the Phillips 66 plant on the Humber, but we currently sell the coke abroad for graphitisation and reimport it for seven or eight times the value.
If James Durrans & Sons is successful—I urge the Minister to pursue Government support for this important investment—we could complete the EV battery production process here in the UK, securing our supply chain and, of course, adding value and creating jobs. However, like many high carbon-based industries, the project relies on the ability to capture and store the greenhouse gases produced.
That is why it is such good news for James Durrans & Sons and many other innovative companies that carbon capture is now a realistic prospect in the short term. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire said, a science-based approach to carbon capture must be taken, so I am delighted that the Government have signalled such strong support for it. That is great news for our industries and for net zero.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) on securing the debate, which is timely in the light of yesterday’s announcement about which CCS clusters the UK Government will progress.
The anger and disappointment about the snubbing of the Scottish cluster will not go away any time soon. Although the Government previously stated that they would give the go-ahead only to two clusters, it should be noted that Teesside and Humber were originally two separate clusters that have now combined on the east coast. Yesterday’s decisions effectively progress three clusters, then, so why not do the same for the Scottish one as well?
The Minister tried to portray our analysis as Scotland versus the north of England, but let me be clear: we want the other clusters to progress. We just think the Scottish cluster is ideally placed to be progressed at the same time. We know, given that the Scottish cluster met the technical aspects, yesterday’s decision was a nakedly political one, targeted at the red wall constituencies in England. Given that HyNet also covers north Wales, we have a so-called UK Government who advance projects in England and Wales but who snub Scotland.
Alan Brown
It is illogical not to progress the Scottish cluster at this stage. The shipping and infrastructure proposals for Peterhead port, for example, were intended to facilitate the importing of carbon dioxide from outside Scotland, so the Scottish cluster can actually help other areas of the UK to decarbonise. Will the Minister advise why that aspect alone did not ensure that the Scottish cluster was given priority status?
Is the Minister aware that the Scottish cluster also includes Project Cavendish, which allows for hydrogen production in the south-east of England, not far from London? That London connection should be enough to make this UK Government think again on that decision. It is obvious, looking at what the Scottish cluster will achieve, that it should be given support now. Scotland has a world-leading target of net zero by 2020 and of cutting cut emissions by 75% by 2030. That interim target is now at risk because of the UK Government’s decision.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Scottish cluster will, if progressed, do the following. It will capture 25 megatonnes of carbon dioxide by 2030. It will tackle Scotland’s biggest two carbon dioxide emitters—Ineos at Grangemouth and the Peterhead gas station. And it will facilitate the production of blue hydrogen, as part of the clear pathway to green hydrogen. The UK Government talk glibly of leading the world on hydrogen, but they are quickly falling behind. If given the go-ahead, the Scottish cluster could deliver 1.3GW of hydrogen by 2030, which is more than a quarter of the UK and Scottish Governments’ 5GW production target.
The Scottish cluster also incorporates Storegga’s direct air capture proposals—technology that the UK could lead the world on and use as an effective offsetting methodology. The Scottish cluster also unlocks—again, on its own—30% of the UK’s carbon dioxide storage resource. That statistic should be sufficient for the cluster to be a No. 1 priority. Of course, it also best placed because it utilises existing oil and gas infrastructure. It could create more than 20,000 jobs by 2030—jobs that will facilitate a just transition and utilise the expertise built up in the north-east of Scotland.
When those factors are considered, it is obvious that the UK Government should be prioritising and backing the Scottish cluster now. Can the Minister explain if the decision was made solely by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and if so, why is it not proceeding as a track 1 project? Or is this like the 2015 decision, when the Treasury intervened and pulled the plug in Peterhead? Bizarrely, yesterday, the Minister kept bragging about having visited Aberdeen last week and being well received. Has he spoken to industry following yesterday’s decision, and if so, what was their feedback, and did he apologise to them for not progressing Acorn?
As we have heard, the Committee on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency both state that carbon capture, utilisation and storage is practical for achieving net zero. The Committee on Climate Change says that progress in the UK will help lead the way elsewhere. That is why multiple projects need to be progressed in the here and now. It is the only way the Government can get on track for net zero and decarbonisation in the electricity system by 2035.
On net zero, the Minister needs to listen to the calls for a ring-fenced pot of money for the contracts for difference auction round 4 for wave and tidal to allow this industry to scale up and continue leading the world. I conclude by saying that the Scottish north-east Tories should hang their heads in shame at the Scottish cluster being overlooked. The Minister should apologise. I look forward to him hopefully admitting that he will reverse the decision and progress the Scottish cluster as a priority.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) on securing this debate and the exemplary way he put forward the case for carbon capture and storage—a case that has many other articulate exponents on both sides of the Chamber as well as him. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) particularly comes to mind. He has championed the cluster, CCS and all that goes with it over many years, and he is, I think, substantially responsible for the moves forward in CCS.
We do not need to spend much time clarifying among ourselves that the case for CCS is overwhelming. We are, after all, moving to a net-zero target. In this context “net” is a very important word. To achieve the net-zero target, we have to concentrate on not only keeping minerals and energy and such in the ground, but putting stuff back into the ground, and we have to think of methods of doing that, because there will be a carbon overhang in 2040, 2050 or whenever. The methods of doing that include growing trees and direct air capture, which has been mentioned, though that has to go in the ground as well. Other methods are CCS and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, which involves attaching CCS to an already relatively low-carbon method of producing power, thereby making it net carbon-negative.
CCS is important across all these fields and the industry as a whole. It is not just a question of the power sector. Most heavy and energy-intensive industries will need CCS if they are to have lower-carbon processes; they have processes besides power production that produce a lot of carbon. It is important across the board. I was indeed pleased to hear in the statement yesterday that the north-east cluster and HyNet had secured strong backing for going ahead with precisely that combination of activity—with providing CCS for industry, or with providing the proper transport for CCS and then sequestration. It is important to recognise that there are a number of different components to CCS.
As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, this is not an experimental technique that we need to do a lot more work on. We know how it works. We know what we have to do and where we have to put CO2. The North sea, for example, has capacity to take 78 billion tonnes of CO2—200 years’ worth of the country’s CO2 emissions. We know where it is going. As I have said, I have seen a full-chain CCS plant in operation at Boundary Dam in Saskatchewan, Canada. It captures the emissions it transports and sequesters them. What it does with the sequestered CO2 is a matter for another debate. The system works really well and is complete. We should be aiming to get whole systems working together in those industrial clusters in the north-east and the north-west, so that everything works well for the benefit of industry, hydrogen production and low-carbon heavy industrial activities.
It is perverse that the Acorn Project has been designated as first reserve—whatever that means—in this process. I do not understand how a first reserve is meant to come in if the first two clusters do not work very well, or change their minds and decide that they do not want to do it. It is clear to me that we need to go with three, and that the Acorn Project should be one of them.
I want to emphasise that we are no longer in the chamber of discussion on CCS. We are in the chamber of action, and we need to apply that to as many things as possible, as soon as possible, in this country. In that context, I want to ask the Minister very briefly—
Dr Whitehead
Very briefly indeed, Mrs Miller. What is the status of the various support measures that will be introduced for CCS? I have perused carefully the various updates on the design of the CCS infrastructure fund and the business models, but it seems to me that there is no clear line on the exact support to be offered to the different CCS sectors that I have talked about. There may be a contract for difference, for example, for heavy industry. That will need to be led by a 10-year plan, with a levy control framework or similar, but that is not in place.
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
We need to move on to the Minister’s comments now.
Dr Whitehead
There is no CfD in place, either. How is that coming on, and will the Minister guarantee that the arrangements will be in place as soon as possible so that we can roll out CCS as quickly as possible?
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Hands)
Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) on securing this important debate, and I thank all Members who have spoken.
We have already made huge progress in this country on decarbonising the electricity sector. In 2019, greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation were down 13% on 2018 levels and were 72% lower than 1990 levels. Earlier this month, the plan to decarbonise the UK’s electricity system in its entirety by 2035 was confirmed by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, to help boost the country’s efforts to achieve its net zero ambitions.
Carbon capture, usage and storage has a key role to play in decarbonising the electricity system, but its role in supporting our ambitions to reach net zero by 2050 goes further than that. The industrial decarbonisation strategy, which we have already launched, marks the beginning of a process that will see wide deployment of key abatement technologies across industry. CCUS is, obviously, one of those key abatement technologies. It will be vital as we make this transition—something that is already acknowledged in our world-leading North sea transition deal, signed earlier this year.
The Climate Change Committee has described CCUS as a necessity, not an option, for the transition to net zero. We agree, and that is why in the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution we set out to establish CCUS in at least two industrial sites by the mid-2020s and a further two by 2030 at the latest. CCUS is vital to transforming sectors such as steel—as was ably demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates)—cement, chemicals and other energy-intensive industries that lack viable alternatives to achieve decarbonisation. This summer we published the UK’s first ever hydrogen strategy, and we are moving forward quickly.
The net zero strategy, which was published yesterday, confirmed that the Government will set up a new revenue mechanism called the industrial decarbonisation and hydrogen revenue support scheme to fund industrial carbon capture and hydrogen projects, and to provide long-term certainty for private sector investment. The scheme will initially commit to awarding up to £100 million of contracts in 2023, and we will announce a funding envelope in 2022 that will enable us to award the first contracts to CCUS-enabled hydrogen. That was one of the key questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. It will provide the certainty required to deploy CCUS at pace and at scale and will form part of a package of Government support, which will include the industrial decarbonisation and hydrogen revenue support fund and the £240 million net zero hydrogen fund.
To deliver our ambitions, we launched the phase 1 CCUS cluster sequencing process in May this year. Its aim was to provisionally sequence those clusters that are most suited to deployment in the mid-2020s. As we announced yesterday, following the phase 1 assessment, we have identified HyNet and the east coast cluster as track 1 clusters for the mid-2020s, with the Scottish Acorn cluster as a reserve cluster—I will explain what that means in a moment. This puts those places—Teesside, the Humber, Merseyside, north Wales and the north-east of Scotland—among the potential early super-places that will be transformed over the next decade. The track 1 clusters will be taken forward into negotiations, as the start of a process to determine their support under the Government’s CCUS programme. Those negotiations will allow us to confirm whether the clusters are affordable for Government, as well as whether they represent value for money for both the energy consumer and the taxpayer, prior to making final funding decisions.
For the Acorn Project—the Scottish cluster—we will continue our engagement to ensure that it can continue its development and planning. This means that if the Government choose to discontinue engagement with a cluster in track 1, we will engage with this reserve cluster instead. That decision was made following a transparent, objective and expert-led assessment process.
David Duguid
I repeat my thanks to the Minister for his commitment yesterday to meet with me later this week to discuss the evaluation criteria in more detail, particularly as they refer to the Acorn Project. As he referred to earlier, the Prime Minister said in his written statement yesterday that
“The UK Prime Minister’s 10 Point Plan established a commitment to deploy CCUS in a minimum of two industrial clusters by the mid-2020s, and four by 2030 at the latest.”
The Scottish cluster is a reserve cluster that met the eligibility criteria and, we are told, performed well against the evaluation criteria. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister confirm that that status puts the Scottish cluster in a prime position to benefit from any acceleration of the programme that might be considered?
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We have been absolutely clear that the Acorn Scottish cluster is a reserve cluster, and we also have the existing commitment to have four clusters by the year 2030. Being a reserve in track 1 in no way prejudices a cluster’s position in track 2—in fact, it rather enhances it—so I will leave my hon. Friend to draw a conclusion from what I am saying without prejudicing proper process. I think that cluster is well placed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Greg Hands
I will deal with the points raised by the hon. Members for the Scottish National party before taking further interventions. As I say, this was a transparent process. We looked at the five criteria: deliverability, emissions reduction potential, economic benefits, cost considerations, and learning and innovation. Scoring was informed by robust, expert-led scrutiny of the cluster submissions, and the clusters selected to be sequenced as track 1 were those with the highest combined weighted score across the criteria.
Turning to the points raised during the debate, I praise my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, first of all for his excellent introduction. I know he likes his history and his science, and he gave us a masterclass in both. He has been combining the two from the first time he took a call on this topic while on The Times news desk. He is right about the potential for the UK to be a CCUS superpower, given the UK’s geology, geography and economy, and the interaction between those three things. I also thank him for praising this Government for being more committed than any other.
We had a collection of fantastic contributions from Teesside to South Yorkshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) praised the proposal and the role of the private sector. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer); my very first ministerial visit in this new job was to Hartlepool. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, who I have already mentioned.
The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) has been full of praise for the Government decision. He is right that Teesside is delighted. Other Members have referred to Ben Houchen, the Teesside Mayor, who said:
“This project would create thousands of jobs and put Teesside at the forefront of the new green industrial revolution.”
May I correct the hon. Gentleman on one thing, though? It is popular in UK politics to kick George Osborne, but I have to correct the hon. Gentleman, who said that Claire Perry’s proposal was thwarted by George Osborne. I checked back, and Claire Perry became Energy Minister on 12 June 2017, a full year after George Osborne ceased to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Greg Hands
I will not. It was also four days after George Osborne left the House of Commons.
Greg Hands
I can check back, and I can check with George, but I think the hon. Gentleman’s dates are not correct.
On the points raised by the Scottish National party Members, there was quite a bit of heat about this yesterday, and I really dislike the implication that the UK is making a political decision to favour one place in this country as compared with any other. This has been a transparent process, and we set out the criteria. They called it an arbitrary decision, and it definitely was not. We have been full of praise for the Acorn Project and we remain absolutely committed to track 2. The commitment is to two such projects by the mid-2020s and four by 2030.
Finally, the Carbon Capture and Storage Association called yesterday’s announcement “amazing news”.
Anthony Browne
I thank the Minister for his clarification on various points, particularly on my key question about the future funding envelope, which he said would be announced next year. I very much look forward to that announcement.
I am blushing slightly, because everyone sung the praises not only of my introduction but of carbon capture and storage. Almost everyone, with one slight exception, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse)—
Anthony Browne
Basically, there is cross-party agreement that we need to move ahead with carbon capture and storage and the Government are doing a good job on that. This is one area where the House can come together and promote this whole agenda.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered carbon capture and storage.
Written Statements
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Covid-19 Update
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
The Prime Minister’s announcement of the formation of the antivirals taskforce in April 2021 brought new impetus to the search for potential antiviral treatments for UK covid-19 patients.
Effective treatments for covid-19 will be vital to manage the risk of infection, as we learn to live with the virus. Covid-19 treatments are especially important for people who cannot take a vaccine for medical reasons or for whom vaccines may be less effective, such as those who are immunocompromised.
Antivirals may help reduce the development of severe covid-19 and its transmission by targeting the virus at an early stage, preventing progression to more severe disease by blocking virus replication.
The antivirals taskforce, under the leadership of Eddie Gray, has worked at speed to identify and evaluate potential antiviral candidates that meet the criteria set out by the Prime Minister: oral antivirals which can be taken at home following a positive covid-19 test and are available for deployment this autumn and winter.
Commercial negotiations have concluded for the first antiviral candidates, with two supply agreements now signed to ensure that they are available for UK patients. We have secured 480,000 patient courses of Molnupiravir from Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD) along with 250,000 patient courses of PF-07321332 from Pfizer. Payment will only be made, and product delivered following UK market authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Molnupiravir and PF-07321332 are both oral antivirals which can be taken at home to target the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but with different mechanisms of action. Molnupiravir is a ribonucleoside analogue which inhibits viral RNA replication. PF-07321332 is a protease inhibitor which prevents virus replication by selectively binding to viral proteases preventing the cleavage of proteins which are necessary to produce infectious virus particles.
Should these antivirals receive appropriate MHRA approvals, the UK Government intention is to deploy these treatments to NHS patients via a national study which will allow us to collect further data on how these treatments work in vaccinated patients. The antivirals taskforce is working across the health and care system in the UK, including NHS England and NHS Improvement, UK Health Security Agency, and our partners in the devolved Administrations to plan the deployment of antiviral treatments as more data is available. Our deployment plans will prioritise the most clinically vulnerable to covid-19. The Department of Health and Social Care will publish a further update in due course.
[HCWS337]
Outcome of Referrals to UK Supreme Court under Section 33 of Scotland Act 1998
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
On 6 October 2021, the UK Supreme Court handed down their judgment on the UK Law Officers’ (the Advocate General for Scotland and the Attorney General) referral of two Scottish Government Bills, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill (“the UNCRC Bill”) and the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill (“the ECLSG Bill”).
The UK Supreme Court found that all UNCRC and ECLSG provisions referenced would be outside legislative competence on the basis that they modified section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998. It also found that section 6 of the UNCRC Bill, the duty on public authorities to comply with the UNCRC, related to reserved matters and modified the law in relation to reserved matters, and in that context gave some guidance on the limits of section 101(2) of the Scotland Act 1998. The Court found that section 6 could not be interpreted narrowly to bring it within competence. The full judgments are available here:
Reference by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland - United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2021-0079.html
Reference by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland - European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2021-0080.html
The UK Law Officers made the referrals under section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 on 12 April 2021. In advance of that, the Secretary of State for Scotland had written to the Scottish Government to highlight the UK Government concerns and suggest remedies. The UK Supreme Court heard submissions from both Governments on 28 and 29 June 2021. The full written cases for all parties, including UK Law Officers, is available here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supreme-court-case-no-20210079-and-20210080-written-submission.
It is for the Scottish Government to consider next steps with the Scottish Parliament. As with any legislation the Scottish Government seek to bring forward, the UK Government stand ready to engage constructively with the Scottish Government to ensure relevant issues that may arise are addressed at the earliest possible stage.
The UK Government remain committed to protecting children’s rights, and the legal protection for vulnerable children in England is frequently recognised as being amongst the strongest in the world. The UK Government’s commitment to the UNCRC is reflected in legislation. The Children Act 1989 and Children Act 2004, for example, set out a range of duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Furthermore, in 2014 the Council of Europe reported that local government in the UK in general complies with the obligations under the European Charter of Local Self Government, and the UK Government remain committed to fulfilling the charter obligations.
[HCWS336]
HS2 6 Monthly Report to Parliament
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
Review of High Speed 2 (HS2) including programme update, local community impact and engagement, environment and benefits. Phase Target cost Total estimate costs range 1 Historic and Forecast Expenditure Phase Spend to date 1 2021-2022 budget 2 2021-2022 forecast 2 Variance One £40.3 billion £35 to £45 billion 2a Not set yet £5 to £7 billion 2 2b Not set yet To be determined 3 One £13.9 billion £4.7 billion £4.8 billion £0.1 billion 2a £0.5 billion £0.3 billion £0.3 billion £0.0 billion 2b £1.1 billion £0.3 billion £0.3 billion £0.0 billion Total £15.5 billion £5.3 billion £5.4 billion £0.1 billion3 1.Rounded to nearest billion. 2. Arrangements will be formalised at the next Spending Review. 3. In the last six-month report, the Government explained that the cost range of £32-46 billion would be subject to update. The Government expect to set out more fully the costs of Phase 2b in the IRP and when it brings forward a hybrid Bill for the Western Leg of Phase 2b. 1. Total spend to date in actual prices is £15.3 billion. In my first update to Parliament in October2020, spend to date for the whole programme was reported at £11 billion; this figure represents actual prices. In 2019 prices spend to date at the time was £11.3 billion. Spend to date stated above for Phase One includes a £1 billion liability (provision) representing the DfT’s obligation to purchase land and property. 2. Figures provided include land and property expenditure. 3. The total variance of £0.1 billion is due primarily to estimated in-year additional covid related costs. Parliamentary Report October 2020 March 2021 October 2021 Total HS2 Ltd contingency drawdown and % used £0.2 billion (4%) £0.4 billion (7%) £0.8 billion (14%) Total HS2 Ltd contingency remaining £5.4 billion (96%) £5.2 billion (93%) £4.8 billion (86%) Parliamentary Report October 2020 March 2021 October 2021 Total Government-retained contingency drawdown and % used £0 billion (0%) £0 billion (0%) £0 billion (o%) 1 Total Government-retained contingency remaining £4.3 billion (100%) £4.3 billion (100%) £4.3 billion (100%) 1. £0.015 billion has been allocated to enable Old Oak Common to increase the number of trains it runs from three to six trains per hour but has not yet been drawdown from Government-retained contingency.
I am proud to report significant progress on High Speed 2 (HS2) in my third update to Parliament on the project. We remain within budget and schedule, have hit major construction milestones, made substantial progress with key procurements, and are crucially supporting more jobs than ever before—all demonstrating just how HS2 is central to this Government’s mission to ‘Build Back Better’ from the covid-19 pandemic.
Key achievements in this reporting period are—February to August 2021 inclusive:
Recent announcement that the project now supports 20,000 jobs, just over a year since the Prime Minister marked the start of main construction. To date, over 2,200 businesses, 97% of which are UK-registered, have delivered work on HS2.
Launching the first tunnel boring machines (TBMs) that are digging the 10-mile-long tunnels underneath the Chilterns hills. The two TBMs have driven a combined distance of approximately 1.5 miles and are progressing ahead of schedule. Construction on the new ‘superhub’ HS2 station at Old Oak Common—supporting 2,300 jobs and 250 apprenticeships—has also started.
At Euston, we’ve confirmed the move to a less complex, more efficient 10-platform design, which can be built in a single-stage, and can still support the full operation of the HS2 network.
Releasing tenders for Phase One and 2a rail systems packages, with 14 rail systems packages available over the next two years—which include systems for track, power, signalling and communications.
On Phase 2a, commencing early environmental works which marked the first stage in extending the railway from the West Midlands to Crewe and starting procurement for a Design and Delivery Partner (DDP).
Announcing the Government’s commitment to deliver a ‘net gain’ in biodiversity for the next Phase of HS2—Crewe to Manchester.
This report uses data provided by HS2 Ltd to the HS2 Ministerial Task Force for phases 1 and 2a, and covers the period between February 2021 and August 2021 inclusive. Recommendations from the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report of 22nd September 2021 have been considered and I will provide an update on the continued implementation of these recommendations in my next report.
Programme update
Schedule
In my last report, I confirmed that phase 1 remained within its projected delivery into service (DiS) range of 2029 to 2033. I also committed to providing an update on the outcome of a schedule re-planning exercise to mitigate the impact of delays that have arisen since the schedule was set at the start of last year—of which some are covid-19 related.
This exercise was undertaken by HS2 Ltd and its suppliers, and the exercise has now concluded. Construction activities have been successfully re-sequenced to deliver a schedule that reflects an increasingly mature understanding of the years of works ahead. The resequencing helps resolve a large number of previously reported schedule pressures, while still retaining the phase 1 DiS range of 2029 to 2033. The cost of these mitigations has been assessed at £110 million and will be covered by contingency delegated to HS2 Ltd.
While the forecast DiS range for phase 1 remains 2029 to 2033, HS2 Ltd has identified some potential minor delays in the southern section of the line of route and tunnels leading into Old Oak Common from outer London. Our focus now is to identify efficiencies and control risk in these key areas. The most notable risks include:
Residual delays in completing enabling works and handover to Main Works in certain locations.
Slower than planned design progress and securing planning consents by the Main Works Civils Contractors that are limiting productivity of the supply chain.
The consequential impacts of covid-19, which has continued to cause disruption within this reporting period.
Following Royal Assent of the phase 2a High Speed Rail Bill, the phase 2a DiS range has now been set to 2030 to 2034. New delivery arrangements have been approved, including a DDP that will act as a strategic partner for HS2 Ltd to provide support in managing design and construction.
Affordability
HS2 remains within budget. The overall budget for Phase One, including Euston, remains £44.6 billion. This is composed of the target cost of £40.3 billion and additional Government-retained contingency of £4.3 billion. The target cost includes contingency delegated to HS2 Ltd of £5.6 billion for managing risk and uncertainties.
On phase 2a, revised delivery arrangements were approved in June based on an updated cost range of £5.2 billion to £7.2 billion, broadly similar to the National Audit Office’s (NAO’s) report of January 2020. Arrangements will be formalised in the spending review.
To date, out of the phase 1 target cost of £40.3 billion, £12.9 billion has been spent, with an additional £1 billion for land and property provisions. £12.4 billion has additionally been contracted, with the remaining amount not yet under contract or drawn as contingency.
Since my last report, the first £15 million of the £4.3 billion of Government-retained contingency for phase 1 has been allocated, to increase the number of trains that Old Oak Common station can serve from three to six trains per hour while it acts as the temporary London terminus. This will unlock substantial economic benefits until the completion of the new HS2 station at Euston.
To date, HS2 Ltd has drawn about £0.8 billion of its £5.6 billion delegated contingency. Contingency use to-date reflects an increase of about £0.4 billion since my last report to Parliament. The rate of contingency draw is expected at this stage given the nature of current enabling and civils works and the scale and complexity of the programme.
HS2 Ltd is currently reporting future potential cost pressures of around £1.3 billion—compared with my previous update of about £0.8 billion. If these cost pressures materialise, they will be drawn from contingency held by HS2 Ltd, of which £4.8 billion remains. Of the £1.3 billion potential contingency drawdown, the key cost pressures currently being reported which may require a call on contingency delegated to HS2 Ltd if not mitigated are:
An estimate of £0.6 billion for the slower than expected mobilisation of Main Works Civils Contractors for phase 1, associated with delays to enabling works handovers, design approvals and securing of planning consents. This estimate is, in part, informed by the schedule re-planning exercise.
A £0.4 billion pressure on Euston cost estimates—which remains unchanged from my last update to Parliament. However, now that the move to a smaller, less complex 10-platform single stage delivery strategy at Euston has been confirmed—which will still support the full operation of the HS2 network, the Department for Transport (DfT) anticipates that cost pressures at Euston will be reduced as the updated station design is developed over the coming months.
A further £0.15 billion pressure has been reported for delivering on-network works on the existing Euston network that are required to facilitate the new HS2 station.
HS2 Ltd has identified over £0.3 billion in savings and continues to focus on realising further efficiencies and opportunities to reduce the cost of phase 1.
On covid-19 costs—which will be managed from within Government-retained contingency—HS2 Ltd is making good progress with its suppliers to quantify the impacts on individual contracts ahead of submitting claims to request drawdown of Government-retained contingency. Since my last report, HS2 Ltd has updated its assessment of the likely financial impact of the pandemic on delivering phase 1 and estimates the full costs within the range of £0.4 billion to £0.7 billion—this has been authorised by DfT. The assessment was based on the extended duration of restricted working practices anticipated to run to a revised end-point assumption of December 2021.
DfT and HS2 Ltd have agreed in principle a set of initial claims that include direct and measurable costs of restrictions that relate to the initial phases of covid-19 in 2020. These will now be subject to Government scrutiny and will require formal approval before funds from Government-retained contingency can be allocated.
Delivery
On phase 1, work is well under way at our 340 sites between London and the west midlands and construction of the line-of-route continues to gather pace. Health and safety remains a top priority for the project as work continues to ramp-up. With over 4 million hours worked across the programme per month, there has been an increase in the number of safety related incidents. HS2 Ltd is focused on continual improvement with its supply chain including through embedding lessons learned and cross-functional learning between integrated project teams comprising of HS2 Ltd staff and its contractors.
The launch of the first 2 TBMs—Florence and Cecilia—marked a significant moment for the project. The TBMs are the largest ever used on a UK rail project and will excavate tunnels underneath the Chilterns for the next three years. Further TBM launches are planned in the coming months, including excavation under Long Itchington Wood.
Elsewhere, good progress has been made on the four new HS2 stations along phase 1. In June, the Transport Secretary visited Old Oak Common to mark the start of permanent construction. This ‘super-hub’ station truly shows the Government’s “Plan for Jobs” in action—kickstarting major regeneration, supporting 2,300 jobs and 250 apprenticeships in construction.
In the west midlands, a design and build contract for Birmingham Curzon Street station was awarded to HS2 Ltd’s new construction partner on time. HS2 Ltd has also recently announced the shortlist of bidders for the contract to build the award-winning Interchange Station in Solihull, and contract award is planned for summer 2022.
In response to a recommendation from the Oakervee Review about looking into the efficiency of the Euston station, the move to a smaller, simpler 10-platform station design at Euston has now been confirmed, which can be built in a single-stage—instead of an 11-platform, two-stage build. This will provide a more efficient design and delivery strategy and play a significant role in mitigating the affordability pressures recently identified. Moving to this revised HS2 Euston station design maintains the station infrastructure capacity to run 17 trains per hour, as set out in the phase 1 full business case. We are continuing to explore opportunities for greater integration between the HS2 and Network Rail stations through the Euston Partnership, and to optimise the oversite development above the Euston terminus. Further details will be provided in my next update.
We have reached a major milestone on the procurement of rail systems. HS2 Ltd has started to release tenders for phase 1 and 2a rail systems packages for systems such as track, catenary, power, control and communications. This will continue over the next two years.
There have been various legal challenges to the rolling stock process, but we expect the contract award to be in the autumn subject to there being no further challenges. It is not expected that this delay will affect the planned opening of phase 1 services.
Following Royal Assent of the Phase 2a High Speed Rail Bill, we have continued to deliver the enabling works contracts, consisting of ground investigations, utility diversions and environmental works. Early environmental works mobilisation commenced in April and the second enabling civil works package in July. The procurement of the DDP and advanced civil works contract (ACW) started in June; the tenders for ACW have now been released; and the publication of the DDP tenders is due to happen shortly.
On phase 2b, preparations are under way for a hybrid Bill for the western leg—between Crewe and Manchester —to be deposited in Parliament in early 2022.
We will soon publish the integrated rail plan (IRP) for the North and Midlands which will set out how we will deliver and sequence HS2 phase 2b, Northern Powerhouse Rail and other major rail schemes, such as Midlands Rail Hub, to ensure transformational rail improvements and benefits are delivered to passengers, businesses and communities more quickly.
Local community impact and engagement
As HS2 Minister, I expect affected communities to be at the heart of our plans for this project. That is why I previously committed to follow-up on the conclusions of the Land and Property Review published in November 2020.
The Land and Property Review generated a number of proposals intended to transform how people and businesses affected by HS2 are treated. I am delighted that DfT and HS2 Ltd have implemented over half of these proposals, double the number implemented at the time of my last report. This spring, I went a step further and launched a six-week public consultation to seek views on proposals that required further engagement—how to improve community engagement on the land and property buying programmes, and how to protect the interests of those affected. Findings from the consultation, which will be published this autumn, will inform policy changes.
A priority since my last report has been to ensure that the Transport Secretary secures all the land needed to build the first phase of HS2 before compulsory purchase powers expire in February 2022. HS2 Ltd remains on target to complete the process of serving compulsory purchase notices on landowners where property is to be permanently acquired before the end of compulsory purchase powers. Affected property owners are being notified. We recognise that compulsory purchase has an impact on property owners, some of whom will see land that was previously taken into temporary possession now permanently acquired, and HS2 Ltd is talking to land owners to explain why this is necessary.
Over £10 million of funding has now been distributed by the HS2 Business, Community and Environment Funds. This milestone means over a quarter of the Phase One funds have now been allocated, delivering community benefits across 172 projects located near the line of route. Since April this year, a further £5 million has been made available to extend the funds to communities and businesses living on the Phase 2a route. These funds play a crucial role in ensuring a positive legacy for communities most affected by HS2 construction and I look forward to many more projects up and down the line being supported.
In terms of community impacts, DfT’s independent team of construction inspectors now act on my behalf to objectively assess community concerns. The inspectors have now visited many sites along the Phase One route, identifying a range of good practice and innovation, as well as some risks—notably difficulties with acquiring planning consents and delays caused by illegal protestors. A refreshed HS2 Community Engagement Strategy will also be launched soon.
With regard to protester activity, which HS2 Ltd estimates has cost the project up to £80 million, the Government are making sure that HS2 Ltd, its supply chain, emergency services and wider Government have a co-ordinated response to illegal protest. Regrettably, some protesters have turned to violent and aggressive behaviour, particularly against HS2 Ltd’s supply chain. The Government are taking steps to ensure that illegal protestor activity is properly dealt with and that safety risks are minimised.
Environment
As we look to the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26), I wanted to reiterate the Government’s ambition of building the most sustainable high-speed railway in the world, so we play our part in helping the UK to tackle climate change and reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
I am delighted to confirm that HS2 Ltd will shortly publish its first environmental sustainability report, which will provide a clear and up-to-date account of HS2’s environmental impacts and the important work that is being deployed to mitigate for any adverse effects.
Further to this Government’s previous commitment to deliver ‘no net loss’ to biodiversity across all phases, I am pleased the Government confirmed in June their further commitment to aim to deliver a ‘net gain’ to biodiversity for the next phase of HS2, the Crewe to Manchester scheme. This commitment will build on the significant environmental legacy of earlier Phases, such as the new nature reserve on the Colne Valley Western Slopes, which recently received local planning approval.
I also recently launched the new £2 million Biodiversity Investment Fund (BIF) on phase 2a to identify opportunities to work with local stakeholders to produce biodiversity gains through the creation and restoration of ecological habits along the phase 2a route.
Good progress is also being made on delivering our decarbonisation agenda. The Government published their Transport Decarbonisation Plan, which outlines the policies required to enable the sector to meet its net zero emissions target by 2050. HS2 will be an integral part in delivering the UK’s future net zero rail network.
Benefits
Since my appointment as HS2 Minister, I have been totally committed to ensuring the benefits of HS2 are realised as widely as possible. In August I welcomed the announcement that, at its peak, HS2 will support 34,000 jobs, 4,000 more than forecast in my last update. The jobs boost comes at a crucial time as the UK strives to “Build Back Better” from the pandemic. HS2 is already playing a crucial role in the UK’s post-pandemic economic recovery, with over 20,000 jobs currently supported. In addition, over 2,200 businesses have delivered work on HS2, with 97% UK registered.
HS2 Ltd has a clear benefits management and evaluation strategy that drives how the programme’s benefits for each phase flow through to the HS2 supply chain. The DfT continues to work closely with HS2 Ltd, local Government and central Government Departments to maximise the benefits of HS2 for people, communities and businesses. The DfT and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities are continuing to engage with HS2 station places, to understand their local growth and regeneration ambitions, and how we can work with them to realise those ambitions.
The publication of HS2 Ltd’s ‘Building Skills to Deliver’ report demonstrates the potential opportunities HS2 has to offer as we level up our country. The report highlights the critical role that HS2 is playing in supporting young people and unemployed people back into work after the pandemic. It notes that the total workforce for phase 1 and 2a is expected to peak at around 26,500 people over the next two years and that there will be a constant labour demand of 23,600 to 26,500 people from now until 2025-26. The report also reaffirms that the HS2 programme will create 2,000 apprenticeships, with over 650 having been started since 2017. HS2 Ltd is also committed to promoting opportunities to local people as well as those from underrepresented and disadvantaged groups.
Forward Look
On phase 1, focus remains on overseeing the massive construction programme and I expect progress on closure of remaining early works, with handover of sites by summer 2022. I expect to see HS2 Ltd award the contract for rolling stock, and for HS2 Ltd to complete the process of serving compulsory purchase notices on landowners where properties are to be permanently acquired.
On phase 2a, focus remains on selecting a DDP and to launch procurement for the main civil works framework which is expected to commence in early 2022.
On phase 2b, work on legislation for the Crewe to Manchester scheme continues, with the view to depositing a hybrid Bill in early 2022.
On wider programme governance, I would like to thank Allan Cook CBE who left HS2 Ltd in July after two and an half years as Chairman. A search is underway to find a new Chair and I will provide an update on this in my next report. I am also currently working to complete an updated HS2 Framework Document and Development Agreement to ensure continued effective governance between DfT and HS2 Ltd.
I will continue to engage closely with Parliament and will provide my next report in spring 2022.
Annex A: Six-Monthly Financial Report
All figures in this report are presented in 2019 prices unless stated otherwise.
[HCWS335]
Grand Committee
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others and to wear a face covering when not speaking. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Ageing: Science, Technology and Healthy Living (Science and Technology Committee Report)
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Science and Technology Committee Ageing: Science, Technology and Healthy Living (1st Report, Session 2019-21, HL Paper 183).
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to open this important debate on the Science and Technology Committee report Ageing: Science, Technology and Healthy Living. I thank the Minister for making time to respond to the debate. I am hoping that, being new in the post, he might have a more positive response to the conclusion of the report than the one we got from the Government.
It is a compliment to the committee and its report that so many notable noble Lords are taking part in the debate. I thank them all and look forward to their contributions. I sincerely thank all the committee members. I could not ask for a more committed, passionate, understanding, gentle, malleable and only occasionally challenging committee—or maybe not. I thank them all for their hard work and tolerance.
The committee was fortunate to have talented, hard-working committee staff: our clerk, Dr Simon Cran-McGreehin, policy analyst Dr Amy Creese, and committee operations officer Cerise Burnett-Stuart. I thank them for their hard work in running the committee and producing the report. The committee was well advised and supported by our specialist adviser, Professor Janet Lord, professor of immune cell biology and director of the Institute of Inflammation and Ageing at the University of Birmingham. On behalf of the committee, I thank her for all the help and advice she gave us.
We started our inquiry in July 2019 but had to delay concluding evidence sessions and publication because of the pandemic. It has already become clear that those who are old, who suffer from multiple comorbidities and who are socially deprived will pay the highest penalty as a result of Covid-19, compared to the young and healthy.
The background to our inquiry was a government publication in November 2017 naming an “Ageing Society”, as one of four “Grand Challenges” of the industrial strategy. It committed to
“harness the power of innovation to help meet the needs of an ageing society.”
In 2018, the Government announced that the mission of the ageing society grand challenge was to:
“Ensure that people can enjoy at least 5 extra healthy, independent years of life by 2035, while narrowing the gap between the experience of the richest and poorest.”
The aim of our inquiry was to understand to what extent developments in science and technology related to ageing will be important to reaching the goal of the Government’s grand challenge of an ageing society.
We also considered how current public health policies and co-ordination of healthcare for older people may contribute to years spent in poor health. Demographic projections suggest that, by 2035, 7% of people—some 5 million of the population—will be aged over 80. Life expectancy continues to rise, but the rate of rise is slowing. There is a strong link between deprivation and life expectancy. Males in the least deprived areas live nine and a half years longer than those in the most deprived areas. For females, the gap is 7.7 years. A more important measure than life expectancy is healthy life expectancy. The average age of healthy life expectancy in England is 63 years, with males spending a further 16 years—20% of their lifespan—and females 19.4 years, which is 23.3% of their lifespan, in poor health.
Inequalities in healthy life expectancy are even starker than those for life expectancy. The difference of 18.3 years in healthy life expectancy between the least deprived and most deprived is striking, with 70.6 and 52.3 years of healthy life respectively. Prioritising reducing health inequalities will have huge gains for health and for the economy.
Data from deaths from 2003 to 2018 show that that one-third of the deaths in England are attributable to social inequality. The King’s Fund report of September 2021 says that the Government have
“failed to make significant progress in reducing inequalities”.
While there is clear understanding of the lifestyle and environmental factors throughout life that correlate with good health, interventions in public health do not seem to be effective. Public health interventions need to find ways to motivate and to facilitate change to a healthier lifestyle, particularly for those living in deprivation and suffering the worst health. A child in year 6 from one of the most deprived areas is twice as likely to be obese compared to a child from a well-off area.
Ageing is a major risk factor for a wide range of diseases. Older people often have more than one health problem, often referred to as multimorbidity. Some 14 million people in England have two or more health conditions and 4.7 million have more than four health conditions. The health system currently fails these people for lack of co-ordination of care, with polypharmacy and overprescribing adding to their misery and making them sicker. The report indicated ways of reducing overprescribing, particularly in older patents with multi- morbidity.
I am pleased to see that the report on overprescribing from the Chief Pharmaceutical Officer confirms our views, with one in five admissions to hospital of the over-65s and 6.5% of all hospital admissions related to overprescribing. The Government did not accept our recommendations to help reduce the problem. When will the Government publish their response to the Chief Pharmaceutical Officer’s report and the implementation plan?
From a biological perspective, ageing is the result of an accumulation of a wide variety of molecular and cellular damage over time that leads to decreased physical and cognitive function, increasing the risk of illness and death. A recent animal study suggests that an ageing immune system may play a critical role in diseases related to age. The timing of these changes is not fixed, hence a person’s biological and chronological age can be out of step. Genetics, lifestyle and environmental factors may all have a role. Ways to measure how well a person is ageing will help science to develop understanding of the biological effects of ageing and how they can be modulated.
Understanding the biological pathways that lead to multisystem ageing will help us to discover new diagnostics and technology. Cellular senescence and deregulated nutrient sensing are two good examples of hallmarks of ageing. Understanding biological processes opens up the potential for developing new therapeutic interventions that could reduce or even reverse biological ageing and decrease the risk of developing disease. For example, targeting senescent cells which cause inflammatory changes in tissues leading to disease may allow us to develop senotherapeutics. Some repurposed drugs have already shown promise in mitigating age-related tissue damage.
Despite my enthusiasm for speaking more about the science related to ageing, there are several eloquent speakers taking part in today’s debate who have greater knowledge than I do and can—and I hope will—say more. The recent government report Life Sciences Vision identifies two key areas for research that relate to ageing. The first is improving translational capabilities in neurodegeneration and dementia. No doubt my noble friend Lady Greenfield may have more to say on that. The second is research into better understanding of ageing-related pathways. It is suggested that funding should come from partnership with industry. What plans do the Government have to implement those proposals? Our report recommended increased funding for ageing-related research and better co-ordination. I am pleased that UKRI has taken some recent initiatives in funding such research, but who will provide the necessary co-ordination, for which our report indicated a need?
I now come to the ageing society grand challenge and the mission of extending healthy life by five years by 2035. Our single conclusion in the report was that the Government are not on target to deliver on it, with lack of leadership and lack of a clear plan being major barriers. Different government departments had a role, but no one had responsibility for leadership or co-ordination. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Government are still committed to the ageing society grand challenge of extending healthy life expectancy by five years. If that is the case, who will lead on it? When will the Government publish a detailed plan with timelines to achieve it? Who will independently monitor progress and will Parliament be able to review progress on a regular basis?
Any plans to extend healthy life expectancy cannot succeed without also addressing inequalities in health outcomes. The Government had said that they would publish their response following the end of consultation on the prevention Green Paper to address health inequalities. When will they publish their response? The Government are to publish the levelling-up White Paper by the end of the year. Will the White Paper address the issues related to inequalities in health and the means of reducing them?
In conclusion, research to better understand the biology of ageing, developing technologies, diagnostics and treatment for age-related diseases and keeping people healthy longer are the themes that our report tried to address and to suggest possible solutions to. Although the Government’s initial response was disappointing, there are now some positive signs and promise of more, so I remain hopeful.
I end with a plea to the Minister. I know that he will have a long brief to read out in response to today’s debate. My plea to him is to leave some time to answer the questions raised by noble Lords today and not just read the brief. If he does that, he will make himself very popular. I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, when I first came to this House, the doorkeepers told me that this was the best elderly daycare centre in London and that it would give me another 10 years of life expectancy, so this is an apt report for your Lordships’ House. I join my former colleagues on the Science and Technology Committee in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his chairmanship of this important inquiry and echo his thanks to the staff, who supported us splendidly.
It is clear that improvements in healthy life expectancy have stalled. On average, about 20% of our lives is spent in poor health. The gap in life expectancy between the rich and the poor has widened even further.
I want to pursue three areas this afternoon. The first is to touch on technological support for older people to help to improve the quality of their lives. The second is to focus on the root causes of increases in years of ill health and disability—the root cause is indubitably poverty and deprivation—and to explore what the Government’s levelling-up agenda must do to tackle them. The third is the importance of integration of action across all policy areas nationally and locally and how the recent changes in responsibilities for prevention of ill health will work out.
