Grand Committee

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Grand Committee

Tuesday 26 October 2021

Arrangement of Business

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:46

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

Good afternoon, my Lords, and welcome to the Grand Committee. Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others, and to wear a face covering when not speaking. I remind your Lordships that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn and resume if required.

Coronavirus Act 2020

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Grand Committee

Motion to Take Note

15:47

Moved by

[Lord Kamall]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)]

My Lords, we shall also consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2021.

Moving to step 4 of the Government’s road map and easing the vast majority of restrictions in England was a major landmark in our fight against the virus. It is testament to the hard work and sacrifices of many people up and down the country. We are in a better position compared with this time last year and we are all conscious of how hard the pandemic has been for so many people.

On 14 September, we published the COVID-19 Response: Autumn and Winter Plan, which sets out how we will build on the progress made and prepare the country for future challenges, while ensuring that our system of healthcare does not come under unsustainable pressure. In recent weeks, we have seen an increase in the number of cases, hospitalisations and, very sadly, deaths. The pandemic is far from over. We must continue to stay vigilant and be ready for all eventualities.

The vaccination programme continues to provide a vital line of defence against the virus. We have vaccinated more than 86% of people over 12 years old in the UK with at least one dose. We are carrying out the largest-ever seasonal flu vaccination programme, alongside Covid-19 booster vaccines for priority groups. We have also secured 730,000 patient courses of antivirals for UK patients: 480,000 courses of Molnupiravir from Merck Sharp & Dohme; and 250,000 courses of PF-07321332 from Pfizer. I shall be testing noble Lords on these in future. These antivirals can be taken at home to target early Covid-19 infection. Should these antivirals receive MHRA approval, we will prioritise antivirals to protect the clinically vulnerable most at risk this winter.

As well as the vaccine and the booster programme, we are taking a number of measures to prepare for the months ahead. The NHS will receive an extra £5.4 billion over the next six months to support its response to Covid-19. This includes an extra £1billion to tackle the treatment backlog caused by Covid-19. These are just some of the actions we are taking to protect the public over the coming months, while trying to achieve the appropriate balance for any legislation and restrictions in place.

As part of the autumn and winter plan, the Government reviewed the remaining regulations and decided, subject to agreement from Parliament, to extend the No. 3 regulations and the self-isolation regulations. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2021 extend these regulations to 24 March 2022. The test, trace and self-isolate system continues to be one of the key ways to control the virus and protect the nation. Under the self-isolation regulations, if you are notified that you have tested positive for Covid-19, or that you have been in close contact with someone who has tested positive, you must self-isolate unless exempt. Information about the legal requirements is available on GOV.UK.

The recently published Canna model concluded that, between August 2020 and April 2021, we saw a reduction of between 10% and 28% in virus transmission as a result of test, trace and self-isolation, and that, at key periods, self-isolation made a significant contribution to bringing down the reproduction number of the virus, also known as the R number. The Canna model estimates that test, trace and self-isolation has prevented 1.2 million to 2 million secondary coronavirus cases.

The technical amendments to the self-isolation regulations that we are debating today mean that, if you are a close contact of a positive case who has received doses of two different types of vaccine in the UK, you are not required to self-isolate. This ensures that those who have received doses of two different vaccines are treated in the same way as those who have received a full course of a single vaccine. The amendments also clarify that if someone in your household tests positive, you do not need to self-isolate if you received your second dose of the vaccine more than 14 days before the positive case in your household first experienced symptoms or tested positive.

In addition, the amendments clarify the requirements for those taking part in workplace daily contact testing schemes. These schemes offer daily lateral flow testing as an alternative to self-isolation for unvaccinated close contacts. If a person on one of those schemes tests positive with an assisted lateral flow test, but subsequently receives a negative result from a confirmatory PCR test, they must continue with daily testing, or self-isolate for the remainder of their original self-isolation period. These amendments, and extending the self-isolation requirements to March next year, are important to protect the public from this virus.

The No. 3 regulations, which we are also discussing today, are another important tool for managing the virus and protecting the public. The regulations equip local authorities with the powers to respond swiftly to local outbreaks. Local authorities have powers through these regulations to restrict, prohibit and close individual premises and outdoor public spaces and cancel events where there is a serious and imminent threat to public health. The powers have been used 330 times since the regulations came into force in July 2020. Local authorities play a critical role in public health protection, emergency response and infectious disease control. Covid-19 has been no different, with local authorities leading the responses in their communities. Extending the No 3 regulations will help ensure they have the tools to do their job.

We are all aware of the monumental challenge that Covid-19 has posed over the last 18 months and more. It was clear at the beginning of the pandemic that additional tools and powers were needed to enable a full-scale and wide-reaching response to save lives and livelihoods. We acted decisively to put in place the legislation needed to achieve this.

As noble Lords are aware, the Coronavirus Act 2020 came into force by Royal Assent in March 2020. It has been critical to our country’s response to this awful and devastating virus, giving the Government powers to take the appropriate action to respond to the challenge. I acknowledge the many concerns about how some of the powers in the Act have been used and assure the Committee that the Government have sought to use them in an appropriate and proportionate way, with arrangements to ensure accountability to Parliament. These include two-monthly reports to Parliament and six-monthly reviews, combined with confirmatory votes, without which the temporary provisions cannot continue. On each occasion, the House of Commons has confirmed that it is content for certain provisions to continue. The Government have also committed to expire provisions as soon as they are no longer needed. I will go into more detail on this shortly.

The Act has given us the temporary powers to ensure that the NHS and social care services have had the capacity to deal with the peak of the virus by allowing the temporary registration of over 28,000 nurses and other healthcare professionals and social workers. It has protected critical societal functions and ensured that they were able to continue—for example, enabling courts to use video technology in a wider range of circumstances. It has helped provide support packages for people and businesses; this includes the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, which has protected more than 11.7 million unique jobs—equivalent to over a third of the entire workforce—and the Self-employment Income Support Scheme grants, which have supported nearly 3 million self-employed people throughout the pandemic.

The Act has also shone a light on where public services can be improved in the longer term, such as allowing more virtual court hearings, and the Government will aim to secure these useful powers in alternative primary legislation.

The course of the pandemic continues to change, partly because of the strong defences we have built. It is right that we again reassess the legislative powers that are in place to deal with this pandemic and support the country. The third six-month review of the Coronavirus Act, which scrutinised its remaining 27 non-devolved temporary provisions, was published on 22 September 2021.

We have identified a further seven provisions in the Act as suitable for full expiry. Once that happens, Parliament will have been able to expire half of the original 40 temporary, non-devolved powers ahead of schedule. This includes removing some of the more controversial sections of the Coronavirus Act, such as powers to detain infectious people under Schedule 21 and issuing directions in relation to events, gatherings and premises under Schedule 22. These powers were taken at a time when the course and severity of the virus were unclear; we now recognise that they are no longer needed and should be expired.

We also propose suspending the remaining powers in Section 58, which cover provisions to ensure that, in the event of a very significant number of deaths, we can continue to deal with the deceased in a respectful and dignified way. Suspension rather than expiry of these powers is seen to be part of sensible contingency planning, since it allows them to be revived quickly if the public health situation requires it.

We will lay regulations as soon as possible to expire these provisions. Once expired, 20 temporary provisions will remain in the Act, three of which will be suspended. There are good reasons for retaining each of them. They continue to support the NHS, individuals and businesses throughout the potentially challenging winter months by allowing the temporary registration of healthcare professionals and statutory sick pay to be claimed on day 1 of self-isolation, but we hope they will help protect the progress we have made so far in beginning to recover from this awful pandemic. The legislation and regulations we are debating today help ensure that we have proportionate powers to help protect our public services, individuals and businesses.

This virus has presented the greatest public health threat to the United Kingdom in recent history, requiring a heroic response from everyone across the country, including our doctors, nurses, carers and other healthcare staff but also other key workers including transport, postal and delivery workers, who delivered much-needed food and items during lockdown.

We owe it to every person and organisation that has made sacrifices to protect themselves and others during this difficult time not to allow ourselves to fall at the final hurdle and to ensure that we emerge in the spring with the worst of the pandemic well and truly behind us.

Lastly, please allow me to repeat and highlight the simple things each and every one of us can to do to help limit the spread of Covid-19. First and foremost, get vaccinated. There are still around 4.7 million unvaccinated adults in England, and I welcome the advice I have been given by noble Lords across the House about how we can target some of the demographics that have not come forward for vaccines in line with the rest of the population. Let us all urge everyone who can have the vaccine to come forward.

If it has been more than six months and one week since your second jab and your GP has not contacted you, you can register at the NHS booking service online or call 119 to book your booster. Some noble Lords have told me about problems in this area. I am assured that these have been resolved but, if you come across anyone who is still experiencing issues getting through to either of those, please let me know and I will forward it to the appropriate person and make sure that we can target and tackle this.

Let us also urge people to take a flu jab when offered it. Please self-isolate and get tested if you have symptoms of Covid-19. Anyone who is told by NHS Test and Trace that they have tested positive or been in close contact with someone who has tested positive should follow the public health advice and self-isolate where required. Even if we are well, we can wear face coverings, meet outdoors or in well-ventilated rooms indoors, regularly wash our hands, and, where possible, makerapid tests part of our weekly routine.

I look forward to noble Lords’ continued scrutiny and valuable contributions to this debate.

16:02

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction to the debate and the statutory instrument. Of course, Covid has brought unequalled challenge to us—a challenge that we have not seen for decades. It has disrupted our lives and many people have died as a result. Of course, the powers that the Government have taken to themselves have been quite exceptional. I do not agree with everything that Big Brother Watch says, but I think it is right to point to the draconian nature of some of those powers. I was very glad the Minister said what he said in relation to Schedules 21 and 22. My understanding is that every single charge made under those schedules was found to be unlawful. As he read out the powers, I shall not repeat them—but they are draconian. They may have been justified, but they were misused. The Minister said that they will be withdrawn. Can he clarify whether they will be withdrawn through a statutory instrument?

The second area I wanted to raise is parliamentary scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, raised during the Urgent Question repeat in the Chamber the point that the Government now seem to announce everything in the media before coming to Parliament. The way in which Parliament has been dealt with over Covid has been very unsatisfactory. We have had more than 500 pieces of secondary legislation; most were rushed out and considered by Parliament retrospectively. The Justice Select Committee reported on this and stated:

“Parliament plays an important role in making sure that the law and any new criminal offences are so far as is possible intelligible, clear and predictable. It is not satisfactory … that Parliament was not … able to fulfil its function when Members were required to consider statutory instruments already superseded”—


this has happened on a number of occasions.

Although it falls to the Commons to vote on the renewal of powers, while we have simply a Take Note approach, the powers are substantial and I must say that I do not think that they should be debated in Grand Committee; they are important enough to be debated in the Chamber and I find it very disappointing that we are here, having to do it in this way.

It is notable that, since we came back in September, there have been hardly any debates on Covid. Again, I find this very worrying, and I would like the Minister to tell me why there have been no Statements. I think the Statement last week was the first one we have had on Covid since we came back. This really is not satisfactory and hardly counts as parliamentary scrutiny.

I also ask the Minister what has happened to SAGE. There has apparently been a downscaling of SAGE’s role. It seems that it now meets only once a month. Can the Minister confirm that and tell me why it is? A government source has been quoted as saying that there is now a lessened demand for scientific advice. Well, I do question whether that is accurate. We are still in a difficult situation: Covid infections are rising and there is a real risk that the booster jab and school vaccinations are behind where they ought to be—hence the Minister’s comments at the end of his introductory speech. My concern is that the Government’s mistakes and, frankly, dubious exceptionalism at the beginning of Covid look like being repeated time and again.

There was another very good joint Select Committee report, from the Health and Social Care and Science and Technology Committees, which was published on 12 October and looked at what has happened over the past 18 months. The report pointed out that the UK was not alone in having suffered badly because of Covid, but we did significantly worse in terms of deaths than many countries, particularly when compared to those in east Asia, even though they were much closer geographically to where the virus first appeared. The report said the UK’s pandemic planning was too narrow and effectively based on a flu model, which failed to learn the lessons from SARS, MERS and Ebola.

Particularly telling was the report’s comment that the Government’s desire to avoid a lockdown because of the harm to the economy that it would entail had a big impact. In the absence of other strategies such as rigorous case isolation, a meaningful test and trace operation and robust border controls, a full lockdown was inevitable and should have come sooner. We saw history repeat itself last autumn, when the Government’s decision not to have a circuit breaker did not follow the scientific advice and Ministers were clearly optimistic in their assumption that the worst was behind us during those summer months.

The question before us today is whether history is repeating itself. We know that our weekly death rate stands at three times the level of other major European nations. We know hospitalisations are rising, and they are certainly at a higher level than in many countries on the continent. The decision to end compulsory mask wearing and to pause plans for vaccine passports in England has made the Government an outlier in their management of the pandemic. By contrast, western European countries such as France, Italy, and in particular Spain, have brought down infection rates to their lowest level since the summer of 2020.

The Government have not been short of advice. When the latest October minutes from SAGE came out, they pointed to current population behaviours being estimated as being closer to pre-pandemic norms than at any point since March 2020—which I think means that people are not wearing masks very much and are not distancing themselves socially. SAGE pointed to early interventions that may reduce the need for more stringent, disruptive and longer-lasting measures to avoid an unacceptable level of hospitalisations.

We have also heard the NHS Confederation calling for not just plan B to be implemented but plan B-plus: calling on the public to mobilise around the NHS and do whatever they can to support front-line services this winter. On the other hand, it has been reported that modelling by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine has suggested that cases will peak soon and fall away steeply in the winter months. So I ask the Minister to set out current ministerial thinking. I see the temptation to wait and see, in the light of the London School’s modelling. On the other hand, every time the Government have waited and seen, they have turned out to be wrong, so I think at the very least we ought to know today the hard thinking behind the Government’s position in relation to plan B.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am married to a doctor, a former GP who ran a big practice in Biggleswade.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

I am sorry, there is a speakers’ list. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is next.

16:10

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I have so far not had a chance to welcome the Minister to his new role. I wish him well. I think he has already found out that it is going to be a very busy portfolio, and, with the present climate we find ourselves in, quite rightly so.

Before the Minister was in post, many statutory instruments were laid before Parliament after they had come into operation, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, just said. This has continued to be a worrying trend, because it is a way of getting round normal parliamentary scrutiny. It becomes ministerial diktat and law by the scribbling of a Minister’s pen.

The statutory instrument says:

“These Regulations are made in response to the serious and imminent threat to public health”.


Paragraph 6.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“In accordance with section 45R of the 1984 Act, the Secretary of State is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make this instrument without a draft having been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”


We are talking not about something that puts somebody into isolation to stop the spread of coronavirus but about relaxing when people can come out of self-isolation. It is not an imminent threat; it is not an emergency. The Government knew that 27 September was coming and could have planned for it so that normal legislation could have gone before Parliament, rather than this emergency approach of ministerial diktat, which affects millions of people in this country. It has to stop. There are times when emergency legislation for public health use is appropriate but, like others, this one is not appropriate.

What stopped the department and Ministers knowing that 27 September was coming? This did not have to be emergency legislation if they had planned ahead. This statutory instrument was laid five days before the planned date of extinction of the previous regulation. It is either poor planning or legislation to try to bounce Parliament. Either way, it is not acceptable.

I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, as set out in the register. The other part of this is about the powers to local authorities. I have believed right from beginning, as other noble Lords did, that local authorities should play a large part in this, rather than having national responses. Some national responses were needed, but so was a more local response.

Back in March 2020, I tabled an amendment to the original Bill with a power of general competence for local authorities to be able to act, which would be debated through normal legislation without statutory instruments having to keep coming with powers for local authorities. We were told that that was not required, so why do statutory instruments need to keep coming with powers for local authorities? Why did the department not listen at the time and grant a power of general competence in an amendment to the Bill, which could have been dealt with in the normal way rather than in emergency legislation? It has to stop. I want to talk about some interventions that might be required based on where we are at present as a nation.

I am clear that we will need interventions over and above those in place, but the Government are not listening to public health experts, people who work in the NHS or the epidemiologists who say that further action on Covid is required now, not just to deal with the potential crisis in the NHS but to stop future lockdowns that harm the economy and people’s livelihoods. They are saying it is a step to stop lockdowns, so I would like to understand from the Minister why that advice has not been taken. What assurance do the Government have that if action is not taken now and cases continue to rise, as well as the pressures on the NHS, either local or national lockdowns will not at some point be required? What modelling exists at present to prove that point?

I want to look at the rates per 1,000 population. On a seven-day rolling average from yesterday’s figures, the UK has 488.5 cases. France has 54.9 cases, Portugal has 51.9 and Spain has 28.3. Even taking into account testing variations, the UK is a significant outlier there. I know what the Minister will say: “Oh, there’s a lower death rate—that’s why. It’s not just cases. We have to look at the death rate”. Let us look at the death rates in those countries. On the rolling average for the last seven days, Spain has a death rate per million people from Covid-related disease of 2.87. Portugal has a death rate of 3.12 per million; France has a death rate of 1.88 per million; and the UK has one of 10.7 per million. In terms of both cases and deaths, the UK is an outlier.

I suggest that the reason why the UK is an outlier is that those other countries, rightly, are vaccinating—in some cases, they have now increased their vaccination rate above that of the UK—but have not put all their eggs in one basket. They are taking mitigation and vaccination as a way to deal with a public health crisis, because this is not a political or philosophical discussion. It is not an argument of libertarians versus those who believe in a more restrictive approach to the state. This is about public health and trying to keep people alive and healthy. It is about taking lessons from what is happening abroad and using them as good practice. If experts are not being listened to, I suggest that people look at what is happening abroad and learn the lessons there: mitigation and vaccination combined are a way of dealing with this. It is about having not draconian lockdowns but simple mitigations, so let us look at some of the issues within those mitigations.

Some politicians are worried that the public just will not buy some of the issues. A UK YouGov poll from today clearly shows that the public are becoming worried and starting to get ahead of the Government: 81% support having face coverings on public transport and 76% are for them in shops and restaurants. Meanwhile, 67% support social distancing in pubs and restaurants—but there is no majority for lockdowns. We have become a country obsessed with having plan A or plan B. It does not have to be such a binary choice. We could take steps to deal with the threat to public health as we come into winter. We could look at what happens abroad and bring about the use of mandatory face coverings, which have no economic impact. If you are a libertarian, their use restricts freedoms very little but helps reduce cases, along with other issues. We could ask for face coverings on public transport and in shops.

Some noble Lords opposite are shaking their heads. I am not basing my facts on some theoretical study; I am basing them on what is happening in France, Portugal and Spain. That is the evidence, not an academic study. Mitigation, along with vaccination, works. If not, noble Lords will have to explain when they get up why those countries have fewer cases and deaths. It is because they are not just jabbing but asking for face coverings.

Now, there are other, much wider things in plan B that I do not support. For example, I do not support the use of Covid vaccination certificates—not as a matter of political philosophy but because, although someone may have a certificate saying that they are double-jabbed, we know that 30% of people who are double-jabbed also get the virus and could be asymptomatic. It gives a false sense of security. That person may go out thinking, “I’m jabbed, I’m okay, I’ve got my vaccination certificate”, but they could be one of the 30% of people out there who are asymptomatic and helping to spread the virus. So, the reason why I believe that vaccination certification is not worth introducing is practical, not philosophical.

We are at a severe crossroads in this public health crisis. If we go one way, the country will go into lockdown and there will be harder economic and social consequences. That road means continuing as we are, putting all our eggs in the vaccination basket and not taking extra action now. Or there is another way we could turn: phasing in some simple mitigation requirements, such as face coverings and potentially looking at social distancing. These are not like the draconian “Stay at home to work” order or lockdowns.

I believe that we need to take a different course. To avoid lockdown and the harm we have seen, we need to do something extra beyond just talking about vaccinations. European countries that have taken those measures show that it can be done. They will not eradicate the virus, but they will mean we manage it better, helping the NHS and the economy and doing something that we need to do: take our advice and approach from public health, not political philosophy.

16:22

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I certainly do not oppose these measures since I believe them to be going the right way. I am pleased with that.

I want to concentrate on face masks. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, mentioned them quite a lot because he believes that everybody wearing them would save lives; they were mentioned in the Minister’s final words as well. They have become a bit of a totem for both sides of the argument on coronavirus restrictions. They divide society, actually. On the one hand—I find myself on this side—I do not believe them to be effective so I do not wear one. It is an act of individuality, if you like; you might even call it an act of rebellion against being told what to do. On the other side of the argument, where the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is, believers in further restrictions believe that wearing a mask shows virtue and solidarity and provides reassurance to others. That is a perfectly reasonable position, I suppose.

Whatever the opinion polls say, I reckon that about 40% of people on the Tube do not wear a mask now—not 13%, as the noble Lord suggested. That 40% has given up, basically. Children are not required to wear them, of course, but they obviously cannot pass on the virus; I will come back to that later.

In the Chamber of the House of Commons, there is a great political divide between the Government on the one hand, wearing hardly any face masks, and the Opposition on the other, where practically everyone wears one. Last month, I went to a packed memorial service in the Brompton Oratory. It is a huge church—perhaps not the biggest Catholic church in London, but huge. One person was wearing a face mask. None of the clergy was. However, last week, I went to David Amess’s memorial service, where probably about 20 masks were being worn in the congregation. All the bishops and clergy, as they processed behind the unmasked choir, were wearing them. We almost have a Reformation divide now, with Catholics versus Anglicans.

My question for the Minister is simple. Are masks effective? We have, I fear, had some mixed messaging from the Government over the past 18 months. Either masks work or they do not. I am certainly not an expert; I do not pretend that they will or will not do good because, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, I do not know whether they work.

However, full surgical masks worn in operations presumably work. All the doctors and nurses wear them and have done so for some time—but they are proper surgical masks. Flimsy paper masks are being worn by several people in this Committee, and by the general public. I do not know whether those masks do any good, but I suspect that they do not. What I do know is that Jenny Harries, who is now the chief executive of the UK Health Security Agency and was the Deputy CMO previously, said in March last year that it was “not a good idea” for the general public to wear them. She also said that they “trap the virus” and cause people to start breathing it in.

I have a series of quotes, if the Committee will bear with me, that show the confusion in this matter. I am not saying that I am right. Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, who noble Lords will know, said on April 4 last year that the wearing of face masks by those who are not sick was not recommended by the British Government. He said that there was

“no evidence that the general wearing of face masks by the public who are well affects the spread of the disease in our society.”

That is his view—or it was in April last year. I do not know. Sir Patrick Vallance, who, again, we have got to know well over the past 18 months and is the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government, told MPs last May:

“The situation with masks … is that the data and the evidence are not straightforward”.


In this House, the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said on 21 April last year that

“the British Government have been sceptical about the efficacy of face masks. We do not want to be in a position of misleading or providing false reassurance for the public when there is not sufficient scientific evidence for the relevance of face masks.”—[Official Report, 21/4/20; col. 22.]

The following month, on 19 May, he said:

“There is an instinctive human belief that face masks make a difference, but the scientific proof that they do so is not crystal clear.”—[Official Report, 19/5/20; col. 1096.]


Then on 11 June he quoted the World Health Organization and said that

“‘the widespread use of masks by healthy people … is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence’”.—[Official Report, 11/6/20; col. 1908.]

On 22 June, 11 days later, he said that the mandatory of wearing of face masks was not recommended by the Government.

Now I genuinely do not know, but the situation is certainly confusing; I think everybody can agree on that. I am willing to accept that I am a bit confused. At the Labour Party conference, everybody wore face masks in the hall—we saw them all on television—but they did not wear them at the karaoke parties or receptions. The Liberal Democrat conference was of course virtual, so that was fine. However, they would not have had to wear them because it would not have been very crowded.

So what is the evidence now? Can the Government publish the evidence that made them change their position of last year, with the quotes I have given, to encouraging people to wear face masks? Perhaps there are studies. If they are conclusive, I will wear a mask. That is a promise—but I warn the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, who has just spoken, that one should not rely and base one’s policies on opinion polls.

All the calls that we hear for a return to restrictions should, again, be based on evidence. Are things getting worse? The vaccines certainly seem to work. Indeed, I had a message today to get my booster jab. Deaths are actually right down on what they were a year ago. Can the Minister tell us the percentage of deaths from the virus among those who are over 85? I understand that the average age of death is 85, which is actually higher than average life expectancy.

The Office for National Statistics shows that about half of all new infections are among school-age children—in other words, the unvaccinated young—with few lasting ill-effects. Is that true? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on that. Is it the case that there are now studies predicting that cases are likely to fall sharply in the winter? That was in a study from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, which was covered in the press yesterday. Is that the case?

We have now heard one or two doctors panicking about flu and calling for the wearing of face masks because there will be flu around. Wear face masks for ever. Every year, on average—it varies dramatically—about 11,000 people die from flu. That is about the same number who are dying every week. So will the Minister reassure me that the Government will not be panicked into reintroducing any dramatic restrictions, or plan B, without basing the decision on very serious evidence?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, is not with us, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Foster.

16:30

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I will begin by reflecting on how we arrived at this point today: a gentle reminder of the course of this pandemic might be useful. In September 2019, four months before the rest of the world was alerted to Covid-19, the Chinese authorities were temperature-testing passengers at Wuhan and other airports across China. I spent more than 20 years in the aviation sector prior to my 20 years’ travelling to Brussels and Strasbourg, so you could say that I have landed at quite a few airports. However, I had never seen, in my entire career and in my life, such a measure ever taking place. However, it was not until the end of December 2019 that they let it be known that there was a problem. In the run-up to Chinese new year, thousands of nationals and others, living and working across Italy and the rest of Europe, flew to Wuhan and elsewhere to celebrate new year—only to find that it was cancelled. So they flew back. They were none the wiser. Europe was on holiday—skiing in Italy, France, Spain and Austria—and oblivious to the situation, quite rightly. And so it unfolded.

But it was not the first time. In 2002, SARS broke out in China and, yet again, the World Health Organization was not notified for six months. Fortunately, by comparison, it was not as lethal; nevertheless, it is known that Covid-19—or SARS-CoV-2—is closely related. Sadly, this virus has killed millions. The World Health Organization has not been allowed to investigate thoroughly, but the thinking is that it must have come from a lab. So I just wonder when the Chinese authorities will be held to account, as they continue to propagate the source as a wet market—which, ironically, they are again operating across China.

As we look at the consequences, we should also put the situation in context. Fear of the unknown caused all Governments across the globe to react quickly, and the first lockdown was supported, I would say, by the vast majority of the country. We did everything that we were asked to do: hands, face, space; isolated, stayed at home, did not mix; and practically washed our hands raw to save the NHS. The silver bullet would be the vaccine—and they were right. It was a phenomenal success, which I wholly support. But these measures have continued, off and on, and the consequences have been horrific.

Under the Act, citizens were arrested for sitting on a park bench. People were followed by drones just for going for a walk. Police were going into private premises to check whether people were there. And it got worse: locking up students on campus; closing schools and businesses across the UK; the Government telling people whom they could talk to and sleep with; and locked-away, vulnerable elderly people, many of whom never recovered. Daily mainstream media, particularly the BBC and Sky News, were always frightening the life out of most of us—and the £300 million budget will continue until next year.

So the vaccine was a godsend. They said once the over-50s were vaxed, we could open up—but it did not happen. We waited, with the population becoming more anxious and ill by the day. Yet, despite the success of the vaccine programme, the sword of Damocles still hangs over our heads. Some scientists, medics and politicians want to bring back restrictions now—which I vehemently oppose, along with any imposition of a domestic vaccine passport.

That brings me to the context. In 2020, according to the ONS, 680,000 people died in the UK. Approximately 70,000 had Covid on their death certificate. The average number of deaths ran at 1,800 a day. The major causes were dementia, cancer, heart disease, strokes et cetera. About 10% of those had Covid on their death certificates, and I understand that around 5% died directly from that awful virus. That averaged about 90 people a day—and that is 90 too many, because we want to eliminate this, hopefully, at some stage in the future. But it is not easy.

Fortunately, the vaccines are effective and the medicines now available are truly ground-breaking, with the majority fully recovering. Although the elderly are still at risk, the over-65s are now back to normal for this time of year. Positive tests are predominantly among older teenagers, who are not at risk. For those keen to impose plans B, C and anything else, the fact is that 200,000 teenagers have been referred for mental health treatment in the last three months—that does not even come into the elderly and the vulnerable—alongside the millions of patients waiting for diagnosis and treatment on the NHS. Front-line medics are waiting to operate but patients are not being referred, because of Covid restrictions, by GPs and others. Along with the Nightingales, the NHS spent £400 million a month requisitioning 8,000 private beds and 20,000 staff, and managed to refer eight patients a day.

That brings us to the true cost; this is just the tip of the iceberg. The Coronavirus Act 2020 is past its sell-by date. Notwithstanding the urgency to legislate speedily, it is blindingly obvious that the Act has major flaws. There was no parliamentary scrutiny, and even now it is a take-it-or-leave-it approach every six months. This legislation affects people’s everyday lives and criminalises ordinary behaviour. It continues to use delegated rather than primary legislation to implement changes in policy. New laws come into effect at very short notice; there are no impact assessments—or very few—and little debate. They continue to portray public health advice as having the force of law, which is wrong. This is unacceptable and highly dangerous, and results in police forces acting beyond their powers by enforcing government guidance rather than law.

I have outlined my thoughts on some of the actions taken so far. As mentioned, it has been difficult to debate, as anyone challenging the status quo is seen as some sort of anti-vaxxer or troublemaker. It is about listening to all sides of opinion, so I conclude by noting that many scientists and medics do not agree with some of the decisions that have been made. As mentioned, the mainstream media is still bringing messages of doom and gloom on a daily basis, nearly two years on. The time has come to manage where we are.

Other countries have been mentioned but let us look at Scandinavia. A month ago, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway lifted all restrictions. They stated that we need to get back to normal. I agree. Living in fear is not living at all. I therefore urge my noble friend to actively address the lack of scrutiny and parliamentary debate as we move forward.

16:38

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

My Lords, whether we approve of these restrictions or not, and despite the relaxations of last summer, we should be honest with ourselves and admit that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, this remains one of the most illiberal pieces of legislation the House has had to consider since the days of Oliver Cromwell. Actually, Oliver Cromwell abolished this House, so that might not be true.

That it will extend into 2022, two years after the rules first came into force, is alarming. It surely reminds us that the Government made a mistake when they declared an emergency under health legislation rather than the Civil Contingencies Act. Under that Act, we would be able to revisit these regulations much more frequently—monthly rather than six-monthly. When he winds up, will my noble friend express the strongest possible commitment—and hopefully promise—that this is the last time we will extend these regulations?

I am the first to admit that we are not out of the woods. Infections, hospitalisations and deaths remain higher than we would like, although far lower than even the most optimistic of SPI-M-O’s models published in early September—yet another failure of modelling, I am afraid. Already, the recent mini-wave, which is mainly happening among children, seems to have peaked. I urge the Government to resist the increasingly noisy calls for another mandatory lockdown, vaccine passports and mandatory mask-wearing. We can get through this winter with faster vaccinations, especially boosters, and sensible voluntary measures. Remember that, thanks to vaccines, the overall mortality rate for people who get Covid-19 is now down to about 0.1%, as low as flu.

Of all the measures taken, by far the most effective has been vaccination. Lockdowns have undoubtedly also helped but at a brutally painful cost. All other interventions have, as far as I can read from the evidence, proved either surprisingly ineffective, such as handwashing, or ambiguous at best, such as face masks. I want to focus on face masks and the argument for making them mandatory.

I am completely open-minded as to whether face masks help; they might or they might not. I have been willing to wear them. I favour them on precautionary grounds and if anybody can present me with a decent study on their effectiveness, I will read it and shout it from the rooftops. However, in preparing for today’s debate, I read a lot of scientific papers and I came up empty. The papers that purport to vindicate masks tend to be flimsy or flawed: they ignore the effect of other measures; they confuse correlation with causation; they compare apples with oranges; they rely on modelling rather than data.

For example, a meta-analysis commissioned by the WHO claimed that masks could lead to a reduction in the risk of infection, but the studies considered mainly N95 respirators in a hospital setting and not cloth masks in a community setting. Another study in the PNAS claimed that the correlation between declining infections and mask mandates was due to causation, ignoring similar declines elsewhere, and 40 scientists recommended that the study be withdrawn. Early in the pandemic, the advocacy group, #Masks4All, argued that Czechia had fewer infections thanks to the early use of masks. In reality, the pandemic simply had not reached eastern Europe by that stage. A few months later, Czechia had one of the highest infection rates in the world despite an early and strong mask mandate. A study in the US and another in Bangladesh were eventually withdrawn; a German study claiming to vindicate masks actually found no net change overall; a Canadian study claimed that countries with mandated masks had fewer deaths, but it compared very different countries and only the first few weeks of the pandemic. A review by Oxford University claimed that face masks are effective, but it looked at healthcare settings and not community settings—and so on and so on.

Meanwhile, the studies that are well designed and carefully executed have all reached the opposite conclusion: that they cannot find evidence that masks help. An April 2020 review by the University of Illinois, a May 2020 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, a May 2020 US CDC meta-study on pandemic influenza, a July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, an October 2020 randomised control trial with close to 8,000 participants, a November 2020 Danish randomised control trial with 6,000 participants, a November 2020 gold standard Cochrane review—sorry about this; I am nearly at the end—

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

It is very good; keep going.

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

A February 2021 review by the European CDC, a July 2021 experimental study published by the American Institute of Physics and an August 2021 study published by the International Research Journal of Public Health all failed to find causation. It might be there; they are not saying it is impossible, but they have not found it. If somebody can produce a study showing a strong and significant effect of masks on transmission then I will change my mind, but it has to be a decent bit of work.

Talking of experts, Gary Lineker said of mask wearing on Twitter that

“the evidence is clear that it reduces your chances of catching Covid”.

Well, which studies is he referring to? He did not cite a particular study.

Yet surely it is common sense that covering your face must help. To some extent, I am convinced myself that it probably does. It certainly stops large droplets. However, one thing that we have learned in this pandemic is that decades of advice about how such a virus is spread has turned out to be wrong. We now know that the way that this kind of virus spreads is generally not through droplets, which masks stop, but through much smaller aerosols, which are essentially evaporated droplets. They go straight through or out the side of most masks. Catching aerosols with masks is like catching midges with a tennis net.

Masks can give false reassurance. Like my noble friend Lord Robathan, I went to a memorial service yesterday, albeit a different one. There were hundreds of people in the church. The organisers suggested taking a lateral flow test before coming, which was a good idea, and I did. They also said that mask wearing was a condition of coming and I did that too. So did anybody else. But did that give me and the others there just slightly too much reassurance? Risk compensation behaviour is a real phenomenon: motorcyclists drive faster with helmets on. Do people take slightly more social risks when wearing masks? I fear it is possible that they do, so it is not necessarily the right policy.

Masks signal that you care and that you are being careful. That is worth something, I admit, but is it enough to justify making them compulsory? I do not think it is. Again, I say this not because I want masks to be ineffective—I would much rather they were useful; I do not find them particularly enjoyable to wear, but I do not particularly mind wearing them—but I try to think with my head and not my gut. It is data that should guide us, not feelings.

I have one final point. I declare an interest in that I am about to publish a book about the origin of Covid—I might have mentioned it before. The fact we still do not know and that we most certainly cannot rule out that it was a lab accident, as my noble friend Lady Foster said, at the Wuhan Institute of Virology means that another such pandemic is possible and could happen any day. That fact alone will have encouraged rogue states and terrorist organisations to investigate the possibility of deliberately causing a pandemic. The UK Government have shown surprisingly little interest in this issue so far, leaving it to the American Government, the Chinese Government and the WHO, but as one of the leaders in scientific research in the world the UK Government should give it their attention. I ask my noble friend to put it in his no doubt very thick in-tray.

16:46

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I want first to register that the no-vote on the Coronavirus Act in the other House last week, with the seemingly glib statement that the House was not in the mood to vote, was unsettling. Although a majority of the most illiberal and worrying uses and abuses of the law over the last 18 months have been acted through public health legislation, none the less the Coronavirus Act remains as a legislative symbol of the state accruing enormous and unprecedented powers to deal with the public health emergency.

To be clear, when the Act was brought in there was an emergency. Whatever my own reservations or those of fellow civil libertarians, we could see that a worldwide pandemic gave an excuse to the Government in having to act quickly and respond in the way they did, and it explains some of the extreme measures. But that was then, and whatever possible excuses there were for little parliamentary scrutiny when the Act was initially passed, since then there is no excuse for the lack of post-legislative scrutiny and for accountability being so woeful. I echo the thoughts and concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.

When, every six months, the House of Commons is asked to vote for or against, there is no option to amend or expire individual provisions. Sufficient time is never allocated to renewal debates to allow detailed scrutiny. It becomes more or less a fait accompli. By the time the renewals arrive here in this House, it feels, like now, that we are going through the motions and making speeches for the sake of it, which is why I assume many of us are trying to make speeches that might say something beyond nodding something through.

Let me say this: the urgency of the initial stages of the pandemic has passed. There is no longer a public health emergency. Of course Covid is still a serious challenge and needs to be managed carefully. I do not underestimate it; a family member sadly died of Covid only recently. However, the crisis stage of the pandemic has passed, and this legislation is just not needed. Its continued existence and the Government’s reluctance to revoke it represents another kind of crisis: the undermining of the rule of law in democratic decision-making under the auspices of Covid.

It really does feel as though Ministers have grown rather too accustomed to the Covid-related ease with which laws can be made, now that the Government have enhanced legislative control and seem reluctant to relinquish newly accrued powers. To quote Big Brother Watch,

“the emergency mode and its perks—rapid law-making without scrutiny and a ratcheting of executive powers—has persisted”.

Perhaps most galling for me is that the Government seem reluctant to provide impact assessment statements for legislation, which means that Parliament has often not had the information it needs to properly scrutinise measures that have profound social, economic and health impacts—let alone assaults on our liberties.

This lack of transparency also blindsides public debate. Too often, citizens are left to speculate as to why certain laws are being introduced when there seems so little evidence of their efficacy. Undoubtedly this has fuelled conspiracy-mongering and undermined trust in politics and institutions. Look at the egregious way in which proposals to mandate vaccines for care home workers was dealt with. There was a rushed 90-minute debate in the other place and a cavalier use of secondary legislation to interfere with workers’ hard-won employment rights that is likely to create a huge staff shortage crisis in care homes. All this was done in the face of a wide range of opponents pointing out the shortcomings of the proposals—I am thinking here of everyone from trades unions to Tory Back-Bench MPs agreeing—and despite a lack of evidence that this policy will lead to any extra protection for vulnerable residents, as alleged.

Now the Government are doubling down and targeting NHS staff. Just when we are told that one reason why the Government might bring in further restrictions is if the NHS cannot cope this winter, the Department of Health and Social Care has the brilliant idea of implementing a policy that will mean effectively sacking thousands of front-line health workers, creating a staff shortage crisis that could have—guess what?—catastrophic implications for healthcare and make matters worse.

Here is my great dilemma for the Minister. We have all—or almost all—welcomed the shift from legal restrictions to public health guidelines and trusting the public to take personal responsibility for weighing up risks. That was, and is, it seemed to me, the message from the Prime Minister and the Cabinet—or that was what I thought. So it is unfortunate that, despite assurances and even promises that 19 July was the terminus date and the pledges that relaxing restrictions would be irreversible, and despite the good news of extremely high vaccine take-up and levels of antibodies, and evidence, as we have heard, of the virus being under control, Ministers keep threatening the public with really quite draconian measures again. It is totally demoralising and disorientating.

What we really need to hear from the Minister today is that the Government will no longer use the criminal law to manage public health. Instead, what we have is another attack on freedoms hanging over us in the form of vaccine passports. Despite a range of U-turns and contradictory ministerial public pronouncements on vaccine passes, despite the findings of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee that Covid passes have no basis “in science or logic”, despite leaked but not publicly available cost-benefit analysis from the DCMS that passes will decimate hospitality, arts and sports event venues, which I read about in a newspaper rather than in anything produced by Ministers, despite the fact that the Prime Minister inadvertently admitted that immunity from vaccination was not the same as a guarantee that you cannot contract the virus or pass it on, hence rendering vaccine passes irrelevant in containing the social spread of the virus, as was well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, despite the fact that the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine’s vaccine confidence project has found that the introduction of vaccine passports will most likely reduce vaccine take-up among the already hesitant and will more likely consolidate a loss of trust in pharmacological interventions in general, as well as in political institutions—despite all this, we still hear the misinformation from the Government that vaccine passports as a policy will protect others. They just will not.

Where is the opportunity for Parliament, never mind the public, to debate all this fully, without fear of being demonised or silenced by big tech, and discuss the implications of an illiberal, divisive, show-your-papers culture? As we talk here today about the renewal of the Coronavirus Act—the emergency, allegedly temporary Coronavirus Act—my dread is that we are signalling the permanence of a state of emergency embedded in law by even contemplating a two-tier checkpoint society. When Jacinda Ardern, the New Zealand Prime Minister, smirked as she stressed that vaccine passes would mean two classes in her country, I was chilled—and I realise that such open discrimination is also the new normal much closer to home, in Wales and Scotland.

The truth is that our Health Ministers need to move away from vaccine passes because they have enough on their plate. Rather than getting embroiled in these politicised rows over Covid-related laws, surely it is time to move on; goodness knows they now have some real public health emergencies to sort out. From the now-understood catastrophic impact that lockdown measures have had on the late diagnosis of everything from cancer to dementia, to backlogs, waiting lists for treatment and the unhelpful actions of GPs—not only are they seemingly hesitant to resume face-to-face contact; there is also the BMA’s truculent behaviour in instructing surgeries to close their lists to new patients and threatening industrial action—Ministers have a lot on their plate.

There are also reports in primary schools that the lack of social interaction during the pandemic will affect young children’s speech, language and general development, and that those problems are likely to persist for several years. Then there is the ongoing and frankly inhumane treatment of care home residents, who are still being deprived of normal social contact with loved ones by risk-averse, short-staffed residential homes, leading to entirely preventable extra health issues.

I have a lot of sympathy for the Minister because he has a lot on his plate. In this context, the now-diminishing threat of Covid as an emergency should be low down on the priority list. All legal sanctions brought into being to deal with Covid now need to be revoked for the sake of the health of the body politic and so that the noble Lord can get on with being a Health Minister for non-Covid health emergencies.

16:56

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I start with a quote from the front page of the regulations which I find quite over the top:

“These Regulations are made in response to the serious and imminent threat to public health which is posed by the incidence and spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus”.


Presumably this threat arose in the week between Parliament rising for the Conference Recess—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn temporarily.

16:57

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

17:02

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

I shall go back to the beginning because I cannot remember where I stopped.

I start with a quote from the regulations, which

“are made in response to the serious and imminent threat to public health which is posed by the incidence and spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus”.

This could not have occurred in the week between the session we had in September and the Minister making this instrument on 22 September. The text carries on,

“the Secretary of State is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make this instrument without a draft having been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

The first thing I ask the Minister is to get an agreement to discontinue this way of making legislation. It may be some time before the Government repeal all the Acts but they could certainly give an undertaking. I realise that the Minister cannot do that today, because he has to consult the department, but the department could give an undertaking that future regulations will be made after consultation with Parliament.

This pandemic has shown me something. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, referred to her travels around the world. I have done a lot of lecturing on history, particularly the history of western Europe. I will not castigate any country in particular, but all countries have an undertow of authoritarianism in their public dimension. The pandemic has brought that out in this country. We have seen a level of authoritarianism in the way that people have used their power which is totally unacceptable. It can be seen in the way that the doctors have rewritten national health protocols, and the way that the police decided that they would or would not enforce parts of the law. Let me stress that “would not”; I sometimes wonder why we are here, when I look around and see how much of the law the police decide is not worth enforcing.