I have some lasting impressions of the committee’s work. First, the foundations for healthy old age are laid down from our youth onwards. We need to focus on how people can be healthier throughout their entire life course and not try to put a sticking plaster on the situation once old age is reached. Secondly, there is a pronounced societal difference in healthy life expectancy, which is highly correlated with deprivation and ethnicity. The difference in healthy life expectation between the least and most deprived is nearly 20 years. Poverty and deprivation are the root cause of unhealthy ageing. That is totally unacceptable in a civilised society. However, perhaps my most abiding memory was that we convened a panel of elderly people to help our deliberations only to find that Select Committee members were generally older than the elderly people.
I will raise three issues directly with the Minister. The first is the role of technology in enabling healthier ageing. There are many technologies, such as digitally based products and services such as fall trackers, medication monitors and digital befrienders, and other newer technologies such as robots and digital surveillance programs, all of which could help to support older people, improve their quality of life and allow them to maintain a more independent existence. But provision is low and the poorer and more deprived simply do not get access to such help. That gradient will increase with new technologies becoming more and more available. That has to change. What plans does the Minister have to accelerate not only the pace of technological development but, more importantly, the uptake of those technologies?
Secondly and most importantly, let us not be in any doubt that the root causes of unhealthy ageing are deprivation, unemployment, poor education and housing, lack of opportunity and unhealthy diet and lifestyles, including smoking and alcohol. Tackling these root causes sounds just the thing for the Prime Minister’s levelling-up agenda. Sustained action is needed over a lengthy period, with co-ordinated efforts between national and local government.
Cutting the income of the poorest by removing the £20-a-week universal credit payment does not fit that bill, nor does a spending review and Budget in the next few weeks that has been trailed as the ultimate austerity measure by the Chancellor, who seems increasingly out of love with his boss’s objectives. We are facing another version of the TB-GBs—I will leave your Lordships to fill in whatever acronym you would like for the new Chancellor versus Prime Minister tension. We need not a focus politically on the red wall seats and town centre tart-ups but a sustained attack on inequality and lack of opportunity wherever it occurs.
It is only three years since the Government set themselves the target of five extra years of healthy life by 2035, but that target is already being airbrushed out. Its future is unclear from the Government’s response. Can the Minister confirm whether, in his view, the ageing society grand challenge will survive the proposed review that will be undertaken and whether the five extra years will still be a target? If the target has gone within three years of being established, how confident can the Minister be that the sustained approach required to tackle poverty and deprivation will not be as ephemeral? We no doubt await the White Paper on levelling up later this year, but it would be good to get a feel from the Minister now.
My third point is about the importance of integration of action to promote healthy living across all departments and many policy areas, such as work and education, transport and housing, air quality, local environment quality et cetera. Public Health England, which was responsible for co-ordination on prevention and health promotion, has gone and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities was launched only at the beginning of this month. I understand that there is to be a cross-government ministerial board on prevention to drive forward a co-ordinated government approach on the wider determinants of health. How often has this ministerial board met and what has it done so far?
The local effort is to be driven by local directors of public health. I will pay a small tribute to those incredibly important people. They are currently up to the neck in Covid and before the pandemic were definitely below the salt for esteem and resources in local authorities. Can the Minister tell the Committee in detail how the Government will ensure that local directors of public health will be given the position, authority and resources to do this co-ordination job across many policy areas on a local level?
We hear much about the pressure on the NHS these days. Much of that pressure is due to those substantial years of poor health that, on average, many people experience. The Government need to see the challenge of healthy ageing as an issue of economics and of health service sustainability, but above all as an issue of equity.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I joined the Science and Technology Select Committee just in time for the inquiry that led to this report, so was able to appreciate the consummate ease with which he chaired the complex scoping exercise and then of course the inquiry itself. I add my thanks to the clerks for their hard work and dedication. My remarks today will focus on the impact of the Covid pandemic on the fundamentals of the Government’s two-tier grand challenge strategy to, first, increase healthy independent living by five years by 2035 and, secondly, narrow the gap between the richest and the poorest.
Like all developed countries, the population of the UK is ageing. The report tells us that we will see a 51% increase in people aged over 80 to about 5 million from 2018 to 2035, and all the while the working-age population remains static. It was against that backdrop that in 2017 the Government named our ageing society as one of the four grand challenges in the now sadly abandoned industrial strategy. Between 1980 and 2018, life expectancy at birth rose to 79.3 years for males and 82.9 years for females. However, healthy life expectancy—the number of years for which a person is expected to live in good health without disability—has not improved at the same rate; it stands at 63.1 years for males and 63.6 years for females.
It will come as no surprise, given the heavy mortality rate due to Covid last year, that the ONS reports that, for the first time in four decades, life expectancy for men in the UK has fallen. Life expectancy for women remains unchanged. Are the Government assessing the impact that long Covid may have on healthy life expectancy? On the last page of their response to the report, the Government seem to imply that the ageing society grand challenge will no longer be identifiable as such in the more nebulous plan for growth, under the “build back better” soundbite that replaces the more solid industrial strategy. I hope that the Minister can offer reassurance that this will not be the case, and in particular that R&D funding into the science of ageing and support for SMEs at the cutting edge of technological innovation to aid independent living will be protected from any cuts to the promised £22 billion per annum investment in R&D. I would appreciate it if he could refrain from listing the Government’s historic support, as was the case in their response to the report, and instead tell us their future plans.
I turn to the second tier of the grand challenge: narrowing the gap between the richest and the poorest, which stands at nine and a half years for life expectancy and, distressingly, almost 20 years for healthy life expectancy. That will have been exacerbated by the country’s recent experience of those who bore the heaviest toll in lives lost during the pandemic. Covid hit the poorest hardest and, within that, hit people from ethnic minorities even harder. The report’s first recommendation is that the Government, along with NHS England and the erstwhile Public Health England, “prioritise reducing health inequalities” between the least deprived and most deprived areas, and asks that they set out a plan to do so over the next Parliament. In response, the Government in effect say that we will get the report due course when they come forward with proposals in response to the prevention Green Paper. What is the progress to date on that response?
My final remarks will focus on obesity, which is closely linked to deprivation. Food loaded with cheap harmful additives is leading to an increased number of lives lost and points to a failure by successive Governments to act on the prevention agenda by promoting healthier diets and a more mobile lifestyle. Frankly, it is a disgrace that poorer people have little choice but to buy food that is poor in nutrition and positively harmful to their health.
The experience of the pandemic illustrates starkly that the Government have not curbed the appetite of the food and drink industry to maximise profits at the expense of the health of their customers. Cheap and addictive additives such as sugar, salt and hydrogenated fats in heavily processed foods—to boost flavour and shelf life—have wreaked immeasurable harm on the population at large. Will the emphasis that the Government propose to place on prevention include tackling the food and drink industry’s role in increasing obesity? Will they, for example, extend the sugar tax to foods and drinks that are high in added cheap sugar? Trans fats, a form of processed hydrogenated cooking fats, have been identified as one of the most dangerous food additives. Are the Government rethinking their reluctance to introduce curbs on their use, if not their total ban?
Our report points to the damage that a lack of movement does to our bodies, let alone a lack of physical exercise. The sedentary lifestyle of a couch potato is one that will lead to an end of life riddled with multiple morbidities and a carrier bag full of drugs to treat symptoms of each disease, as well as drugs to counteract side effects. The Government have failed to provide central oversight of the volume or interactivity of these drugs. GP oversight is proving inadequate, to the detriment of the patient and NHS finances. I hope that the Minister will give us greater cause for confidence than the Government’s written response.
Baroness Greenfield (CB)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for the opportunity to consider how we might enhance the prospect of a long and healthy life. Accordingly, I declare an interest as founder and CEO of Neuro-Bio Ltd, a biotech company developing an innovative treatment for dementia, specifically Alzheimer’s disease. As the noble Lord correctly predicted, I will focus most of my comments on that subject.
Alzheimer’s is a neurological condition characterised by memory loss, disorientation and general cognitive impairment. It is a disease typically, though not exclusively, of older people. One in six over the age of 80 have dementia, a condition that affects as many as 70% of residents in care homes. The spectre of Alzheimer’s is one of the cruellest potential scenarios awaiting us in later life. While heart disease and cancer are serious, often disabling and sometimes terminal, you can still reminisce over old photographs and spend meaningful and precious time with your grandchildren. These life-enhancing moments are gradually closed off to an individual with dementia.
Despite hearing from witnesses from both Alzheimer’s Research UK and the Alzheimer’s Society, there seems to be no substantive discussion in the report of the very real threats that Alzheimer’s currently poses to enjoying a healthy older age. It is cited as the most common cause of death for women, then flagged in relation to air pollution and reported as mitigated by cognitive reserve. That is three mentions of one of the most important issues related to ageing and its potential alleviation by science.
The Alzheimer’s Society’s website reports facts and figures that are truly concerning. First, there is the societal impact of dementia as one of the main causes of disability later in life. There are currently around 850,000 sufferers in the UK; this figure is projected to rise to 1.6 million by 2040. This year, 209,600 people are expected to be diagnosed with dementia; that is one person every three minutes.
Secondly, there is the economic factor. The total cost of care for people with dementia in the UK is £34.7 billion. This is set to rise sharply over the next two decades to £94.1 billion by 2040.
Thirdly, there is the impact on carers, in addition to the financial and mental health repercussions of perhaps giving up a job to care for a loved one. On more than one occasion, I have heard this daily existence described as a living death.
Since these problems are not raised in the report, it is unsurprising that there are no recommendations specifically to resolve them. I want to make a few suggestions for brief consideration here. The only successful way to combat Alzheimer’s disease will be to devise an effective treatment. In turn, this is dependent on gaining insight into the underlying brain processes. Further research, both basic and translational, is thus essential.
However, dementia research is desperately underfunded. For every individual living with the condition, the annual cost to the UK economy is more than £30,000, yet only £90 per patient is spent on research. Five times fewer researchers choose to work on dementia than on cancer. Yet if we could come up with a means of delaying the onset by five years, the number of deaths from the condition would be halved, saving 30,000 lives a year.
Admittedly, various recommendations in the report are concerned with drug development in a more general sense in relation to older people. However, sadly and strangely, no specific issue is raised in relation to improved therapies for Alzheimer’s disease. An obvious and predictable recommendation would be to make more funds available for research, be they from public, private or philanthropic sectors.
Just as important, but much less obvious, is the question of how such resources should then be deployed. Currently, the majority of funding is directed at just one strategy to combat the histological marker in the brain—amyloid—as it is a frequent feature of Alzheimer brains. However, drugs designed to antagonise amyloid at best only slow down the progression of the disease. There is increasing doubt that it is the primary cause of the neurodegenerative process. The report could have highlighted the lack of success of current treatments and thus argued the case for promoting initiatives pursuing innovative lines of inquiry. In this way, we could truly understand the degenerative mechanism in order to intervene with a successful pharmaceutical strategy.
The hunt for an anti-Alzheimer’s drug that actually works is far from straightforward. As yet, there is a no accepted narrative for how and why neuronal loss starts, nor for—of equal importance—how it is perpetuated for decades before the classic profile of cognitive impairment presents. Unless and until we understand what is happening in the brain for this period, we will only ever be able to deal with downstream symptoms, such as amyloid accumulation, rather than halting cell loss by intercepting the driver of the disease.
The second reason for failure to date is the lengthy time window of 10 to 20 years between the onset of cell loss and the eventual presentation of cognitive impairment. Any treatment initiated at this late stage is comparable to closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, as the pernicious cycle of cell loss would have been under way for decades. Analogous to the measurement of cholesterol for detecting cardiovascular problems, we need a routine blood test, say, that would enable easy screening to determine whether the degenerative process was already in train, even though the person may feel perfectly fine at the moment. Imagine if we had a blood biomarker indicating early on that degeneration had already started, well before the behavioural symptoms of Alzheimer’s were apparent. Imagine if we had a drug that stabilised cell loss and halted neurodegeneration. If such a drug were taken before the symptoms became apparent, those symptoms may never arise—not a cure in the literal sense, but effectively just that.
What is stopping us developing such a biomarker and such a drug? We need to facilitate more innovative lines of research and challenge existing dogma. Admittedly, there will be false dawns and blind alleys. There will be risks to take and cynicism to overcome, but that is the only way we will ever develop an effective treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. The American physicist and philosopher Thomas Kuhn famously argued that science does not evolve gradually towards truth but has a paradigm; that is, it has an accepted approach that remains constant until anomalies start to accumulate, and accumulate to such an extent that it is finally accepted that established thinking cannot explain the phenomenon in question. A completely new theory must then be conceived—a paradigm shift. If we are to understand and tackle this devastating condition successfully, we are long overdue for such a shift in our thinking.
Alzheimer’s disease is not an inevitable consequence of ageing, but it is a disease of old age. In my view, the report has missed a golden opportunity to draw attention to its current impact and future threat. Most importantly, it has missed the opportunity to promote new strategies to consign dementia to being a disease of the past. Only when this happens will we be able to have justified confidence in an old age that is not only able-bodied but clear-minded.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow that eloquent speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, and her strictures are well made. I begin by commending the noble Lord, Lord Patel, not only on securing this debate but on steering the committee through a vital and largely virtual piece of work. He did so with charm, wisdom and not a little fierceness when necessary.
The main issue that our report grapples with, as others have said, is the gap between health span and lifespan. We are spending longer living, but even longer dying. We would all like to live lives of perfect health until, one day, we drop dead, but it does not happen that way and the gap is not closing. I am horrified to hear the statistics from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and that, as a 63 year-old, my health span is coming to an end. By largely or partly exterminating the quick killers, such as smallpox and heart attacks, we have left ourselves with slower killers, such as cancer and Alzheimer’s.
The first thing to say is that this is a problem born of success. The defeat of premature mortality is a spectacular triumph of modern medicine and we should not forget that. In my lifetime, global life expectancy has increased by about five hours per day; it has gone from 49 to 71. Let us not be so keen to complain about the failure to defeat the morbidities of old age that we forget to celebrate these unprecedented achievements. I am not wholly convinced that better leadership and accountability by government on the grand challenge would necessarily have made a big difference in the last few years.
As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, the central issue with which we grappled was how to close the gaps between health span and lifespan and between rich and poor. There are four possible ways to do it: we can teach young people not to get into unhealthy habits, such as obesity and lack of exercise, which will make them unwell in old age; we can learn to treat people’s illnesses better when they get ill in old age; we can diagnose illnesses better and earlier, as the noble Baroness said; or we can do research into the underlying mechanisms of ageing in the hope of finding preventive therapies. Today, I argue that, from what I heard in the inquiry, the first and second suggestions are unlikely to work very well; the third and fourth may be much more important.
I am a little cynical about public health advice to the young as a cure for old age. In the report, we say that
“a life-course approach to healthy ageing is to be commended”
and that
“There are advantages to adopting healthy lifestyles earlier in life.”
But we lament that
“We heard differing views on whether young people tend to engage with the issue of healthy ageing”,
which is a bit of a euphemism, yet we recommended
“regulatory and fiscal measures, actively to encourage people to adopt lifestyles that support healthy ageing”.
That would all be great, but do we really think that we can tell the young that they must drink in moderation now to prepare for a sedate old age, free of illness, or that they will believe that we can deliver that promise? After all, lots of us adhere to Hunter S Thompson’s advice, even in middle and old age:
“Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming ‘Wow! What a Ride!’”
We sort of admit in this report that solving the problem of the gap between health span and lifespan through public health advice is not working but say that we should do more of it.
On treating people’s illnesses better, we rightly focused on multimorbidity. One doctor treats one symptom, another treats another and the fact that the patient has five things wrong with him at the same time either is ignored or, worse, leads to multiple medications that interfere with each other. “Polypharmacy” was a word that I learned during this inquiry.
I like to think that we can reform healthcare in such a way as to do better at this, but it will be a Sisyphean task, because the rise of multimorbidity is, to some extent, an inevitable consequence of defeating premature mortality. Someone with multiple organs failing at once is simply expressing their biological sell-by date. It is an interesting fact that when supercentenarians—people older than 110—die, they generally just fade away with no particular cause. The machine just stops. Even cancer cells struggle to keep going in their elderly bodies.
By the way, an even more interesting fact is that, while the number of people reaching 100 goes up and up all the time, the number reaching 115 remains extremely small and has hardly changed in decades. There really is a sell-by date on human life. Jeanne Calment, who is the only person to get past 119 and supposedly died at the age of 122 in the 1990s, had probably swapped her birth certificate with her mother’s, we now think. There is currently one 117 year-old and one 118 year-old woman alive in the world and no man older than 113, I think. For those worried about pensions, it is a good thing that we just ain’t going to live to 150—not without genetic engineering, at least.
That leaves diagnosis and research. I genuinely think that the best thing we can do for the elderly and the best way to help to close the gap of social inequality is to diagnose people’s ailments sooner. It disappoints me that this country does not seem as keen on early diagnosis as other countries sometimes are. As for research, like the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, I am convinced that Britain, with its terrific bioscience expertise, has a great opportunity to make a huge contribution to the underlying science of ageing. Therein we might find a way to treat people either with senolytic drugs or with telomerase to give them the bodies of 40 year-olds in their 80s, followed by a sudden death at 110. That seems a noble goal, which the Government should heartily embrace. In his reply, will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to support ambitious research into both the mechanisms of ageing and the value of early diagnosis?
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. I am pleased to accept his advice that, before we address the challenges, we should celebrate the achievements of medical science. If he will excuse me, I will take some time to reflect on some of his other advice, and I will certainly not introduce him to my sons until I have worked out what the implications might be.
It was a privilege and an education to have been a member of the Science and Technology Select Committee while it was carrying out this inquiry under the expert chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I associate myself with his words of recognition and thanks to the committee staff and our expert adviser, and I thank him for his impressively comprehensive introduction of a complex report in an accessible way. I do that principally because I will use it as reason for concentrating on one aspect of the report, which was raised both by my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan—the impact of inequalities. Over the months during which we took evidence, we found that inequality was the most significant challenge.
Our committee heard evidence from many witnesses to support the finding set out in the first conclusion of our report, which is that inequalities in healthy life expectancy remain stark. People in the most deprived groups on average spend almost 20 years longer in poor health than those in the least deprived groups. There are also shockingly large differences in healthy life expectancy among ethnic groups. The evidence that we received more than justified our recommendation that the Government prioritise reducing health inequalities and our request that they set out a plan for reducing health inequalities over the next Parliament—a request with which they respectfully declined fully to engage. There is hope yet. The Government, via the Minister, have been invited three times to engage with this issue, so it will be interesting to hear his response.
Our relatively short paragraphs on inequality disguise the scale of the evidence that we received of the all-pervasiveness of its effects on longevity and healthy living and the degree to which it repeatedly raised its head in our evidence sessions. In our report, the word “inequalities” is used 77 times.
We conducted our inquiry largely over the course of the pandemic, during which there has been a growing awareness of the degree to which poverty and the underfunding of public health have been associated with a large and unequal mortality caused by Covid-19 across the whole UK. However, before the pandemic, in many communities both life expectancy and, in particular, healthy life expectancy had begun to decline after a period of improvement. Hitherto, this decline in longevity was explained by growing unemployment or the replacement of long-term secure jobs by largely insecure and low-wage employment because of de- industrialisation and changes in the economy of the UK in the latter part of last century. Largely, these trends resulted in greater loss of good economic opportunities and jobs in the north as opposed to London and the south-east, where the burgeoning service economy and education opportunities gave young people, including some from poorer areas, a better chance to succeed in that changing environment.
However, during the period of austerity, these long-term changes were worsened by a deliberate decision to reduce social support, welfare payments and funding to local government and public services. By 2018-19, one in five people in the UK, including many in work, was living in poverty and many still are—in fact, those numbers are increasing. Like the changes in the economy, these austerity cuts had a greater impact in the poorest communities, making the effects of the loss of secure employment worse. Poverty and reduced funding of this nature were reflected in increased unhealthy and harmful behaviours, such as poor nutrition, alcohol use and smoking, and less provision of or use of preventive healthcare and, consequently, increased mortality.
Pedantically—and I hear this said regularly—it is correct that healthcare spending was affected less by austerity than other sectors. There has been an annual 1% to 3% increase since 2010, but it has been insufficient to keep up with the increasing demands of an ageing population. This imbalance has led to longer waiting times for primary and specialist care and, once again, the most significant effects have been in deprived areas. The real-term cuts in public health spending have also been larger in the north and north-east, where life expectancy lags.
To make matters worse, helping people to stop smoking and health checks, which affect diseases with substantial contribution to mortality inequalities, had greater than average funding cuts. To arrest and reverse this trend of falling life expectancy, we need economic and social policies that specifically address inequalities, supported by greater investment in public health and healthcare in the communities with the lowest healthy life expectancies.
Despite the terms of the Government’s response to the committee’s recommendations, thus far the post-Covid “build back better” agenda does not explicitly address equity. The levelling-up funding plans to address these regional inequities, particularly in the so-called left-behind districts, appear to be focused on investment and infrastructure. At best there has been a limited specific focus on areas such as child poverty, public health or high-skilled education.
An awareness of place is crucial to tackling inequity. It is regrettable that place-based improvement in northern cities, for example, remains limited to local action facilitated by devolution in cities such as Manchester, and community resilience, well-being and regeneration initiatives. Without additional resources for education, employment and health, these positive steps will prove insufficient to address this issue. To reverse the decline in longevity in many of our communities, health equity needs to be a key outcome of policy.
The date set for the publication of the spending review, 27 October, is the opportunity for the Government to provide at least some certainty on these important areas of spending and investment, including those identified in this report. It could also be the foundation for at least the outline of a coherent plan for reducing health inequalities over the next Parliament, as recommended in this report.
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, it was a privilege to have been a member of this House’s Science and Technology Select Committee under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I too thank him for his leadership in our inquiry on ageing and the production of our report. Our report highlighted that people are living longer but, regrettably, many of the extra years are spent in poor health and in difficult conditions. Today I will focus on the role of engineering and technology in improving the situation and how it can enable people to live independently in their homes for longer in old age.
Our committee concluded that technologies and related services have an increasing role in helping people to live healthily and independently in old age. This was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. These include assistive technologies, which can compensate for declining ability and help individuals to cope better with their environment, making it possible to extend independent living. They also include medical technologies, which can improve health and capability.
I will first address assistive technologies that can provide the ability for independent living, which is especially important. Remaining in one’s own home and community is vital to many older people and can contribute to an improved sense of health and well-being. To this end, there is considerable potential for smart homes, with technologies in the home such as sensor networks, motion sensors, infra-red cameras and even robots.
Today’s internet of things makes the possibilities of the smart home much more easily attainable. Wireless monitoring devices can be placed around the home to monitor the individual’s daily activities. Monitoring could be done directly, by devices that monitor gait, breathing or speech, for example, or indirectly, by devices that monitor the use of the fridge or utilities such as electricity and water, for example. Data can be accessed by formal and informal carers, who can make real-time care decisions to help the elderly person.
However, although such smart homes can promote independent living and safety, there are two important issues. The first is privacy: how would an elderly person react to being constantly monitored in their home? The second is the possible risk that such technologies, by making the elderly person more capable of being on their own, could even promote further loneliness and social isolation. Impressive as these new technologies and services are, there is a need for more research to understand whether they would be acceptable to the user and whether they would in fact make a real difference to older people’s lives.
There is also the important issue of digital service provision for older people. We heard evidence suggesting that only around 60% of one-person households, where the person is over 65, have broadband. This widespread lack of broadband connection is likely to become less of an issue with the advent of 5G. Nevertheless, we recommended that the Government ensure internet access for all homes so that older people can access services to help them to live independently and in better health. Lifelong digital skills training is needed, so that when people enter old age they will have the ability to use the available technologies to their benefit. The Government’s recent introduction of a new entitlement for adults with few or no digital skills to undertake specified digital qualifications, up to level 1, is to be welcomed.
I will now address medical technologies. Our committee received evidence that wearable and implantable medical devices have an increasingly important future for the ageing population. Miniaturised devices applied to the skin or implanted into the body can allow precise and timely interventions to improve healthcare while reducing the number of medical appointments. For example, people with diabetes can use implanted technology to monitor blood glucose levels and deliver insulin. Devices monitoring other important health indicators, such as blood pressure and skin temperature, are also envisaged. More futuristic are exciting engineering developments in the field of microrobotics that may enable very local drug delivery or other treatments, such as microsurgery, within the body. There are also non-invasive surgical techniques, “robotic” implants, ingestible robots, in-body sensors for monitoring purposes, implanted drug delivery systems such as insulin pumps, and many others.
In the light of the evidence that we received, our committee concluded that the use of wearable and implantable technologies for monitoring health conditions and administering treatments is likely to become increasingly common. Such technologies have the potential to provide more precise and timely treatment and could well contribute to better health and greater independence in old age.
Our committee recommended that the Government support the deployment of technologies that contribute to healthier and independent living. Our universities and industries are world leaders in science and engineering and are consequently well-placed to undertake the necessary R&D. UKRI is making significant investment in early-stage technologies to support the ageing society grand challenge through the healthy ageing challenge. It is to be hoped that the forthcoming spending review and Autumn Budget will continue to support and indeed increase this UKRI funding that is so vital for our ageing population.
My final remarks relate to the mission of the ageing society grand challenge announced by the Government in 2018. This was eloquently addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, in his opening speech and by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. The Government’s mission was to
“ensure that people can enjoy at least 5 extra healthy, independent years of life by 2035, while narrowing the gap between the experience of the richest and poorest.”
Technology can undoubtedly contribute to independence and social connectedness in old age. However, even with the rapid engineering advances that we are seeing, it seems unlikely that technology can add five years of healthy and independent living by 2035. Moreover, there is a risk of new technologies actually widening the health inequalities gap in old age, due to barriers to uptake being more prevalent in disadvantaged groups. We heard from several witnesses that technologies and services may heighten inequalities if products are not affordable and accessible to deprived groups. The Government will need to take the necessary steps to make these new technology tools ubiquitous and beneficial for the whole population in old age. Can the Minister comment on this and indicate how the challenge will be met to avoid the inequalities gap potentially increasing?
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
The Science and Technology Committee’s report on ageing was written before I joined the Committee. I have no hesitation in declaring that it is an excellent report. It is lengthy and comprehensive and it contains numerous important recommendations.
The report has disposed of the optimistic belief that citizens of affluent societies can look forward with equanimity to the prospect of increased longevity. However, in comparison to the experience of Britons 100 years ago, the average lifespan has already increased markedly. A century ago, average life expectancy at birth for men was 48 years, whereas for women it was 54. By 2015, life expectancy for a man was 79 years and for a woman it was 83 years. It should be noted, however, that it can be misleading to compare average lifespan statistics then and now. The earlier figures are affected by a higher frequency of infant mortality and death in childbirth, both of which have been radically reduced.
The process of increasing longevity has slowed and there is little prospect of further significant increases at the top end of the range. Nevertheless, there remains considerable scope for reducing the incidence of premature death associated with social deprivation. The prospects of a morbid senescence, in which people suffer from the ailments of old age, have increased disproportionately. Both the duration of that period of affliction and the incidence of the associated ailments have increased markedly. Although it should be possible to delay the onset of the diseases of senescence and to mitigate their effects, they will not be eliminated. As the report observes, few of these ailments are liable to be eliminated by natural selection, since they occur mainly after the age of reproduction.
The report also revealed the wide differences in health and longevity among individuals in different socioeconomic circumstances. The expected duration of a healthy period in life—the health span—for those in the most affluent areas is 18 years longer than for those in the most deprived areas. Those in poverty suffer more from the ailments of old age. If there is a realistic prospect of increasing longevity on average and of reducing ailments, it must be by addressing these inequalities.
The statistics of disease and mortality recorded 100 years ago are dramatically different from the modern statistics. The Office for National Statistics has a web page titled “Causes of Death over 100 Years”, which shows the top causes of death by age and sex from 1915 to 2015. The incidence of mortality through infectious diseases has been radically reduced over that period. Until after the Second World War, infections were generally the leading cause of death for young and middle-aged males and females. During the second half of the 20th century, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, measles, mumps and rubella were all virtually wiped out, largely as a consequence of childhood immunisation. Meanwhile, from 1945 onwards, heart conditions became a leading cause of death for middle to older-aged males, followed by cancer. A similar trend, occurring at older ages, has been seen in women during that period, while younger to middle-aged women have more frequently died of breast cancer.
The committee’s report remarks that modern medicine is still dominated by the objectives of defeating single diseases and single ailments. To be more appropriate to treating an ageing population, it should be addressing what is described as multimorbidity, which is the state of having two or more long-term medical conditions. Coronary disease, hypertension—or high blood pressure —diabetes, dementia and strokes are all highly correlated in the aged cohorts; that is to say, they occur together, but they are being treated as if they were isolated ailments.
The experience of death and the social attitudes towards it have changed markedly over time. In predominantly rural communities, the realities of birth and death, witnessed in both the animal and the human populations, are liable to be part of everyday experience. These experiences are curtailed in urban populations.
In late Victorian times, the decline in premature mortality was accompanied by a curious side-effect, which was the ritualisation of death. This can be witnessed by visiting the cemeteries that date from then that accommodate lavish funereal monuments. In London, the Brompton, Highgate and Abney cemeteries are prime examples. Later, when cremation became an acceptable means of disposing of bodies, the memorialisation of the dead was much diminished. The incidence of mortality per head has been much reduced by the increased longevity that we have witnessed in the past 100 years. Nowadays, death is marginalised. It is no longer ever-present in our consciousness. I suggest that this marginalisation has had some deleterious consequences.
Although we are aware that the population has aged, we have been unwilling to face the consequences. Our provision of care for the elderly has not adapted to these circumstances and it has become seriously inadequate. We are frequently surprised and resentful when relatives die. Many appear to believe that death occurs only through medical negligence or malpractice. Doctors are fearful of being blamed for the death of relatives and they seek to indemnify themselves against complaints by asking relatives to assent to “do not resuscitate” orders.
The report is replete with recommendations of what should be done to reduce the impact of the diseases of senescence. It emphasises the well-known circumstances that undermine health in later life. Foremost among these are smoking, alcohol consumption and obesity, but only the first of these has been consistently targeted by public health campaigns. Much less has been done to address alcohol consumption, obesity and the lack of physical exercise. It is notoriously difficult to change human behaviour merely by exhortation and there has been political resistance to the interference of what has been described as the “nanny state”.
The recommendations of the committee’s report are too numerous to recite, but some of them are striking and should be remarked on. The report declares that the piecemeal approach to the problems of ageing needs to be replaced by a co-ordinated approach that addresses the complex and interrelated problems. Patients are often prescribed a multiplicity of drugs, with little attention given to the potential for their damaging interactions or to the harm caused to a patient by a pharmacological overload. It has been recommended that ageing people should be assigned to a designated clinician who has a complete oversight of their care.
The report calls for further research into the processes and problems of ageing and asserts that not much is fully understood yet. It calls for fuller and more enduring longitudinal studies. However, cross-sectional studies are needed that would highlight the disparities in health that are attributable to the inequalities in our society. The Covid pandemic has revealed the health hazards associated with social and economic deprivation and the stark differences in health and mortality between ethnic groups. Surely the most effective means of promoting good health in an ageing population is by striving to achieve a just and equitable society.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. We most certainly owe the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and his committee a big vote of thanks for their excellent report. I am only sorry that I was not here to participate.
As an actuary, life expectancy is my subject and I hope that I will be forgiven for emphasising aspects of how the issue is discussed. A crucial distinction, which needs to be understood in such discussions, is that between period and cohort life expectancies. It is not that one is right and the other wrong, but it is important to understand the distinct roles that both play in such discussions.
Period life expectancy is defined as the average number of additional years a person can be expected to live for, if he or she experienced the age-specific mortality rates of a given era in the current time period, for the rest of his or her life. The latest figures from the ONS are based on the experience of people for the three years 2018 to 2020. If you want to compare current mortality experience with that of the past—the experience of 2018 to 2020 with that of 20 years previously—the period life table is the one that you want.
In contrast, cohort life expectancy makes allowances for mortality improvements by combining observed and projected changes in mortality into future years. A cohort refers to a group of people with the same year of birth. For example, if someone is aged 18 in 2018, they were born in 2000 and would therefore be part of the year 2000 birth cohort. It has to be accepted that estimating future changes in mortality is difficult, but to ignore them would be even worse. Over many years, we have seen consistent improvements: people are living longer. However, the report points out that the rate of improvement has slowed in the last decade. While there are no uncontested explanations for this slowdown, I, along with many other practitioners, have no doubt that austerity has played a key role. In any event, this is a subject worthy of further study.
The report also points out the gross differences in life expectancy by social circumstances—one might even say class. But it is not the absolute level that differs by social circumstances; it is the rate of improvement. The wide differences that we see in rates of improvement are as much or more of a cause for concern as the current position. As has been mentioned, we await the levelling-up White Paper and it will be judged by how effective we think it is at addressing these issues. Can the Minister give us any reassurance that this will be a headline in the White Paper?
I come back to period and cohort life expectancies. Period life expectancies are based on solid data: we actually know how many people died in a particular period and what the population was. Cohort life expectancies depend on the exercise of some judgment about what changes in life expectancy are to be expected in future—over a period of many years, in the case of young people. However, if you want to know how long someone is expected to live—so that you could, for example, advise them on how much they need to save for retirement—you really need to use the cohort expectancy. In the same way, if you want to know what the future population will be then you need to adopt the approach of the cohort and build in allowances for potential improvements. This important distinction appears in the report, with footnotes that provide links to a detailed explanation. However, I am disappointed that the report focuses on period life expectancy. Fortunately, that does not affect its key conclusions, but it would be better to have used the more useful figure.
I am running out of time but want to say something about the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on life expectancy. Quite understandably, given when it was written, the report itself says little. In any event, it is still relatively early days and the pandemic itself is a moving target. What we can be sure about is that it is here to stay. Every death is a tragedy, and the latest estimate from the Covid-19 Actuaries Response Group—I can recommend its website—is that the pandemic has cost 155,000 lives in the UK. It would be natural to assume, therefore, that this has had an adverse effect on life expectancy, particularly next year when more up-to-date data covering the period of the pandemic will be available. However, as is so often the case, it is more complicated than that, particularly when we come to cohort life expectancies. There are many consequences of the pandemic on future mortality, but not all are necessarily negative. For example, the improvements in hygiene, working from home leading to less traffic and pollution, and the mask wearing have clearly had some success—whatever their effects on Covid-19—in controlling influenza and other illnesses. I am sure that I, along with many others, will maintain these behaviours. We wait to see whether there will be the feared rebound, but the long-term effect will probably be positive overall.
There have also been significant improvements in medical science that might have a substantial effect on future mortality. The pandemic has spurred scientific innovation and collaboration from immunology and vaccine science through to new approaches to the collection and processing of health data and the organisation of healthcare. In particular, it has catalysed research and medical advances. RNA therapies are being harnessed to develop vaccines for personalised cancer therapy, infectious and autoimmune diseases and other disorders, not least cystic fibrosis and haemophilia. Work was already under way, but there is no doubt that Covid-19 has brought forward the time when these new treatments will be of value and extend human life.
I mention these positive effects not to make light of a pandemic where every death is a tragedy. However, it sets the Government a higher target: are they prepared to take advantage of these advances and deliver not just for those in the lucky groups who gain from improvements but across the board, focusing on those with fewer social advantages?
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Patel on the remarkable, thoughtful and insightful way in which he chaired your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee on this inquiry, on the preparation of the attendant report, and, of course, on the way he introduced this debate. In so doing, I declare my own interests, in particular those as chairman of the King’s Fund, of UK Biobank and of the Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research.
Your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee identified the profound consequences of an ageing society and demographic in terms of the impacts economically and on the delivery of health services, but also of the broader societal impact. In considering the implications of ageing, we must be clear at the heart of all consideration and the development of any policy that it is the responsibility of society and government to ensure that we continue to deliver support and care for an ageing population compassionately.
We also have to ask ourselves the question, “What is going wrong at the moment?”, particularly in the delivery of health services. The committee was able to receive important evidence in this regard. We heard that the delivery of services is not joined up; we still provide healthcare services in a very disjointed fashion. In so doing, we have a focus on single diseases and single conditions, rather than providing a service for an ageing population where there is capacity to consider multiple comorbidities at the same time and provide interventions that ensure that each of those is addressed meaningfully and in an integrated fashion, so that individuals can maximise the opportunity for improved outcomes and avoid the many deleterious consequences of ill-co-ordinated multipharmacy and multiple ill-co-ordinated interventions.
Her Majesty’s Government will shortly bring to your Lordships’ House the Health and Care Bill. In that Bill there will be the opportunity to look at the way services are delivered. Is it Her Majesty’s Government’s intention that this Bill will provide the opportunity to deliver and address with a potential legislative change the important recommendations in this report that plead for the more co-ordinated and joined-up delivery of care services for an ageing population?
We also received evidence of the remarkable basic science research effort established over recent years in the creation of a new specialty of biogerontology—basic scientists studying the processes of ageing at a molecular and cellular level. That scientific output has identified hallmarks that can be associated clearly at a cellular level with the ageing process, such as telomere attrition, mitochondrial dysfunction and stem cell exhaustion. All this fundamental research provides the opportunity both for novel targets in the establishment of biomarkers that can be used to address, identify and diagnose the ageing process clinically at a much earlier level, and, most importantly, for novel therapeutic targets that will become future interventions and the opportunity for us to target the multifactorial manifestations of the ageing process.
We also heard that the next stages in the development pathway in clinical research in particular are dysfunctional. The current way we regulate clinical trials is to provide regulation to achieve a single treatment for a single disease, rather than undertaking clinical research for the ageing process, which, by definition, affects multiple end organs. We also heard that elderly populations and those with multiple comorbidities are frequently excluded from clinical trials, so much of the evidence generated for potential therapeutic intervention is generated in populations who are not elderly, and we extrapolate from those populations to a highly complicated ageing population. That is why the interventions we offer frequently fail to have the impact we might anticipate or to provide the advantages that so much technology and innovation in healthcare and research could provide. It is essential that the insights, innovations and interventions we will provide to deal with the ageing process and diseases associated with ageing are derived in and from those specific populations, rather than extrapolation.
Her Majesty’s Government have suggested that they will use the opportunity availed by leaving the European Union to look at the clinical trials regulation. Do they intend to look at the regulation to ensure that we can address this major fault in conducting clinical research to address the ageing process, so that we can not only achieve important benefits for those individuals and citizens who will benefit from the research output but have the opportunity to provide for our country to lead in the clinical development of interventions and innovations to address the ageing process?
Finally, we were also able to look at the question more broadly of how the health service can help us to address this important societal and national challenge. One of the important questions is how we are able to mobilise and use data collected within the National Health Service and in many large cohort studies that Her Majesty’s Government and research charities have supported over many years and decades, in terms of generating data to identify novel biomarkers, to establish approaches to appropriate imaging, and to apply emerging techniques of data science to these large cohorts and datasets to help us identify novel biomarkers and accelerate and improve the clinical trials process.
This is a very real challenge and once again Her Majesty’s Government have identified the opportunity to look at the general data protection regulation. Will that opportunity be used to provide for a review that allows us to access and address health data in a responsible and meaningful fashion, of course with appropriate social licence, to ensure that we can drive forward innovation in this important area? It is with data and it will be with innovation that we are able to make a major contribution to the issues identified in your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee report.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, it was a huge pleasure to have the noble Lord, Lord Patel, as our chairman yet again for this inquiry, which was conducted with some challenging difficulties that were faced. He was, as usual, remarkable in his leadership and what we did. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and others have just emphasised, the findings show very clearly that the biggest single problem with ageing in the UK is widespread deprivation, which means that the Government are failing to reach their targets of trying to extend longevity.
There are many processes that we looked at which are associated with ageing. Multimorbidity, of course, is one of the key issues, where these processes between organs have a connection and are often responsible for what is happening. Unfortunately, there are not enough specialists doing regular connected medicine. This is one of the things that needs to be looked at in the health service. How many geriatricians who are specialised are available for this service in the United Kingdom at present? Do the Government feel that, given the manifestations of ill health, which are so interconnected, there should be more people of this kind? Perhaps that could be confirmed at the end of this debate.
An important aspect of this report was the science behind ageing. It is complex and surprising. I remember 35 years ago in my own lab we found that a human embryo, just three days after fertilisation, showed processes of ageing and that cells were changing and being destroyed. As we age, that process is not so efficient, so abnormal cells often appear in the adult human.
The committee identified a wide range of other mechanisms, including mutations in mitochondria—the battery packs of nearly every individual cell—which are an important aspect of ageing, the shortening of chromosomes, changes in DNA and in its repair, the loss of stem cells and, importantly for many of us in this Room, the process of inflammation, to which older people are much more susceptible. These and other issues are reported in the excellent chapter 3 of the report. I recommend that people read it because one of the most important aspects is changes in the immune system; of course, this aspect has been absolutely relevant during the Covid pandemic. We learned a great deal more about ageing, rather supporting some of the things we have been looking at. It turns out that these things are critical in all aspects of ageing in nearly all tissues and most organs, but they are not understood.
I should declare an interest that I have not declared before and which is not listed in the committee’s report: that of my own recent experience. Before the pandemic, I knew that I had cataracts in both eyes. An optician did not see anything else wrong with my eyes. I was therefore happy to continue reading on my computer without thinking about it, and I felt that my general processes were not impaired when I was doing stuff in Parliament; of course, your Lordships may have other views of my efficiency in that respect. I found that, while reading continuously on my computer, I was able to see films and re-read Dickens, Hazlitt, Hardy and many other authors. I did not really read newspapers.
In the past few weeks, however, I have suddenly found that I cannot read newsprint and am increasingly unable to read a printed book. In fact, I cannot read a printed book. I also cannot see road signs—I do not drive, obviously—and I do not recognise people. At the recall of Parliament, the only way I could identify noble Lords—even those on the same side of the division between the two major Benches as me—was by the sound of their voices. I realised that something was seriously wrong, particularly when I looked at my computer and saw that horizontal straight lines were no longer straight but wavy and often changed; I also saw black spots, of course, and colours such as green and red were all rather entrancing but very different. It seemed that something rather serious might be going on.
Of course, not being able to recognise your Lordships by sight and not being able to read a speech is really a blessed relief. I must say, if a few more noble Lords were in the same position, it might be quite good for the Chamber, but there we are. Unreadable speeches are not a great thing. At least when the noble Lord the Whip comes to say that I have been conducting myself too long, I will not recognise what is happening and so can go on wittering in this way.
I rapidly turned to Moorfields hospital and was very fortunate to meet Professor Adnan Tufail. He happens to be a notable international expert in retinal disease—oddly enough, particularly in my rare manifestation of age-related macular degeneration, which is quite common. My condition—seeing as I have not written a speech, I say this for the purposes of Hansard, because I like to tease them—is called reticular pseudodrusen age-related macular degeneration. Unfortunately, it seems to be a rare genetic kind of this disease and is particularly aggressive. Anyway, I was immediately sent for treatment by Professor Tufail, who was amazing. I had a treatment that noble Lords may have seen in “Un Chien Andalou”, a surreal 1929 film by Buñuel, where things are injected directly into the eye—although in my case, it was a monoclonal antibody, not a knife. It was done efficiently and without pain, but that treatment will have to be continued for some time.
To cut a long story short, I went to the lab and was able to see exactly the problems that they face. They are doing a huge amount of research at Moorfields—it is internationally recognised—and so many of the chemical processes that they are looking at, which are extremely complex in the eye, particularly in the retina, are exactly the same processes in the rest of ageing.
Multimorbidity with eye disease is one of the problems because people who are really short-sighted tend to fall down and break limbs, and are much more likely therefore to have other health problems as a result. Some become isolated, of course, and may not be able to get their brain in motion; dementia is therefore much more likely.
This is a massive problem because age-related macular degeneration, which may in different circumstances be very different, is still the commonest cause of blindness in the United Kingdom. We are not doing a great job, particularly among deprived people who, unlike me, do not have access to medical care in the same way because they are not medically qualified. What number of age-related macular degenerations are seen in the United Kingdom? What is the possible cost of this, both with and without treatment? How might we do something about this?
There is a real need to do more research. I must say, I found that there was very little public research at Moorfields. It was mostly from venture capital and other commercially derived areas. This is not good for widespread research, which can be immediately available to medicine. I commend Tufail’s team for carrying on. Finally, how much money is available from the Medical Research Council for retinal disease and cell therapies to treat those diseases?
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I wish him a speedy recovery. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and members of the Science and Technology Committee on producing this thorough report. I urge the Government to adopt all its recommendations.
Technology plays a great role in every walk of life. However, it must not be a substitute for caregivers or human interactions. We have already seen that face-to-face appointments to see GPs are becoming rare. In online appointments, patients are expected to describe their medical condition. This is impossible to do with any degree of certainty, especially when patients have not encountered a similar health problem before. Technology can be a boon but it can also damage your health; just ask anyone addicted to online gambling, for example, hence the need for regulation.
That said, people’s welfare requires that they must have access to digital technology. However, that access is constrained by institutionalised inequalities. About 1.5 million homes in the UK do not have internet access at the moment. Around 20% of children did not have any access to a device for online learning while schools were closed recently. Those without access to the internet are most likely to be people aged over 65 or households with low incomes or financial vulnerability. Free broadband was a radical Labour policy at the last general election and would have helped many to benefit from the digital revolution. The Government have already plagiarised many of Labour’s policies and revarnished them; I urge the Minister to do the same with the broadband policy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, indicated that economic inequalities are a key determinant of healthy life expectancy, but the Government’s policies have accelerated those inequalities and denied millions of people good food, housing, education, internet and participation in democracy to inform policies that can improve their lives. Even before Covid, 14.5 million people were living in poverty. The poorest 50% of people in the UK have just 9% of its wealth and 42% of all disposable household income is in the hands of 20% of people, while only 7% of it goes to the lowest 20%. Some 18.4 million individuals have an income less than the income tax threshold of £12,570. Only 58% of the adult population pays income tax because the other 42% is too poor. Some 6.2 million people have an income of less than £8,844. With such an economic predicament, a large number of people cannot easily access technology and harness its benefits, yet the Government continue to neglect this challenge. Hopefully the Minister will explain why they are so committed to hurting the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society.
Income tax is payable on incomes above £12,570, but the new Johnson tax—a 1.25% hike in national insurance—applies to incomes above only £8,844. As has already been mentioned, universal credit has been cut, and the average state pension is only around £8,000—about 25% of average earnings—which is the lowest in the industrialised world. Some 2.1 million retirees live in poverty. It is estimated that around 3 million people in the UK are undernourished, and 1.3 million of them are retirees. Every year, around 25,000 of them will die because of the cold and related problems. Nearly 6 million people are awaiting hospital treatment in England and there is no relief in sight.
On top of that, the Government have adopted regressive taxation policies. Even before Covid, the poorest 10% of households paid 47.6% of their income in direct and indirect taxes, while the richest 10% paid only 33.5%. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how he is going to address that situation, because the redistribution of income and wealth is the key to unlocking the door to healthy life expectancy—but Ministers do not utter the “R” word. None of the Ministers at the annual Conservative Party conference mentioned it; hopefully the Minister will put that record right.
On several occasions, the Government have published impact assessments of their policies, but I am yet to see an assessment that explains the impact of their policies on women, senior citizens, children or other marginalised groups in our society. Nothing is said about the impact of matters such as the suspension of the triple lock, the cut in universal credit, the new Johnson tax, wage freezes and cuts in public services on inequalities or healthy life expectancy. Late last year, the 107-page Budget document said absolutely nothing about these things; indeed, the word “women” appeared in it only three times. Can the Minister give an undertaking that, from now on, all government policies will be accompanied by an assessment of their impact on women, senior citizens, children, marginalised groups, inequalities and healthy life expectancy?
Finally, I want to say a few words about the pharmaceutical industry. Two issues have a direct relevance to this debate. First, the pharmaceutical industry has been profiteering through drugs pricing, thereby depriving many people of vital medicines that affect the quality of their lives. Secondly, the pharmaceutical industry does not have the zeal of people like Edward Jenner to eradicate anything; it increasingly creates dependency. You can see that people are dependent on drugs for blood pressure, asthma, cholesterol and many other things because the industry wants more customers. Indeed, some of these drugs themselves have side-effects that affect quality of life, but it seems to me that the drugs industry is off the Government’s radar. Its business model must be examined.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I have been given permission to sit while giving my speech because I am having great difficulty with my vision. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for initiating this discussion on the report on ageing. The report makes the apt point that, although life expectancy is increasing,
“the UK has seen low rates of life expectancy increases compared with most European and other high-income countries.”
With any medical condition, we must focus first on diagnosis, secondly on aetiology and, thirdly, on treatment. Well, the diagnosis is clear: the people of the UK are the most unhealthy in Europe. Seventy one per cent of those aged over 30 are obese or overweight. When I first mentioned that statistic last year in the Chamber, it was dismissed by a prominent politician as being over the top. I was not over the top; I was just dealing with facts, truth and science.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, mentioned, obesity leads to widespread disease, including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, strokes, heart attacks, dementia and many other conditions that cause premature ageing, morbidity and death. The fat in the gross excess of fat cells leaks out, impairs the immune system and leaves the polluted body susceptible to very many diseases, especially infections such as Covid-19. The countries with the highest prevalence of obesity are the ones with the greatest incidence of Covid-19. So when the Prime Minister was accused of being responsible for 130,000 deaths, it was a false accusation. The aetiology of obesity epidemics is simply that people are putting too many calories into their mouths. Therefore, the treatment is, first and foremost, to get obese people to put fewer calories into their mouths. In fact, the Prime Minister was the first national leader to advocate eating less in order to reduce the obesity epidemic. He showed the way by losing three stone himself and coined the phrase, “Don’t be fatty at 50”.
Before we focus on complex solutions, we must first ensure that we have mastered the simple ones. It is not the case that eating less is impossible; what is impossible is to go on eating too much and remain healthy. There is no doubt that eating less requires effort and, for some, it is very difficult indeed, but the effort pays off in terms of morbidity, mortality and improving the quality of life in old age.
It was said that one group of people suffered more from Covid because of poverty and government cuts. Then an honest commentator pointed out that this particular group of people is more likely to suffer from heart attacks, strokes, type 2 diabetes and hypertension, but no one had the courage to say that the cause of those four conditions was mainly obesity. The critics say that they were obese because they could not afford the right food, but they would not be obese if they ate less of the wrong food.
Elements of the scientific world and some authorities have confused the public by mixed and inaccurate messages—for instance, that physical exercise is the answer to the obesity epidemic. The scientific institution known as NICE has maintained for years that all the calories we eat are used up on exercise, but surely one of the 500 employees of NICE could have gone to the gym, exercised for half an hour on a machine and seen how few calories they expended. On average, approximate intake of adults is 2,000 to 2,500 calories a day, which means that a person would have to exercise for four or five hours every day to burn up the calories they ate. This would increase their appetite and their calorie intake. I should emphasise that physical activity is essential for good health but is not an effective way of reducing weight.
There should be a clear message to the public that obesity is a disease that destroys the human body slowly and, as people get older, produces an enormous amount of suffering and death. The Department of Health has not always been helpful, in that it advocated a low-fat diet—but it is fat that acts as a brake, limiting the amount we eat. We clearly need to limit the amount of saturated fat, but unsaturated fat is fine. As fat leaves the stomach it goes into the duodenum and releases hormones that act on the stomach, delaying its emptying, thus giving an early sensation of fullness and satiety. After the fat has been emulsified and absorbed, it moves down the small intestine and normal service is resumed by the stomach. This is a beautiful mechanism that limits the amount we eat but, not surprisingly, the food industry dislikes it.
In the 1970s, Professor John Yudkin of London University set out clearly in his research that fat was not the problem; the problem lay in sugar. The food industry not only deliberately demonised fat but demonised Professor Yudkin. It was influential in his dismissal from his university post. The food industry advocated a low-fat diet, which is not only tasteless but bad for sales. It therefore added large quantities of sugar to the diet, and so the rot set in, with increasing obesity leading to the obesity epidemic.
Whole milk used to play an important part in limiting how many calories people ate. Skimmed milk was an industrial by-product which was at first discarded, then fed to animals and later to humans. The Department of Health has not helped matters by continuing to advocate a low-fat diet. It told GPs not to call patients obese because it was judgmental; it does not seem to realise there is a distinct difference between being judgmental and making accurate diagnoses.
The committee’s report focuses on the cure for the lifestyle choices of an ageing population, but prevention is better than cure. We could save millions from untimely deaths and billions in expenses if we focused on prevention. The struggle to keep an ageing population healthy has no greater challenge than this: the problems posed by bad choices. What is the Government’s role? It is not to tell people what to do. Instead, it is to honestly present them with the facts and the truth, and encourage them to make the right choices to grow older unhindered by increasing morbidity and mortality.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I am not a member of the committee so it gives me great pleasure to say that I thought this was a really excellent report. The science was fascinating and it was very readable as well. I almost thought I understood most of it, which was gratifying. It deserves a wider audience for bringing it all together in the way that it does. It is also a privilege to follow on behind a distinguished doctor and to be followed by a distinguished nurse; I suppose that is the right place for somebody whose background is in health management.
I want to pick up three points. Two of them are about the Government’s response and the other is about something specific within the committee’s report. As a health manager, perhaps the right place for me to start off is with that nexus of issues that noble Lords have talked so much about: the multimorbidity, the unplanned cocktail of drugs that people are taking and the lack of co-ordination. Very interestingly, there was also the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, picked up about older people not being included in drug trials. Indeed, as the report said, there was no real research being done on ageing in general, as opposed to the more specific points as a whole.
This area of co-ordination and oversight of what is happening with old people’s medication and their health is vital. I am not sure the committee’s recommendations were strong enough—other things could be there—but, frankly, the Government’s response was bland, as if to say: “Yes, you have already got a designated clinician.” I do not know if many older people know that, and I speak as somebody with a 97 year-old father-in-law. The truth is that it is left to the family. It is left to the individual, the family, the carers, the friends, and so on. That is another manifestation of inequality, because of access to having people who can help you.
I liked the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, that maybe this can be picked up in the forthcoming Bill or the debate in the House about it. But I would like to ask the Minister if he recognises that there is inadequate co-ordination and oversight of older people’s health and medication. Will he ensure that the department and the NHS do more to address this?
My second point refers to the committee itself. The whole document treats older people as a problem and a burden, but what about the contribution and value that they—or perhaps we—bring to society? One may say that is not within the scope of what the committee was looking at, but I have seen a lot of evidence that having a meaning and purpose in life is good for your health. However, being undervalued and seen as helpless—as most of us are reduced to being helpless when in the health system—or not being in control, which is a vital part of one’s health and self-esteem, is bad. We should not forget that whole range of issues. They are susceptible to good evidence, good policy and good thinking that recognises the role and contribution of older people. There is an admirable focus in the report on the causes of ill health, but there needs also to be thought about the causes of health. There needs to be more research in that area.
I shall also pick up a point that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, raised, even though he is not in his place. I do not disagree with him on the importance of research but this is about research and society; it is not one or the other but both. Research is vital but he caricatured public health as being about advising young people to do healthy things. That is not often going to work; I suspect I agree with him. Having said that, just by chance this morning I was on a webinar Zoom call with Everton Football Club, which is doing remarkable things to teach young people about health using that very strong force of role models, so that area is not a guaranteed failure.
A good public health approach is much more about enabling people to have a good life, in the sense of making sure that they are secure. Love comes into this, as does education, opportunity and all the things that enable people to be all they can be. It is what Aristotle referred to as eudaimonia and is normally referred to as human flourishing. The public health aspect of dealing with inequalities, but going wider than that, is really important. This committee is right to have picked up both the biological science in research and the society aspects.
Let me pick up one final point. In its last chapters— I think it is recommendations 20 to 23— the report presses the Government on how serious they are about this challenge and how determined they are to do it. Have they got somebody in charge of it? Is there going to be the impetus, energy, support and mobilisation to make something happen? Those are really important issues. Again, I thought the government response on this was bland, at best. There was no indication of the energy and importance of this issue in the way that it needs to be taken forward. Will the Minister reassure the Committee that it is not only about whether the grand challenges are going ahead in this form, but that these issues around health, ageing, science and technology are to be picked up in the appropriate fashion?
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and a pleasure to speak in this debate on the report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who has been my mentor since I entered this House and encouraged me to speak today. He introduced this debate so effectively and outlined the challenges that face society in relation to ageing.
Many noble Lords have developed and will continue to develop the important themes of science and technology research investment as an essential building block in developing treatments, AI and robotics to assist people in older age and to target specific illnesses through effective new drugs. I intend to discuss the challenges and opportunities outlined from social care and a “happiness and health” perspective in later life.
The report notes that the proportion of the UK population that is older than 80 is expected to increase from 4.9%, or 3.3 million people, in 2018 to 10%, or 7.6 million people, by 2065. The Chief Medical Officer for England, Professor Chris Whitty, explained to the committee that it is anticipated that older age groups will be
“highly concentrated … in places where delivery”
of care and health services
“is more difficult than it is in cities.”
I recently attended a lecture that he gave at the University of Plymouth. He outlined the particular challenges of reaching people in rural communities and seaside towns, where many young people leave for work but return to retire, leaving a very small young workforce pool to provide paid care work to support older people.
This morning, the current challenges of providing enough care workers to support people as they come out of hospital were made clear by several speakers on the “Today” programme, including Vic Rayner, chief executive of the National Care Forum. There is insufficient modern accommodation, particularly in the social housing sector, to provide supportive living in a cost-effective manner to older people. Yet there is huge opportunity to build units with appropriate technology to enable more independent living, even for people who have multiple morbidities.
I am amazed that it is now possible to wear a watch with a tracking device that records a person’s whereabouts and, if their routine changes, enables alerts to a central hub and/or a named relative or carer within seconds. As a district nurse in the 1970s, I had to return to base to phone a patient I was worried about. If they did not answer, I had to go back to see them. Think of the difference for district nurses today because of mobile phones and modern technology. In addition, Housing 21 and Bath University work to link innovative engineering to do what appear to many to be simple interventions, such as a kettle that can never boil dry, due to a switch-off mechanism, or baths and showers that control the water temperature so that people cannot scold themselves when bathing. People can therefore stay independent.
Can the Minister please explain how the Government intend to promote investment in social housing that will meet the needs of the most deprived older people, so that they can live healthier, more independent lives? The boom of such housing available to those who can afford to buy age-specific homes of this kind illustrates that many older people enjoy living in such communities and are often less lonely as a result. Will the Government also invest in research designed to identify the potential benefits of such interventions on a longitudinal basis to provide data to inform future investments for older people?
I turn from housing as a key social determinant of health to the NHS and social care. Loneliness is a risk factor for both physical and mental health, as is adequately detailed in paragraph 34 of the report. What role should the NHS and care services play, possibly through social prescribing, to reduce extreme loneliness in old age? In the village where I live, the local post office and shop have just closed and, other than school transport, the bus operates twice a day—that is, two buses one way and two back, without a timetable focused on getting people to and from work. There is no bus that enables a 10 am departure and a return before 4 pm, so that someone of 70 years old can use their pass to go to the nearest town to shop, visit the library and perhaps have coffee. These are real issues for people, yet here in London I can pretty well go anywhere anytime. Could further investment in transport from central and local government overcome these issues and thus promote the health of older people?
Can the Minister explain whether Health Education England is exploring the need for specialist health and social care workers to work with older people? There are few Admiral nurses to support people with dementia, yet this is the highest cause of death in women and the second-highest cause of death in men in England, as illustrated by table 1 in the report. The report also highlights the need for more regular medication reviews for people as they get older and the fact that Age UK reported to the committee that
“care packages can only focus on the essentials such as meals and toileting, without any time for help with mobility”.
That is a damning indictment of our individualised care interventions. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, outlined the need to provide co-ordinated, compassionate care. It is essential at the moment, let alone in the next 20 years.
Promoting independence is vital if people are to live longer, healthier, happier lives in old age. I suggest that the recommendation outlined in paragraph 275 of the report—
“that the Government clearly defines the roles and responsibilities for healthy ageing among national and local government and their agencies”—
is as essential as blue-skies research. The report clearly outlines the differences in life expectancy between different socioeconomic and ethnic groups. Why is my life expectancy estimated to be nine years longer than that of someone living nine miles away from where I reside, in the most deprived ward of Plymouth?
Finally, can the Minister comment on whether the ageing society grand challenge needs revision, or is to be completely reviewed from the current term, to ensure
“that people can enjoy at least five extra healthy, independent years of life by 2035, while narrowing the gap between the experience of the richest and poorest”
and enable all older people to have high-quality support and care in the last five years of their lives, as necessary, to reduce loneliness and thus promote health and happiness irrespective of income? The new social care levy could, I argue, be used in part to achieve this aim.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this is a very good report, as many noble Lords have said. There is not much I can say in any kind of expert way, so I will follow the model of the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Winston. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about the report from his own professional side, while the noble Lord, Lord Winston, told a lovely personal story. I will do those two things because it will be more helpful.
First, as an economist, I was involved in measuring human welfare. Twenty years ago, I was involved in inventing the concept of human development. At that time, life expectancy was popular among economists. However, I discovered that it is not a good measure of what we really want to measure because, once a country has taken care of infant mortality and under-five mortality, life expectancy rises. After that, it slows down and does not actually indicate anything much except that the death rate in older people also slows down slightly.
I always say that if I move from a country with a lower life expectancy to one with a higher life expectancy my health does not improve. How is my health condition to be measured? I think the report has an angle on that which is: how many years do I have left to live? I thought I had invented a new concept about potential lifetime. What is the potential lifetime of any person? Your age-dependent life expectancy minus your age is how many years you have left to live. One of the things we ought to look at is whether that measure should be more easily available as an indicator.
On a personal level, what is my condition? I may be 50, but my multimorbidities make my potential lifetime shorter. The idea of healthy years of life left has less utility as a group measure than if you could measure it individually, as I am sure we can. We need better measures of what we are trying to measure—not so much ageing, but healthy living as you get older and how many years of that you have to deal with.
About six months ago all my underlying conditions, as they are called, flared up and I became an ageing person, as it were. At least two hospitals are currently looking after me. One is King’s College Hospital near where I live and another is the Tessa Jowell. I am very well looked after.
What is very interesting about my experience—and I think it was partly inactivity during the pandemic that finally got me—is that, until then, my overworked GPs were not able to tell me what was happening with me. When I went to the GP, which I did not do very often as I knew how burdened they were, my GP had no time. It is a group practice and no GP had, until now, ever introduced themselves to me or asked my name—but they know my name. They have five minutes, if that. They stare at the computer and look at what medicines I get and give me some medicine. No GP ever told me what the medicine does for me. It is just “take this”. It is one of those things that happens. They know what they are doing and I presume that, as they know, I do not need to ask. It would only waste their time.
The report says something about how care is episodic. As a patient, I would like to have an assurance that somewhere is a portfolio of all my conditions from the first time I saw a GP until now, which the GP can access. If that was the case, then at some stage somebody would tell me why I have got to where I have, what I have done wrong and what I could do further. It is not that they cannot do it; they just do not have the time. We are living with an extremely underfunded National Health Service and, while it is doing marvellous work without a doubt, there are limits to what a human being can do in a day.
It is an unfair contrast but, when I grew in India—no doubt we were paying for the GP and were slightly better off—my mother would go to the GP and say: “Now listen, this boy has got such and such. Last time you gave such and such medicine. Can you give something else?” The GP would then have a nice, long chat. Obviously, I was lucky. I was richer, but my family was not very rich, believe me.
When my multimorbidities caught up with me again, I was in India, and I had an amazingly detailed explanation of what was happening to me and why, and which morbidities were interacting with each other. It is not possible to get that sort of thing. Can we somehow make lives easier and give GPs the technical apparatus so that they can quickly see how to improve the care of an individual patient, especially elderly patients who have more complications?
We also know that these conditions are exacerbated by income inequalities, where you live and so on. This happens all the time. Whenever there is a crisis, I could tell you who would suffer most—the elderly, women, ethnic minorities and others in a postcode lottery. In the 2008 financial crisis, the same people suffered, because of the economic conditions. All I can hope is that we improve the support that clinical people have to take care of us as well as possible.
We should also do something about inequalities. Last week, in your Lordships’ Chamber, we had a lot of discussions about the cut in universal credit, pension problems and so on. As the Government are levelling up, they should try to reduce inequality as much as possible.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, I join my colleagues in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his wonderful leadership of our committee and his patience under provocation from Zoom, not to mention committee members. Listening to the evidence of this inquiry was sobering. There has been virtually no progress in reducing the UK’s stark health inequalities, and years of unhealthy living before death have lengthened. The NHS is not structured to tackle multimorbidity and much has to be done to cope with an ageing population, let alone meet the aim of the grand challenge, whether or not it survives in those terms. Of course, there are lots of societal and economic issues as well as health issues.
Many of the things I thought of saying before this evening have already been covered, so I will focus first on the costs of this. I know that Governments, in looking at the recommendations of Select Committees, react when we recommend that a lot more money should be spent —and indeed there are such recommendations, including extra funds for research or certainly refocusing them. But the committee also felt there were plenty of opportunities to save money while—this is most important —putting the patient first. With the opportunity to save substantial NHS funds, the cost of not doing so is vast.
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, I had also not heard of polypharmacy, but we heard evidence of too many patients taking a cornucopia of medicines—maybe as many as 20 drugs, often more than necessary, without proper recognition of the side-effects and their interaction with each other, for example, and their propensity to cause falls in some cases and lead to a poorer quality of life.
In my experience, GPs have little time to conduct detailed drug reviews, however much they wish to. I note from the Government’s reply that they were reinstituted in July 2020. Understandably, GPs are also often reluctant to delete from a list a drug that has been prescribed by a specialist consultant, and the advice that you get from pharmacists varies. I strongly echo the request from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for a proper plan to deal with this very expensive issue, about which the evidence we heard accords with a more recent review by the Chief Pharmaceutical Officer. Apart from saving and helping patients who are confused by this array of drugs—I have spent the last few years dishing out dozens to my husband—it could also save millions.
My second point is that the NHS is simply not structured or geared for multimorbidity. Expertise and specialities continue to narrow. We need those—geriatricians and others—who can take a broader view of a patient’s whole requirements. Until fairly recently, in my GP surgery there was a sign instructing patients in the waiting room to raise only one issue with the doctor per visit. I recognise the time pressures that led to that stricture, but it was very unsatisfactory. Patients should not have to edit what to mention and what to suppress. To ask them, in effect, to decide what their main problem is themselves through self-diagnosis, and to make journeys that may be long and expensive, particularly in rural areas—as the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, said, we heard about Chris Whitty’s view that the elderly are moving out of cities and are more difficult to reach—for multiple visits is expensive and unreasonable. It is also inefficient and potentially dangerous, as the complaints they have may well be linked. I should like to hear from the Minister how he believes that the NHS can adapt to gear itself to the reality of patient need in multimorbidities on the scale outlined. As many other Peers have mentioned, much greater co-ordination is needed, and efforts are to be made where possible to avoid patients having to trek to different appointments on different dates and in different places.
My final point is about research, on which many others have spoken. The demands on UKRI are high, and recent cuts to its budget damaging, but there is still too little focus on each end of the life course. That runs from conception, where, as we know, many health problems arise—the noble Lord, Lord Winston, mentioned this—to the final years, with some focus on the causes of ill health, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, suggested. Government should consider how to stimulate research at both ends: reproductive health and ageing health. These areas do not currently have much appeal for researchers; they are less well funded than other areas of medical science.
Whether or not the grand challenge survives—and I hope its aim does, whether or not it is relabelled or ditched for whatever reason—my main hope is that the Government produce a coherent and consistent plan to address the multiple problems from our ageing society, including health inequalities. These problems are not reducing; they are becoming more acute. I hope the Minister will be clear about when we might see such a plan.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his excellent report. It is a report I will not be getting rid of; it will stay on my shelf. That puts it in distinguished company, because it means that it is one that has been not only worth reading but worth keeping and referring to in future. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that this was the best old people’s home. When I came here, I was told it was the second best, but that there were no vacancies in Buckingham Palace.
I am very pleased that people are living beyond 80, particularly because I am now in my very late 70s and I look forward to joining them, but we need to remember that it is important to keep people alive, or to help them stay alive, in a way in which they can enjoy life, not as people struggling from day to day. We have the challenge not only of longevity but of helping people to contribute to society and to be able to be a useful part of it.
My first point is this: we are very lucky that we are in the House of Lords and have plenty to do. However, in the community in Cambridge that I live in, I see many people who could contribute a lot to society but somehow or other there is no structure for them to do so. Indeed, in many ways, there is almost a feeling that they are not quite wanted and are part of a generation that has gone. We must first look at changing our attitudes and realise that many people can contribute at many levels, and that that also helps to keep them healthy and on top of things.
I would distinguish between the changes that we have seen and which have contributed to the lengthening of people’s lives. Some of them are what I would call national changes, and some are individual ones. During my lifetime, we have seen the advent of the National Health Service, which has certainly helped a lot of people to live longer because those who cannot afford or do not see doctors have been able to access medical care.
We have also seen a number of incidental changes, which are now almost forgotten. For instance, I advise those noble Lords who have few weeks spare to read Chips Channon’s diaries. You will read about a London where fog was so dense that you could not see in front of you. Now, we have made marvellous steps in the reduction of pollution. You will read about a London where the amount of alcohol consumed—particularly in this place, incidentally—was prodigious. Nowadays that has gone down, which has contributed to change. You will read about a London where people bought each other a cigarette case for Christmas as a matter of course. How many cigarettes do you see now? Not many, quite rightly. We have made a lot of changes as a society. I say to the Minister that part of the department’s strategy must be to make it unacceptable for certain behaviours to take place at all. I am not going to start a debate on them, but there are areas where we need societal shifts to make it clear that certain types of behaviour are no longer accepted.
We also need to look at individual behaviour. One thing that has not been mentioned is class, although we have of course mentioned poverty. The fact of the matter is that the middle class is, and has always been, very good at looking after itself. One thing we have to spread is the inquiring nature of the middle class. Its ability to get the best out of society for itself must be extended. You cannot get hold of people and say, “Here is a social worker, we are going to make your life better”. Fundamentally, people have to change the way they look at society and make their own life better. For some years, I was the president of the British Dietetic Association. Dietitians will tell you that the biggest difficulty they have—or one of the biggest—is getting the intellectual case across. I hear what my good friend and doctor, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has to say, but one of the biggest difficulties in persuading people not to put those calories into their mouths is persuading them that it is actually the wrong thing to do.
This is where the food and drink industries have a part to play. I am afraid that we have to get a bit tough with them. If any noble Lords wish to go across the road to Tesco and have a look at the meal deal on display, they will see that, if they have a Tesco card, they can get various commodities quite cheap. There are special offers and, of all those commodities—I went and had a look at them today before this debate—not a single one would be classified as healthy eating. They are all high in hydrogenated fats or are straightforward sweets, sugar and chocolate. The voluntary approach is not going to work. I think that the department would find that it had the country behind it if it took a tough line with the food and drink industry. Incidentally, I am a vice-president of the Food and Drink Forum, so I have some dealings with the industry. I listen carefully to all it says and believe about 5% of it—and I am a generous sort of person.
I also point out to the Minister the difficulty in getting things done. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I have been campaigning for years—he has done most of the work, to give him his credit—for the addition of folic acid to bread. It has taken years and years. The Minister is going to have to be tough with the industry.
My final point is that there is a need for a better science of geriatrics. Most general practitioner services do not have a doctor who specialises in the elderly. They need it, but we also need more in the way of literature and publications that will help elderly people to know how to help themselves—in particular to tackle the polypharmacy case, because it could be tackled much better if people knew that they needed some help.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his opening remarks and for highlighting the important issues raised in this report. I also thank the many noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. Ageing is an area I have worked in for most of my adult life. I am grateful for the work done by the committee on these important topics, and for it inviting me to speak to Members on the issues raised.
I declare my interest in the register as chief executive of the International Longevity Centre UK. In its 2020 report, Health Matters: Why We Must Commit to Delivering Prevention in an Ageing World, the ILCUK warned that the average number of years people will live in poor health is set to increase by 17% over the next 25 years. We know that the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto made a commitment to ensure that people lived at least five extra healthy and independent years of life by 2035. The report we are discussing has a similar goal of wanting an increase of five years in disability-free life expectancy at birth for both males and females by 2035.
Sadly, in many parts of the UK, we are in fact going backwards in terms of healthy years lived. Sir Michael Marmot’s 2020 report for the Institute of Health Equity found that, for the first time in a century, life expectancy had fallen for women in the poorest communities in the UK. Overall, we have seen low rates of life expectancy increases compared with most European and other high-income nations, which is very sad news to read. Further, Sir Michael’s report found that, since 2010, the percentage of life spent in ill health has increased for both men and women.
Given this, to achieve the 2035 goal stated in the Science and Technology Committee report and the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto, there will need to be significant investment to stop health inequality and support people to live longer lives free of illness and disability. Do the Government still stand by their manifesto commitment of five extra healthy and independent years of life by 2035? If so, given the recent evidence of increased health inequalities throughout the UK, what will they do to address this?
Another area of the report that I am very interested in is the section on housing and the built environment. Paragraph 287 states:
“A basic requirement of independent living is the ability to move around the home and undertake the tasks of daily life. However, we heard that many homes are poorly suited to life in old age.”
According to the charity Habinteg, only 9% of homes in England are suitable for people living with disabilities.
I have for a long time been a supporter of housing with care, where older people can enjoy independent living in a community setting where care and support can be provided if needed. Yet only 0.6% of the over-65s in this country live in housing with care settings—about one-tenth of the levels seen in countries such as the US, Australia and New Zealand.
I agree with the report’s recommendations that the Government should use planning rules to ensure that homes and communities are accessible for people with limited mobility and adaptable as their needs change with age. Promoting housing with care and using planning laws to ensure that developers are able to build these sorts of living situations would be an extremely effective way to achieve this recommendation.
I conclude by once again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for the opportunity to debate this report today. Longevity and technology change are both transforming the human life course in profound ways. The Covid-19 pandemic has in many ways accelerated some of these changes in technology and highlighted the health inequalities that still exist. This report makes a number of important and timely recommendations to which I hope the Government will give serious consideration.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to begin the winding speeches on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, not least because we have just had 19 excellent speeches. Indeed, the level of agreement about the relevant issues indicates to me that the Science and Technology Committee had a lot of the right answers, and I make no apology for repeating some of them in a few minutes.
First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, the committee staff, our witnesses and, in particular, the medical experts on our committee who helped me to understand some of the more scientific elements of what we were hearing. As a member of the committee, I enjoyed it very much. I found it interesting but also important because in the introduction to the report on ageing we pointed out that by 2035 there will be some 5 million people over 80 and I will be one of them—in fact, I will be over 90 if I live that long, so I have a vested interest in the Government’s response to this report. In welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, to his new Front Bench role, I hope he is going to give me some comfort at the end of this debate.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, emphasised, we can thank medical science for the fact that we are living longer. The doctors and scientists are keeping us alive, but we have to ask ourselves: for what quality of life? That is why the Government issued their grand challenge of five more years of healthy life by 2035, while narrowing the gap between rich and poor. I welcome that, but is it achievable? That is what the committee set out to discover.
We heard that although average life expectancy in the UK has continued to increase year on year, although recently at a slower rate, healthy life expectancy has not kept pace. Indeed, there is a widening gap between the two, and between rich and poor. People are living longer—although women in the lowest 10% demographic group are not—but many of those extra years are spent in poor health, with multiple diseases that can mean a person spending half the week visiting several different departments in their local hospital.
The health and care system is not designed for people with multimorbidities, as the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, just said, nor for early diagnosis in many cases, as mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. We therefore recommended that older people should have a designated medical professional to integrate their care and smooth out the bumps in the availability of treatment; the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Kakkar, recommended this too. The Government say that it is already happening, but not according to the evidence we heard. We think it could save money in the end, as well as providing a better service for older people.
However, there is something to be thankful for, although the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, pointed out the problems with the clinical trials regulation. Our report outlines considerable progress in researchers’ understanding of the biology of ageing, and we reported on the work on new therapies and repurposed drugs to tackle age-related diseases. We urge the Government to continue to support this work, but believe that the “R” of R&D is often better supported than the “D”. More effort thus needs to go into developing the discoveries of our scientists here in the UK, to avoid the benefit going to companies and patients abroad.
Age-related diseases do not just happen as soon as you turn 60. We heard evidence of the lifelong lifestyle and environmental factors that correlate with health in old age. This is particularly relevant to the second part of the grand challenge mission: to narrow the gap between rich and poor, as many noble Lords have mentioned. We concluded that this knowledge should be used by public health authorities and national regulators to help individuals to understand and make use of it but, critically, to enable them to do so.
However, no matter how healthily a person lives through life, inevitably they will become frail in old age, even if relatively fit, because of the cellular and molecular changes referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. Most people would rather live safely—significantly, he also used the word “independently”—in their own home when they get old. They would of course be happier in their own community and, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said, in control. This would also be cheaper for the health and care services and it is where home care comes in. Sadly, we know about the pressures on that, as well as on residential care, but the recent government announcement of an increase in national insurance contributions will do little for social care. Staff shortages and poor pay and working conditions mean that many old people, who would be better off at home, are kept too long in a hospital bed which could better be used to clear the backlog of procedures resulting from the pandemic. This illustrates the spider’s web of linked policy areas.
We heard encouraging accounts of where technology can help older people look after themselves, to ensure that they are safe and well, but many older people do not have the digital skills needed to operate these aids. They also cost money, which again is a challenge to achieving the second part of the mission: narrowing the gap between rich and poor. The availability of technological solutions should not further add to health inequality by being available only to the better off and digitally savvy. Do the Government have a plan to avoid that happening?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, said, loneliness can be a negative factor in well-being, as we have seen during the pandemic, when many people living alone have suffered mental health challenges. The internet can provide some communication but only if you have a connection, so this depends on the availability of decent broadband and a costly device, as well as the skill to use it. I join the noble Lord, Lord Mair, in asking: what are the Government doing to make sure older people are not left out of the digital age?
We heard from civil servants and Ministers that there is enthusiasm for achieving the grand challenge, but we came to the conclusion that this is unlikely. Why? It is partly because the progress towards achieving the challenge is not being monitored, while there is no road map to ensure the actions needed happen in a timely way. Achieving such a goal would have required a two-pronged approach: action to pick the low-hanging fruit—better support and joined-up health services for older people—alongside a prompt start on the long-term actions which can prevent many age-related diseases through lifelong strategies.
I repeat my noble friend Lady Sheehan’s question: has the grand challenge mission been ditched, diluted or incorporated into something else? Prevention of age-related illness is not just a matter of information and education about how to live a healthy life. Many people know exactly what they should be doing yet lack the resources to do it, such as enough income to buy healthy food and keep their home warm. But it also requires government to look at the lived environment and pressures under which people live. Examples of these are tackling our polluted air, which causes 40,000 extra deaths every year, enough income to keep the home warm and dry and the availability of nutritious food near to where people live, rather than high streets full of cheap fast-food takeaways.
The Institute of Health Equity recently reviewed the Marmot report 10 years on, and it emphasises that health and life expectancy follow the social gradient. It is abundantly clear that the challenges are worst in certain groups, so interventions to prevent the diseases of old age should be prioritised in the poorest groups if levelling up is to mean anything at all across all constituencies, not just the former red wall.
When all is said and done, what became obvious to me was that we should not start action on healthy old age when we are old; we should start when we are children. That would help us all and protect the NHS. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, commented on that, and I very much agree. The widening gap between rich and poor among older people living with multimorbidities says it all. Clearly, although we can mitigate the ill effects of an unhealthy old age with all the technical solutions we have recommended, such as research into the diseases of old age, repurposed drugs, technological aids, co-ordinated medical treatment and oversight—I recommend the sort of electric hob that turns itself off when you remove the pan, which is much safer for old people—in the end and over the longer timescale, it is the socio-economic factors that will have the greatest effect in giving us all more years of health at the end of life. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I do not think you need to be old. I have one of those magic hobs myself.
Almost every noble Lord here today can declare an interest in this debate, because we all—possibly excepting the Minister, who is quite a youngster in this Room—have a direct, personal interest in the recommendations and actions arising from this important report, presented by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I join in the congratulations and applause directed at the noble Lord, who chaired this investigation, and his committee, many members of which have spoken today. They must have worked hard, in unusual and challenging circumstances, to produce this excellent report. I add my congratulations to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, and thank the Library and many other organisations for the briefing provided.
The challenge, of course, is what happens next; it always is. It is ensuring that change and progress results from the committee’s labours and deliberation. The Minister’s job today is of course to convince us that these many excellent recommendations will not be consigned to the long grass or worse, because of the blandness—in the word of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp—of the Government’s response.
I was impressed by two things about this report in particular: first, that it linked the socioeconomic factors with the scientific ones; and, secondly, that its clear recommendations provide a pathway—a route map, as the noble Baroness just mentioned—which, if followed and implemented, would lead to significant improvement in the lives of many of our fellow ageing citizens. Although there is not much to celebrate about the ongoing pandemic, the timeliness of the committee’s deliberations meant, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said in his opening remarks, that it became clear that the old, those suffering from multiple morbidities and the socially deprived would pay the highest penalty as a result of Covid-19, compared with the young and healthy.
This links to the Government recognising in November 2017 that ageing was one of the great challenges of their industrial strategy; in 2018, they announced the ageing society grand challenge. Indeed, the NHS’s long-term plan accepts that the NHS has a key role to play in ensuring that the extra years of life are spent in good health, while research into the effects of Covid on older people’s lives recognises, as do organisations such as Age UK, that we have a major challenge. Now, we have the Government’s commitment to levelling up, which of course includes looking at the inequalities in our ageing population and the huge differences in life expectancy in different and sometimes neighbouring communities, to which many noble Lords referred.
A combination of all those things suggests, therefore, that this report and its recommendations provide the Minister and his colleagues with a huge and important agenda. Many noble Lords have made those links; this report does the same. My noble friends Lord Browne and Lord Hanworth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, all addressed this issue.
The Government have said that addressing health inequalities will be at the core of their levelling-up agenda, and the Prime Minister has acknowledged that healthy life expectancy needs to improve. However, as yet, there is no sign of meaningful action or investment to make this a reality. The current plans appear partial and fragmented, while many deprived areas where people are likely to have the poorest health have not yet been identified as priorities for investment. I suspect that my noble friend Lord Davies could give the Government a hint or two on the methodologies that they might use.
In her excellent book, The Age of Ageing Better? A Manifesto for our Future, Dr Anna Dixon says:
“Few of us think of ourselves as old, whether we’re 60, 70 or 80.”
We are privileged here because age discrimination does not really feature in your Lordships’ House. When we hear of an ageing society, we are not experiencing care homes full of people staring at a TV screen. We are generally not bed-blockers, nor do we generally suffer from the loneliness described by this report. In fact, we think of our fellow Peers with value. We think of them bringing wisdom, enlightenment, humour and commitment to the work that we undertake in this place, even at some very great ages.
Yet we are all ageing, of course. It is a natural biological process. I think about my own background: my aunts and uncles come from a working-class family in Yorkshire, where the heavy load of working in the building trade and factors such as diet, smoking, drinking and pollution weigh heavily. All of my mother’s 10 siblings died before the average age you would have expected them to live to, and all of them died of heart disease, stroke or lung cancer. Among my contemporaries from school in Yorkshire, I am the only one who still has a full-time job; they have all retired, apart from one farmer. I intend to keep working full-time as I contemplate the future. We need to celebrate the long-term lives that we experience.
People in England can now expect to live far longer than ever before, but these extra years of life are not always spent in good health, as described in this excellent report, with people developing conditions that reduce their independence and quality of life, as my noble friend Lady Young said. I read with great interest the science bits of this report, and I particularly enjoyed the briefing I received from the British Society for Immunology about the report itself. It is worth looking at that brief, which states:
“It is well established that the immune system changes as we get older. The balance between immune activation, regulation and resolution can be altered as we age, resulting in inadequate protection against infection, along with a greater risk of inflammatory disease. As with many aspects of the human body, there is no one ‘cut off’ point for this to occur but instead it is a gradual process.”
However, the Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the relationship between ageing and the progression of our immune systems as a part of our natural life. My noble friend Lord Winston talked about the complexity of ageing. I wish him well with the challenge that he is facing.
I particularly liked recommendation 7:
“We recommend that UK Research and Innovation commit to funding further research into the biological processes underlying ageing as a priority, in particular to address gaps in understanding the relevance of ageing hallmarks to humans. Research to identify accurate biomarkers of ageing in humans should also be prioritised, to support studies to improve health span.”
This is the recommendation that the British Society for Immunology focused on. It makes the point, which other noble Lords have made, that the scientific understanding of the way in which many drugs interact with the immune system in older people is lacking, often because of a dearth of this age demographic in clinical trials. I found the Government’s response to that recommendation particularly weedy. They need to think about the teeth that the MHRA and other bodies need to ensure that clinical trials have the right demographics.
There are 20-odd recommendations in this report and that is the one that I have chosen to highlight, but the Government have to implement a concerted and co-ordinated set of national policy responses to support healthy ageing. That has to include regulatory and fiscal measures encouraging people to adopt healthy lifestyles. The Government have to have a plan. The response that we have had so far is not a plan. There needs to be a plan and a timetable. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said, the Government need to show how serious they are about this matter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, this has been an excellent and fascinating debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his chairmanship of the Science and Technology Committee. I have heard the challenges that he faced. I also thank those noble Lords who sit on the committee and all those who contributed to the report. It was in-depth and covered a range of issues, in the fine tradition of reports from the House of Lords. I remember that when I was a Member of the European Parliament a number of reports from this place were read there. The expertise available here was widely acknowledged.
The report covered a number of issues: the trends and challenges, the science of ageing, lifestyle and environmental factors on ageing, the better use of technology and digital services, and the ageing society grand challenge mission. I will come back to those in more detail.
I also thank all those noble Lords who have spoken today for their knowledgeable and insightful contributions, particularly building on their expertise. I have admired many of them from afar for many years. It is a real privilege to be here in the same debate as them.
Promoting good health, enabling people to live long and healthy lives, and improving the health of the whole population are all something we want, but they are also fundamental aims of this Government. We can do this most effectively by harnessing the incredible opportunities provided through innovation, science and technology, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and other noble Lords mentioned.
Before I respond to the specific points made today, I will return to one of the points that noble Lords rightfully acknowledged: the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdowns on life expectancy. A number of noble Lords quoted the Office for National Statistics, as well as some interesting pages and websites that we could read to learn more about this. They also highlighted that life expectancy at birth in the UK between 2018 and 2020 was 79 years for men and 82.9 years for women, but this saw a decrease of seven weeks for men with almost no change for women compared with 2015-17. However, the committee report mentions that there has been a decrease for females over the past decade.