So we have an authoritarianism problem in this country but, as we move forward, we will have to learn to live with this. It will perhaps decline, as Spanish flu did in 1920-21, but it will not go away, and the possibility of further viral attacks is on the horizon. I echo the call made to the Minister that the Government should look at viral—and electronic—warfare and attacks as part of their defence capacity, because we could be liable to those sorts of attacks. It is important that we move forward from thinking that our defence consists of sailing a battleship round the Black Sea to a point where we accept that there is a much wider area in which public good can be interrupted for malicious reasons.

We have heard a fair bit about the number of people who have been vaccinated and the various plans that have come forward. I am an occasional subscriber to and regular reader of the Daily Sceptic, which I receive by email. It has put another view on some of the material that has been released about Covid. For instance, we hear very little about the Oxford group and a group of people who have looked carefully at all the evidence and concluded very similarly to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, on matters such as face masks. Not all the evidence is being presented; indeed, some outlets take great pride in saying that they are Covid-friendly and, basically, supply you only with government propaganda.

So I welcome the new Minister and the new Secretary of State, because they have an opportunity to move us forward towards a better situation. I have mentioned the problem of GPs in the past, but that situation also covers the rest of the National Health Service. I live in Cambridge, which could probably claim to be the medical capital of Britain. I live in a street that is packed full of doctors, because only doctors and former MEPs can afford the houses there. Some of my best friends are doctors, as they say, and some of their stories about what has been going on are, shall we say, not in line with what we have been led to believe is going on. One of them said to me, “I don’t know what the GPs are doing. We haven’t seen any of them in our hospital, I can tell you that”.

So we must get the health service and private hospitals back to work. Our local private hospital was bought out by the NHS and basically stood empty for the best part of a year, with the consultants doing their consultations at home. It was absolutely ridiculous. The way to get a consultation with your specialist relied on knowing their home phone number and getting on to them and going to see them at home. So they were finding a way round the regulations, and the hospitals were closed but still earning large amounts of money from the NHS.

So the Minister is going to find that there are a lot of themes to unravel. On the subject of vaccination, I counsel the Government not to take on battles that they are probably going to lose. If they take on this battle of trying to get vaccination certificates and vaccination approvals before people can do certain things, they will end up in a morass of bureaucracy and in the end they will lose. Leave it to the market. If a venue wishes to say it requires proof of vaccination to enter—as, for instance, some restaurants in France require—let it administer it and look at the certificate. All I would do is say, “Please put a notice on the door”. Do not get involved in what could turn out to be a terribly authoritarian effort.

There is one question I would like to ask the Minister. We are constantly urged to get lateral flow tests. How much do these cost? I was asked to get a lateral flow test before I went to David Amess’s memorial service. Why? I also question whether they should be free and whether it is our priority as a health service to carry on spending this amount of money. How much does it cost and, more importantly, what plans does the Minister have to wind it down or at least make it a paid-for service, which seems a quite reasonable thing to do?

My final words are that I am pleased that we are moving forward. I hope this will be the last SI we have to debate that is laid in this way, and I hope we will move forward, end this image of a terrified country and continue getting back to normal, so that we can start to get back to where we were some years ago, as normal human beings in a normal society.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, joins us remotely, the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, will speak briefly in the gap.

17:12

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

I am most grateful. I will make three points about communication. Last Saturday, I queued up at Chicksands centre—two hours’ queueing, with no appointment. Fine—I make no criticism of what was done there. But I then found out that Biggleswade, a town of 30,000-plus which previously did jabs, has no provision. So my advice to my noble friend is to double-check in all the substantial towns to make sure that there is jabbing going on.

Secondly, I mentioned my wife earlier. I declare an interest in that she is a doctor. She was very ill with Covid; she came out six months ago. There was no GP contact and nothing from the hospital. We will monitor it and make sure she is all right, but we are waiting to see whether she gets any communication from anybody—for a woman aged 83.

Thirdly and finally, I was in charge of the communication for the three-day week for an advertising agency. I met daily with the department involved, and the Minister, and we ensured that we had mass communication. Frankly, I see very little in the nationals or in the local papers. I see nothing in the ethnic newspapers and I do not see anything on television. If you want to get this hard core to have vaccinations, you have to swamp the media. I was a professional advertising man before; you do tell them once, you do not tell them twice—you tell them 10 times and then they might hear. I thank noble Lords again for allowing me to take part in the gap.

17:15

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I start by echoing the comments of my noble friend Lord Scriven and many other noble Lords. Regardless of where your Lordships stand on wearing masks, for example, we are all agreed that the way this Government have brought forward far too much Covid legislation as emergency items—

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee stands adjourned until all Members have cast their votes.

17:20

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the Committee will resume. I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to continue her speech.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, regardless of where your Lordships stand on mask wearing, I believe that we are all agreed that this Government have brought forward far too much emergency Covid legislation, much of which has not even been presented to Parliament before being brought into use. Why, once again, are regulations coming to the Lords for which the expiry date was well known in advance and is not an emergency at all? The Minister’s predecessor heard time after time over the last 20 months many noble Lords complaining that too many statutory instruments were being brought to us as emergency procedures, making a mockery of the scrutiny of your Lordships’ House.

The regulations talk about self-isolation. It remains vital for those who have Covid-19, but can the Minister confirm the rumours that many people are not taking lateral flow tests, even if they are symptomatic, in order not to have to report the results and to avoid self-isolation? I am also hearing that there has been a resurgence of the old problem we had last year of late pinging, presumably because of delays in a struggling test and trace system as case numbers rise dramatically.

The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, raised concerns about whether lateral flow tests are necessary and should be paid for from the public purse. Lateral flow tests are now proving extremely reliable. Actually, we are advised as Members of Parliament to have two lateral flow tests during any week in which we are present in Parliament. Many other workplaces demand even more tests per week than that. It is one of the safest ways we can catch Covid early in people, particularly if they are not yet symptomatic. If we are asking many people to have two, three or five lateral flow tests a week—as I know happens in some places—while the pandemic is still around, it should be paid for from the public purse.

I echo the Minister’s thanks to directors of public health, our local resilience forums and local authorities. Can he confirm that the funding for their work on Covid, including test and trace, is guaranteed for the next financial year and will not end, as is currently planned, in March 2022?

Once again, I ask why the messages from government Ministers repeatedly encourage us to believe that face masks are totally a matter of personal choice. Many noble Lords have expressed their concern about them and said why they do not want to wear them. Even the Secretary of State for Health, when pressed over the weekend, reluctantly said that he would use a mask. However, he refused to say that he would recommend it to his colleagues on the green Benches—although he thought that they should perhaps consider it—whereas the Leader of the House of Commons, Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, has completely eschewed the scientific advice and said that Tory MPs do not need to wear masks because they all know each other and get along so well. The new Minister for Vaccines was of a similar mind on the radio yesterday.

However, as my noble friend Lord Scriven said, vaccination on its own is not the sole answer to Covid. A third of cases at the moment are among people who have already had their vaccinations. With a seven-day rolling average of around 1,000 admissions to hospital per day and with more than 8,000 beds occupied—and with those numbers increasing—I asked the Minister just now, in the Urgent Question in the Chamber, about accident and emergency departments and ambulance services. Conversations with GPs show that they, too, are hard-pressed at the moment in dealing with the increased number of Covid patients calling them for help.

One of the advantages of vaccination is that many people do not get Covid so seriously, but anyone who listened to the “Today” programme from Lancashire this morning will have heard many people say that, even though they had Covid mildly, it was the most unpleasant thing they had had to deal with and that catching their breath all the time was very difficult. GPs are much in demand in offering advice, hopefully to turn people away from hospital and give them the help they need.

Case rates in unvaccinated children remain very high, and despite being told many times in 2020 that children do not get Covid, they clearly do.

On 17 September, Sajid Javid wrote to the 3.7 million people who are clinically extremely vulnerable; that is 5% of our population, though not as large as the 22 million of the over-50s, the clinically extremely vulnerable and NHS staff having booster shots. This group comprises those who have serious problems making antibodies and are at high risk of getting very strong Covid. I declare my interest as being within the severely clinically extremely vulnerable group. Its numbers have expanded from 500,000 to 800,000 over the last two to three months following the publication of a number of clinical trials which were able to show that more categories of people were taking immunosuppressants, which moved them into this group. The news of the antivirals is vital for the clinically extremely vulnerable, and I welcome that. However, as my consultant said to me, “We don’t want you in hospital at all; we absolutely do not want you to end up on many of the drugs coming through yet. You need to keep safe.”

For those of us who have low or no antibodies and were told on 17 September by the Secretary of State that our doctors would now tell us what we needed to do, the outside world is a worrying place. The letter from Sajid Javid said that I should ensure that I did not go into any environment where there were people who were not double vaccinated. I have joked before whether, before entering my local greengrocers, I should stand at the door and shout, “Everyone double vaccinated in here?” I do say that.

The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, can make his own decision about wearing a face mask, but 5% of the population, a mere 3.7 million people, remain at high risk even if they have had their booster jabs. They do not have the choice. I ask him please to reconsider; even when you think you are safe, you may be protecting someone as you may not know that you have Covid and are likely to pass it on.

The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, quoted our scientists in March and April 2020 as saying they did not see the evidence for face masks being helpful. He clearly missed the screeching U-turn in the summer of 2020 after our experts, both in the UK and at the World Health Organization, realised that Covid was much more airborne than they had understood. The noble Lord asked for evidence. This is from the World Health Organization in December 2020, and it is still current advice:

“Masks should be used as part of a comprehensive strategy of measures to suppress transmission and save lives; the use of a mask alone is not sufficient to provide an adequate level of protection against COVID-19.


If COVID-19 is spreading in your community, stay safe by taking some simple precautions, such as physical distancing, wearing a mask, keeping rooms well ventilated, avoiding crowds, cleaning your hands, and coughing into a bent elbow or tissue. Check local advice where you live and work. Do it all!


Make wearing a mask a normal part of being around other people. The appropriate use, storage and cleaning or disposal of masks are essential to make them as effective as possible.”


SAGE told Ministers in May that schoolchildren should wear masks. SAGE did not get rid of masks on freedom day; it was the Government. They decided against the advice. Frankly, it has not been a freedom day for the many people who have caught Covid since mid-July and been in hospital, or for the many who have died.

Sky News reported on 6 July on a report in the Lancet that showed why masks were effective. If noble Lords doubt me, they should just put “Sky News” and

“COVID-19: Do face masks work? Here is what scientific studies say”


into their browser. The evidence is there for the noble Lord, Lord Robathan. It includes that the American CDC reported an incident where two hairstylists with minor Covid symptoms

“were found to have interacted with 139 people during an eight-day period. The stylists and the clients all wore masks”

and a not a single one became infected. Sky News said that, on the USS “Theodore Roosevelt”,

“where living quarters and working environments leave little room for social distancing, a study found there was a 70% reduced risk of infection among those who used a face covering.”

The article also said:

“In Thailand, a retrospective case-control study found that among 1,000 people interviewed as part of contact tracing investigations”—


real people and real cases—

“those who reported always having worn a mask during high-risk exposures again experienced a 70% reduced risk of becoming infected compared with others.”

A quick search of the internet will produce many other examples.

The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said that many masks do not contain the aerosol droplets as well as the hospital-grade masks do. That is right, but too many people wear their masks insecurely—not pinching the nose frame or pulling back the ties properly. That is the point the World Health Organization was making. Worse, I am sorry to say that too many think they are protected when they wear their masks under their chins. That does not provide for any protection at all.

As before, the problem of recording third doses versus boosters remains. This is vital. The Minister’s predecessor said that this would be dealt with by the end of July. Because third-dose people need a booster in a few months, it has to be listed separately from ordinary boosters. When will the online system be able to record third doses? Those who took part in vaccine clinical trials or have had their vaccines abroad still cannot get them logged on to the systems. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, promised that this would be sorted before the summer break.

Since 19 July, when we released all mitigation measures here in the UK, why is it that France, Portugal, Spain and other countries have seen a rapid drop in case rates, while the UK has seen a rapid increase: from 320 cases per 100,000 to 488.5 per 100,000? It is very simple. Our plan B is, in fact, those countries’ plan A across western Europe. Those countries have mandates for masks, social distancing and ventilation. These are not studies but real-life examples.

The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, cited Denmark in her contribution. In Denmark, a country that has been particularly successful, there is not even a mandate but the public choose to wear masks and socially distance. They have accepted this because of the strong messaging right from the start by their Government and local government about taking personal responsibility for their friends, neighbours and community. By comparison, the UK stands alone in saying that a daily case rate of up to 100,000 and, from the Prime Minister’s own mouth, 50,000 deaths a year are acceptable. We are creeping towards those numbers right now. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to Ministers appearing to believe in UK exceptionalism. Perhaps this is exceptionalism of exactly the wrong kind.

I ask the Minister: why has SAGE been meeting only monthly since July? Who calls those meetings and, if SAGE members feel that they need to advise Ministers, do they have to wait for Ministers to seek that advice? That would be helpful to know.

I believe that every single noble Lord who has taken part in this debate would not want to see plan C having to be enacted, especially if it means that the Prime Minister will have to cancel another Christmas. Experts across our country, and even in the World Health Organization, have expressed real concern that if we do not take at least some of the mitigating measures in plan B right now, the Government will have to move to plan C. We do not want that, so please can the Ministers listen to SAGE and put in the mitigations that most of our neighbouring countries accept as normal and good behaviour, to prevent us ever having to retreat into draconian shutdowns again?

17:34

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, we do not oppose the renewal of the Coronavirus Act. As the Minister himself acknowledged, the pandemic is not over and many of these measures remain necessary. These provisions include: powers around the emergency registration of healthcare workers, which is important in ensuring that we can get workers who have retired from the healthcare system back into it, and participating in the vaccination programme; provisions for sick pay from day one, rather than day four, to help those required to self-isolate; and derogations that make it possible for remote participation in court proceedings to take place.

Not opposing the extension has been made easier, I should say, given that some of the more concerning and draconian measures have been removed from the Act. This includes Schedule 21, which contained the power to detain potentially infectious persons and has been used for a number of prosecutions, every one of which was found to be unlawful by the Crown Prosecution Service. A year ago, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said that these powers “ought to be repealed”. We, too, have long called for those powers to be removed from the Act and it is right and proper that they have been. However, we would question whether some sections which are also set to be removed should be.

We are disappointed, for example, that the powers in Section 78 to enable local authority meetings to take place remotely have been removed from the Act. Surely it should be the case that local authorities should decide for themselves if they would like to continue online meetings, especially as we approach a challenging winter, with the Health Secretary warning that cases could well rise to 100,000 a day. I look forward to the comments of the Minister as to why that intervention on the organisational arrangements of councils is being made.

Nevertheless, the Coronavirus Act itself is not the legislation that put us into three national lockdowns and imposed the regime of local lockdowns, the three-tier system, travel restrictions or mask-wearing mandates. Indeed, I am sure from this debate that I am not the only one who has lost count of the number of SIs laid under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, the legal basis for coronavirus restrictions in England. I note that no changes to the public health Act are planned. Over the past 18 months, the House has repeatedly expressed its concern, as we have heard today, about the myriad regulations that have been introduced with limited scrutiny, bypassing Parliament and leading to executive dominance. These concerns have been further exacerbated by the Government’s reliance on the “made affirmative” procedure, meaning that, all too often, Parliament has not been given the opportunity to debate or scrutinise regulations before they became law.

That includes the health protection regulations that we are also debating. They were laid on 22 September and came into effect on 27 September. We fully support the provisions to amend the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include those who have received doses of two different approved vaccines or clinical trials. We also support the extension of the requirements for those who test positive for coronavirus and who are unvaccinated to self-isolate, and the extension of local authorities’ enforcement powers to 24 March 2022. However, I do not understand why this legislation was laid under the “made affirmative” procedure. I should be grateful for the comments of the Minister when he responds. After all, the department knew that the original expiration deadline was approaching and has long acknowledged that cases could rise to 100,000 this autumn or winter, thus necessitating continued self-isolation and enforcement powers.

While this is of course a rather straightforward SI, the Minister’s predecessor—the noble Lord, Lord Bethell —failed to make the case when introducing far more onerous Covid regulations that were laid using the emergency “made affirmative” procedure to implement coronavirus policies. Many of these regulations were laid at the 11th hour—a point made by my noble friend—despite being in press releases days, even weeks, in advance. They included mask-wearing requirements and the system of mandatory quarantine backed by criminal sanction, which gave the police the power to enter people’s homes; it also allowed individuals to be detained and searched, and have their belongings seized. These are not minor changes to the law.

Although we understood the need for the Government to respond quickly in the initial phases of the pandemic because of the emergency, it is unjustifiable to continue doing so without scrutiny where pandemic management has moved from reaction to control. I hope that the Minister can assure the Committee that the Government will do much better if, or when, they reintroduce some restrictions in respect of the management and control of the spread of coronavirus.

We all know that the pandemic is not over. We see tens of hundreds of new recorded Covid infections every day. We know that there are hundreds of people in hospital, many of whom are in the ICU. We also know that, on average, over 100 people are sadly dying of this dreadful disease every single day. The Minister will be well aware that the NHS Confederation, the BMA and local councils have called on the Government to implement plan B immediately. It contains the measures that we already support and are familiar with, such as mask wearing and allowing working from home. The Prime Minister should never have abandoned these measures; it is extremely concerning to hear that he is not following the advice of SAGE. My noble friend Lord Hunt expressed concern about the downgrading of SAGE’s role. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

It appears that there has been little learning in government of the lessons from the early stages of the pandemic when delays undoubtedly, regrettably and tragically cost thousands of lives. Indeed, we know that plan B will not be enough to prevent another lockdown. Let us look at some of the current practices. I refer the Minister to one particular aspect of test and trace: the messages sent to people who have been in contact with somebody who has tested positive for Covid. Can he tell the Committee what impact those messages and their wording, which I would suggest is not carefully constructed, have had on compliance? Also, what assessment has been made of the user experience of the people receiving those messages? How often is the messaging reviewed?

The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, talked about the power of communication. I suggest to the Minister that, for any of us who are in receipt of these messages, the advice on what to do is, at a minimum, confusing. It is overly directive on the matter of self-isolation and takes a considerable time to establish that self-isolation is not necessary if one has been double-vaccinated. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on that.

Furthermore, the Government must get a grip on the stalling vaccination programme: it has left almost 5 million people at a greater risk of catching Covid, as they are yet to receive their booster jabs and are at the mercy of waning efficacy. The Government have said that the vaccination programme will continue to be our first line of defence; yet on current trends, we will not see completion of the booster programme until spring 2022. This seems rather slow.

We note also that the rate of vaccination for children is shamefully low as well. Vaccines for 12 to 15 year-olds in the UK started on 20 September and, to date, only 15% of 12 to 15 year-olds in England have received one shot. With hardly any protective measures and delayed vaccination, the return to school last month has seen record numbers of children becoming infected. For the last three weeks, we have seen an average of 10,000 new five to 14 year-olds testing positive for Covid every single day. Thousands are missing school, and this cannot continue.

As we approach a difficult winter, it seems that Ministers have failed to put in place the necessary measures to improve ventilation in businesses, public spaces and schools, despite better ventilation having been proven to reduce transmission of Covid. They have also failed to provide for proper sick pay and to fully resource local contact tracing teams, which would also help reduce the spread of the virus. This is no time for complacency. We urge the Government to act on vaccines, ventilation, sick pay and masks.

17:46

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords—apologies while I remove my mask—I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this important debate, and for the range of views expressed in the best tradition of our debates. The Government see extending the No. 3 and self-isolation regulations until 24 March next year as vital to allow local authorities to respond to serious and imminent threats from Covid-19, but also to ensure that the self-isolation system continues to protect the public during the challenging winter ahead. I have listened to and have taken on board—and will take on board—many of the concerns raised here today.

The Government believe that the Coronavirus Act continues to be a critical part of our country’s response to this awful virus, which has touched every corner of our society. In terms of parliamentary scrutiny, I understand the points that have been made by many civil libertarians here today. The Government believe that the Coronavirus Act has enabled them to provide help and support to people, businesses and our public services, and to boost the healthcare workforce at a critical time of need. I assure noble Lords that we will continue to review every aspect of coronavirus legislation, but we are now able to expire seven provisions and part of a further power in the Coronavirus Act. I hope this demonstrates the Government’s commitment to, and progress towards, winding down the emergency powers.

The Government see themselves as taking only those powers that are critical to our response and recovery—for example, powers that help make sure that the NHS is properly resourced and that statutory sick pay is available to those who are self-isolating. It is always a very difficult balance; we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, that she would have preferred us to keep some of the other emergency provisions. The Government’s autumn and winter plan sets out how we hope to sustain and bolster the progress that we have made thus far.

I turn to some of the specific points made by noble Lords; I hope I will have the time to respond to as many as possible. If I do not respond to every point, I will make sure that I write to noble Lords in answer to their specific questions. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked when an SI would be laid. He also talked about unlawful convictions and incorrect charges, as many other noble Lords spoke eloquently about. I thank them for their contributions about the incorrect charging decisions under Schedule 21 to the Act. Of course it is regrettable that 295 incorrect charging decisions have been made under the Coronavirus Act. The primary issue that the Crown Prosecution Service has identified is that individuals were erroneously charged under Schedule 21 rather than under other legislation such as various health protection regulations. Since April 2020, the CPS has agreed to review all prosecutions made under the Coronavirus Act and it continues to do so. I hope, in some ways, that that reassures the noble Lord.

The noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Scriven, my noble friend Lady Foster, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Brinton, asked about parliamentary scrutiny. I know that this is an issue of concern to many noble Lords. The Government are confident that they have upheld their promise to allow for proper scrutiny and accountability of the powers in the Act. Many criticisms were levelled, which I understand, and I hope that noble Lords will continue to hold us to account on accountability. Maybe I can have some conversations offline with some noble Lords to make sure we do this as much as possible.

My noble friend Lord Balfe talked about living in the same street as former MEPs and doctors. He then went on to say that the doctors were his friends, but he did not say anything about whether the former MEPs were also his friends. I hope so, but I assure him that he still remains my noble friend.

On occasion, it has been necessary to introduce urgent measures to protect the NHS and save lives. The Government have committed to debates in advance of regulations coming into force wherever possible for measures of national significance. This included Parliament being recalled to debate the national lockdown in January, and debates and votes on regulations covering the tiers system; the steps regulations in March, which set the path for implementing the Government’s road map out of lockdown; and, in June, pausing the move to the next step of the road map.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about impact assessments. On the evidence for decision-making, a full regulatory impact assessment was not prepared for many coronavirus regulations, as they fell under the civil contingencies exclusions of the better regulation framework. The Better Regulation Executive will not seek to enforce the current administrative requirement for validating impacts for temporary coronavirus legislation in advance of the wider reform of the better regulation framework.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Scriven, accused us of ignoring the scientific advice by not implementing plan B now and asked who is advising us and what the trigger points are. Our approach has always been informed by scientific and medical evidence, and by the latest data. We take evidence from the Chief Scientific Adviser, the Chief Medical Officer, SAGE, of course, as part of that, the UK Health Security Agency, the NHS and others. They remain valuable when we balance the evidence of scientific opinion. Scientific experts have contributed directly to ministerial discussions.

As we have heard in this debate, many noble Lords have contested the science or referenced certain reports. It shows that, even around this area, science is contestable. That has been revealed in the way the Government assess all these trade-offs. What is also interesting is that many people in other parts of the health sector are concerned about some of the provisions, such as the impact on mental health and other unintended consequences. All these have to be balanced. The Government have benefited from the expertise of their science and medical advisers through the pandemic and remain deeply grateful for the role they have played in saving lives and protecting the NHS.

In our debate on Thursday last, I mentioned the work of Professor Mark Pennington, professor of political economy at King’s College London, who talked about the response to the pandemic via decision-making. He talked about the situation being almost a Hayekian, complex system, with many individuals having incomplete knowledge or, as Hayek said, the conceit of knowledge. That expresses and shows the difference of opinion. This is a case where we have to weigh up many different views, particularly among the scientific community, and, in addition, some of the papers referenced today by many noble Lords.

Noble Lords have asked what the set threshold is. The Government and our scientific advisers monitor a wide range of Covid-19 health data, including on cases, immunity, the ratio of cases to hospitalisations, the proportion of admissions due to infection, the rate of growth in cases and hospital admissions in the over-65s, vaccine efficacy and the global distribution and characteristics of variants of concern. In assessing the risks to the NHS, the key metrics include: hospital occupancy for Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 patients; intensive care unit capacity; admissions of vaccinated individuals; and the rate of growth of admissions. The Government also track the economic and societal impacts of the virus to ensure that any response takes those wider effects—that is, socioeconomic effects as well as those in the medical and scientific professions—into account and assesses that range of views. It is not necessarily a binary decision but a range of views that must be considered and weighed up. Noble Lords have expressed eloquently in this debate the range of scientific views and papers on Covid.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton —forgive me if I do not remember the others—asked how regularly SAGE meets. Throughout the pandemic, SAGE has been a vital source of co-ordinated scientific advice and technical support to help guide the Government’s response. However, as I have said previously, we also consider other bits of scientific advice. Committee members utilise the latest scientific research, insight and analysis from across government, academia and industry. As new evidence or data emerges, SAGE updates its advice accordingly. As Covid-19 was completely unknown to us less than two years ago, this means that some of the guidance provided in the earlier stages of the pandemic has now been superseded or amended to reflect our ever-evolving understanding of the virus.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked about face coverings—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the Government’s approach to SAGE, but I have to say that it is rather confusing since SAGE clearly encompasses a wide range of scientific views. The Minister seems to be saying that it has been given a subordinated role, meeting only monthly, and, in essence, the Government are looking for other bits of scientific advice. I would like clarification on this because, for me at least, this is clearly a significant change in policy and practice.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. As I laid out earlier and have said formerly, the Government listen to a range of scientific advice, including from SAGE but also from the Chief Scientific Adviser, the Chief Medical Officer, the NHS and a range of other views.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am sorry to pursue this but it seems to me that the Minister has made a very significant statement because all those people are on SAGE, as far as I am aware from looking at the minutes. I do not think that the Government can get away with simply saying, “We listen to a whole range of advice, including from SAGE”. Surely SAGE is the primary place from which the Government get advice.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I can only repeat what I have said previously but I will look at this in more detail and respond to the noble Lord if he is not satisfied with my response. I will try to make sure that I send a satisfactory response.

A number of noble Lords talked about the evidence around face coverings. Some noble Lords said that they definitely work. Others said, “No, there is no evidence that they work”. Others said, “Actually, they are useful as part of an overall package of other measures”. If the data suggests that the NHS is likely to come under unsustainable pressure, the Government will implement their prepared plan B. That is why we have explained it in advance: so that we cannot be accused of doing things at the last minute. Plan B would include legally mandating face coverings in certain settings, but we are not yet at that stage. The continued efforts of the public in practising safe behaviours and getting fully vaccinated will be critical to ensuring that the NHS does not come under unsustainable pressure.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

This is an important issue that goes back to what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said. We keep hearing the phrase “when the time is right, we will implement plan B, if required”. Who will the Government take that advice from? Will it be SAGE, which, until now, has given the Government clear scientific advice that the Government have acted on—sometimes belatedly but they have done so? What are the criteria and who will give the advice on determining when the time is right within normal government business, if SAGE is no longer seen as having the primary role in advising, since its remit is during times of emergency?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

Before I answer that in more detail, perhaps I may say that we are not putting SAGE into a subordinate role. It is independent and we rely on its advice. However, as I mentioned, we also rely on the Chief Scientific Adviser, the Chief Medical Officer, the UK Health Security Agency, the NHS and others, and balance up views within the scientific and medical professions. I hope I have also laid out the range of data that is examined. The decisions are data-led. We look at immunity, the ratio of cases to hospitalisations, proportional admissions and so on to see whether the data suggests that the NHS will be overwhelmed. That is what leads to the difficult decision-making and balancing up whether the time is right.

One noble Lord—I think my noble friend Lord Ridley —and many others referred to the research of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine showing the range of views. Some scientists are saying that the virus will grow while others are saying that if we keep doing what we are doing and rely on the booster vaccines, the numbers will drop off. As one can imagine, there is a range of views but I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we have not relegated SAGE. It is independent and we listen to its advice, as we listen to the advice of others.

On face coverings, the point made by my noble friend Lord Robathan was interesting regarding people who say they are in favour of face coverings but, as he sees when he travels on public transport, a smaller percentage wear them. That shows some of the difficulties in polling, whereby there are stated preferences but also revealed preferences. Although many people say that they will do things, one should judge them by their behaviour. I note that my noble friends Lady Foster and Lord Ridley also raised concerns about the efficacy of wearing face masks.

SAGE evidence states that face coverings, if they are worn correctly and of suitable quality, are likely to be most effective, at least in the short to medium term, in reducing transmission indoors where social distancing is not feasible. Reviews by the UK Health Security Agency in June 2020 and January 2021 found evidence that the use of face coverings in the community helped to reduce transmission. Once again, we have a range of views on the efficacy of face masks.

My noble friend Lord Robathan talked about schools, universities and transmission. In universities, there have been low case numbers among students since the end of the 2020-21 academic year, although there have been slight increases in recent weeks.

My noble friends Lady Foster and Lord Ridley asked why the Act was not being repealed. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, also asked that. Throughout the pandemic, the Government have been clear that the measures will not be in place any longer than absolutely necessary. That is why we are expiring a number of powers in the Act and intend to expire even more when, we hope, there will be a significant landmark in our progress. The two-year lifespan of the temporary provisions of the Act was chosen to ensure that powers remain available for an appropriate length of time and can be extended by the relevant national authority.

My noble friend Lord Balfe asked about test and trace, and the cost. We have released £280 million in funding thus far, which is broken down as follows: £114 million to cover the costs of the main test and trace support system, £116 million for discretionary payments, and £50 million for administrative costs.

My noble friend Lord Naseby asked about minority vaccine uptake. He asked what the Government were doing to drive uptake among ethnic minority communities. We are well aware of this issue and a lot of work is being done with a number of local community associations to work out the best way to reach them. Only yesterday, I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, about how we could tackle particular demographics and got some very valuable advice from her on how we could focus. I fed that into the department, so hopefully that will be part of our strategy. What we have seen is pop-up temporary vaccination sites at many places of worship and community locations. One of the things we have been advised is to go to where the unvaccinated are and to see how we can pursue a targeted campaign.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked whether there would be a charge for lateral flow tests. Anyone in England can continue to order free lateral flow tests. I am afraid that I am going to run out of time, so I will write to noble Lords.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

May I just make a point? My noble friend obviously spent a lot of time on certain aspects of this debate, but he tended to skip a little bit past the issue of whether plan B would be introduced. My question is—because I think it is very key—what exactly the benchmark would be to introduce something such as plan B. The NHS has been overwhelmed every year that I can remember during the winter for the last however many decades. At the moment, fewer than 5% of hospital beds are currently occupied by patients with Covid. I appreciate it is under pressure—we might have more flu cases, et cetera—but I would like a little bit of clarification on what the Government would see as that benchmark, because this is a big decision that I would not actually support.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. One of the difficult things about answering it—believe me, it frustrates me as much as it does the noble Baroness—is that there is no set indicator, no one silver bullet or trigger point. There is a range of indicators that we will balance up to measure how they will affect the NHS and whether the NHS will be overwhelmed.

I know it has been a difficult 18 months, and people across the UK have risen to the challenge of Covid-19. We hope that the Government’s support package has helped to safeguard jobs, businesses and public services. With continued perseverance during the autumn and winter months, supported by only those essential powers remaining in place, subject to the scrutiny of noble Lords, I hope that we will get through this. I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and previous debates: their expertise and the range of views expressed are hugely appreciated. I also thank everyone across the UK for the sacrifices that they have made over the period.

I end by repeating my earlier plea to everyone to do their bit. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made clear, quite small changes can make a big difference. Both my noble friend Lord Naseby and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, mentioned messaging. We all have a role to play in combating this virus, especially during winter, which we know will be a challenging period. We can all do our bit by washing our hands regularly, continuing to wear masks in crowds and on public transport, testing regularly where appropriate, staying at home when we feel unwell, and, most importantly, getting fully vaccinated against both coronavirus and flu—and urging friends and family to do so. By remaining vigilant together, we can help limit the spread of the virus in the months ahead. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2021

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

18:08

Moved by

[Lord Kamall]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2021.

Relevant document: 15th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 6.09 pm.

House of Lords

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Tuesday 26 October 2021

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Ofcom: Appointment of Chair

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the timetable for the appointment of the Chair of Ofcom; and when they expect the appointment to be confirmed.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)]

My Lords, the campaign to appoint a permanent chairman of Ofcom will be launched imminently. The announcement will include the timetable, details of the advisory assessment panel and the selection criteria. It remains a priority for the Government to find the best candidate for the role. It will be a fair and open competition run in compliance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments and regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, the wheels certainly seem to have come off the latest attempt to instal Paul Dacre as Ofcom chair. Reports suggest that the Government are struggling to identify credible individuals with a record in business or public life even to form an interview panel. If the appointment meets rules for public appointments, does the Minister believe that it will be seen as credible or help with the delivery of important things such as the online harms agenda? What can he say to the House to reassure the public that this and other public appointments will meet the tests of fairness and impartiality?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, of course the process will meet those tests. We want to identify the best candidate for this important role. As I say, the recruitment process will be launched imminently. Preparations are under way to ensure that it is successful in providing Ministers with a choice of high-quality candidates drawn from a broad and diverse field and we encourage lots of people to apply on that basis.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Are the Government considering the adequacy of Ofcom’s current budget in light of the increasing number of critical functions that it is being asked to regulate, not least, as has been mentioned, the absolutely critical online safety arena?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

This is an important point that we have also discussed in the context of the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, which has its Third Reading in your Lordships’ House later today. The Government have been working closely with Ofcom to prepare for the new regulatory regime. This includes work to ensure that it has the resources to carry out its functions as regulator effectively and, vis-à-vis telecoms security, that includes another £4.6 million this year.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

Will the Minister listen to the Conservative chair of the Culture Select Committee in the other place, who demands that the Government make clear in their new advert for the chair of Ofcom that previously unsuccessful candidates such as Paul Dacre cannot reapply?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the very clear rules about public appointments mean that, in reopening the competition, everybody is allowed to apply, including people who had applied for the first round. I will not be drawn on specific people, but we want to ensure that a diverse and high-quality range of candidates apply and are put to Ministers to choose from.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that whoever has the post must demonstrate a total and absolute commitment to the highest standards of public service broadcasting? Secondly, can he comment on something that I have heard, which is that for some time now Channel 4 has not been able to appoint full members of the board because Ofcom has not been able to go through the process? Could that be speeded up?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am not familiar with the noble Lord’s second point, but I will certainly take it away and look into it as he asks. Yes, this is an important role with responsibilities not just in broadcast but across the communications framework, which is why we want a high-quality range of candidates to apply for Ministers to choose from.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his role, this being my first opportunity to do so, although he may not welcome my question. In a recent speech, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who will be much missed in this Chamber, said that

“when the Prime Minister actively—and repeatedly—intervenes to manipulate an ideological ally into the chairmanship of Ofcom, every alarm bell should start to ring.”

Given that one of the most important functions of Ofcom is to uphold the broadcasting impartiality regime, does the Minister agree that it would be unacceptable for the new chair to be someone with a long record of extreme political partisanship?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her welcome and join her in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, whose views will, I am sure, continue to be heard, even if not in your Lordships’ House. This is an important role, which needs impartiality and the appointment of which is governed by clear rules on public appointments. The process has been run along those lines so far and it will continue to be.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the launch of their great comedy drama “Ofcom Succession”. My understanding is that the first process was stopped because the Government had failed to appoint a headhunter to seek out the highest-quality candidates to apply for this important role. Can my noble friend tell me, first, has a headhunter been appointed? Secondly, if so, who is it? Finally, can I have their phone number?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. Yes, following Cabinet Office approval and a fair and open tender process, an executive search firm has been appointed. It is Saxton Bampfylde and I am sure that its contact details are available on its website.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, in seeking the right person for this role, the qualifications will include knowledge of the radio spectrum and the universal mail service, and not former experience as a newspaper editor?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the full criteria will be set out in the advert, which will go out once the new campaign is being run. The noble Baroness’s point about the range of areas in the sector that need to be regulated is a pertinent one.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

Lord McNulty?

[Lord McNally (LD)]

It is McNally—the noble Lord and I have known each other for only 30 years. It has already been pointed out that Ofcom will shortly be given unprecedented responsibilities for regulation, once the Bill on internet harms has passed this House. Noble Lords have already expressed widespread concern about how this appointment is being made. The Minister mentioned that an appointments panel is about to be appointed. Would it not restore public confidence if that panel were genuinely cross-party and independent in its judgments?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the appointments panel will of course be governed by the public appointments rules. The job description and the names of those on the assessment panel will be available on the public appointments website when the campaign relaunches. The noble Lord is right also to point to the importance of the ongoing preparatory work for Ofcom’s role in online safety.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

Now that I have my glasses on, I offer my sincere apologies to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Now I am sure that it is the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Will the Minister note that one specific issue that the new Ofcom chair needs to urgently address is an egregious example of compromised media impartiality due to the powerful lobby group Stonewall, as revealed by the superb BBC Sounds 10-part podcast series “Stephen Nolan Investigates” on the influence of Stonewall’s gender identity on the output of the BBC, skewing impartiality? Perhaps the Minister can comment on the content of episode 9 revealing that Ofcom itself was using its judgments on audience complaints as evidence to Stonewall, as though it was judge and jury, to prove its LGBT credentials. That is not comforting from a neutral regulator.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I have not heard that episode but the example that the noble Baroness points to underlines the importance of a free and fair media that scrutinises everyone in power, whether that is those in government or in lobby groups. It also reflects the importance of the BBC broadcasting a range of views in fulfilling that important role.

HGV Drivers

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

14:46

Asked by

[Baroness Randerson]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to evaluate the success of the measures they have put in place to address the shortage of HGV drivers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, we have taken decisive action to address the acute driver shortage, with 25 specific measures taken by the Government already to support the industry as it resolves this long-standing workforce issue. We are seeing results, with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency dealing with around 4,200 applications daily, more than double the pre-Covid rate.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, we have a truly world-beating driver shortage in the UK. Given that the last time we discussed this the Minister said that the problem goes back to 2010, can she explain why the Government have had to resort to government by panic button, with some 25 last-minute measures to try to avert a crisis? Why was there no long-term plan to improve pay rates and conditions in order to attract the new entrants that the Government now say are so needed?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I think that I will probably say this many times: the haulage sector is a private sector and the Government do not customarily get involved in individual pay rates within those sorts of sectors. We have been working with the sector to address this issue. Indeed, many years ago now we commissioned a study into the availability of lorry parking and we are doing another one to see what we can do in that regard. So it is not fair to say that we have not been cognisant of this issue for quite some time. We have been working with the industry because it is mostly up to the industry to resolve it.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, this crisis was eminently predictable in light of the age profile of UK haulage drivers and the prospect of Brexit. Do the Government now recognise that temporary visas and increased testing capacity will not resolve the basic problem? Do Ministers accept that in order to attract and retain the next generation of HGV drivers we need not only to provide more training, increase pay and stop the permanent escalation of hours but to improve working conditions, particularly adequate and hygienic facilities at lorry parks, which are provided by public authorities in much of the continent but not here, so that too many drivers have to sleep in their cabs?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I think that the noble Lord has just pointed out the complex and convoluted nature of the solutions to this problem, which is indeed long-standing. I say again that we are working closely with the industry on this. Of course it is not just the haulage industry that has skin in this game; it is also the people who provide services to the haulage industry. The noble Lord will be pleased to hear that I am working with National Highways to figure out what we can do to improve services at motorway service areas and to see whether we can develop some more.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, the information recently disclosed is that there was a backlog of some 56,000 HGV licences that were being delayed in the process, as well as delays in driver training, by the DVSA. This caused an outrage and, in addition, the threat of industrial action. Will the Minister please tell us what steps the Government have taken to address these issues?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I reassure my noble friend that I have had several conversations with the DVLA on this matter. I assure her that currently there is no backlog at all for provisional vocational licences; these are being processed within the normal turnaround time. As of Monday, there were 27,000 applications for vocational driving licences awaiting processing. However, the holders of the vast majority of those, which are renewals, will of course still be able to drive under Section 88 provisions.

On the strike at the DVLA, it was and remains extremely unwelcome and unjustified. The PCS has repeatedly claimed that increasing the backlog is a success. I do not agree; that is not a success. It is impacting our supply chains and those people who need to use their cars to travel. However, I also point out that the vast majority of DVLA staff are not striking, and I welcome the work that they do.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, does the Minister believe that we can learn from others, including our European neighbours, in the provision of dedicated roadside facilities, such as the Relais Routiers network of over 1,200 restaurants with safe parking and shower facilities? These are popular with British HGV drivers when they drive through France. The UK has no such dedicated facilities for lorry drivers, and we are in urgent need of them.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I am not sure we will necessarily follow the French example, but I accept that we need to improve the quality and quantity of facilities for our drivers and the availability of lorry parking for rest breaks. Obviously, I am working very closely with the owners and operators of the 114 motorway service areas we have. Of course, there are countless other providers of facilities that are away from the strategic road network. I agree that we need to improve them and perhaps there might be something more about that in the spending review.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

No one should object to heavy goods vehicle drivers being paid a lot more for the valuable work they do, but now we read that some local authorities are facing shortages of drivers of refuse collection vehicles and gritters because they are leaving for newly substantially higher-paid driving jobs for supermarket chains, among others. Since this is a direct spin-off from the Government’s own hard Brexit, will the Government commit to reimbursing cash-strapped local authorities for the cost of paying drivers of refuse collection vehicles and gritters more to retain their services and ensure the maintenance of these vital public services this winter?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

As the noble Lord knows, there is a shortage of lorry drivers across Europe so we would not necessarily have been able to rely on cheap EU labour in the current situation. I accept there will be a transition from where we were previously to where we are now. Some people will move jobs and I accept that the key to that is to increase training for HGV drivers. We are providing the tests and working with the training sector to provide training so that people can come through and drive our garbage disposal trucks and gritters.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton? Not present? I call the noble Lord, Lord Mann.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

If I were a foreign lorry driver, I would go home for Christmas knowing that on 1 January I would get another big cash bonus to retake up a lorry driving job. Considering that, can the Government guarantee that we will all have our turkeys available on Christmas Day this year?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

As I think I have tried to point out, the Government are extremely active in this area: 25 measures and counting in terms of making sure that we not only address the short-term issues but consider the medium and long-term solutions to this current shortage.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My noble friend may not be aware that I am the honorary president of the UK Warehousing Association. It is deeply concerned about the shortage of forklift truck drivers, which is impacting once again on the supply chain. What can my noble friend do to work with the industry to try to resolve the situation in the run-up to Christmas so that we can empty the warehouses and get the supply chain moving as best we can?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I am very happy to work with the UK Warehousing Association on any measures we can take to increase the number of forklift truck drivers coming through. In return, I would really like the UK Warehousing Association to encourage its members to provide decent facilities and places to have a rest for HGV drivers when they are dropping off.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister indicate what assessment has been undertaken of the potential impact on the availability of HGV drivers after the Government impose checks on goods coming in from the EU as a result of the Government’s hard Brexit?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

We do not believe there will be an impact from any checks coming from the EU.