One of the Government’s current priorities is to clear the backlog resulting from the pandemic. This report rightly acknowledges the devastating impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and its response on people’s lives in this country, but also how the pandemic has exposed existing health inequalities, which the Government will tackle as part of our levelling-up agenda—as many noble Lords have referred to today.
The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities has been tasked with helping more people to live longer lives in good health and reducing health disparities by breaking the link between someone’s background and their chance of living a healthy long life. As noble Lords are aware—indeed, some have mentioned this—while people are living longer, many suffer poor health towards the end of their lives. A notable statistic is that people in the least deprived areas live in good health for almost two decades longer than those in the most deprived areas. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others referred to this statistic.
The Medical Research Council is leading a cross-government programme of research to understand the ageing process better and promote health in later life, but also on how to motivate healthier lifestyles to improve healthy life expectancy. Like many noble Lords, I want to see the MRC rely more on evidence-based research to ensure that targeted interventions work and avoid unintended consequences.
Many noble Lords have shown an interest in the ageing society grand challenge mission for additional healthy, independent years of life while narrowing the gap. The noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Greengross, mentioned this challenge in particular; I assure noble Lords that the Government remain committed to it. One of the most effective ways to increase life expectancy and healthy life expectancy is to prevent people getting ill in the first place. The report rightly lists risk factors, including the impact of smoking and excessive alcohol consumption. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, pointed to the impact of alcohol, when interventions are often focused on other substances, such as tobacco. From looking at the statistics, alcohol not only leads to cirrhosis of the liver but is often responsible for other deaths—drownings, murders, et cetera—so it is important to look at the wider impact of alcohol consumption. We should also look at poor diets, nutrition, obesity, physical inactivity and the environmental factors that affect physical, cognitive and mental health as humans age.
The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities will drive this cross-government effort to reduce ill health. As many noble Lords know, part of the title of this office is about health disparities. It will continue to publish the productive healthy ageing profile, which provides data at national, regional and local levels on a range of indicators, including healthy life expectancy, health behaviours, NHS health checks, employment and housing.
As the Minister for Technology, Innovation and Life Sciences, I am hugely excited by the role that all three will play in our economic recovery from the pandemic, as well as in our long-term prosperity and in improving the health of the nation. The Government’s new innovation strategy, announced in July, sets out our vision to make the UK a global hub for innovation by 2035, not only in digital technology but in the exciting area of life sciences.
The Government’s commitment to innovation also applies to social care. In the September announcement on social care reform, the Government were clear that innovation would play an important part. Therefore, we continue to work with care users, providers and other partners to codevelop the reform plans, and will publish further detail in the forthcoming White Paper.
GPs’ surgeries are the first point of contact for many patients. The pandemic rapidly changed how services are provided, moving to telephone and online to complement face-to-face appointments where necessary. We continue to look at ways to improve the experience, as many noble Lords will remember from the discussion yesterday when face-to-face appointments were raised. The Government are clear that you have to leave it between the patient and clinician but, when a patient requests a face-to-face appointment, there has to be a good medical reason for the clinician to turn it down.
Many noble Lords alluded to technology. I will continue to work with NHSX and NHS Digital to drive digitisation and the sharing of appropriate data across our system of healthcare, from GP practices to hospitals, and to the social care sector to complement the proposed reforms in the Health and Care Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, mentioned the issue of data sharing and making sure it is all there, but there are some challenges, as I am sure the noble Lord will acknowledge. Many civil liberties organisations have expressed concerns, and I have been in contact with a few to pledge that I will discuss how we can make sure that data is safe, and appropriate data is digitised and shared in the most appropriate way, so that patients have trust. We are looking at the development of things such as trusted research environments to make sure that patients are reassured.
I will work across government with the Office for Life Sciences, BEIS, the Department for International Trade and No. 10 to make the UK a location of choice and hub for life sciences, not only in the Cambridge-Oxford-London golden triangle but across the UK as part of the levelling-up agenda.
I will try to address some of the specific points made by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked a number of specific questions and I will try to respond to some of them. The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, talked about overprescribing. There was an overprescribing review published on 22 September, and I thank Dr Ridge and all those who participated for their diligent work, which produced such a thought-provoking document. It sets out a series of practical and cultural changes, including the better use of technology. I hope that this report will be a call to action for everyone, whether a patient, clinician or healthcare leader, to think about what we can do to take forward this vital agenda.
The Government remain committed to extending healthy life expectancy by five years and I repeat that pledge. To deliver on this commitment we will work with the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, as I have mentioned previously. The office—I will use its acronym OHID, as I know many in healthcare like their acronyms—will set out its future plans for extending healthy life expectancy, including how these plans will be delivered and, crucially, monitored in due course. In addition, the new health promotion taskforce will drive and support the whole of government to go further in improving health and reducing disparities to tackle many of the factors that are critical to good physical and mental health.
The Government are strongly committed to supporting research into dementia, which a number of noble Lords referred to. UK researchers are at the forefront of global efforts to find a cure or disease-modifying treatment by 2025. Sadly, the response to the prevention Green Paper has been delayed by the need to focus on the pandemic response, but we will bring forward a response to the consultation in due course.
Many noble Lords asked about the levelling-up White Paper, which will be published later this year. It will set out policy interventions to improve livelihoods and opportunity in all parts of the UK, especially to improve health outcomes and reduce the gap in healthy life expectancy. Given the very technical nature of some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on the biology of ageing, I hope he will not mind if I respond to these points in writing.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of technology, including the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Mair. Once again, the issue of data sharing came up. We welcome the report’s recognition of the role that technology can play and it is really important to drive this. Part of it is data sharing, and part is making sure that the different parts of our system of healthcare work together and that we can learn from best international practice.
Before I entered this House, I used to do a lot of work analysing technology. One of the things I looked at is how the Japanese decided to respond to the changing demographics of their country. Some countries respond by immigration, but others do not want to respond like that and Japan is one of those that is very sceptical of immigration. Therefore, it is focusing on technology and how to improve the lives of people getting older, whether through some of the technologies that other noble Lords mentioned, such as touch-sensitive items and data communicating with clinicians, or through robots and extraskeletal equipment to allow older people to live a more meaningful life.
The NHS is also supporting many people to stay at home for their healthcare with digital tools and remote monitoring, partly helped by the fact that more and more of the population are buying mobile phones, Fitbits and various digital devices, and are able to provide that data. Once again, we have to be very careful and make sure that the public is onside as that data is shared.
The noble Lord, Lord Mair, also talked about AI and robots. The Government are taking action in this area. In August 2019, the Prime Minister announced a £250 million-boost to AI in the healthcare sector. I have been in very interesting conversations with the NHS AI Skunkworks. It is fascinating to see some of the technology that has been looked at there.
A number of noble Lords also mentioned how we make sure that an ageing population is digitally aware. I worked with a number of local civil society projects in a previous life. One of the interesting projects was where we got younger people to come in and teach older people to use technology. Not only did it give a more meaningful life in many ways to the older people learning technology but it was interesting that quite often some of the young people were from deprived backgrounds—sometimes single-parent families—and they were able to connect with the older person they were teaching. In many cases they found a new mentor or a new role model in their life. It was one of those interventions that helped the elderly people and some of the young people from broken families. We have to look in a more joined-up way at how we can make sure that we help more people that way.
The noble Lords, Lord Mair and Lord Sikka, also talked about the internet. There is something about the essential digital certificates that are being funded for digital entitlement and based on new standards. The Government and Ofcom have agreed a set of commitments with the UK’s major broadband and mobile operators to support vulnerable consumers, not only during the pandemic but as we go forward to make sure there is no real digital divide.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, spoke about inequalities, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and my noble friend Lord Balfe. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities has said that it is time to shift the centre of gravity for the department and the health system from treating disease to building good health. As many noble Lords have said, we should start this at a young age as effectively as possible.
One of the issues that my noble friend Lord Ridley mentioned is that it is all very well having these health education programmes at a young age, but will people listen then? When I was at school we had programmes about smoking, alcohol and other things. I remember my friends saying that they were never going to drink or smoke, but a couple of years later we were all out partying. When is public education effective? Do you just assume it is at childhood and not again? How do we make sure that it continues throughout one’s life? That is why it is important that public health messages are built on evidence and communicated in a way that appeals to those we are trying to reach.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, also spoke on various other things about public health. I assure her that regional directors of public health will sit within the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and will join up at the national and local level.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, spoke about levelling up. The White Paper will look at how we set out bold policy interventions to tackle a number of different inequalities. As many noble Lords will know, there are multidimensional inequalities and many ways of people identifying, if you like.
A number of noble Lords also spoke about obesity. Many noble Lords will be aware that we published our current obesity strategy in July 2020. This sets out an overarching campaign to reduce obesity by taking forward actions from previous chapters of the childhood obesity plan and setting out measures to get the nation fit and healthy.
This will involve a number of interventions; some of them have been controversial. Some, such as the restrictions on advertising of food high in fat, sugar and salt, both on TV and online, will be progressed as part of the Health and Care Bill. We should be aware of the controversy around some of this and make sure that, when we make these interventions, they are based on evidence, and we are able to review the evidence and bring it back to show what difference it has actually made, rather than just make the intervention, hope for the best and feel good that we have made it. Evidence-based research is very important as we make these interventions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, mentioned ethnic-minority inequality, and the Better Health campaign that the Government launched will look at how we focus on those most at risk, including those from specific ethnic-minority communities, those living with long-term health conditions and people over the age of 40 from lower socioeconomic groups, looking at particularly targeted interventions for each of those different minority groups. On long Covid, which she also mentioned, OHID will be looking at a range of factors that impact life expectancy as we look to reduce health inequalities, and that includes some of the issues on long Covid.
A number of noble Lords talked about dementia, and we have been implementing the 2020 challenge on dementia, published in February 2015, to make sure that dementia care, support and awareness of research are transformed. We will be setting out our plans for dementia for England for future years in due course. The noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Greenfield, mentioned dementia research and statistics, and I commit to write to them with more details on the questions they asked, given the time.
I already mentioned that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, talked about some of his scepticism of the public health agenda, and I mentioned my experience and that of many friends, but one issue that he mentioned was diagnosis. The work of Genomics England is interesting. As it goes forward, it will be able to identify potential diseases that individuals will face in their life. This is not as easy as it sounds, because it also raises a number of ethical issues. At what point do you notify people that they will suffer from particular diseases? Do you intervene early, or do you wait until a particular age? A number of these issues are incredibly difficult, but we will try to get the right balance.
We talked about research and funding, and the National Institute for Health Research is welcoming funding applications for research in a number of different areas, including those who want to look at the issue of healthy ageing. I hope I have talked in detail about the data strategy, but it will be important that we get there.
I apologise to noble Lords for not being able to cover all the points raised. To finish, I say just that it is an insightful and wide-ranging report, and that the Government remained committed to ensuring that as many people as possible enjoy a long and healthy life, whoever they are, wherever they live and whatever their background.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I will not keep you longer than half an hour. I am joking, of course. First, I thank the Minister very much for his response. I teased him to start with not to read his brief, but to try to answer the questions and, I have to admit, he attempted to answer the questions raised by all noble Lords. On those that he was unable to answer, he promised to write, and I thank him for that.
He confirmed that the grand challenge of adding five years to healthy life expectancy by 2035 is still government policy, but did not say who is in charge, who will monitor and who is going to report on progress to Parliament. At least this gives the Science and Technology Committee the opportunity, in a couple of years maybe, to review it and see what progress we have made, so he has been warned. He had better be on your guard, as we or some people might come back to him.
He answered the questions, but there was still a lot of “in due course”, so we will look forward to the reports that we will receive in due course. I wrote down at least five that he mentioned and I particularly look forward to the levelling-up White Paper, which is coming, because a lot of issues about inequalities need to be addressed. Once the NHS Office for Health Improvement and Disparities is established—it uses the word “disparities”—I hope to see a plan of how it will go about its task of reducing disparities.
I thank all noble Lords who took part today. All the speeches were excellent. I thank all my colleagues on the committee, because the attendance of Members, past and present, was spectacular, as were their speeches. I was also impressed by others, who were not part of the committee and by their backgrounds—economists, engineers, neuroscientists, those with decades of experience of the ageing process, nurses, accountants and an actuary. You suddenly start measuring your life’s limits. I did not declare an interest, as other noble Lords did, about their age or illnesses. I am 16, going on 83, and I intend to be 17 sometime. I thank noble Lords and beg to move.
House of Lords
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Royal Assent
Wednesday 20th October 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 22 September 2021 - (22 Sep 2021)
Gambling Commission: Data
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foster of Bath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that gambling operators provide high quality and accurate data for use by the Gambling Commission.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, operators must already provide accurate data to the Gambling Commission as a condition of their licence. If an operator misrepresents or fails to provide information, this could lead to regulatory action. However, it is clear that data quality standards need to improve. The commission has announced that the industry can expect targeted enforcement action in this area from next year.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and draw attention to my entry in the register. The establishment of the data repository is very welcome. Can the Minister put very clearly on the record that it will be a requirement for gambling companies to provide data to that repository and that this will not be voluntary? Can he further tell us what plans there are to ensure that all legitimate researchers will have access to that data?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am glad we had the opportunity to discuss this last week in the debate initiated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. The PHE review that we debated highlighted the significant evidence gaps and the importance of research. We are looking at the best ways to facilitate high-quality research as part of our review of the Gambling Act, including how we can make better use of operator data. The commission is taking forward the work on the national data repository, with the aim of collecting operator data for use by researchers.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I have given notice of my question. Recent research reveals a correlation in one in four gamblers between higher rates of gambling spend as a proportion of income and gambling harm. This challenges the Government’s oft-repeated view that
“the vast majority of people who gamble do not experience harm”.—[Official Report, 7/1/21; col. 281.]
The Minister’s predecessor dismissed this research when I brought it to her attention, because it does not establish a causative link between gambling spend and gambling harm. Surely the correct response is for the Minister to engage with this research and expand upon it to see whether it can prove that link, rather than dismissing it and preferring surveys of high-risk gamblers.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the advance notice; it gave me an opportunity to look at his Written Question and the reply from my noble friend. I do not think she was dismissing what he said. This is simply a product of what is still, as I have said, an emerging area in which data and research are being gathered. Dr Naomi Muggleton’s research has been an important contribution to our efforts to understand the widening impacts of gambling harm. Our review is looking at the barriers to conducting high-quality research such as this, which can inform our policy. Following the publication of the PHE review which we debated last week, we are working with the DHSC and others to complete that picture and improve the data and research we have.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
Given the Minister’s belief in data and research, why are the Government not taking action on research that shows that 60,000 children are gambling addicts? Why is the consultation on loot boxes taking so long, when this is a serious problem today? Will the Minister get a move on, please?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The proportion of children gambling is in decline. As the noble Lord will know, we have raised the age limit for playing the National Lottery to 18. We are also delivering on our manifesto commitment to tackle the issue of loot boxes. We called for evidence last year and received over 30,000 responses, which of course we will respond to in the proper way.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, the losses to the gambling public last year were £14.2 billion—also known as the profits made by gambling companies after expenses. In looking at this data, as the Minister has promised to do, will he look at how much has been spent on media and online advertising, because the sole purpose of this advertising is to increase the amount of gambling, often at the expense of some of the most vulnerable in society who can least afford it? Will the Government look at the data and the consequence of it? Will they also look at either further restricting or, indeed, banning some of this appalling advertising?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
All gambling advertising, wherever it appears, is subject to strict controls on content and placement. As part of the broad review of the Gambling Act, we have called for evidence on the impacts of advertising to make sure that the right controls are in place and, particularly, are effective in the digital age.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I would like to build on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. Recent research has shown that a quarter of gamblers are 400% more likely to take out payday loans than the average person. It is a shocking figure. Surely the Minister would agree that giving the Gambling Commission access to anonymised gamblers’ data would help uncover the causal link between the two and enable the commission to step in and prevent further harm to gamblers?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I certainly agree with the noble Viscount that the data is crucial to understanding the causes of harm and what we might be able to do to tackle it. That is why the Gambling Commission is taking forward work on the national repository of operator data. It is also working closely with credit reference agencies and others to understand what role financial data can play in preventing gambling harm.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the Gambling Commission regularly publishes statistics and research on the regulated gambling sector, helping to form the basis of its responses to challenges such as problem or under-age gambling. It is acknowledged that the pandemic has changed not only the industry but the way in which the information is submitted, collated and reported. Is the Minister concerned that some of the figures relating to the impact of gambling may have been understated in recent releases? When do the Government expect normal service to be resumed?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to point to the impact of the pandemic which, in this area as in so many others, will have definitely had an impact. A lot has changed in the 15 years since the Gambling Act, which is why we are reviewing it in the way that we are. The commission is setting out the next steps that it will take to make sure that operators are submitting high-quality and accurate data to inform that review.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I declare my interest as chair of the Proof of Age Standards Scheme. Will my noble friend welcome and note the willingness of the industry to co-operate in providing this data and to work with the Government and the Gambling Commission? Will he also ensure and give a commitment today that gaming, betting shops and casinos will not be disadvantaged in relation to their online counterparts in the provision of data?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I certainly welcome the engagement that we have had, and continue to have, from the industry in this important area. As part of our review, we called for evidence on the changes to the legislation governing casinos and we are looking at those responses. Making sure that we have an equitable approach to online and land-based regulation is an important objective of our review.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, through the pandemic the use of data in the National Health Service has made it obvious to all of us what a good database can help us achieve. Surely a database of a similar order in respect of the gambling industry would similarly help us make good progress towards addressing these problems that are frequently, and over many years, mentioned in this House. The single customer view methodology takes people’s data—with the permission of the Information Commissioner, as regards GDPR—and pools it to provide precisely the database that I think we would all welcome. Will the Minister assure us that this is a way forward and that he is committed with his officials to finding a solution?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that good data drives good policy, and that is what we want to see in the review. The Gambling Commission is working with operators on how they can share data where they believe a customer is at risk, and the Information Commissioner has confirmed that data protection law can permit this in relation to the work on single customer view, as the noble Lord mentioned. We encourage the industry to trial a solution swiftly.
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register. Some reports have estimated that unregulated gambling on the dark web and black market has doubled during the pandemic. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether his department is working or has plans to work with the Gambling Commission to investigate illegal gambling activity taking place and to collect data on the levels of money being spent?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The dark web is clearly one area where the changes over the last 15 years can be seen. We called for evidence on the black market as part of our review and we must make sure that the Gambling Commission is set up to respond flexibly to the challenges that the future will bring. The commission has also received an uplift to its licence fees, which came into effect this month, which will strengthen the resources which it has to monitor and tackle illegal gambling.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that gambling can be a great entertainment, particularly in places such as Spanish City in Whitley Bay, but it can also be a very destructive addiction. Does he agree that targeted advertising aimed at vulnerable people, particularly young people and chronic gamblers, is one of the main drivers of addiction, and will the Government make this one of the priorities for reform?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I certainly know and remember Spanish City well; I will be back there this weekend. The advertising codes are clear that gambling adverts must never be targeted at children or vulnerable people. The Advertising Standards Authority recently announced changes to the gambling codes to protect vulnerable people, and further details on changes to protect children will follow by the end of the year.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next question.
Regulation of Property Agents Working Group
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to implement the recommendations of the final report of the Regulation of Property Agents Working Group, published on 18 July 2019.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my residential commercial property interests as set out in the register. The Government are committed to promoting fairness and transparency for home owners and renters and making sure that consumers are protected from abuse and poor service. This commitment includes raising professionalism and standards among property agents. The Government are considering the recommendations from the independent working group of the noble Lord, Lord Best, on property agents and we welcome the work by the noble Baroness and the industry itself to improve best practice across the sector.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that. As he suggests, we now have cross-industry and consumer agreement on codes of practice for all residential agents covering letting sale and block management. The whole industry and its users want to see the report by the noble Lord, Lord Best, implemented and the regulator set up. Therefore, in addition to the words of comfort that the Minister has given us, can he go one further and give us a commitment to implement that report for the sake of all people who rent their houses?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am not able to go any further but I know that the final code is ready, and that is a springboard to action. I am looking forward to engaging with the noble Baroness in due course.
Lord Flight (Con)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Best, and his working group on a most thorough report. In its 56 pages, it makes recommendations on a model for an independent property agent regulator, for a single mandatory and legally enforceable code of practice for property agents, and on clarifying processes and charges for leaseholders. Do the Government have any material criticisms of the report to date?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My noble friend should note that the Government welcome the final report of the independent Regulation of Property Agents Working Group, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The Government have been clear about the need to raise professionalism and standards among property agents, which is why we tasked a group of experts from across industry, led by our highly experienced chair, to advise on the best way to secure this objective. The working group’s report and recommendations are an important development towards ensuring that all consumers are treated fairly and all agents work to the same high standards.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, as noble Lords have mentioned, I chaired the Government’s working group on regulation of property agents. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her sterling ongoing work on this issue. Bearing in mind that the leading industry bodies for estate, lettings and managing agents were all on our working group, as well as consumer experts; our recommendations for a regulator of property agents were unanimous and favourably received by Ministers; the cost of a regulator would fall on the industry rather than on the Government; and I delivered our report over two years ago, may I press the Minister to confirm that there will at least be news of the necessary legislation within six months?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work undertaken by the noble Lord on the wide-ranging recommendations contained in the final report from his working group. I am grateful to him and to all those who contributed. However, he will appreciate that this is a complex area with many interdependencies. Having paused work on it at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, we continue to consider the recommendations in the noble Lord’s report.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is not here.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the advisory board of the Property Redress Scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Best, put it very clearly: this report was two years ago, and still nothing concrete has happened. Some things can be done quite simply. The first recommendation is the appointment of a new independent regulator to lead matters in this instance. May I specifically ask the Minister when he expects such a regulator to be appointed?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
The noble Lord will know that the creation of a new regulatory regime requires a legislative underpinning. We are considering how to move forward on this and other areas and will come back to this House in due course.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lady Hayter, all the working-group members and the progress made towards adoption of the codes of practice as outlined. I add my support to the calls for the Government to implement the report at speed. Last year, a court ruled that letting agents are no longer able to advertise properties as unavailable to those in receipt of universal credit. What steps have the Government taken since to prevent this discrimination? Does the Minister agree that implementing the codes of practice would prevent such discrimination in future?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we recognise that having an overarching code of practice will be an important step in addressing these issues around discrimination. That is why we are looking forward to receiving the draft code compiled from the hard work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and others. We will come back in due course on how we take that forward.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, leaseholders in cladding-scandal-ridden flats have seen a meteoric rise in their service charges. Emily in Leeds has seen hers rise from £400 per year to nearly £3,000 per year. The Minister has said this afternoon that he is committed to leaseholder fairness. Regulation is urgently needed to save these leaseholders from bankruptcy. When—not if—will the Government introduce regulation?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, the Building Safety Bill is currently going through the other place. We strongly believe that all fees and charges should be justifiable, transparent and communicated effectively. By law, variable service charges, and pollution and administration charges, must all be reasonable, and, where costs relate to work or services, those must be of a reasonable standard. There are already significant legal protections in place.
Prime Minister: Meeting with First Ministers
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the Prime Minister will next meet the First Ministers of the United Kingdom’s devolved Governments, and what they will discuss.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
The Prime Minister met the First Ministers on Monday to discuss the next steps of Covid recovery and the upcoming COP 26 summit. He expects to meet them again early next year.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, next Wednesday the Chancellor will present his annual Budget to Parliament. I understand that that Budget was not on the agenda, despite some economic references in the items discussed on Monday at the meeting with the First Ministers. After 22 years of the devolution settlement, which has since expanded the tax-raising and tax-varying powers of the Scottish Government and others, surely it is time for Budgets to be prepared in the United Kingdom on a slightly different basis, with some consultation and engagement in advance with all levels of government, including the devolved Governments.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I know that the intergovernmental review is specifically looking at arrangements for the development of Budgets. I point out that there have been a number of meetings between the UK Government and the devolved Governments in the run-up to the spending review.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, DIT Ministers are refusing to engage with the devolved Governments on trade negotiations, other than on very specific devolved competences. However, major trade deals, especially those dealing with sectors such as agriculture, food processing, energy or manufacturing, can have a major impact on devolved territories, so will the Government undertake to involve the devolved Governments fully on any issues impacting on their economies in trade deals and not simply on areas of devolved competences?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the model of international engagement is also something that the intergovernmental review is looking to iron out so that there is effective engagement. Engagement on international matters has now been embedded in the inter-ministerial group for trade and EU issues as well as in the inter-ministerial standing committee.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, in engagement with the devolved authorities, the Government must respect the devolution settlement and the devolved authorities need to recognise that we have a Government of the whole United Kingdom. Is it possible to do that with equal respect to both parties?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
Absolutely, there needs to be equal respect. That is why there has been a major review of how we ensure effective working between the devolved Governments and the United Kingdom Government. It has taken some time to conclude.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
Will my noble friend the Minister inform the House of what progress the intergovernmental relations review has made since the March progress update and why it has taken so long to conclude the review?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My noble friend is right that it is not a fast process, but we are now in a position to conclude. Developing a package that best reflects each devolved Government’s views can be the result only of detailed joint analysis by the UK Government and the devolved Governments.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister undertake to remind the Prime Minister to remind in turn the First Minister of Scotland of the vital contribution to the Scottish economy of United Kingdom defence expenditure, in particular the submarine base at Faslane, the Type 26 frigates now being built on the Clyde and now the Type 31 frigates being built at Rosyth?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I will undertake to do that. Of course, the Prime Minister is now also the Minister for the Union, and I am sure that he, as well as my right honourable friend who is now the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, will use every opportunity to remind the First Minister of that important defence contribution.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
During the Covid pandemic, the Welsh Labour Government at Cardiff Bay have received substantial additional funding—indeed, billions—through the Barnett formula and other funding. Does the Minister agree that, when they next meet, a discussion of the reluctance on the part of the Welsh Government to spend that money in support of the ailing Welsh national health system and of Welsh businesses would be very appropriate, as well as an additional discussion as to why they are reluctant to hold an inquiry into their performance in dealing with the pandemic in Wales?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, it is important to recognise that through the Barnett formula a considerable amount of money has been made available to all the devolved Governments—some £28.1 billion. We are happy to continue to engage in a productive way with the Welsh First Minister and others on how best to recover.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, when the Prime Minister next meets the First Ministers in the new year, I hope it will be a convivial and friendly gathering. I hope that all in the room will reflect on how they responded to Covid and to some of the backlogs in education and health, and that each part will find that they have done some things better and others worse. Could we encourage them to compare their experiences and learn from each other so that the whole of the United Kingdom will benefit from some of the divergences of the four units?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, that is absolutely an opportunity to learn. The pandemic will probably have been the most memorable event in my lifetime, as someone who was born well after the Second World War, and it is important that we learn the lessons from divergence and different approaches so that we are better prepared for the next time, should this ever happen again.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to extend the debate to the devolved entities in England. Earlier this year, PoliticsHome reported that some metro mayors are growing increasingly frustrated with the Government’s favouritism towards certain mayors by way of, for example, meetings with the Prime Minister or the Chancellor and access to officials. What steps have the Government taken to increase engagement with all metro mayors regardless of their party affiliation?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am certainly aware of a number of meetings that have taken place— I have had numerous meetings with the Mayor of Manchester and the Mayor of the West Midlands, and many with the Mayor of London. Of course, we recognise the importance of effective engagement. It is through effective engagement with our mayors that we can support each other so that we recover from this pandemic.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, one area for profitable discussion would be how we can ensure that all countries and regions of the United Kingdom can benefit from growing economic prosperity. As part of that discussion, would it not be useful to discuss how we can prevent Northern Ireland being placed at a severe competitive disadvantage compared with the other countries in the UK by the provisions relating to state aid in the Northern Ireland protocol, something that does not get much coverage but which is vital? Can we ensure that the Government’s proposals in their Command Paper in July are implemented as quickly as possible? That would help to redress this problem.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is obviously more expert than me on the specifics, but it is important that the state aid rules apply fairly and equally across all our four nations.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, given the somewhat frayed cords that hold the nations of the United Kingdom together, are the Ministers of the devolved Governments satisfied that they have a fair voice in drawing up the agenda of these meetings? Are the issues that they want to discuss being discussed?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
The noble and right reverend Lord should understand that there is a three-tiered form of engagement: there are portfolio-level meetings, cross-cutting issues and then the Prime Minister meeting with First Ministers and the Deputy First Minister. The sheer volume of meetings indicates that there are plenty of fora to ensure that we deal with the issues at the appropriate level of engagement, whether at the bottom tier or in meetings with the Prime Minister.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I would like to suggest something for the agenda for the next meeting. Could the Minister ask the Prime Minister—nicely—to put on the agenda ways of ensuring that money allocated by the Treasury for devolved areas is spent properly on those areas, not improperly on reserved areas?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
There is a clear political point there, but also a practical point. We must spend money for its intended purposes, which is why we have bodies such as the National Audit Office to ensure that taxpayers’ money is properly spent. We need to look into how we can have a similar regime for devolved Governments.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have now been asked.
Shortages: Protection for the Vulnerable
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect the most vulnerable in the event of shortages of (1) energy, and (2) other necessities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, there is no shortage of energy, and the Government have taken action to increase the supply of HGV drivers. The supply of fuel and food is secure. Protecting vulnerable consumers is our top priority, which is why our energy price cap will remain in place. We are supporting vulnerable and low-income households through initiatives such as the £500 million household support fund, the warm home discount, winter fuel payments and cold weather payments.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I do not agree with the Minister that everything has been fine following the shocks that we have suffered from Covid and Brexit over the past few months, and neither would the underprivileged in our society. Are the Government doing some contingency planning, as we have really big threats coming, possibly with climate change, to protect the most underprivileged and deprived in society to ensure that they are looked after? People are talking in the press about forms of rationing. We could look for schemes through which we could protect them more than we do at the moment. Similarly, we need to get out and make certain that people who are working on the front line are given all the protection they need—including petrol—so that they can get to work and so on. That has certainly not been happening in the past few weeks.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that the poorest and most vulnerable are always at the heart of our policies in this area—we always seek to protect them. It is, however, important to emphasise that there is no shortage of essential items, and we have taken action to ensure that supply chains remain robust.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, one of the other necessities mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, is food. Nationally and globally, we waste a third of all food. When 1.7 million children, between September 2020 and February 2021, were living in food poverty along with their families, surely there must be a better way. This week, the Earthshot Prize celebrated Milan’s citywide food-waste policy, which saves 260,000 meals-worth a year. What steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking to encourage and support the better local collection and distribution of food waste in the UK more effectively?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The right reverend Prelate makes a good point. Everybody across all levels of government—national and local—want to do all they can to minimise food waste. Of course, we are always looking for additional ways to protect the most vulnerable.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, shortages of energy and food have driven up the cost of basic necessities. Does the Minister agree that the poorest pensioners are likely to struggle most, as they spend so much of their budget on these items? What are the Government doing to increase take-up of pension credit, as 40% of pensioners who are entitled do not claim it and therefore do not get access to the warm home discounts, cold weather payments and so on that this benefit could provide for them? With 40% of pensioners not receiving that benefit, what will the Government propose to improve the situation?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, nearly 1.5 million people across Great Britain do receive pension credit, but I agree with my noble friend that many are not claiming what they are entitled to. We are working constantly to increase awareness of pension credit; we recently joined forces with Age UK and various celebrities to try to encourage pensioners to check their eligibility for access to this important benefit.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, could we not provide statutory protection of a national scheme for individuals acting as service providers and the needy, whereby individuals—perhaps even neighbours —acting as volunteer service providers, could take on responsibility for arranging appointments and performing other designated life tasks? This would all be under clearly defined model arrangements, thereby relieving pressure on statutory providers. There is an army of volunteers out there, but many are wary of liability. A national scheme could complement existing charity arrangements.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is right. During the pandemic, we saw the massive difference that volunteers can make to people’s lives. Our role in government in volunteering is as a steward, enabling a further unlocking of the voluntary sector. We are always aiming to simplify the routes into volunteering to help match up supply and demand.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, in the light of the upsurge of food, energy and living costs looming this winter, does the Minister agree that the best way in which to support the most vulnerable people is to restore the £20 uplift and reverse the 5% cut to 4.4 million families? If not, what special measures will be on offer, particularly to people with disabilities, who have suffered most disproportionately during the pandemic, through loss of income and support, increasing care charges, poor access to essential services and generally feeling forgotten and not cared about? How will they be protected from cold and hunger in the coming months?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know that we have debated these matters a lot in the House recently, and I know that the noble Baroness will be aware that the uplift to universal credit was only ever meant to be temporary. I outlined earlier some of the many schemes that we have on offer to pensioners and those living in fuel poverty to help them get through this crisis.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
In the energy market, when consumers were encouraged to switch suppliers to find the best deal, it was to encourage competition and innovation among utility companies. Are the Government still confident that the supplier of last resort mechanism is the correct outcome for suppliers and consumers in the process in a competitive energy market?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The answer to the noble Lord is yes. A number of energy companies have, sadly, gone to the wall, but the supplier of last resort scheme has so far been successful in transferring to other providers. We have other administrative regimes in place should they be necessary but, so far, the SoLR process has worked well.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the shortage of energy is going to be felt by those households which simply cannot afford the soaring energy prices. Given the forecast that gas prices are going to go up another 30% next year on top of the already very high levels, are the Government considering further measures to alleviate the intense hardship that this will cause for millions of families? This could be done, if not by removing VAT, which may be difficult, by vastly expanding the warm homes discount or easing or temporarily suspending some of the many green levies that bump up our energy bills. Is some further action being contemplated?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course, my noble friend will be aware that domestic fuel, such as gas and electricity, is already subject to a reduced rate of 5% of VAT. He will understand, I am sure, that I cannot comment on any speculation about any other changes that might happen in the Budget, beyond saying that protecting consumers is our top priority, which is why the energy price cap will remain in place. I announced earlier the other levels of support that we have in place.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, millions are already made vulnerable by poverty—too often deep poverty—and food insecurity. The pandemic has underlined the need for a decent social security system that protects them in difficult times. I repeat the question, because the answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, was so inadequate: will the Government therefore rethink their decision to end the £20 universal credit uplift as a first step towards ensuring that social security benefits are adequate to meet needs? The proposed local authority household support fund that the Minister mentioned is not a solution that provides security for those in vulnerable circumstances.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think we have a difference of opinion here. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, the universal credit uplift was only ever meant to be temporary. The opposition parties do not accept that, but that was the case. We recognise that some people continue to need extra support, which is why we introduced the £500 million household support fund.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I refer to my position as president of National Energy Action. Does my noble friend share my concern that there are currently 4 million people in fuel poverty? Will he use his good offices to ensure that everyone has a warm home this Christmas?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course, we are constantly looking at the various schemes we have. We announced £850 million for the home upgrade grant yesterday, which will go precisely to those my noble friend is concerned about—the fuel-poor living in rural areas.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I chaired a commission on vulnerable consumers of energy, two or three years ago. The industry has taken on some of the recommendations; Ofgem and the Government have taken on rather fewer. Does the Minister not recognise that the way Ofgem has licensed over 100 new competitors without any requirement that they look after vulnerable consumers has caused distress and the kind of fuel poverty that has already been raised? Over 100 licences have been given. Competition benefits consumers, but it has to be accompanied by resilience and reliability. Will the Government and Ofgem look at this again?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course, we always keep these matters under review, but to a certain extent the noble Lord answered his own question: competition is good for the consumer, and the extent and array of competition in the energy market has produced lower prices for many consumers. Obviously, in a competitive market, particularly with the recent spikes, some companies will go to the wall, but there are protections in place for those consumers under the follow-up process that I talked about with the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. But of course we always keep these matters under review.
Covid-19: Plan B
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the rising number of Covid-19 cases and comments made by the NHS Confederation regarding the reintroduction of certain restrictions, what criteria they have put in place as the triggers to implement their Covid-19 “Plan B”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for the very important Question. As set out in the Government’s comprehensive Covid-19 Response: Autumn and Winter Plan 2021, if the data suggests that the NHS is likely to come under unsustainable pressure, the Government have prepared plan B contingency measures. We monitor a wide range of Covid-19 data closely, so we can act if there is a substantial likelihood of this happening. We also track the economic and societal impacts of coronavirus to ensure that any response takes into account those wider effects in a balanced way.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, Professor Stephen Reicher, a member of SAGE’s sub-committee, said yesterday:
“I don’t want lockdown … The danger is if you do nothing … in terms of infections, in terms of long Covid, in terms of hospitalisations … they will be left with no alternative.”
Based on what the Minister has just said, what evidence do the Government have of why scientists such as Professor Reicher are wrong in seeking mitigation measures now to deal with the worrying number of viral transmissions as a way of stopping future lockdowns?
Lord Kamall (Con)
In order to judge what the next action should be, the Government have laid out plan A. Plan A is focused, for winter 2021-22, on building defences through vaccines, antivirals and disease-modified therapeutics, identifying and isolating cases of transmission through test and trace, and supporting the NHS and social care, but also advising people on how to protect themselves and offering clear guidance and communications.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is quite clear that those things are not working. When I saw the Secretary of State for BEIS doing the media rounds this morning denying that plan B was coming down the track, I thought we might open a book on how soon the Government will actually launch plan B. I would like to ask the Minister whether plan B becomes necessary because the Government have made such a mess of plan A, with very late vaccinations for 12 to 15 year-olds and a worryingly low uptake of booster jabs. Is it too late to prevent an NHS winter crisis, with the knock-on effects that will have for our backlog?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question and, while I have the opportunity, for all her advice, as a new boy in the role. We will continue to look at a number of different factors, including both economic and health indicators, before we judge whether it is necessary to move to plan B. Plan B does not actually involve complete lockdown. It involves introducing mandatory vaccine-only Covid status certification in certain riskier settings; legally mandating face coverings in certain settings, such as public transport; and communicating clearly and urgently to the public if the risk level increases.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, could my noble friend tell us, following the amazing success of the vaccine rollout, what proportion of hospital beds are occupied by Covid patients? Because it seems to me that some people—some doomsayers—are trying to create panic where there is no need for it.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question. I do not have the detailed data and I will write to him. But in terms of the link between cases, hospitalisations and deaths, it is quite clear that the vaccine has been working to break the link between the number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Would the Minister accept that one of the unfair criticisms, in some ways, over the last 18 months, has been “too little, too late”? That cannot happen again. We need to set good examples. At Prime Minister’s Questions today, there was not a single Conservative MP wearing a mask in a crowded Chamber. What on earth is that as an example to the people on the Tube and everywhere else? Clearly, some small measures now will save the big measures later.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that it is important that we take as many measures as possible to make sure that we do not have to move to plan B. I assure the noble Lord that I do wear my mask to, hopefully, set an example, and I hope others will too—but it is really important that we understand what factors are driving this rise in numbers and the most effective way of tackling it.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister say what action the Government are taking to ensure that the inequalities that have been experienced by black and ethnic minority people in relation to Covid-19 are being addressed now?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question, particularly in the light of this being Black History Month, an important month to be celebrated in terms of the contribution that the Afro-Caribbean community has made to this country over many years. However, on the specific issue, sadly there are some demographics in communities that have a lower uptake of vaccines. The Government are discussing with a number of stakeholders how we can improve information, but also encourage and exhort people from these communities to take the vaccines.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, we know there are government advisers who are advising the Government to implement plan B. Can the Minister say which ones are advising the Government not to implement plan B?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate that all these issues are not necessarily binary, and that there are often a number of trade-offs, not only between economic and health factors but also within the health community itself. For example, there have been warnings that if we go down the route of more restrictive measures, we will see an increase both in patients who are unable to have the surgery that they had planned and in mental health cases.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, taking the Minister back to the answer he gave to my noble friend Lord Rooker, on the issue of mask wearing, the evidence seems to be that wearing a mask does have an impact on whether viruses are transmitted, and in this case there is efficacy in respect not only of Covid-19 but of other viruses which could be circulating at this time of year and themselves putting pressure on the NHS. What is it that the Government cannot bear about asking people to wear masks? It has no economic cost, costs very little in terms of inconvenience and has a very significant impact.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I assure the noble Baroness that plan B does involve legally mandating face coverings in certain settings, such as public transport and shops. I am sure many noble Lords will have recognised, when they are travelling in by public transport, the number of people wearing masks on public transport, even though advice by the transport companies has dropped.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I have a daughter who works in A&E in a London hospital who simply says, “Please will you make people act responsibly once again?” It costs us absolutely nothing. We acted too slowly previously. We have seen 10% increases in the last week; please just get on with plan B.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question. It is important. Personally, I do believe that many people should be wearing masks and that there is evidence for this. But the fact is, we have to look at a number of indicators and balance those up.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, could my noble friend tell us how many of us who are eligible for the third jab have had it? I have had mine. Could he also tell us what forward planning we have? Is this going to be an annual event? Are the resources available to ensure that it can be continued indefinitely?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that very important question. Some of the data suggests that there has been a slower uptake for the booster. I do not have the exact information and data available on the uptake of the booster, but I will make sure I write to my noble friend.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister keeps referring to plan B, but he has not answered the fundamental question that my noble friend Lord Rooker raised. This Government have too often in the past been slow to respond, and as a result has had to introduce far harsher measures as a consequence. Does he accept that that has been the case in the past, and what assurances can he give us, as we go forward, that that will not happen later this year?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am afraid I disagree with the noble Lord on that particular question. In fact, the UK is seen as a leader in the speed and efficiency with which it adopted vaccines. Countries that criticised the UK were, only a year later, saying “How did you do it? How did you manage to roll out your vaccines so quickly?” Of course, things change, and it is very important that we balance all the factors when considering whether to move to plan B.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
One of the reasons why there is a health crisis at the moment seems to be that it is a non-Covid crisis. Would the Minister comment on the fact that the backlog, the collateral damage of lockdowns, has created a terrible situation? It is non-Covid related, so we should not overreact. Quickly, on plan B, which experts will he take advice from? Will it be Professor Reicher, a behavioural and social psychologist, or the NHS Confederation, run by someone who was on “Moral Maze” with me? Not all experts are experts, or should be listened to.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for pointing out the important issue that there is a trade-off. There are some who continue to argue against moving to plan B, and it is important that we assess the balance of arguments. There are trade-offs within health itself. There will be some patients who will be concerned about plan B because of how it will affect their access to healthcare, and there are other, wider societal factors.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, will the Minister ensure that before any change in government policy, whether it be plan B or any other changes, there will be proper consultation with the devolved Administrations?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Government have co-ordinated action and been in constant conversation with the devolved Administrations—or, as one noble Lord said, the devolved Governments—to co-ordinate and to learn from each other in terms of a UK-wide response.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that not only have ethnic minority communities seen tremendous disparities in their experience of Covid, but so have people with disabilities where long-term care is needed. Is his department in consultation with them at the moment, in preparation for plan B?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The new office OHID, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, clearly assesses a number of factors and government policy to help those from more deprived communities and in more deprived areas. If the noble Baroness has specific examples and wishes to write to me, I will answer.
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend tell me whether the Government are still happy with the composition, mathematical modelling and advice from SAGE?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, can the Minister explain now—and not write to me—how and by whom these decisions are made? Are they made by the chief executive of the NHS or by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, or do they have to wait for a decision from the Prime Minister and wait until he returns from his beach holiday?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Government are consulting widely on the measures to be taken, balancing and looking at the trade-offs not only in health but with wider societal factors.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, nearly 1,000 people are dying every week from Covid. What is the trigger in deaths before plan B comes into effect?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am not sure I agree with the noble Baroness on the figure she cites; I will double-check and write to her. On the triggers, it is clear that we have to look at a range of factors before deciding whether to move to plan B.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, clearly these are very difficult issues, but can my noble friend help the House—if not today then in writing—by explaining some of the statistics being used to judge what is happening with Covid right now? For example, the use of a Covid-positive test within 28 days of death is not necessarily indicative of what is happening, and the vaccine programme seems to have ensured that those who are seriously ill or sadly dying of Covid are those who are not vaccinated or have serious underlying other conditions—in which case, the statistics may be misleading us somewhat.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for making that valuable point. When one looks at the broken-down data, one sees that there are some demographics that have not taken up the vaccine as much as they should have, including a number who have not received the booster. We want to make sure that as many people as possible are vaccinated so that we do not have to move to plan B and can continue with plan A. Plan A includes provisions for ensuring that we increase the number of people vaccinated.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Private Notice Question has now elapsed.
Armed Forces Bill
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Earl of Courtown
That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Armed Forces Bill has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 9, Schedule 2, Clause 10, Schedule 3, Clause 11, Schedule 4, Clauses 12 to 15, Schedule 5, Clauses 16 to 26, Title.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Minister, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Wednesday 20th October 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 40-I(b) Amendments for Committee (supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (20 Oct 2021)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Before I call Amendment 1, I should alert the Committee that the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris of Richmond and Lady Brinton, will be taking part remotely.
Clause 1: Police covenant report
Amendment 1
Lord Coaker
Member’s explanatory statement
This would explicitly require that mental health and the impact of trauma on the police workforce must be reported on as part of the report on the covenant.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to start the discussion of this very important Bill in Committee, and I look forward to discussing it with the Minister and, no doubt, many other colleagues across this House. I am particularly moved to speak on the policing part of the Bill and to open this discussion, since, as some of your Lordships will know, my father was a Metropolitan Police officer for 30 years. He retired fairly recently—over 30 years ago—and is still alive at the age of 95, so it is a great privilege and an honour to speak. One or two people may have met him; I am not sure. It probably goes back a bit further than that.
The serious point is that the amendment gives us the opportunity to start this debate by praising our police. Yes, there have been some serious questions raised about our police. Very well-documented issues have arisen which need proper investigation and inquiry, and they will, in due course, be looked at and raise serious questions. I am not saying that these issues are not important, but we should also recognise the serious job of work that the police do. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, is in his place. Nottinghamshire has a very fine police force, as is the case across the country. Many of us have had cause to call on police officers and their staff to help us in our daily lives. That was evidenced in our own Parliament not long ago when PC Keith Palmer was killed on our premises as the result of a terrorist attack. Every single day, as we come on to the Estate, we see the police protecting us. It is important to set that on the record so that, when we discuss these issues, police across the country—both past and present—their staff and families know that we start from this perspective.
We strongly support the police covenant, which we believe is long overdue. These amendments are about making the covenant as strong and effective as it can be so that it works for police officers and their families. I know that the Minister will take the amendments in that spirit as we seek to clarify some parts of the clauses.
I suggest that the Minister looks at the lessons learned from the Armed Forces covenant, to build on that experience and mirror its strengths in the way in which it has developed. It is important that the covenant is designed to cover both former and serving police personnel; we welcome that. I want also to pay tribute to the Police Federation and all those who have long campaigned for the introduction of a covenant, the Police Federation having done so through its Protect the Protectors campaign.
The size of the Bill has been remarked on. It will raise a huge number of issues during the next few weeks. However, today’s debate and the amendments we have put forward are related to the covenant. I will speak also to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser.
Amendment 1 would put into the Bill that a report about the police covenant must specifically include
“mental health and the impact of trauma.”
I have also added my name to the important amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which probes what access members and former members of the police workforce have to mental health programmes and support. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reply because the importance of mental health support for our officers cannot be overstated. As we know, they are regularly exposed to traumatic and dangerous situations in their job—something they willingly accept as part of their duty. As the covenant says, it is therefore incumbent on us to recognise the trauma that may be imposed on officers and their families, both when they are serving and when they have moved on or retired.
I sometimes think—as I am sure many other noble Lords do—what it must be like to go to some of the scenes of horrific murders or of child abuse. All these occur in the normal, everyday life of a police officer, who then has to go home. I know that the Government will want to ensure that this support is given to them. These amendments ask how we ensure that somebody who has to deal with such situations is given the support they deserve. The amendment would specifically recognise the impact of trauma in the Bill.
This was raised by a number of Members in the other place, particularly my colleague Sarah Champion MP, and I pay tribute to her work on that. She raised the necessity of training our officers in recognising and identifying trauma and how to deal with it. She said:
“The fact that across police forces there is not a standard level of support to be accessed once an officer feels he has the need for it is really letting our forces down.”—[Official Report, Commons, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Committee, 25/5/21; col. 178.]
That is a concern that we all have. No doubt there are examples of good practice, but how does one ensure such good practice across all forces and areas? The lack of consistency in mental health support is something that we need to address.
Since the debate in the Commons, to be fair to the Government, they have announced a programme of mandatory annual mental health checks—but they are for the Armed Forces. The Minister for Defence has called it an annual mental health MOT, with the intention of ensuring that our Armed Forces understand what help is available to them and are equipped to manage the unique pressures of service life. I wonder whether the Government might learn from that. Might that be something that could be applied to the context of the police in our country? We could learn from the Armed Forces covenant on what has worked with respect to this and from the successes and failures.
This is about the safety not only of the police but of our communities. Regular and high-quality mental health support makes sure that our police are fit to be in post, are able to process the situations that they deal with regularly as part of the job and are capable of supporting and responding to traumatised victims.
Amendment 3 would specifically add to the Bill that a report on the police covenant must look at what mental health support is required by officers’ families. This is to probe the simple issue of what support is available for an officer’s spouse, partner or family. The key thing here, which I am sure the Government will recognise, is that if your partner is regularly put in harm’s way in the course of their job, or they are traumatised by their experience during their service, there should be a service that you can call to seek support and to have a specialist speak to you about its impact on you and your family. That is an important point for us to consider.
Amendment 5 goes to the absolute heart of how the covenant must work. It would set up an oversight board with an independent chair and membership from policing organisations, including the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents’ Association, UNISON, the College of Policing and others. The oversight board would review the Secretary of State’s annual report on the covenant before it is laid before Parliament. The basis for this was put succinctly in the other place by my honourable friend for Croydon Central, who said:
“In essence, the amendment would ensure that the covenant does not have Ministers marking their own homework.”—[ Official Report, Commons, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Committee, 25/5/21; col. 193.]
The covenant must belong to our police forces, and the Government must listen to our police. It should not be for the Home Secretary to decide how well the Government are fulfilling their duties under the covenant.
We recognise that, currently, there is an oversight board, which met for the first time over the summer, but that was chaired by the Home Secretary. This would rebalance that by putting an independent chair in her place. This is an important point about putting the police themselves in the driving seat, instead of Ministers.
I turn now to Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, which has our full support. It would amend our own Amendment 5 to include the National Association of Retired Police Officers in the proposed oversight board. Our Amendment 2 would require the Secretary of State’s annual report on the covenant specifically to consider the support needed by the police workforce on retirement, including access to training courses. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for her work on this issue and look forward to her contribution later in our discussions.
A crucial part of the covenant and a key strength of it is that it applies, as I say, to both serving and former officers and their families. The service an officer has paid to their community and the impact it may have had on, for example, their health, does not finish the day that they retire from the force. The covenant is about that long-lasting partnership and recognition of the unique situation of the police workforce.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to this policing debate and to hear of his antecedents. I added my name to this amendment and, with your Lordships’ indulgence, will speak to Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, to which I have also put my name. These all deal with the many associated issues in this group, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, just outlined.
I have been extremely concerned at the growing number of police officers and former police officers who have turned up at the police treatment centres run by the charity of which I am president with clear mental health issues alongside whatever physical injuries they might have. In the year 2019-20, we provided 3,600 hours of one-on-one counselling. Some 1,200 patients received well-being support through the psychological well-being programme, well-being weekends and recharge days. This is a 19% increase on those attending in 2018. To facilitate this growing area of work, we have provided a new clinical wing at PTC Harrogate, in association with Police Care UK, another police charity.
In its latest research, Police Care UK found that 90% of police officers will be exposed to multiple traumatic incidents during their career—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker—and that one in five serving personnel are currently living with symptoms of PTSD.
While they do an amazing job at the St Andrews centre, the new clinical wing will be of enormous extra benefit, having two new wings with two floors and adding 20 bedrooms to the estate. It will give four additional counselling rooms, one nursing surgery room, six therapy rooms, three workshop spaces and a community room. Noble Lords can see how necessary these will be; we can only hope that the extra facilities will be enough to meet the increasing demand for well-being provision for the officers who need it.
The impact of trauma is deeply debilitating and for many years officers felt that they could not speak out about it. But we have now seen clearly how damaging that can be. We absolutely must take the mental health of our police officers seriously and give them the support they need by including this requirement in the covenant.
In supporting Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I declare an interest as an honorary member of the National Association of Retired Police Officers—NARPO. Why should former police officers not receive help and support and access to training when they require it? Many go on to do valuable work in other careers and the community and often need help with access courses.
My Amendment 6, which is an amendment to Amendment 5, as we have heard, seeks to insert the National Association of Retired Police Officers to the oversight board. I believe it is essential, as many of those former officers still need support. I have spoken on a number of occasions about the impact of being a police officer on an individual’s mental well-being, both during their time in the force and when they have left. The Bill will make it mandatory for the Home Secretary to publish a report on the police covenant each year outlining the work that has been done to protect officers and ensure that they are properly supported following the sacrifices they have made to be part of the force.
It is important that this report is considered by an independent oversight board, which can hold the Government to account on the work that they are doing around the police covenant, and they are not simply left to mark their own homework, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has said.
Among those organisations that oversee the report, there must be an organisation which represents the police officers of the past, who, as I said, often continue to live with the effects of their job long after they have departed. Police officers bear witness to some of the most traumatic events and sacrifice so much, placing themselves in danger in order to protect society. It is therefore absolutely vital that their contribution is also acknowledged and any support that they need is given throughout their life. Placing the National Association of Retired Police Officers among the organisations giving oversight to the covenant ensures that officers past and present are supported in the continued challenges that a life in policing can bring.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 7. Every year, it costs £5 million to operate the two police treatment centres; 89% of that income is generated by donations from serving and retired police officers. The remainder comes from various sources: fundraising events, legacy donations, hospitality and lottery money. Noble Lords will note that not only do the PTCs save the NHS huge amounts of money by treating our police officers who present with trauma injuries; they treat psychological trauma as well. The PTCs are a charity—they do not get any money from the Government or the NHS. There should be some acknowledgement that the work that they do not only saves the NHS money but enables police officers to return to work much more quickly than they would otherwise have done if they had had to wait for NHS appointments—for physiotherapy, in particular. Have your Lordships tried to get an appointment with an NHS physiotherapist recently? Officers may also need mental health services appointments urgently. My amendment addresses those concerns and urges the Government to tell health providers that they must address the needs of police officers and ensure that they get the same recognition for treatment as that for members of the armed services.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I was unable to speak at Second Reading on this topic of the police covenant. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has already noted, this is an extraordinarily large and complex Bill, and Second Reading speakers were limited to a mere three minutes, meaning that, inevitably, some matters could not be raised. I apologise for raising what is from my perspective a new issue. Before I begin, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Harris for her many years of campaigning for the well-being and support of police officers.
I support all the amendments in this group, Amendments 1 to 7, which seek to ensure that police officers and former police officers have access to health services and particularly to mental health support, and to set this down in the Bill as an equivalent of the Armed Forces covenant. I will come on to the covenant later in my contribution.
We must recognise that our police officers and other emergency service personnel are on the front line day in, day out, often facing many things daily that ordinary members of the public would hope never to see once in their lives. That for decades police officers have “manned up” and internalised problems, because that was the culture, perhaps makes mental health pressures even more inevitable. The Police Federation reports that resilience in the service is at an all-time low and that officers are being put under inordinate amounts of pressure, which is taking its toll on their health and well-being. Even worse, the unprecedented cuts to the police service have meant that officers are under more strain now than ever before. While many are asked to do more and more with fewer resources, and have risen admirably to the challenge, it is inevitable that the increased pressures they are facing will have an impact on them, mentally and physically.
The Police Federation campaign “Protect the Protectors” noted that between 2015 and 2017, over 20 police officers took their own lives each year. That is almost two a month. Something must change. Research has shown that emergency workers are twice more likely than the public to identify problems at work as the main cause of their mental health problems, but they are also significantly less likely to seek help—the “man up” culture. Therefore, it is good that in 2017, the Police Federation developed a nine-point plan for police organisations to work with it, supporting serving staff and ensuring that the well-being and mental health of staff is properly delivered as soon as it is needed.
There are 48 organisations that have worked in partnership with the Police Federation and with the mental health charity Mind. The guide that they have produced has all the information that employers need to set up and deliver mental health support in all blue-light organisations. This week, another excellent campaign, the Blue Light group, has reported that 87% of emergency responders have experienced stress and poor mental health. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was looking for good news, and it is that 83% of those who accessed this support through their organisation found it helpful. Mind tells me that the Home Office funding for this essential work—which has been running since 2015—is due to run out in March 2022. Can the Minister confirm that the Home Office will continue the support and funding for this vital work, not just support for blue-light workers but a blue-light service for blue-light workers?
Some officers are very badly affected and need more than can be offered by counselling and other internal support. The Police Federation tells the story of Richard, a DCI with a provisional diagnosis of PTSD when he sought help, which explains much of the pressure and distress that so many officers face.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my interests in the world of policing as set out in the register, particularly in policing ethics, both with the Greater Manchester Police and the National Police Chiefs’ Council.
At Second Reading I referred briefly to the culture of policing. I did not specifically mention a policing covenant given that time was so short, but I have been intrigued by the debate we have had this afternoon. I note the way in which Members have referred to the Armed Forces covenant. That is helpful in some ways, although I am just a little concerned. As I said at Second Reading, the heart of the policing model is that our police are civilians in uniform; they are not the Armed Forces. We need to be careful not to put police too easily into the same category as the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces are agents of the state while police are agents of society in a slightly different way. That is an important civilian distinction I would want always to hold before us.
Nevertheless, I support the amendments in this group, and I believe that we can do better for policing. A covenant is the right way forward—we are working on a similar thing for clergy in the Church of England at the moment—and these amendments will strengthen the initial proposals to help us that way. Over these last 18 months, when I have been chairing Operation Talla, the Covid operation ethics committee, on behalf of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, we have had in our minds and hearts not just how to police effectively but the tensions and pressures put on policing during the pandemic and how to advise police forces to implement the various regulations that were coming from government, sometimes in rapid succession, in ways that were proportionate and would not place undue extra pressure on the mental health of police. We monitored sickness rates throughout that process, and it has been a great example of how we worked together to ensure that policing did not lose its civilian base in the course of the pandemic. Therefore, I support these amendments, but I treat with a little caution how closely we draw parallels with the military covenant.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I no longer have to declare an interest but some Members here may know that I was until May this year police and crime commissioner in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. As such, I will make a very brief contribution to this first debate in Committee.
I personally support—I hope from my experience—the early amendments that have been proposed. As has been said already, it is quite clear that anyone who works with the police nowadays, knows them or sees them closely at work, will know that for a long time, I suspect, as in the rest of society, mental health, mental illness and all that follows from it was not given anywhere near the importance it should have been. I am glad to say that it is my experience, certainly in the police force I was close to, and I am sure in others too, that chief officer teams are now giving the issue of mental health due regard. That is why any covenant that left this out would be lacking; I do not want to comment on the covenant— good points have been made on it.
I urge the Minister and the Government to consider seriously these obviously non-partisan suggestions, which are meant to be helpful. That is all I want to say, but my experience tells me that this is becoming a larger and larger issue as year follows year for police forces up and down the country.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I start also by paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond for her tireless work in supporting police officers in the many different roles that she has in addition to her work in this House. It was particularly important to hear about the work of police treatment centres, although they clearly do not have the capacity to deal with all officers who are affected. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in his opening remarks, talked about only being able to imagine what police officers go through. I hope to enlighten the Committee about some of those experiences.
I have Amendment 4 in this group, but I support all these amendments, though perhaps with a qualification on one of them. My experience in the police service was not, in many respects, very different from that of others who have served or those who continue to serve, except perhaps that I was the most junior officer on my relief or response team, as it would now be known. For 18 months, as the junior officer delegated, I was the one who dealt with all the sudden deaths. My first appearance in court was at the Coroner’s Court, when the husband of an elderly couple had taken an overdose of prescription medication. Having worked night duty until 4 am, I was allowed to “slide off”, as I had to be at the mortuary at 9 am to identify the body. I had not seen a dead body before that night—I was 19 years of age—and I was unprepared for the sight and smell of at least half a dozen other bodies that had been opened up for examination by the pathologist when I arrived at the mortuary. It is an important role for a police officer to identify the body that he or she found as being the same one that the pathologist is about to perform the post-mortem on. I will not go into graphic details, but the Committee needs to get a flavour of the trauma that police officers are exposed to.
Noble Lords might think that the first case is the one that sticks in one’s mind, but whether it is the open-top car that overturned at speed, with no protection for the passengers in the back from the road surface, or the pensioner not seen for weeks in the summer, with swarms of flies on her badly decomposed body that was sticking to the bed when the undertakers tried to remove her, or the charred bodies in a number of fires that I attended, the impact on one’s mental health is considerable and cumulative. I can still picture and smell those scenes; I remember the taste that they left in my mouth.
It is not just the horror of such scenes; it is the emotional impact as well. There was a young man in his early 20s who had hung himself from a coat hook on the back of a door. There was a young mother, whose normal session with her psychiatrist had been cancelled because of Christmas; finding a name and address in her handbag next to her body at the base of a tower block, I went to the address, knocked on the door and was invited by her husband into a room where her young children were playing under the Christmas tree with the toys that the mother had bought them. If that was not bad enough, when I suggested that we ought to go into a different room so that I could tell the husband the tragic news that his wife had committed suicide, he asked me, “How did she do it?”. Experiences like that, as noble Lords can hear, I still vividly remember.
It is not just the deaths. I remember a young man who had a broken glass slammed into his face. We had to take him to hospital in the police van, as there were no ambulances available—some things do not change. I remember the terrified look on his face as he shook uncontrollably from the shock. Another man jumped from the fourth floor and landed on spiked railings. We held him up for what seemed to be an eternity, while the fire brigade cut around the railings; they could not use oxyacetylene torches because the heat would have transmitted to his body. Then we had to hold him in the ambulance between two trolleys, with the railings still through his body.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in an incredibly thoughtful debate this afternoon. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to his first Committee and the tone in which he opened this debate. I also pay tribute to his father. I jolly well hope that he is sitting at home watching this afternoon. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for setting out their amendments to the first clause of the Bill, which relates to the police covenant.
I echo other noble Lords’ comments on PC Harper and Sergeant Matt Ratana, who gave their lives protecting the general public. To echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, there is no doubt that our brave police encounter some of the most challenging circumstances on a daily basis, often operating in some of the most difficult and traumatic situations imaginable. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for outlining, albeit in very graphic detail, some of the experiences he has had to endure during his policing career. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for bringing to this House a unique experience as Parliament’s only PCC, and I wish him well in his retirement.
What we have talked about this afternoon is what makes the police covenant so important, with its central tenet the health and well-being of members and former members of the police workforce, their physical protection, and support for their families. It is a priority for the Government, and I am very pleased that we have brought this forward.
We recognise the very positive intention behind Amendments 1, 3 and 4, and I could not disagree what most noble Lords have said. However, what I would say is that they are not necessary, on the basis that consideration of mental health, including having regard to programmes offering advice on assessment and treatment, the impact of trauma and support and the training for health and resilience, are already well within scope of Clause 1, under the banner of health and well-being.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me to outline what the provision includes, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris and Lady Brinton, talked about PTSD, which affects an awful lot of police officers, both when serving and after their career. I shall outline some of those things. First, we will ensure that occupational health standards are embedded in all forces, holding chiefs to account for providing the right quality and investment in their workforce. The National Police Wellbeing Service has been working hard to embed occupational health standards in forces, including for mental health. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who said that people should receive the right support that they need at the right time. That is absolutely central to providing effective mental health services.
The other thing that will be contained is consideration of a new chief medical officer for policing in England and Wales, and a review of what a good support model for families looks like, drawing on established good practice and research from other sectors and international partners. Once agreed, forces will be required to implement locally, bespoke to their local infrastructure, development of training for GPs around the role of the police, similar to military veterans GP training, and the development of pre-deployment mental health support provided to the police workforce, particularly in light of the Covid-19 pandemic and the effect that this will have had on the police workforce, some of whom I have already spoken to.
There was quite a lot of talk about the interface between the Armed Forces and the police covenant, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester clearly made the distinction between the two forces, which are very different in terms of the demands on them. The work under the police covenant will recognise the specific issues that affect those working or who have worked in policing—to answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, it will include those who have retired—as a result of their role, and will seek to provide support to them and their families in addressing these issues. The police covenant and the legislation underpinning it have been drafted to ensure that they reflect the specific, unique needs of our police as they currently stand.
The heading is deliberately broad to allow the Secretary of State to consider the issues as they arise. We consciously framed the provisions in this way to enable a flexible approach to ensure that the issues that matter most to members and former members of the police can be taken into account and addressed in the annual report as they arise. This flexibility will allow the police covenant to evolve to respond to the most pertinent needs of current and former members of the police workforce in a timely manner. What we do not want to do is create a hierarchy of issues by explicitly listing specific issues in the Bill, where they will fall within those broader priorities.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in a very thoughtful and helpful discussion on this first group of amendments, as we begin our discussion on the Bill. I also thank the Minister for her reply. The way in which she tried to respond directly to the points the amendments were making was very helpful for the Committee on a number of issues, so I thank her and I think the Committee would thank her as well.
Having said that, and having been a Minister myself, I am always slightly suspicious when the term used for amendments is that they “are not necessary”. That was always a term I was told to use when I was not quite sure where I was. I say gently that when they “are not necessary” what I want to do—and I am sure other noble Lords would—is reflect on the Minister’s remarks to see if they indeed meet the points the amendments are making.
I have a couple of points to make. For example, the Minister said on a number of occasions, “We will keep this under review”, “We will look at how it works out” and “We will try to understand how the covenant operates in practice”. What many of us would say is that we can learn. The Minister mentioned the Armed Forces covenant, and I take the right reverend Prelate’s point about this, but we can learn from what the Armed Forces covenant has done. It seems a bit strange to say that this is not the same as the Armed Forces covenant. Everyone recognises that, but why wait to find the same thing happening with the police covenant, when we have seen from the Armed Forces covenant that for either central government or other public bodies to have due regard is important?
I note the point the Minister made about NARPO and the importance of the involvement of retired police officers. So, there are a number of points that we will need to reflect on as we go forward from Committee to Report, but with those brief remarks I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I cannot call Amendment 6, as it is an amendment to Amendment 5.
Lord Paddick
“Scrutiny of investigation: timeliness
(1) The Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020 are amended as follows. (2) After regulation 13 insert—“13A Scrutiny of investigation: timeliness (1) A legally qualified person within the meaning of regulation 28(4)(a) and (6) of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 shall be appointed to scrutinise the information provided pursuant to regulation 13. (2) On each occasion where information is provided in writing under regulation 13 paragraph (1) or (2) the legally qualified person appointed under paragraph (1) shall determine whether there is good and sufficient reason for—(a) the time already taken; and(b) realistically anticipated to be needed for completion of the investigation.(3) In determining whether there is good and sufficient reason under paragraph (2) the legally qualified person may have regard to any relevant matter, and shall have particular regard to—(a) whether the investigation has been efficient and effective;(b) whether there has been unnecessary or unreasonable delay having regard to complexity and seriousness of the case;(c) the impact upon the officer and others;(d) any anticipated further delay;(e) the public interest and affect upon confidence in the police disciplinary system; and(f) representations made on behalf of any person entitled to receive a copy of the information provided under regulation 13.(4) Unless the legally qualified person determines that there is good and sufficient reason under paragraph (2)(a) and (b) then—(a) all investigation into possible misconduct or gross misconduct shall be terminated forthwith; and(b) no disciplinary proceedings may be initiated in respect of the matters under investigation.(5) Nothing in this provision shall have any effect in relation to any criminal investigation.”(3) After regulation 19 insert—“19A Scrutiny of investigation: timeliness (1) A legally qualified person within the meaning of regulation 28(4)(a) and (6) shall be appointed to scrutinise the information provided pursuant to regulation 19.(2) On each occasion where information is provided in writing under regulation 19(1) the legally qualified person appointed under paragraph (1) shall determine whether there is good and sufficient reason for—(a) the time already taken; and(b) realistically anticipated to be needed for completion of the investigation.(3) In determining whether there is good and sufficient reason under paragraph (2) the legally qualified person may have regard to any relevant matter, and shall have particular regard to—(a) whether the investigation has been efficient and effective;(b) whether there has been unnecessary or unreasonable delay having regard to complexity and seriousness of the case;(c) the impact upon the officer and others;(d) any anticipated further delay;(e) the public interest and affect upon confidence in the police disciplinary system; and (f) representations made on behalf of any person entitled to receive a copy of the information provided under regulation 19.(4) Unless the legally qualified person determines that there is good and sufficient reason under paragraph (2)(a) and (b) then—(a) all investigation into possible misconduct or gross misconduct shall be terminated forthwith; and (b) no disciplinary proceedings may be initiated in respect of the matters under investigation.(5) Nothing in this provision shall have any effect in relation to any criminal investigation.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amends the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020 to provide for a mechanism for scrutiny and consequences where there are delays in disciplinary proceedings being brought against police officers.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, there has been much criticism of the police complaints and misconduct process from the perspective of members of the public being unable to achieve justice, but much less has been said about the impact on the officers under investigation, to which I alluded in the last group. When we come to consider Clause 43 and Schedule 4 to the Bill, I will remind the House of the changes the Government brought about in the Policing and Crime Act 2017 to limit the length of time members of the public could be kept under investigation by the police and on police bail. The Government accepted the unfairness of suspects being kept in suspense for months, even years, with the threat of prosecution still hanging over them. This is something many police officers face, with even graver potential consequences than someone who is accused of a criminal offence—potentially losing their livelihoods through being sacked or required to resign from the police service.
When I was a police inspector in charge of a relief, or shift, of officers, a woman who had been arrested and taken to one of my police stations made an allegation of indecent assault by a police officer during a routine search to ensure that she did not have anything that could cause injury while she was being held in a cell. I heard a commotion in the custody suite and went to see what was happening, only to find her spreadeagled on the floor with one officer on each limb. The situation was explained to me: she had resisted being searched, fighting with the female officer designated to search her, and had to be restrained. I asked the prisoner if she was okay and if she was going to behave herself now, and then ordered two female officers to take her into a cell to be searched, much to the concern of male officers, who I ordered to remain just outside the cell door.
Another prisoner, who was present in the custody suite and subsequently interviewed in prison by officers from the complaints unit, corroborated to some extent the female prisoner’s account—a scuffle and then being held down on the floor—although her allegation was actually of indecent assault by a female officer during the search, out of sight of the witness. When the complaints unit took all the female officers who had been on duty that night away for questioning simultaneously and suspended one from duty, I asked that I be interviewed as I was also a witness who had seen nothing untoward.
As a result, I was interviewed as a suspect under caution in a criminal investigation. Although I had already qualified for a promotion, it was delayed for 18 months, and the local area police commander recommended that I face a full disciplinary hearing for lack of supervision, with a recommendation that I be sacked—perhaps related to having recently separated from my wife and having sought permission to cohabit with a man, or perhaps not.
The day that the local area commander retired from the police service, the headquarters complaints and discipline department responsible for scheduling discipline hearings dropped all proceedings against me, and I was promoted. But in the intervening period, my health suffered, my marriage ended and my career was on hold, even though I had done nothing wrong and, arguably, in coming forward as a witness, everything right.
This is but a relatively minor, albeit personal, example of the impact that prolonged police misconduct investigations can have, which, unlike criminal investigations, have no effective time limits placed upon them.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it has been fascinating and very moving to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but I am coming at this from a completely different direction. Although I am partly thinking about the police officers involved, I am also thinking about people who bring complaints against police officers. I have seen the police complaints system at first hand. At some point in the past, a Met Police sergeant came to me and told me that he had seen a few officers deleting files that the Met held on me. These were files that I had asked to see and had been told did not exist—so I saw the police complaints system at first hand. I took a complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, a vastly underresourced organisation trying to do its best on very difficult work. This was not an emotional issue for me—it was a professional, work issue—but that Met Police sergeant suffered PTSD and was essentially hounded out of the Met Police because he had come to me as somebody who wanted the truth exposed, and so was in a whistleblowing situation. I could not do anything for him, but I persisted with my complaint.
There is a saying that justice delayed is justice denied, and it is true on both sides—perhaps more when people are emotionally involved in the complaint they are making, which as I say did not really apply to me. In a way it is doubly true for complaints against the police, because there is a power imbalance. The police are seen to retain their positions, authority, power and legitimacy while complaints are ongoing, and this can be extremely upsetting.
This issue has come to light because of the allegations against the murderer of Sarah Everard. It is staggering, and truly terrifying, that the police had within their ranks somebody they knew, jokingly perhaps, as “The Rapist”. A noble Lord from this House, a previous Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who is not in his place today, said in an interview on the radio that it was not true that he was called “The Rapist”—but he is the only person I have heard saying that was not true. Perhaps another ex-Metropolitan Police Commissioner here might know better.
So it is time to cut the delays that everybody on both sides experiences in police complaints and disciplinary hearings and, most importantly, to give the independent watchdog the resources it needs to do the job. I have complained in the past about the number of police officers it employs, because it seems to me that you do not necessarily set a police officer to catch a police officer—but in fact it is so underresourced that I feel it would benefit from almost anybody if it increased its staff. So this is something that the Government have to deal with.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. The basic problem around IOPC investigations is one of timeliness and quality. I am afraid it has gone on an awful long time. To be fair, from time to time it concerns police investigations under other bodies, but it has persisted, despite the fact that the organisation has changed over the years from the IPCC to now the IOPC. This particularly affected groups of officers such as firearms officers, some of whom have been under investigation for in excess of 10 years. That cannot be for anyone’s good.
We talked earlier about the trauma suffered by individual officers, and that is one of the major causes of such trauma. I therefore think that some time kind of time limit would be helpful. Even in a criminal case such as murder, the point from commitment to arriving at Crown Court is expected to be of the order of 100 days. If such a complex case can be taken so quickly, it seems to me that these cases are surely susceptible to travelling far more quickly and then being decided in the hearing far more quickly, too.
There are some peculiarities around the police misconduct process which have to be understood and, I think, given some sympathy—but these things can be changed. For example, when a complaint is made, particularly where a criminal allegation is alleged, there is a transmission of the case, first from the force to the IOPC, then it may go to the CPS, and then it may go back to the IOPC and then it may go to the force. This merry-go-round goes on for months. It is not at all unusual for these cases to go for at least one year and usually more, and for there still to be no outcome.
There is a further level of complication when, for example, special evidence needs to be given in a court case. It is difficult to talk about this in public, but essentially, when intelligence is gathered by the police that cannot be shared in court and cannot be shared in a coroner’s court, a public inquiry has to be held in front of a qualified judge. All this does is lengthen the whole process. It particularly affects firearms officers when they have to justify why they shot someone and they are unable to explain the intelligence they received. It means that the whole process goes round this rigmarole again.
There are various remedies to try to resolve this. One is a simple time limit. The difficulty with a time limit is that it can be hard-line and does not fit every case. Sometimes you need some discretion. I would argue that the decision-making between the IOPC, the CPS and the force should be done in parallel and not in sequence. The consequence of it being done in sequence is that it keeps going on and on and they keep referring it back to each other. Surely, they could consider the same case in parallel and therefore reduce the time. It would be a good idea to have a legally qualified chair seriously examining the timeline and whether or not it is justified. If it is not justified, the chair should be able to intervene. If it is justified, of course the case should continue.
My final point may be to one side of the amendment, but it is important because it goes to the point about timeliness and quality. One of the challenges faced by the IOPC is that it does not always send its most experienced investigators to deal with the most complex cases. The equivalent for the police service would be that you never send your shoplifting squad to deal with a murder—that would not be very sensible. Officers build their experience in the shoplifting squad and may go on to do more complex things.
The reason may be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, that the IOPC has insufficient resources. I think it also has insufficient specialism and does not build up its expertise. When a serious case comes in—someone loses their life or it is a serious allegation—they should dispatch the A team, not the people who happen to be available. I do not think that does anyone any good when they have to deal with serious matters which the families want straight answers to and the officers want to believe that the investigators have some maturity of judgment. It is not a matter of age but a matter of experience. For those reasons, the IOPC should consider this. It is not exactly pertinent to the amendment, but it is relevant to the discussion about quality that we can fairly have about IOPC investigations at the moment.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support these amendments. I too have little confidence in the IOPC and the resources that are available to it. It was very interesting to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said about it. We must shed some light on the timelines for these investigations, both for the police officers and for the alleged victim.
I have been within and have commanded a disciplined organisation, and I was always acutely aware of the need to complete investigations as fast as possible when something had gone wrong. If this amendment does not find favour and the noble Lord needs to return on Report, I can make a very much longer speech then.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak to Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and of which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is a co-signatory. It is an important amendment. I was particularly moved by the comments made by the noble Baroness, reminding us that of course it is from a police officer’s point of view but that this is also about a complainant’s point of view. It is from both sides that this debate has taken place.
Sometimes you look at an amendment and wonder whether it is as important as some others. Listening to the moving opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, I have been struck that this is a crucial amendment and a crucial discussion which is of huge significance to the police, communities and our country, particularly in light of issues that have arisen over the last few months. However, investigations that are delayed and drag on without resolution are completely unacceptable for the complainant and the officer in question.
I was completely unaware and absolutely astonished to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, from his experience as a former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, that officers under investigation have been waiting for 10 years. Whatever the rights and wrongs of what happened and whether they were guilty or innocent, that cannot be right. This has got to be looked at by the Minister who now has responsibility for this, wherever you come from in the debate. I am sorry if other noble Lords knew this, and that I was the only person here who was unaware of it. I knew that there were delays, but frankly, that is astonishing. We have just had a significant and important debate on protecting the mental health of our officers. One can only imagine the mental health implications for people under investigation but also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, reminded us, for people who have made the complaints. It does not serve justice for anybody.
There is some suggestion about delays in driving cases, but if she knows, can the Minister tell the Committee whether there is a particular delay in one area or a general problem across investigations? The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned firearms, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, mentioned some other examples, but is there a particular problem which emerges when a complaint is made in a particular area? There have been many references to certain offences not being taken seriously even when complaints were made, but it would be interesting for the Minister to come back to us on that.
I think that, at its heart, this amendment is saying that if we do not get this right, public confidence is undermined and eroded, and it is of no benefit to any of us not to be confident in the system. We must believe that the investigations which take place are fair, operate in a timely manner and are done with that integrity which people can understand and believe. We all accept that. Nobody here would disagree that this is the process which must happen and should be in place. However, as we have heard, that is not happening. Therefore, the amendment rightly asks us whether the answer is to set a time limit, to lay out a process that is better and more effective. The key question for the Minister is: what plans are there to review and update the disciplinary process, to restore public confidence and to reassure all of us that, at the end of the day, not only those who are complained against can feel confident but those who are making the complaint? That is the resolution that we all want from this important amendment.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, set out, this amendment seeks to further improve the timeliness of disciplinary and misconduct proceedings against police officers. It seeks to do this by amending existing regulations governing complaint and misconduct investigations by the IOPC, as well as those conducted by force professional standards departments. In substance, they seek to introduce a new system of separate independent adjudicators with powers to close down investigations which have taken longer than 12 months, where they decide that there is no “good and sufficient” reason for delay.
Again, with this amendment, I agree with the thrust of what the noble Lord and others said, namely that disciplinary and misconduct investigations should be conducted and completed in a timely fashion, for the reasons set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Hogan-Howe. Like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, when I heard “10 years” I was utterly shocked. However, this amendment comes at a time when investigation timescales are already reducing and when the Government have worked hard to reduce bureaucracy in the system and not add to it.
Under the IOPC’s predecessor, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, investigations would on average take 11 months. Since 2018, under the IOPC, that has fallen by almost 30% to just eight months. The IOPC has closed more than 90% of its cases in under 12 months and is making strong progress on the number of cases that it closes in under nine months and even in under six months. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, it is in nobody’s interest for investigations to drag on for long periods unnecessarily. We recognise the impact that this can have on everyone concerned.
It might be helpful in terms of explaining the trajectory that the Government introduced a package of reforms in February last year to the police complaints and disciplinary systems. It included new provisions to improve timeliness, with an expectation that investigations will normally be completed within 12 months. If not, the investigating body must provide a written explanation of any delays and steps to bring the investigation to a conclusion. The Government expect the IOPC to go further, and it now has targets in its business plans to complete many of those investigations in under nine and six months, as I said.
There are a number of reasons why cases might take too long, including the complexity of a case, the time- scale being impacted by parallel criminal investigations, and delays in obtaining expert evidence or post-mortem reports. It might be further complicated by delays in obtaining accounts from key police witnesses and subjects. That said, it is not acceptable for investigations to go on for too long, but the trajectory of timescales is certainly downwards.
The noble Lord’s amendment would introduce an additional layer of cost and bureaucracy. It would also risk creating perverse incentives for investigators to rush to meet deadlines at the expense of the quality of an investigation, particularly in those complex cases or if historic matters are at stake.
If an investigation into police wrongdoing was terminated without being concluded and that officer might have had a case to answer for gross misconduct—I can think of very recent cases which are relevant here—this would significantly undermine public confidence and potentially the course of justice. I am sure that is not the intention of noble Lords.
The amendment also risks undermining the independence of the police disciplinary system, blurring the lines between when legally qualified persons are appointed to this role and when the same person is appointed as a legally qualified chair of a misconduct hearing. These individuals would be selected from the same pool. That fundamentally changes the role of a legally qualified chair and jeopardises the independence of their position and the disciplinary system.
In conclusion, the Government have already taken steps to reduce investigation timescales and we will be monitoring the timeliness of investigations, drawing on new data collection requirements that we introduced as part of recent reforms. I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined, the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her support for speedy justice. Obviously, this impacts the complainant as well as the officers.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his contribution. It seems very strange standing here and talking about a former commissioner in that way, but I am in police mode at the moment, I think. He made a very important point about firearms officers who volunteer to take on this enormous responsibility and are then treated so badly by the system.
The Police Federation—I am grateful for its support of these amendments—accepts that there will be delays if a criminal investigation is involved. However, there are still significant delays even after the criminal matters have been dealt with, as I outlined in the examples I gave.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his promise to come back all guns blazing, as it were, if I bring the amendment back on Report.
It is interesting that there is a parallel with the Armed Forces again. I spoke to a former soldier who was resigning from the police service and asked him why. He said that he was leaving because, in the Armed Forces, when something goes wrong, the most senior officer involved takes responsibility and faces a court martial, while in the police service, the responsibility is pushed down to the lowest-possible level, to alleviate the responsibility of senior officers. That is an aspect of the culture of the police service; I agree with that officer’s conclusions.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, talked about public confidence. If there is no confidence in the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the police complaints system, this will be partly due to the undue delays. Complainants are beginning to think “What are they trying to cover up? Why is it taking so long?”. It is essential that these things are dealt with in a timely manner.
I thank the Minister for her support in principle, but the examples I gave were not complex cases; they were simple, but they still took years. They did not involve expert witnesses, yet there were still delays. These are recent cases from last year.
I am sorry but I do not accept the Minister’s assertion that this amendment would result in a rush to complete investigations. These completely independent people would assess whether there were justified reasons for investigations going on as long as they had. Clearly, if these investigations were not being dealt with in a timely manner, they would have something to worry about. This is about picking up those cases in which there is unnecessary and unreasonable delay. Of course, the same chair would not adjudicate over whether an investigation was going on too long and then chair the discipline investigation.
We are on to something here and I am very grateful to the Police Federation for bringing it to my attention. We may well need to discuss this further on Report, but at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee
“(3) After section 2 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 insert—2A Potting (1) A person commits an offence of potting if the person—(a) maliciously causes an emergency worker to unwillingly or unwittingly come into direct contact with any substance containing urine, excrement or ejaculate,(b) is in custody and causes or permits their own urine or excrement to be intercepted without lawful reason or excuse, or (c) is in custody and causes or permits their own ejaculate to be intercepted without lawful reason or excuse.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a substance that looks and smells as if it contains urine or excrement is to be taken to contain such substances.(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), only in exceptional circumstances may the court accept a defence of “lawful reason or excuse” in the absence of evidence of a prior direction by a clinically qualified person.(4) In each and every case where the alleged offence takes place in a custodial environment and the Crown Prosecution Service decide not to prosecute on the grounds of not being in the public interest, the Lord Chancellor must be notified within 28 days of any such decision being made.(5) The Secretary of State must ensure that sufficient suitable kits for collecting evidence samples are available within the Prison Service.(6) A person guilty of an offence to which this section applies is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.””
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 9 standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.
From time to time, it falls on this House and its committees to debate extremely distasteful matters. This will be one of those occasions. However, there are some euphemisms that we can utilise. We can use the term “relevant substance” to mean any substance mentioned in the proposed new Section 2A(1) of the 2018 Act. If we need to be more specific, we can refer to subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c) in the proposed new section. The type of assault in question is generally termed “potting”.
Let us suppose a dedicated and efficient junior official of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is walking down the high street and he or she is assaulted by an aggrieved taxpayer. Suppose the assault is achieved by inverting a bucket containing the relevant substance on his or her head, or alternatively by using what I would call the “custard pie technique”. The Committee will appreciate that the distress caused to the junior official would be off the scale. The victim would be comforted, if that was possible, by the knowledge that the police would regard it as a very serious assault. There is no doubt that the police would go to great lengths to secure the evidence and that the CPS would invariably prosecute if the police produced the necessary evidence. If such an assault occurred, the Committee would expect to see extensive national media coverage, possibly with public statements made by the Home Secretary or the relevant chief constable.
I have to tell the Committee that this type of assault is not unusual in the prison service today, but a thorough investigation and prosecution does not invariably follow. In the event of such an assault, the Committee will completely understand the overriding desire of the prison officer or other victim to immediately get under a shower and wash off every drop of the relevant substance. Unfortunately, this may interfere with the evidence trail.
There are other difficulties associated with bringing the perpetrators of such an assault to justice. First, the police have numerous and conflicting priorities; I am afraid that they are often unable or unwilling to attach much priority to an assault of this type when the victim is a prison officer or governor, and the assault occurs within the secure estate. A further difficulty is that the CPS is apparently not very energetic in prosecuting these cases. Part of the problem may be the evidence trail that I have already referred to.
I should also point out to the Committee that there is a complex criminal infrastructure in most prisons. It can be that the prisoner carrying out the assault has no grievance himself but makes the assault on behalf of others. Often, this is because the prisoner who is “invited” to do the deed has no more time that can be added to his time in custody without being charged with a new offence. He could also be put under considerable pressure by other criminals to commit the offence. The Minister will doubtless correctly tell us that there are existing relevant offences, but without a specific offence, prosecution is less likely.