Public Services

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

14:55

Asked by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review (1) the comparative costs, and (2) the effectiveness, of the provision of public services in England by (a) local authorities, and (b) private contractors.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

Local authorities are required to support continuous improvement through the delivery of their functions under the Local Government Act 1999. They decide how to run services. Services can be outsourced, or delivered jointly with another authority, provided that quality and value for money are maintained. As public bodies, they are subject to the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. Central government provides funding, improvement support and overall oversight. There are no current plans for a central review.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this Question was prompted by the Government’s choice on test and trace to turn to multinational companies and expensive consultancy firms instead of making use of the expertise of local government and local public health officers. But it applies more widely: after 50 years of outsourcing, and having acquired experience on outsourcing local transport, probation services and others, will the Government not consider that the time has come to conduct an independent inquiry—or would they prefer an inquiry to be undertaken by an ad hoc Lords committee, for example?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I think the specific question relates to test and trace; I am sure that is part of the review of our response to the pandemic. But as a former local authority leader, I agree with the noble Lord’s comments about the experience that local government has in the competitive tendering of services.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, given my local government interest, I know it is not how services are provided but if services can be provided. For example, social care—a service provided by both public and private organisations—requires an extra £2 billion a year. Does the Minister agree with the Conservative County Councils Network, which says that council tax will need to rise by 8% each year so that basic social care needs can be met?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, it is for every council to decide what level of council tax it needs to set. Obviously, there is a latitude to increase council tax by up to 2% to help support the additional social care costs, but the Government have set out their plan to increase funding to social care, as the noble Baroness knows.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, many of us who remember the days when local authority direct labour organisations had a monopoly on public services such as refuse collection welcomed the decision in the 1980s to open these services to competition—a decision that has not been reversed since. Given all the pressure on local authorities today, is now the right time to encourage them to invest manpower and capital to re-enter this market?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend. There has been a tremendous success in the competitive tendering of services that has driven down cost and increased value for money for the taxpayer, and also seen an improvement in the delivery of local services. It is not surprising that £64 billion is now paid out by local government to private companies to deliver those services. Although local authorities have the powers to trade and charge, they should think very carefully before they decide to move back to the situation before the introduction of competitive tendering.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Does the Minister think there are any features of some services that make them completely unsuitable for outsourcing? I am thinking of life and death matters such as firefighting or test and trace; extremely vulnerable service users in prisons or secure academies; or natural monopolies such as polluting water companies.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

As the Fire Minister, I certainly recognise the importance of the delivery of the vast majority of our fire and rescue services through people who are currently employed by local government. As a former council leader, I know there is a whole host of statutory areas where you would seek to deliver services through people who are directly employed. But increasingly there are areas where you can drive down costs through competitive tendering. That also gives in-house services the opportunity to compete with the market to see whether they can deliver those services more effectively. Competition does drive down costs and increases the quality of the services provided.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

The noble Lord, Lord Flight, is not present, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, could I point to a case in Shropshire? The Conservative-run council has spent £1,000 a day on a pothole consultant. Does the Minister believe that this private contractor represents value for money?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I am not going to get into the use of consultants by a particular council, irrespective of the administration currently in control. A number of councils, both Conservative and Labour, have been subject to Secretary of State interventions because they have failed to fulfil their best-value duties. I point to the most recent intervention in Liverpool City Council, where, sadly, we have had to step in.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I declare my positions as a vice-president of the LGA and the NALC. Would the Minister agree that, in this age of shocks, when resilience is becoming more and more of a crucial issue—we addressed this in the last Question, on HGV drivers—eventually, if things go wrong and companies collapse, like Carillion, or fail to deliver services, as happened with the green homes grant, the Government have to step in and are always the final service of last resort? Surely we should stop pumping public money into private hands—taking all those risks of collapse that we have seen so often with private companies—cut out those extra costs and simply allow local governments to deliver services for local people?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, it will not surprise you that I do not agree with that. Some £64 billion-worth of money is being spent by local government on the delivery of very efficient services through the private sector, but you have to be very careful about how you engage. There are plenty of examples where local authorities have not used competitive tendering but have chosen to enter into partnerships, which have had tragic consequences in the last year because of the pandemic. So I encourage local authorities to be judicious, fulfil the guidelines that are supplied around procurement, go through sensitive competitive tendering and check the creditworthiness of those whom they choose to bring on board.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

Many of the firms to which the functions of local authorities have been outsourced are motivated by considerations other than public service: the profit motive is dominant. I am aware of one firm, to which the traffic and parking services have been outsourced, that has been issuing spurious penalty charge notices for traffic offences. Their operatives are working under an incentive scheme. Their supposition is that many people will automatically pay the penalties, fearing that, if they do not, the charges will be doubled and they may be taken to court. Do the Government have any desire or means to address such abuses?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, revenue from parking is ring-fenced, and most local authorities would never incentivise any staff who are doing this to start to fine—

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

If you believe that, you will believe anything.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

As someone who spent 16 years in local government, I certainly know that we ensured that we never incentivised our staff in relation to the volume of tickets and the revenue that they could collect. It is important to increase productivity and to have sensible oversight of these matters.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, on what the Minister just said, as a former councillor I know that such incentives do apply in some local councils. In any case, in any likely future review of government strategic effectiveness in the allocated cost of public services, will the Minister consider ring-fencing relevant funds for some specific services, such as those for domestic violence, social care for people living with disabilities and mental health conditions, and drug services for young people? Secondly, with regard to the private sector, will the Minister ensure that all contractors are fully cognisant of, and compliant with, our ambitious equality standards, including on their senior management and boards?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, a significant amount of the councils’ budget is already ring-fenced, including adult social care. It is for local councils to determine how they spend their resources to ensure that they meet local needs. The core spending power in the most recent local government settlement increased from £49 billion to £51.3 billion in this financial year. The ring-fencing of budgets can have the deleterious effect of forcing councils to do something that is not necessarily in the immediate interests of their local residents.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we now move to the next Question.

Insulate Britain

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

15:05

Asked by

[Lord Moylan]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the costs to (1) public services, and (2) the wider economy, of the recent campaign by Insulate Britain of obstructing motorways and major roads.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, Insulate Britain’s irresponsible actions have disrupted thousands of people’s lives. National Highways estimates that the financial impact on drivers from time lost during just three days of disruption totals £559,946. This does not include the costs of missed appointments or of managing the incidents, disruption to manufacturing or retail, or the impact of disruption on other days. These costs would have been even higher without prompt action by the police to remove protesters and free up traffic.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, according to the Observer at the weekend, Insulate Britain activists are baffled as to why they are not in jail already. They thought that their campaign would be over in two days, rather than being allowed to go on for five weeks. I think that the rest of the country rather shares their bafflement. As they resume their very expensive campaign of disrupting ordinary people’s lives, can my noble friend say that the Government both have and will deploy the necessary legal powers to bring them before a court of law?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

We are investigating all possible legal avenues to bring these people to justice. National Highways and Transport for London have both rapidly put in place injunctions to deter these sort of dangerous actions. Only yesterday, the High Court granted National Highways an interim injunction banning activities which obstruct traffic and access on any part of the strategic road network—that is, all motorways and major A roads. Last Friday, National Highways applied for committal for contempt of court in respect of nine individuals suspected of breaching injunctions. If found to be in breach, these individuals could face an unlimited fine and/or imprisonment.

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that what appears to have been a cunning plan by the secret society of evil net-zero sceptics to get Insulate Britain to undermine the appeal of the Green movement was brilliantly executed? Was it not a particular triumph to choose upper middle-class twits to confront ordinary people trying to get to work or school? Was it not a stroke of genius to make sure that some of them had not insulated their own homes? Does she agree that it is surprising that the environmental movement has not yet seen through this stunt?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I cannot agree more with my noble friend.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, there is no doubt that the activities of the Insulate Britain campaign have caused problems and disruption for many people. I guess that was the point. Does the Minister agree that these problems will come to be seen as trivial when compared to the disruption we shall all face to our lives if we fail to address climate change?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

This Government have one of the strongest records in the world in tackling climate change, and I fear that using the word “trivial” in relation to this disruption is a poor choice of word. Insulate Britain has said that days of disruption are necessary to force the Government to act. This is just a small, rag-tag group of people who will not force the Government to do anything.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am sure that most of your Lordships’ House have been on demonstrations or protests during their lives, even if they do not want to admit it now. Those demonstrations were different: the police were involved beforehand and looked to make sure that the law was not broken. What we are seeing here are people who have gone out deliberately to obstruct ordinary daily life. Some of the demonstrators have said that they think they are not being arrested and charged properly and ending up in prison because of the COP 26 conference. There is a kind of feeling that they do not want people to be in jail for anything vaguely to do with climate change. Can the Minister confirm or deny this?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

It certainly has nothing at all to do with COP 26. Obviously, certain matters are operational matters for the police, but the noble Baroness is right: we all know of good protests. Getting a million people out on the streets on a Saturday afternoon where the police have been told in advance, where there is a good level of public support and where you do not destroy any statues is a good protest. Insulate Britain members are not good protesters.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Climate change is the major challenge of our time, and winning public support for the cause is critical. Blocking roads and antagonising people is not going to achieve that objective.

This week, the London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, has significantly extended London’s ultra-low emission zone. The Evening Standard yesterday said that it backed Sadiq Khan in

“taking steps to clean up our city’s toxic air and cut our carbon emissions in the process.”

Do the Government also back Sadiq Khan on this, regarding it too as an effective example of how the ballot box can prove to be an effective way for people to respond to the climate crisis?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

As the noble Lord will know, we probably have a much closer relationship with the Mayor of London than we would ordinarily have at the moment. Although transport is devolved in London, owing to a substantial hole in TfL’s finances we have to provide it with quite significant funding every now and again. Indeed, the last deal we agreed with the mayor included that there would be no change to the extension of ULEZ.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, the laws already exist to deal with this matter, but the police are just not using their operational freedom to put them into effect. Could the police be advised that there would be a lot of public support if they were to use their influence and arrest people, and a few of them could spend a few days in prison? It might put them off further action.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

As I noted, policing matters are an operational matter for the police, but I am sure that the Metropolitan Police will have heard my noble friend’s wise words.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley. No, he is not present. In that case, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, as of March last year the cost of road congestion in the UK was £7 billion, estimated at £784 per driver. Clearly, the Government are irresponsible to let that congestion go ahead and really ought to have a plan to reduce it that does not involve building more roads, which actually will attract more traffic. Would the Minister like to say something about that? Plus—Insulate Britain is right. Its tactics might be colossally difficult for us to cope with, but it is right that the Government should be insulating the leakiest council housing homes in Britain, rather than allowing those people to spend cold winters, be ill and emit endless CO₂ emissions.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Well, I am just relieved that the noble Baroness did not stand up and agree with her fellow eco-warriors. As I have previously set out, this Government have a very strong record on tackling climate change. I point the noble Baroness to the transport decarbonisation plan, published by the Department for Transport, which clearly sets out exactly how we intend to decarbonise our transport system.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, that concludes Oral Questions for today.

Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 2021

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2021

Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) (Amendment) Order 2021

Motions to Approve

15:13

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

That the draft Regulations and Orders laid before the House on 19 July and 6 September be approved.

Relevant documents: 12th and 14th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 October.

Motions agreed.

Organics (Equivalence and Control Bodies Listing) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:13

Moved by

[The Earl of Courtown]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 6 July be approved.

Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 19 October.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Minister, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

Motion agreed.

Water and Sewerage Undertakers (Exit from Non-household Retail Market) (Consequential Provision) Regulations 2021

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:14

Moved by

[The Earl of Courtown]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 20 July be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 October.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Minister, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

Motion agreed.

Telecommunications (Security) Bill

3rd reading
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

15:15

Motion

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

That the Bill do now pass.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords from all sides of the House who have contributed to our debates during the passage of this Bill so far. Although that journey is not complete, their work has certainly helped us to interrogate the Bill and improve it. In particular, I would like to use this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lady Barran, who so expertly guided the Bill up to Committee; I was pleased to hear the tributes and thanks to her on Report a few days ago.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, have helpfully challenged the Government’s approach from the Opposition Front Bench. I thank them for the constructive way they have done so and for their diligent approach, along with the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, who have also applied keen-eyed scrutiny throughout the Bill’s passage so far. Although we have not always agreed on the fine detail, it is clear that we all share the same ambition: to keep our telecoms networks secure.

I also thank my noble friends on these Benches, particularly my noble friends Lady Morgan of Coates, Lord Vaizey of Didcot, Lord Holmes of Richmond, Lord Young of Cookham, Lady Stroud, Lord Balfe and Lord Naseby for their contributions. The scrutiny that has been applied has already resulted in legislation that will allow the UK to protect our telecoms networks for years to come. It would be remiss of me not to extend my thanks also to parliamentary counsel for their usual brilliance in drafting the Bill, and to the House authorities for ensuring that the parliamentary stages could take place so seamlessly, including during the challenging circumstances of recent months.

I close by thanking the officials within my department, most of whom have been working on this Bill for well over a year now. Their knowledge, organisation and patience has allowed me, and I hope all noble Lords, to understand and scrutinise with relative ease what is a technical but very important Bill. It is a large Bill team and I make no apology for listing their names; it illustrates the breadth of work that has gone into what is quite a technical Bill. I thank Kathryn Roe, John Peart, Byron Grant, Thea Macdonald, Euan Onslow, Alex Walford, Malcolm Campbell, Dan Tor, Rosemary Buckland, Chris Frampton, Charlotte Carew, Will Jones, Yohance Drayton, and our lawyers, Sean Murray, Martha Hartridge, Simon Gomes, Luke Emmons, Richard Lancaster, May Wong, Harriet Preedy, Julia Clayson, Sean Wilson and Matthew Smith. All of them have supported the passage of this Bill excellently.

As my predecessor said at Second Reading:

“The Bill will … protect our telecoms networks even as technologies grow and evolve, shielding our critical national infrastructure both now and for the future.”—[Official Report, 29/6/21; col. 707.]


I am encouraged that your Lordships’ House agrees that the Bill will achieve this, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been my first Bill since I joined your Lordships’ House a little over six months ago. Some would say that I was thrown in at the deep end but in my view, I was simply given the opportunity to swim in rather warm and pleasant parliamentary waters. It has been fascinating and enjoyable and I am very glad that my first Bill has been such an important one for the security of the nation.

The Minister has of course been a constant throughout consideration of this Bill, and we saw his worth recognised as he was promoted from the important role of Whip to the Minister tasked with bringing the Bill home. I thank him for the courteous and professional manner in which he has conducted himself throughout, and I also express my thanks to the former Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. From these Benches, we also express our gratitude to the Bill team, the clerks, the staff of the House—indeed, all those who have worked front of house as well as behind the scenes to make this Bill possible.

Throughout, it has been my pleasure to work with my noble friend Lord Coaker, who has brought his valuable experience and knowledge to proceedings. We have been blessed to have the highly professional support of Dan Harris, our excellent adviser who has guided and advised us throughout, to whom we express our thanks. Her Majesty’s Opposition strongly believe that our nation’s security is above party politics, and I thank all noble Peers who have worked cross party on this Bill.

New technologies have long transformed how we work, live and, of course, travel. Our experiences during the pandemic have upped the ante on the degree to which we rely on telecommunications networks. At the same time, it has reinforced how intertwined these networks are with issues of national security, including the top priority of any Government: to protect its citizens from risk. This Bill is a necessary step to protect us.

I am very glad to welcome the Government’s acceptance of our arguments that codes of practice, to be issued by the Secretary of State to telecoms providers, must first come before Parliament. However, the Bill raised key questions and concerns, especially given the absence of an effective plan to diversify the supply chain and in respect of our telecom security depending on strengthening our international bonds, in particular through the Five Eyes, involving the UK, the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his work on that issue.

I hope that the other place will give sympathetic consideration to the changes we have made on both those matters, and that the Minister will recognise that the amendments passed by your Lordships’ House make serious and important improvements to the Bill and have widespread support across the Chamber. My concluding wish for this Bill is that the Government will reflect and feel able to support these improvements to the Bill and the security they provide.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, this Bill entered the other place a year ago. It has variously been urgent, in the long grass, urgent again and now quite close to passing. I will not delay its passage many more seconds. I have shelved my inner churl, but I absolutely sign up to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. There are outstanding issues that your Lordships commented on and put into the Bill as amendments that I hope can be picked up. I hope that when this Bill is finally put to bed, it really does protect the security of this country, and we will work, on these Benches, to help make that happen. There is a lot of unfinished business in this area. I fear that the Minister himself, or one of his successors, may very well be bringing other Bills before your Lordships quite soon.

I thank the Ministers, first the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and then the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for their work and their willingness to communicate with those of us who were seeking to scrutinise this Bill. I join the noble Lord in congratulating the DCMS Bill team, and I hope he did not leave anybody out. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on their legislative debuts. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his spirited, highly principled and really important, contributions on the Bill.

Finally, I thank my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lady Northover, without whom this scrutiny would not have been complete, and Sarah Pughe, our legislative officer, for her invaluable support. With that, we wish this Bill onwards, with speed and effectiveness, because it has a very important job to do.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, before we pass this Bill, may I add to a comment to what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, said? I express my thanks as well to everyone who was on the long list that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, gave us, but also to his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. As Ministers, I do not think they could have been more helpful and more responsive to the points we made both in Committee and on Report.

My noble friend also mentioned the all-party amendment moved last week by myself and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which we also raised in Committee. It raises the need for reviews to take place when another jurisdiction—specifically, in this case, many of us cited the United States of America—had banned a particular company which was not banned in the United Kingdom but working within the telecommunications sector.

One example the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I gave in our debates was Hikvision, which is banned in the United States. It makes the surveillance cameras that are used punitively against the Uighur people in Xinjiang but are also used in our own high streets and public buildings. That amendment called for a review: that when any such company is banned in another Five Eyes jurisdiction, it is to be reviewed in the United Kingdom. It is a very reasonable all-party amendment, but it was opposed by the Government. Before the Minister completes his remarks today, could he tell us what has happened to that amendment and how the Government intend to respond to it?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I was remiss in not adding to the long list of names I read out those of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who signed that cross-party amendment to which the noble Lord just referred. Of course, the amendment goes to the other place, which will look at it, the official record and the debate we had on it. I am sorry I was not able to persuade the noble Lord and my noble friend of it, but I will work with my colleagues in DCMS to make sure that they take into account the views of your Lordships’ House as expressed in the vote. I will not pre-empt the debates that will be had in another place, but I look forward to seeing what it sends us back in continuing that debate.

In the spirit which all noble Lords have mentioned today of wanting to see this important Bill on the statute book swiftly but with the proper scrutiny that both places want to give it, I beg to move.

15:26

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

NHS England Funding: Announcement to Media

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Monday 25 October.

“Just as we are determined to keep this country safe from Covid-19, we also want to tackle the backlog that the virus has brought with it. We know that ‘business as usual’ will not be enough, so we will do whatever it takes to ensure that people get the treatment they need as quickly as possible. In September, we announced plans to spend £8 billion to tackle the elective backlog over the next three years, in addition to the £2 billion this year.

The House will have seen the announcement of £5.9 billion to tackle the NHS backlog of diagnostic tests and procedures and to support the delivery of millions more checks, scans and treatments for patients across the country. This includes £1.5 billion for increased bed capacity, equipment, new surgical hubs to tackle waiting times for elective surgeries and at least a total of 100 community diagnostic centres to help to clear backlogs of people waiting for clinical tests such as MRIs, ultrasounds and CT scans, as well as £2.1 billion of investment to modernise digital technology on the front line.

This is an historic package of investment that will support our aim of delivering around 30% more elective activity by 2024-25 compared with pre-pandemic levels. That of course comes on top of the work we are doing to strengthen the NHS workforce, who have performed so brilliantly throughout this crisis. All of this is vital if we are to help get our NHS back on track and ensure that no one is left waiting for vital tests or treatments and that we have the right buildings, equipment and systems so that our NHS is fit for the challenge ahead.”

15:27

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

The Minister must by now be aware of the chronic staff shortages in the NHS. He will also be aware of the desperate state of some of our buildings in the NHS, and indeed the inadequate facilities for some of our mental health wards. This announcement mentions diagnostic staff, of which already one in 10 are missing. There is a 55% shortage of consultant oncologists, a shortage of radiologists, a shortage of specialist cancer nurses and, so far, no comprehensive NHS staff plan. Could the Minister tell the House who will run the proposed diagnostic centres? Will it be the NHS? Where will the staff for the diagnostic centres, surgical theatres and to operate the new equipment come from?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Since 2010, we have increased the clinical radiology workforce by 48%, from 3,239 to 4,797 full-time equivalent posts. Numbers of diagnostics radiographers are up by 33% since 2010 and therapeutic radiographers are up by 44%. We are offering those who want to join the radiographic workforce at least £5,000 as a non-repayable grant for each year of their training to be a radiographer. Since 2016, we have seen a 26% increase in those studying diagnostic radiography and a 10% increase in those studying therapeutic radiography.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the £5.9 billion in the Chancellor’s early announcement is to pay for physical infrastructure and equipment, not for current services. The NHS Confederation says that next year’s NHS funding allocations are nowhere near enough either. Last week, the Royal Cornwall Hospital declared a critical incident in its A&E department when it had 100 patients in the 40-bed department and 25 ambulances queuing. Its ambulance service is also under intense pressure, reporting that 50 ambulances have queued at times—again, that is much larger than the actual department. This is echoed across the country. How will Ministers help A&E departments and ambulance services in crisis right now?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The noble Baroness refers to what she sees as the workforce shortage. The Government are fully committed to supporting our health and care professionals and to making sure that we have the right number of people with the right skills to deliver excellent patient care and support the increased elective activity committed to under Build Back Better: Our Plan for Health and Social Care. The Chancellor will confirm to the House our three-year settlement for wider health budgets at the spending review on Wednesday, which will support the NHS to undertake long-term planning for the workforce and elective recovery. I will write to the noble Baroness on specific staff numbers for A&E.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

I wonder whether the Minister would agree that the NHS cannot succeed without adequate social care. In the last seven days we have had two reports that show just how vulnerable the social care system is. Can the Minister sign up to a new agreement to protect the NHS by supporting social care? That was absent in this statement.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that suggestion. We see social care as incredibly important, which is why we will soon have before the House a health and social care Bill to make sure that we look at both health and social care, from birth all the way through one’s life.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the sum of £5.9 million, which comes on top of the additional commitments that were previously made by the Government. However, it remains the case that, with demographic changes, an ageing population and many more chronic diseases and illnesses, we will see a rise in cost. Can my noble friend say whether there is an active plan to look at a forward-thinking strategy as to how we will deal with this funding in the long term?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. Last week we had a discussion on healthy ageing and making sure that the population of the UK is able to live healthy lives for longer. That is very much part of the overall thinking on health reform and we hope to have more details in due course.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister says that Ministers are dealing with workforce shortages. But surely he knows that, throughout the health service, there is a critical crisis. No one is in charge; it does not seem to be the responsibility of Ministers, Health Education England or NHS England. Who will sort this out and who will be held to account?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a valid point on workforce shortages. The Chancellor will confirm wider health budgets at the spending review, which is in only a few more days. We have already increased training places this year and will feed through into the available workforce. Ensuring that we have the workforce necessary to support this expansion will be driven by a combination of things, such as enforced workforce productivity, including from the spending review digital diagnostic investments, which are expected to deliver a 10% to 15% workforce productivity uplift. We are also looking at existing Health Education England funding, which will provide a pipeline for growth in training numbers.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

I congratulate my noble friend on an auspicious beginning to his ministerial career. But I also draw his attention to the wording of this Urgent Question, which mentioned an “announcement to the media”. I give strong support to Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle in the other place for rebuking the Government for time and again bypassing Parliament. The Government are answerable to Parliament—that is fundamental to our constitution. It is an absolute disgrace that, time after time, Ministers blab to the press before making Statements in either House.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My noble friend makes a valuable point. It is important that we are accountable to Parliament, and we will continue to be so. I hope that the fact I am here today shows a willingness to be accountable to Parliament.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The Minister has just said in a previous answer that, to deal with the social care crisis, a Bill will be coming forward. The crisis is now. Care homes are not able to take people and are turning them away because of the lack of staff. You will not clear hospitals while social care cannot hope. What will the Government do now to deal with the social care crisis in this country?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The money that has been announced is for April 2022 onwards, for three years. In dealing with the specific issue now, believe me, we are having conversations within the department and elsewhere about how we address some of the issues that people are raising with us.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

Going back to the Question on the Order Paper, can the Minister state whether it is the Government’s intention to involve the private sector in delivering some of these diagnostics? If so, will they be paying the private sector tariff or the NHS tariff?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. It is important that we recognise that this is a public/private partnership and that we make sure that we can rely on expertise and investment from the private sector. On the specific question, I will write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I point out that the NHS has an insatiable capacity to spend money. I put it to the Minister that political control must be re-exerted over the NHS. Nye Bevan did not found the NHS by asking civil servants to do it. I encourage the Minister to bring a Bill to this House PDQ to get political control back into the NHS and into running it.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for the very important point he has raised. A friend of mine with completely different politics from me—probably closer to that of noble Lords on the Benches opposite—once said to me, “The thing about working in the NHS is that we always want more money and we are always looking at how to balance that when we get more money”. I think it is important for the public, but also for workers, staff and patients, that we remember value for money and ensure that we spend as productively as possible.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, every NHS provider and professional group is telling the Government that the key shortage in the NHS is staff—and staff who are not exhausted. Can the Minister share with the House the evidence that led the Government to conclude that what the NHS needs above all else for the next three years is kit?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a valuable point. We appreciate the hard work that the NHS workforce—doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals—has put in. This announcement lays out how we will be spending on more kit but also how productivity will help take some of the pressures off the NHS workforce.

Sexual Misconduct in the Police

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Wednesday 20 October.

“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 countercorruption 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.”

15:37

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Since the dreadful murder of Sarah Everard and the appalling revelations of the abuse of police powers by her killer, there have been many other shocking allegations of the failure of the police to deal with misogyny and sexism in their own ranks. Today, we learned from the Independent Office for Police Conduct that, in the last three years, 66 officers and members of staff have faced disciplinary proceedings for alleged abuse of position for a sexual purpose; let alone those not reported, that is a big rise in the last year. The trust we rightly have in the police is everything. What, as well as the inquiries, are the Government doing now to change a culture where there are too many examples of totally inappropriate behaviour, which, at its worst, allowed a serving police officer nicknamed “The Rapist” to continue in post?

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I must join the noble Lord in expressing my disgust. Every one of those numbers represents a person who has been the victim of sexual misconduct by a serving police officer. On the one hand, any number is too many but, on the other hand, we should look to the legislation that we introduced last year to give additional powers to the IOPC. That includes the power of initiative, which allows it to bring forward and investigate allegations without requiring referral from the police. In addition, forces must refer all allegations of serious sexual offences or of police officers abusing their position for a sexual purpose to the IOPC. For the first time now, the Home Office will be able to collect and publish data on internal sexual misconduct by officers, and we aim to publish the first tranche in the new year.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I was a police officer for over 30 years, and I want to be proud of that fact. We do not need working groups, inquiries, inspections and a task force to reassure the public. When will the Home Secretary give the Independent Office for Police Conduct the additional resources that it needs to effectively investigate sexual abuse by police officers? As a former Home Secretary did with racism after the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence, when will she tell police chiefs: “Misogyny is a problem and you must address it now”? That is not just what we want. It is what every decent, honest, hard-working police officer wants.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I repeat my response to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that every report or allegation of police misconduct for a sexual purpose must be referred to the IOPC. It will be up to individual force chiefs to decide but if it is sexual misconduct it must be referred to the IOPC. We have that additional layer in that the IOPC now has the power of initiative. Decisions on whether officers have committed sexual misconduct, and, if so, what sanctions there ought to be, are for misconduct panels led by the independent, legally qualified chairs.

Additionally, following the recommendations of the Zoë Billingham report, we will be working closely with the new national police lead for tackling VAWG, DCC Maggie Blyth, who took up the post recently to address the report’s findings and drive forward improvements in policing’s response to VAWG.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

The Minister appreciates that trust in the police has taken a real hit, particularly among young women. Given the problems that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, had with non-co-operation from the Metropolitan Police—including, I am sorry to say, the commissioner—with her Home Office review of the Daniel Morgan case, will the Government please consider putting the new inquiry announced by the Home Secretary on a full statutory footing, with powers of compulsion?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question and for the conversation that we had the other day on this matter. On whether the inquiry could be on a statutory footing, one change since February 2020, when we amended the law, is that police officers are now under a duty to co-operate as witnesses with investigations, inquiries and formal proceedings under the revised standards of professional behaviour. They are guilty of a disciplinary offence if they fail to do so. On the fundamental question, should we assess it necessary, the inquiry can be converted into a statutory inquiry where witnesses can be compelled to give evidence.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that a practical measure which would enhance the confidence that women have in the police force would be for any officer against whom a credible complaint of sexual misconduct is made to be immediately suspended, and that it is not good enough for this matter to be left, as it currently is, to the discretion of chief constables?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Officers can be and are suspended for allegations of misconduct. Every case is different, so it is left to the discretion of police chiefs to decide on a case-by-case basis. I would not want to make a blanket determination because there may be spurious allegations. It would be up to the police chief in question to determine whether a suspension was relevant or appropriate.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, following the terrible, tragic murder of Sarah Everard and all the revelations that followed after the conviction of Wayne Couzens, it became very clear that there needs to be a serious culture change within sections of the police force. In order for that to happen root and branch, there needs to be change in the atmosphere where women and other police officers—we have heard particularly from female police officers—have witnessed this kind of toxic behaviour but felt unable to do anything about it, or, if they complained, felt that they were ostracised or demoted. What is being done about that specifically to enable whistleblowers or serving police officers to come forward to report such behaviour and to ensure that it will be dealt with properly?

Also, Commissioner Cressida Dick has announced that when plain-clothes police officers stop a lone woman, they will now have to video call into a police station for an identity check to prove that they are actually a serving police officer—something called Safe Connection. How would that have helped in the case of Sarah Everard? Wayne Couzens was a serving police officer, so it would not have helped.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I have the utmost sympathy with the second part of the noble Baroness’s question, because, were I to have been stopped by that killer, I would have complied. Something that is at the forefront of the Home Secretary’s mind, and must be on the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s mind, is trust in the police. Such events are, mercifully, rare—in fact, I do not know of one that is the same in my lifetime—but the noble Baroness absolutely hits on the point: had the same thing been repeated under what the Metropolitan Police has suggested, would it have happened again? That gives both the Metropolitan Police and the Home Secretary something that they need to—and will—reflect on.

On culture, again, I totally concur with the noble Baroness’s point, and the second part of the inquiry will look at a range of relevant issues, from policing culture to whether enough is being done to join up, identify and report patterns of behaviour of those individuals who could go on to abuse their policing powers.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, the police are in the middle of a recruiting drive which will recruit about 45,000 officers in the next two years. One of the issues raised by the terrible murder of Sarah Everard was whether the appropriate vetting was carried out on Wayne Couzens, both in his transfer and, obviously, for new officers. First, can the Minister say something about how vetting standards have changed since 4 March this year—since when I would hope that things have moved on? Secondly, what action is being taken about information coming from within the forces—such as the comment that this officer had been known as “the rapist”? If that intelligence is around, what has changed to do something about it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

On the noble Lord’s latter question about “the rapist”, it is pretty disgusting, if indeed it is true. On what the Home Office is doing now about vetting, new recruits are subject to a rigorous vetting and assessment process to assess suitability for the role of police officer, and, although decisions about police recruitment are made within a national framework, they are locally managed by the police. On the inquiry, the first part will of course examine the recruitment and employment of Sarah’s killer and whether there had been opportunities to intercept him along the way.

Environment Bill

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Commons Reasons and Amendments

15:49

Motion A

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.

1A: Because the provision made by the Amendment is unnecessary.

[The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)]

With the leave of the House, I will also speak to Motions B, B1, C, C1, D and D1. This historic legislation is now not only within sight; it is within reach. I thank Members for their conversations with me and my officials and for the debates that have taken place in this House.

I begin with Amendment 1, on biodiversity and the climate emergency, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and I thank him very much for the meetings he has had with me. I hope he noticed that last week, the Prime Minister pledged that:

“We will meet the global climate emergency but not with panicked, short-term or self-destructive measures as some have urged”,


but with the actions he set out in the net-zero strategy, and indeed through actions in this Bill.

We introduced in your Lordships’ House a duty to set an additional legally binding target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030—a clear and significant response to the biodiversity emergency we face. However, as I have said previously, addressing these twin challenges requires action, which this Government are taking.

The net-zero strategy builds on the action from the 10-point plan, the energy White Paper, the transport decarbonisation plan, the hydrogen strategy and the heat and buildings strategy. It sets out ambitious plans to reach net zero across all the key sectors of the economy. The net-zero strategy outlines measures to transition to a green and sustainable future, helping businesses and consumers to move to clean power, supporting up to 190,000 jobs in the mid-2020s and up to 440,000 jobs in 2030, and leveraging up to £90 billion of private investment by 2030. It includes £3.9 billion of new funding over the next three years for decarbonising heat and buildings so that homes and buildings are warmer and healthier. We will boost the existing £640 million Nature for Climate Fund with a further £124 million of new money, ensuring total spend of more than £750 million by 2025 on woodland creation and management, peat restoration and so on. This will enable more opportunities for farmers and landowners to support net zero through land use change. Furthermore, the Bill’s powerful package of measures, including biodiversity net gain, local nature recovery strategies and a strengthened biodiversity duty on public authorities, will drive action towards our biodiversity targets and objectives.

We are playing a leading role in pressing for an ambitious post-2020 global biodiversity framework, to be adopted at CBD COP 15. This is my number one international priority, but it is also the Government’s. Putting the declaration in Amendment 1 into law is therefore not necessary. However, I hope noble Lords are reassured that the Government are taking action at pace to deal with these crises, and that calls from a number of noble Lords to hear the phrase “climate emergency” from the Prime Minister’s mouth have now been answered.

Turning to Amendments 2 and 2B, on soil health, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, first, let me first make it clear that the Government take soil health seriously. As Minister Pow said in the other place:

“It is the stuff of life.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/21; col. 793.]


It is a priority, and I do not think anyone doubts that. This is why we are currently working with technical experts to develop the appropriate means of measuring soil health, which could be used to inform a future soils target.

However, an amendment to make soil health or soil quality a listed priority area would require us to bring forward an objectively measurable target by October 2022, and I am afraid we do not yet have the data to do that. Until baseline data and a metric to measure success are developed, we cannot commit to setting a robust soil target at this time. However, as I have also said, that is not to say that it is not a priority for us. Defra is working with partners right now to develop the baseline data and metric needed to set that target.

As I announced on Report, we will deliver a new soil health action plan for England. Noble Lords will find more detail on this action plan in the Written Ministerial Statement published last week, but I highlight that it will provide clear strategic direction to develop a heathy soil indicator, soil structure methodology and a soil health monitoring scheme to support the delivery of a future potential soil target.

We refer to the use of “soil health” over “soil quality” because soil quality sometimes refers to a measurement of the current status of a soil while soil health more accurately captures how well the soil is functioning. The soil health action plan aims to help soil to function better to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services and wider benefits and outcomes, such as increased biodiversity, carbon storage, food production and flood mitigation.

I recognise the compelling arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and commend their very successful efforts to raise this issue up the agenda. I hope that the action I have set out, and the new soil health action plan for England, demonstrate our commitment to this critical aspect of our natural environment. This includes our commitment to improve the health of our precious peat soils, in line with the England Peat Action Plan published earlier this year and supported by the extra funding I mentioned earlier.

On Amendments 3 and 3B, on air quality, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, I thank her for her time spent meeting with me on multiple occasions. I recognise the strength of feeling on this issue both in this House and in the other place; it is a feeling I share. The two targets we are currently developing—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 continuous improvement across the country. This unique, dual-target approach is strongly supported by our expert committees, the Air Quality Expert Group and the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants. They will be an important part of our commitment to drive forward tangible and long-lasting improvements to the air that we breathe.

Colleagues in the other place last Wednesday rightly called for urgency in tackling air pollution. I emphasise that we are not waiting for these targets to be set before taking the necessary action. We already have legally binding national emission reduction targets for five key air pollutants for 2030. Our Clean Air Strategy was praised by the World Health Organization as

“an example for the rest of the world to follow”,

and sets out the actions we are taking to deliver on these targets. For example, legislation to phase out the sale of house coal and deal with wet wood, and to introduce emission standards for manufactured solid fuels for domestic burning across England, came into force from 1 May 2021. We are also delivering a £3.8 billion plan to clean up transport and tackle nitrogen dioxide pollution.

This House will have heard these points before, but I want to emphasise that delivering our ambitious reductions in PM2.5 will require co-ordinated action. The more ambitious these targets are, the greater the level of intervention that will be needed—from national and local government, as well as businesses and individual citizens. To achieve a level such as 10 micrograms in our cities would require fundamental changes in how we live our lives; for example, significant changes to farming practices to reduce ammonia, which reacts in the air to form particulate matter. This would be likely to be in addition to a total ban on solid fuel burning, including wood, and restricting traffic kilometres by as much as 50%. That would include electric vehicles, which release non-exhaust emissions from tyre and brake wear, for example.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her further amendment, which challenges us to go further and set a target of 5 micrograms by 2040, in line with the latest recommendations from the World Health Organization. While we recognise that there is no safe level for PM2.5, it is also important to acknowledge that PM2.5 is not a pollutant that can be fully eradicated. The reasons for that are manifold. First, contributions to PM2.5 from natural sources and from outside the UK, particularly in the south-east of England, are currently modelled at around 5 to 6 micrograms. That is before we take into consideration the everyday activities of the millions of people who live in those towns and cities in the south-east. Essentially, our current evidence strongly suggests that it is not possible to achieve reductions in PM2.5 concentrations to levels as low as 5 micrograms in numerous locations in England, particularly in the south and south-east. Setting an unrealistic target would be disingenuous, and the target would be meaningless as a result, as well as ineffective and potentially counterproductive.

Before setting targets, we need to understand what reductions are possible, the scale of measures required to achieve them and the impact and burdens that would be placed on society. Members of the public will want, and deserve, to understand the specific health benefits and then we can decide upon the fundamental changes that would be required. So we will hold a public consultation on these targets early next year. Once we have carefully considered the responses to the consultation, we will bring forward the final, statutory targets by October 2022. That is a legally required date that we cannot and will not miss.

16:00

Our targets are being developed through a robust evidence-based process. We are collaborating with internationally renowned experts, including modelling teams at Imperial College London and the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, the Air Quality Expert Group, chaired by Professor Alastair Lewis of the University of York, and the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, chaired by Professor Anna Hansell of the University of Leicester. We will also share our findings with the World Health Organization.

I assure noble Lords that we are working at pace—we are not kicking the can down the road or shying away from difficult decisions—but it is important to get this right and follow a process that is informed by science and allows for genuine engagement, in order to bring society along with us to deliver ambitious air-quality targets and cleaner air for all. The amendment would pre-empt those critical steps, so the Government cannot support it.

Turning to Amendment 12, and Amendment 12B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, I would also like to acknowledge the work of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Parminter, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, on this issue. Introducing legally binding interim targets, as these amendments propose, is unnecessary and would be detrimental to our targets framework, as I will explain, and to our policy response to the environmental issues that we are facing. We do not want to create a system that incentivises the deprioritisation of key aspects of the environment with longer recovery times just in order to meet a target in five years.

If obliged to meet legally binding targets every five years on environmental systems that are immensely complex, the Government would be forced to prioritise achieving an interim milestone over the long-term target itself, and I believe that would undermine the long-term nature of the targets framework. As noble Lords know, in certain habitats, such as our precious temperate rainforests, significant improvement is unlikely to occur within a five-year period, but, with the immense pressure of meeting a five-year target, it is hard to believe that any Government would not choose to park that challenge to one side in order to focus on easier short-term challenges.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, for the proposed compromise that she has put forward and for her time in the numerous discussions that we have had during the course of the Bill. The amendment in lieu, in addition to requiring that interim targets were met, would require that if interim targets were not met then the Government must consult the OEP on the steps needed to meet the interim target. It would also require the Government to prepare a report setting out the steps that it would take, and then to take those steps.

Even with that additional process, though, I am afraid that making interim targets legally binding is not a position that the Government can support. There is already a robust process in place to drive progress on interim targets without the need for the kind of perverse incentives that I have previously outlined. The OEP must monitor progress towards meeting interim and long-term targets and must prepare an annual progress report. In fact, it is expected that the OEP’s regular scrutiny will help to prevent the Government from missing those targets. If the Government are not on track to meet their interim targets, or if the interim targets are missed, the OEP’s progress report could include recommendations on how progress could be improved. The Government will have to respond to those published reports and any recommendations made, and they will be laid before Parliament.

While I recognise the concerns raised by noble Lords, it is our view that, even with the proposed additional process, the changes would have a detrimental impact on environmental enhancement. I hope I have reassured noble Lords that our position is well considered, and indeed considered in light of the contributions that have been made in this House throughout the passage of the Bill. I look forward to hearing noble Lords’ contributions today. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I always think that ping-pong can be rather a brutal affair. I have spent months working on an amendment; the combined House of Commons comes back and says

“the provision made by the Amendment is unnecessary”—

and there we are, it has been written off. However, the House of Commons, in its wisdom, is absolutely right: the amendment was unnecessary because all it actually needed was for the Prime Minister and this Government to declare, as many local authorities have, a climate and biodiversity emergency. Therefore, I accept what the Minister has said. The Prime Minister in his foreword to the Net Zero Strategy—a document that we all welcome, although it is rather late, before COP 26—says:

“We will meet the global climate emergency”.


I truly welcome that; it is a shame in a way that he then says

“but not with panicked, short-term or self-destructive measures as some have urged.”

That somewhat takes the shine off it—but I accept that that declaration is there; it is by the Prime Minister and it is published in one of the most important documents that the Government have released in recent times, in the run-up to COP 26. However, I also point out that it does not include the biodiversity crisis, which is particularly pertinent to this Bill. The motive for this amendment was to give equality to both those emergencies, and to stress their interconnectedness—the vital relationship between the two.

However, that declaration is there. The other Motions that we are going to debate during this afternoon are, perhaps, of greater practical importance to the future of the environment, our country and our planet, so I shall not contest this. I thank the Minister and his officials for the conversations that we have had since passing the Bill in this House and today in finding ways in which to solve this area. I shall not contest this judgment, brutal as it was, by the House of Commons.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and to agree with every word that he just said. I thank the Minister for his introduction to this debate and thank him and his officials for the very detailed and useful discussion this morning, particularly with such a lively avian accompaniment.

I shall take a second to reflect on the place of your Lordships’ House. I had a discussion a couple of days ago with a Cross-Bench Peer for whom I have the greatest respect, who expressed great frustration at the huge amount of work done in your Lordships’ House, which so often—as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has just said—gets casually dismissed in the other place. Yet we are so often told, “Oh, we can’t send too many things back to them; we can’t resist too hard; we’re the unelected House.” That, of course, raises a whole other question about the constitution. None the less I fear—and we have seen some cases of this already—that many of our strong, fine Peers are getting fed up and really considering whether they are going to continue to devote their time to your Lordships’ House. It is crucial that we recognise that we are in a different political time and that we are crucial to the future of this country, its environment and people, and we need to stand firm.

I have come under strong pressure, as I am sure many are aware, not to push forward with the soils amendment. Those looking closely will notice that I have not pushed forward with the same amendment as was sent to the other place. My amendment in lieu simply refers to soil quality rather than soil quality and soil health, as in the amendment sent to the other place. Health very often talks about the biology of the soil; quality is frequently used to refer to the structure. I am guided here particularly by the Sustainable Soils Alliance but also by academics, independent experts and farmers, who say that it is possible to use the metrics from the soil structure monitoring scheme to establish a target specifically for soil structure which would fit the definition of quality. As the Minister said on Report, targets can be iterative—they can be developed, evolved and finessed over time.