Furthermore, the existing offences do not catch preparatory acts; that is to say, intercepting the relevant substance. Of course, the person who commits this offence of interception could easily and certainly be identified. My amendment proposes a new offence of potting. It makes it clear that, if the substance looks or smells like the relevant substance, it is that substance. It makes it an offence within the custodial environment for anyone to intercept their own relevant substance, under new subsection (1)(b), with a tightly defined medical exemption. The lawful reason or excuse exemption is less constrained for relevant substances falling under new subsection (1)(c) for obvious and understandable reasons. Proposed new subsection 4 requires the CPS to notify the Lord Chancellor if it is decided not to prosecute on public interest grounds. I would like to make it clear to the Committee that the intention is to make the probability of prosecution and conviction very high, in order to completely deter such assaults.
We ask prison officers, governors and others to look after some of the most mad, bad and sad members of our society. Some, as we know, are just minor offenders, while others are particularly evil, devious and dangerous. We have a retention problem within the prison service; allowing this type of assault to go unpunished must surely have a negative effect on morale and retention. We owe it to those charged with such onerous duties to protect them so far as is possible from assaults of this nature—and indeed from any other. We can discharge our duty by ensuring that there is a high probability of prosecution and conviction for these offences. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 11, in the name of my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester, with her permission, as she is sadly unable to be here today. I declare her interest as Anglican bishop of prisons in England and Wales.
This amendment seeks to improve Section 3 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 by expanding the definition of “emergency worker” to include all staff working in prisons. All those who work in prisons play a valuable role. However, currently, only officers and some healthcare staff are covered by this legislation and, as such, the risk for others working in prisons is increased, because prisoners are well aware of the more severe consequences of assaulting an officer compared with others working in prisons. Someone described this as effectively painting a target on their backs. This is an unintended consequence of the current legislation, which is unfair to many prison workers, undermines their safety and can be easily dealt with through this amendment.
The work of chaplains, educators and others who work in prisons is essential. They play a crucial role in the well-being and support of prisoners, in the work that underpins successful rehabilitation of offenders, and in maintaining a well-run and ordered prison. Prison chaplains, teachers, instructors and healthcare workers are vital vocations within the justice system. They need support and security to perform their roles well.
This amendment is supported by the Joint Unions in Prisons Alliance, and it has shared disturbing anecdotes from prison workers, as yet unsupported in law as emergency workers. One worker reported:
“Cutbacks in prison officers mean we are at greater risk than ever. I have been working in this environment for 10 years and have never known it so bad.”
Another noted:
“The prison is unsafe despite receiving an urgent notification last year—little has changed. We are running at significantly reduced numbers but there is no order or discipline in the jail. Staff assaults are an almost daily occurrence. One of my nursing staff was severely assaulted in the clinic room and I have a high level of staff receiving counselling due to fears around safety.”
A third said:
“I am a lone instructional officer in a textiles cutting and manufacturing workshop within an immigration removal centre. As a civilian, I don’t receive Control & Restraint training, carry a baton or wear a body-worn camera.”
Prison chaplains share in the front-line care of prisoners, providing pastoral and spiritual comfort. It is shocking that they might be seen as an easy target for physical assault. This is an account from a prison chaplain:
“I was leading some funeral prayers for an 18 year old. He was poorly and had had a hospital place to go to until a more needy child in the community got it. His Aunt Died and he requested funeral prayers. He was edgy as we moved to Chapel and I spent some time settling him before I led him through some prayers. As I was reading Ps23, I saw movement to the side. I remember asking myself ‘What happens if I am assaulted here?’. Momentarily later I was hit side on causing bruising to my face and bruising. I had some concern as I am currently on blood thinners. Staff back up was immediate, I had photographs taken and was taken out to hospital for a check-up. I then went home for the afternoon and returned into work the following day, I wanted to ‘get back on my bike and start pedalling!’. As a Priest Chaplain we speak about ministry through adversary, I can now stand alongside my uniform colleagues who are at risk every day from assault and understand better how to support them, because I have been there.”
Another said:
“As a Christian Chaplain I was assisting a visiting Imam to ensure that Friday Prayers was able to take place. Just as prayers were about to start I was asked by staff to go downstairs and speak to a prisoner who had not brought his ID card and was not therefore being allowed in. My intention was to ask his name and if his name had not already been ticked off on the list, to allow him in. When I arrived at the door the prisoner was extremely angry. He said he did not want to speak to me but would only speak to the Imam. I explained that it was a visiting Imam who would not be able to help him and that he was busy as prayers were about to start. He said that if he was not allowed in he would go back to the wing and ‘start smashing up staff’. I looked around to ascertain the whereabouts of staff and as I turned my head to the right I felt a blow to the left hand side of my head, knocking off my glasses and causing a cut to the side of my nose. He was immediately restrained by staff and taken to the segregation unit. I was attended to by healthcare staff. I remained on duty as the visiting Imam was a friend and I wanted to ensure that all went smoothly and that he was able to get off the premises after prayers.”
This chaplain received excellent care from colleagues working in the prison but should be supported through the law, as an emergency worker.
I would add that, in the last 12 months, I have spoken to two prison chaplains in my own area; one was assaulted and the other explained the fear they now face because of the amount of lone working they find themselves doing and how often there is no one nearby if something were to occur. It cannot be right that some front-line prison workers are protected while others are not.
In conclusion, prisons that are dangerous for staff are dangerous for prisoners too and disrupt the essential task of rehabilitation. Will the Minister give assurance that the Government are committed to making prisons safer working environments for all staff?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 10 in this group. According to the Times newspaper, in an article dated 10 March this year, Chris Philp MP, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office and Ministry of Justice responsible, according to the article, for sentencing, said that
“detailed research had found that the likelihood of being caught and punished was much more important in discouraging people from committing crime than length of jail sentences.”
Answering a Parliamentary Question about the deterrent effect of longer sentences, he said, again according to the Times:
“The evidence is mixed, although harsher sentencing tends to be associated with limited or no general deterrent effect. Increases in the certainty of apprehension and punishment have consistently been found to have a deterrent effect.”
I subsequently discovered that this was the Answer to a Written Question on 19 February from the Conservative Member for Rother Valley about pet theft—of which more on another day. The Bill certainly is the gift that keeps on giving.
Noble Lords around the Committee will be aware that we on these Benches have consistently said that longer prison sentences do not deter criminals and now, according to the Government, harsher sentences have limited or no deterrent effect. So why do we have Clause 2 in the Bill? Noble Lords may be surprised that, as a former police officer, I am not supportive of this measure. Something needs to be done about assaults on emergency workers, but an increase in the maximum sentence is not what is needed. What is needed is a change in attitude among the general public, in society and in the courts towards assaults on emergency workers in general and on police officers in particular. It appears to me to have become accepted by many that being assaulted is part of the job of a police officer or an emergency worker. But no one should be expected to tolerate abuse or assault because of the work they do, whether they are a Member of Parliament or an emergency worker.
The type of assault covered by this clause is common assault. Anything that causes a significant injury, even if it is not permanent, such as a bruise, can and should result in a charge under Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is already five years. We are talking about relatively minor physical harm. Can the Minister tell the Committee how many cases of assault on an emergency worker to date have attracted the current maximum penalty of 12 months in prison—or a sentence of imprisonment at all?
The reason for my amendment, in effect for the Sentencing Council to review its guidance for the existing offence where the existing maximum penalty is 12 months’ imprisonment, is to ensure that the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service reflect the seriousness of this offence in their decision-making, rather than what we see week after week reported on social media, where assaults on emergency workers in general and police officers in particular are treated by the CPS and the courts as part and parcel of the job. That sends a message to criminals and the general public that you can assault emergency workers with impunity, because in court you will be just be given a slap on the wrist—if it even gets that far. What is the point of increasing the maximum penalty for an offence to two years when the Government themselves acknowledge that harsher sentences have little or no deterrent effect and the courts, which can currently send someone to prison for up to 12 months, rarely if ever do so?
The Government may say that in some cases severe penalties can have a deterrent effect—but an increase from one year to two years for an offence often committed in the heat of the moment during the course of a confrontation between a police officer and a member of the public is unlikely to be one of them. Far better that the Government mount a publicity campaign stating that it is completely unacceptable to attack emergency workers who put their lives on the line every day to protect and serve the public, than that they make a minor adjustment to the maximum penalty that is likely to go unnoticed by those it is targeted at, either as a deterrent or in court following conviction, unless there is a significant change in the attitude of judges, prompted by a change in the sentencing guidelines.
On Amendment 11, proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, clearly, prison officers are as vital a uniformed force as police, fire and rescue services, the ambulance service and the coastguard, and they are afforded similar protection. I quite understand how others working in prisons feel that they are more vulnerable and, as the right reverend Prelate said, they feel they have a target on their back because they are excluded. He gave the appalling example of an assault on a prison chaplain that resulted in bruising to the chaplain. But, again, I say that that offence could have been prosecuted under Section 47, where there is an even greater penalty available than for an assault on an emergency worker. So we are not supportive of the increase.
On Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, of course, if such substances are actually thrown at a prison officer or other emergency worker, it would amount to assault and therefore it would be covered by existing legislation around assaults on emergency workers, with a similar penalty to the one the noble Earl is proposing in his amendment. So we feel that there needs to be a change in attitude towards the apparent acceptability of assaults on emergency workers, rather than simply a cosmetic increase in the maximum penalty.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord and I are in agreement that the problem is that we are not prosecuting these offences, rather than the outcome in the courts. Because, for the prisoners, it may be that even another three-month penalty for my new offence would be enough to deter them—or, using the existing penalties, as the noble Lord said, it is the probability of being prosecuted that matters.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, of course we want to change attitudes and that is what we must try to do, however long it takes us, but I have to say, from my experience over five years as a police and crime commissioner—I am sorry to keep on about this—this wrong seems to have increased on a fairly enormous scale. That is only anecdotal, but the truth is that many more of those who are about to be arrested seem to think that it is okay to have a go at the police in order not to get arrested. That seems to me to be very unfortunate, and it is going to take a long time before it changes. It puts the police, and obviously other emergency workers, in a nearly impossible position sometimes—and when I talk about the police, I am really referring to other emergency workers as well.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I do not want to see higher sentences for the sake of higher sentences, and I do think that their effect is often very limited, but I have to say—it seems odd, coming from these Benches, I suppose—that I have a certain sympathy with the Government here, because it seems to me that the position has to be dealt with immediately in some way, and one of the purposes of raising the maximum sentence available is to try, in the best possible way, to convince the courts that this is a more serious offence than sometimes they think it is. It is not always minor, I am afraid—sometimes it is undercharged—but it is a really serious problem that every emergency worker, and in particular every police officer, faces every time he or she makes an arrest, and I do not blame the Government for wanting to do something about it.
I am not saying it will be very successful; I think it is a much wider societal problem. But I do think it is something the Government are entitled to at least think about in this way. I do not say that with any happiness at all, but to claim that it is not a real problem is just untrue: it is a real, everyday problem.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I entirely accept that this is a real problem, but real problems require real solutions that have some chance of being effective. I cannot imagine anyone who commits an assault on a police officer or emergency worker actually knowing what the maximum sentence is for that offence—still less that the Government are currently increasing it. That information might just get through to the newspapers for a week or two, but there is no measurable deterrent effect from something that people do not know much about anyway. Most people must realise that if they get caught assaulting an emergency worker they will get into some kind of trouble, but whatever impels these dreadful assaults is clearly not likely to be affected by what is happening here.
What happens when you increase the maximum sentence? If you achieve generally longer sentences, you have made a commitment of resources. The question has reasonably to be asked: is this the best way of spending money to try to stop emergency workers being attacked? We must therefore look at any other measures that you can reasonably take that would have that effect, if, as I contend, there is no evidence that increasing the maximum sentence will lead to any reduction in attacks on emergency workers or police officers.
This is just one of many examples, and there are others that we will perhaps debate more fully later in the Bill, where the Government rush to have something to say—lengthening the maximum sentence certainly looks like having something to say—but it does not have the effect in the real world that we all desire.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am a bit too squeamish to discuss Amendment 9 but I wanted to reflect on Amendments 10 and 11 and to follow on from some of the comments just made about the deterrence factor and expanding how long people are threatened with jail for.
I thought the Bar Council raised some very useful challenges for us to consider in relation to the section of the Bill dealing with assaults on emergency workers. The Bar Council asks us to consider if increasing the maximum penalty for such assaults is necessary or commensurate or whether it will work. It notes the limited evidence. I thought when I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who I was very compellingly convinced by, that it can feel a bit like virtue signalling rather than tackling the problem.
I was particularly interested in a slightly different point from the one that has been made and was struck by what the Bar Council said in relation to, I think, these amendments: there is a danger of creating a disparity between the penalties for attacks on emergency workers and those on other workers, and indeed a disparity between attacks on emergency workers and those on members of the public. There is an offence of common assault that should be considered a serious offence whoever is on the receiving end of it. Whoever is attacked, I would want the law to deal with it.
We heard from the right reverend Prelate how, if you start saying that an attack on this particular group of workers has to have a particular length of sentence, that might make other groups of workers—in this instance, in prisons—feel as though they are being neglected or somehow are not as important. We therefore have to be nervous about differentiating between categories of workers because that might end up being divisive, implying that front-line workers in some jobs are more important than others.
As a former teacher who has worked in the education sector—I worked with some challenging young people and was on the receiving end of some common assault, let us put it that way—I have been following closely the case of Professor Kathleen Stock, a feminist philosophy academic at Sussex University, whom the police have advised should not return to her place of work on campus because of the danger of violence from some self-styled anti-TERF activists. There have been all sorts of threats and harassment. They even have a special phone number for her to ring. There are other teachers who face this.
I raise that because when it comes to this kind of threat, that kind of potential violence and those kinds of assaults, it does not matter if you are a front-line worker. I do not know why the “emergency” bit should give you an extra penalty. I am not advocating for a special penalty for attacks on education workers. I just do not want people on the front line to feel that some are more important than others.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I will open by discussing first some of noble Lords’ contributions on their amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, spoke to his Amendment 10. The amendment is about preparing sentencing guidelines for assaulting an emergency worker, or along those lines. My experience as a sitting magistrate is that those guidelines are not available at the moment so we use the old guidelines for assaulting a police officer as the guidance. However, I reassure him that whenever I sentence people I invariably make it explicit that part of the sentence, or maybe part of the uplift, is due to the role played by the person who was assaulted. So although it may not have been expressly set out in legislation about emergency workers, if it concerns a teacher or something like that, I will say that it is a very serious matter and I have taken that into account in the sentence. Nevertheless, I understand the points that the noble Lord made.
The amendment by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who spoke on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, seeks to expand the definition of “emergency worker” to include all prison staff, and he gave some very moving examples of chaplains, educators, instructors and healthcare workers. I think he has seen some of the same briefing that I have, which says essentially that many of those people are saying that they have never seen it so bad in terms of assaults on those people working in prisons.
As is often the case in Committee on Bills in this House, the debate went wider. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said about being cautious about having a hierarchy of people who work in public service in one way or another. Nevertheless, I also took into account what my noble friend Lord Bach said: there is a role for sending a message about the Government responding in some way, although that does not necessarily mean increasing sentences themselves; there are other ways of responding that may be more effective.
I turn to Amendment 9, which I have put my name to, and I thank the noble Earl for tabling it. As well as sitting as a magistrate in London, I am also co-chair of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group here in Parliament and I have had a lot of lobbying on this matter, as I know other noble Lords have too.
The noble Earl explained the practice of “potting” in prisons. It can be done by prisoners who are mentally ill or, as he explained, by other prisoners as part of a tactic to punish officers who are targeted by particular groups of prisoners. He explained the circumstances where it may have a relatively minimal effect on the offender if they are towards the end of their sentence.
There is a widespread perception among prison officers that they have been neglected by the Government and that the CPS and the existing discipline structures within the prisons, and indeed visiting judges, do not take the practice of potting sufficiently seriously. In fact, on various TV programmes about working in prisons, we can all see, as I have, prison officers being potted. In fact, I have a magisterial colleague whose niece is a serving prison officer and, only a few months ago, she was potted herself. Of course, this is a completely disgusting and disturbing thing to happen. I hope that it will not reduce her commitment to the job of being a prison officer, but I have to say that I do not know; it might be one of the reasons that some officers choose to resign from the service.
There are many issues facing the Prison Service, which we have debated many times: high turnover of staff, pay and conditions, inexperienced managers, a change in the retirement age—the list goes on. I suspect that the noble Earl is right to anticipate that, in his answer, the Minister will say that the practice of potting could be charged in any number of ways and may well argue that it is covered by existing legislation. But the point that the noble Earl was making is that it simply is not taken seriously enough. The addition of a separate, specifically defined piece of legislation outlining this practice, making it more difficult for the authorities to minimise, would show that the Government value prison officers. This is an opportunity, I would say, for the Government to demonstrate that they value prison officers.
I do not know what the noble Earl plans to do at further stages of this Bill. This is such an egregiously disgusting practice and it is a tactic used in prisons; this is a specific way of responding to that tactic, which is within the Government’s hands in this Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by placing on the record my apologies for not being in my place at Second Reading for personal family reasons. I also place on record my thanks to many noble Lords for their kind and supportive words and messages; I am very grateful.
Turning to the substance of the matter before the Committee today, Clause 2 of the Bill proposes an increase in the maximum penalty for the offence of common assault and battery when that offence is committed against an emergency worker. The definition —this is important—of “emergency worker” is set out in Section 3 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. The pandemic has reminded us, if we needed reminding, that the vital front-line role that our emergency workers play, and indeed always have played, is of immense importance to our society. But we have recently seen an increasing number of assaults being committed against emergency workers in the course of their duties. This will simply not be tolerated.
Last summer, we delivered on our manifesto commitment to consult on this issue. We found that the large majority of respondents supported our proposal to double the maximum penalty to two years. This will ensure that the law provides our police and other emergency workers with sufficient protection to carry out their duties and will enable the courts to pass sentences that reflect the severity with which we view these offences. This measure builds on previous legislation introduced by the Government back in 2018. We have enhanced already the protection of emergency workers where more serious assaults such as ABH and GBH are committed—I think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made this point. These more serious offences obviously carry higher maximum penalties than common assault. Where such offences are committed against an emergency worker acting in the course of their duties, this is regarded as an aggravating feature of the offence, warranting a higher sentence.
Let me deal first with the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. I am grateful to her for tabling the amendment, and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for acting as her spokesman this afternoon—I was going to say, “as the Aaron to her Moses”, if I may put it in those terms. The purpose of her amendment is to broaden the definition of “emergency worker” to encompass all staff in custodial institutions. The Committee will be aware that all prison officers, prisoner custody officers and those who exercise functions associated with these professions are already included in the existing definition of “emergency worker” from the 2018 legislation.
The problem is that broadening the definition of “emergency worker” can have unintended consequences. The broader definition would capture anyone employed or engaged to carry out functions in a custodial institution, which can extend to prisoners who undertake jobs within the institution. The amendment would then place this group of convicted prisoners on the same statutory footing as prison officers, constables and NHS staff. That would be unacceptable.
By means of increasing the maximum penalty for the assault of an emergency worker, we want to protect those who protect others. That is why it is right that emergency workers are on a different statutory footing. Clause 2, therefore, does not seek to amend the underlying definition of “emergency worker” that was accepted by Parliament when passing the 2018 legislation. I acknowledge the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, given the work of the Bar Council in this area, but it is right, I suggest, that we acknowledge the special position of emergency workers, as Parliament did back in 2018.
Of course, that is not to say that any form of violence in custodial institutions is acceptable; it plainly is not. We want to make sure that our prisons are safe for all staff, as well as all prisoners. Picking up on the point from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede—
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I have a pertinent question. I am troubled by the rather lame excuse that the noble Lord offers from the Dispatch Box about the “unintended consequences”. Surely it would be very simple to put in place an exemption that barred prisoners from benefiting from that clause. I cannot understand why the noble Lord is so resistant to this particular move; there must be a workable way round it. I have been a Home Office Minister and have had lame excuses written for me—this sounds like one of those.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am afraid that the noble Lord appears to have missed the point of principle that I made before making what he characterises as a lame excuse, but which I thought was in fact rather a good point. The point of principle is that we have a definition of “emergency worker”, which Parliament accepted back in 2018. It is a good working definition, and we shall stick with it; that is a point of principle. The point on this amendment was that it goes too far because it has those unintended consequences. The noble Lord should not lose sight of my first point by concentrating only on the second, which he regards as lame and which I regard, from a legal perspective, as quite a nice point—I do urge upon him the point of principle as well.
I was coming to the point that we value prison officers. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, laid down the gauntlet and asked that we do so from the Dispatch Box. Of course we do. Our position on this amendment has nothing to do with not valuing prison officers or the work that anybody does in prison.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham asked what we were doing to protect prison staff. Those who carry out corresponding functions to prison officers and prison custody officers are already included in the definition of an emergency worker. Offences against those people will be treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing guidelines. That is what I wanted to say in response to that amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I am sorry—I thought very carefully about whether I should intervene. I was genuinely so taken aback by the Minister’s reference to prisoners being included that I nearly leapt up immediately. The question was then asked, but I have tried to replay it in my head. I absolutely understand that the Minister meant no offence but, out of context, I fear how it might be understood by those workers, such as chaplains, tutors and so on. By, in a sense, lumping them together with prisoners who have been employed, it could easily be misheard outside this House. I know that was not the Minister’s intention, but I ask him to put on the record that it was not what he meant.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to do that. As I am sure everybody recognises, that was not the point I was making. I appreciate that it was regarded as lame by some people, but the point that I sought to make was that the distinction and purpose of the amendment was to expand the definition from prison officers to other people working in prison. My point was that from the way in which it is drafted—and I appreciate that it could be redrafted—it could and would be read so broadly as to include prisoners who were doing jobs in prison. It was certainly not what I was saying to place prisoners doing jobs in prison with chaplains and others who are working in prison. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for giving me the opportunity to make that clear, if it was not already.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
I seek one matter of clarification, although I should not need to. Is there no way, apart from raising the maximum sentence by legislation, by which government could bring to the attention of the prosecuting authorities, sentencing courts and so forth the aggravating features that cover all these amendments? There are the emergency workers in the first place, and the nauseating offence of potting, which I confess not to have heard of before, and assaults on prison officers. There are those who find themselves, in the ordinary course of their employment, exposed in these highly vulnerable circumstances to miscreance of an obvious character. Is there no governmental input to the Sentencing Council? Can the Government not influence those sorts of bodies to isolate the fact that these are manifestly aggravating circumstances, which should go to raise not only the likely sanction being imposed but the likelihood of prosecution?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
As the noble and learned Lord knows far better than I do, one has to distinguish between aggravating and mitigating factors and the likelihood of prosecution. With regard to the Sentencing Council, I am confident that it already has that point on board. The question before the Committee is that of maximum sentence rather than aggravating or mitigating factors. I have also said—and, I hope, explained—that there is clear guidance in place to make sure that, when these offences are committed, they are dealt with either through the courts or through prison adjudication.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I just want to take the Minister back to the comments made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham on the definition of prisoners as workers. I cannot think of any other legislation where a prisoner enjoys the same rights as a worker. There are many rights that workers enjoy in this country, but none of them that I am aware of apply to prisoners. There must be a way around this, perhaps by a government amendment or some sort of redrafting, that would allow the suggestion made to be incorporated.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I think I made it clear earlier that I was making two points in response to this amendment. The point that we are focused on at the moment is whether we could have more—and I say this respectfully—felicitous drafting than the drafting of the amendment that we currently have. I have accepted in principle that one could, and I made that clear in my previous answer and my answer to the right reverend Prelate. However, I do not want us to lose sight of my first response, on the point of principle: we have a definition in the 2018 Act of “emergency worker”, and that was regarded in 2018 as suitable and fit for purpose. It treated that definition as a separate status and a distinct group, and the Government’s position is that definition was good in 2018 and remains so now.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. On Amendment 11 from the right reverend Prelate, I am aware of the problem that he describes, but I did not make my new offence cover other Prison Service staff. I deliberately excluded probation officers just for reasons of simplicity, but if I managed to make my potting amendment find favour with the House, I would have to decide who was to be protected by it.
I am slightly disappointed by my noble friend’s response, because I thought that I was offering him the best thing since sliced bread, but he turned me down. The problem for the Minister running the Prison Service is that he cannot direct the police force to investigate these issues and, as he carefully explained to the Committee, he cannot direct the Crown Prosecution Service to pay greater attention to these offences either. My noble friend has no tools to protect prison officers—so I suspect that the Prison Officers’ Association will be a little bit disappointed with his approach.
I think we identified the underlying issue, which is the probability of being prosecuted for these sorts of these offences, and we need to have another look at that. I shall, of course, withdraw my amendment, subject to the usual caveats and discussions with the Opposition Front Bench.
Net Zero Strategy and Heat and Buildings Strategy
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for bringing yesterday’s Statement on the net-zero strategy and the heat and buildings strategy to your Lordships’ House. As he knows, the clock is ticking, and it is less than two weeks to go before COP 26 in Glasgow. I congratulate the Government on getting these two vital documents out—two coming along together at once—to fulfil long outstanding commitments to show the spread of attention needed across the economy. These are two vital aspects to the challenge to decarbonise all areas of our national life, our homes and buildings, and to how the Treasury values net zero in its command of the nation’s finances.
COP 26 is making the Government face up to the size of the challenge, and we support them in the focus that that brings on climate change action. We want the conference to be successful. It comes at a very opportune time in world affairs, and it comes now. Can the Minister update the House on the amount of commitments that the Government have secured to their goal of raising £100 billion annually for climate investments internationally?
There are many aspects of the Statement that are rightly welcomed—that the Government recognise that they must take action now, and that these two major initiatives represent vital change in the economy and environment. People are thinking that the Conservative Government are taking Britain back to the 1970s, with energy shortages and high prices. At this last moment before COP 26, there is a growing sense that the Government are finding the climate emergency too big to ignore and yet too hard to grasp. As the Minister is presenting both documents, can he confirm that the Treasury is now fully committed to helping industry and the public through this present crisis? There is a sense that the funding commitments nowhere near match the size of the challenge. There has been almost a decade since David Cameron shredded vital confidence on action when he slashed the renewable energy incentives that so many wished to participate in to do their bit.
Emissions from buildings are higher today than they were in 2015. There are 19 million homes rated below EPC band C that desperately need insulation and upgrading. However, having said that, I welcome the element on the incentivisation for heat pumps, especially recognising those off the grid, most notably in rural areas. It does rather leave consumers at the mercy of electricity prices, and the Statement makes mention of a further £950 million for a home upgrade grant scheme to decarbonise low-income homes off the gas grid. Can the Minister expand on this and say how many households this will benefit?
I wonder whether the support for heat pumps is actually a step back in support. To the majority on the grid, heat pumps are generally seven times the cost of conventional gas boilers. The £5,000 grant appears less than the help that is currently provided through the RHI. Granted that the RHI is being scrapped in April, and that it pays back over a longer timeframe, is the Minister convinced that the Government are doing enough to defray the huge up-front costs for consumers? The Government say that they would like to see conventional gas boilers no longer included in new house builds from 2035. Can the Minister show more commitment? Why cannot the Government bring in a ban on all new conventional boilers being available after at least 2035? This would parallel the challenges and ban on the production of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030.
The hydrogen sector would certainly welcome the commitment towards hydrogen-ready boilers, that all quotes for any replacement or new boiler must include one for hydrogen-ready boilers. While they are still more expensive than conventional boilers, they certainly do not carry the huge price disadvantage of heat pumps. The Statement does not add any additional funding to the £240 million in the hydrogen strategy, which will not be made available until 2023. How do the Government plan to kick-start green hydrogen production at home when, to date, all orders for green hydrogen technology have been made overseas?
Hydrogen would certainly benefit the transport sector in the long term as well. In the meantime, I welcome the promotion of electric vehicles. Can the Minister outline the Government’s plan to help make electric cars more affordable for all consumers? I also welcome the emphasis on investments across the regions, most notably the HyNet cluster in the north-west, and stress to the Minister the need to engage effectively with metro mayors and local authorities, who are all eager to promote the net-zero agenda.
The Government used to insist that they were technology-neutral in their policies. They then moved to the scattergun approach of the Prime Minister’s Ten Point Plan without setting out a comprehensive plan across the economy. As they now fill in the gaps left, are the Government moving in this Statement from a scattergun policy towards picking winners and losers? This Statement, welcome as it is, resembles a pick ’n’ mix of support—so much has been omitted. I will leave it to other speakers to raise those many areas. However, the Government must go over to the touchline and check the monitor of reality. The Statement says that the Government will “gradually” move away from fossil fuels. “Gradually” is too slow. Action is needed now, and the Government must immediately cease the contradiction of providing support for fossil fuels both in the UK and overseas. The Government have said—the Statement repeats it—that the conference needs to be “a turning point for humanity.” What has been taking the Government so long? The earth is on the edge across the globe, and the Government must act as if they really believe it.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Statement on these important and extensive documents, and I hope that the Government will provide time at an early opportunity when the House can have a full debate on the full detail that is included in the hundreds of pages that have been published.
I know that in the past when I have responded to publications, the Minister has sometimes been offended that I have not been as effusive in my praise as he thought was merited. As I know him to be a sensitive soul, I will try to start off as positively as I can. There is merit in the fact that, after so long, we actually have the documents at last. There is merit in the fact that the Government remain committed to our climate change goals, and we should give thanks that climate has not become the political dividing line that it has in other countries. I also welcome the decision to introduce a zero-emissions vehicle mandate and a new target for greening all electricity generation. However, I am afraid that, after that, I am running out of things to credit the Minister and the Government with.
The Treasury tells us in the Net Zero Review:
“The transition has implications for current and future taxpayers”—
but it does not tell us what they are. It provides no indication of how the black hole arising from declining fuel duty revenues will be replaced. It says only that
“the government may need to consider changes to existing taxes and new sources of revenue”.
Likewise, in addressing the crucial issue of carbon leakage, which is critical to the viability of our industries as we decarbonise, the Treasury blandly tells us:
“Further work is required”
and that
“a case for conducting a formal call for evidence may emerge.”
There is nothing in the document about using the financial regulatory system to curb the financing of new and dangerous fossil fuel exploration and exploitation, and there is nothing about net-zero requirements on all planning decisions. The complacency is breath-taking. The Treasury clearly thinks that the climate emergency is a distant threat rather than the clear and present danger that looms before all of us.
The heat and buildings strategy is even more devastatingly unambitious. The Government propose a grant scheme that they estimate will deliver 90,000 heat pumps per year, and they convert what was assumed to be a mandate to end new conventional boiler installations into an aspiration. Every year, something in the order of 1.2 million new gas boilers are installed. The Government’s target for heat pumps will reduce that number to just over 1.1 million new gas boilers installed every year. Bearing in mind that they have a lifespan of about 15 to 20 years, it is immediately apparent that we will be building in a long legacy of fossil fuel heating year after year. If that was not bad enough, 90,000 units will not provide the scale to drive down costs and incentivise installers to retrain in heat pump installation, so the Government’s hopes of falling prices driving demand will remain a fantasy.
However, worse than all that, there is no credible plan to upgrade the energy efficiency of our existing homes, which should be the very first priority. If we are going to upgrade the millions of homes the Government say we need to, we have to rapidly scale up our capacity so that we have the skills base to deliver at least 1 million home upgrades a year. We are nowhere near that yet and there is no plan here to achieve that. Installing heat pumps in homes that are leaking energy makes no sense at all, but the Government offer no route to tackling these problems.
What about the money? I would ask what happened to the £9.2 billion promised for energy efficiency in the Conservative Party manifesto, had it not become abundantly clear by now that a promise in that document now seems the best indicator of what will not happen rather than what will. However, it is clear that, after the green homes grant scheme ended, we are now being given a promise of less money over a longer period of time, and it seems to achieve less than we were promised.
So, while I welcome the continuing ambitions of the Government, I remind the Minister that, some months back, he acknowledged in response to questions that the Government needed not only ambitious 2050 targets but a credible short-term action plan to get there. Regrettably, this is not it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Oates, for their comments, even though the screen indicated the noble Lord, Lord Oates, had been renamed Lord Fox for most of his contribution. I am pleased to say he has been reincarnated in a different guise.
I was pleased to have the initial support of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. It deteriorated slightly from there, but never mind. On funding commitments, since the 10-point plan was announced, and including the commitments yesterday, that makes a total of £26 billion worth of public investment. More importantly, that has leveraged £90 billion of private sector investment into this sector as well. I can confirm the figure of £950 million for the home upgrade grant, which will particularly benefit the homes of low-income families in off-gas areas.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Grantchester, mentioned the boiler upgrade scheme, which I can confirm will have £450 million over three years: £5,000 for air-sourced heat pumps, £6,000 for ground-sourced heat pumps. What most noble Lords missed, and a number of commentators as well, is that this is not the totality of our support for heat pumps. We are also installing a considerable number under the social housing decarbonisation fund, the public sector decarbonisation scheme and, of course, from 2025 when the new housebuilding strategy comes into force, there will be, pretty much, no alternative option for new builds than to install low carbon heating, so that will see a further acceleration. We are currently installing about 30,000 heat pumps a year: roughly 10,000 as a result of subsidy schemes and 20,000 in new builds. This is a massive ramping up.
If the green homes grant taught us anything, it is that we cannot just inject a large amount of funds and expect the industry to change overnight. There is a huge amount of transformational change taking place. To the credit of many private sector companies, they are coming forward with ambitious plans themselves. If I may mention but one: I visited Octopus yesterday morning. It has a fantastic new training centre in Slough and is proposing to employ and retrain hundreds, if not thousands, of currently qualified gas engineers to enable them to install heat pumps in the new revolution. The chief executive told me that by April next year, including this new grant system, they hope to be offering heat pumps for costs roughly comparable to existing gas boilers. I know that many other private sector companies have similar plans.
Clearly, heat pumps are expensive at the moment, but this is all about government funding, pump-priming the market, helping the private sector to innovate and bring the costs down. I am sure noble Lords will accept, that it is a strategy that was extremely successful in the offshore wind market. Costs for offshore wind were initially very expensive and are now comparable to, or possibly even cheaper—we will find out in the contracts for difference round—than existing fossil fuels.
I was surprised to hear that both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats now seem to be in favour of banning boilers. Our position is that it is certainly our aim and ambition that by 2035 we will be able to move away from installing gas boilers. Crucially, before we do that, we need to make sure there are viable alternatives in place. We certainly hope—given the figures that I gave for heat pumps—that by 2030 there would be comparable offers on the market, and alternatives in place. Maybe the hydrogen offer will be comparable by then. We will certainly consult on the possibility of making all boilers hydrogen-compatible, to enable that transition to take place, but as of yet the jury is very much out on whether there will be the ability, at reasonable cost, to produce the enormous quantities of hydrogen that would be required if we were to get anywhere close to it replacing natural gas. I am on the record as saying it is more likely that we will end up using it for industrial processes—trains, HGVs et cetera—rather than the large-scale replacement of gas for domestic heating. Although already, of course, there are trials taking place of hydrogen being injected into the gas main. Injecting up to 20%, it is still possible to work with existing appliances.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, also raised the issue of electric vehicles, and I can tell him that a further £620 million of funding for zero emission vehicle grants and EV infrastructure was announced. We allocated a further £350 million of the up to £1 billion automotive transformation fund, to support the electrification of UK vehicles and, importantly, their supply chain, as well, of course, as a £3 billion integrated bus network, and £2 billion to enable towns and cities to be cycled or walked.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, ended by talking about a pick-and-mix approach. I fundamentally disagree —this is a comprehensive strategy, looking at every individual sector of the economy in turn and outlining a comprehensive strategy of how they all need to do their bit to contribute towards the legally binding net-zero target.
I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, started on a positive note before things descended. He asked me for details of the funding under the heat and building strategy. We have talked about the boiler upgrade scheme, and the social housing decarbonisation fund that is bubbling away in the background. They are extremely successful schemes, and I recommend that noble Lords visit some of the excellent schemes we are already installing. That is a further £950 million and £800 million respectively over 2022-23 and 2024-25. A further £1.4 billion over 2022-23 to 2024-25 is being invested in the public sector decarbonisation scheme, with the aim of reducing emissions from public sector buildings. There is £338 million for the heat network transformation programme and £270 million for the green heat network fund, sector regulation and new heat network zones by 2025.
I understand why noble Lords will always call on us to do more, but I think this does represent a comprehensive strategy tackling all parts of the economy and shows how they can all do their bit to contribute towards our decarbonisation goals. It was even recognised by the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin. This is an extremely ambitious programme and is world leading.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, reports suggest that a companion document to the net-zero strategy entitled Net Zero: Principles for Successful Behaviour Change Initiatives was published and then withdrawn a few hours later. The report suggests that this government document raised concerns over the expansion of airports contained in government policy and tax exemptions for the aviation sector. It said that the Government needed to do more to make behavioural changes easy and affordable, and align commercial interests with net-zero outcomes. It proposed carbon taxes, a financial levy on food with a high-emission footprint, and forcing the markets to be more transparent to enable consumers to choose more sustainable options. Will the Minister confirm if these reports are true? Will he tell me why this report was withdrawn and what its status is now?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I believe there were some documents that were published in error, but they have been withdrawn. Fundamentally, we do not believe in telling people what to eat or how to live their lives. Our focus is on helping people, incentivising them to make green choices, and to make those choices easier and cheaper. As we transition to net zero, we will be tech- led using British technology and innovation, just as we did in the last innovation revolution. I appreciate that the Greens want to lecture people and instruct them; I believe that carrots are much better than sticks.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this Statement. I have not had the opportunity, as yet, to read all the documents. I fear the criticism that I made in the debate on levelling up on Thursday is relevant. There is a clarity of destination about the Government’s policies, but no viable plan to get there. The thing that stuck in my mind is that when we are looking at the necessary move away from gas central heating, the incentives being offered for heat pumps—the £450 million over three years—is clearly inadequate, in comparison with the huge scale of the challenge.
I have always understood the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to be a Conservative who believes in the use of market mechanisms—they are what Conservatives normally support. Can he tell me the Government’s estimate of the rise in gas prices that would be necessary to persuade the public, under market mechanisms, to install heat pumps?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord will be pleased to know that I do believe in market mechanisms. His question is impossible to answer, and let me explain why. Heat pumps are three to four times more thermodynamically efficient than existing gas boilers. At the moment, because of the costs of various policies on the production of electricity to successfully decarbonised the electricity sector, there is an imbalance in pricing. The Treasury and the Government have accepted that we need to do something about rebalancing gas and electricity prices. Now is clearly not the time to do this, when we are experiencing record gas prices. In the longer term, and bearing in mind that this is a 15-year strategy, we need to change the balance of these costs. We are committed to do so. There are other market mechanisms of which I could speak in favour. We will consult on a market mechanism for gas boiler manufacturers to have a certain proportion of their sales be in heat pumps. I repeat what I have said before: the boiler upgrade scheme is not the only support mechanism we offer for installing heat pumps.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
The Minister and I live in the same region, where masses of new building is going up. I have had only a quick read of the document —we have not had time for anything other than that—and there is a lot about retrofitting in it. Given that we have all the technology and knowledge now, can the Minister explain why new builds are not being built to a net-zero target from this year or perhaps next? Everything is in place to be able to do this. We are delaying too long.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The decision was made by what was then the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that the future homes standard would kick in in 2025. There is a long process of consultation to go through with industry to ensure that the standard is applicable, that the supply chain is there, and so on. The right reverend Prelate will be pleased to know that we are changing what is called Part L of the building regulations next year. This will also produce substantial carbon savings in advance of the future homes standard coming in in 2025.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for answering a question I asked a few weeks ago, to which he did not then really reply. I asked when the owners and landlords of buildings and housing will know whether hydrogen is to be the basis for what is currently the gas network. In one place, the document says that it will be “in” 2026, and in another it says “by” 2026. Either way, building owners have five years during which they will not know whether or not their heating systems can be transferred to hydrogen. The Minister is tonight deeply sceptical about whether we would have enough hydrogen, given its other uses, as earmarked in this document, and the need for an increased production in hydrogen for transport and industry. Can the Minister go further and indicate whether any buildings or housing will be convertible from natural gas to hydrogen, or whether some buildings in areas of industrial hydrogen use could be transferred to it? There are three scenarios, varying from nil hydrogen for home heating to it being used for something like a third of home heating by 2050. Will this mix now take place? Do we have to wait till 2026 for any sort of answer to this question?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I would like to give the noble Lord a direct answer: it is genuinely impossible to say, at the moment. Let me explain why. It is clear that hydrogen will play a major role in our economy. It will probably contribute to some heating, but I have given my view based on current technology. It is perfectly possible to use hydrogen for heating and gas boilers; the technology exists now—I have seen it. Two houses have been built our area—for the benefit of the right reverend Prelate—of Gateshead—which are entirely hydrogen-fuelled. They have hydrogen boilers, hydrogen hobs and hydrogen gas fires. They work perfectly well — I have cooked an egg on a hydrogen hob.
The question is where we get the hydrogen from. There are two ways of producing it: either from natural gas through carbon capture storage for blue hydrogen, or through electrolysis to produce green hydrogen. You then have to ask yourself the question: does it make sense to use green electricity to generate hydrogen to heat homes, or is it more sensible just to use electricity in the first place to heat the home through a heat pump? That is a question about thermodynamics and conversion and there will be different solutions in different places.