I acknowledge that the Minister here and those in the other place have spoken often and very clearly, and clearly are engaged with the issues of soil that are so crucial, but we all know that Ministers change. The only thing that will guarantee a way forward is with soil being on the face of the Bill. I put it to noble Lords that this Bill will be fundamentally deficient if we do not have soils there with equal weighting and place alongside air and water. I am afraid that the Minister in debate also said at one point that, if we were looking after air and water, we will sort of be looking after soils as well. I am afraid that very powerfully makes the argument for me—that soil risks falling into a second order unless it is given the same status.

I note that, in your Lordships’ House on Report, the margin by which this vote was won was equal top with that for the amendment on sewage tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. This was a very clear voice from your Lordships’ House on Report.

I also particularly wish to acknowledge the very strong efforts in this area by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who has done a tremendous job and has seen some steps forward from the Government. But those steps are still not enough.

I finish, given the pressure of time, by noting that I do not believe that the amendments we are looking at today are either/or. All the amendments that have been retabled today are crucial. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb will address interim targets in more detail, but I stress that that is crucial as well. I also want to acknowledge the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, in supporting my amendment last time. I urge your Lordships to show that we are really here to make a difference. I give notice of my intention to push this Motion to a vote.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment on soil from the noble Baroness who has just spoken. This is a crucial issue. But first I want to ask my noble friend the Minister a question about what he said when he introduced the discussion on this. He quoted the Prime Minister, who said that there is a climate crisis that will be solved but not by panicked measures. That seemed to indicate that he thought some of the amendments put forward by this House were “panicked measures.” If that is the case, I would be grateful if my noble friend could tell us which of these amendments, which we so carefully debated in Committee and on Report, could be classed as a “panicked measure”.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was absolutely right to tell us that the Prime Minister did not acknowledge that there is a biodiversity crisis. One-quarter of the world’s biodiversity crisis is in the soil, and that is a major problem for us. There ought to be an alignment between the Environment Bill and the Agriculture Act. We got soil into the Agriculture Act and we were then told that that was not the right place for it and that it ought to go in the Environment Bill; now we have got to the Environment Bill and my noble friend tells us it is not necessary in this Bill. It is necessary in this Bill. It should be put into this Bill.

Only 0.4% of 1% of England’s environmental monitoring budget is spent on soil. That is derisory. Could my noble friend tell me what he anticipates that spend to be within one year and within five years? Soil is the basis of everything. The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, which has done a huge amount of research over many years on soil, says that we cannot reach net zero without dealing with soil. That has been taken up by the Climate Change Committee, which has said exactly the same thing, and even my noble friend the Minister has said that we cannot solve the problem without addressing soil; yet soil is not going to be in this Bill.

I remember my noble friend Lord Deben said something on Report to the effect of: unless it is in the Bill, it is not going to be done. At that stage, I backed my noble friend the Minister against my noble friend Lord Deben’s advice. This time, I back my noble friend Lord Deben and say that this ought to be in the Bill.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I merely say this: I really wanted to support the Minister and I thank him for the conversations we had. I understand the argument that says soil cannot be exactly parallel with water and air because we have an agreed measure for both which enables us to put a date, but there is no reason we could not have a date, but a different date, to make sure that this Bill actually covers soil. I say this to my noble friend: I have been very disappointed that the promises made by the Government on trade have so clearly not been fulfilled. Therefore, it is very difficult to ask this House to accept the Minister’s personal support for this—which I entirely believe; I do not think there is any doubt about that. But we now have to accept that, unless we have soil in the Bill, it will not have the incredibly important emphasis that it needs.

16:15

I end by saying once again that the Climate Change Committee has made it absolutely clear that it cannot see how we reach net zero unless we do something serious about soil. I declare an interest, because I am a farmer in a small way, and I have a son who is particularly interested in, and financially concerned with, sequestration. So I could be said to have a personal interest, but that is not why I am speaking. I am speaking on behalf of the Climate Change Committee, which has made that very clear statement. I hope very much that the Minister will give us some hope that he will find a way to set a date. If we have a date, it seems to me that he will have won his case. If we do not, I think we have to say, once again, that soil is too important not to be dealt with.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I understand democracy. I have been elected. Indeed, I have been elected under two voting systems: proportional representation and first past the post. So I understand that the other House takes a priority over your Lordships’ House—I understand that. But, at the same time, the way the other House rejected our amendments so casually and so arrogantly hurt me. We worked for days on these amendments; we refined them and discussed them and, I hope, we actually convinced the Minister and the Whip that we were right. And yet the other House decided that they were of no value. I will be voting “content” today with anyone who wants to press their Motion to a vote.

I particularly want to speak in favour of the air pollution amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, but, as I say, I am voting for all the amendments today. Air pollution is an issue I care very deeply about. We are talking about changing the law to make sure our toxic air becomes safe to breathe. This is a health issue. It is also a social issue, and we should understand that many people in our towns and cities suffer very badly. It also becomes an economic issue, because it hits the NHS, through people having to go into hospital with lungs that are badly damaged or through early death. Throughout the health crisis of the pandemic, the Government constantly said that they were being led by science. This is another health epidemic. It is toxic air, and it is time to listen to the scientists again, and to the World Health Organization, which says we need to bring our air pollution down to the levels in this amendment.

This is not an abstract issue. The young girl Ella Kissi-Debrah has been mentioned many times in your Lordships’ House—she was the first person in the world whose death certificate recorded death from air pollution. She suffered and died because of the toxic air where she lived and around her school. One child’s death is a tragedy, but there are probably thousands more who suffer with their lungs and die young who we do not even know about.

The House of Commons’ reason says that

“the powers conferred by clause 2 should not be limited in the manner proposed.”

Why on earth not? I do not understand. Without this amendment, it is left completely to the Minister’s discretion as to what level to set the target. That discretion is absurdly broad, and personally I do not trust the Government to do the right thing on air pollution without the intervention of your Lordships’ House. Quite honestly, the other place should have brought forward its own amendment on this; it should not just have swept our amendments away. It should have acknowledged the work, effort and expertise that we put in, and should have brought forward its own amendment. Instead, it just returned to the Government’s original wording.

I know that your Lordships do not like to defeat the Government too often, particularly in ping-pong, but this Bill is exceptional in terms of scale and scope. There are an exceptional number of issues that your Lordships ought to ask the House of Commons to consider again. I very much hope that we can pass this amendment along with all the others and that the other place will at least consider a compromise amendment that takes the issue of air pollution seriously.

I also want to speak briefly in favour of Motion D1, on the interim targets. I could not understand what the Minister said. I have huge respect for him, but, quite honestly, when he reads out, “If we have interim targets, they will not allow us to get to the final target”, I say that that is the whole point of them—we can actually measure progress towards the long-term target. It felt like an Alice in Wonderland speech. I feel very strongly that the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, has been generous to the Government and added an element of compromise to her amendment. I would not have compromised, but I can live with it, and I support it. I feel very strongly that we should ask the other place to look again at this issue of interim targets as well.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene at this stage with a degree of real diffidence. During the Third Reading debate, I urged the other place—there are those present who know that I did—to recognise the wisdom and experience of your Lordships’ House and not to bother sending back a lot of amendments so that we could move forward and get the Bill on the statute book by the Minister’s target date of before the end of the COP conference, which is just about to begin. I meant that.

However, I have been provoked into speaking this afternoon by two Members for whom I have very genuine and real respect: the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who was one of the best chairmen whom I have sat under in 51 years in Parliament, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, whom we all hold in great affection. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, got it right and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, got it wrong. The noble Lord would not have been wise in persisting with his amendment, and he made it plain that he would not.

There are amendments on the Marshalled List today that I shall be inclined to support—one of them is in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington—but we have to have a real awareness of our constitutional position in this House. I believe in this House passionately—I think that noble Lords know that—but it is not the elected House, and, although I sometimes think that the elected House behaves without due regard for what we have suggested that it does when it thinks again, it is nevertheless the elected House.

There were amendments, particularly that of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, on which there was a sizeable rebellion in the other place. Where there is that indication, it is an encouragement to say, “A sizeable number wants us to think again”. I am not for a moment suggesting that we should roll over on every amendment this afternoon, but I am saying that we must not be prodigal in our treatment of the other House. We must listen with care and act with discretion.

If we really and truly feel, as I do with the amendment from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, that there is a sizeable number of uneasy Members sitting on the Government Benches in the other House, we can be encouraged. Where that is not the case, we have to say that this is the end of the road. We regret that they did not reconsider sufficiently sensitively and carefully, but we recognise that they have the ultimate political power.

I say this because I believe so passionately in your Lordships’ House. There would be no point or purpose in this House if we did not defeat the Government from time to time and ask the other place to think again. If we are indiscriminate in the way in which we use our grapeshot, we might put our own position in jeopardy. I would never wish to do this.

At this early stage in the Bill, let us approach this afternoon’s business with care and discretion. By all means, let us say on one or two occasions, “Please, you really must think again on this one”. On others, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, with a degree of reluctance but with real statesmanship, let us say, “Well, I have something, and I am going to accept it”. That was a wise counsel which we should all be extremely wise to follow.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 12B would make interim targets statutory. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her support. I add my support to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, to the Minister to respond with a date for including soils.

I thank the Minister—as others have already done—for talking to me about this amendment on interim targets and for explaining the Government’s position. The Government feel that there is a need for flexibility in interim targets and are concerned that the short-term focus that a five-year statutory target would impose could inhibit the long-term action which is so needed for nature.

This amendment precisely covers these points of concern about flexibility and lack of action now for the long term. Nature and the environment need urgent action now for benefits which will come in 10, 20, 30 or more years’ time. There is a real challenge with funding actions now for future, long-term benefit, when funding is tight and where there are competing, more immediate priorities with short-term outcomes. It is always hard to argue for those future benefits. It is always easy to think that we could delay action for just one more year, especially when interim targets can be revised or replaced at every annual review of the environmental improvement plan. It is just too easy to discount the future.

I congratulate the Government, as others have done, on the world’s first comprehensive net zero strategy. It is a great example of climate change action at work and of the value of statutory, independently set five-year targets.

If the Minister will be patient with me, I should like to ask him a series of questions. First, is he able to provide assurance that funding will be committed to the delivery of the interim targets in this Bill?

Clause 11 sets out the conduct of the reviews of environmental improvement plans. Clause 11(1)(c) requires the Government to assess whether they should take further or different steps to improve the natural environment. Can the Minister confirm that this assessment of steps will include whether the legislative framework itself should be improved; for example, whether statutory interim targets would be helpful? Can he tell us when and how Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the interim targets the Government will bring forward, and when and how Parliament will be involved in scrutinising the proposed long-term targets before the laying of the statutory instruments in October 2022, given how important these are to the Government’s overall environmental strategy? I recognise that this is quite a shopping list of requests, so if the Minister is unable to respond to them now, I would be grateful if he would write to me with the answers.

16:30

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, in her Motion Cl and her Amendment 3B in lieu. I will be brief, because I know she will give a great deal more detail in her winding-up speech a little later, but before I go into that, may I just disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack? When I came into this House 21 years ago, I was told that our job was to ask the Government at the other end to think again. Given the way party loyalties have changed in those 21 years, and given the very short amount of time the Commons have had to debate the amendments we sent to them, I think we have every right to send some of our amendments back at least once—in fact, I know we have the right to do it more than once as long as we do not trespass on the governing party’s manifesto.

We have listened to the Minister’s objections to our earlier amendments on having greater ambitions to reduce small particulates, known as PM2.5, and have proposed instead an amendment which allows the Government a little more leeway on exactly which targets to set and when to set them. But it does hold the Government’s feet to the fire on the mean targets they can impose, aligned with the current and planned international WHO targets. I will not go into all the details of why it is so important to our health to do this, because noble Lords have heard this several times, but the Government’s net-zero strategy, published on 19 October, includes plans to phase out petrol and diesel land transport, and that is very helpful in relation to CO₂ emissions. However, it does not tackle the whole problem of the small particulates which are so harmful to health. Much of this comes from brakes and tyres, as the Minister rightly said in his introduction, and some of it comes from industry, from static generators and other diesel engines. Therefore, we need an ambitious target for reducing small particulates from all sources, which would of course drive change in these areas too.

It is all very well to decarbonise our power system and make sure that we drive electric cars, but more is needed on the demand side. The Climate Change Committee has just done its independent assessment of the net-zero strategy and I note that one of its criticisms is on the lack of emphasis on consumer behaviour change. It said:

“The Government does not address the role of diets or limiting the growth of aviation demand in reducing emissions, while policies to reduce or reverse traffic growth are underdeveloped. These options must be explored further”—


in order to, among other things—

“unlock wider co-benefits for improved health, reduced congestion and increased well-being.”

This reference to “improved health” undoubtedly refers to the microparticles in the air we breathe; that is why we need Amendment 3B and the ambitious targets for clean air that it contains. Before I sit down, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that the answer lies in the soil.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Brown of Cambridge, who has already laid out why interim targets are so badly needed. When the chairs of the Climate Change Committee stand here and tell us that this is something we need, I think we—and, more importantly, the Government—must take heed of what they say.

None of us has a clue what is going to happen in the next 28 years and 2 months before we get to 2050. Because of the very poor state of our ecosystems, these are likely to be the most unpredictable years this world—and we—have ever seen. When the Climate Change Act was drafted in the mid-noughties, the Government had foresight and created five-yearly carbon budgets that had to be legislated for. One of those was legislated for in the weeks after the Brexit referendum when there had been a change of Government and a huge amount of upheaval and political distraction. Would this have happened if it had not been a requirement? Maybe it would, but maybe not. The point I am making is that when something has to happen because it is a requirement based in statute, it happens. That is what the machinery of this Government is programmed to do.

This Government often refer to themselves as world leading. The Natural History Museum would agree with that but, unfortunately, we are going in the wrong direction. We are leading the world is in nature depletion. We are bottom of the G7 and in the lowest 10% globally, coming a long way after China. In fact, we have little over half—just 53%—of our biodiversity left. I think that frames why we have to pull every lever to stop and reverse this, something the Government are on board with, and using binding interim targets is one of those levers. Are the Government afraid of putting in more targets and, if so, why? This seems an extremely important amendment and I absolutely will vote for it.

I would like to follow up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. In this instance, I too disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I think it is the job of this House to keep going at something, and to not give in because what it faces, at the other end, is a government majority that just demands that the Whips make a few telephone calls. This is actually the important part of the debate. We cannot, for the sake of decorum or whatever, just wave our hands and let these things through. Quite frankly, the future of our planet may depend on it, even if only a little.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, when the Minister, Rebecca Pow, introduced the government amendments in the other place last week she said:

“The Bill is packed with positive measures … I am delighted that the Government have improved it even further.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/21; col. 791.]


But many of these improvements were ones that the Government had resisted as being not necessary or counterproductive until your Lordships intervened. However, the Government have not listened to noble Lords’ concerns on air quality, and I am disappointed that the Bill has not been changed to reflect these very serious concerns. I thank noble Lords who have expressed support for my Motion C1.

In the debate in the other place, senior Conservatives expressed concern at the Government’s lack of action on this matter. Neil Parish, chair of the EFRA Committee, said that he completely agreed with the intention behind our amendment and that we had to ensure that this is one of our great priorities, questioning whether the Government were taking the issue seriously enough. Bob Neill MP commented:

“When a coroner issues a prevention of further deaths letter, it is not done lightly”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/21; col. 811.]


and called for “prompt and urgent action”. Rebecca Pow, the Minister, said that

“there is no safe level of PM2.5”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/21; col. 797.]

Doctors are so concerned that a team of 30 paediatric healthcare providers are, right now, cycling from London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital to the Royal Hospital for Children in Glasgow to raise awareness of the impact of air pollution on health, ahead of COP 26. I am genuinely at a loss as to why the Government are dragging their feet, when delay costs lives.

The revised amendment before your Lordships’ House today takes into account the reduction in the World Health Organization’s air quality guidelines, which were published after our Report stage, on 22 September 2021. I find it worrying that the Minister said in his opening remarks that it is not possible to meet these new guidelines in many areas. They add to the evidence that air pollution causes early death and has been linked, as we have heard before, to lung disease, heart failure, cancer—I could go on. Across significant parts of the UK, air quality still fails to meet the guidelines that were set by the WHO in 2005, let alone the new levels. According to analysis by Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation, just over a third of people in the UK are breathing levels of PM2.5 over the 2005 WHO guidelines. This is truly shocking.

These new guidelines should act as a road map to clean air, with the ambition and impetus to reach them set by central government now in order to catalyse the changes required to reduce the levels of PM2.5 in particular. The Environment Bill is still the golden opportunity to set this commitment to work towards the more robust WHO guidelines and help reach our net-zero targets, while bringing forward the health benefits. My amendment would require the Government to do just that. Government delay means that people, particularly children and the vulnerable, are paying the price with their health.

Earlier this week, I spoke to Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, who told me that today is the 11th anniversary of her daughter Ella’s first becoming ill. Have the Government not waited long enough to act? I thank the Minister and his officials for taking the time to listen to our concerns. I now urge him to accept this amendment; otherwise, I am minded to test the opinion of the House at the appropriate time.

On Motion A, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that there is an imbalance regarding biodiversity that needs to be addressed.

I turn briefly to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on soil quality. I congratulate her and other noble Lords, such as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on pressing the Government on this matter sufficiently that they have made a commitment—which was welcomed by us and Members in the other place, including Caroline Lucas—to publish the new soil health action plan for England. It was also good to hear Rebecca Pow state that

“soil will be one of the top priorities in our new environmental land management and sustainable farming initiative schemes.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/21; col. 793.]

I listened to the noble Baroness’s introduction to her amendment, and she raises some important questions that the Minister needs to answer.

I will now turn briefly to the revised amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and I thank her for making her case so clearly. Of course, we all accept that environmental change cannot happen overnight and needs long-term planning, which is what the 25-year environment plan seeks to do. But you can and must be able to measure progress along the way, and that is why statutory interim targets are so important. We have heard again the argument that interim targets would undermine the long-term nature of the target and make it more complicated to meet the current 25-year environment plan. However, I draw attention to the Natural Capital Committee’s Final Response to the 25 Year Environment Plan Progress Report, published a year ago, which states that

“this report … highlights the lack of progress, and some worrying declines: nine of the 25 years have already passed, and it is now looking very likely the next generation will inherit a poorer set of natural assets.”

Rather than being in contradiction, the combination of binding interim targets and legislated long-term goals is complementary. The report clearly shows that unless you have something binding, it is not necessarily going to happen. This amendment is essential for delivering sustainable progress towards our environmental goals. I hope the Minister will reflect on the noble Baroness’s amendment further and reconsider his current position.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I begin by particularly thanking the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his comments and his probably slightly reluctant acceptance of the position we find ourselves in. I also very much appreciate the comments of my noble friend Lord Cormack.

There was really only one question, raised by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on “panic measures”. I am certain that the Prime Minister was not talking about any of the amendments tabled in this House, none of which could be described as “panic measures”, even by people who disagree with them. It is more likely—indeed, it is clear—that he was talking about the calls made by some of the more radical protest groups, perhaps associated with Extinction Rebellion and others, some of which exceed what I think any expert would believe to be a possible and realistic solution. I do not think it is in any way a reflection on this House.

16:45

On Amendments 2 and 2B, again, I thank noble Lords and, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The Government cannot accept this amendment for the fundamental reason that the metrics are not in place at the moment. If we were to accept the amendment, it would mean a requirement to introduce a target before those metrics are there. This is therefore a practical issue rather than an ideological one. It is not the same as the Government—or me, certainly—saying that soil is not a priority. It clearly is a priority, and that has been repeated time and again by me, the Secretary of State and Rebecca Pow in the other place. It is not a question of the amendment being unnecessary; no one would regard action on soil health as unnecessary. It is a question of the practicalities of this amendment and the timing.

I reassure my noble friend Lord Deben that it is not just about my assurances, although I very much appreciate his comments about the importance he attaches to them. I recognise that Ministers come and go and not all are as passionate about a particular issue. However, the commitments made in the soil health action plan and associated commitments are not ones that I made up at the Dispatch Box. They required approval across Westminster, as with all the concessions and agreements made during progress on this Bill. They are not decisions I have been able to make alone.

As ever, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, made a powerful case. However, she is wrong to say that the Government are afraid of setting more targets. The Bill paves the way for numerous additional targets and it is pretty clear that a very large number of them will be set. I hope she will be reassured that, while some of those targets have not been expressly pencilled into the Bill, it is clear in the paving that we are creating that a number of those targets are coming, and soil health is one of them.

Finally on soil health, we have introduced—I think this is a world first—the 2030 biodiversity target. Again, the pressure applied in this House very much strengthened the argument for it. It is simply impossible to meet that target without a serious amount of effort going into restoring and protecting soil health, for all the reasons that my noble friend Lord Deben gave.

Moving to Amendments 3 and 3B, we believe that we need to consult with the British public before we legislate for this type of target, which would have serious implications for people’s lives. We believe that we need to bring people with us as much as possible as we raise the bar on air quality and, indeed, a number of other issues. We will continue to collaborate with experts to ensure that consultation on targets is based on all the best available science. As colleagues in the other place said, there is clear evidence on the health impact of PM2.5; nobody is doubting or pushing on back on that. However, there is much less evidence on the pathway towards significant reduction, especially in any one country’s specific context.

For example, in the UK, around 15% of particulate matter emissions comes from naturally occurring sources such as pollen and sea spray alone. Up to one-third drifts in on south-easterly winds from other European countries. Evidence strongly suggests that it is not possible, based on our geographical location, for 5 micrograms per metre cubed ever to be reached in all locations across the entire country, particularly in the south-east and London, which I mentioned earlier. We therefore cannot accept a commitment to 5 micrograms as this is likely to prove unachievable. In addition, the amendment pre-empts what we think is a crucial process of collaboration and consultation with the public, so that they can give us as much approval as possible to enable us to take what will undoubtedly be quite radical measures.

Turning to Amendments 12 and 12B, on interim targets, the Government are confident that the framework’s long-term design works best for the environment, and I ask noble Lords not to insist on this amendment. On the issue of funding, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, as you would imagine, we are bidding through the spending review to secure the funds we need to make our ambition on environmental targets and environmental improvement plans a reality. We would expect a blend of public funding from the new environmental land management scheme, private funding via the new net-gain policy, for example, and other sources as well.

The OEP will also flag up, early on, when it scrutinises the Government’s progress with the environmental targets and environmental improvement plan. As I said earlier, when the OEP reports to Parliament, the Government must respond, and Parliament will have the ability to scrutinise that response as well.

I will make one final point on an issue we discussed this morning. It is very clear that among all of us—the public, their representatives in the other place and noble Lords in this place—interest in, concern for and passion for the environment is going only one way. It is growing, almost exponentially, and that is a wonderful thing. There are people in both Houses who have previously shown no interest whatever in the environment who are now fully on board, engaging in this debate and making strong contributions. That will not change.

Therefore, if a Government are not taking those interim targets seriously and are clearly seen to be missing those targets, or on course to miss them, the pressure on them will be immense. There is tremendous value in that. However, at the same time the Government must have flexibility in order to pursue those longer-term measures which will not bear fruit in the first five or perhaps even 10 years. That is essential, because I do not believe that any Government can be relied upon to take those long-term positions and implement long-term policies if the pressure is all on meeting five-year targets.

I thank noble Lords for their contributions throughout this debate. I understand the strength of feeling—

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)]

Will the Minister reply by letter to my other question?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I apologise; I thought I had answered. I will certainly reply on any questions that I have not answered—I commit to that. I am afraid I cannot do so now as I am not sure which questions are unanswered.

I understand the strength of feeling and thank noble Lords for the amendments they have put forward. I would be grateful if, in return, they could carefully consider the arguments made today.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, he has not answered the points raised by my noble friend Lord Deben. Notwithstanding the evidence that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I have received that you can in fact set a target by the appropriate time limit within Clause 1, my noble friend Lord Deben raised the point that you could have a different date for bringing in soil quality targets. As I understand it, the only way that that is possible is for the soil amendment to be passed by your Lordships and for the Government to bring in an amendment in another place to meet the specific concern. If the Minister is convinced that his advice is right and the advice I had is wrong, he could at least bring soil into the Bill with a deferred date by which the target ought to be brought in.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My noble friend is right that I did not answer that question. I apologise—it was not deliberate. The reality is that I cannot tell him when the metrics will be ready, because I do not know; I am not sure Defra knows either. I cannot give him the deadline he requires.

I have said this before, but I think it is critical. There is zero chance of meeting any of the other targets we are setting in law unless we pay particular attention to soil. This is a matter of process rather than outcome. We will achieve the outcome, because we are legally obliged to do so and part of achieving it means dealing with soil. This does feel like a bit of a distraction.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I am sorry to trouble my noble friend again. I want to be on his side on this because I know he is really on my side. He knows that if you have to write an article, a deadline is rather important. If you do not have a deadline, you will not write the article. It is like that here. We need to have a date, even if it is further ahead than we would like, otherwise we will not have the concentration that we need. Can my noble friend think again about the possibility of having a date, even though he might disappoint me in how far forward it might be?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I hear my noble friend’s arguments, but without the baseline, we do not know when we can deliver. However, we have a date, which is the 2030 biodiversity target, and if we do not meet that target, we will fall foul of the law. As he himself said, not just today but in previous debates, it is not possible to meet that legally binding target without major effort to protect and restore our soil. Therefore, we have that, and at the very least it is a pretty blooming powerful fallback position.

Motion A agreed.

Motion B

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.

2A: Because it is not necessary for soil health and quality to be a priority area in order to set a target.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 2B in lieu—

2B: Clause 1, page 2, line 1, at end insert—
“(e) soil quality.””

16:56

Division 1

Ayes: 114

---

Liberal Democrat: 66
Crossbench: 35
Conservative: 4
Labour: 4
Independent: 3
Green Party: 2

Noes: 207

---

Conservative: 178
Crossbench: 18
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Independent: 4
Ulster Unionist Party: 2

Motion B agreed.

17:14

Motion C

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.

3A: Because the powers conferred by clause 2 should not be limited in the manner proposed.

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 3B in lieu—

3B: Clause 2, page 2, line 21, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may appoint different PM2.5 targets for different dates but must include targets for the annual mean level of PM2.5 in ambient air to be—
(a) less than or equal to 10µg/m3 before 1 January 2030, and
(b) less than or equal to 5µg/m3 before 1 January 2040.””

17:15

Division 2

Ayes: 202

---

Labour: 96
Liberal Democrat: 66
Crossbench: 31
Independent: 7
Green Party: 2

Noes: 210

---

Conservative: 179
Crossbench: 19
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Independent: 4
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
Labour: 1

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry things are taking a bit longer. The voting in the Table Office is adding extra time.

Motion C agreed.

17:33

Motion D

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 12A.

12A: Because the Secretary of State should not be placed under a statutory duty to meet interim targets.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I have already spoken to Motion D. I beg to move.

Motion D1 not moved.

Motion D agreed.

Motion E

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 28, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 28A.

28A: Because it affects the areas of taxation, spending and the allocation of resources within government, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak also to Motions F, F1, G, G1, N and N1. We are now discussing the second half of our new, transformative system of environmental governance. This new system has been tailored specifically to a UK context, embeds the environment in future policy-making and takes the essential steps needed to strengthen environmental oversight.

I turn to Amendments 28 and 28B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. I sincerely thank her for our discussions on this issue and for her proposal to narrow the amendment specifically to cover “safeguarding national security”. However, I am afraid that even with this revised amendment it is the view of the Government that the original exemption for the Armed Forces, defence and national security is still required to provide flexibility to protect and secure the nation. The Government therefore cannot accept the amendment.

The primary function of the defence estate is to support our operations and maintain military capability. It provides homes for those who defend our country, offices for work, space for training, and conditions to prepare to meet the ever-changing threats that the UK faces. This means that defence land, defence policy and national security are inextricably linked. MoD land cannot be separated out; it touches on decisions across the Armed Forces, national security and defence. “National security” does not cover all defence activities. If the coverage of the exemption is reduced, as proposed in the amendment, that directly risks the readiness of our defence capabilities and could impact our responsiveness.

I know that this is a matter in which noble Lords have a keen interest and I emphasise again that these exemptions do not apply to SSSI management, where the MoD is on track to meet the 25-year environment plan target for SSSIs in favourable condition for the sites under its management. Natural England has assessed 48% of the department’s English sites as in favourable condition, which compares well with the English average of 39%.

I reassure the noble Baroness, on the back of the discussions that we have had, that the department will be providing further reassurance in writing of its intentions in relation to the protection, good conservation and improvement of the land under its management. I hope to be able to provide that to her soon.

I turn to the office for environmental protection. I will speak to Amendments 31, 31A, 31B, 31C, 75, 75A, 75B and 75C together, tabled by my colleague Rebecca Pow in the other place and by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to establishing the OEP as an independent body. This guidance power is required to ensure appropriate accountability and that the OEP continues to operate effectively because the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible to Parliament for the OEP. There are other examples of independent arm’s-length bodies where provision has been made for the Secretary of State to give guidance; for example, under Section 41 of the Climate Change Act 2008 the Secretary of State can give guidance to the Climate Change Committee regarding the exercise of its functions. We are seeking only to do the same in ensuring appropriate accountability and that the OEP continues to operate effectively by focusing on the most serious, strategic cases with national implications.

None the less, I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised about this power. In recognition of noble Lords’ comments, we introduced a new provision to ensure that Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly can scrutinise draft guidance before it is issued. The Secretary of State must respond to that scrutiny before final guidance can be laid and have effect. This has been reinstated in the other place, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for adding it to his amendment in lieu. I hope noble Lords will recognise that their concerns are being listened to with this measure.

I turn to the other parts of the amendment. I should be clear with noble Lords that we are confident that the right appointment processes are in place for the OEP. These are equivalent to those for other independent scrutiny bodies, such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission. This retains the right balance between ministerial accountability and operational independence. Furthermore, as set out in the Written Ministerial Statement on 7 September:

“The Government took the necessary steps to ensure that the role of Chair was listed as a significant appointment with the Commissioner for Public Appointments … The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Environmental Audit Committees conducted a pre-appointment scrutiny hearing before the appointment of Dame Glenys Stacey as OEP Chair Designate.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/21; col. 19WS.]


I am happy to reiterate our intention that future chair appointments should follow a similar process, ensuring fairness, accountability and independence in future, as was set out in the Written Ministerial Statement.

I hope that that provides some reassurance for noble Lords and indicates why the amendment therefore is not necessary. Ultimately, Ministers are accountable and responsible to Parliament for public appointments. While we are committed to ensuring parliamentary scrutiny, it is appropriate that Ministers should retain the ability to make the final choice.

Amendments 33 and 33B, on enforcement, were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and I am grateful to him and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for the engagement that they have given us over the preceding weeks and months. The OEP’s enforcement powers will operate more effectively than those of the European Commission as the OEP will be able to liaise directly with the public body in question to investigate and resolve alleged serious breaches of environmental law in a more targeted and timely manner.

Through environmental review, the OEP can apply for judicial review remedies—subject to appropriate safeguards—that will work to ensure compliance with environmental law. The Court of Justice of the EU cannot issue these kinds of remedies to member states and therefore the OEP could have a far more direct impact on third parties than the previous system. The protections for third parties brought into the OEP’s process of environmental review have therefore been specifically designed in recognition of the unique nature of this type of legal challenge.

We also have to consider the direct impacts that the OEP’s enforcement function may have on third parties. Through environmental review, the OEP will be able to bring cases to court outside of standard judicial review time limits, potentially long after the decisions in question have been taken. For instance, if a quashing order was placed on planning permission or consent for a new shopping centre many months or even years after the decision was taken and where significant building work had already taken place, this could result in substantial hardship for the various parties involved, which would not be fair. 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 and balance this with the need to protect the environment.

Furthermore, the principle behind the provision to protect third-party rights on environmental review is not new. As I have noted in previous debates, it is an extension of the existing position for legal challenges, including under the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. These Acts grant the courts discretion to refuse relief where there has been undue delay, and this would be likely to substantially impact third parties or be detrimental to good administration. We are building on these precedents here in a way that reflects the nature of environmental review.

While I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for proposing Amendment 33B, I am afraid that it does not offer such protections for third parties against the quashing of decisions outside of normal time limits. The factors that it sets out, which the court would have to have regard to, would not provide sufficient protection or certainty, and therefore we cannot support it. The Government have reflected on this new amendment, but I am afraid that it still offers no further protections for third parties. I hope that noble Lords can understand our position on this matter and on the other amendments that we have been discussing.

Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)

Moved by

[Baroness Parminter]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 28B in lieu—

28B: Clause 18, page 11, line 24, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) safeguarding national security,””

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion E1, as an amendment to Motion E—I believe that is the correct phraseology. I read carefully in Hansard the debate on our amendment on the exemptions that we were calling for on the policy statement on environmental principles. I am disappointed that the Government did not support it, but I am grateful for the support for this case from the Labour Benches, the Greens and the SNP.

The Government cited financial privilege as a reason why we should not proceed with this amendment, and of course I accept that on the basis of the reference to the tax-and-spend points in the amendment that we proposed, when it went to the Commons. I am grateful that, in the Commons, the Minister made the point that all departments will be obliged to subject their policy decisions to the rigours of the policy statement on environmental principles. I am mindful that, clearly, the macroeconomic points that the Treasury has are outwith that—but I am grateful.

However, the Government gave no reasons for refusing the point, made by this House, that the MoD should not be completely exempt from having to take account of the policy statement on environmental principles. The Minister’s comments seemed to suggest that there was a fear of legal challenge. I find that quite surprising. I am not a lawyer, but I am well aware that the courts are very well equipped to filter out unmeritorious cases, as they stand. Equally, while we were in the European Union, the MoD was subject to all these provisions, with a very tiny exemption with regard only to security matters pertaining to munitions and arms. So it has been subject to all these requests to take account of environmental principles for, effectively, the last 30 years. There have not been any challenges, and it does not seem to have caused any problems. However, that is the reason that has been cited, so it is the one that I had to address.

For that reason, I narrowed the scope of the disapplication purely to “national security”, in the hope that that would reassure them. Again, I am not a lawyer, but my understanding from lawyers far more eminent that me is that the courts will always defer to the Executive on matters of national security. Therefore, it seemed to me that the proposal that I put forward was reasonable and met the needs, as they saw it, of the MoD to protect its fear of being challenged on urgent operational matters. It seemed to me that it also met this House’s clear desire that all government departments should be subject to having consideration of the environmental principles, with certain particular tightened safeguards. That was also the position of the Environmental Audit Committee, the EFRA committee in the other House and the office for environmental protection, when it gave its first and only advice to the Government, earlier this year.

17:45

I think that the amendment that I proposed today was reasonable and fair, but I hear what the Minister has said, and I spot a red line when I see one. At this stage in the game, I will reluctantly up stumps—but I serve notice to the team opposite that this is an issue that this House takes extremely seriously. I heard the Minister say that I will be provided with reassurances. I am looking for a clear statement from the MoD that there is equivalence in how it deals with climate change and with nature protection. Under the Climate Change Act, it is obliged to take climate change seriously. I want to see the word “equivalence”. I say again to the team opposite that, if we do not get that, this House, which takes this matter very seriously, will bring out its fastest spin bowlers, among whom I count my committee, the Environment and Climate Change Committee—I see members of it in this House today—and we and other Members will knock for six any pathetic excuses that the Government come up with, if they do not keep to that commitment.

On that basis, I am grateful for what the Minister has offered—a letter of reassurance. I hope that he can see that, again, I am trying to be consensual. If those words are in there, I will be temporarily reassured, but please be mindful: this is not an issue that will go away.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Motion F1, which would amend the government Motion F. I also support Motion G1, which we will come to shortly. The issue at stake with my amendment is simply this: does the Bill give the office for environmental protection sufficient independence to allow it to fulfil its function of holding public authorities, including Ministers, to account in relation to breaches of environmental law?

Clause 24 gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in Clause 23(6). These include whether a failure to comply with the law is “serious”, how the OEP determines

“whether damage to the … environment or to human health is serious”,

how the OEP exercises its enforcement functions

“in a way that respects the integrity of other statutory regimes”,

how the OEP intends to “avoid … overlap” with relevant ombudsmen and

“how the OEP intends to prioritise cases.”

The Bill also gives the Secretary of State powers to determine the budget of the OEP and to hire and fire the board, including the chair. Many of us feel that this does not add up to creating a truly independent watchdog.

Therefore, on Report, I moved an amendment, with support from across the House, to rewrite Clause 24 in order to ensure that it gave independence to the OEP in its enforcement role and budget. It also gave parliamentary oversight of both the budget and the hiring and firing of board members. This amendment was passed by a majority of 29. The Government proposed an alternative amendment that would have involved more consultation with Parliament but did not remove the guidance powers or change the substance of Clause 24. This amendment is essentially the same as Amendments 31A and 31B that we have in front of us today.

In the other place, on 20 October, my amendment was rejected, in spite of the fact that, according to my reading of Hansard, the speeches that referred to it strongly supported it. In her response, Minister Pow made three points. First, she said that paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 requires the Secretary of State to “have regard to” to the OEP’s independence. But we all know that “have regard to” is a weak requirement.

Secondly, she said that the Secretary of State cannot intervene on “specific … cases”. But by intervening on a category of cases—say, new nuclear power stations—the Secretary of State could, in theory, preclude the OEP from investigating a whole raft of individual cases within that category; for example, if it was advised that it is not a priority.

Thirdly, Minister Pow said:

“The OEP does not have to follow the guidance where it has clear reasons not to do so.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/21; col. 823.]


It is a bit paradoxical to justify the existence of the guidance power by saying that the OEP does not have to take any notice of it. Furthermore, you could argue it would be a brave OEP that ignored the guidance from the individual who has the power to determine its budget and hire and fire the board, including the chair.

I am still not satisfied that the Bill will protect the independence of the OEP without further amendment. This new amendment—my Amendment 31C—is a genuine attempt at compromise, and I hope the Government will recognise this and therefore accept it. Let me briefly summarise. Subsection (1) sets out that the OEP has complete discretion in relation to its enforcement policy and functions and in preparing its budget. This would make it comparable to the Office for Budget Responsibility and the National Audit Office. Subsection (2), importantly, retains the guidance power for the Secretary of State but narrows its focus to certain strategic issues concerned with enforcement, as described in Clause 22(6)(c). Subsection (3) requires the OEP to have due regard to the guidance but allows for circumstances in which it may choose to disregard it. Subsections (4) and (5) refer to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny of the guidance, and subsection (6) involves the relevant parliamentary committees in the hiring and firing of board members.

The long-term success or failure of this Bill will in large part be measured by the effectiveness of the office for environmental protection. All the good intentions of the other parts of the Bill could come to naught without a fully independent watchman. We all had high confidence in and high regard for Dame Glenys Stacey, and for her board. We also have high regard for and confidence in the good intentions of current Defra Ministers. But I believe we have to prepare for the long term and that this amendment is fundamental to protecting the OEP’s independence in the long term.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief, as this issue has been debated thoroughly at previous stages of the Environment Bill. I rise to move my Amendment 75C, under Motion N1, which would replace government Amendments 75A and 75B. This mirrors Amendment 31C, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and would achieve the same outcomes for the OEP’s independence in Northern Ireland as his would for the OEP in England.

My amendment would safeguard the OEP’s independence in the long term by amending the power of DAERA to guide how the OEP will hold Ministers to account on any environmental wrongdoings, to make it more targeted. It would also provide the OEP with complete discretion to undertake its activities in Northern Ireland and establish a role for the Assembly’s AERA Committee in overseeing the appointment of the Northern Ireland member on the OEP’s board. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said on Report:

“If the Government accept that the OEP should have complete discretion, surely a matter of this importance should be in the Bill.”—[Official Report, 18/9/21; col. 886.]


The recent DAERA consultation in Northern Ireland on environmental plans, principles and governance indicated strong support for the establishment of the OEP in Northern Ireland. I am in no doubt that that will be a huge boon for our environmental governance, but unless its independence is enshrined for the long term in this Bill, we will have missed a serious opportunity to ensure that this important new body is protected from future political whims. I say that with great reluctance, but we have to consider the political dynamics that exist in the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly. As the EFRA Committee chair Neil Parish MP said in the other place last week,

“we need to ensure that those offices are independent for all time.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/21; col. 804.]

In summary, I disagree with the Government’s amendments in respect of the OEP in Northern Ireland and the need for it to be independent, and I hope the Minister will change his mind on this issue.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, in logical sequence, I will speak to Motion G1 and Amendment 33B, which concerns the conditions that must be satisfied before the High Court can grant a remedy to the OEP on an application for environmental review. Your Lordships will recall that as the Bill stands, in notable contrast to the normal position under judicial review, no remedy whatever may be granted on environmental review unless the court is satisfied that there is not likely to be any substantial prejudice or detriment to a developer, landowner or any other third party, and that there will be no detriment to good administration. So, the mechanism that appears to allow public authorities to be held to account for the non-performance of their environmental duties will in practice be ineffective in all cases where there are serious conflicting interests.

We accept that the interests of developers and landowners can and should be placed in the balance when courts are making decisions about remedies, but it is perverse and without precedent to suggest that those interests should automatically outweigh all other factors, including the public interest in a clean environment and having the law enforced. In any judicial system worth the name, the court must at least be able to have regard to those factors, which is our modest and limited objective.

We bent over backwards in Amendment 33 to accommodate the Government’s concerns, to the point where my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who signed the original amendment, said:

“I cannot see what greater protection any Government could legitimately seek.”—[Official Report, 8/9/21; col. 897.]


We have risen to my noble and learned friend’s challenge and, in response to the other place, imprecise though its comments were, we have been more accommodating still.

There are two additional reasons Amendment 33B should commend itself to the House. First, when listing the factors to which the court must have regard when deciding whether to grant a remedy, we have largely borrowed the list of factors used by the Government themselves for comparable purposes in Clause 1(8) of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, which has its Second Reading in the other place today. Those factors specifically include the interests and expectations of developers, landowners and others who have relied—no doubt in good faith—on failures by a public authority to comply with environmental law.

Secondly, my noble friend Lord Krebs has conceded, in his linked Amendment 31C, that the Secretary of State may issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in Clause 22(6)(c): that is, the exercise of

“its enforcement functions in a way that respects the integrity of other statutory regimes (including statutory provision for appeals).”

Even if my noble friend’s amendment is accepted—and I hope it is—the Government will have every opportunity to ensure that environmental review, which we accept is designed to deal with systemic problems, is not used to circumvent the short statutory deadlines that apply in planning cases. That fundamentally changes the landscape in which my amendment features.

I am acutely aware that we have to tread delicately at this stage of a Bill, but make no apology for stressing the particular importance of this amendment. Arguments about the precise ambit of the environmental duties to be imposed on public authorities will be to little effect if those duties cannot be enforced in court in the normal way at the request of the body established for the purpose. If this in many ways admirable Bill cannot be made to achieve this, it will have a fundamental weakness at its core. For that reason, and unless the Minister can offer the necessary assurance, which I understand from our continuing dialogue may be unlikely at this stage, I propose to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 33B.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I will pose a couple of brief questions to my noble friend the Minister. He will recall that I supported the original amendment on the independence of the OEP at earlier stages. I cannot think of any other body to which a department has issued guidance that is meant to be overseeing that department. To be honest, I preferred the original Amendment 31 and am struggling entirely to understand the contents of the new Amendment 31C.

18:00

Can my noble friend confirm that the Scottish equivalent—Environmental Standards Scotland—does not have to follow guidance set by the Government of Scotland but is left to get on to apply environmental law as it best understands it? I also refer him to the report adopted earlier this year by the European Union Committee, specifically the Environment Sub-Committee on which I have the privilege to sit, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. The report is titled Beyond Brexit: Food, Environment, Energy and Health. In paragraph 164, we concluded:

“Environment law will be more effectively enforced if the UK’s supervisory authorities cooperate closely with one another and with the European Commission. We urge them to enter into this cooperation openly and with the goal of ensuring the maximum level of protection for the environment.”

In evidence given by the Secretary of State to that committee, he was very open-minded about that co-operation and, if that is the case, I urge my noble friend that such co-operation take place and he allows the OEP, under the chairmanship of Dame Glenys Stacey, to work as effectively and independently as it possibly can.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, as someone who spoke passionately about the independence of the OEP at earlier stages of the Bill, I support my noble friend Lord Krebs in his amendment.

The OEP will be at the centre of our country’s new environmental future: post Brexit, post COP 26 and post COP 15. The world is changing fast, and I am pleased to say that, as the Minister mentioned earlier, we are slowly waking up to the environmental dangers we face and gradually—very gradually—moving in the right direction.

We all have great hopes for and expectations of the OEP, and within the nation’s ambitions to drive a cleaner, more sustainable and more biodiverse future, I cannot stress how important it is that we get the OEP right. The success or otherwise of everything in the Bill depends on it. At the moment, it still looks as though it will be a tool of the very department it should be overseeing, as has been mentioned.

Let us not forget that Defra is in charge of and funds our most important environmental bodies: Natural England and the Environment Agency. Even local authorities do much of their environmental work in partnership with Natural England and the Environment Agency, so the auditing and bringing to book of these, our most important environmental bodies, will be crucial. Sadly, in my experience of working with NDPBs within the Defra family, I believe this is unlikely to happen if Defra is allowed to exert undue influence over the OEP. As I said in debates at earlier stages, the OEP has not only to be independent but to be seen to be independent, and at the moment there is a severe danger that it will be neither.

This House’s views on the vital importance of the independence of the OEP have been expressed again and again by noble Lords from all sides of the House with much more eloquence than I can muster, so I will not go on, but I urge Defra, which originally fired the arrow of an independent OEP when Michael Gove was Secretary of State, to now let it fly. This is the department’s chance to do that.

This excellently crafted compromise amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Krebs is, like all compromises, probably not to the satisfaction of all, but I strongly believe that the Government and all noble Lords should now grasp this opportunity to resolve the impasse and give us an OEP we can be proud of by voting for my noble friend’s Motion F1.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lord, extremely briefly, I offer the Green group’s support for all the opposition amendments in this group. On Motion E1, I have a question for the Minister. Will he acknowledge to the House that we cannot keep the same mantra of “It is either deal with climate change or deal with national security” and acknowledge that, as the integrated review says, the climate emergency is the number one threat that the Government should be focused on internationally?

On introducing this debate on Motions F1 and G1, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said that he was not commenting on any individual involved in the OEP. I shall comment on individuals, to note the two noble Lords moving those Motions and urge noble Lords to support those extremely distinguished Members of our House in their area of absolute expertise and get behind them.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, when these amendments were dealt with in the House of Commons, the Minister said that she was very satisfied to have the office of environmental protection independent. That is what I want, and I believe that that is what the Government want, but she went on to say that the Secretary of State will be accountable for the OEP. I am in difficulty about the precise nature of that accountability. This is not the easiest question to answer, so I gave notice this morning that I proposed to ask it, so that my noble friend might have an opportunity, if he wished, to think it over. Obviously, the Minister dealing with this in the House of Commons must have had an idea in mind.

This arises in connection with the giving of instructions. The strange thing about the instructions and guidance is that the guidance does not need to be followed. It has to be seen by the Houses of Parliament before it passes, but once it is passed, it need not be performed. To my mind, that is a rather exceptional situation. Why should Parliament be asked to study carefully what the department—the Secretary of State—is proposing but then the organisation that is to receive the instructions need do nothing about it? That is a remarkable situation, but it ties into the idea of the accountability of the Secretary of State for this independent body.

I should be glad to know precisely how this operation is supposed to work. How is the Secretary of State responsible, apart from saying that the OEP is independent and he must secure that at all costs? If that is all, very good, but I suspect that the Minister in the Commons was thinking of something a little more complicated than that, and I hope the Minister can explain it to us in due course.

I think that the Motions in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Anderson, are pretty essential to the working of this arrangement, but the principal fact that I wish established is that the OEP should be independent, as the Minister said in the House of Commons.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank (Con)]

My Lords, I took the opportunity to support the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Anderson, in the previous rounds of this proposal, and I will continue to do so.

The office for environmental protection is the beating heart of the Environment Bill. We are about to embark on an extraordinary gathering of people about climate change here in the UK, in Glasgow. The eyes of the world are upon us. There are suspicions that this particular element of the Environment Bill is not as strong as it needs to be. The amendments that have been put forward are a useful adjustment to previous amendments and I believe that they are workable. Without them, the pressures that we put upon Dame Glenys Stacey will be immense. The suspicion will linger always that she is somehow or other beholden to the Government in one fashion or another, and there will be continued requests for clarification, and for clarity about her behaviour as well as that of her board and her team—this will go on.

We need the absolute certainty of independence, which we can achieve here today, through these amendments. If we can do that, we can set sail upon a fine voyage—we set sail just before COP, with a very clear successor body to the European Commission, which can do what the European Commission once did—that is, hold power to account.

The amendments are before us. It is up to this House to decide what to do with them.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I am grateful to the Minister for the discussions that he has had with us since Report. Secondly, we are disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to make a concession to the revised amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, to include defence in the scope of the Bill. However, we understand her generous decision to pull up stumps at this point, bearing in mind some of the other pressures on us this evening. Thirdly, we are very grateful, as ever, to the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Anderson, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie for continuing to pursue the independence of the OEP and the need for effective remedies.

These noble Lords have all made hugely impressive and convincing contributions this evening; they do not need me to repeat their arguments. I also thank all other noble Lords who have added their voices in support. I hope that the Minister is getting a sense of the mood of the House on these issues. We very much hope that he can therefore agree to revisit them. If this is not possible, we urge the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Anderson, to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Beginning with Amendment 28B, the Government maintain the position that exempting the Armed Forces, defence and national security from the environmental principles duty is required to ensure the flexibility for our defence capability. I appreciate the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, but I am afraid that, as I said in my opening remarks, this is a red line for the MoD. I will secure the reassurance that we were promised together on a call that we made, which has been followed up since, and I very much hope that it directly addresses the plea that she has made to this House. We will continue those discussions afterwards.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I am very happy to reiterate something that I, she and many others have said many times: nature and climate change are inextricably linked. Indeed, climate change is in many respects the fever that the planet is experiencing as a consequence of the degradation of its natural environment. All the science tells us that there is no pathway to net zero, or to staying within 1.5 degrees, without massive efforts to protect and restore nature on a scale that we have never seen before. That is absolutely understood. I simply add that it is not just a reflection of my view but the position of this Government as they take us towards COP 26. We have sought to put nature at the very heart of our response to climate change, both here and internationally. I think, and hope, that we will see some real movement over the coming weeks from the global community.

I turn to amendments 31, 31A, 31B, 31C, 75, 75A, 75B and 75C. We believe that the guidance power is necessary to ensure that the OEP continues to operate effectively and provide appropriate accountability. To elaborate on a point I made earlier in response to comments by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the OEP will have an extremely broad scope and remit, encompassing all environmental law and with powers to investigate alleged serious breaches by any public authority, ranging from a local authority to a Minister of the Crown. Given this huge breadth, the guidance power is important to ensure that Ministers who are ultimately responsible for the OEP’s use of public money can ensure that it is functioning as intended, focusing on the most serious strategic cases. My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked for comparable examples of such guidance being issued. My understanding is that the Secretary of State has the power to provide guidance to the Climate Change Committee, and that power is enshrined in the Climate Change Act.

18:15

I want to respond to the comments and questions put to me by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. As a non-departmental body, the OEP will be operationally independent from government. It will set its own strategy and have discretion in deciding how best to deliver on its principal objective by exercising its statutory functions, including whether to provide advice to Ministers and publish reports on its own initiative. The Bill also specifies that the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to protect the OEP’s independence.

The Government believe that Ministers should be properly accountable to Parliament for the governance and performance of their departments’ arm’s-length bodies, including in their use of public funds. For this reason, the Government consider the guidance power under Clause 24 to be necessary. The Secretary of State will agree with the Treasury sufficient funding for the OEP to carry out its functions and make the final decision on public appointments.

The OEP will be subject to routine monitoring of expenditure during the year and will have a duty also to arrange for its key financial reports to be laid before Parliament. The responsible Minister will account for the OEP in Parliament on all matters other than in respect of the OEP’s enforcement decisions and the content of its advice or reports.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, the Bill makes provision for an equivalent guidance power for the Northern Ireland department. A similar Lords amendment seeks to remove this power.

Finally, on Amendments 33 and 33B, I am afraid that, as they would remove the protections for third parties, even despite the relevant factors for the court to consider, which the noble Lord has added, we are unable to accept them. Again, to elaborate, as the court will have access to court orders outside of the normal judicial review time limits, there is significantly increased risk that third parties may be negatively affected by the grant of a remedy. If it is necessary to prevent or mitigate serious damage to the environment or human health, the OEP can apply directly for an urgent judicial review, without going through its earlier notice period. In cases such as these, all remedies would be available at the discretion of the court.

I suspect—indeed, I am certain—that we will have to disagree at this time, but I do so acknowledging in all sincerity the case that the noble Lord has made and the constructive and compelling manner in which he has made it. I am afraid we are not able to accept the amendment.

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed today, and in personal conversations with myself and my officials, on these measures. I hope that noble Lords have been reassured by my words and I commend the Motion to the House.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

I beg leave to withdraw Motion E1.

Motion E1 withdrawn.

Motion E agreed.

Motion F

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 31 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 31A and 31B in lieu.

31A: Clause 24, page 14, line 35, leave out subsections (3) and (4)

31B: Clause 24, page 14, line 38, at end insert—
“(6) Before issuing the guidance, the Secretary of State must—
(a) prepare a draft, and
(b) lay the draft before Parliament.
(7) If before the end of the 21 day period—
(a) either House of Parliament passes a resolution in respect of the draft guidance, or
(b) a committee of either House of Parliament, or a joint committee of both Houses, makes recommendations in respect of the draft guidance,
the Secretary of State must produce a response and lay it before Parliament.
(8) The Secretary of State may prepare and lay before Parliament the final guidance, but not before—
(a) if subsection (7) applies, the day on which the Secretary of State lays the response required by that subsection, or
(b) otherwise, the end of the 21 day period.
(9) The final guidance has effect when it is laid before Parliament.
(10) The Secretary of State must publish the guidance when it comes into effect.
(11) The “21 day period” is the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the draft guidance is laid under subsection (6).
(12) “Sitting day” means a day on which both Houses of Parliament sit.
(13) The Secretary of State may revise the guidance at any time (and subsections
(6) to (12) apply in relation to any revised guidance).”

Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)

Moved by

[Lord Krebs]

Leave out from “31” to end and insert “, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 31A and 31B, and do propose Amendment 31C in lieu—

31C: Leave out Clause 24 and insert the following new Clause—
“OEP independence
(1) The OEP has complete discretion in the carrying out of its functions, including in—
(a) preparing its enforcement policy,
(b) exercising its enforcement functions, and
(c) preparing and publishing its budget.
(2) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in section 22(6)(c).
(3) The OEP must have regard to the guidance in preparing its enforcement policy, unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise.
(4) Before issuing the guidance, the Secretary of State must—
(a) prepare and consult on a draft,
(b) lay the draft before Parliament, and
(c) publish a response to the consultation.
(5) The Secretary of State must publish the guidance when it comes into effect.
(6) In making or terminating appointments under paragraph 1 and paragraph 5 of Schedule 1, the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Environmental Audit Committees of the House of Commons.””

18:19

Division 3

Ayes: 223

---

Labour: 94
Liberal Democrat: 65
Crossbench: 48
Conservative: 8
Independent: 6
Green Party: 2

Noes: 172

---

Conservative: 161
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Independent: 3
Crossbench: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

18:33

Motion G

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 33, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 33A.

33A: Because the circumstances in which the court may grant a remedy on an environmental review should not be altered in the manner proposed.

Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)

Moved by

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 33B in lieu—

33B: Clause 37, page 22, line 23, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
“(8) Where the court makes a statement of non-compliance it may grant any remedy that may be granted by it on a judicial review other than damages.
(8A) In deciding whether to grant such a remedy, the court must have regard to—
(a) the nature and circumstances of the non-compliance;
(b) any detriment to good administration that would result from granting or failing to grant a remedy;
(c) the interests or expectations of persons who would benefit from the grant of a remedy;
(d) the interests or expectations of persons who have relied on the failure by the public authority to comply with environmental law;
(e) any other matter that appears to the court to be relevant.””

18:34

Division 4

Ayes: 207

---

Labour: 94
Liberal Democrat: 62
Crossbench: 36
Conservative: 7
Independent: 6
Green Party: 2

Noes: 172

---

Conservative: 158
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Crossbench: 4
Independent: 4
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

18:47

Motion H

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 43, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 43A.

43A: Because the law already makes provision to protect pollinators from the effect of pesticides.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, as well as Motion H, with the leave of the House I will also speak to Motions J, J1, K, L, M, Q and R. It is a pleasure to open this debate focusing on the protection of nature, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed throughout the passage of this Bill on these issues.

I begin by speaking to Motions H in my name and H1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I have listened intently to the concerns of this House on this matter and of course I share them. Countless plants in our gardens, towns and countryside simply could not exist without pollen being spread by bees and hundreds of species of other insects. Bees and other insect pollinators contribute more than £500 million a year to UK agriculture through improving crop quality and quantity, but in truth this figure barely touches the sides in terms of the true value of our pollinators to our country. They add immeasurable beauty and wonder to our environment and, indeed, our lives.

The Government wish to see pollinators thrive so they can carry out their essential services for the environment and for food production and provide such joys for people. We are committed to taking action to improve their status, and action through the national action plan, the National Pollinator Strategy and our Healthy Bees Plan 2030 will help better protect pollinators and allow them to flourish. I will set out a bit more detail on these plans for the House today.

First, I can confirm to all noble Lords that we will publish a national action plan for the sustainable use of pesticides by the end of this year. The purpose of the plan is to minimise the risks and impacts of pesticides to human health and the environment while ensuring pests and pesticide resistance are managed effectively. Integrated pest management is central to the plan, and we are supporting a shift towards greater use of those techniques. The technique will benefit the pollinators that we all value, as it will involve designing pesticides out of farming systems as far as we possibly can and will include increased use of nature-based, low-toxicity solutions and precision technologies to manage pests.

In addition, the Government are taking action under the national pollinator strategy. This includes restoring and creating habitats for pollinators to thrive; raising awareness across society so that people can take action themselves; and supporting monitoring and research, including a national pollinator monitoring scheme, to improve our understanding of pollinators’ population status. Our Healthy Bees Plan 2030 provides a blueprint for how we will improve honeybee health, including working in partnership with beekeepers and bee farmers.

Finally, I will address the specific concern raised by Amendment 43B, which seeks to introduce a requirement to conduct a pollinator risk assessment report before a decision can be taken. I assure the House that, when we update the national action plan, we shall assess the use of pesticides in the round and their impact on the natural environment. Given the action that the Government are taking to protect pollinators and the existing regulations in place, as well as the upcoming national action plan for pesticides, I ask that the House agrees with Motion H.

I turn to storm overflows. Before I go into detail, I would like to talk briefly about the debate itself. Of course, we all feel very strongly about this issue, and it is right for the Government to be held to account. However, it has to be said that some of the language that has been used in recent days, including by one or two Members of this House, has been simply unacceptable. It has led very directly to a torrent of abuse, some of it extremely violent, directed at colleagues in the other place. It is obvious to anyone who follows this process that absolutely no one wants raw sewage anywhere near our waters and seas, and it is objectively the case that, even without any further improvements to this Bill, we will have regulations and standards to deal with this issue that significantly exceed what we had before; in other words, the Bill already represents a major improvement on the status quo. I have made it clear previously that we have been working for some time on ways in which to improve and significantly strengthen it, further details of which I shall come to in just a few moments.

With respect, I am going to address the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who is in his place, engaged yesterday in an orgy of tweets, telling his followers:

“Zac Goldsmith … proposes pumping raw sewage into rivers & the sea.”


When he talked about

“Zac Goldsmith’s plans to allow water companies to pump raw sewage into rivers and the sea”,

he was spreading a malicious falsehood.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

It is a disgrace.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

It is a disgrace, and I am glad for that reassuring remark from behind.

Over the course of dozens of tweets, the noble Lord was trying to make his—let us face it—not always balanced Twitter followers believe something about me and the Government that is simply not true, and which he knows to be untrue. Indeed, by suggesting that we are making it easier for companies to pollute our waters, he was spreading a grotesque inversion of the truth. I understand why he has done so; it is nothing to do with the environment, an issue on which he has almost no record whatever. It is about wanting people to believe that Brexit means more sewage in our waters. He knows that this is not true—this is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion—but he also knows that, because of his position, many will believe him. Some will be driven into a frenzy of rage, as we have seen—rage based on a blatant untruth. The noble Lord may have been driven to distraction by Brexit, but he is not a stupid person; he wants his words to have consequences. In this debate on sewage, the noble Lord has absolutely covered himself in the stuff—and I say shame on him.

There is, rightly, concern in this House, and indeed the other place, wider society and the Government, about the unacceptable frequency with which sewage is discharged from storm overflows into our rivers, lakes and seas. It is because we share that concern that we have moved so far already on this issue. In this spirit, I hope that noble Lords will allow me to outline in one simple list the measures in the Bill and outside it which will indeed deliver progressive reductions in the harm caused by storm overflows.

The Bill places, first, a new duty on government to produce a statutory plan to reduce discharges from storm overflows and their adverse impact, and report to Parliament on progress. Secondly, it creates a requirement for government to produce a report setting out the actions that would be needed to eliminate storm overflows in England and the costs and benefits of those actions. Both publications are required before 1 September 2022. Thirdly, it creates a new duty directly on water companies and the Environment Agency to publish data on storm overflow operation on an annual basis and, fourthly, a new duty directly on water companies to publish near real-time information on the operation of storm overflows. Fifthly, it creates a new duty directly on water companies to monitor the water quality upstream and downstream of storm overflows and sewage disposal works and, sixthly, a new duty directly on water companies to produce comprehensive statutory drainage and sewerage management plans, setting out how they will manage and develop their drainage and sewerage system over a minimum 25-year planning horizon, including how storm overflows will be addressed through these plans. The seventh thing the Bill does is to create a power of direction for the Government to direct water companies in relation to these plans if they are not good enough—the “big stick”. Eighthly and finally, it creates a duty on government to set and achieve at least one new target to drive progress in the priority area of water.

This significant package will work hand in hand with the action that we are taking outside the Bill. Significantly, for the first time, the Government made it crystal clear in our draft strategic policy statement to Ofwat that we expect water companies to take steps to “significantly reduce ... storm overflows”, and that we expect funding to be approved for them to do so. These are not just warm words: the price review is the mechanism by which funding for the water companies and their priorities are determined. This is our biggest lever to clamp down on sewage discharges from storm overflows.

Significant investment has been unlocked on storm overflows in the current price review period 2020-25. Water companies will invest £7.1 billion on environmental improvements in England; of this, £3.1 billion will be invested in storm overflow improvements. This is supplemented by an additional £606 million as part of the green recovery announcement. We have also committed to reviewing the case for implementing Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 in England, which would set mandatory build standards for sustainable drainage schemes on new developments, something that numerous noble Lords called for in Committee. In August 2020, we established the Storm Overflows Taskforce—indeed, it was my colleague, Rebecca Pow, who was here a second ago, who established it—to bring together key stakeholders from the water industry, environmental NGOs, regulators and government to drive progress in reducing sewage discharges. That task force has agreed a long-term goal to eliminate harm from storm overflows.

I and my colleagues across government have been clear that we are determined to tackle the harm from storm overflows and stop untreated sewage flowing into our rivers, lakes and seas. Last Wednesday, the Government and their Back-Benchers actively voted into the Bill six pages of new law directly on storm overflows. To imply that the Government and their Back-Benchers are voting to dump sewage into our rivers is factually incorrect. However, all that said, we have listened carefully to the feeling in the other place and this House and among the wider public. I am absolutely delighted to confirm that the Government will bring forward an amendment in lieu in the Commons at the next stage; it will place a direct legal duty on water companies to progressively reduce the adverse impact of storm overflows.

I want to heap thanks on my right honourable friend Philip Dunne and other Members in the other place who have spoken so strongly about this issue, in Parliament and on broadcast media. Indeed, they have driven action in their own constituencies. I am delighted to say that Philip Dunne has indicated that he is in agreement with the Government on the wording of our proposed amendment, which will follow the clear direction already set by the Government’s draft strategic policy statement to Ofwat, published in July, that we expect water companies to take steps to

“significantly reduce the frequency and volume of sewage discharges from storm overflows”.

We cannot accept the amendment proposed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, as it is, but I assure noble Lords that the Government’s amendment in lieu will deliver the same action in reducing sewage discharges into our rivers. We cannot accept the amendment exactly as drafted, since we need to ensure integration with other legislation, including new measures in the Bill and existing duties in the Water Industry Act 1991. For example, although we absolutely support the noble Duke’s premise, his amendment does not dock in with the enforcement regime in the Water Industry Act or the range of enforcement remedies available to Ofwat within that Act. Consistency with the draft strategic policy statement to Ofwat and Ofwat’s price review mechanism is also important. Aligning the new duty with the existing framework in this way will ensure that the price review does its job, balancing the need for investment with the need to protect customers from disproportionate prices.

I thank again noble Lords across this House and Members of the other place, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, but many others as well. I hope that noble Lords will be able to support our position today. I look forward to setting out more detail before the Bill returns to the other place.

19:00

I turn to Motion K and Amendment 65, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for tabling the amendment. The powers we are taking in the Bill will allow us to refocus the habitats regulations to ensure that the legislation supports our ambitions for nature. It also includes a requirement to set a legally binding target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030.

The powers under Clauses 105 and 106 form an important part of our ambition for domestic nature recovery. Our Green Paper will set out proposals to support nature recovery in England and provide an opportunity for consultation. Since July, we have been undertaking stakeholder meetings to discuss our plans and seek early views. These powers have been carefully and tightly drafted so that they contain strong safeguards to ensure that we maintain and enhance protections for nature conservation. These protections are not too dissimilar to those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs; I hope he agrees. Our clauses already provide that, in exercising these powers, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the changes do not reduce the level of environmental protection currently provided by the habitats regulations, thereby safeguarding the future of our valuable species and habitats. The Secretary of State must also have regard to the particular importance of furthering the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity.

Our clauses also already provide that the Secretary of State must publicly consult on any changes. We have already publicly committed to consult the office for environmental protection and government statutory nature advisers. Finally, the Government will of course remain bound by international nature conservation law. We are committed to all our obligations; we do not need to set this out in primary legislation. I hope the noble Lord will therefore agree that this amendment is not necessary, and I ask him to withdraw it.

Turning to Amendments 94 and 95, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher for tabling them. The Bill introduces what is unarguably pioneering legislation to tackle illegal deforestation in UK supply chains. Businesses will be required to ensure that the forest risk commodities they use are not produced on land illegally occupied or used. The UK is a world leader in introducing such legislation, which forms part of a wider package of measures to improve the sustainability of our supply chains. On the back of this legislation, a number of other important consumer countries are working on their own versions in order to create a real global shift in the commodity markets. I look forward to further discussions next week at COP on international action to protect forests. Following a huge amount of very hard work across departments, we hope to be able to produce a package of measures that will turn the tide on deforestation. I should love to go into the detail, but I am afraid I am not able to do so.

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments of the House regarding these amendments. It is of the utmost importance that this legislation works, which is why we have included a requirement to review its effectiveness every two years after it comes into force. As part of this, we will be required to set out any steps we intend to take as the result of the review, to ensure that we take action if we do not see progress.

These amendments, which would require the first review to happen after just one year, would limit the Government’s ability to conduct an effective review. We simply would not have anything like enough data or analysis to inform whatever decision we might want to take at that point. Businesses are required to submit their first report and due diligence at the end of the first year of implementation. This information will be essential to ensure a successful, comprehensive review. Initially, we shall be focusing our efforts on working with businesses to make sure that they understand what is required of them and that the policy is effectively implemented and enforced from the beginning. We are working on a number of different levels, both internationally and domestically, to bolster our approach to trying to break the link between commodity production and deforestation, the former being responsible for around 80% of the latter.

Turning to Amendment 66 and Motion L, on ancient woodlands, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for tabling that amendment and for the persuasive arguments she has put forward throughout the Bill’s passage and during our numerous phone conversations and meetings. I also thank the Woodland Trust for its partnership working with government on the ancient woodland inventory—a hugely important tool for the protection of this irreplaceable habitat. We are grateful for all it does.

I want to repeat the announcements my honourable friend Rebecca Pow made in the other place during the Commons consideration of Lords amendments. First, we will undertake a review of the National Planning Policy Framework to ensure that it is being implemented correctly in the case of ancient and veteran trees and ancient woodland. Should this review conclude that implementation can be improved, we will look to strengthen the guidance to local planning authorities to ensure that they understand the protections provided to ancient woodland. Secondly, we will consult on strengthening the wording of the National Planning Policy Framework better to ensure the strongest possible protection of ancient woodlands, while recognising the complex delivery challenges for major infrastructure.

Alongside these reforms we will amend the town and country planning (consultation) direction to require local planning authorities to consult the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities if they are minded to grant permission for developments that might affect ancient woodland. This underlines the importance of ancient woodland to local planning authorities and ensures that they act appropriately with regard to development that could impact on it. I reassure noble Lords that these measures will be undertaken in a timely manner, working hand in hand with the forthcoming planning reforms. This announcement, along with the commitments previously made in the England Trees Action Plan, underlines the Government’s commitment to ancient woodlands as valuable, irreplaceable habitats. We will continue to explore options further to protect and restore ancient woodlands and to ensure that, where impact on them is deemed wholly necessary, it will happen only as an absolute last resort.

Infrastructure development is a vital part of levelling up the country, but it is right that the impacts on ancient woodland be minimised and mitigated. I will continue to raise this issue beyond this Bill with my counterparts across government, as I have already done. While we do not accept the amendment, I hope that this is a positive outcome for the noble Baroness and for your Lordships’ House. This announcement will deliver effective action to protect our precious and irreplaceable ancient woodland. Much of this is down to effective and compelling arguments made in this House. I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to support the Government’s Motion.

I turn now to Motion M in this very long list, and Amendments 67A and 67E, on conservation covenants. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and all noble Lords who supported Amendment 67 for their time and contributions. One of the key issues previously raised in your Lordships’ House was the level of formality required for entering into a conservation covenant agreement. Having reflected on this concern and having heard the arguments made, in particular by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, the Government acknowledge that an additional layer of formality would provide some reassurance to landowners. As such, I am pleased that we have been able to reach agreement to table Amendments 67A and 67E during Commons consideration of Lords amendments to require that conservation covenant agreements be executed as deeds. In addition, government guidance on conservation covenants will provide clear support on the relevant execution formalities which will be required. It will also highlight key areas for the parties to consider before entering into a covenant, such as the duration of their obligations and the provision of payment, as well as encouraging them to take independent legal advice.

I hope that your Lordships’ House will support the Government’s position. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, is up a mountain in Wales, but I know that he supports Motion M. I hope that noble Lords appreciate the progress that has been made. I thank them all for their contributions to and ongoing engagement with the Environment Bill. I beg to move Motion H.

Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)

Moved by

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 43B in lieu—

43B: After Clause 72, insert the following new Clause—
“Bee and Pollinator Safety
Protection of pollinators from pesticides
(1) Prior to any authorisation for use of a pesticide product, an active ingredient, a safener or a synergist, a pollinator risk assessment report, containing scientific data and risk assessment conclusions relating to the effects of the relevant substance, must be published by an expert body consisting of individuals free from vested interests in pesticide use, who must have been independently appointed.
(2) The pollinator risk assessment report must include—
(a) data examining acute and chronic effects of the relevant substance on honeybees, bumblebees, solitary bees, butterflies and hoverflies,
(b) all available scientific evidence relating to effects on any pollinators,
(c) an assessment of synergistic effects, and
(d) the identification of any risks to pollinators where the available evidence is insufficient to reach a conclusion.
(3) The expert body must consult the public on the draft content of the pollinator risk assessment.
(4) A competent authority must not authorise for use any pesticide product, active ingredient, safener or synergist until and unless the public—
(a) has been informed early, in an adequate, timely and effective manner, that a decision will be made,
(b) has been consulted on the decision that the competent authority intends to make, including on any mitigation or restriction measures that are proposed, and
(c) has had access, for the full consultation period, to all statutory risk assessments required for the authorisation decision.
(5) In addition to considerations set out elsewhere, when making any authorisation decision the competent authority must—
(a) aim to achieve a high level of protection for the environment,
(b) be satisfied that there will be no significant short-term negative effect, and no long-term negative effect, on the health of honeybees or wild pollinator populations,
(c) publish, with the consultation referred to in subsection (4)(b), a statement explaining why the competent authority is satisfied that requirements (a) and (b) of this subsection have been met.
(6) This section comes into force on 1 March 2023.
(7) In this section—
“authorise for use” includes authorisation by derogation; “competent authority” means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;
(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;
(c) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers;
(d) the Secretary of State when acting with the consent of either or both the Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales and the Scottish Ministers in relation to Scotland.””

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his time and for that of his officials during the passage of this Bill on the subject of pesticides and pollinators, and for his comments this afternoon. I was disappointed, as were others, that the other place chose to ignore the vote of this Chamber and rejected our amendment on the basis that the law makes provision to protect pollinators from the effects of pesticides. I fear that this is not the case. It is clear from its response that the other place has not fully grasped the extent to which the existing provisions fail to protect any non-honey bee pollinators, and to which the proposed provisions fall outside the pre-existing provisions.

Insect pollinators are vital for the maintenance of ecosystem health and for global food security. Seventy-five per cent of crops species, 35% of global crop production and up to 88% of flowering plant species are dependent to some extent on insect pollinators. There is substantial concern as to their current and future conservation status. Key threats to pollinators include agriculture intensification, particularly habitat loss and pesticide use, climate change and the spread of alien species.

We have had detailed debates on this subject previously, and now is not the time to revisit that detail. I thank the Minister for his commitment and for his comments. I welcome the commitment to assess the use of pesticides in the round, and I look forward to hearing the detail. The Minister speaks very fast, so I will study Hansard to assess his detailed comments. I beg to move.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer as set out in the register. I also share with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, a considerable love of bees. I am not sure whether she intends to press the House on this, but I must set the record straight regarding the use of plant protection products as this is absolutely fundamental to agriculture in this country.

First, PPPs are targeted, not used in isolation. They form a critical component of an integrated pest management approach which carefully considers all available protection methods to discourage development of populations of harmful organisms; their use, and the use of other forms of intervention, are kept to levels that are economically and ecologically justified; and they reduce and minimise the risk to human health and the environment.

Secondly, there is a big misconception that farmers use PPPs even though they do not need to. Farmers only use PPPs when they absolutely must to protect our food supply against pests, weeds and diseases that would otherwise cause us to lose between 30% and 40% of our food production. When farmers use PPPs, they ensure they are only using as much as is necessary and take measures to ensure that they impact only on intended crops.

Thirdly, as stated on numerous occasions, the current regulatory system for PPPs is among the most stringent in the world. All products on the market have been subject to a thorough assessment to ensure a high level of protection of human and animal health and the environment. This includes bees and other pollinators. Insecticides are by their nature toxic to bees and other pollinators; however, the way they are used ensures that the risk of exposure is minimised to levels that do not harm bees or other pollinators. As part of the regulation, an appropriate risk assessment is carried out on all active substances and products before they reach the market. They can be approved for use only if it will result in negligible exposure to honey bees or it has no perceptible, acute or chronic effect on colony survival or development. That is the actual situation. I welcome the Minister’s response to this amendment and I look forward to the result of that.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 45B to government Motion J, in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Quin, and the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for agreeing to sign the amendment, but that is apparently not permitted in this House during the so-called ping-pong process, when only one signature is allowed. I must emphasise that this is a cross-party amendment and surely that is right; party politics should not be inserted into a matter like this. I was very disturbed to hear this morning that many Conservative Members of Parliament have received very disagreeable messages on social media. This is completely unacceptable and very regrettable.

This House passed a similar amendment to Amendment 45B to clean up our rivers some weeks ago, with support from all sides of the House. When the amendment was debated last Wednesday in the other place, there was again support for it from all sides of the House. One Conservative MP described it as

“the most important amendment we are faced with this evening.”

Another Conservative MP said:

“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”? —[ Official Report, Commons, 20/10/21; col. 841-61.]

19:15

It is relevant to note that in the vote a substantial number of Conservative MPs voted against the Government, including the right honourable Philip Dunne, the chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, Sir Bernard Jenkin, the chairman of the Liaison Committee, Sir Peter Bottomley, Father of the House, and several other former Cabinet Ministers and chairmen of Select Committees. In addition, all Members of all other parties supported the amendment, except the Scottish National Party, which abstained, as did 20 further Conservative MPs. It therefore seems more than justified that we ask the House of Commons to look again at the merits of this amendment, which has so much support in Parliament and in the country.

I am sure that all Members of this House would agree that it is unacceptable to allow the repeated and continuous discharge of sewage into rivers, lakes and coastal waters. I know that that is the view of our two excellent Ministers, Rebecca Pow in the other place and the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, in this House. I thank them for the several meetings I have had with them, including a short meeting this morning with the Secretary of State George Eustice.

The Government have tabled several amendments during this process for more plans, more monitoring and more reporting. It is true that water companies have announced their intention to invest more in their systems, but I am very doubtful that that will be enough to achieve what we all want and to get something done. That requires a legal duty to be placed on the water companies.

I remind your Lordships that this amendment proposes only the duty to

“take all reasonable steps to ensure”

that sewage is not discharged. It will be resisted by the water companies and probably by the Treasury, but it is surely reasonable that water companies be obliged by law to show the regulators that they are taking “all reasonable steps” to prevent this revolting practice, which is not acceptable in a civilised society in the 21st century, particularly in a country which is hosting next week’s climate summit and is trying to lead the world in high environmental standards. The necessary greening of the kingdom is placing heavy financial burdens on us all—industrially, commercially and domestically. While this massive national and international effort is taking place, how can we justify allowing these damaging and disgusting discharges into the aquatic environment to continue?

I was naturally very pleased to hear the Minister announce that, if this amendment passes, the Government intend to introduce in the other place an amendment in lieu. I am grateful to the Government for making that gesture. I have not yet been able to form an opinion on the exact wording of that amendment, but I am sure it is a very important move by the Government. Therefore, I will be moving my amendment at the appropriate moment.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I want to speak briefly on Motion H1 on pollinators. If the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, was disappointed with the other place, I was rather disappointed with our own House when we did not pass the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on the effect of pesticides on human health, because the issue of pesticides is about not just pollinators but human health as well. It is also about insects generally; I think we have missed out a few, such as moths, on the list of pollinators. I was delighted to hear what the Minister said. I am very pleased; we will keep a close eye on how the Government look at the issue of pesticides.

I will speak briefly on what the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, has just said. I, too, have been down the other end today and seen the vile abuse that many Conservative Members have received. It is absolutely appalling and has been encouraged, I am afraid—whether it is social media or whatever. People I know have worked really hard on this, including my noble friend the Minister. When we started this Bill, there was none of this in there at all, so we have moved very far on this issue. I want to put on record my extreme thanks to both the Minister here and the Minister in the other place for listening to that. Of course, it is not just sewage that we have to think about, although that is what we are talking about now. There are all sorts of other pollution going on, such as phosphates. The River Wye has been destroyed by poultry farms where excrement has leached into the water.

I was of the opinion that the Government could go further; from what I hear, they will. As far as I understand from my days down the other end, in order for the Government to table an amendment in lieu, today’s amendment must go through. I am rather hoping that it will go through without a vote, but if there is a Division, for the sake of the Government’s position, I will oppose the Government on it.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I am a sailor, and have sailed and swam in UK waters for six decades. I have constantly been appalled by the amount of raw sewage I have found in those waters, which has got worse.

I am not on social media but I was sent a digital view of what happened in Langstone Harbour, which runs out into the Solent—into Spithead, actually, which has a position in my heart, as your Lordships can imagine. For 48 hours last Thursday and Friday, raw sewage was pumped through a seven-foot pipe into Langstone Harbour. That is totally unacceptable. I am not blaming the Government for this. I do not do social media, and I certainly would not in a million years blame the Minister; after all, he has been in his position for only half a dog watch, and I know that he feels strongly about this as well. We really have to do something about this. I blame the water companies. How they behave has been appalling. We cannot let this go on. They must be held responsible and have their feet put to the fire.

[Lord Chidgey (LD)]

My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord West, on these issues. I happen to have lived in the same area for more than 70 years and I know the Solent very well, so I share his sentiments on this exactly.

Can I remind your Lordships of where we are on this issue? We have debated this for many weeks now. The rivers, streams and inland waterways of our country all fail to pass the statutory chemical tests, and only 16% of them meet “good” ecological status. The United Kingdom is ranked near the bottom of 30 European countries for coastal water quality. Why? Water companies, particularly Southern Water, are flouting their legal obligations to restrict the discharge of foul raw sewage into our rivers and estuaries. They are instead increasing discharges, apparently happy to risk fines running into hundreds of millions of pounds, which hardly dent their profits and could be better invested in modernising their sewerage infrastructure. I ask again: why? The powers and resources of our regulating agencies have been progressively stripped of funding, leaving them toothless and ineffective. Again, we should ask why. Meanwhile, the biodiversity and ecosystems of our rivers and cherished chalk streams are dying. The reasons, of course, are clear.

I ask your Lordships to support the noble Duke’s amendment tonight so that we can begin to address these issues while allaying the concerns of the Government about unreasonable obligations being placed on water companies—because they are not.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Duke of Wellington and our honourable friend Philip Dunne in the other place on bringing us to this place today. I pay a warm tribute to the Minister, who has managed to administer this Bill and be open to a number of amendments already.

As he is aware, I am concerned when he refers to the regulations giving a mandatory scheme for new developments for the simple reason we debated at earlier stages of the Bill. I seek his reassurance yet again: will he please give us a timetable for the regulations that he says he will bring forward under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to ensure that statutory responsibilities are placed on planning authorities to treat water companies as statutory consultees? It is very important that water companies are given the tools to do the job. Unless we end the automatic right to connect, you will have major developments of 30, 50 or sometimes 300 houses seeking to emit sewage into antiquated Victorian pipes that simply cannot take it. The sewage then goes into the combined sewers and often comes back into existing developments, meaning that those people have to be evacuated for between six and 12 months before they can be rehoused because it is a public health risk.

I urge my noble friend to bring forward these regulations before the end of the year, if possible, to end the automatic right to connect—not to make it conditional but to end it completely, as Sir Michael Pitt called for after the floods in 2007. That way, I believe that we will not offload all the sewage into the rivers and seas—that is the focus of the amendment before us this evening—but will actually front-end it and make sure that this problem never occurs again in any future development.

[Baroness Quin (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, on all the work he has done on this issue. As a co-signatory of a similar amendment he moved on Report, I welcome the fact that he has retabled it to ask the other place—the House of Commons—to think again. Like him, I welcome the fact that there was a sizeable rebellion of the Government’s own supporters in the House of Commons; I hope that they will be joined by others if we return this amendment today, or that the Government will move even more in the direction that they have already signalled to us they are considering.

Of course, I deplore abusive tweets and messages and know the misery that they can cause, but I am glad, and welcome the fact, that people across the country are waking up to the extent of the problem of sewage discharges—which they certainly are. I hope that this proper public pressure will be brought to bear effectively in order to remedy this situation.

I will not repeat further what has been said but will simply make two points. The water industry itself seems to be behind other UK business sectors in its use of technology, yet if British expertise could be harnessed more effectively to tackle the problems of sewage discharges here at home, there is the consequent potential of being able to export environmental technology and equipment elsewhere, and thereby gain some economic benefits for the country as a whole.

My final point is to flag up an issue that has been touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and about which I will write further to the Minister, rather than detaining the House. I think that planning authorities need to take much greater account of the state of sewers, drains and discharges into rivers when looking at applications for more housing. My neighbours are already having problems with the present inadequate draining and sewage systems and the problems of overflows and numerous sewage discharges into a very sensitive river, the River Coquet. This is happening at the same time as new housing developments are being planned. This is not about objecting to housing as such, but objecting to schemes that will overload and overwhelm already fragile and inadequate drainage and sewage systems.

As I say, I will write to the Minister further about this, but I hope that, in the meantime, a very clear message in support of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, will be given by your Lordships’ House today.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend for Motion M and what he has done on conservation covenants. I was a great supporter of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, because, having been a surveyor, I know just how difficult those conservation covenants would be for some farmers, so the new wording is very much appreciated.

My second point is to support very much what my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering said about automatic connection for new developments. This is absolutely crucial. I spoke about it in Committee and on Report. Given the amount of new development there will be, the new regulations need to be brought in as quickly as possible.

19:30

Finally, I turn very briefly to the amendment tabled by the noble Duke. The noble Lord, Lord West, told us about Langstone Harbour. That is visible to us all. If you go to the BBC News website, you will see drone footage of this terrible event, which the BBC says lasted 49 hours, not 48. It was not only sewage that was released but chemicals. The visible effect of that is probably as devastating to anybody who does not understand this problem. That short video also says that there were 400,000 releases of sewage into our rivers last year. That is more than 1,000 a day.

I congratulate the Government on bringing in all the measures on water that they have introduced to make the necessary improvements. I also hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept the amendment of the noble Duke so that this can be revised in the other place, as my noble friend wants.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will give way to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who has tried about 20 times to stand up.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, at this stage, I know that the only thing noble Lords want is to get on with the vote or non-vote, so I will be very brief. I just want to say a huge thank you to the Minister and his wonderful team for the finagling they did with DLUHC—I call it the department of luck—in getting the concessions on ancient woodland protection. I am also delighted with what the Minister said tonight in association with that about the rigour of the reviews, the need for action following reviews and support for the ancient woodland inventory. How can we expect local authorities and developers to avoid ancient woodlands if they do not know where they are? The ancient woodland inventory is far from complete at the moment.

I will make two points before I sit down—my Front Bench is giving me hate mail. First, I hope the Secretary of State for DLUHC will take his new call-in duty seriously, because that is one of the most important parts of these concessions. Secondly, we really need to find a way of enfolding national infrastructure into the provision so that the majority of damage, which is now caused primarily by national infrastructure, does not continue. I was bemused, as were many other noble Lords, by the reason for the Commons rejecting my amendment:

“Because the National Planning Policy Framework and the Forestry Commission and Natural England’s standing advice already make provision to protect ancient woodland”.


Clearly, they have not seen the 290 cases that have arisen in the last 12 months alone.

I very much thank the Minister, his team and all noble Lords around this House, including the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who reminded me very firmly of the little kid who ran between Alan Bates and Julie Christie in “The Go-Between”, as he did shuttle diplomacy with his party at the other end.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak on my own behalf now. First, I am absolutely horrified at the abuse that the Minister has received. I do not know about the practices in this House, but the other Member should be disgusted at his behaviour. I have not seen it all. I would check up, but he has blocked me. I think I offered a tiny amount of criticism once and he blocked me. The first person to block me was President Trump—so, you know.

The amendment from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, is absolutely necessary. We have seen a vast public outcry over this. The whole point was that the Government swept aside our amendment without really understanding just how much the public cared. That was a huge mistake on their part and I hope that they now go all the way to meeting the noble Duke. He has in fact amended the amendment slightly, making it much more reasonable.

Quite honestly, if any Conservative Members at the other end vote against this again, they will have to explain themselves. I thank Feargal Sharkey, the punk star, and Professor Jamie Woodward, who have given me huge amounts of information. I do not believe in abuse on social media, but if I see Tories being virtuous on this subject, I will highlight what is happening in their constituencies.