We can say with certainty that the future of home heating will almost certainly be taken over by three technologies: electrification through heat pumps; a greater use of heat networks, for which we have allocated funding; and a certain percentage from hydrogen. The reason we have announced our hydrogen strategy, are funding lots of research programmes and are consulting on a market mechanism to generate large amounts of hydrogen is to try to kick-start the market—to get it going and to bring in private sector investment and ingenuity. This will help to generate large amounts of hydrogen—cheaply, we hope. But we do not yet know to what extent the technology will develop, how much we will be able to produce at reasonable cost, and whether it will be suitable for use in home heating or whether it will be more sensible to use it in industrial processes. We have a multi-pronged strategy. As soon as we have more information, I will be sure to update the noble Lord.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
The Government have announced that new-build housing will have charging points for electric vehicles. But the Minister will know that many houses and much other accommodation do not have access to driveways or sufficient space for such points. People will rely increasingly on electric vehicle charging points in public places. Their rollout has been very slow, and those that exist are in a very unreliable condition. More than two years ago, legislation came to this House and was passed which gave the Government considerable powers to improve their availability by making public charging points easier to use and easier to pay for and to ensure that they were better maintained. That legislation has not been implemented. Why not?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I believe that it has been implemented. As I said earlier, we have allocated £620 million for vehicle grants and for further funding for local EV infrastructure. This is being rolled out across the whole country. Many local authorities are installing EV charging points in lamp posts, in publicly accessible areas. Grants are available for the installation of electric charge points in the home. Many are being rolled out in service stations and petrol stations. The infrastructure is being rolled out. I understand that the noble Baroness is impatient for it to be done faster, but it is happening.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, given that I cannot see anyone else rising, perhaps I may return to a point raised by both Front-Bench spokespeople about the ending of the sale of gas boilers by 2035. The Government’s document seems to say that this is a confirmed ambition. Can the Minister explain what a “confirmed ambition” means? Given that the Climate Change Committee recommends that these should be ended for residential properties by 2033 and for commercial properties as early as 2030, and given that the International Energy Agency says that there should be a global international ban by 2025, why is this so late?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I understood that I had explained that earlier in my answer to the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Oates, but I am happy to do it again for the benefit of the noble Baroness. It is an aim—an ambition—that by 2035 we will be able to move away from the installation of gas boilers, but we want to make sure that cheap, easily available and affordable alternatives which cost no more to buy or run than a gas boiler are in place. We are fairly certain that the technology will be available. That is why we are supporting so many of our insulation schemes and the heat pumps that we spoke about earlier, but we want to make sure that the technology is available. This also chimes in with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—hydrogen will play a role, but we do not know to what extent at this stage. I understand the impatience of noble Lords, but this is a strategy to be rolled out over many years.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, given that there are 19 million homes in the country marked on the bottom rung for energy efficiency—D or below—and that the Heat and Buildings Strategy stresses in its introduction the need for a fabric-first approach, can the Minister tell me why there are no firm proposals to replace the scrapped green homes grant or funding for improving the fabric of our homes?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness has obviously not been paying attention to what I have said, but let me repeat the figures yet again. She might want to go and look at some of the fantastically successful delivery we were doing for low-income families under the local authority delivery scheme. We spent hundreds of millions of pounds on that; we have already rolled out the first phase of the social housing decarbonisation fund, and we are investing £950 million and £800 million respectively over the next two years. I referred earlier to the home upgrade grants. All these are paying for home insulation measures for the most vulnerable in society and for people on low incomes. I am sorry if the Greens are not aware of that or do not support it, but we are investing these very large sums of money to upgrade the fabric of people’s homes and install low-carbon heating systems in them. I have been out and viewed many of these schemes.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
If I may also take advantage of being able to jump up again on the Minister, I would mention one aspect of the spread of areas to be covered with new developments: nuclear. There was no mention of nuclear in the Statement. Are any updates to the small modular reactors policy being brought forward by the Government?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am happy to tell the noble Lord that there was mention of nuclear in the Statement, and we announced £120 million for a nuclear innovations fund. I can also tell him that we will have more to say on our nuclear ambitions shortly.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
It is obviously the evening to get a second go. Yesterday, the Transition Pathway Initiative launched the Global Climate Transition Centre, which will be a key part of the COP 26 financial infrastructure, to assess 10,000 companies on their alignment with the net-zero pathway and support accountability and action on this very important issue. Understandably, that is not in the paperwork, because it was announced yesterday. Is the Minister aware of the Transition Pathway Initiative—which has been around for a while now—and the Global Climate Transition Centre, and what actions will the Government take to support these initiatives?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Yes is the answer to the right reverend Prelate’s question. They are excellent initiatives, and they are indicative of some of the leadership of many of our leading companies and how they are committing to net zero. Many of them are going to be displaying at COP, and it is great to see some of the biggest businesses in our land also helping us on the pathway to net zero.
COVID-19 Pandemic in Latin America
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, Latin America accounts for 8.2% of global population but has experienced a disproportionate 20% of Covid infections and a third of global deaths. The response to Covid has varied enormously within Latin America. In Brazil, the laissez-faire attitude of the Government left everything to a devolved health system, and they actively refused to take any central responsibility or leadership, with President Bolsonaro dismissing Covid as just “a little flu”. This has resulted in Brazil suffering the worst rates of death and infection in the whole of Latin America.
By contrast, Uruguay saw the most effective response by miles, ramping up the test, trace and track systems, avoiding lockdowns and school closures, and achieving some of the lowest infection and death figures in the world—although, during 2021, the beta variant from Brazil has now increased infection rates among young people in particular. I am aware that funding from the UK embassy in Montevideo has helped to fund genomic surveillance and public health monitoring. Is that funding still in place, and could it be replicated in other countries of the region? In El Salvador, the borders were closed quickly, and quarantine was enforced by the police and the military. Containment centres were also set up quickly but proved to be ineffective at infection control because shared accommodation became a vector for spreading the disease. In Panama, it was hoped that transmission rates would be reduced by allowing people out to pharmacies and supermarkets by sex: women one day and men the next. This has been monitored by Google tracking people’s phones. There are no reliable data on whether it was effective, although the infection rate appears to have declined.
But the Covid factor that is characteristic across the region is the way in which the pandemic has exacerbated existing inequalities. Corruption over the acquisition of ventilators has been notable in Bolivia. In Colombia, there was a 103% increase in domestic violence between March and December 2020. Some 21% of Latin America’s urban population live in slums, informal settlements or precarious housing, where overcrowding and the lack of services are some of the factors that help to spread disease. You cannot be two metres away from someone if your house is only two metres square and for multiple generations.
In Colombia and elsewhere there was already very limited access to healthcare and basic services such as clean drinking water and soap in poor and rural areas, making simple Covid measures such as handwashing very difficult, if not impossible. Similarly, in Peru, the pandemic has exposed chronic weaknesses in the public health system, especially in rural areas such as the Amazon region. The poorest in the population found it hardest to comply with lockdown and social distancing because they rely on daily wages in the informal economy and could not afford not to work, even if they risked infection or knew they were infected. These pressures fall most heavily on women, indigenous peoples, Afro-Colombians and peasant farmers. The number of Colombians living in extreme poverty grew by 3.5 million in 2020 alone, and the UN added Colombia to its list of so-called hunger hotspots.
In Peru, too, a further 3.3 million people now live in poverty as a direct result of Covid. Around 2 million lost their jobs, the economy shrank by 11%, and average wages for those with jobs fell by a quarter. Has any audit been done on how the cuts in our overseas development aid spending will affect programmes we have been funding in Latin America to improve health systems and inequalities? In light of the devastating impact of Covid, will the Government consider restoring such funding?
Inequalities have also surfaced in relation to vaccines. Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Mexico and Peru all participated in clinical trials or storage in exchange for access to the products. Vaccines have been procured through agreements with pharmaceutical firms and through the COVAX scheme. But factors such as purchasing power, population size, delivery infrastructure and political will mean it will take years for vaccination at population level to be achieved—in Paraguay, for example, it will not be until 2024. Is the level of vaccines signed up for under COVAX—which I believe was to get 2 billion doses to the region by the end of 2021—actually on target?
I have two other vaccine-related questions. First, what is the Government’s position on the protection by patents of the intellectual property of the vaccines? There is a WTO waiver for public health emergencies, which was activated for antiretroviral drugs during the height of the HIV/AIDS crisis. Could this be helpful for getting Covid vaccines to Latin America, as well as better technology transfer and support for domestic producers?
Secondly, there is the question of which vaccines are being used. Brazil has AstraZeneca but has also been using Russian and Chinese-produced vaccines which are not approved by the WHO. The main supply of Peru and other countries has been the Chinese Sinopharm. Has any assessment has been made of the restrictions on travel for those with unapproved vaccinations or unrecognised vaccine programmes in relation to the UK’s business relationship with some of our major trading partners in Latin America? Would it be in our own enlightened self-interest to do more to share approved vaccines so that trade, and indeed cultural and educational travel and exchanges, will not be impeded?
Finally, but no less importantly, I want to touch on the impact of Covid on security, crime and human rights in the region. The cumulative impact of Covid has led to widespread civil disruption and riots in some parts of the region. In Colombia in April this year, mass social protests met with horrendous police brutality. Armed groups took advantage of lockdown to terrorise and control communities, including the killing of 177 human rights defenders in 2020 alone. I know that the Government take the UK’s role as the penholder for Colombia at the Security Council seriously, and I would like to know what the Minister thinks can be done to make sure that the peace accord in Colombia will not be destroyed altogether by Covid and its ramifications.
Equally disturbing is the spike in murders and violence generally, including sexual violence, in Mexico. Organised crime appears to have been helped by Covid restrictions. Although lockdown put fewer people on the streets, reducing the demand for drugs and the capacity to smuggle drugs to the US, this led to drug cartels competing more aggressively for business, including by securing allegiance from isolated communities by offering food and medical supplies to establish control in return for their allegiance.
Does the Minister agree that it is in the UK’s economic, diplomatic and security interests for us to be much more proactive? Latin America got just two brief paragraphs in the recent integrated review. Surely the impact of Covid illustrates that a greater level of attention and engagement is needed.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I thank and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on securing this important debate on Latin America, which is of great interest to many across the House for a variety of reasons. As she said, Latin America has just 8.2% of the world’s population, but by February 2021 had recorded more than 650,000 deaths—more than one-quarter of the world total. I think we can be sure that the attitude of and policies pursued by Jair Bolsonaro have been responsible for the huge number of deaths in Brazil. In general, the pandemic has highlighted the inadequacy of public health systems and severe inequality in Latin American society—an aspect of the Covid pandemic in evidence, in terms of equality, in the UK as well, alas. One of the outcomes among Latin American nations may be that higher social spending on health and so on will be called for, which would be no bad thing.
Colombia reacted reasonably quickly in the initial stages of the pandemic, but prolonged lockdown eventually led to a falling away of compliance as people needed to work, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said. In fact, many people have now lost gainful employment. Against the background of a high level of human rights abuses and serious opposition to proposed tax reforms, which would further entrench inequality, many Colombians have faced considerable harm at the hands of state forces in addition to the harm they faced from the pandemic. Armed groups have clearly taken advantage of the lockdown to wreak havoc in communities, with the UN observing huge increases in massacres, which were already all too common in Colombia.
It takes an enormous amount of courage to be a human rights defender, or even an active trade unionist, particularly a teacher trade unionist, in Colombia. The UN mission has called the number of deaths of human rights defenders an epidemic of violence, with 177 individuals killed in 2020. With what we hope will be the gradual subsiding of the pandemic, the focus must return to high-profile condemnation of the violence of the Colombian police and paramilitaries. Will the Minister ensure that Her Majesty’s Government will continue to call for full implementation of the peace process?
Repeated incidents of state violence call into question Colombia’s commitment to human rights and the rule of law, on which the UK-Andean trade deal is based. The Colombian unions and the TUC have called for the suspension of the deal to put pressure on the Colombian Government to address the violation of human rights and to implement in full the 2016 peace agreement so that post-Covid peace in Colombia can be a real prospect.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
My Lords, as the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, have withdrawn, I now call the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, as I, like others this evening, have an affinity with Latin America.
The situation is dire, which is supported by a depressing collection of facts and numbers. The pandemic has had a devastating social impact. Poverty—and extreme poverty, as has been mentioned—has dramatically increased, with inequality having grown throughout the region. The only question I can muster is: what is we can we do to help?
While international trade contracted globally in 2020, it contracted more severely in Latin America. The only light at the end of the tunnel is that there has been a more considerable drop in imports than exports, which has reduced the region’s trade deficit. However, the prospects for recovery are not good. Companies are recording significant losses as commodity prices fall. Generally, exports have fallen by 10% and imports by 13%. Unemployment has risen and businesses have been closed. Public accounts have deteriorated. The pandemic has caused the closure of a staggering 2.7 million Latin American companies, equating to 19% of all companies in Latin America.
The differences between the countries are high. Peru, Argentina, Ecuador, Panama, El Salvador, Mexico and Colombia have been the most affected countries, with small businesses and low-skilled workers struggling the hardest. It would be inappropriate not to record that a staggering 600,000 Brazilians, including a disproportionate number of indigenous citizens, have perished. Venezuela has felt the effects of a break in its relationship with Cuba, with doctors emigrating. Women and the youth are among the most affected.
The majority of countries have established instruments of direct help to households, such as the emergency family income in Argentina, the Covid-19 voucher in Chile, the solidarity income in Colombia, the proteger voucher in Costa Rica and the emergency voucher in Brazil. Some countries have been able to take advantage of the boost in their exports of medical and agricultural products. Guatemala and Honduras have benefited from the sales of masks and Costa Rica from those of medical equipment, mainly destined for the United States market.
The all-important remittances from Latin American workers outside the region fell by 19.3% in 2020, according to the World Bank. These incomes are particularly important in Central America. The worsening environment for migrants during the pandemic means that their basic needs are unmet and their social and economic capabilities not realised. In short, Covid-19 has illustrated the urgent need to support the impoverished with aid from overseas.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for her perseverance in getting a time slot for this debate, I also support all she said about the prevalence, consequences and challenges posed by the pandemic throughout Latin America. She underlined in particular the social and security aspects. I agree not only with her, but with the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that the overall picture is dire and depressing.
In my three minutes, I would like to refer in particular to the three countries with which I am engaged as a trade envoy, namely Panama, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic. I was appointed just before lockdown. Inevitably, Covid and the restrictions of lockdown have affected any attempts to embark on promotional trade activities in both directions. It is only very recently that Costa Rica has come off the red list of countries which we cannot visit and from which we cannot receive visitors. It came off the list with two other Central American countries, Honduras and Guatemala. The three countries are very preoccupied with the issue of the red list.
Tourism, of course, is vital to the economies of these three countries and to wider Latin America. In particular, eco-tourism is vital to Costa Rica. As the Minister well knows, Costa Rica is recognised as the greenest economy of the region, and of the whole of Latin America, so it is of the utmost importance to facilitate travel as soon as possible, not only for the Costa Rican economy but to support travel operators in this country, many of which are small and medium-sized businesses specialising in areas such as eco-tourism.
The latest figures I have from Costa Rica show that 70% of the population have had one dose of the vaccine and 40% have had two doses. The figures vary slightly—those I received from the Library are slightly different. However, those are quite impressive figures and perhaps account for the fact that Costa Rica was removed from the red list. I should also mention that AstraZeneca opened its new headquarters for the whole region in Costa Rica last year—a very important link.
The fact that Costa Rica is off the red list leaves me with Panama and the Dominican Republic. These countries also need to be able to open up to tourism and trade. We had a Zoom meeting with parliamentarians from Panama this afternoon and were told that 80% of the population have been double-jabbed. There have been recent discussions and information flows at a high level, which, I trust, will lead to a reassessment of its position.
I am sorry about the timing, but since two people have dropped out, I thought I might have an extra minute or so. The Dominican Republic is puzzled to be left on our red list when tourists from the United States seem to have no problem other than the need for a double vaccination certificate and vice versa. I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure us of a speedy reassessment of the situation affecting Latin America, in particular the countries I have mentioned.
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing this important debate. As we consider the devastating consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic in Latin America, it is important to bear in mind that, due to deeply ingrained cultural attitudes, some are better placed to cope than others.
Gender discrimination affects women and girls and, as in most other parts of the world, widows in particular face additional hurdles. Rural widows who find themselves left alone to fend for their families are often not permitted to take over livelihoods due to the highly gendered nature of farm work and agricultural supply chains. In Colombia, for example, the arrangements for allocating the property of an intestate husband do not in practice allow for the widow maintaining control of the family farm or business—that is, providing for their own economic autonomy.
There are examples in parts of Latin America of disinheritance, whereby widows are prevented by male relatives from inheriting property to which they are legally entitled. Widows’ circumstances put them at high risk of poverty and additional acute direct threats to their well-being.
As regards any support we are able to provide, whether in vaccine distribution or other overseas development aid, can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will take these underlying inequalities into account to make sure that support is targeted first at the most vulnerable?
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I thank and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and echo all that she has said this evening. She gave an excellent speech and I congratulate her on getting the time available to speak on this important subject. There is all too little focus on the huge impact Covid has had on South America and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, on the dire situation it has created, not least among women and the youth, who have been very badly affected because of the inequalities that have grown in those societies.
I talked to somebody who worked for a good while with Goni Sánchez de Lozada, when he was President of Bolivia, on social and economic policies and development programmes in his country.
I have to be brief this evening, although I note that the Clock has not started yet. I want to pick up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, said. She highlighted that the pandemic highlights public health systems and that funding should concentrate on public health systems. I just want very briefly, in a minute, to state that I hope that when it comes to recovery programmes, the Government will prioritise public health support in Latin America. That extends beyond many of the points that the noble Baroness wisely raised and I hope were well heard by the Government.
Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I believe that sport, recreation and active lifestyles can help very much in recovery programmes. They can go to the heart of good health and well-being, quality education, gender equality—which is critical in any recovery programme—decent work opportunities, growth and reducing the inequalities which the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, rightly spoke about.
It was interesting that, in the build-up to the Olympic Games in Tokyo, the IOC, through the UN, encouraged all member states to include sport and physical activity in their recovery programmes from Covid-19; to integrate sport and physical activity into national strategies for sustainable development, taking note of the contributions sport, physical activity and an active lifestyle make to health; and to promote safe sport as a contributor to the health and well-being of individuals and communities.
That is the message I want to leave the House with in this debate. I urge the Minister to incorporate those policies and aspirations into the additional programmes that we now need to put in place to help recovery in South America, which is so vitally needed.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, to reassure the Government Whip, I will not seek to take advantage of the flexibility on timings this evening. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins—I consider her my noble friend—for securing this debate and introducing it so well. She has a very consistent and strong interest in this region. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, indicated, this is an area which is debated far too infrequently in this House.
The world saw a differing approach to a global pandemic in that region, with politics over health, open boundaries and borders and minimal economic assistance, even when this was fiscally possible. I watched President Bolsonaro’s speech at UNGA with an element of horror, and I note the legal challenges that he now faces in his own country.
Information today from Our World in Data shows that his approach has seen 604,000 people die in Brazil, with deaths likely to be underreported. In Mexico, there have been 285,000 deaths; in Peru, there have been 200,000. Peru has had 6,000 deaths per million people of its population, compared with 752 in Canada. Perhaps the most startling figure I read was that, while the UK has seen a horrific 11% of excess deaths during the pandemic, Mexico has had 40%, Ecuador 49% and Peru an astonishing 93%.
The vaccination rollout has also been patchy. Data from today interestingly shows a full vaccination rate for Uruguay and Chile—higher than in the UK—but Brazil has only half of its population vaccinated and Peru 42.4%. The impact on that country has been enormous. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper—whom I also consider a noble friend—and I visited there together and have both made many calls for greater UK interest in that country since the visit.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, who had hoped to speak this evening, was in touch with the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and myself. We all share a concern over the ongoing economic impact. At the end of last year, an estimated 231 million people in Latin America were living in poverty, the worst level for 15 years. Data from a World Bank report published on 8 June this year forecast how countries would return to pre-pandemic levels, if at all, by 2022. It suggested that advanced economies would be 0.1% smaller, but medium-income countries would be 4.1% smaller.
So the need for UK involvement at this time of crisis and the opportunity for investment and trade into the future are obvious. Can the Minister therefore explain why UK ODA support for Peru has fallen from £3.7 million in 2019-20 to just £1.1 million in the year going forward—slashed by two-thirds? It was even more alarming to read on 10 October in the Financial Times an anonymous briefing on the new Foreign Secretary’s priorities which said:
“Latin America is one region that is expected to fall down her list of priorities, according to senior British diplomats.”
Can the Minister confirm that this anonymous briefing was not correct, that the region will not fall down the priority list for the new Foreign Secretary, and that we will honour two centuries of very close relationships and ensure that this region, which is facing a huge economic crisis, will now be a UK priority?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for initiating this debate. We are looking at a tale of two worlds here. In the first week of August, 85 million Covid vaccines had been administered in the United Kingdom. In Paraguay, the situation could not have been more different. The President of Paraguay addressed the nation amidst frustration that only 4% had been vaccinated. He told his people in simple terms, “We bet on COVAX mechanisms and COVAX did not work”. I hope the Minister will say something about that.
Two months on, the figure in Paraguay has risen from 4% to 26%. A night-time curfew remains in place and those who have received vaccinations are crediting China for Sinovac and Russia for Sputnik V, as the noble Baroness said.
Latin America has been especially hard-hit by Covid-19. It has 8% of the world’s population but over 16% of global cases in the top six countries alone and, except for Chile, the highest number of deaths. Reasons include poor health infrastructure, the inability of workers in the informal economy to self-isolate and the lack of decisive, co-ordinated government action.
The ILO estimated that, by the end of 2020, employment across the region had fallen from 57% to 52%. It also illustrated how women and young people had been adversely affected, describing the results as
“a time bomb that could affect social and political stability”.
Here I highlight the point made by my noble friend Lady Blower on the impact on the peace process, particularly in Colombia. Will the Minister tell us a bit more about how we are influencing the situation there, to ensure that the peace process is kept on track?
I hope the Minister will also address the issue of the global vaccination effort and what we are doing to ensure that we donate surplus doses, as well as develop a co-ordinated investment programme for new facilities.
What is the Minister’s strategy to support these countries in their recovery, including through international development and aid, which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, highlighted, and in addition to our trade policy? On trade policy, will the Minister address the fact that, as my noble friend mentioned, the UK’s trade agreement with Colombia did not mention human rights at all and was criticised by trade unionists both there and here? I hope he can reassure us on that and on future trade relationships.
The fundamental question is: what is the United Kingdom doing to ensure that a multilateral system is in place to ensure that, when the next global crisis comes, countries work together?
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for tabling this important debate and for her continued interest in the region. She made a very compelling speech. I thank all noble Lords for their insightful contributions.
This is a timely debate. While some countries are, happily, starting to see a return to a more normal life, Latin America is the region hardest hit by the pandemic. The effect has been devastating. While home to just under one-tenth of the world’s population, Latin America accounts for nearly one-third of all reported Covid-19 deaths and one-fifth of confirmed cases. Covid-19 has increased poverty, plunged the region into recession and set back economic growth by a decade in some countries. That, in turn, impacts the region’s health and education systems and, worryingly, it also increases reticence about the climate change commitments that much of the world is signing up to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, focused particularly on the process of recovery. The UK is playing its part to help the region recover. In answer to her question, we are championing access to vaccines through COVAX and encouraging scientific exchange in areas such as genome sequencing. We are mobilising climate finance at COP 26 and pursuing trade agreements so that our shared future can flourish.
Latin America is an important partner for the UK’s global ambitions. From climate change and nature, economics and trade, democracy and human rights, we work with the region on countless priorities set out in the integrated review. With many countries aligned with UK values, three members of the G20 and Mexico, currently a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council—Brazil will join in January—we have strong strategic allies right across Latin America.
The Foreign Secretary visited Mexico in the first week of her new role. She held discussions to strengthen our trading relationship, deepen our economic partnership and tackle climate change together, in support of our shared values.
I have recently returned from a trip to Peru and Colombia, where I saw for myself the devastating impact of Covid in the region. The pandemic has plunged Latin America into an economic recession. Regional GDP fell last year by 7% and predicted growth is below what we would expect from emerging economies. In two decades, before the start of the pandemic, the number of people living in poverty in the region had fallen by nearly half, but Covid has driven a significant reversal of that progress. By the end of last year, 78 million people were estimated to be living in extreme poverty in the countries of Latin America—an increase of 8 million people since the pandemic began.
Where inequalities existed before, the pandemic has cut the deepest. An increase in unemployment in the region has hit the most vulnerable the hardest, including women, young workers and migrants. It has worsened the plight of many of the nearly 6 million refugees and migrants who have fled the Maduro regime in Venezuela. The majority have sought safe haven in neighbouring countries where, notwithstanding the welcome that they have been given, many go hungry. Mandatory school closures have lasted longer than in any other region of the world. Around 100 million students in Latin America have been affected. Some, especially the most vulnerable, may never make up this loss in education. The World Bank estimates that this could cost the region $1.7 trillion in lost future income.
Many countries were ill-prepared for virtual education, and a lack of access to the internet for many, especially those in rural areas, widened the gap even more between those from the poorest households and the most fortunate. Health systems are being pushed to their limits. In Mexico and Colombia, the recent third wave put pressure on hospitals that were already exhausted from the last 18 months. In Peru, which as we have heard has suffered the worst cumulative per capita death rate globally, the pandemic has pushed the healthcare system to breaking point.
The only way that the world is going to bring this pandemic under control is through widespread immunisation, using all available safe and effective vaccines, and the UK is playing its part. We are at the forefront of the international response to Covid-19, through our commitments to COVAX, Gavi and the World Health Organization. The UK’s early support of the AstraZeneca vaccine has been instrumental, and that vaccine is now produced locally in Mexico, Argentina and Brazil. The three countries are expected to produce around 250 million doses for the region this year.
Two-thirds of the population of Latin America have now received their first dose of the vaccine, up from just a fifth two months ago. In some countries the effects of the vaccine are beginning to bring cases down, and the overall picture in the region is finally improving. I was delighted that a fortnight ago we were able to move most Latin and Caribbean countries off our coronavirus list. However, some countries remain vulnerable to further waves of Covid-19, and those with low vaccination rates are particularly vulnerable.
In response to a question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, all Latin American countries that are no longer on the red list, apart from Brazil and Chile, are awaiting verification of their vaccine certification. Until international standards are agreed globally, we will review each country’s certificate to ensure that it meets our minimum data requirements. She also asked about accelerating patents, as in the case of the AIDS retrovirals. I am afraid that I cannot give her an answer. The question is best directed to the Department of Health, and I will convey it to the department and will respond as soon as I can.
This is one of the reasons why we will continue to share our learning from the UK rollout with partners in the region and, most importantly, work together to control new variants. In Brazil, for example, we are doing this with a new variant assessment platform, working in partnership with the Brazilian Government to ensure that UK expertise helps to boost genomic sequencing capability in the country. We hope to work with more countries in the region to support this work and strengthen sequencing capability, so that we all have a better understanding of the variants as they arise.
The recent changes to the red list demonstrate that the UK is taking a scientific, country-by-country approach to these decisions. I recognise the real personal and economic impact for many people living in red list countries—a point made well by my noble friend Lady Hooper—who want to travel, who depend on the tourism industry for their livelihoods, who are businesspeople, students and more. The decision to keep countries on the red list, or to move them off it, is one that affects us far more widely: not just in our trade and prosperity partnerships but in our ability to deliver an in-person and inclusive COP 26 next month. We want to work alongside important partners, many of them in Latin America—Brazil, Mexico and Colombia—while also ensuring the safety and security of all participants.
As the scientific picture changes, we will continue to keep the list under regular review, but our priority must be to protect the health of the UK public. We will do that by continuing to take full account of scientific evidence, while balancing the advantages and risks of reopening our borders.
In the meantime, we are working with partners in the Latin American region to help them recover and rebuild. The UK is not only supporting vaccine supply but has been working with countries such as Brazil and Mexico to strengthen their health systems through the UK’s Better Health programme. I saw for myself in Peru how UK companies’ expertise is supporting the country to rebuild schools, hospitals and river defences after the devastating effects of flooding caused by El Niño four years ago.
Even through the pandemic, the UK has been working with countries across the region to help them to become more resilient and adapt to these extreme weather events. Through the UK PACT Green Recovery Challenge Fund, for example, the UK has funded projects in Brazil, Peru and Argentina, supporting greening financial systems and nature-based solutions. That includes deforestation-free cattle ranching in Peru, promoting green finance for sustainable development in Argentina and building climate risk assessment into the credit operations of Brazilian development banks.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I hope I was about to answer the noble Lord’s point about our support for Peru—a point that he made well. In 2020—last year—the UK signed a second Government-to-Government agreement with Peru to support the delivery of what we estimate will be a £1.6 billion infrastructure programme to rebuild schools and hospitals in the northern regions affected by El Niño-related flooding and landslides in 2017. UK businesses are already providing technical assistance while transferring the required knowledge to Peruvian experts so they can develop similar projects in future. This is an example—I do not pretend to be an expert but I did witness much of this—of the UK using its skills and relatively small sums of finance to leverage far greater support for that country. If the noble Lord does not mind, I will come to a broader point about future support for Peru in just a few moments, and I will combine that with an answer to the noble Baroness as well.
Ahead of COP next month, we have especially encouraged ambitious climate commitments. Latin America suffers the severe weather effects of climate change just as surely as its rainforests hold so many of the solutions. The region must therefore make its voice heard at COP 26 in support of ambitious climate targets.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who mentioned Costa Rica. It may not have been, in which case I apologise for not having made a note of who made that comment. Whoever it was, I strongly agree with them. I apologise; it was my noble friend Lady Hooper. She is absolutely right: Costa Rica provides an example for the world. It has managed to incorporate concern for and a focus on the environment with economic growth. It managed to double its canopy in just over a generation and has grown its economy at the same time. It has gone from pretty low in the league table to being pretty high in the region, and I do not think that is a coincidence.
Colombia, which I recently visited, is also showing extraordinary leadership on both climate change and the environment, not only in addressing, halting and reversing forest loss in the Amazon but in combining those efforts with attempts to strengthen the peace process that began just a few years ago. Again, I saw examples—
Viscount Waverley (CB)
The Minister spoke about the need to approve a certificate from Colombia. Is he able to say whether the UK does that in isolation from others around the world, or is it that we are part and parcel of a global approach in approving, for example, the certificate specifically from Colombia?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Viscount for his question. I hope I am not wrong in saying that the UK has now recognised the vaccine certificates for Colombia; that has happened. Colombia remains on the red list, but this means that when it comes off that list, it ought to be a relatively smooth transition. I hope I will not have to correct the record on that, but I do not think I will.
I was amazed by some of the projects that are happening in Colombia, which combine efforts to raise living standards and reinforce the peace process by involving those people who are very much involved in conflict in this global endeavour to restore and protect nature, and which are doing so in an extraordinarily successful way. I really hope we will be able to step up our efforts in that region and beyond in support of a series of truly world-leading initiatives.
Increasing trade in the region is also essential to overcome the unprecedented economic challenges caused by the pandemic. Opening up markets, unlocking business opportunities and sharing British business expertise will benefit both the region and of course the UK. The UK has negotiated continuity trade agreements in the region with Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and the countries of Central America.
In Mexico, we will soon be starting negotiations on a new ambitious free trade agreement to support jobs, opportunities and prosperity right across the UK in industries that will shape the future of the global economy and secure better access for British goods and services. Our ambition to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership is also important for UK interests in the region.
The UK is acutely aware of the devastating impacts that the pandemic has had on the lives of many individuals and the economies of countries across Latin America. It has widened inequalities and pushed back—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I know the Minister is running out of time, but he did say he was going to address this, so I would be happy if he will write to me with the forward ODA plans. However, I would be very happy if he would say, on the record, at the Dispatch Box, that the unattributed briefing to the Financial Times that Latin America is now lower down on the Foreign Secretary’s priorities is wrong. If he can say that, I would be very happy.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. The rule is that we do not respond to leaks of that sort—actually, I do not know the leak he is referring to—but I can tell him that it is a priority of mine as a Minister in the Foreign Office and someone with a particular concern for climate change and the environment that we ramp up our support for those initiatives that I just described, not just in Colombia but beyond. I can only say that I sincerely hope that the briefing is wrong—I believe it is wrong and I think it would be wrong, in fact, were that to be the case. It was a point I was going to make to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, in terms of our involvement and our offer for Colombia, Peru and the wider Amazon region.
I will briefly address a couple of points. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, that we are doing what we can to integrate our diplomacy and our development programmes to deliver a much bigger and better impact. I make my final point to the noble Baroness, Lady Blower. Of course, we are appalled by the reports of human rights violations and the deaths of environmental defenders in Colombia and elsewhere.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
And trade unionists, of course. While these are the result of criminality within that country—a legacy, perhaps, of some of the difficulties that are beginning to subside, but nevertheless have really wracked Colombia for some time—these are not the consequences of malignant action by government. I raised this issue when I spoke to President Duque a week or so ago and it was very clear to me that he and his Government are doing what they can to get to grips with the issues that the noble Baroness raised so well. Although it is not entirely clear how we can help, certainly the offer from the UK is on the table to provide what support we can to enable the Government to get to grips with the problem, which is clearly tragic on so many levels. My colleagues and I raise these issues on a regular basis, but I believe that by supporting some of the initiatives that I hinted at earlier, albeit briefly, we have an opportunity in the UK to provide very meaningful support to the Government of Colombia in strengthening and extending and making that peace process endure.
On that note, I thank noble Lords for their contributions—
Baroness Coussins (CB)
Before the noble Lord sits down, will he undertake to write to me with answers to the few questions I asked that he has not been able to cover in his reply?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
I do apologise: I thought I had left this debate with a clean sheet, but I clearly have not, so I undertake to scan the record tomorrow and to respond to any questions from the noble Baroness that remain unanswered. I pay tribute to her for her speech, for initiating this debate and for her work in the region.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, that concludes the Question for Short Debate business.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Wednesday 20th October 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 40-I(b) Amendments for Committee (supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (20 Oct 2021)
Lord Paddick
“Meaning of special constables
In all legislation in force applying to England and Wales (including legislation enacted after the coming into force of this section)— (a) the term “members of police forces” shall be deemed to include special constables, and(b) the term “constable” shall be deemed to include a special constable.”Member’s explanatory statement
The aim of this amendment is to ensure that special constables are considered to be members of the police service, as they are in Scotland.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, Clause 3 enables special constables to be represented by the Police Federation, which is an important and welcome acknowledgment of the role played by specials in police forces—but it does not go far enough. I have been surprised at the lack of knowledge among those I have discussed the amendment with surrounding the role of special constables, who are sworn servants of the Crown with all the powers and responsibilities of a regular police officer. The only difference is that special constables are unpaid volunteers whose only recompense is to be paid expenses. I have also been surprised to learn how widely special constables are now used across a range of policing duties.
When I was a serving police officer, specials were generally treated quite badly by regular officers, who referred to them as “hobby bobbies”. It was almost seen as a punishment for a regular officer to be paired with a special constable on patrol—a liability rather than an asset. Such attitudes were unfair and, in most cases, unjustified. As the devastating cuts to policing continued at the end of the coalition Government, special constables came to be increasingly relied on to perform an extensive range of duties, including being trained in public order to be used in the front line on potentially violent demonstrations. Special constables carry warrant cards, handcuffs and CS spray, can exercise force and make arrests, unlike police community support officers, who are unable to do any of those things. Their uniforms have evolved over time so that today they are barely distinguishable from a regular police officer.
To all intents and purposes, and as far as the law and the public are concerned, special constables are in every way the same as regular police officers, except they are unpaid volunteers. That equivalence has been recognised in Scotland, where they are considered to be members of the police force, but it is not the case in England and Wales. While I welcome the recognition that this Bill proposes to give special constables in allowing them to be represented by the Police Federation, I am at a loss to understand why they are not also to be considered members of police forces to which they belong in England and Wales, as they are in Scotland.
Special constables have a vital and increasingly important role to play. In many places, the visible policing presence on our streets has all but disappeared; specials could help to fill that gap. The nature of policing is changing, with increasingly complex and technical crime being committed, such as online fraud. While police forces cannot compete with tech giants in terms of salaries for those technically qualified and experienced, there are opportunities for those with technical expertise to devote some of their spare time to serving their fellow citizens by becoming special constables dedicated to cybercrime, for example.
If I recall correctly, the Labour Party would seek to recruit significant numbers of special constables, were it to be in government—but that requires more than a statement of intent. Being a special constable has to be an attractive proposition to potential recruits, and recognising them as full members of police forces would send a clear message as to how important and valued they are. Can the Minister explain to the Committee why special constables cannot be members of police forces in England and Wales when they are in Scotland? I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, this amendment, proposed by my noble friend Lord Paddick, is one that I wholeheartedly support. Many years ago, when I was a magistrate, it was one of my happiest duties to swear in the new special constables. It was fascinating to hear their reasons for wanting to serve their communities voluntarily and to learn about their day jobs. Whatever motivated them, whatever their background, they shared the same driving commitment to help to keep us safe. They put themselves in as much danger as a full-time officer, and they do it voluntarily.
For many years, as my noble friend Lord Paddick, has said, full-time officers derided them. Fortunately, they began to see their worth and special constables are now, almost, fully integrated into the workforce and finally treated properly. I am delighted that my noble friend has brought forward this amendment and I support it totally.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I am very happy to discuss Amendment 12, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. It is really interesting and certainly gives us cause to think about the issues he has raised about special constables being members of police forces in England and Wales, as they are in Scotland. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response as to why that is not appropriate, or whether the legal difference between England and Wales and Scotland with respect to specials is an important difference and there is some logical reason for it. It is certainly something for this Committee to think about. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for bringing this amendment forward.
We also very much support the provisions in Clause 3, which allow special constables to join the Police Federation. This is a long overdue change, so the Government are to be congratulated on bringing that forward.
It is really important for us to put on record—given that our proceedings are read by many outside and watched by others—what will be the Committee’s unanimous view of the importance of specials and the work they do. All, or many, of us will have been out with our local police forces on the beat. I have at times been out with the specials. It is important to remember that, when a special turns up at an incident in a uniform, with the full powers of the police constable, the people to whom he or she is going do not ask them whether they are a special or whether, because they are special, they do not somehow put themselves in danger in the same way that a full-time police officer would. They are just grateful that a police officer—a uniform—has turned up to support them.
It is really important for us to state in this Committee debate that we support the specials and value the work that they do across communities up and down the country. It is also worth reiterating the evidence given to the Bill Committee in the Commons by John Apter, who said that special constables
“stand shoulder to shoulder with my colleagues. They have exactly the same powers and they carry exactly the same risks.”
In that short phrase, John Apter has completely summed up our view of the work that they do. Alongside that, Chief Superintendent Paul Griffiths, president of the Police Superintendents’ Association, said that special constables
“epitomise the relationship between the public and the police”.— [ Official Report, Commons, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Committee, 18/5/21; col. 26.]
It is important, in this short debate on the amendment, to put that on the record. I know it will be the unanimous view of the Committee, but I am also interested in the noble Baroness’s response—sorry, the Minister is the noble Lord; I will get it right. I have been in the Commons for a long time and it takes a little while to get used to—I am nearly there.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, raises an important issue on which we need some clarification, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I want to amplify one point made by both previous speakers. I am sure that the Minister would agree that what we want to do in the police force—all parts of the police force—is to encourage recruitment. The feeling that one has standing encourages that enormously. I would just like to make this point: we want to encourage recruitment, and therefore if police special constables feel that they are part of the police force, they are more likely to join and stay.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for explaining his amendment. Before I get on to dealing with this amendment, I want to say that I was very moved by the noble Lord’s earlier comments. In the interests of full disclosure, I should declare that I was an inspector in the Royal Hong Kong Police. That is where I started out; I can confirm that one never forgets the smell of a mortuary.
Amendment 12 effectively seeks to dispense with the need for Clause 3 by ensuring that, for all purposes, special constables are treated in law as members of a police force. Our professional and dedicated special constables increasingly carry out a range of specialised and front-line roles in their mission to keep us and our communities safe, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, noted. He also made some very relevant points about the technical skills that they can bring. They often face the same risks as regular officers while on duty; they deserve the same protection and support as regular officers where appropriate. That is why, through the Bill, we are enabling special constables to become members of the Police Federation, should they wish to do so.
Having been subject to long-standing separate regulation in England and Wales, the distinct nature of special constables is recognised in law with clearly defined benefits that result directly from this separate status. In contrast, legislation in Scotland has long included special constables as “members of police forces” and has been drafted to take this into account. It would not be appropriate for special constables to have access to the same conditions of service, or indeed face the same restrictions, that legislation confers on regular officers. Including special constables in the existing definition of “members of police forces” would have that effect. Legislation on the pay and pensions of “members of police forces”, for example, is not relevant to special constables, who are unpaid volunteers, choosing to give up their free time to help strengthen our police forces. As warranted officers, special constables in England and Wales hold the office of constable and are therefore already included in the term “constable”. This means that, where legislation confers powers on a constable, they will also be exercisable by a special constable.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, mentioned how we value special constables, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. I will digress briefly to set out what the Home Office is doing to recognise and support the special constabulary. The Home Office has raised the profile and status of the annual Lord Ferrers Awards, which recognise the outstanding contribution of volunteers in policing. We have consulted on proposals to extend the eligibility of the Queen’s Police Medal to special constables, along with proposals to lower the service threshold for bars to the Special Constabulary Long Service Medal from 10 to five years. Those proposals could support the retention of highly committed volunteers who may, for example, be incentivised by an award that recognises more realistically the length of service volunteers are able to provide and their ongoing commitment to public service. I hope that this also answers something of the question from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about recruitment.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to John Apter, chair of the Police Federation. I note that he started out as a special constable, which I suppose, by implication, suggests that that is a route into becoming a regular police officer.
For those reasons, we consider that this amendment is not necessary and could cause confusion to the status of special constables, which the law recognises as distinct from regular officers. Further, this amendment could have unwelcome, unintended consequences, for example by applying pay provisions to volunteers. I hope that, in light of my explanation and assurance, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond for her support and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his inquisitiveness and his recognition of the value of specials. I warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to the Dispatch Box. I am not sure whether this was his first outing, but it was a very, very good one. As he will find out, we work collaboratively in this House and it is good to work with such a wonderful Home Office spokesman—if that is not too over-the-top.
However, I did not actually hear—or if I did, I did not understand—why special constables are included as members of police forces in Scotland, and how all the objections the Minister raised, in terms of why they could not be members in England and Wales, have been got around in Scotland. As this is the Minister’s first outing, I would not press him to give me an answer now if he would prefer to write. But something tells me he may have the answer in his hands, in which case I shall allow him to respond.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I will try. The noble Lord is asking why specials are treated as members of the police force in Scotland but not in England and Wales. Special constables in England and Wales have been subject to long-standing separate regulation for members of police forces, and their distinct nature is recognised in law, with clearly defined benefits that result from this separate status. By contrast, legislation in Scotland has long included special constables as members of police forces, and it has been drafted to take that into account. I hope that goes some way to answering the noble Lord’s question.
Lord Paddick (LD)
It was a good try, but it quite clearly does not answer the question at all. Specials in Scotland have always been considered to be members of police forces; they are not paid, but if that happened in England and Wales, they would have to be paid like regular officers. I would like, if possible, for the noble Lord to write to me with a fuller explanation, rather than just stating what the facts are; an explanation of why the facts are as they are would be extremely helpful. But at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Randerson
Member’s explanatory statement
This would specify that the new standards only apply to “police pursuit purposes” rather than all “police purposes”.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to have this opportunity to introduce this group of amendments, and of those, Amendments 13, 15, 16 and 18 are in my name. They are of course probing amendments at this stage.
The Government are seeking to change the standards by which police driving is to be judged. I should explain to noble Lords that I have some background on this issue, because for 18 years I was a JP, and over those years I dealt with a number of cases that involved police pursuit. Controversial cases where police pursuit leads to traffic accidents of course occur regularly.
I have my own personal experience of this. More than a decade ago, I was involved in one such incident. One evening, I was driving along a long, straight stretch of road in Cardiff—a two-lane road, with a mix of residential and commercial properties, that had intermittent central barriers. I suddenly became aware of cars coming towards me at considerable speed, well above the 30 miles per hour limit. It turned out to be a car driven by a very young man, with a passenger, pursued by two police cars. The problem was that they were on my side of the road, and I was on a part of the road with a central barrier. There was literally nowhere for me to go. There was a head-on crash, my car was a write-off, and there was a three-car pile-up because the car being pursued turned over and one of the police cars impacted it.
The seriousness of the crash was indicated by the fact that the road was closed for the night. We had three additional police cars on the scene, two ambulances, a fire engine and a police helicopter. I spent the night in A&E, but it could easily have been very much worse, because the passengers in the other cars suffered only minor injuries too.
Why were the police taking the risk of this pursuit? There were a number of pedestrians around—the crash happened in front of a pub. The official explanation was that the car was stolen, and I was told that the young men were suspected of at least one burglary—but that was a historical suspicion. However, until the pursuit, there was clearly no risk to life and no immediate danger of violence. It has always been clear to me that that pursuit was unlikely to have been justified.
My Amendments 13 and 16 are designed to probe how the Government envisage the new standards being applied. Since the Road Traffic Act 1988, police driving standards have been judged in the same way as those for any other driver despite the additional training they receive and the various exemptions that apply to them. Following a Police Federation campaign, there was a Home Office consultation which included a question on whether the new looser standards should apply only to pursuit or to police response driving generally. Clauses 4 to 6 give effect to the proposed changes, which would judge police driving against the standards of a competent and careful police officer with additional training. The new standards are to be applied to police purposes generally. However, this is a very wide definition. My amendment suggests that it should be limited to pursuit only.