If we are going to fix the sewage discharges, we can also fix the discharges of plastic and microplastics. Apparently, we could do this all together. That is something we clearly have to do.

I was absolutely horrified by Conservative Central Office, which put out all that nonsense about how much this was going to cost. If the Minister wants to correct the record on that, I would be absolutely delighted, but I understand if he does not have the figures to hand. The issue of cost was not raised at the other end, because I am sure the Ministers did not want to mislead Parliament. Perhaps the Conservative Party’s office might just draw in its fangs occasionally and start to tell the truth.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, on his determination and persistence on this issue. Equally, I thank my noble friend the Minister, my honourable friend Rebecca Pow and the officials who have engaged so sincerely and robustly with us in exploring ways forward.

I am grateful for the progress we have made so far. However, before the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, laid amendments to this Bill, the Government seemed reluctant to place an actual duty on companies. I am hopeful that we can be extremely proud of the changes that we in this House have made in bringing this issue to the forefront of public opinion and prompting action from the Government.

I too express my abhorrence for any vitriol levelled against honourable Members in the other place. Have we not learned in recent weeks the dangers of that type of discourse and personal abuse? I implore noble Lords and those who may still have significant concerns about this Bill to accept that the progress we have made has been made in good faith by Ministers and officials who sincerely wish to make this a landmark piece of legislation—I believe it will be—and are committed to the environmental causes that are so important to so many of us.

Without the duty that the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, proposes, it is entirely possible that little or nothing would happen. That is not safe for public health. I declare my interests as in the register. I recognise the importance of private water utilities to many pension funds and institutional portfolios, which rely on their generous dividends. I have no interest in seeing these companies pushed into bankruptcy or public ownership, but I believe they have neglected their sewage overflow problems for years. They have failed to invest sufficiently to limit the problem and have even played fast and loose with the requirements to report overflows and allowed many illegal discharges. It is time to legislate to force them to spend significant sums to make up for past underspending and egregious behaviour, rather than relying on further promises which leave us with horribly polluted waters.

As the Rivers Trust said—I commend it on its work—more than half of Britain’s rivers are in poor ecological condition due to sewage discharges. This amendment does not call for the immediate elimination of sewage discharges but for ongoing reductions. Clearly, this will take time, but a new duty is so important as we have not really even started.

I noticed this afternoon that the Government have just announced and released on the Defra website plans to further strengthen the Bill with their own amendment to be enshrined in law, which I am led to believe will ensure that water companies have a duty to progressively reduce the adverse impact of sewage discharges from storm overflows. I sincerely hope that that is the case. For that to happen we will need to pass this amendment in this House tonight. I also congratulate my right honourable friend Philip Dunne and my honourable friend Richard Graham and others in the other place who have been working so hard behind the scenes to ensure that we move to a much better place on this amendment.

I therefore hope that noble Lords will support the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, in this important amendment, and I hope and believe that the Minister and the Government will take us to the right place very soon.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, in view of the Minister’s remarks, I should intervene briefly. The noble Baroness just made the crucial point that there appears to have been a major change of government policy. Let us not delude ourselves: that is because of the strength of parliamentary and public opinion. We have been doing our job in making it clear that the disgraceful situation which my noble friend Lord West, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and others have referred to, should not continue.

The Minister was so busy criticising me that he did not say explicitly that he is accepting the amendment in the name of the noble Duke. Are the Government accepting it? I see that the noble Baroness is shaking her head. Is it the case that they are not accepting the amendment? So we will have to vote. That is quite a significant point. The Government are still not in a situation where they are clearly accepting what the noble Duke said. The Government could, procedurally, accept the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, it would go back, and they could then move a further amendment.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I will give the noble Lord an answer. The Government encourage the noble Duke, the Duke of Westminster—I have done it again. I will go to jail voluntarily after this. The Government encourage the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, to press his amendment to a Division. The reason for doing so is because we will then be able to send it back to the House of Commons so that the Commons can then table our amendment in lieu. I would have thought the noble Lord would be aware of that and I suspect—in the same way that he continues to send absurd messages on Twitter in the last few minutes—that he probably already knew the answer.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I am well aware of the procedure of the House; I have been here rather longer than the noble Lord. The question is whether the Government are accepting it. Are they going to vote? No? So they are not voting. If they are not voting, that means that the amendment in the name of the noble Duke will go back to the House of Commons, and the right thing to do then is for it to be accepted or for them to move whatever technical changes they want.

On the substance of this issue, obviously the House congratulates the noble Duke on the stand he has taken. It is because of that stand that we are in this position this evening. On the business of criticisms of the Minister, let us make this very clear. Speaker after speaker in this debate has pointed out that unless there is this duty—an actual duty on water companies to reduce these illegal or unacceptable discharges—the current unsatisfactory position would not only continue but would probably get worse. The noble Earl referred to this.

With the scale of further development, the cutback of two-thirds in the Environment Agency—I am not giving way to the noble Lord; he can make his own remarks in a moment if he wishes to. I was criticised by the Minister so it is perfectly reasonable that I should reply. There has been a cutback of two-thirds in the staff of the Environment Agency over the last 10 years. In addition, the new guidance from the Environment Agency says that because of Brexit—yes, Brexit—where water companies cannot get the chemicals they need because of the HGV crisis, they are allowed exemptions from current rules. For all those reasons there is very good reason to believe that without the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the situation would get worse and not better. My statement was clear, that without the change which the noble Duke is proposing, the situation over which the Government are presiding—the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is the Minister responsible—would get worse.

We are doing the right thing in supporting the noble Duke. The House has shown itself in its best lights in supporting him so strongly, I am glad that the Government have come to this position and now, I hope, they will start moving in the right direction rather than the wrong direction.

19:45

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, had any part at all in encouraging the deluging of some of our colleagues in verbal sewage, he should apologise.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, who I imagine has not read any of this, is making totally unfounded allegations and he should withdraw them.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

I said that if the noble Lord has any part in it, he should apologise.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, if we may return to the topic of the debate, I do not think the House is benefiting from this exchange.

I will briefly speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. Before I do so, I thank the Minister for moving on the issue of conservation covenant agreements and agreeing to require that they must be executed by deed. I was pleased to support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and I congratulate him on bringing it to a successful conclusion.

I was likewise pleased to put my name to the original amendment tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, to address the scandal that we have heard so much about this evening and in our previous discussions of the hundreds of thousands of sewage discharges into our waterways every year. We should recall that the House of Commons in fact agreed to the majority of the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, but they removed the critical lines 7 to 14, which he is restoring by his amendment. As we have heard, a significant number of Conservative MPs rebelled on this issue either by voting against or by abstaining, and those who did not were given pause for thought by the outpouring of public anger on this issue. I, of course, deplore any vilification that there was on this.

This is a critical issue for the public and for the health of our inland and coastal waters and our environment as a whole, so we on these Benches will be pleased to support the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

In the interests of time, and due to the fact that noble Lords have made important contributions to this debate, I hope that your Lordships will not be too disappointed that I have decided to completely tear up my speech. Instead, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for giving us the opportunity to return to the important issue of protecting pollinators from pesticides. I also thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for his tenaciousness in continuing to press the Government on this very important matter and for making serious progress. If he wishes to test the opinion of the House, he will have our full support, but I hope that the Government will not vote against.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank noble Lords again for their contributions to this debate. I will briefly address Amendment 43B. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for, as I understand it, agreeing not to press her amendment—I hope I have not pre-empted a decision—but more importantly, for her work on this vital issue. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that she has been very effective at raising this issue on the agenda. I am grateful to her for that, and I hope we will be able to continue to work together on this issue as we develop a robust pesticide action plan. I thank her very much indeed.

Much has already been said regarding storm overflows, so I will keep it brief. I thank Members across the House and in the other place for their informed, valuable and passionate contributions. I am pleased that we were able to announce progress today. In response to the noble Baroness on the Front Bench I say that, while the Government must vote against this amendment today, for procedural reasons and to ensure that the House of Commons has an opportunity to deliver the proposed amendment in lieu, that is not a reflection of an ideological difference; it is simply a procedural issue.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked a number of questions, in particular about a timeline for the implementation of Schedule 3. It has already commenced and will be completed in 2022; I cannot give a month, I am afraid.

I very much appreciate the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. On the costs that she talked about, there is a difference between the cost of eliminating harm from overflows and the cost of eliminating overflows. It is the cost of eliminating overflows to which those figures apply. I will not pretend that I have been through the figures myself but, based on everything that I know, the range is anywhere between £150 billion and £500 billion. In real terms, it is not a relevant figure, in that no one is proposing that this amount of money should be spent on infrastructure. The key is the elimination of harm, which would allow the overflow to happen in some cases and for investment in sustainable systems such as reed beds and the like. That would not be the elimination of overflows but it would be effective management of them. It is, however, the correct figure for eliminating overflows.

The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, asked a question on the chemical issue. Again, it is not the case that there is a shortage of chemicals preventing the water companies doing their job. There is currently no disruption to the supply of water, water treatment or the treatment of wastewater. The shortage of HGV drivers had meant that there was a risk that deliveries of ferric sulphate, a water treatment chemical, would be delayed, but the Environment Agency successfully and very quickly mitigated that risk.

On Amendment 65, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I assure noble Lords that the Government will publish a nature recovery Green Paper in the coming months, setting out our approach to supporting nature recovery in England. It will show our commitment to and focus on this matter, which I know is enormously important to almost everyone in this House.

On Amendments 94 and 95, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, I reiterate that we will not have in one year meaningful data with which to assess the effectiveness of this legislation. However, the disagreement that we have is entirely practical; it is not based on our hopes for the effectiveness of this legislation. As I said before, if it is clear before two years that something bad has happened and the Government have chosen to exploit or create a loophole, we will act long before the review deadline of two years. It will be very obvious to us should that be necessary.

Moving on to Motion K, although I ask the House to disagree to Amendment 66, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I very much appreciate her remarks and her commitment to the issue; she has pushed it right up the political agenda in a very effective way. I hope that your Lordships’ House will welcome the Government’s progress and the commitment to enhancing the protection of ancient woodlands, on which the noble Baroness and I have agreed, I am delighted to say.

On Motion M, I hope that noble Lords can support the Commons in its Amendments 67A to 67E, which will provide further reassurance to landowners on the issue of conservation governance.

I hope noble Lords agree that, in addition to the progress made in Committee and on Report, we have moved further today to protect our waters, our trees and our landscapes for future generations.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments, and I beg leave to withdraw Motion H1.

Motion H1 withdrawn.

Motion H agreed.

Motion J

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 45A (to Lords Amendment 45).

45A: Leave out lines 7 to 14

Motion J1 (as an amendment to Motion J)

Moved by

[The Duke of Wellington]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 45B thereto—

45B: At end insert “and insert—
“141A Duty on sewerage undertakers to take all reasonable steps to ensure untreated sewage is not discharged from storm overflows into inland and coastal waters
(1) A sewerage undertaker must, as soon as reasonable, take such steps as are necessary to—
(a) demonstrate improvement in the performance of sewerage systems, and
(b) secure progressive reductions in the harm caused by untreated sewage discharges into inland and coastal waters.
(2) The Secretary of State, the Director and the Environment Agency must exercise their respective functions under this and any other Act to secure compliance with this duty.””

19:55

Division 5

Ayes: 213

---

Labour: 86
Liberal Democrat: 60
Crossbench: 37
Conservative: 18
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Independent: 5
Green Party: 2

Noes: 60

---

Conservative: 59
Independent: 1

20:10

Motion K

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 65, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 65A.

65A: Because the powers conferred by clauses 105 and 106 should not be limited in the manner proposed.

Motion K agreed.

Motion L

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 66, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 66A.

66A: Because the National Planning Policy Framework and the Forestry Commission and Natural England’s standing advice already make provision to protect ancient woodland in England.

Motion L agreed.

Motion M

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 67 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 67A, 67B, 67C, 67D and 67E in lieu.

67A: Clause 110, page 109, line 13, leave out “in writing signed” and insert “executed as a deed”

67B: Clause 120, page 115, line 33, leave out “in writing signed” and insert “executed as a deed”

67C: Clause 121, page 116, line 1, leave out “in writing signed” and insert “executed as a deed”

67D: Clause 122, page 116, line 15, leave out “in writing signed” and insert “executed as a deed”

67E: Clause 124, page 117, line 6, leave out “in writing signed” and insert “executed as a deed”

Motion M agreed.

Motion N

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 75 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 75A and 75B in lieu.

75A: Schedule 3, page 155, leave out lines 12 to 14

75B: Schedule 3, page 155, line 16, at end insert—
“(6) Before issuing the guidance, the Department must—
(a) prepare a draft, and
(b) lay the draft before the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(7) If before the end of the 21 day period the Northern Ireland Assembly passes a resolution in respect of the draft guidance, the Department must produce a response and lay it before the Assembly.
(8) The Department may prepare and lay before the Northern Ireland Assembly the final guidance, but not before—
(a) if subsection (7) applies, the day on which the Department lays the response required by that subsection, or
(b) otherwise, the end of the 21 day period.
(9) The final guidance has effect when it is laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(10) The Department must publish the guidance when it comes into effect.
(11) The “21 day period” is the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the draft guidance is laid under subsection (6).
(12) “Sitting day” means a day on which the Northern Ireland Assembly sits.
(13) The Department may revise the guidance at any time (and subsections (6) to (12) apply in relation to any revised guidance).”

Motion N1 (as an amendment to Motion N)

Moved by

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

Leave out from “75” to end and insert “, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 75A and 75B and do propose Amendment 75C in lieu—

75C: Schedule 3, page 155, leave out lines 2 to 16 and insert—
“24A OEP independence
(1) The OEP has complete discretion in the carrying out of its functions in Northern Ireland, including in—
(a) preparing its enforcement policy,
(b) exercising its enforcement functions, and
(c) preparing and publishing its budget.
(2) The Department may issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in section 22(6)(c).
(3) The OEP must have regard to the guidance in preparing its enforcement policy, unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise.
(4) Before issuing the guidance, the Department must—
(a) prepare and consult on a draft,
(b) lay the draft before the Northern Ireland Assembly, and
(c) publish a response to the consultation.
(5) The Department must publish the guidance when it comes into effect.
(6) In making or terminating appointments under paragraph 2(2B) and paragraph 5(8)(b) of Schedule 1, the Northern Ireland Department must obtain the consent of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of the Northern Ireland Assembly.””

Motion N1 agreed.

Motion P

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 85, do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 85A, 85B and 85C in lieu and do propose Amendment 85D as an amendment to Commons Amendment 85B and Amendment 85E as an amendment to Commons Amendment 85C—

85A: Clause 54, page 32, line 39, leave out “plastic”

85B: Schedule 9, page 183, line 28, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may specify only items which—
(a) are single use items, and
(b) are supplied in connection with goods or services.”

85C: Schedule 9, page 183, line 29, leave out “The regulations” and insert “Regulations made by the Welsh Ministers or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland”

85D: After “State” insert “or the Welsh Ministers”

85E: Leave out “the Welsh Ministers or”

Motion P agreed.

Motion Q

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 94, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 94A.

94A: Because the timetable for the Secretary of State’s review of legislation relating to forest risk commodities should not be brought forward.

Motion Q agreed.

Motion R

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 95, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 95A.

95A: Because the timetable for the Secretary of State’s review of legislation relating to forest risk commodities should not be brought forward.

Motion R agreed.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Committee

20:12

Clause 1: Up-rating of state pension and certain other benefits following review in tax year 2021-22

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Baroness Altmann]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out from “if” to end of line 8 and insert “the Secretary of State had determined that the general level of earnings obtaining in Great Britain had increased by 3.8%.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the provision substituting “prices” for “earnings” and retains the earnings link for the 2022-23 year by stipulating the Government will assume earnings have risen by 3.8% for the purposes of uprating. This reflects analysis from an ONS blog suggesting that the underlying rate of earnings growth was between 3.2% and 4.4%. The figure of 3.8% is chosen as the mid-way point in that range.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 1, 2 and 3. I have to say to my noble friend that I truly believe that the legislation already allows for the provisions that we are trying to enshrine in this Bill. I actually do not believe that the Bill is necessary. It was passed through the other House on the basis of a false premise: that keeping the triple-lock earnings protection would require a pension uprating of more than 8%, at an Exchequer cost of around £5 billion.

However, we are amending Section 150A of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, and Section 150A(8) specifically states that

“the Secretary of State shall estimate the general level of earnings in such manner as he thinks fit.”

Given that we are supposed to be uprating benefits that are vital to the living standards of millions of pensioners —I am particularly concerned about the poorest pensioners, who are dealt with by Amendment 3—it is regrettable that the Secretary of State and the Government have chosen not to use the option in the Bill allowing them to estimate a level of earnings that would have allowed for what I think all noble Lords would agree is an exceptional impact from the measures taken in connection with the Covid-19 pandemic. That event is pretty unprecedented but could be allowed for when talking about uprating benefits that so many millions of our citizens rely wholly—or almost wholly—upon to be able to afford to live.

In my attempts to persuade and impress upon the Government that it is not too late to retain the triple-lock earnings link, I have tried to suggest ways in which we can still do this in the Bill, and I am most grateful to my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, who has supported me on Amendment 1. I stress that these are all probing amendments, but this one tries to help the Government by suggesting a level that could be used to reflect an actual level of earnings increase across the economy which is adjusted—in a way that has already been explained by the ONS in a recent publication—for the distortions relating to earnings figures in the normal measure, which has always been average weekly earnings.

The ONS analysis, which looked at the base effects and the composition effect, suggested that actual earnings growth was not more than 8% but was between 3.2% and 4.4%. I have just picked a number at the middle of the range: 3.8% is a figure that could be inserted into the Bill. The Secretary of State is at liberty to choose an alternative figure that she feels—perhaps with the advice of her officials and all the excellent analysts that the department has—would better reflect the actual number, but that itself would still preserve the earnings link that is so important, as we discussed at Second Reading. So, that is Amendment 1, which specifies that the general level of earnings obtaining would be 3.8% for the purposes of just this one year, which is what we are trying to do.

Amendment 2 is truly cross-party: I am hugely grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith, Lady Drake and Lady Wheatcroft. Again, this amendment intends to maintain the link between pension uprating and earnings while still explicitly accounting for the problem that, I believe, the Government have been advised to beware of, which is that not using average weekly earnings and not changing primary legislation to permit not using average weekly earnings could open the Government to challenge. I stress that I am also hugely grateful to my noble friend the Minister, who has engaged so constructively with noble Lords across the House, and to her officials, who have been very patient and generous with their time in going through these issues with those of us who feel so concerned about the social-policy and pensioner-poverty implications of potentially setting a dangerous precedent that, actually, increasing by earnings does not necessarily need to happen if the Government do not like the figure one year.

Amendment 2 aims to enshrine in the Bill a provision that says that, for this year only, those benefits—the basic state pension, the new state pension, pension credit, the minimum guarantee and the other smaller pensions, such as category B, category D and so on—need to rise in line with earnings, but that that level of earnings can be adjusted in light of

“the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the level of earnings for the previous year”.

That, again, would open the way for the Government to maintain the earnings link and use an adjusted figure, while addressing the potential concern about being challenged if primary legislation is not changed.

At the moment, the decision seems to have been taken that, if average weekly earnings—the specific statistic produced by the ONS, which has always been used in the past—are not used, the only alternative is to drop the earnings link altogether. These amendments are designed to show that that is not the only alternative. Even though, within the legislation, it is okay to use a figure that the Secretary of State adjusts as she sees fit, this would explicitly state that.

I am puzzled that the officials still seem to think that this could be open to challenge. Very few people would disagree with the idea that average weekly earnings statistics, as reported in the 8%-plus range, were not distorted in some way and that it is not acceptable to adjust them in any way. Indeed, in the figures that have come out for average weekly earnings, the three months that were compared with three months from last year—April, May and June—were all at around 8.8%, but the more recent July and August figures, which have already come out, were significantly below that. They have come down to around 5% or below, so there is an element of MPs having made a decision without recognising that there are alternatives. I propose that we suggest to the other place that there is an alternative that allows retention of the manifesto commitment to maintain the triple lock and, more importantly, of the earnings link.

Finally and briefly, on Amendment 3, I am again grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake, Lady Smith of Newnham and Lady Wheatcroft. This amendment is specifically aimed at the poorest pensioners—those who rely on pension credit. This credit has never been triple locked, so they have never benefited from that protection directly, although there has been a cash-terms increase to keep the pension credit a little more in line with the new state pension. Since its introduction nearly 20 years ago, it has always had to be linked to the level of average earnings. Suddenly, for one year, because of the pandemic, we are removing that protection even from the poorest pensioners. Typically, they are the oldest pensioners. The majority of them will be women who are not living on very much money; we are talking about £177.50, or thereabouts, a week, as the single pension-credit minimum-income guarantee level.

If nothing else, I am proposing that we do not abandon the earnings link for those poorest pensioners, so I have inserted a provision in page 1, line 8, at the end,

“for the purposes of paragraphs (za) to (c) … only”

of Section 150A(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. That would exclude this Bill from applying to the pension credit minimum income guarantee. It would, I stress, still allow the Secretary of State the discretion to use a different level of earnings than average weekly earnings should she decide to do that for reasons of policy, such as not having too big a differential or too big excess of pension credit over the new state pension. However, the main principle that I am trying to preserve within these amendments is the importance to pensioners, in the context of pensioner poverty and a state pension that is pretty much the lowest in the developed world, that the promised protection is in line with earnings. That is crucial. We must, in my view, not set a dangerous precedent, even for one year. We can take alternative measures to account for the distortions of the pandemic. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment 1 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 2 by reason of pre-emption.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, I have put my name to the first three amendments because I believe that doing away with the earnings link would be a really dangerous step. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Altmann for doing such a lot of work on these amendments and providing the Government with a percentage, 3.8%, which should of course be acceptable. Nobody in this House knows more about pensions than the noble Baroness, and she has introduced this measure so effectively that I can be relatively brief.

Relying on CPI inflation, which would happen if we did away with the earnings link, will act to the detriment of pensioners, as it does not accurately reflect how those pensioners who rely most heavily on their state pensions spend their money. Last month, for instance, the greatest downward pressure on inflation came from hotels and restaurants. It is the basics of life which absorb pensioner incomes, though, not hotels and restaurants. Their money goes on food, fuel and housing, yet we know that the September CPI figure, which would be used to determine the inflation figure for pensions, does not and cannot take account of the increases that are going to dawn on food, fuel and housing prices over the next few months. Earnings are a good guide to where basic costs will go, and we should maintain the link for pensions.

Pensioner poverty is on the rise again. In June this year, Age UK reported that more than 2 million pensioners were living in poverty. We know that very many of those might qualify for extra benefits but do not apply for them, either through too little knowledge or too much pride, so it is crucial that the basic pension—currently, shamefully, the lowest in the OECD in relation to earnings—should rise significantly. There will be some who do not need the extra cash—members of that ever-reducing band with the benefit of a defined benefit pension, or those with an investment income—but the fact that they have more money does not mean that the basic state pension should not rise at a reasonable level: the tax system can claw back the excess. Would it not have been sensible to have made sure that the levy to pay for NHS and social care reform would come from income tax rather than from national insurance, which pensioners do not pay at the moment? I believe that those pensioners who are in work should pay.

However, these amendments make sense. They work as a package and therefore I support them.

20:30

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to probing Amendments 2 and 3 in this group. The triple lock is not legislated for; it rests on a commitment given by successive Governments since 2011. However, indexing pensions at least in line with earnings is legislated for. Through this Bill, the Government are neither applying the triple lock nor the underpin of earnings indexation. Both have gone as a consequence of this Bill—albeit that the Government say that they will not do it next year.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the removal of both is causing concerns that the Bill is trailing the Government’s consideration of lowering the value of the state pension going forward. While recognising the anomaly in the data behind the 8.3% earnings figure, the pandemic will not account for all of that increase. The decision to raise the state pension by the consumer price index in response to the anomaly comes without any analysis of how that change might impact the value of the state pension in relation to actual earnings.

In fact, the Pension Policy Institute has done such an analysis and, assuming that the CPI increase is of the order of 3%, which it is, the PPI’s recent analysis stated:

“Increasing the State Pension by CPI means that overall, State Pensions will rise by less than the real increase in earnings over the past two years. An alternative approach would have been to consider the rise in earnings over two years to give a more realistic estimation of real wage increases without the artificial impact of the pandemic impact in the year on year earnings statistics. This would need a pension increase of 5.3% in 2022 to match the increase in earnings since the setting of the State Pension level in 2020. Increasing the State Pension by this amount would save £3.1bn in 2022”.


So, increases in pensions will not reflect the real rise in hourly wages over that two-year period—which rows against the clear intention of the underpin of earnings indexation that is in the legislation.

The PPI approach of considering earnings over two years would reduce much of the methodology challenge in establishing an adjusted earnings index for one year, which the Minister refers to as the Government’s main defence for the approach they are taking. In fact, we have not heard a proper explanation from the Government as to why they could not consider different approaches. Several could have been taken, such as looking at earnings over the two-year period. So can the Minister give a fuller explanation of why they cannot take a different approach to that contained in this Bill? How do the Government intend to address the fall in the value of pensions against earnings over the last two years?

The triple lock was intended to address the extended fall in the value of the basic state pension. As the Minister states in her letter of 25 October, following Second Reading,

“the triple lock was introduced in order to boost the value of the basic state pension”.

It was to recover from those years of decline against earnings—a sort of accelerator, to get back to a reasonable comparative position.

With the Library’s help, I looked at the hypothetical value of the basic state pension and the pension credit as if they had been uprated in line with earnings, rather than the triple lock, since 2011. Currently, that triple-lock boost delivered a basic state pension of approximately £18 higher a week than it would have been if it had been indexed by earnings alone. When the Bill passes, in 2023 the basic state pension boost will fall to approximately £12 a week higher than if uprated by earnings alone. The pension credit minimum income guarantee, targeted on the poorest pensioners, is approximately £14 a week higher currently than it would have been if uprated by earnings alone. In 2022-23, it will be only £6.79 a week higher.

I am sure that the Government will produce more precise figures than mine, because their ability to do so is greater than mine, but what I am absolutely confident that they will not be able to contradict is that there will be a clawback from the cash value of the current triple-lock boost. The pension credit minimum income guarantee is targeted on the poorest pensioners and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said, it is not uprated by the triple lock, although earnings uprating is legislated for. The Government have mitigated that omission by applying the underpin of a cash increase, to give what they feel is a fair increase, rather than conceding the full principle of the triple lock.

However, many older pensioners still face declining incomes, and women are particularly sensitive to changes in the state pension indexation. On average, women are more likely than men to have lower incomes at older ages: 60% of those in relative poverty over the age of 65 are women; and women are more likely to be eligible for pension credit—so there will be a direct gender impact if one starts to tamper with less generous indexation, and there is nothing about future accrual of pensions that suggests that that gender bias would not persist.

Pensioner poverty is rising, and we are now seeing falling life expectancy in areas with the greatest incidence of pensioner poverty. We have accelerated the state pension age; pensioner poverty is rising; and in those areas, life expectancy is falling. That trend was emerging before the pandemic—before anybody says, “Well, it’s the product of the pandemic”, no, that trend was there. I am sure it has been accelerated, but it was there before.

So why are the Government not taking a different approach to the uprating of pension credit targeted on the poorest pensioners and applying a cash increase greater than the value of the uprating by CPI? There need be no complicating legal or methodological issues in doing so. There is a clear precedent for the Government choosing to apply a cash increase.

Some argue that the triple lock unfairly advantages older people and should be scrapped for reasons of intergenerational fairness. But not all older people are experiencing a higher standard of living—older pensioners even less so. In 2020, benefit income was the largest component of income for both pensioner couples and single pensioners, and nearly two-thirds of the total income for single female pensioners.

In fact, younger people arguably have more to gain from the triple lock than older people because, when the state second pension was replaced by the new state pension in 2016, which will apply to future pensioners, its full value then was set at around 24% of average earnings—and that is low in comparison with any other advanced economy. But that is the base on which one is looking to make private savings work. To achieve a replacement income in retirement of 45% for the average earner, privately saving 8% under auto enrolment, the new state pension needs to be nearer 30% of average earnings. The Government argued when they introduced the new state pension that it was set because it was part of a package, together with the triple lock and the accelerated increases in the state pension age, which have been banked.

Again, research by the Pensions Policy Institute indicates that, without the triple lock, it will be harder, at least until the new state pension rises above a certain level, for young workers to achieve an adequate income in retirement, because it is the base on which their private savings will assist in securing them an income in retirement, and the dominance of the role of the state pension in pensioner income will persist long into the future.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I begin by apologising to your Lordships for not taking part in Second Reading due to the volume of Bills currently before your Lordships’ House.

I will be very brief. I rise to offer the Green group’s support for the intention of all these amendments. I express my pleasure in following the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and stress her point that we are not talking about a contest between generations here. There are some very poor people among our older communities, and they deserve not to live in poverty, but that does not mean taking money away from the young. I also stress the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, about how pensioner poverty is rising and that we should have a society where no pensioner is living in poverty.

I particularly want to address Amendment 3, which is the one I would most like to have attached my name to, had there been space. It is crucial: pension credit gets so many people to at least a basically decent, not awful, standard of living, but the fact is that that is useful only if you actually get it. I had a conversation—or a debate—with the Minister about a year ago. At that stage, the rate of pension credit take-up was 60%; that meant about a million pensioners were not receiving pension credit who would have been entitled to it. That was money the Government were not paying out—about £3 billion. It was estimated that it was costing the NHS and social care a spend of £4 billion. So not paying pension credit is actually costing the Government money. Can the Minister now—or later in writing, sharing it with other Peers—update me, a year later, on whether those figures still hold? Have the Government planned, as they did not plan a year ago, a programme to promote pension credit to ensure that those who are entitled to it take it up?

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, says, all these amendments seek to protect pensioners against price increases during a temporary suspension of the triple lock. I very much welcome the proposals made in Amendments 1, 2 and 3, and particularly welcome the proposal to include pension credit in the link with earnings.

I want to speak to Amendment 4 in my name, which seeks to base the uplift on the predicted increase as forecast by the Bank of England for April 2022. My amendment proposes that, as the pension increase will be in April 2022 and the previous pension increase was in April 2021, the best measure would surely be price increases between those two dates.

Circumstances have changed considerably since the Bill completed its passage through the Commons, including rising costs, rising inflation, unreliability of supply chains and the various pressures brought about by those circumstances. While we do not know what inflation will be by next April, there is plenty of reason to think that it will be higher than currently—that is sadly what the Bank of England thinks. For example, the energy cap went up 12% on 1 October, and is expected to go up again next April. I do not think the Government should be happy that these cost rises are not included in the inflation figure that they have used.

We know that pensioners, and older pensioners in particular, tend to spend more time at home and feel the cold more, and so energy bills tend to be a higher share of their household budgets. Given soaring energy costs, pensioner inflation is likely to be higher than average inflation. This is another reason to think that just linking to September’s average figure, when setting the state pension rate, is the answer to the wrong question. I know that some Members will think that using a forecast is not as robust as using an outturn, but this legislation is only for one year, so really we are not setting a precedent. In fact, I am reliably informed that, in the 1980s, the DWP used to use forecast inflation for benefit uprating.

Mention was made in the previous debate of the need to implement the new rates as quickly as possible. This really does not take as long, in this day and age; there are processes in place to make it much easier. Surely it would not take long for the preferred body—the Bank of England or the OBR—to come up with an inflation forecast; presumably the Budget will bring new inflation forecasts in any case.

If the Government are committed to protecting pensioners against rising prices when they set the pension in 2022, they should see that this is a more transparent, easily understood method of ensuring that pensioners are protected against the expected rise in prices, costs and pressures in the year ahead.

20:45

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, there are two issues being discussed in Committee that I particularly want to address. First, what should be the provisions to determine the operation of the triple lock? Secondly—a distinct issue—what is the desirable level of the fixed-rate state pension, and how can we get there? These are clearly linked but distinct issues, which is why I sought to have them grouped apart. In this group, Amendments 1 to 4, we are dealing with the first issue. The question is: how should the triple lock work? We need to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for her work in producing these amendments, as well as the Minister, for the immense amount of time and effort she has put into explaining the Government’s position.

On the clause stand part debate, I will say that I am in favour of the 8% increase; I will explain why at that stage. However, as I said at Second Reading, given the Government’s clear and unambiguous commitment in their election manifesto to sticking by the triple lock, I do not understand why they are not prepared to adopt one of the approaches proposed by the cross-party group of noble Baronesses before us today. Unfortunately, of course, we have a Government who are now in the habit of breaking their promises; in this case in a relatively blatant fashion and, as has been explained, unnecessarily.

The Minister should understand that her Government’s refusal to give any consideration to any of these proposals is why there is so much fear—in this House and more generally—that this is not a one-off, that a precedent will be set that will be attractive to austerity-minded Chancellors in future, and that other excuses for breaking the link will be found. This is clearly not a party-political point. No one could accuse Age UK of being partisan, but it has said that

“it’s asking a lot for older people to believe that any scaling back of the triple lock would only be temporary, rather than permanent.”

The organisation goes on to point out that

“some of the prominent voices arguing for a suspension of the triple lock in response to the pandemic, are the same people who have called for its abolition in the past.”

The only way for the Government to mitigate these widespread concerns is to demonstrate commitment, either by sticking to the current legislation or, more likely in practice, through an appropriate amendment to this Bill. Such an amendment is now necessary to demonstrate the Government’s continued commitment —in practice and not just in fine words—to the key earnings element of the triple lock.

We must thank the Minister for her letter—which eventually reached me—and her explanation of why the Government believe that it is so difficult to adopt another definition of the earnings increase that would satisfy Section 150A of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. I am also glad to have had meetings with the Minister, at her instigation, to discuss the issue in detail. I thank her. But the case essentially comes down to “legal risk”. Unfortunately, I still find the argument less than compelling. On the face of it, the choice of the index is a decision for the Secretary of State. Subsection (8) could not be more definitive:

“The Secretary of State shall estimate the general level of earnings in such manner as he thinks fit.”


This puts it in the hands of the Secretary of State, so long as, that is, she does it in a way that is not irrational.

In truth, it is the decision to drop any link to earnings that is irrational—and, anyway, if it were correct that the Secretary of State’s choice is so open to challenge, it would be surprising that it has not been challenged in the past. For example, the prices index is based on a single month, September, whereas earnings are based on the three-month average from May to July. What sense does that make and why has one or other choice not been challenged? Earnings indices, along with those for prices, are inherently a matter of judgment and interpretation. It is not as though there is one true earnings index buried under the data that might ultimately be revealed in the course of legal action. Is any court really going to substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary of State? I am afraid that the excuses being offered for why the Government are unwilling to accept the approach suggested in these amendments bear all the hallmarks of post hoc-ism, the sort of clutching-at-straws justification that is commonly introduced to justify a decision that has already been made. The Minister has to understand that this is exactly why so many people continue to doubt the Government’s protestations that this is simply a one-off.

For these reasons, I shall support Amendments 2 and 3, in the spirit of helping the Government out of a hole that they have dug for themselves. Unfortunately, although I often agree with the noble Baroness, I am against Amendment 4. Just to give a brief history lesson, the idea of predicting prices figures is fatally flawed. I criticised it back in 1975 when my pensions hero, Barbara Castle, tried it, and I am against it now. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to use visual aids in this Chamber, but those noble Lords who have to hand the House of Commons briefing document can turn to page 22 and see a graph of the real value of the basic pension against earnings. Noble Lords will see that in 1975, when Barbara Castle was Secretary of State, there was a sharp downward dip, which is when they decided to adopt a projected rather than a hard figure. I am against it—I am sorry, because I am sure that the intentions are the best, but it gives too much scope for the Government to adjust the figures.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, at Second Reading I accepted the Government’s case for not increasing pensions by 8% or so, and I called for a review of the triple lock, because of the arbitrary nature of the triple element of the lock—that is, the 2.5%—while emphasising the importance of maintaining pensions and related benefits relative to average earnings as a general principle. I therefore support Amendments 1 and 2, which are consistent with that argument.

At Second Reading, as we have heard, the Minister argued that there was no robust methodology for establishing what the underlying increase in earnings had been this last year. But surely the ONS range of estimates, on which these amendments are based, is at least based on some kind of methodology, which is more than one can say about 2.5%, which can be used to increase pensions should it exceed earnings and prices. As it is, the jettisoning of earnings this year has given rise to understandable fears that the earnings link might be abandoned altogether in the longer term, just as it was by the Conservative Government in 1980, leading to a steady deterioration in the position of pensions relative to average earnings during the following two decades.

Moreover, the case for basing pensions on the underlying increase in earnings is the stronger, given what is happening to inflation, which is addressed by Amendment 4. All the indications are that inflation is going to rise above the 3.1% on which the uprating will be based. The Bank of England’s chief economist has warned that it could go as high as 5% in the next few months. For pensioners and others reliant on social security, the effective rate of inflation is likely to be higher still, given the differential impact of inflation when the increase in basics such as fuel and food, which constitute a disproportionate part of low-income budgets, is a key driver of inflation, as already mentioned. I raised this issue at Second Reading and asked the Minister whether she would undertake to look at how the problem might be addressed, but she did not respond then or in her subsequent letter.

The other day, the Chancellor said:

“I know that families here at home are feeling the pinch of higher prices and are worried about the months ahead. But I want you to know, we will continue to do whatever it takes, we will continue to have your backs—”


whatever that means—

“just like we did during the pandemic.”

The amendments we are debating here today would be one way of doing whatever it takes. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take them seriously and, if she does not accept any of them, explain how the Government will do whatever it takes to protect those reliant on social security in the face of rising inflation.

Finally, on pension credit, the subject of Amendment 3, I believe that the uprating should be protected legally. But I would like to return briefly to the issue of take-up raised at Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which also has implications for later amendments on pensioner poverty. I welcome the willingness of Ministers—and our Minister in particular—to discuss with Peers ways of improving the lamentably low take-up rate. I had understood that it had been agreed that one way of doing so was to include a suitably arresting and well-designed leaflet or similar in communications with pensioners. I have received a couple of communications from the DWP since then, neither of which has drawn my attention to pension credit. Just last week, the letter I received about the winter fuel allowance made no mention at all of pension credit. Could the Minister tell us whether the idea of such a leaflet has been abandoned and, if so, why?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Janke, for introducing their amendments, and all noble Lords who have spoken. We had a good discussion at Second Reading about the way the Government have gone about trying to find an alternative to the triple lock that would deal with the impact of the pandemic on earnings data. But I think it is fair to say that the Minister will have worked out from the contributions that this has not entirely satisfied noble Lords around the House as a way forward.

Let me look briefly at the three sets of issues raised by the amendments in this group. Amendments 1 and 2 from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, would replace the provisions of this Bill with the provision to uprate using an earnings measure designed to reflect an underlying rate of earnings growth. Amendment 1 sets that at 3.8%, being chosen as the midpoint in the range of this now famous blog by the ONS. I suspect the person who wrote it must be wondering whether they will ever blog again. But that blog suggested a range that—if you were to strip out the base and compositional effects—would give an indication of underlying basic earnings growth.

Amendment 2 takes a similar but less prescriptive approach, leaving it to the Secretary of State to pick a number informed by that same ONS piece of work. Given that a number of noble Lords have expressed scepticism about the Government’s defence—that one of the reasons they do not want to move away from average weekly earnings is fear of legal action—could the Government rehearse again exactly what they are worried about and why? I think that would be helpful, because, clearly, noble Lords are not persuaded by that.

I do not think anyone is very happy with where the Government have landed. My noble friend Lady Drake contributed, I have to say, another piece of astonishing, wonderful analysis. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, that I think it is possible that my noble friend is an even greater expert than the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, based on the strength of her contribution. We have huge expertise in this House, and we are greatly blessed by it. My noble friend summarised the matter when she said that, essentially, in this Bill, the Government have contrived to find a way forward in which they apply neither the triple lock nor the earnings indexation on which the triple lock is meant to build.

The quote from the PPI about what would have happened if the triple lock had been applied over two years was interesting. When we debated the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill 2020, I asked whether the Government had considered some sort of smoothing process, such as applying the principles of the triple lock over two years instead of one. I went back and read Hansard again today, and the Minister said—I paraphrase—it was all a bit uncertain. But that would have avoided the methodological complexity and any associated legal risks that Ministers are worried about, since presumably, they are using an established measure—immune, I imagine, to legal test. I ask the Minister again: did the Government consider it? Looking back, does she think that might have been a safer way forward?

21:00

I raised these issues at Second Reading. We are discussing them again precisely because—as my noble friends Lady Lister and Lord Davies and other noble Lords have said—people are worried that the break with earnings is setting a precedent, and the Government will come back next year with some new scheme that will make that break with earnings permanent. I realise that the Minister is not going to like these amendments, because she will be nervous of recasting the whole way things are calculated. So I strongly encourage her to say clearly that the Government are committing today to an earnings link as a minimum next year and that they will use average weekly earnings.

Amendment 3 from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, would exclude pension credit from the provisions of this Bill so it would still be uprated with reference to earnings. Can the Minister say whether the Government considered doing that? If so, why did they reject it?

Amendment 4 from the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, would specify that the reference point for prices will be the predicted rate of inflation as of April 2022. The noble Baroness is right to raise concerns about the speed at which inflation is rising and where we will be next year. My noble friend Lady Lister made a really important point that the poor have a different rate of inflation, a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. If you spend all your money on essentials, your inflation rate is fundamentally different from those who spend it on other things such as eating out or travel.

This was a bit of a lesson for me. I did not know that predicted inflation had been used in the 1980s. Nor did I know, if I may say to my noble friend Lord Davies, that in 1975 Barbara Castle had used this. I confess that in 1975 I was thinking less about pensions and rather more about boys and make-up, but I thought it was fascinating. I would be interested if the Minister could say if this has happened again in recent times. Have the Government considered whether there might be a way of using a predicted rate of inflation?

More broadly, there is clearly an issue about what to do in years when you get unusually high rises and falls in inflation. Normally, the received wisdom is that this comes out in the wash—you may get lucky one year and unlucky the next. But there are two problems with that. For the very poor, getting more money than they need next year is not much help if they are getting less than they need this year. The other problem is what you do in an unusual situation like this, where inflation bubbles along, something spikes dramatically and then comes back down again by the time the next reference point comes up. I am just interested to know if these matters are under discussion in DWP. If so, can the Minister share any government thinking?

I was very interested to hear the points raised about intergenerational fairness by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and my noble friend Lady Drake. My noble friend Lady Lister raised this at Second Reading. It is quite important to reflect on the needs of different groups in society and to remember that cutting investment in pensions will be a problem for the current generation of young adults as well; they will find themselves not only potentially losing out now but going on to be poor pensioners in due course.

Some very important points have been made in this debate. I will come back to questions of pensioner poverty in a later group because I have a number of amendments on that so I will not repeat them; I do not want to detain the Committee too much. If the Government Whips decide unilaterally to start a Committee stage as important as this at 8:30 pm without any consultation, then I do not want to delay them longer than is necessary. However, I do want to delay them as long as is necessary to scrutinise these amendments.

We understand the difficult situation with the anomaly in earnings, but I hope the Minister is able to hear and address the nervousness that removing the earnings link underpin has caused and give the Committee some reassurances. I look forward to her reply.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments and my noble friend Lady Altmann for her courteous note explaining her reasons for tabling her amendments.

Amendment 1 in the name of my noble friend Lady Altmann, would increase the benefits in this Bill by an adjusted earnings figure of 3.8%. My comments are also highly relevant to Amendments 2 and 3, also in the name of my noble friend Lady Altmann, which retrospectively increase the benefits in this Bill in line with an adjusted earnings figure and excludes the standard minimum guarantee from the Bill, increasing it by existing legislation instead.

The principal difficulty with these amendments is that they rely on a commentary from the Office for National Statistics, which, by its own admission, is intended to give a sense of the context in which the current earnings growth figures have arisen. The highly caveated range of figures in this commentary is, I am afraid, simply not robust enough to form the basis for an uprating decision. It does not have official status but features in a blog, already referred to, that the ONS published alongside its usual earnings statistics, starting in July this year. The blog explains:

“There are a number of ways you can try to strip out these base effects, but no single method everyone would agree on. We have tried a couple of simple approaches … Neither approach is perfect … Our calculations of an underlying rate are there to help users understand base and compositional effects, but … there remains a lot of uncertainty about how best to control for these effects”


so they need to be treated with caution. I submit to noble Lords that decisions affecting billions of pounds of public expenditure should not be grounded in a range of possible estimates in an environment where it is acknowledged that no single method can be agreed on.

A further point is that the ONS has calculated its range of adjusted underlying earnings growth for a measure of regular pay. The usual measure of earnings used for uprating is total pay, which is regular pay plus bonuses, because this gives a more complex picture of earnings, in which bonuses can play an important part. There are no such problems with CPI, which is a robust national statistic and provides a clear and sound basis for this year’s uprating with no need for any adjustments.

In the light of this, the Government decided that the most transparent and robust way to proceed in this exceptional second year of the pandemic is to suspend the link between earnings for one year and instead uprate the relevant state pensions by at least 2.5% or in line with CPI, whichever is the higher. Noble Lords will recall that we also suspended the earnings link last year because otherwise the relevant state pensions would have been frozen. I accept that the circumstances in the two years are different, with a slump in wages followed by a spike, but the Government consider an unrepresented spike in state pensions to be unfair to younger taxpayers this year, just as last year they considered the slump or freeze in state pensions to be unfair on pensioners, even though the cost of uprating was borne by younger taxpayers.

Under this Bill, the Secretary of State must increase the relevant pension rates by at least 3.1%, assuming a 3.1% increase is applied to the current rate of the basic state pension in 2022-23. This would mean that the full yearly rate would have increased since 2010 by £570 more than if it had been uprated with earnings and £720 more than if it been uprated with prices. That is over £2,300 more in cash terms than in 2010.

Finally, I remind the Committee that this Bill applies for one year only. From 2023-24, the legislation will revert to the existing requirement to uprate at least by earnings growth. The Government’s triple lock manifesto commitment remains in place.

Amendment 3, tabled by my noble friend Lady Altmann, seeks to exclude the pension credit standard minimum guarantee from the provisions of the Bill so that the underlying legislation would apply. This would mean uprating the standard minimum guarantee in line with the growth in earnings rather than, as provided by the Bill, not less than the higher rate of 2.5% or inflation, which we now know is 3.1% for the reference period used for uprating.

In structural terms, the standard minimum guarantee is linked to earnings so that pensioners on the lowest income share in rising national prosperity. However, as we have discussed, the earnings growth figures for this year have been inflated by the temporary slump in wages last year, followed by an unprecedented rebound as the economy and businesses have reopened and millions have moved off furlough and returned to work. The reasons for suspending the earnings link just for 2022-23 therefore apply as much to pension credit as they do to the state pension.

The Government recognise that the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit is the safety net for pensioners on the lowest incomes. I accept that that is therefore different from the contributory state pension, which provides a foundation for private saving, notably through auto-enrolment. However, the measures the Government took last year, together with those in this Bill, will ensure that the safety net for pensioners on the lowest incomes more than keeps pace with inflation. Over the two years of the pandemic, it will have increased by more than the increase in prices. It was increased by 1.9% in April 2021, when the CPI for the relevant uprating review period was 0.5%, and will be increased by 3.1% from April 2022, in line with the relevant rate of CPI this year. We believe this strikes a fair balance over the two years between the interests of pensioners and those of younger taxpayers.

I should also point out that this amendment would undermine one of the key aims of the 2016 reforms that introduced the new state pension. From the outset, the full rate of the new state pension has been set above the basic means test, which is the single rate of standard minimum guarantee, in order to provide a clear foundation for private saving. Currently, the full rate of the new state pension is £2.50 a week higher than the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit. This amendment would lift the single rate of the standard minimum guarantee above the rate of the new state pension and so bring more pensioners into the scope of means testing. If the standard minimum guarantee was increased in line with earnings growth of 8.3%, the single rate would increase by £14.70 to £191.80 a week. That is £6.65 a week more than the full rate of the new state pension if that rate increases by 3.1% in line with the provisions of this Bill.

I know my noble friend Lady Altmann does not agree that we would need to increase the standard minimum guarantee by as much as 8.3%, but we have discussed the reasons why the Government do not consider there is a robust alternative measure of earnings that could be relied on instead. As we have made clear, the Bill is for one tax year only. After that, the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit would continue to increase at least in line with earnings from 2023-24.

On Amendment 4, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, which would uprate the benefits included in the Bill by April 2022 CPI figures, I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns over trends in price inflation and welcome the discussion we have had on the issue. I of course sympathise with the thinking behind this amendment. The Government would like to use the most up-to-date indices when it comes to the annual uprating process, but this is bound by a number of practical concerns which mean that the most up-to-date index we can use is the one for the year to September, which is published in October each year.

The Secretary of State’s uprating review needs to be completed by late November due to IT deadlines and the need to commence inputting the new rates into the department’s numerous computer systems. There are also interdependencies with HMRC and local authorities, which require the rates before Christmas. Additionally, there is a requirement to follow the correct legislative process. The new rates are included in the uprating order, which needs to be debated in Parliament before they come into force in the new tax year.

Finally, on average, September’s CPI is higher than in the following April half the time, and lower half the time. This has a long-term smoothing effect, provided the same index is used each year, as it is for benefits ordinarily linked to prices, such as attendance allowance and the additional state pension. The CPI for September 2020 was 0.5%, but in April 2021 it was 1.5% However, in each of the previous three years, the September CPI used for uprating was higher than the CPI figure for the following April. In these years, pensions saw a slightly higher increase than they would have done if it had been possible to wait and use the April CPI figure.

The Government’s intention with the Bill is to suspend the earnings link for one year but retain the price limb of the triple lock. This is to ensure that the purchasing power of state pensions is preserved, while protecting younger taxpayers from funding an increase that would otherwise be exaggerated by the statistical anomaly thrown up by the second year of the Covid-19 pandemic.

21:15

The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, raised the point about pensioner poverty rising. The Government are committed to bearing down on levels of pensioner poverty. There are 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty, both before and after housing costs, than there were in 2009-10. We spend over £129 billion on benefits for pensioners in Great Britain—5.7% of GDP. This includes spending on the state pension, which is forecast to be over £105 billion in 2021-22.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, raised the point about food prices increasing and observed that for poorer pensioners it is basics that drive their expenditure. Despite the numerous pressures on the food supply chain at the moment, which will be leading to some upward pressure on prices for some products, we are not currently expecting widespread, significant and sustained increases in consumer food prices in the coming months.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, also mentioned energy prices. Energy is another big expenditure for pensioners. Domestic customers will be protected by the energy price cap when being switched to a new supplier—this protects millions of people from sudden increases in global gas prices.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, raised the issue of the reasons for the Bill. When we introduced it in the other place early in September, earnings indices were showing significant volatility. We needed to take clear and decisive action to address the exceptional growth in earnings and give clarity on what would happen in April next year. That is why we placed a double lock in the Bill, rather than providing for ministerial discretion, as we did last year.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, also raised the point about the triple lock phasing out. A number of noble Lords have expressed concern that the Bill could mean the end of the triple lock or a permanent break of the link between state pension uprating and earnings growth. I stress that the provisions of the Bill expire after one year.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, also raised the issue of pension credit uprating, which I know is a concern to all noble Lords. Pension credit is intended to help to meet a wide range of day-to-day living costs, including utility bills, for pensioners on low incomes. Last year, the September inflation figure was 0.5%, and average earnings declined, but we increased the standard minimum guarantee by 1.9%. This year, we will increase it by not less than 2.5% or inflation, which we know is 3.1%.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Sherlock, raised the issue of smoothed earnings and asked why we could not use a measure of earnings smoothed over two or three years. Over a two-year period, comparing April to May 2019 with April to May 2021, there is an employment composition effect that inflates earnings growth. This would need to be adjusted for, and there is no clear way to do so that all could agree on.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Lister, mentioned pension credit take-up. I know that all noble Lords across the House wish to see this increased. As I have said on numerous occasions, we continue to engage with the BBC. We have had meetings, and the department has established a working group, involving organisations such as Age UK and Independent Age, as well as the BBC, British Telecom, Virgin Money and the Local Government Association, to explore new ways to reach eligible pensioners. But I will come back to the noble Baroness on the homework that she gave me about the leaflet, and I will make sure that it does not get lost—I assure her of that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, raised the issue of rising prices. As the global economy recovers, many economies are expecting high inflation, in part due to pressures from rising energy prices and disruption to global supply chains. These global pressures are the main driver of higher inflation in the UK.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Sherlock, asked: why not use a different forecast of inflation? Forecasting inflation is extremely difficult to do accurately, and if inflation turned out to be very different from the forecast, there would need to be a complex clawback mechanism to ensure that over the long term, uprating kept in line with actual inflation. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised the issue of Age UK, which said:

“If suspending the triple lock for a single year helps get a government deal on social care over the line, then I believe it’s a price worth paying.”

I believe that I have covered all the points that noble Lords have raised, and I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have two quick questions. I am not advocating smoothing, but the Minister’s argument against it was that there would be a compositional effect. From memory, the base effect was many times more than the compositional effect, in terms of the impact on earnings data. The composition effect was less than 1% and the base effect was 3% or 4%, so is that really an argument?

The second question is something I have always wondered. The argument she gave to noble Lords who asked about timing was that two of the reasons why it had to be decided now were that the computers must be programmed in November and that the order usually has to be put through in January. What would happen if the computers had been programmed and the order was rejected by Parliament?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I will have to come back to the noble Baroness on her latter point, as I do not know at the moment.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

On base and compositional effects, is not the compositional effect on which she was relying as a defence against smoothing very small? Does not the base effect account for most of the difference in earnings data?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

That is another technical point that, rather than give an incorrect answer, I will come back to the noble Baroness on.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her detailed response and clear efforts to address the issues that have been raised, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this important group of amendments.

I am still struggling to understand the rationale for not retaining the earnings link. Noble Lords are being asked to accept that, because estimating the pandemic’s distorting impact on earnings is rather difficult, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Office for National Statistics, the OBR and the legions of statistical experts we have at our disposal could not come up with a figure that the Secretary of State could use to allow for such adjustments without being at risk of being considered irrational. I really struggle with that concept.

Nobody is suggesting that the Secretary of State knows an answer that everybody would agree to. However, in the face of rising pensioner poverty, rising inflation, the lowest state pension in the developed world and the problems we can foresee coming next year, with the poorest pensioners being unable to afford the basic costs of living, it is concerning that we are deciding to remove a critical part of their protection which was promised in our manifesto, and which is not unaffordable, on the premise that it is too difficult to adjust the numbers.

I accept that the figure of 3.8% in Amendment 1 was based on an ONS blog; it was the only figure available that was a remotely official statistic. However, Amendments 2 and 3 contain important provisions that would allow the Secretary of State to use all the resources at her disposal to come up with a number that adjusts average earnings correctly and fairly, in a way on which maybe not everyone would agree but that would at least retain the vital principle of the earnings protection that pensioners have always been promised and, in the case of pension credit, that the poorest pensioners have always relied upon.

I shall withdraw my amendment, but I hope we can have further discussions between now and Report and perhaps work out a way forward based on the important principles of social security policy that we have always stuck to in the past. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendments 2 to 4 not moved.

Amendment 5

Moved by

[Baroness Sherlock]

5: Clause 1, page 2, line 11, at end insert—
“(3) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the impact of this Act on pensioner poverty.(4) This review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and a Minister of the Crown must arrange to make a statement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Government to carry out an assessment of the impact of the Government’s chosen policy option on levels of pensioner poverty.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I rise to move Amendment 5, in my name, and to speak to the other amendments in this group. I tabled Amendments 5, 6 and 7 for two reasons: to try to plug what seems to be a serious knowledge gap in this legislation, and to highlight the wider concern about the growing rates of pensioner poverty and the worsening cost-of-living crisis.

It seems evident that the Bill must have an effect on pensioner poverty, because it will not only give today’s pensioners a lower pension next year than they expected but it will affect the value of the state pension for them and for future generations of pensioners for ever, as it is the base from which future percentage increases will take place. As noble Lords have already said today, that is a low base, since the UK pension is comparatively low.

The last Labour Government were able to achieve big reductions in pensioner poverty, in large part by introducing pension credit. At Second Reading I asked the Minister what action the Government would be taking to increase the take-up of pension credit, since at that point the last figures that I had seen suggested that only six in 10 of those eligible were claiming it. In response, the Minister picked just one figure and talked about take-up by value, and only for the guaranteed minimum standard pension credit. She did not talk about the aspect that most people talk about: the proportion of people who could claim pension credit who are actually doing so—in other words, take-up by volume.

I am sure the Minister will appreciate that that matters a great deal. With some benefits, if you only get a small amount then some people might choose not to claim. But the thing about pension credit is that if you get it at all, it is a passport to other really important benefits, including council tax credit, help with health and energy costs, and of course the free TV licence for the over-75s. It therefore matters that everyone gets pension credit if they are entitled to it.

I think the latest figures show that take-up for pension credit is still only 63%. Will the Minister confirm that? If so, what are the Government doing to boost it, including the leaflets mentioned by my noble friend Lady Lister? There were lots of other ideas—what is happening about those?

Since 2012 pensioner poverty has started rising again. Official figures show that some 18% of pensioners were living in poverty last year. That amounts to around 2.1 million poor pensioners, with over 1 million of those living in severe poverty. Has the Minister seen the report in June by Independent Age which found that people aged 85 and over have the highest rate of poverty among pensioners, at 22%? There are big regional variations; London has by far the highest rate of pensioner poverty, at 25%, but there are worries about rising poverty in the north.

In September, Age UK published research which found that, since 2012-13, the number of women pensioners living in poverty has increased from 990,000 to 1.25 million—an extra 260,000 women living in poverty. This is especially remarkable given that, because the state pension age was going up at that time, the actual number of female pensioners fell by 800,000. So we have 800,000 fewer female pensioners and yet 260,000 more female pensioners living in poverty. Can the Government explain that and tell us what they are doing about it? Age UK also found that older people from black and Asian communities are around twice as likely to be living in poverty as white pensioners.

21:30

Given the worries about pensioner poverty, and the fact that the state pension is the largest single source of income for most pensioners, it would seem obvious that Ministers would want to carry out an impact assessment so that they would know what effect suspending the triple lock could have on pensioner poverty. But astonishingly, at Second Reading, the Minister confirmed to us that the Government have not done that and do not propose to. My Amendment 5 would simply force the Government to carry out that assessment within six months of the Bill passing, and then make a Statement to both Houses outlining the steps needed to address pensioner poverty.

Of course, the Bill cannot be seen in isolation from other government decisions, including the cut of £20 a week for up to 5 million or 6 million universal credit claimants—to which we will return in more detail a little later. The number of older workers claiming universal credit has hit a record high just as the Government’s decision to cut £1,000 from universal credit comes in. There are older workers who are affected by both of these things, so that one decision will take a whopping £1.3 billion from the pockets of 1 million over-50s.

At Second Reading, I asked how many people would be affected by both the £20 cut in universal credit and the Bill, and the Minister said it would be around 50,000 people. We have since had clarification that the estimate is that more than 30,000 mixed age couples will be claiming universal credit at the start of 2022-23. So that is 60,000 people, plus any dependants, facing a double whammy of the Government’s decision to suspend the triple lock and to cut universal credit but, again, no attempt has been made to look at the impact on them. Amendment 6 in my name would force the Government to review the impact of the Bill on those households.

That £20 cut and this Bill both take place at a time when inflation is rising and energy bills are skyrocketing. As winter approaches, we are heading for a real cost of living crisis, which could have a devastating impact on pensioners. My Amendment 7 would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of the Bill on pensioners’ ability to pay their energy bills. The Minister mentioned the price cap earlier; she will be aware that 15 million consumers on default energy tariffs faced a rise in the price cap from 1 October. That meant an increase of £139 for those paying by direct debit and £153 for those on prepayment plans. National Energy Action, the energy charity, estimated that this was

“likely to result in more utility debt, 500,000 extra households in fuel poverty and an increase in preventable deaths this winter.”

I fear that prices are likely to rise further still. Research firm Cornwall Insight is forecasting that the energy price cap could be put up in early 2022 by about 30%, adding hundreds more pounds to household bills. As so often, the poor end up paying more, and the “poverty premium” on energy is really marked. Having to use prepayment meters, which are more expensive, not being unable to pay by direct debit, and even having to request paper bills can all add up. The poorest households also tend to have fewer adult occupants, so the burden is not spread out.

Data shows that energy makes up a much larger proportion of expenditure in the poorest households but, to my astonishment, new analysis has shown that the poorest 10% of households pay on average £756 a year per person for electricity, gas and other fuels. So the poorest 10% pay £756 a year for energy—50% more than the richest households, which pay just £504 per person. The poorest households spend more on energy per person than any other group.

There is widespread concern that the state pension increases could be outstripped by price rises. The Centre for Economics and Business Research found that retired households will be nearly £700 worse off by next year as the state pension fails to keep pace with soaring bills and tax charges. Does the Minister accept that pensioners will be worse off? If she does, what will the Government do about it? If she does not, and if she disagrees with what I have said, all the evidence I have cited and the things that other noble Lords have done, there is a very simple way forward: she can accept my amendments, do an impact assessment and tell us the facts. I beg to move.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. I thank her for that incredibly good and detailed outline of what the problem is.

I want to speak briefly as the chair of the charity Feeding Britain, where I succeeded the wonderful Frank Field—the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead. We began three years ago to support the rollout of affordable food projects. We originally held the assumption that most of the people who would want it would be working-age groups, disabled people or families with kids, but that assumption proved to be wrong. We have 80 affordable food projects in our network. In many of them, between 30% and 40% of the members are pensioners on low incomes. They either could not or would not use a food bank. Pensioners find it extremely difficult to go to a food bank. I think that when you have paid your taxes and national insurance all your life, to find yourself at 85 having to ask someone whether they will give you a can of baked beans is both humiliating and almost impossible. Indeed, we have heard stories of many people who would really rather go without than have to endure that.

In Glasgow, where we have set up many affordable food projects, we have now set them up particularly in areas where there are lot of pensioners. People have really been supported by this. One said to us: “It’s been a godsend, really, because all the prices are going up—electricity, the cost of food and the lot.”

When I was a kid, my parents both did meals on wheels, and I used to go round with them once a week and deliver meals to people’s houses. It was kind of a joy; my parents really enjoyed it. When I chaired the London Food Board, I spent a lot of time seeing what we could do to bring meals on wheels back. The reality is that no councils have any money for this anymore. As always happens when it is about food, it is a budget that gets cut, or the costs go up and it becomes not many people, so it gets struck off the list of things that you could do. One thing we could do would be to start looking at a service like that.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, pointed out about energy, you have to pay a lot to be poor in this country. It is certainly true of food. If I go to a shop, I can buy a large size of washing powder or rice or whatever it happens to be. If you are scraping along on very little money, you pay a great deal more. We did a survey in Greenwich which pointed out that your average shop would cost you 30% to 40% more in your corner store than if you had been able to go to your local Aldi. You pay a price to be poor. That is really terrible, and it is why I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments raise important issues about the impact of the Bill on poverty. I simply want to raise a point about the measure of poverty that should be used.

At Second Reading, in her response to the debate the Minister referred to a fall in pensioner poverty since 2009-10 as measured by the so-called absolute poverty measure, and she did so again earlier this evening. In fact, it is not a measure of absolute poverty as such but is better described as an anchored measure which measures any change by adjusting the 2010-11 poverty line for inflation. In contrast, the House of Commons Library briefing, using the relative poverty measure, recorded an increase in pensioner poverty from an historic low of 13% in 2011-12 to 18% in 2019-20, as my noble friend Lady Sherlock said. With reference to Amendment 8, single female poverty is higher than the overall figure—a point already made.

However, the Minister was dismissive of the use of a relative measure, stating:

“The Government believe that absolute poverty is a better measure of living standards than relative poverty, which can provide counterintuitive results”.—[Official Report, 13/10/21; col. 1885.]


Criticisms of the relative poverty measure as potentially counterintuitive have tended to focus on when it is used for short-term, year-on-year comparisons, but, in this case, we are talking about a rise in relative poverty over a period of eight years, which surely should have triggered some alarm bells in the department.

Relevant here is a recent Work and Pensions Committee report. Although its focus was on measuring child poverty, what it has to say is relevant also to pensioner poverty. It states:

“The Secretary of State is of course right to say that a relative measure can, in the short term, produce counter-intuitive results—but it has great value for assessing long term trends. We are concerned to see Ministers focusing on a single measure, rather than drawing on the rich information offered by DWP’s own set of income-based measures, which combines relative, ‘absolute’ and broader material deprivation statistics … Ministers should reaffirm their commitment to measuring poverty through all four measures”.


Similarly, I have a Written Answer from the Minister’s predecessor, dated May 2018, which states:

“No one measure of poverty is able to fully capture the concept of a low standard of living in all economic circumstances.”


Yet increasingly, Ministers use the so-called absolute measure, as if it is the only appropriate measure. Will the Minister reaffirm that commitment as called for by the Work and Pensions Committee? After all, I remind her that, when he was leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron explained:

“We need to think of poverty in relative terms—the fact that some people lack those things that others in society take for granted. So I want this message to go out loud and clear: the Conservative Party recognises, will measure and will act on relative poverty.”


Can the Minister explain why that is no longer the case? What has changed, other than that the Government’s record on poverty looks worse using the relative poverty measure that Mr Cameron championed?

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3. To quote from a publication by the Institute for Fiscal Studies,

“We’ll know we are on the way to levelling up when differences in health and life expectancy across the country start to drop. Sadly, that’s one measure of inequality that has clearly been moving in the wrong direction over the past decade.”


Associated with those growing inequalities is pensioner poverty, which, as we have heard, has risen from 13% to 18% and is likely to rise even further. For older pensioners, the rise is even higher. With the rising energy and food costs that we can all see coming down the track, there will be a lot of old people this winter with very little money, sitting in cold houses, fearing that they will not get any help when they fall ill. That will be the reality for many thousands of people in the coming winter months.

We know that there is a major problem generally of households on low incomes with rising debt who will not be able to weather the storm of the growing cost-of-living problems that we are beginning to see. Then again, looked at from a regional perspective, in the majority of regions in England pensioner couples have average weekly incomes below the pensioner couple average, and we are seeing this problem in particular regions: in the north-east, the north-west, east Midlands, West Midlands, Yorkshire and indeed in London, which now has the highest relative level of pensioner poverty. As Imperial College research now shows us, life expectancy is falling in urban areas in these regions—in Leeds, Newcastle, Manchester, Liverpool and other areas. Cuts to health and social spending will have contributed to that trend, and we have not yet experienced a winter with the backlog that the NHS is dealing with.

Pensioners with low incomes are more sensitive to indexation changes because they are more dependent for their income on those benefits. Yet we have seen no assessment of the impact of suspending the triple lock, or indeed what could be the implications of decisions the Government will take next year or the year after, given that through the Bill they have suspended both the triple lock and the legislative underpin of earnings. We know that projected levels of pensioner poverty will vary according to the uprating provisions applied to the state pension, given its dominance in pensioner income. If you play negatively with pensioner income, pensioner poverty will go up. That sensitivity to indexation will continue to increase, as fewer and fewer pensioners reach state pension age without the generous defined benefits or defined contribution pensions which, in the past, cushioned the fall in the state pension that occurred under successive Governments.

Pensioner poverty is not a legacy issue. State pension is and remains a dominant source of income for the majority of both current and future pensioners. Research by the Pensions Policy Institute—your Lordships can tell that I am a governor—reveals that the UK is currently on course for a quarter of people approaching retirement being unlikely to receive even a minimum income. Of the 11 million people in the UK between the age of 50 and state pension age, around 3 million will not receive a minimum income.

21:45

Those earning at median levels or below—women, people from BME communities, carers, disabled people and the self-employed—are more likely to be in the groups not meeting adequacy levels in retirement. All the drivers of the gender pay gap also drive the pensions gender gap, and added to that is the current generation of women pensioners who accrued their state pensions under a legacy system that directly discriminated against them. Many women are now excluded from auto-enrolment and treated less favourably under the tax system when saving their pensions than those on higher incomes. The number of workers now ineligible for auto-enrolment has risen to over 10.1 million.

Listening to the Minister reply to the previous debate was extraordinary, given the sort of circular restriction the Government have imposed on themselves. The Minister said that they have spent 5.7% of GDP on pensioner benefits, but that is low by any basis of comparison. If that is the basis going forward, the Government have a plan that will make future generations poorer on 5.7% of GDP. I do not have the figures with me, but it is certainly lower than the figure that was quoted when the new state pension and the accelerated state pension ages were introduced and talked about. Because that new state pension is set at a relatively low level, the minimum income guarantee—an underpin of protection for our poorest pensioners—cannot go up by more than that new state pension. The Government have created a sort of ceiling. There is a limit to how much we can help our pensioners through the pension credit, because it cannot go above the new state pension. But that new state pension is based on an assumption of GDP that is pretty low, and the value of it is pretty low relative to earnings.

We are beginning to see inequalities of pensioner income emerging, and if the Government really are focused on the kind of regional inequalities that we are seeing, it is just not sustainable to keep saying that we cannot increase the minimum income guarantee for pensioners because we have set the new state pension at a relatively low level. The Government have locked themselves out of the main mechanism for dealing with pensioner poverty.

The Bill removes the earnings indexation underpin and suspends the triple lock. What will apply next year or in future years rests on a verbal promise which, like snow, could melt when the heat rises. Who knows what next year will bring? But a precedent has been set that both the triple lock and the earnings underpin can be taken away.

Pensioners with lower incomes, particularly women, will be very sensitive to those index changes, and yet we have no impact assessment on this matter of considerable importance. Rather than just debate endlessly, the amendment is calling for the Government and the Minister to lay some analysis about the impact on pensioner poverty. Rather than having an argument, could the Minister not just accept the intent of my noble friend Lady Sherlock’s amendment and provide that report, so that we can all clearly show where we are going on trying to protect our poorest pensioners?

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, I have added my name to Amendments 5 and 6 and I support the thrust of these amendments. I urge my noble friend the Minister to look seriously at the merits of investigating the poverty levels that are rising among pensioners. Indeed, I urge her to accept some of these looking at the gender issues—so not just pensioner poverty but relative pensioner poverty between men and women—in her new role as Minister for Women, on which I congratulate her. I support these amendments and I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s comments.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I just want to add that we have a complete lack of information on these proposals. As a matter of law, when the regulations come, they have to be accompanied by a report from the Government Actuary. In effect, we are making the decision now—the regulations are just a carry-on of the Act—and it is really unfortunate that we do not have before us the information that Parliament has decided should be available to us when we deal with these regulations.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for her amendments and for the information she has drawn to our attention. I share her concern at the lack of impact assessments of the proposed uplift on the most affected groups. The increasing pensioner poverty that we are all aware of and the poor take-up of pension credits, which are important as a passport to other benefits, are matters we are all extremely concerned about. I agree that pension increases are fast outstripped by rising costs, and I certainly fear a winter crisis, with increased energy prices and their effect on those who most need heat to keep their homes healthy and warm.

We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, about how poor pensioners do not want to claim food —they do not want free food, they would rather starve than do that—and I believe that that is certainly an element in the uptake of pension credit. Again, we all worry that we are going to see more and more food banks and people unable to feed themselves as costs rise. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, raised the whole issue of regional poverty and inequality. Certainly, when you look at the statistics across the regions, they are quite breath-taking. I believe we need much more information, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, particularly about regional inequality. I wonder why we do not have this information when the Government have such a strong levelling-up agenda. How will they address these issues without adequate information on which to base decisions?

My amendment in this group highlights the unfairness experienced by many women as result of the pension gender gap. I will point out the current situation. The average pension pot for a woman aged 65 is one-fifth of that of a 65 year-old man. Women receive £29,000 less state pension than men over 20 years and this deficit is set to continue, closing by only 3% by 2060. Many women are wholly dependent on the state pension and as a result of this situation, we should take a particular interest in conducting impact assessments on the uprating of pensions on poverty. I support the measures proposed in this group and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock, Lady Drake, Lady Boycott, Lady Altmann and Lady Janke, for raising important issues through these amendments and I reassure the Committee that we are committed to ensuring economic security at every stage of life, including when one reaches retirement.

On Amendments 5 and 8, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Janke, on publishing a poverty impact assessment, the department collects and publishes a wide range of data on income and poverty which are released annually in the reports in the households below average income series. Noble Lords raised the issue of pension credit take-up. Time does not allow me to go into the detail, but I undertake to have a further pension credit update when we can have more time to discuss and answer the questions that noble Lords wish to have answered.

In the absence of actual data, the only way to provide an assessment in advance of those dates would be to forecast and model how many pensioners might have their income lifted above the various low-income levels under an earnings uprating versus an inflation uprating. Assumptions would need to be made about how each individual pensioner’s income would change in future under each scenario. This would require making assumptions about, for example, how each pensioner might change their behaviour around other sources of income, such as drawdown of income from investments or a change in earnings, when faced with different amounts of state pension, which is virtually impossible to do.

Those projected incomes would then need to be compared with projections of the various income thresholds, which are themselves extremely uncertain. For absolute poverty, the threshold is increased each year by inflation; and for relative poverty, the threshold is determined by changes in median income across the whole population. Given the volatility in the economy and labour market, this is impossible to do accurately. There is a very high risk that any analysis seeking to forecast the number of pensioners moving above or below these projected poverty thresholds would be misleading due to uncertainty about both the economy and pensioners’ behaviour in response to various levels of state pension.

I turn to Amendment 6 and the specific request of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for a review of the impact of the Bill on mixed-age couples, and point to some practical concerns. Mixed-age couples in receipt of universal credit are a very small group, and data sources are limited. It is therefore not possible to identify these couples and analyse changes in health inequalities and homelessness for this group.

Further, the Government believe it is important for both individuals and wider society that people below state pension age remain in the labour market and continue saving for their own retirement. That is why, where a member of a couple is below state pension age and the couple are on a low income, support is provided through universal credit rather than pension credit. Providing support where it is needed through universal credit ensures that the same incentives to work and save for retirement apply to the younger partner in a mixed-age couple as apply to other people of the same age. Where the younger partner is unable to work because of disability or caring requirements, they may qualify for additional amounts and will not be subject to any work-related conditionality.

This approach is based on clear evidence about the importance of employment, particularly where it is full-time, in substantially reducing the risks of poverty and in improving long-term outcomes for families and children. In 2019-20, adults below state pension age in households where all adults were in work were six times less likely to be in absolute poverty, after housing costs, than adults in a household where nobody works.

As our economic recovery gathers pace and with vacancies at record levels, the focus of our expanded multi-billion-pound Plan for Jobs is helping people who can work to move into and to progress in work wherever possible. However, recognising that some people continue to require extra support this winter, we have announced the new household support fund.

On Amendment 7, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, to publish an assessment of the impact of the Bill on those receiving the state pension, with reference to their ability to pay energy bills, energy prices are one of the factors built into the CPI measure, which is used in the assessment of annual uprating of benefits not covered by this Bill, such as personal independence payments and jobseeker’s allowance. In aggregate, where benefit rates are increased in line with CPI, the increases in those prices are reflected over time in the increases in benefit rates. The energy price cap will continue to protect millions of customers this winter, saving 15 million households up to £100 a year. Additionally, suppliers are prohibited from disconnecting customers of pensionable age between October and March, ensuring that pensioners have continuous supply during the coldest months.

I ask the noble Baroness, taking account of the points I have made, to withdraw her amendment.

22:00

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have signed my amendments. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Altmann, and my noble friend Lady Drake and others. I am most grateful to those who spoke.

My noble friend Lady Drake summed up the problem when she said: “There are going to be a lot of old people this winter with very little money, sitting in cold houses, worrying that they will not get the help they need.” I think there really will be.

Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, I was very moved by the vision. I think that her parents must be terribly proud. They took her out to do meals on wheels when she was young and she in her turn is now doing such amazing work supporting people who cannot afford to eat. I really commend her for that—it was a wonderful image.

Like the noble Baroness I have been involved with many organisations such as churches and others that do food banks. I know how older people do not like to use food banks and how difficult it is. I think how shameful it is that we have come to the point where they have to, or indeed anyone has to, on the scale that we have in our country. We have somehow lost our way.

The worrying levels of pensioners on low income and those approaching low income should really concern us. My noble friend Lady Drake mentioned a figure from the PPI. If we are heading for a quarter of all people approaching retirement being unlikely to receive even the minimum income level, something has gone badly wrong. What has happened to the vision that was meant to lift people away from that situation? Can the Minister tell us what has gone wrong there?

The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, in her amendment, mentioned women pensioners in particular. Those drivers of the gender pay gap are driving the gender pensions gap as well. If we do not get things right earlier on, we are not going to be able to put it right later. This means that it is not just a legacy problem. It has been clear from the comments and contributions from noble Lords tonight that this is not a problem just of older systems in days when, for example, caring was not recognised. This is happening now and is going to drive pensioner poverty into the future.

On the question of poverty measurements, I am so grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister who has literally written the book on poverty and is therefore in a very strong position to be able to take apart the Government’s arguments. It just does not work to say that relative poverty is some hopeless measure that no one uses when, frankly, it is used robustly by academics all over this country, Governments and international bodies. It has been used over very long periods for longitudinal studies. It is fine to use other measures as well. It is fine, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, has done in her work, to look at baskets of measures. However, simply to say that relative poverty does not matter and cannot be measured is not a credible stance if we are to have a serious conversation about social policy.

The point about trends was really well made. Even if the noble Baroness does not like measures year to year, in 1997, pensioner poverty in the UK was at 29%; in 2010 it was 14% and in 2012 it starts to rise. Last year it was 18%. There are huge trends there. Something is happening with pensioner poverty and the Government cannot simply turn a blind eye to it.

The Government argue that they cannot do an impact assessment and that they have data such as households below average income. That is nonsense. HBAI is simply a statement of the state of income across the nation. It is not a measure of the impact of any legislation. Whenever the Government do an impact assessment, of course they have to make assumptions about what will happen and how people will respond. It is called modelling. All I am asking is for them to do it on things they do not want to do it on, as well as the things they do want to do it on. That does not seem to me to be an unreasonable request.

To be honest, a lot of the people that we are talking about here are so close to the poverty line that I do not think it would be very hard to make assumptions about what was going to happen to their income, and how far they are going to draw down extensively on assets, as a result of measures the Government are taking.

The Minister says that we do not have time to discuss pension credit take-up tonight. This is the Committee stage of a Bill in which we are meant to do line-by-line analysis. We have been asking this for quite a long time and if we do not have time to do it tonight then, frankly, proceedings should carry on at another time when we do have time to do it. It should not be that we do not get to discuss things and to have questions answered because the timing, which was entirely in the Government’s hands, is such that the noble Baroness feels that we do not have time to discuss it tonight. Take-up of pensioner credit is fundamental to pensioner poverty. This is a group of amendments about pensioner poverty so I think it would have been helpful if she had anything else to say on that.

I am disappointed that the Minister is not willing to move on this. These are gentle, simple and reasonable amendments. If the Government will the ends of this, they should will the ability to assess the impact of their ends. I hope that the noble Baroness will revisit this idea and be more willing to accept it before we come back to these matters later in the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

Debate on whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton for their support for this proposal. My motives are very simple—to address poverty among our senior citizens. I should like to see an 8.3% increase in the state pension, although 8.3% of little is still very little. It is not going to make an enormous difference to the Government’s finances—I shall deal with that issue in a moment.

Previously, Governments have broken the link between earnings and state pension, which has had disastrous intergenerational consequences. As has already been mentioned, in the 1980s, the Thatcher Administration broke the link between earnings and the state pension, and we never recovered from it. This is another example of where, once that link is broken, we will never really recover from it; the Minister so far has not said that in future the backlog will somehow be made up. Nothing has been said about that.

The current full state pension at the moment is £9,350 a year, and only four out of 10 retirees receive it. The average state pension is about £8,000 a year and, as has already been pointed out, is around 24% or 25% of the earnings. It is the lowest among industrialised nations, and by not increasing the state pension in line with average earnings we are going to condemn it to remain low.

According to the OBR, in one of the documents I came across, it said that by 2022-23 the UK is expected to allocate around 4.6% of its GDP to the state pension. That is considerably less than the European Union or OECD countries, and Germany already allocates about 10%. Why is it that the Government are content for such low allocation to the state pension? What happened to the billions that the Government took from 3.8 million women by raising their state pension age from 60 to 66? What happened to the billions that the Government said would be saved by coming out of the European Union? Why have those resources not been used to lift our senior citizens out of poverty?

Some 2.1 million pensioners receive a state pension of less than £100 a week, and most of these are women. Some gender issues have already been discussed. Currently, female pensioners receive on average 16% less state pension than men; the Government use the pretence of equality to raise the state pension age for women, but women still receive less.

A low pension inevitably means that there are consequences. For example, some 1.3 million senior citizens are undernourished. Every year, 25,000 or sometimes more senior citizens die from cold because they simply cannot afford to heat their homes or buy adequate food. As has been pointed out, this Bill has not been accompanied by an impact assessment from the Government to show the effects on the lives of our senior citizens.

Pensioner poverty has increased so, despite the triple lock, the proportion of elderly people living in severe poverty is five times as much as it was in 1986. Again, that is the largest increase among western European countries—bearing in mind that the UK is one of the richest countries in the world. That is really an indictment of the policies that have been pursued by successive Governments.

Despite the triple lock, 2.1 million pensioners live in poverty, 1.25 million of whom are women. The poverty rate is higher now that it was in 2012-13. Many simply struggle to survive. Those retirees who try to top up their meagre state pension with part-time work will soon be hit by the Johnson tax: a 1.25% hike in national insurance. At the same time, what do we actually observe? For those rich people who make vast fortunes from capital gains and dividends, or speculation on second homes, commodities markets and securities markets, no national insurance contributions are payable on unearned income. That money could definitely be used to alleviate poverty, but the Government have not indicated any inclination to do that.

The cost of honouring the earnings link to the state pension is probably around £4.7 billion. It is miniscule compared to the cost of bank bailouts, or the £895 billion in quantitative easing. It is certainly less than the £8.5 billion subsidy handed to train companies, which are promptly paying out very high dividends. It is certainly less than the subsidies given to the oil and gas companies. Retirees are not asking for vast sums of money. All they are asking for is something to enable them to keep they heads above water. The 3.1% increase in the state pension from next April is not really enough—it is actually a backward-looking measure. It only reflects the consumer price increases, not the RPI increase, which is always higher. In fact, it only reflects the consumer price increases during the last year and does not take into account the 12% hike in the energy cap or the expected food price rises, for example. The experts are already telling us that the rate of inflation will be 5% very soon. That means the value of the expected rise is already eroded: it has vanished. So, retirees will actually be even worse off.

A triple lock based upon the existing formula could have given an increase of around 8% to 8.3%, adding up to about £14 a week in the full new state pension, instead of £5.55 a week. That is a difference of about £8.50 a week. Is that really a king’s ransom? It is probably less than what many Ministers pay for a glass of wine with their lunch. That is all retirees are asking for. I will spell out the financial consequences in a moment.

Let us also remember that retirees pay council tax, VAT, various duties and, where appropriate, income tax. Their expenditure boosts local economies and is likely to have a greater multiplier effect on the local economy because they spend the money on essentials. The best legacy for future generations is a decent state pension now, because they would be even more reliant upon it. The final salary pension schemes have all but vanished for new members, so income from occupational pension schemes will be low. People will be forced to rely upon their state pensions. Workers’ ability to save for private pensions has been severely damaged. Workers’ share of GDP has declined, from 65.1% in 1976 to 49.4% now—the biggest decline in any Western country. People just do not have the ability to save extensively for a private pension.

As others have mentioned, around 14.5 million people live in or below poverty. Household debt is some £1.7 trillion. Young people just do not have the capacity to pay high housing costs and high food costs, repay student debt and then save adequately for their retirement. That, again, is a very serious issue.

The social divide in this country is stark. Some 18.4 million individuals have an income of less than the tax-free allowance; 42% do not earn enough to pay income tax; 6.2 million people, as the Minister told us last week, do not earn enough to pay national insurance contributions. Paradoxically, however, individuals who do not earn enough to pay income tax are somehow asked to pay national insurance, while millionaires from capital gains do not pay any. The poorest people are being damaged.

22:15

A large proportion of the population is not sitting on a pot of money that they can easily use for retirement. The poorest 50% of the population have only 9% of the total wealth. The poorest fifth of society has only 8% of the UK’s income. Inevitably, the state pension will be their main source of income in retirement. We need to meet that challenge now, not in five or 10 years. We need to make progress towards a decent state pension now.

The cost of honouring the link with earnings is about £4.7 billion. This can easily be met out of the £37 billion surplus in the national insurance fund account. The Minister disagrees; I shall respond to that when we come to another amendment. The Government can maintain the triple lock without increasing the 20% or 40% rates of income tax, or increasing national insurance contributions for the vast majority of people. Will the Minister tell us if she agrees that £17 billion a year could easily be raised by taxing capital gains in the same way as earned income, and another £8 billion by ensuring that the beneficiaries of capital gains pay national insurance at the current rate? That is £25 billion from that measure alone. A further £5 billion could be raised by taxing dividends in the same way as earned income. Ensuring that all earned income is liable to a national insurance levy of 12% would raise another £14 billion. There is absolutely no shortage of finance.

Why do the Government lack the political will to lift so many people out of poverty? Ours is one of the richest countries. People should not be living in squalor or poverty. I urge all Members of this House to make a concerted effort to ensure that our senior citizens do not live a life of poverty. I commend this amendment to the House.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, may I make it clear that this is not an amendment? We are debating a straight question of whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill or not: in other words, whether it is accepted or not.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Sikka and in favour of retaining the existing legislative provisions by leaving out Clause 1 entirely. As the noble Baroness said, it is about whether Clause 1 should appear in the Bill at all. Clearly, to leave it out would vitiate the entire Bill but it would invite the House of Commons to think again, which is the primary role of this House. The intention now is to enable those of us who believe it would be reasonable and right to go for the full 8.3% increase that the Government have stated is the appropriate figure to debate it.

The triple lock has come in for some criticism. It does not enjoy universal support. I understand some of those criticisms and perhaps, in a perfect world, it should not be necessary. We would like to live in a world where pensioners would simply share in the same increases in living standards as those enjoyed by the working population. This is not where we are. For me, the triple lock serves a dual purpose. First, it is needed to protect pensioners’ living standards. Secondly, and in some ways more importantly, it is a way of increasing the flat-rate benefits towards a more adequate level. I am glad to say that I do not have to expound at length on that point because the case has been made so clearly by my noble friend Lady Drake. It is an accelerator which will project the basic pension to a more adequate level.

What is clear is that it is not at an adequate level at present, which is why what is described as the “ratchet effect” of the triple lock is so important; of course, the same would be true of a double lock, based on prices and earnings, which is why we shall return in a moment to the important role of the 2.5% element. Introduced as a political fix at a time when inflation was somewhat higher than it has been for most of the last decade, it has turned out to be of real benefit to pensioners.