I fully accept that there is an argument that it could also include I-grade—immediate grade—responses. I know that the grading of police responses varies from one force to another but, generally, I-grade calls are those where the immediate presence of a police officer will have a significant impact on the outcome of an incident. It is typically categorised as where there is likely to be a danger to life, a serious threat of violence, serious damage to property or serious injury. The response time is 15 minutes. The other grades of police response are generally called significant, S grade, or extended, E grade, and they do not involve a risk to life or injury. S grade gives a response time of 60 minutes and E grade 48 hours. Clearly, in neither of those cases is there a justification for extremely fast speeds and less than the normal, competent standards of driving that the rest of us ordinary mortals are expected to follow. I would therefore appreciate an explanation from the Minister as to why any kind of police purpose would be regarded as acceptable. We need a greater justification for these changes.
Amendments 15 and 18 also probe the impact of these changes by suggesting that the Secretary of State be given the power to extend the new standards to other emergency services. Noble Lords will understand that this is an inquiry. Ambulance drivers and drivers of fire engines also receive special training. They are highly skilled drivers, trained to break the normal rules of the road. They respond to calls where there is an immediate danger to life. It could be argued that that applies routinely in the case of ambulance drivers, whereas it probably applies fairly exceptionally in the case of the police. My question to the Minister is this: where do the other emergency services stand in relation to the changes to the rules that the Government are suggesting in this legislation? Are we to expect changes for other emergency services in further legislation, or is that not necessary for legal reason that I have not been able to uncover?
I realise, of course, that the two sets of amendments do not sit particularly well together. I am not arguing a case one way or the other. I am simply seeking to emphasise that these are probing amendments to see what is in the Government’s mind. What is their intention?
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendments 14 and 17 in this group. I hope—in fact I am confident—that my noble friend the Minister will give a full explanation of the purpose of these clauses in the Bill, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. My concern is the inclusion of staff members in these new tests of dangerous and careless driving. I can understand the need to include civilian police driving instructors, but what I do not understand is the inclusion of other staff members. I hope that the Minister can explain why they need to be included.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, this is a difficult and contentious part of the Bill. There has been much debate for decades about the police approach to vehicle pursuit in particular, and the ability of emergency service drivers to disregard traffic signs and speed limits in an emergency. There have been tragedies where emergency vehicles on their way to serious and urgent incidents have ignored traffic lights or give way signs, or driven on the wrong side of the road, often in an attempt to save or protect lives, and tragically they have been involved in collisions with innocent members of the public, causing serious injury and sometimes loss of life, as my noble friend Lady Randerson has so graphically illustrated from her own personal experience.
This is perhaps the less contentious of the two areas. But even here, for police control room staff—I am sure the same happens with the fire brigade and the ambulance service—calls are graded as follows: emergencies, with arrival as soon as possible; immediate, with arrival within an hour; or routine. This is to ensure that police vehicles are not driven at speed unnecessarily.
I declare an interest as a former police officer who, although in possession of a full driving licence, attended a six-week, full-time police driving course just to become a standard police driver. I was not authorised to drive high-powered cars designed for use in responding to emergency calls and I was not allowed to become involved in vehicle pursuit of criminals, but simply to be a police driver answering routine calls. Of course, it is possible to become inadvertently involved in a chase, when a car that is asked to pull over refuses to stop, as happened to me on occasion, but as soon as a qualified driver was behind, I dropped out of the pursuit. Being an advanced trained driver involved many more weeks of intensive training; from memory, two six-week courses, with a very high failure rate. The courses were highly sought after and awarded to only the most experienced officers. Police drivers are trained to some of the highest driver standards in the world.
In addition, police control room staff have the authority to direct police vehicles to withdraw from pursuits where the driver of the police vehicle involved is not suitable to conduct the pursuit, where the seriousness of the offence alleged does not justify the risks associated with a high-speed chase, or where the driving conditions —the type of road, the time of the day or any other factor; my noble friend mentioned the presence of pedestrians, for example—present an unreasonable risk to the public and the officers who are involved in the pursuit.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to his place, and wish him well in his role. If I had realised that he was responding, I would have said that when I made my initial remarks. I apologise and look forward to our discussions.
One thing I did before discussing this group and the next group of amendments—which are incredibly important and deal with really difficult areas of law—was to Google some of the problems. Before I look at some of the examples, just from Googling, of where there have been problems around police pursuits of one sort or another, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for sharing her horrible, terrible and awful experience with the Committee. That is another example of the sorts of issues that can arise from a police pursuit, and thankfully she is here to tell us the tale. We all found it very moving.
As I say, just from Googling, there are various examples that show some of the difficulties: an M27 police pursuit and 100-mile-per-hour chase, with a driver weaving in and out of traffic; “Driver, 18, narrowly misses bus in police pursuit”; “Driver loses police in wrong-way pursuit”; “Car driven along a railway track to escape the police”. This is not to question any of those individual cases—I did not read them; I just looked at the headlines—but a quick Google shows the extent of the problems that arise. Clearly, as it stands, the Government are seeking to address a very real issue. It is not easy, because if you are the victim of a crime, or something is going on, you want the police to respond as quickly as possible. It is a difficult situation for the police, and these clauses seek to deal with that. I appreciate that these are probing amendments, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, but they raise important issues that will need clarifying in both this group and the next.
We welcome these clauses because, like most people, we have been saying for a long time that there is a need for proper and improved protection for police drivers, who regularly put themselves in danger in the line of duty to pursue suspects. That is what we all want them to do. These clauses put recognition of the training that officers have had and the purposes of the journeys that they take into law. We should pay tribute to the Police Federation for the work it has done in campaigning consistently for this. As I have said already, however, we can see that issues arise from it—indeed, they have already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Earl opposite.
Amendments 13 and 16 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, narrow the clauses to police pursuit. We can see the purpose of the amendments when rereading the Bill, which says:
“Subsection (1B) applies where a designated person … is driving for police purposes”.
I suggest to the Minister that that is a bit vague. What on earth does it mean? Without being sarcastic, “police purposes” could mean that you get in a car to drive down the road because you have to go and see somebody about a crime. That is a police purpose. I am not suggesting that any police officer would therefore drive at 100 miles per hour to do that, but we can see the problem that the noble Baroness is trying to get at; “police purposes” is really wide-ranging. On the other hand—and no doubt the Minister will say this when he responds—saying “police pursuit purposes” narrows it down to the extent that we end up excluding the possibility of the police having an emergency response to things that we would all wish them to have an emergency response to. That is why, I suspect, the noble Baroness has made them probing amendments. Indeed, she said that if you thought somebody was in danger, or if a murder, serious rape or something like was that taking place, you would not want the police driving along slowly to get there. You would want them—in a proper way—getting there as soon as possible with an armed response or whatever response was appropriate.
On one hand, the Bill has, “police purposes”, and I am not sure that that is drafted as well as it might be, but then the definition we would want—“police pursuit purposes”—probably narrows it too much, which is why I am pleased it is a probing amendment. The Committee wants the Government to come back, I think, with something that encapsulates that competing and conflicting point about where we go with respect to that.
Amendment 17 from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—again, this is the point of any Committee—removes any driver from the Bill who is not a constable or civilian driving instructor who is training a police driver. He is saying to the Government, and I think it is a really good point, that they have a long list of designated persons in the Bill—I will not read them all out. I remind the Committee that it does not apply just to the police force; it applies—and it is a good thing the Government added this to the Bill—to the British Transport Police, the Civil Nuclear Police Authority, the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence, the Scottish Police Authority and the National Crime Agency. These can be designated and it gives power to the chief constables and chief officers of those to designate a person, to give them the authority to drive in that way if they have received training. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is therefore right to ask why. What is the Government’s justification for extending this to that range? There might be a very good reason for it, but it is a point we need to understand.
To conclude on this group of amendments, can the Minister shed light on my earlier point as well as who is covered by the current list of designated persons in the Bill and why they have been included?
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, if I may come in briefly before my noble friend the Minister speaks, I think the term “for police purposes” appears in other forms of road traffic law. I am not certain, and maybe the Minister can help us on that.
On “police purposes”, I have given the Committee an example of where a police driver might choose to go very fast indeed but perfectly safely. Suppose a passenger carrying vehicle, a minibus, breaks down on the motorway somewhere. As soon as the driver tells the police control room they are a passenger carrying vehicle and they have passengers in the back of that vehicle, I imagine that the police will try to get there as fast as they possibly can, to get a police car behind that broken-down vehicle. That would be a “police purpose”. It is not a pursuit, it is not after criminals; however, a police driver in those circumstances, because he is properly trained in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, says, would be expected to identify a change in road surface. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will remember being trained to identify a change in road surface, so actually, if he fails to identify a change in road surface, he could in fact be caught by the changes proposed by the Government.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lord Attlee for explaining their amendments. I think it is clear that we all want the same outcome, which is protecting police officers who are pursuing dangerous criminals, but also protecting the public. The Government believe that Clauses 4 to 6 of the Bill achieve a sensible balance in meeting these objectives. We believe police officers must be able to do their jobs effectively and keep the public safe without fear of prosecution for simply doing their job in the manner that they are trained to do. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed to some really quite poignant examples of exactly that.
Current laws do not recognise the training that police drivers undertake and the tactics they may have to employ to respond to emergencies and pursue criminals. The new test will allow courts to judge their standard of driving against a “competent and careful” police constable with the same level of training, providing assurance that their skills and training will be taken into account. The new comparison with a “competent and careful” police driver takes into account whether a police driver with the same training would have reasonably made the same decision under the same circumstances.
I was very moved by the personal experiences of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. Her Amendments 13 and 16 seek to specify that the new standard should apply only to “police pursuit purposes”, rather than all “police purposes”.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, could the Minister tell us what powers ambulance drivers and fire engine drivers have in terms of being able to disregard speed limits and traffic regulations? He may choose to write to me—that will be fine—but I think it would be very helpful for the Committee to know what those drivers can and cannot do. I understand his point that the requirements of the police are more extensive.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, with my 30 years’ experience in the police service, I am having some difficulty in understanding some of the Minister’s explanations, for example about when surveillance becomes a pursuit. We are talking about a situation where an officer is potentially facing a prosecution for careless or dangerous driving. In the ordinary course of surveillance, the people who are being followed will not know that they are being followed. That is what surveillance is. It becomes a chase when the people being surveilled recognise that they have a police vehicle behind them and try to escape. It then becomes a pursuit. So, with the greatest respect, I think that the Government need to sharpen their reasoning for dismissing amendments which, if my noble friend Lady Randerson does not pursue them on Report, I am very likely to.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I think I gave some other examples, though, of things that do not necessarily qualify as police pursuit but are still none the less covered by this: emergency response, armed vehicle interventions and so on. I thought those would cover most of the noble Lord’s points. I take his point, obviously, that if you are under surveillance, you do not necessarily know that anybody is there—that is the whole point. At some point, that could turn into a pursuit; I suppose it depends on the specific circumstances. But I do take his point.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, could I ask the Minister if I heard him correctly? I think that, in the early part of the remarks he read out, he used the phrase “pursuit or emergency.” That appeared to me to be quite a helpful definition of what we are talking about here, and excluded things that were neither “pursuit” nor “emergency”. Could that wording not be what the clauses should be based on, and was it not helpful of him to use it in the early part of what he said?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I will wait for a moment or two. I do not know whether the Minister wants to answer now.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Can I come back to the noble Lord on that in a second, please? Sorry.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I first want to thank the Minister for his response and all other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. In particular, the quick interchange at the end has been a helpful response to the situation. My noble friend Lord Beith has I think raised a realistic solution to the problems with this legislation that this debate has shown up for the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and my noble friend Lord Paddick both referred to the controversies and tragedies that occur in these situations. There are endless stories of controversy. Any changes the Government make to the legislation will simply shine a harsher light on the problems that inevitably will occur. So the Government really need to tighten up their thinking on this, and I would ask the Minister to take on board my noble friend’s advice to consider some tighter wording. The Government’s own consultation in 2018 offered two options: the use of the phrase “police purposes” or the use of “pursuit”. That shows that the Government themselves must have been considering those options at the time—so there must have been a logical reason for offering them.
I would like the Minister to take the time between now and Report, when I am pretty sure the issue will come back, to look at potential amendments that the Government believe may be helpful. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. The Government need to be on very sure ground here, because they have drawn a broad definition. “Police purposes,” as the noble Lord, Lord Attlee, said, is a very broad term, and the circumstances in which the new rules can be applied will be questioned. With that, I will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
May I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Beith? I do not know if this is appropriate. I am probably breaking all the rules. I apologise if I am. I think I said, “to respond to emergencies and to pursue criminals”. This applies to all policing purposes where the staff member has had training. I will expand on whether the new test means that the police officer would be prosecuted if they departed from their training and guidance under any circumstances. The police driver training includes decision-making in line with the national decision-making model. This allows for a degree of flexibility. Police drivers should also take account of guidance found in the College of Policing authorised professional practice. The new legislation compares the police driver’s actions with what a careful and competent police driver would reasonably do. In other words, a police driver will be prosecuted for dangerous driving only if they drive in a way that would not be considered reasonable by a careful and competent police driver.
Lord Paddick
“National standards of competent and careful constable
For the purposes of sections 4 and 5 the Secretary of State shall, after consultation with such persons as they consider appropriate, publish national standards expected of designated persons.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish national standards of what would be expected of a competent and careful constable under sections 4 and 5, against which their driving should be judged.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 19 is supported by my noble friend Lady Randerson and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Amendment 20 is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. I asked for these two amendments to be degrouped from the group we have just debated because that group was about the principle of police officers being given dispensation from the usual tests applied in cases of dangerous and careless driving. These amendments are about a separate issue—the consistency of the likelihood of police officers being prosecuted on not.
The changes proposed by the Government in Clauses 4 and 5 are problematic in that they define the threshold for prosecution or conviction for dangerous or careless driving, set against,
“what would be expected of a competent and careful constable who has undertaken the prescribed training.”
The Police Federation, which provided a draft of this amendment, has reminded me that, while groups of forces tend to pool their resources in police driver training, none the less, there is no national standard. What would be expected of a competent and careful constable who has undertaken the prescribed training can vary from police force to police force. A tactic, such as physical contact by a police vehicle with a stolen motorbike, or a motorbike being driven by a suspect involved in an armed robbery, causing the driver of the motorcycle to crash, might be trained for and practised in some police forces but not in others. To be clear about what I mean, the police driver knocks the criminal off the motorbike by colliding with it—a tactic used by the Metropolitan Police Service.
This could result in a police driver, who was driving in exactly the same way as another police driver in a different police force, being prosecuted and potentially convicted; while the other officer in almost identical circumstances would not face any sanction, if that police driver had been trained in that technique and it was part of the policy of that officer’s police force. Amendment 19 proposes that a national standard be established to ensure consistency in the application of the law, and certainty for police drivers.
Amendment 20, proposed by the Police Federation and based on its wealth of experience in this area, offers an alternative approach by providing a reasonable excuse defence to an allegation of dangerous or careless driving. Instead of adhering to the standard of a careful and competent driver, a police driver could avoid prosecution or conviction, provided the departure from the standard was necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances. This would take account of the relevant driver policy and training, the split-second decisions faced in real time by the driver and the honestly held belief of the driver at the time. This is similar to the dispensation allowed to armed officers who have to make split-second decisions to use their firearms.
I am not a lawyer and I cannot elaborate on whether such a reasonable cause defence is accepted in other similar scenarios. I beg to move Amendment 19.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, we are extraordinarily lucky to have the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I have just one anxiety about a national standard: conditions in the Metropolitan Police area are different from those facing, say, Devon and Cornwall Police. Devon and Cornwall Police might not have to dismount someone riding a motorbike illegally very often, whereas I suspect it is something the Metropolitan Police has to do quite often. On the one hand, I can see the benefit of national police standards, but I have an anxiety that they might not meet the different needs of different types of police force.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for his intervention. I think national standards would say that the tactic of colliding with a stolen motorbike was an acceptable tactic that officers could be compared against whether or not it was actually used by particular forces, bearing in mind the circumstances faced by different forces. So, legally, officers in Devon and Cornwall could use that tactic according to the national standard, but it would be very rare for them to use it—if ever at all.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My noble friend has raised the issue of national standards. I want to approach this issue in a slightly different way. I have added my name to the amendment because I have concerns about clarity. The existing standards are set out in the 1988 Act, and we as drivers are all familiar with them. We passed our driving tests however long ago, but on an almost daily basis we practise following those standards—fairly rigorously, I hope.
According to this legislation, we are now moving to a set of standards based on a format for training of which we, with the exception of my noble friend, have no real concept. We do not understand exactly what is involved in this training and what is expected of police drivers. Indeed, I am sure this debate has been very instructive for us all in finding out a bit more about it.
Add that issue to the fact that standards are different from one part of the country to another and we have a difficult situation for the Government in applying this new approach. Good law has to be easily understandable. Publicising the details of these standards—making sure that the public, as well as police officers, understand them—is essential for acceptance by the general public. That will be essential if cases brought under this legislation are to succeed in court.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have a confession to make: I love the traffic police. I have spent many happy hours in the front of a police van with an automatic number plate recognition machine, spotting illegal drivers. The fascinating thing about criminals is that not only do they break the law on drugs, guns and so on, but they do not pay insurance on their cars either. If I were a criminal, I would make sure that my car was perfectly legal, but for some reason they do not. So the traffic police are incredibly successful at catching criminals; at one point—I do not know if this is still true—their arrest rate was far higher than that of the average police officer here in London.
In the 12 years that I sat on the police authority, I took advantage of that to go out with the traffic police. I remember one spectacular day when they had a car-crushing machine next to the A1. All the vehicles speeding down the A1 saw that machine and slowed to legal limits. We were not actually crushing cars that had been taken that day; they had brought some cars out with them from central London. So I am a big fan. The traffic OCU serves an incredible function of keeping our roads safe.
I support Amendment 19. Of course, everybody expects the police who respond to blue-light emergencies to drive fast, overtake, go through red lights and so on, and it is right that the police are given the necessary legal protections to do their job in these situations. Then there are more controversial and dangerous tactics, such as officers aggressively ramming moped drivers who refuse to stop. We cannot leave that for the courtroom to decide—it has to be a political decision. Whether a tactic meets the standard of a reasonable and careful constable is political, because you cannot leave police officers uncertain about whether their behaviour is legal. It would also leave the public unsure about what standard of driving you can expect from our public servants. Amendment 19 addresses that issue and is an extremely neat solution.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments would improve the Bill. The legislation in some respects is too loose, and needs to be tightened. I hope that, when we move from Committee to Report in a few weeks, the Minister will have had time to reflect on the previous group but also on some of the points being made here, because that will make what we all want much more likely to happen. I hope that he will be able to reflect on the points that noble Lords have made and come forward with the Government’s own amendments to take account of those points, some of which are exceedingly logical and good and would enhance the Bill and what the Government are seeking to achieve.
The amendments raise key issues in relation to the police driving provisions. The aim of the clause is not to allow the police to drive without safeguards or scrutiny but to ensure that they are not criminalised for what they have been trained to do. Amendment 19 raises a reasonable question about national standards for competent and carefully trained drivers. As we will come on to in Amendment 20, there are various levels of training, and the number of fully trained officers will differ between forces. However, that does not alter the fact that there is a need to set out in more detail and with more clarity what a nationally recognised standard will look like. Will it be covered in the training that officers receive, and is the Minister confident that the Bill makes it clear what a national standard means? The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, posed a reasonable question, which was answered well by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about what that means between different police forces such as Devon and Cornwall and the Metropolitan Police, and how they do things. Those are the sort of points that the Minister needs to raise.
On Amendment 20, the idea of a reasonableness defence is an issue that officers are concerned about, which was raised consistently in the Commons. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, did not mention that quite as much as he did the national standards, but we need to ask how this whole area of reasonableness, which is used in the courts, stands with respect to this Bill. It is difficult to craft an answer, but the issue goes back to the level of training that an officer receives, which varies from force to force. It not only varies from force to force, however: the level of training varies within the police force.
Let me give an example for clarity. If I am a member of the public on the street, I know generally what a response car looks like, and you would expect a response car driver to have had the highest level of training, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said he had received in the past. It is about a proper response driver responding to emergencies or pursuing a vehicle. That is what you would expect if you were a member of the public. But not all police cars are response cars. What about a police van? I have seen police vans driving after people. What happens then?
Is this level of training—police pursuit—available only to response drivers? What about other drivers, or will they be compared to the normal standard? This takes the police into very difficult territory. I have not been a serving police officer like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but I can only imagine that if someone said, “Officer, a mile down the road there is a really serious incident”, and a police van driver did not put the blue lights on and go down there, and as a consequence a murder or a rape took place, people are not going to say, “That officer driving the police van was quite right; he did not respond in the way that he should because he has not had the proper level of training”. This takes us into difficult territory, and it is also about the reputation of the police.
What happens, however, if the police van driver does that, but then crashes or injures somebody else? I thought that was the point of Amendment 20 and the reasonableness defence: you would expect the police officer driving the van to do that, even though they are not trained to the level of the police response driver. From the Bill, however, it is not clear whether the police van driver—I am making that up as an example—would be able to do that and respond to an emergency situation with the same level of protection that the Bill tries to give to a response-level trained driver, whereas the public would expect them both to respond in the same way.
That is the point of the reasonableness test that Amendment 20 seeks to drive into the Bill. I hope that I have given a clear enough example of the sort of situation that might arise for a police officer, whether operating in Devon and Cornwall, the middle of London, Sheffield, Cardiff or wherever.
This is the point of the Committee: it drives that level of detail that seeks to clarify the way the legislation is drafted—as we saw with the previous grouping, where there is a real problem around the phrase “police purpose”—but also tries to ensure that the legislation delivers in both its wording and its intention.
On the drafting of the Bill, can the Minister just give us some assurance that officers with basic police driver training would be protected if they found themselves having to respond to an incident that ideally required a higher level of training? That is a fundamental question and if I were a police officer driving a vehicle that was not a response vehicle, I would want to know whether I was protected by law in the way that we seek to protect other drivers.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I think the answer to the noble Lord’s question is that, if the police officer is driving more aggressively than he is trained to do and he has an accident, he is in trouble because he is driving outside of what he is trained to do.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
May I speak? Sorry, I do not know what the rules are. That is the point that I was making, and I am asking the Minister: what is the answer? The public’s perception of that would be, frankly, dreadful from the police point of view. There is an issue here for the Minister to resolve and to clarify for the police forces and the people driving.
Earl Attlee (Con)
I have two points: one is that we are in Committee, so we can speak as many times as we like, and the other is that the public may have to be disappointed, because the police officer may not be able to do everything that the public expect. The public could complain; there is a complaints procedure, so the police could explain why they could not respond in the way that the public would expect.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Thank you, my Lords—I have enjoyed this debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for setting out the rationale for his amendments and I thank all other noble Lords who made a contribution. I was particularly delighted to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is such a supporter of the traffic police, although I found her relish for car crashes a little upsetting.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. To my noble friend Lady Randerson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I say that I have just started cycling in London again and it is terrifying; we need more traffic police.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, particularly for the way he absolutely hit the nail on the head with his example of a police van driver who is not an advanced driver who is told by a member of the public that, 100 yards down the road, somebody is being murdered, but who has not received the level of training that they will be judged against. In the debate on the previous group, the Minister said that if they have not had the training, they will be judged like an ordinary driver; he also said that the legislation provides the protection that they need. But the example from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, shows how they will not get protection under the law as proposed and drafted by the Government in the Bill.
The Minister said that these changes have been made in consultation. Dare I suggest that they were not made in consultation with the Police Federation? They have not been made in consultation with the officers who will be directly affected by the legislation, because it was the Police Federation that asked me to propose these amendments to the Bill. Again, I am afraid I must suggest that the Minister has been rather let down by his brief in not being able to address the very real concerns that noble Lords around the House have expressed. We will clearly come back to this on Report, but at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Rosser
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require specified authorities subject to the “serious violence duty” to safeguard children involved in serious violence.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
We now move on to Part 2 of the Bill. The amendments in this group all relate to the issue of ensuring that safeguarding and tackling the criminal exploitation of children is a central part of the duty to reduce serious violence as set out in Part 2, with its duties on specified authorities to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce serious violence.
There are a considerable number of amendments in this group. Amendments 21, 23, 36, 37, 42 and 43 would require specified authorities subject to the serious violence duty to safeguard children involved in serious violence.
Amendment 24 would require specified authorities to safeguard children involved in serious violence as part of the serious violence duty, including identifying and safeguarding children who are victims of modern slavery and trafficking.
Amendment 25 would require specified authorities subject to the duty to prepare and implement an early help strategy to prevent violence, support child victims of violence and prevent hidden harm. Early intervention is surely crucial to prevent violence before it occurs, and that needs to be in the Bill. Preventive safeguarding activity can be focused on offering support to a child and family through targeted or universal services at the first sign of issues in their lives becoming difficult to prevent them being coerced in activity associated with serious violence.
Amendment 27 would ensure that any children’s social care authority which was not already involved in the strategy would be consulted in the preparation of the strategy.
Amendment 49 would require specified authorities to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce child criminal exploitation and safeguard affected children.
Amendment 50 introduces a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation. Children who are groomed and exploited by criminal gangs are the victims, not the criminals.
Amendment 52, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, is a probing amendment. It would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a strategy for providing specialist training on child criminal exploitation and serious youth violence.
While we support this part of the Bill, the statutory duty to reduce violence will not work in the way we need it to unless it includes the duty to safeguard children who have been pulled into that violence or are being impacted by it. These amendments would require authorities subject to the serious violence duty to safeguard children involved in serious violence, and would specifically add safeguarding children involved in violence and identifying and safeguarding children who are victims of modern slavery and trafficking as requirements of the serious violence duty. They would make preparing and implementing an early help strategy to prevent violence, support child victims of violence and prevent hidden harm a specific requirement of authorities as part of their serious violence duties and would ensure that any children’s social care authority that, as I said, was not already involved in the strategy to reduce serious violence, would be consulted in the preparation of this strategy.
The amendments on child criminal exploitation would require specified authorities to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce child criminal exploitation and safeguard affected children, as well as introducing the statutory definition of child criminal exploitation to which I referred. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, to which I have already referred and which we support, would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a strategy for providing specialist training on child criminal exploitation and serious youth violence. I will say more about the amendments on child criminal exploitation shortly.
The Bill places a significant and welcome new duty on specified authorities to identify the kinds of serious violence that occur; to identify the causes of serious violence in the area; and to prepare and implement a strategy for exercising their functions to prevent and reduce serious violence in an area. While obviously prison and policing are crucial in terms of justice and bringing to book those who have committed offences, prevention of crime in the first place is the real long-term solution to reducing violent crime and creating a safer and better society. Case studies have shown that, if someone is in care, is vulnerable, has experienced domestic abuse in the home, has parents with addictions or has no parents at all, these are matters that make them more vulnerable to getting involved in violence later in life. If we can intervene at the earliest possible stages, we can have a significant impact not just on the lives of those young people but on society and on the costs to society of high levels of violence.
This part of the Bill is a step in the right direction towards doing that. However, while a public health approach to tackling serious violence that seeks to address the root causes is welcome, creating a statutory public health duty will not deliver if the desired result of reducing the number of children who are harmed by serious violence is not also achieved. An approach for tackling serious violence that does not also help to protect children from harm, does not include the full range of partners and interventions needed and does not consider some of the more structural factors that contribute to violence just will not deliver the desired outcome that surely we all want.
We need a strategy that equips the safeguarding system and the statutory and voluntary services to protect children from harm with the resources and guidance to do so. These amendments make the specified authorities involved in the serious violence duty safeguard children at risk of or experiencing harm and they refer in particular to children involved in serious violence in the area as a result of being a victim of modern slavery and trafficking offences under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
I repeat that the statutory duty to reduce violence cannot be effective on its own without a statutory duty to safeguard children, as provided for in this group of amendments. Currently, the draft guidance on the serious violence reduction duty does not mention safeguarding. Can the Minister reassure the House that this will be revisited?
Amendments 49 and 50, and the amendment in the lead name of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, deal specifically with the issue of child criminal exploitation and are supported by organisations including Barnardo’s and the Children’s Society. Amendment 50 would introduce a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation, putting a recognised definition in law for the first time. It provides that exploitation is where:
“Another person manipulates, deceives, coerces or controls the person to undertake activity which constitutes a criminal offence.”
At the heart of this group is the fact that children and vulnerable young people who are being pulled into violence require a bespoke response that recognises their particular risk factors. I think it is fair to say there is a growing awareness of child criminal exploitation, but it is also irrefutable that, for so many children being exploited, we are failing to identify them and provide support in time to quite literally save their lives. Not only do we need to improve that support, and action at the point of crisis, we need to look at the long-term support required by a child who is traumatised by what they have experienced.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have signed most of the amendments in this group because I think they are extremely valuable. I want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on his very thorough exposition of why they are needed.
As I and others have mentioned many times, there is a serious failing of the police and the Home Office to safeguard children and young people from serious violence. This is most explicit in the police’s ongoing use of child spies, where they scoop up children who have got stuck in dangerous criminal situations and put them in even more danger by working them as an intelligence asset with very few safeguards. Obviously, Amendment 50 could then apply to police officers who put children in that sort of situation.
The serious violence duty is important, but it must include a duty to safeguard children and young people who are caught up in the chaos of organised crime. Early interventions, removing children from organised crime, and well-funded youth programmes are all key to ending this cycle of violence. Writing them off as destined for a life of crime and using them as disposable police assets is inhumane and dangerous. I hope that the Minister can change tack on this so that we can change many young lives for the better.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester was in his place earlier but has had to go elsewhere for the evening. He has asked me to speak on his behalf on the amendments in this group tabled in his name alongside those of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I thank the Children’s Society and Barnardo’s for their support and helpful briefings.
The Church has a particular concern for vulnerable children. As far as the Church of England is concerned, there are 4,644 schools in which we educate around 1 million students. This educational commitment is combined with parish and youth worker activities that bring the Church into contact with thousands of families each year. Through the Clewer Initiative, many parishes and dioceses have worked closely on the issues of county lines and confronting the blight of modern slavery. Accordingly, we have seen at first hand and, sadly, all too frequently the terrible damage caused by serious youth violence and by the criminal exploitation of children. The latter is an especially insidious form of abuse, which one victim has described as “when someone you trusted makes you commit crime for their benefit”.
Amendment 50, as we have heard, seeks to create a definition of child criminal exploitation that would sit alongside other definitions of exploitation already in the Modern Slavery Act. The present lack of a single statutory definition means that local agencies are responding differently to this form of exploitation across the country. Research by the Children’s Society in 2019 found that only one-third of local authorities had a policy in place for responding to it. By its very nature, exploitation through county lines crosses local authority boundaries, so it is imperative that there is a national shared understanding of child criminal exploitation so that children do not fall through the gaps if they live in one area but are exploited in another. A consequence of the current lack of a shared definition and approach is that many children receive punitive criminal justice responses rather than being seen as victims of exploitation and abuse.
Youth justice data shows that in 2019-20, 1,402 children were first-time entrants to the youth justice system due to drug offences, with 2,063 being first-time entrants due to weapon offences. Both issues are often associated with criminal exploitation through the county lines drug model. Despite positive work from several police forces and the CPS, many criminal cases are still being pursued against a child even when they have been identified as a victim of criminal exploitation.
Relatedly, too many children are coming to the attention of services only when they are arrested by police for drugs-related crimes, as early warning signs are not understood or are simply missed. We too often find that not all professionals involved in children’s lives fully understand this form of exploitation and how vulnerabilities manifest in children. There are countless serious case reviews that point to safeguarding interventions not being made earlier enough in the grooming process.
A statutory definition agreed and understood by all local safeguarding partners would enable professionals to spot the signs earlier and divert vulnerable children away from harm, in much the same way as the recently adopted statutory definition of domestic abuse is now helping to improve responses on that issue. I am sure that every Member of this House shares the desire to protect vulnerable children. Adopting this definition would send a strong message to those children that their abuse is seen, heard and understood.
This also leads me briefly to address Amendments 21, 23 to 27, 42 and 43, which would amend the serious violence duty. Concern with the serious violence duty, as presented here, is about a lack of clear commitment to the safeguarding of children. No differentiation is drawn between how this duty impacts on children as opposed to adults.
Children and vulnerable young people experiencing serious violence require a different response. Being involved in violence is often an indicator that children are experiencing other problems in their lives, such as being criminally exploited. It is important to understand these underlying causes of why children may be involved in violence, and for these underlying causes in a child’s life or in the lives of children within certain areas to be addressed. We need to intervene to protect and divert children, not treating them as adult criminals. This requires a co-ordinated approach to preventative safeguarding which focuses on offering support to a child and family through targeted or universal services at the first signs of issues in their lives to prevent them being coerced into activity associated with serious violence.
Safeguarding and protecting children and vulnerable young people from harm should be the first priority of statutory agencies, and in any subsequent duty for these agencies to co-operate with one another. The duty as currently drafted does not mention “safeguarding” once, nor does it signal the need for the specific involvement of children’s social care teams in creating a strategy to prevent violence in a local area. A failure to write into the duty the need to safeguard children risks young people falling through the cracks in statutory support and receiving a punitive response from statutory services. It makes the duty all about crime reduction at the expense of safeguarding. It would also hinder the ability of the duty to be truly preventative if it did not specify the involvement of children’s services.
I hope that we shall receive some assurances from the Minister on the commitment to safeguarding, ideally on the face of the Bill, but certainly a commitment that the issue of how the duty relates to safeguarding will be more closely considered in guidance.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 50 and 52, which seek to create a statutory definition for child criminal exploitation and provide training on child criminal exploitation and serious youth violence.
The intention of these amendments is to ensure that those who first encounter victims—most often, police officers on a child’s arrest—know what they are looking for and are prepared to respond to signs of child criminal exploitation and secure the intervention and support for children who are being exploited.
This amendment could well be needed to ensure that we no longer allow our most vulnerable children to slip through the cracks and end up in a cycle of exploitation, violence and criminality. I was particularly struck by a story published by the Children’s Society in which a child was repeatedly exploited to transport drugs and weapons, and his mother threatened by older youths when he failed to provide money to those coercing him into criminal activity. He was known to his youth offending team, but the extent of the ways in which he had been exploited did not become manifest until his tragic murder in January 2019. His story is just one of thousands.
The Children’s Commissioner has estimated that at least 27,000 children in the UK are currently at serious risk of gang exploitation. The national referral mechanism has begun to recognise the weight of this criminal exploitation as a form of modern slavery, and 2,749 of the 4,964 child victims that it encountered in 2020 had been subject to child criminal exploitation. However, only a minority of exploited victims ever reach the national referral mechanism. These amendments are designed to probe whether we need a clear definition and understanding of criminal exploitation, and training which equips local authorities to intervene and protect children from it.
It is important that we recognise that when a child is being exploited, first and foremost, as we have heard this evening, they are a victim. According to an FOI request by Barnardo’s, only one of 47 local policing departments responded with existing awareness and a strategy for combating child criminal exploitation, leaving 29 which had no approach and 17 which were unresponsive.
Without awareness of child criminal exploitation and a policy in place for its detection and eradication, children are arrested as criminals and enter the criminal justice system with no assistance against the coercion that they face. This often results in their continued exploitation on release and a perpetuated cycle of coerced reoffending.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I agree very much with the concerns that have been expressed this evening, and I would because I have an interest which I should declare as a trustee of Safer London whose work is directed to deterring young people from becoming involved in crime. Giving young people the tools they need to resist being pulled into crime is a very wide agenda. As is obvious from the name, the work is confined to London, but it is needed all over.
As well as that, I remember the debates during the passage of the Modern Slavery Bill on what is meant by “exploitation”. I take the point about people—it is not just children—who may be perceived as criminals but who are actually victims, so I understand the calls for much better understanding of child criminal exploitation. I hope that what I am about to say is understood to be support for, not opposition to, the thrust of what is being proposed.
Amendment 52, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, on training is absolutely to the point. If all agencies and authorities were trained to recognise what they are seeing but not recognising, in a way that would answer all the other points that have been made. If the prevention and reduction of crime, which is what these clauses are about, means anything, surely it must include safeguarding. That is prevention. Safeguarding is not defined, which does not surprise me because it is comprised of an awful lot of component parts and is different in different circumstances. I would be interested to know whether the Minister call tell us what is already on the statute book in this area. Are we talking about bringing together provisions that should be brought together that are scattered, as can be the case, or are we talking about something new in statutory terms?
I do not think that we can leave the issue without referring to resources. If there were the resources to extend the excellent work being done by various organisations far more widely, both in the voluntary sector and to statutory authorities, I do not think we would be talking about all this. But I am quite convinced that it comes back to training to recognise what should really be in front of people’s eyes. I know it is easy for us, standing up in the Chamber, to say that, and I would not like to do the job that some police officers, teachers, health workers and so on do. But the training should support the achievement of everything that noble Lords are seeking this evening.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, there are a number of general points I need to make about the new legal duties to support a multiagency approach to preventing and tackling serious violence. I will try to make them in the appropriate group of amendments, but I hope the Committee will accept that there is a great deal of overlap.
The overwhelming response of the non-governmental organisations I have met with which have concerns about this part of the Bill is that, as drafted, it is actually about forcing agencies to support a police-led enforcement approach to serious violence—not a public health approach, or even a multiagency approach, to preventing and tackling serious violence. The Government’s own consultation on this issue gave three options: a new legal duty on specific organisations to effectively share information with the police; a new legal duty to revise community safety partnerships, the existing and well-established mechanism where local authorities and police forces work together to prevent and tackle crime, and where the local police chief and local authority chief executive are equal partners in doing whatever each partner and others can do to reduce crime and disorder; and a voluntary non-legislative approach. There was more support for a legislative approach than a voluntary one, but more respondents favoured enhancing community safety partnerships—40%—compared with a new legal duty to provide information to the police—37%—and, tellingly, the police supported equally options one and two.
Even the police, the sector most likely to benefit from a police-led enforcement approach, were ambivalent as to whether it should be a truly multiagency approach by enhancing community safety partnerships or a police-led enforcement approach. So why did the Government opt for the latter and not the former? A police-led enforcement approach was the Government’s preferred option from the beginning. These amendments, which we support, are the first manifestation of challenging that police-led enforcement approach, in that the legal duty does not sufficiently recognise that many young people, particularly those involved in county lines, are victims of criminal exploitation rather than free-acting criminals. Henry Blake is a former youth worker who draws on his personal experiences of working with at-risk young people in his powerful film, “County Lines”—a drama about one young man who is drawn into county lines drug dealing. I would highly recommend this film to any noble Lord who is unaware of the realities of county lines.
Many young people lacking family support and living in poverty find themselves groomed by adults who appear to show them the love and concern they desperately seek, and who treat them to meals in burger restaurants and buy them new trainers—something their often lone parent cannot afford. They promise them money, not just so they can afford the latest designer clothing that they need if they are not to be bullied by gangs, who see those who do not wear designer labels—even Nike and Adidas—as targets. It is not just so they can go to McDonald’s whenever they want, but so that they can help their mum put food on the table and make sure their younger sister has decent clothes to wear. I hope noble Lords can see how easily vulnerable young people are drawn into criminality, not just for pecuniary advantage but for the sense of belonging and the sense that someone is at last paying them some attention. For many, it is as much an emotional need as a financial one.
Of course, the reality is very different. The adults exploiting these young people take the vast majority of the profits of the drug dealing in which they are involving these young people whom they have groomed, and the youngsters take all the risks, often ending in violence from rival drug dealers. These young people are victims of criminal exploitation, and each one of us is to blame—not them. It is our fault that their single mothers have to do three minimum wage jobs to pay the rent and put food on the table and so, through no fault of their own, can rarely be there for their kids as most wish they could be. It is our fault that too many people do not have a decent place to live, because they cannot afford private rents for an appropriately sized home in a good state of repair, and that there is a shocking shortage of social housing and much of what exists is in an appalling state of repair. It is our fault that, as the cost of living spirals upwards, we take away £20 a week in universal credit from those most in need. The Government’s response is to force other agencies to divulge information that makes it easier for them to prosecute these victims of criminal exploitation.
That is why the Bill needs to radically change from a police-led enforcement approach to preventing and tackling serious violence to a truly public health and multiagency approach, starting with—although this is only the beginning of the changes needed—putting the safeguarding of children involved in serious violence in the Bill. That must include, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, suggests in his Amendment 50, and as both Barnardo’s and the Children’s Society have suggested, including a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation in the meaning of exploitation in Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, suggests in her Amendment 52, training for police officers in particular, to ensure that they are aware of child criminal exploitation and actively seeking evidence of such exploitation.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for setting out the case for these amendments. I wholeheartedly agree that nothing is more important than safeguarding children at risk of harm. That is why we introduced reforms to safeguarding in 2017, which led to the establishment of multiagency safeguarding arrangements in 2019. The statutory safeguarding partners responsible for safeguarding—that is, local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and chief officers of police—are also named as specified authorities under the serious violence duty, so I would argue that it is truly a multiagency approach. This demonstrates the importance of safeguarding in protecting children and young people from involvement in serious violence. We expect that existing work to safeguard vulnerable children will link very closely with local efforts to prevent and reduce serious violence. Therefore, we do not believe that it is necessary to include a separate safeguarding requirement in this part of the Bill, and it would not be possible to do so without duplicating existing safeguarding legislation.
On Amendment 25, which would require specified authorities to prepare and implement an early help strategy, the noble Lord is absolutely right to highlight the importance of prevention and early intervention and this, of course, is the key aim of the serious violence duty. We recognise that early intervention and prevention are essential to reducing serious violence. The duty requires partners to work collaboratively to develop a strategy to reduce serious violence in their local area. We expect partners to work with upstream organisations, such as education providers and children’s social care, when developing this strategy to ensure that it covers actions that relate to early help and considers risks that occur before a young person becomes involved in serious violence. This ensures that any strategy will include early help for this cohort. We believe that it would be less effective to separate this out into an additional strategy.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and the Minister for the Government’s response. I will, of course, be withdrawing the amendment at this stage and I certainly do not want, at this late hour, to detain the Committee for very long.
I think we are back to the usual issue. As I understand it, the Government do not seem to disagree with the points made in this debate or the concerns expressed. It is just that they do not think that adding things to the Bill, in the way provided for in this group of amendments, will contribute to making the situation better. That, I suppose, is where we have, at the moment, a fairly fundamental disagreement. I will read the Minister’s response on behalf on the Government very carefully in Hansard and reflect on what they have had to say. My feeling at present, which may turn out to be unfair, is that the existing arrangements for safeguarding children and preventing their exploitation by criminal gangs are, frankly, not working as effectively as we want. As I say, I may be being very unfair in saying this, so I will read very carefully what the Minister had to say in Hansard, but the impression I am left with is that the Government believe that the present arrangements are working effectively and no significant change is needed.
Once again, if that is a fair reflection of what the Minister has been saying, there is obviously a fundamental disagreement between us—between everybody who has spoken on this issue, apart from the Minister, and the Government. After all, organisations dealing with the exploitation and safeguarding of children clearly do not hold the view that the present practices and procedures are effective.
I do not want to spend my time reiterating the points I made—that is not the purpose of summing up or responding at the end of the debate—but I do think there are significant differences of view between those of us on this side of the Committee and the Government over the effectiveness of the present arrangements. The Government appear to think that no change is needed, but I simply come back to the point that a statutory duty to reduce violence cannot be effective on its own—and that is what is provided for in the Bill—without a statutory duty to safeguard children also being placed in the Bill. We will need to reflect further on what we do on Report but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.