As was so clearly explained by my noble friend Lady Drake, the job of the triple lock is not just to protect pensioners in relation to earnings and prices; it is, over time, to achieve real increase in their incomes when measured against either of these indices. As I have said before, it is an inherent feature of the triple lock, not a bug. Whether you agree depends on whether you think the state basic pension or the new state pension are currently high enough. If you think they are, you might consider that we do not need the triple lock, but if you want to see them increase, as I do, the triple lock has a proven track record of gaining ground on that objective. The triple lock may not be pretty, but experience has shown us that it works. During periods when the triple lock—or, in the case in the long-distant past of the 1974-79 Labour Government, a double lock—has applied, we have seen a consistent incremental move of the state flat-rate pension towards a more adequate level.

The element of the triple lock that has attracted most criticism, not least from my noble friend Lady Lister, is the 2.5% minimum increase. It has been said that it is arbitrary and without any justification. Maybe, but so are many other figures in legislation. When we analyse the real increase that pensioners have benefited from since 2011 with the triple lock, almost half the improvement has been due to the 2.5% element. To me, that in itself justifies its inclusion. Does anyone here believe that the basic state pension should be 18% of earnings rather than 19%? It might not sound like much but, to the poorest pensioners, everything counts.

Perhaps we need a debate about what level of flat-rate state pension we need and what the target should be when we have a ratchet effect. I would favour a commission to address the issue, building on the work of the earlier Pensions Commission, which set out the present structure of pension provision in this country. The commission itself did not feel able to specify with any precision what the basic pension should be in earnings terms, but the structure it established depends as much on the level of the flat-rate element as it does on the pension produced by automatic enrolment. I am pleased, therefore, to see that more work is being done in this area, through initiatives such as those from the Living Wage Foundation and the Pension and Lifetime Savings Association, with its retirement living standards.

Particularly given the hour, now is not the time to have a full-scale debate on the conclusions of that work, although it would be valuable to do so when appropriate. What is clear from the work that has been undertaken is that 19% is not nearly enough; it is well short even of the 26% that was attained back in 1979. These benefits are not just inadequate; there is a long way to go before they can become adequate. Consequently, we definitely still need a triple lock and its ratchet effect, and I would be prepared to see something better and faster replace it. That brings us to the increases due in 2022, as determined by this Bill. I believe that we can and should stick to the triple lock, as provided in the legislation, which means the 8.3% increase. Taking the increases to be made in 2021, 2022 and 2023, this provides an ideal opportunity to achieve a significant increase in flat-rate pensions towards a more adequate level in the longer term, which can only be a good thing.

It will no doubt be pointed out that this would have to be paid for, with the figure of £5 billion per annum being quoted. My noble friend Lord Sikka has dealt with that but, for the purposes of today’s debate, I simply say that I support increases in general taxation on those with the broadest shoulders to meet this clear social need, with the obvious target of equalising what I still think of, in the old terminology, as unearned income, rather than earned income. I believe that this would best be done by the restoration of the Treasury’s supplement to the National Insurance Fund, for which there is already provision in legislation.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Sikka and Lord Davies of Brixton. Given the hour, I will be brief. I very much endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about this Clause 1 stand part debate seeking to ask the other place to think again, and indeed to ask your Lordships’ House to debate this.

I would be more radical than either noble Lord who preceded me. I believe that the state pension should be set at a level where no pensioner is living in poverty—that is looking at the relative poverty levels, as outlined and widely discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. That would mean abolishing the contributory principle. Our debate tonight has demonstrated how discriminatory and actively massively unfair that is—because, as worked through now, it largely acknowledges only contributions through paid work. We know that many people, particularly women, make huge contributions to our entire society and future through care, community work and other activities which are simply not recognised in our pension system. This is leaving huge numbers, particularly of women, in a state of living that our whole society should regard as not acceptable.

I agree again with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that the triple lock is far from perfect. We have talked about heating costs. Of course, another way in which we have very much failed our pensioners is the quality of the housing stock that they are living in. Reference has been made to the quality of council housing, but we also have a huge problem with more and more pensioners now living in private housing due to the huge privatisation of our housing stock through right to buy. Those people are living in extremely poor conditions and are placed in very difficult circumstances in that housing.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, that the cost of not going forward with ending the triple lock for this year—£4.7 billion—is very modest in the overall scheme of things. We have bailed out the banks. When Covid-19 hit, we bailed out many businesses. Surely we should look to bail out our pensioners.

I finish by noting that, when we talk about £14 a week, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. There is a relatively small number of people in our society for whom £14 a week is small change, but there are very large numbers of people and pensioners for whom it is literally a matter of life and death. I invite noble Lords to consider our excess winter deaths, many of which occur among pensioners.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I will be very brief. I thank my noble friend Lord Sikka for introducing this debate. We all share an underlying concern about the living conditions for poorer pensioners. I will not dwell on pensioner poverty; I made a perfectly long—arguably overlong—speech on the last group of amendments about this very subject.

Because the Bill has only two clauses and Clause 2 is the commencement clause, I suspect that, in coming back, the Minister will be tempted to focus on the fact that this may be regarded as a wrecking amendment because it would remove the entire contents of the Bill. We on this side accept that there is a difficulty in looking at and using the data for the earnings measure without adjustment, so that is not the position that we are in. I encourage her, when she responds, to answer and speak to the underlying concerns about pensioner poverty that have been expressed noble Lords, and perhaps give some assurance to the House about how the Government will tackle that, as well as looking at the immediate issue.

22:30

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, I support the triple lock and its effect of keeping the value of the state pension, which has been lost over very many years and has not yet recovered. I share the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that we accept that these are special circumstances. The Minister has assured us that this is just for one year, so we take her at her word and will judge her on future actions next year.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the whole Committee, that the Government take the issues of living conditions and the standards of pensioners seriously. As I have relayed in previous contributions to this debate, we have done an enormous amount to try to help, but I have no doubt that that will not be enough for some. It is a work in progress, and we will see where that goes.

This clause requires the Secretary of State to review the rates of the basic state pension, the new state pension up to the full rate, the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit, and survivors’ benefits in industrial death benefit, by reference to the general level of prices in Great Britain. Under this clause, if the relevant benefit rates have not kept pace with the increase in prices, then the Secretary of State is required to increase them at least in line with that increase or by 2.5%—whichever is the higher.

This is a two-clause Bill. If the noble Lords, Lord Sikka and Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, successfully oppose Clause 1, the Bill will fall and, as a result, these pension rates will be increased by 8.3%, which is the average weekly earnings index for the year May to July 2021. This means that, if the Bill does not achieve Royal Assent in good time, there will be an increased cost to the Exchequer of between £4 billion and £5 billion.

Taking into account the points raised, I ask the noble Lords to withdraw their opposition to the question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all the participants in this debate, which has been very interesting. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for her comments, but the issues remain. Many of our senior citizens are condemned to poverty and, by breaking this link with earnings, we will be condemning more to poverty, not only the current generation but future generations too. Nevertheless, for the time being I would like to withdraw this amendment, but I reserve the right to bring it back.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

My Lords, just to be clear, it is not an amendment.

Clause 1 agreed.

Amendments 6 to 8 not moved.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, before my noble friend moves her amendment, it is my duty to draw the attention of the Committee to the advice I have received from the Legislation Office and ask the Committee to endorse it. It is rare for a Leader to advise the Committee in these circumstances. Since 1999, my predecessors have done so on only four occasions, and on all but one the House has endorsed the impartial advice given.

My noble friend’s amendment is not admissible under the rules governing what is relevant to a Bill. The Public Bill Office, therefore, properly and promptly advised me of that fact. Paragraph 8.56 of the Companion to the Standing Orders states that the Leader of the House

“draws the House’s attention to the advice when the amendment is called, and asks the House to endorse the advice of the Legislation Office … the admissibility of an amendment can ultimately be decided only by the House itself, there being no authority that can in advance rule an amendment out of order.”

To ensure that the advice is clear and available to all, I have placed the Clerk’s advice and my open letter to the party and group leaders about it in the Library of the House. If I may briefly assist the Committee, I will explain further why my noble friend’s amendment is not admissible before turning to the unusual decision the Committee is being asked to take.

The amendment is not within the scope of the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill. This is because the Bill covers one narrow topic and has only one purpose: the uprating for one year of the basic and new state pension, the standard minimum element of pension credit, and survivors’ benefits in industrial death benefit. Only amendments relating to the purpose of the Bill or touching on matters closely connected with it are permitted. My noble friend may point to the title of the Bill as being broad, but I am afraid that, in this case, that is not relevant. As the Clerk’s advice says, the scope of a Bill is defined by its purposes as contained in its clauses and schedules, not the title. Bills can have what might seem to be very wide titles but be narrow in scope. The advice from the Clerk is clear and unambiguous, and I hope my noble friend will not seek to challenge it and will not move her amendment today or bring it back at a later stage.

However, the fate of the amendment is ultimately in the hands of the House, as the Companion says, so, if I may, I will end with a wider point about how we work. So far this Session, 1,144 amendments have been considered by your Lordships’ House. The fact that every amendment is debated, and every point of view considered, enhances the quality of the legislation that makes its way on to the statute book. But this works only if we all respect the rules and conventions the House has set itself. We are a self-regulating House, and we rightly take pride in that, but that does not mean there are no rules. It means Members’ good sense and restraint must be relied upon to police those rules we set ourselves in our Companion and Standing Orders.

Many Members feel incredibly strongly about particular issues that are close to their hearts but work within the rules of the House to achieve the changes they passionately believe in, because they understand the damage to the House, its reputation and standing if they do not. So I very much hope noble Lords will carefully consider their stance on this amendment. As a House, we rely on the professional and impartial advice of our clerks; we rely on the judgment of Members to abide by the few rules we have; and we rely on the House as a whole to ensure that, in the last resort, the rules are enforced.

Amendment 9

Moved by

[Baroness Stroud]

9: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“The universal credit uplift
(1) Within the period of one month beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, Ministers of the Crown must make arrangements to move a motion for resolution as set out in subsection (2) to be debated, and voted on, by both Houses of Parliament.(2) The resolution is to decide whether it is desirable to reinstate the £20 uplift into Universal Credit as per the modification of the standard allowance of universal credit under the Social Security (Coronavirus) (Further Measures) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/371).”

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, I should like to open with one preliminary point, which is to say that, in moving this amendment, as I do, I intend no disrespect to the clerks, for whom I have the greatest of admirations. This morning, I wrote to them to tell them that I wanted to put on record how much I respect and honour the work they do, and that any action I would take today would in no way undermine that. In fact, I could not have got here without their support and advice. Moving an inadmissible amendment is not a straightforward process. Several weeks ago, I was not even aware there was such a thing as an inadmissible amendment. However, there is a serious, genuine difference of opinion which I believe should be exposed to the view of this self-regulating House.

Accordingly, I rise to move the amendment tabled in my name and the names of my noble friend Lord Freud, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Boycott, whom I thank for their support. It is with a heavy heart that I have tabled this amendment to the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill. I do not take lightly the idea of disagreeing so fervently with my Conservative Government or of stretching parliamentary convention in an elastic way, as my noble friend Lady Evans, the Leader of the House, so delicately put it. But the removal of the £20 uplift is a grave misstep and risks undermining the levelling-up agenda, leaving behind society’s most vulnerable people and putting at risk the stability of many homes up and down the country as we enter an unpredictable winter. If this House stands for anything, it is to check and challenge the work of the Government, and this is all I am seeking to do here today.

So let us look carefully at the effect of this amendment and at what has been said about it. The amendment states:

“Within the period of one month beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, Ministers of the Crown must make arrangements to move a motion for resolution as set out in subsection (2) to be debated, and voted on, by both Houses of Parliament.”


The resolution is to decide whether it is desirable to reinstate the £20 uplift in universal credit, as per the modification of the standard allowance of universal credit under the Social Security (Coronavirus) (Further Measures) Regulations 2020. The amendment, if accepted in this place and then in the other place, would require the Government to bring forward a vote on the desirability of the reinstating of the uplift in universal credit.

Two concerns have been levelled at the amendment that I will take a moment to address. The first is on the basis of scope and the impact on admissibility, and the second on the basis that it asks the House to decide how the House of Commons should conduct its business. Let us look at these in turn.

It has been said that the amendment is inadmissible. Chapter 8 of the Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords states:

“The Legislation Office advises on whether an amendment is admissible and it is expected that this advice will be taken. If a member insists on tabling an amendment which the Legislation Office has advised is inadmissible, that Office writes to the Leader of the House, copying the advice to the other Leaders, the Chief Whips and the Convenor.”


That happened according to due process, and the clerks were good enough to show me exactly what both letters would look like. The Companion continues:

“The Leader of the House draws the House’s attention to the advice when the amendment is called, and asks the House to endorse the advice of the Legislation Office.”


That too duly happened. The reason for this is as stated by the Companion, that

“the admissibility of an amendment can ultimately be decided only by the House itself, there being no authority that can in advance rule an amendment out of order.”

The process through which an inadmissible amendment becomes an admissible amendment is through the decision of this House. We as Members of the House have to decide.

It will be no surprise to anyone who knows me well that this is not an issue on which I have taken action lightly. I am not a natural rebel. I have spent a lot of time looking at the previous occasion on which an inadmissible amendment became an admissible amendment, which was in 2013 when Lord Hart moved an amendment on the boundaries Bill. It is the reason why we still have 650 MPs.

I have looked carefully at the arguments that were made then. Speeches made by two ennobled former Speakers of the House of Commons helped me understand this more clearly. The first was by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, who said this at the time when Lord Hart moved an inadmissible amendment that became admissible:

“If there was any success in the Speakership of the Commons during my period of office, much of it was due to the advice and support that I received from the clerks. I have to admit that there were a couple of occasions when I overruled that advice, one of which was against convention. But I did so because I thought that it was right to provide an opportunity for debate on a contentious issue which was of public interest and of concern. The roof did not fall in.


We have no such arbitrator with authority to make a decision in your Lordships’ House but we are often reminded that we are a self-regulating House. While, of course, we must examine the advice of the Public Bill Office and the clerk, there can be no authority that can in advance rule an amendment out of order. The bottom line is that the admissibility or otherwise of an amendment ultimately can be determined only by the House itself. When I spoke last year, I suggested that the Government allow this House to determine the issue for itself and I am delighted that we have the opportunity of so doing today.”—[Official Report, 14/1/13; col. 510.]


So, first, the sky did not fall in and, secondly, the admissibility or otherwise of an amendment can be determined ultimately only by the House itself. That is what I am seeking to do today.

The second speech was by Lord Martin of Springburn, who said:

“My Lords, I, too, received advice from the clerks of the House and I valued it. At the end of the day, although I did not ignore that advice, there were occasions when I said, ‘I will go in another direction’. In effect, I did not accept 100% of what the clerks had said.”—[Official Report, 14/1/13; col. 514.]


The amendment before noble Lords, which asks that the Commons thinks again about protections for some of our most vulnerable people, does exactly what this House should do: asks the Commons to think again. We have the authority to make that decision ourselves.

22:45

It has also been said that the amendment asks the House to decide how the House of Commons should conduct its business, what it should debate, when and how. With all due respect, this is a misunderstanding of the amendment. In effect, the amendment asks the Commons to consider whether it wants to be asked to think again. If this amendment is passed, it has to go to the other place for agreement. The other place can choose not to accept it; we are not forcing legislation on the other place. The House of Lords cannot force legislation on the House of Commons. The House of Commons must agree to this and may choose not to.

Process, scope and convention aside, why do I believe so strongly that this issue should be of interest to this House? The reality is that the removal of the £20 uplift should have been a decision that came to this House for scrutiny. The uprating levels of universal credit claimants, as we are seeing now in the uprating of pensions, should not have been done through a sunset clause on a statutory instrument. The fact that £20 per week—for a single person, this is about 34% of their standard allowance—could be removed from a claimant without scrutiny by this House is extraordinary.

When George Osborne sought to remove £12 billion from the welfare budget, it took a major Act of Parliament to achieve it. Yet £6 billion has been removed without a single vote on the issue through a sunset clause on a statutory instrument. It has been done with no impact assessment and without a vote in either place. All this amendment seeks to do is give an opportunity for the Commons to express its view on the desirability of further consideration. It does not, as has been stated, reinstate the £20 uplift, but gives the Commons an opportunity to vote for a vote to express the desirability of doing so.

This is a matter of huge public interest. In a recent poll undertaken by iPolitics, only 3% of the British public said that the cut should come in this year—a staggeringly low number. This is particularly in light of the twin instability caused by the rising cost of living and the global pandemic from which we are just emerging.

Let us take a moment to look at the arguments that have been put forward for dismantling the uplift and consider why it is so important that this House has the opportunity to ask the Executive to think again. I have had a number of conversations with Members of this House who have said that the £20 uplift was for a crisis moment only. We need to be honest here. The reality is that many of our low-income families are in crisis, with the welfare state at its lowest ever value since its creation: having been founded at 20% of the median wage, it is now at a value of 12%. At the same time, we have rising inflation, rising energy prices and an increase in national insurance. Let us not delude ourselves that the crisis is over. We have an opportunity to think again and to do something about this in this Bill.

I am listening intently to the Budget announcements and the narrative that the Government are going to protect hard-working families by raising the national minimum wage to £10 per hour by the end of this Parliament. However, anyone who tracks Treasury forecasting will know that there is nothing new here. These are just the forecasts that were already baked in. In fact, I believe the actual figure is £10.33 per hour by the end of this Parliament.

If you really want to protect hard-working families on low incomes and not drive wage inflation, this would have been an argument for increasing the work allowance or lowering the taper rate. The work allowance always makes it pay to take work and the taper rate always rewards progression in work. To be honest, if you wanted to strengthen the work incentives, you would have put the £20 into the work allowance and lowered the taper rate from 63% to 60%.

The most important aspect of the removal of the £20 uplift, which would have been visible had there been an impact assessment, is the poverty impacts of taking this action. They are stark. The removal will impact 840,000 people, of whom 290,000 are children, and 450,000 people who are in a family including a disabled person, either a disabled adult or child. Granted, a proportion of these will take the 1 million available jobs and many will take advantage of any upskilling that is available, building this high-wage, high-skilled economy.

However, my real concern remains for those to whom we say, “The welfare state is your safety net”: those with disabilities and those with children under the age of two, with whom we have a social contract. We say to them, “You are valued by our society and we want to support you.” This group has just lost £20 per week, they are not expected to work, and they are about to experience rising inflation and high energy bills in the midst of a pretty dark winter. If we do nothing else, we should be asking the Government to think again and restore the £20 uplift for this group of people.

I do not do this lightly, but I believe that it is our responsibility to shine a spotlight on action that damages people and to ask the Government to think again. We all know what the Companion tells us, but in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, we are often reminded that we are a self-regulating House. While of course we must examine the advice of the Public Bill Office and the clerk, no authority can in advance rule an amendment out of order. The bottom line is that the admissibility or otherwise of an amendment ultimately can be determined only by the House itself.

If this House stands for anything, it is to check and challenge the work of the Government. This amendment is in the public interest; we have the scope to admit it, and that is all I seek to do today. I beg to move.

[Lord Freud (Con)]

My Lords, it is with the greatest possible reluctance that I have felt compelled to join my noble friend and former colleague Lady Stroud in putting down this amendment, which is considered inadmissible by the clerks of the House.

My noble friend Lady Stroud has discussed the issue of scope. I will focus purely on why the level of universal credit payments is so important and has been such a long-running sore that it is essential that it go through some sort of democratic process. In a word, this issue is important enough that the House may wish, on this occasion, to overturn its convention of keeping within scope. This amendment simply seeks a vote in Parliament on whether the £20 a week uplift to the standard allowance of universal credit, which lapsed this month, should be reinstated.

My argument is a simple one. After a decade of cuts initiated by the Chancellor in 2010, the standard allowance of universal credit is now simply too low to expect people to live on it. According to a Commons Library briefing in April last year, the combination of 1% increases and freezes over many years has reduced the real level of allowances by 9%. That is before a plethora of other measures: cuts to housing support, benefit caps, waiting days—thankfully, later reversed—and the two-child limit. The Chancellor targeted no less than £30 billion of annual cuts from the working-age welfare budget. Within the department we fought those cuts, but we were powerless to stop them. That is the history, and it left the level of universal credit so low that it was patently inadequate for the millions of people who flowed on to it as the pandemic struck last year. In the words of the Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, we needed to “strengthen the safety net.”

The picture is worse than a simple look at the inflation-adjusted figures suggests. The standard allowance has slipped by significantly more relative to earnings over the last decade, and the relative earnings measure is a better reflection of how much the pressure on poverty has developed. We have been here before, when the Thatcher Government decided to uprate pensions by inflation rather than earnings—and look where that brought us.

What has changed that allows the strengthened safety net to be removed? Nothing has changed—in fact, the reverse. Inflation is taking off. It is already above 3%, with the Bank of England’s chief economist warning of 5% by early next year, and the goods on which the poorest people spend disproportionately—energy, food, transport—are in the firing line. My noble friend Lady Stroud has spelled out the impact on poverty of removing the £20 uplift, putting 840,000 people into poverty, and with inflation at these levels, the impact will undoubtedly be worse. This amendment is not about the removal of a temporary uplift. It is about putting universal credit on a realistic footing.

Restoring the £20 is not cheap. My noble friend the Minister told us at Second Reading that the department’s central estimate was that it would cost £6 billion per year. I do not believe that it would be so much, since 40% of the 5.9 million people receiving universal credit are working, and many of that 2.3 million will be moving further along the taper. Nevertheless, it is a substantial sum. If it is to be paid to the poorest there will have to be cuts elsewhere to afford it, which would bring with it some hard choices. However, I am not wedded to the blanket approach of the uplift, which was bizarrely targeted. It was worth 34% to singles under 25 and only 17% for couples over 25, for example. Adjusting various rates, and perhaps the taper itself, means that there is scope to maintain the benefits of the uplift for considerably less than £6 billion.

The point about universal credit is that it is seriously efficient at directing scarce funds to the poorest people—if applied by people who understand how it works. I felt genuinely sorry for my noble friend the Minister the other week when she had to defend the removal of the uplift by citing a wretched Treasury fig leaf of £500 million, to be distributed by local authorities. How are the councils meant to know who to give it to? That £500 million would be a good start to boost universal credit’s standard allowances. I read that a further £500 million is likely to be made available to support young families in tomorrow’s Budget; another bafflingly poorly targeted use of funds. I repeat that if the Chancellor wants to help the poorest, he will get the biggest bang for his buck by funnelling the funds through universal credit.

I spent 10 years of my life working to transform our welfare system. I am utterly convinced that if you want to make long-term sustainable savings, you must take a structural approach: get the taper to a level at which people are incentivised to work, for instance; help them to earn more by making skills training available; tie together the resources needed by those with multiple problems. You will not do it by making crude cuts, as George Osborne found. He cut the basic benefits and found that the levels of PIP soared. That was not a coincidence.

My concern is that this Government simply do not understand how universal credit works. If they did, they would nurture it, not trash it in the name of a past austerity inherited from a previous Chancellor; not take out £500 million and give it to local authorities to distribute; nor even provide the same crude cash boost of £20 both to couples and to singles in the pandemic. Through this amendment, we want to give MPs a chance to decide on the future of universal credit. It would give them the opportunity to show what is meant by “levelling up”. It is right that there should be a democratic process to decide something so momentous.

My noble friend Lady Stroud and I are not planning to push the amendment to a vote at this stage. We will wait to see whether the Chancellor has some measures up his sleeve tomorrow to protect universal credit recipients. If he has not, my noble friend and I will be returning to the issue on Report.

23:00

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a privilege to speak in your Lordships’ House, even at 11 o’clock at night. I am a great admirer of my noble friend Lady Stroud, and I am even a great admirer of my noble friend Lord Freud. I should say for the Hansard writers that I am saying that with a smile—he knows that I have a great fondness for him. They are both hugely knowledgeable and great experts in policy in this area, and I know that they have given a huge amount of practical support to people in need in lots of different contexts. They are recognised for that, and rightly so. It therefore gives me no pleasure to disagree with them today, but I do, on both the substance and the practical application of their amendment.

I start, briefly, with the substance. As my noble friend Lord Freud just said, we do not know what the Chancellor will be announcing tomorrow. I know that we have seen quite a bit trailed over the past few days in the media, but we do not know the sum total of what he will announce to alleviate pressure on families faced with rising energy costs and increases in the cost of living. If he is able to do anything with regard to universal credit, I would much rather he changed the taper rate, so that working more hours is clearly advantageous when the temporary £20 uplift comes to an end. I do not support the temporary uplift becoming permanent for various reasons.

But that is irrelevant, because it is not relevant to this Bill. With the best will in the world, it is not a question for us to answer, at least not in this context. That brings me to the practice which my noble friends are applying in order to force this issue into play. My noble friend the Leader has already set out the constitutional and conventional reasons why this approach is outside our standard procedures, and I will not repeat them, but I very much endorse all that she said, and I certainly accept the advice of the clerks. I should add that I am not one of her predecessors who ever had to face the situation she is facing today, but I have been in the Chamber in the past when a similar situation occurred, and I have had my own encounters with this House on matters to do with social security and so on, so this is not an unfamiliar situation.

Having said all that, I want to add a couple of points which I urge my noble friends Lady Stroud and Lord Freud to consider between now and Report Even though I know that they are both hugely principled, and are pursuing their cause with great sincerity, not everyone looking at what is being attempted will see it in that way. I think my noble friends are suggesting that we break our rules because Mr Speaker did not break his own when this Bill was in the other place and he was considering amendments proposed by Members of the Commons.

I am not familiar with all the detail of the goings-on in the other place, but I am aware that this Mr Speaker made a commitment when he was elected that he would be impartial and uphold the rules and conventions of the Commons. This was welcomed by that House and the Government, because it came after a very turbulent period of rules and conventions being ignored by his predecessor as Mr Speaker and by many Members of that House.

Since then, not only does the other place have a new Speaker but there has been a general election, the result of which is many new and re-elected MPs who now have the greater confidence of their electorate. The Prime Minister and the Government overlook this fact and act too often as though they are still facing the same disruptive and obstructive House of Commons pre-2019. I urge him and his ministerial team to reconsider their approach when they are engaging with the House of Commons in particular.

Even though there has been all that change down the other end of the corridor since December 2019, the House of Lords is still the same. We have not faced the electorate; we have not changed. Irrespective of what the Government think about this House, or what some noble Lords think about the Government, we have a responsibility to maintain public confidence in Parliament. Some people outside Parliament might agree with my noble friends on what they are proposing in terms of the substance on universal credit; some of them might agree with me, but what would probably unite all of them is the view that the House of Lords has no place in dictating to the House of Commons—that they elected—what its MPs should do and when.

So let us see what the Chancellor has to say tomorrow, but whatever action he takes, I really hope that my noble friends, whom I am fond of as well as have huge respect for, will not return on Report with a similar amendment to this. Because however well-intentioned and noble their cause, we have no legitimacy engaging in this matter at this time and in this way.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I will be very brief, given the hour. As I said, I am chair of Feeding Britain, and I would like to briefly report from the front line, so to speak, on the effect of the stopping of the £20. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, that this needs to be put before the other House so that there can be a vote on it.

Our experience at Feeding Britain has suggested that the £20 increase in universal credit was responsible for a drop in the number of people needing to use food banks this year—it was 17% lower than before the pandemic. Of course, we also had the school meals campaign by Marcus Rashford and various other people but, since then, in the three weeks since the increase was removed, our social supermarkets, which are affordable food projects, have started to show signs of distress.

Some of those who used to shop monthly for low-cost food, and for whom membership represented a nice insurance policy, are now there every week, if not more. Some who used to use a debit card are now using credit cards. Some of those who used to rely only on our option of low-cost food now also want help with gas and electricity. Some cannot even afford their membership fees, which are as little as £3. They are instead going without the food or having to use food banks. People are really clinging by their fingertips to avoid that nightmare scenario.

I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Freud, that we need skills and ways to help people try to avoid the traps that they are in, which is what our social supermarkets do. Being poor is not only an expensive thing to do in this country; it is also very hard work as you spend your life drifting from one office to another trying to find someone who can help you sort out your problems with rent, food, schools et cetera. I am very glad that this House is bringing this amendment forward, because if we do not do it, who will?

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for tabling this amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Freud —I must be careful I do not get into a habit of agreeing with him—I will focus on the substance of the issue, although I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, that this is not about dictating to the House of Commons, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, I am disappointed that apparently no attempt was made to assess the impact of what constitutes an unprecedented overnight cut in universal credit claimants’ income, despite the Financial Times reporting that an official had told it that the impact would be “catastrophic” in terms of poverty, homelessness and, as we have already heard, food bank use.

The lack of a formal impact assessment has been criticised by the UN rapporteur on extreme poverty, Olivier de Schutter. He told the Government that as a signatory of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, they must adequately justify what he defined as a retrogressive measure by carrying out such an assessment. Indeed, he warned that it was prima facie doubtful whether the removal of the £20 uplift is a measure that conforms to international human rights laws and standards. What was the Government’s reply to him?

Olivier de Schutter clearly did not see the original temporary nature of the uplift—repeatedly cited in justification—as a conclusive argument for withdrawing it now. The other main argument deployed by Ministers has been that the priority is to get people into reasonably paid work, as if that and maintaining the uplift are somehow alternatives between which we have to choose. Given that we know that hardship can undermine job-seeking efforts, what attention has been paid to the likely impact on job seeking of increasing hardship at the stroke of a computer key? What thought has been given to the impact on the significant minority who cannot be expected to seek work or work longer hours because of caring responsibilities or lack of fitness for work?

The Government have also tried to bolster their case by pointing to the £500 million household support fund referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Freud. But a discretionary fund of this kind is totally inappropriate for meeting the kind of regular needs that the UC standard allowance is supposed to meet. It offers no security or certitude to claimants in the way that a regular payment does. Not all local authorities are well placed to administer the money, especially if they are one of the significant minority which does not even run a welfare assistance scheme. I took part in a workshop last week where one participant said that her local authority had begged her food bank to administer a previous pot of money released by the Government to it because otherwise the local authority would have to return it for lack of administrative capacity.

A further sticking plaster is more money for family hubs, which could well find themselves picking up the pieces of families buckling under the strain of the loss of the £20. If, as rumoured, the Chancellor announces a cut in the taper rate tomorrow, again while welcome, it will do nothing to target the necessary help on those worst hit. Similarly, while the proposed increase in the national living wage is welcome, as both the IFS and the Resolution Foundation have made clear, it does not compensate for the loss of the uplift, not least because many of those earning the living wage are not in households in receipt of UC.

The very fact that the Chancellor was moved to introduce the uplift—which was welcome as far as it went—was tacit recognition, as we have heard, that UC rates are too low, a point made in the Commons by former Work and Pensions Secretary Stephen Crabb. Just how low is in part attributable to a decade of cuts and freezes, which took well over £30 billion a year out of the social security system, as the noble Lord, Lord Freud, has said.

As Mr Crabb pointed out, the cut raises a more fundamental question about the adequacy of the benefits we expect our fellow members of society to live on—an issue also raised by two committees of this House. While the narrow scope of the Bill does not enable us to have the more fundamental debate about benefit adequacy that I had hoped for, the amendment at least opens up the possibility of a serious vote in both Houses on the desirability of reinstating the uplift—a question that cannot be divorced from the underlying question of the adequacy of UC to meet needs.

Such a vote is needed because, although presented as somehow inevitable, the decision to withdraw the uplift was a political choice. The fact that it was originally intended to be temporary is neither here nor there, as the UN rapporteur made clear. Temporary often becomes permanent—and so it should when the overwhelming evidence shows that, be it from the perspective of food insecurity, as we have heard, debt or general hardship, the UC standard allowance is simply, to quote Stephen Crabb,

“too low to provide anything like a decent, respectable level of income replacement”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/9/21; col. 1004.],

Although inevitably so far largely anecdotal, it is clear that claimants are extremely anxious as the money disappears out of their accounts; not all of them were even aware that it would do so. An increase in fear and anxiety is how a pastor in Burnley described it to the journalist John Harris. Therefore, I hope that this amendment will be deemed admissible by this House.

23:15

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I find myself in a strange position tonight. I have made no secret of the fact that I believe it is a great error of judgment to end the uplift of universal credit or, at the very least, not to have brought it down by degrees. That said, I cannot agree with this method of trying to deal with the situation.

Perhaps I should explain that I spent many years in the House of Commons as a member of what was then called the Speaker’s panel of chairmen and as a Deputy Speaker there, as well as being a Deputy Speaker in this House, so I became very conscious of amendments and whether they were in or out of scope. It is important that those rules are observed, for the very good reason that, if you start to break them, anything can be added to any Bill and you can soon get into a real muddle. It does not always work in people’s favour, either.

I am very conscious of the fact that I believe that this amendment is outside the scope. We have certainly been advised so by the Legislation Office, but it was a conclusion that I came to on my own after many years’ experience of looking at amendments and seeing whether they were or were not admissible or out of scope. It is important to look at the Long Title of the Bill as the well as the short one; it is not a very long title, because it is not a very long Bill, but it makes provision

“relating to the up-rating of certain social security benefits”.

They are listed in this short Bill, and they do not cover universal credit.

For that reason, although I share many of the doubts and worries about universal credit—my noble friend Lord Freud made a most powerful case—my point is that this is not the way to deal with the situation. As we are a self-regulating House, if it comes to the point, I shall do my little bit of self-regulation and vote against any such amendment.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am as keen to get home as anybody, and I was looking forward to leaving, but I would not have missed this for the world. It has been the most gripping sitting that we have had.

I have a question for the Leader of the House. I cannot add anything to the substance of the debate, and I very much agree with what has been said about universal credit, but I am concerned about what the noble Baroness said about what counts as being in scope. What was said appeared to discount the significance of the Long Title; we were told that we could amend only in terms of what was already in the Bill. Potentially, that seems extremely restrictive; in future, we could be told that something is not provided for in the Bill so we cannot introduce an amendment on that subject. In her role as speaking on behalf of the House, and not as a Minister, can I ask the Leader of the House whether it is the case that nothing has been said that is intended to restrict, now or in future, what amendments can be laid, and whether the Long Title has an important role in determining the scope of a Bill?

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, it is very late and I have not participated in the Bill before, so I shall be extremely brief. My interest is not so much in the matter we are debating; I understand that people feel very strongly about it, on both sides, but I have no particular dog in that fight. My intervention comes because I am chairman of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House. As is well known, we produce a report every week where we try to provide a commentary on the instruments that are coming up through the process so that your Lordships have some guide—some thoughts, some suggestions—about areas that might usefully be probed as we undertake our primary role, which is of scrutiny and the ability to hold the Government to account.

I have read my noble friend the Leader’s letter with great care and I recognise and accept the seriousness of the points she makes and has spoken about this evening; that we are a self-regulating House and how this amendment, if I may summarise what she is saying, is pushing the envelope too far. I introduce to the House the concept of Isaac Newton’s third law of motion: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. I think Newton’s third law of motion may explain some of the background to the issues that we are debating so strongly tonight.

The SLSC, along with many other Members of your Lordships’ House, is increasingly concerned about the use—some might say misuse or misapplication—of secondary legislation, which, as all Members of your Lordships’ House know, and the Government very conveniently find, has a very much lower level of scrutiny. So, in summary, while my noble friend may be pushing the envelope, I think the Government have been pushing the envelope in recent months and years a great deal. What do I mean? I shall give just two examples which I think are of particular relevance to our debate this evening.

Permanent changes to our laws, which probably should be introduced by primary legislation, are being rushed through in regulations, and sometimes being rushed through under the excuse that they are needed for the pandemic. Planning regulations have nothing to do with what we are discussing today but are something that may change our high streets, perhaps for ever. They have nothing to do with the pandemic, yet are now law because of regulations made under a pandemic regulation. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, made a point about impact assessments. Regulations with sunset clauses have no impact assessments because they are going to last for less a year, and then—surprise, surprise—they are extended, they go over the year, but still no impact assessment is produced; or impact assessments are introduced long after the debate in your Lordships’ House, when regulations are in place, and are of no real value, therefore, in influencing the way the House decides.

Last week, we looked at the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021: these concern critical issues about road safety and no impact assessment has yet been provided. If debate and scrutiny are stifled, as they are by not providing this information, the Government must expect Members of your Lordships’ House to try to find ways to get round the point, and that is what brings us to the issue we are facing tonight. The system for scrutiny has not provided a way for a proper extent of looking at and considering issues which mean so much to people on both sides of the argument that we have been discussing for the last couple of hours.

I will not go on but will conclude by saying that while of course I understand my noble friend the Leader’s concerns and worries, I say to her gently that I think there is a view in your Lordships’ House, and outside in academia, within the Hansard Society and elsewhere, that the Government, the Executive, have made a grab for power at the expense of Parliament, the legislature, and that these actions have led to the equal and opposite reaction that we are debating tonight.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, has made an important contribution in your Lordships’ House, albeit at this late hour. This is a terrifically important debate; it is about our role as a House that scrutinises and about the democratic deficit the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, referred to earlier. I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for coming to the Cross-Bench Peers meeting last week and setting out the arguments about scope, but also about the Bill in general.

I think there has been, across the House, outside and inside the Chamber tonight, a really important discussion about our role as parliamentarians, and what our job is in these kinds of circumstances. Ultimately, despite my incredible affection, as she knows, for the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes—I am sorry we disagree on this occasion; I have enormous respect for her, and we have spent much of our lives in both of these Houses defending democratic values—I do not think the argument is about whether or not the amendment that has been tabled tonight is in scope. It is about the position and rights of this House to reach a decision on this issue. I agree with the noble Baroness that, looking at the Title of the Bill, she is right to come to the conclusion that she has, but taking the argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, had put, that was advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, in her remarks tonight, it demonstrates that in some circumstances we can reach a different conclusion.

Those circumstances, as the Leader of the House has told us, ought to be extraordinarily rare. Therefore, I do not say that I came to a short, sharp decision on this issue. Indeed, my mind is still open and I have been listening carefully. I recognise it takes some courage to persist in the face of procedural questions of custom and practice, especially in a House such as this. The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, has given decades of commitment, along with the noble Lord, Lord Freud, to these issues. They have done this with extraordinary conviction, knowledge, courtesy and passion.

I will say a word about precedent and this issue of scope. I have also occasionally found myself in disagreement with the clerks and have, on the whole, of course, accepted their decisions. There are three questions, though, that might tilt the balance for me, and which I think apply in this case.

The first is, of course, the position of the elected House. Until I stood down from the House of Commons, I had the privilege of serving there, following my election as long ago as 1979. Within my recollection, there were a number of occasions where, on all sides, we were relieved when Members of your Lordships’ House sent back an amendment that gave us the opportunity to think again. Indeed, as recently as in the last 12 months, your Lordships persisted with an amendment to the Trade Bill on the question of genocide. At the end of a protracted process of ping-pong, an accommodation of sorts was reached between both Houses. Several senior Conservative Members, including a former party leader, expressed their thanks to your Lordships that we had given them, in another place, a chance to think seriously about an issue that had not been debated at any stage of that Bill’s progress in the House of Commons.

Secondly, what would tip me in favour of the noble Baroness’s amendment today is the support that she has received from an illustrious former Minister who dealt with these matters: the noble Lord, Lord Freud. The noble Lord will remember that I harried him when he was a Minister on an issue that went to ping-pong. It was about mesothelioma, which for personal reasons I know he felt deeply about. He defended the Government’s position, as he was right to do. We went to ping-pong and ultimately an accommodation was reached, and it went further than that: the noble Lord then introduced an entire Bill on mesothelioma. It is part of his extraordinary legacy from his time as a Minister. He is a man I enormously admire. I note too that six former DWP Secretaries of State since 2010 have said that the £20 uplift investment should remain.

Thirdly, there is the little issue of manifestos. Commitments made in government manifestos are very much in scope when we come to consider legislation. The Government’s current policy regarding uprating is entirely at variance with that commitment. It is not a trivial issue; it is something on which our colleagues in the elected House have the right to deliberate. This amendment would give the opportunity to do that in the House of Commons.

What of the substantive argument about the universal credit £20 uplift? Sir William Beveridge, who was a Member of both Houses, said it was our duty to provide a safety net—a phrase that was used by the noble Baroness earlier on—against the “giant evils”. Today, there are cuts and sears in that safety net that we must repair.

Finally, at Second Reading, the noble Baroness set out her formidable objections to the removal of the £20 uplift, but also her serious concerns about the democratic deficit. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, talked about public confidence and thought that if we took this decision it might erode public confidence. I think it will have precisely the opposite effect, and this is not something I argue for lightly. I certainly think we need to give it a great deal more thought.

23:30

This is not just about whether an amendment is in scope. It is about whether democracy is in scope. We should keep an open mind. I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Freud, that those who tabled the amendment will not press it to a vote this evening. We want to see what will happen tomorrow in the Statement that will be made in another place. We will then wait with anticipation to see what happens on Report. Despite the lateness of the hour, I congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing this amendment to us this evening and initiating this extraordinarily important debate.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I remember being in the Chamber just under five years ago when your Lordships’ House was united in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Freud on the occasion of his final speech as Minister for Welfare Reform. Hansard cols. 1697 to 1720 of 21 December 2016 paid testament to the esteem in which my noble friend is held. I join other noble Lords in thanking him and my noble friend Lady Stroud for their courage and tenacity both in their previous, pivotal positions in driving welfare reform and also for tabling what I regard as a crucial amendment, which we are considering this evening. So the question that I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister would answer is: if we listened to my noble friend Lord Freud when he was a Minister, why should we not listen to him today? What has changed?

I shall briefly address this from the perspective of a disabled person. Disabled people have been disproportionately hit by the pandemic. Perhaps the biggest change since has been the recent significant and growing increase in the cost of living, to which other noble Lords have alluded. For those disabled people in particular who cannot work, the calamitous impact of the removal of the universal credit uplift, just as their need for support is growing, could hardly have been worse timed. For them, the impact of Covid—for which the uplift was introduced—not only endures but has increased considerably. It is completely fatuous to pretend otherwise.

Of course, I do not blame the Government for increases in the cost of living. It is not the Government’s fault that heating bills have risen by 12% and are expected to continue rising as we head into winter. Nor is it their fault that petrol now costs £1.43 per litre—an all-time high—and that prices at the pump are also predicted to increase further. But that does not mean that the Government can deny their responsibility to mitigate the real hardship faced by those disabled people who are unable to work and need the universal credit uplift now more than ever.

As a Conservative, I of course support efforts to bring the deficit under control but, as a disabled person, I suggest that that Conservative principle needs to go hand in hand with pragmatism. In conclusion, only MPs can fully appreciate the implications of ignoring the universal credit uplift crisis, for the simple reason that it is their severely disabled constituents and their families who are being hardest hit. They deserve the opportunity to vote to protect their most vulnerable constituents. As we have heard, this amendment would simply give them the chance to choose whether they want to take that opportunity. I urge the Government to think again and thereby make this amendment unnecessary. That is in the Government’s gift.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for bringing this amendment to the House, together with the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and other noble Lords. They have done it in entirely the appropriate way, in recognition that there is a Budget tomorrow and other opportunities to take this whole debate forward. I have been very struck by the arguments on both sides and how well they were balanced and expressed. But I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that the rules may not be quite as clear cut as they appear to be, that people will bend, expand or do something with the envelope as they see fit, and that this area needs much more discussion. I particularly agree with him on the planning laws, for example.

I want to make one substantive point which I do not think has been made yet, about the effect of this cut on health. I spent a lot of time recently in some of the poorer communities in the country working on health. In doing so, I have recognised, as we all have, the fragility of some people’s lives and the balances they need to strike to make things work. This may well knock many people on into poverty, as the noble Baroness has said. It will have an impact on physical and mental health and on other public services, and it will be damaging in the long term for society, not just for the people involved.

We have already heard one great paradox: how costly it is to be poor, and how you pay more. There is another great paradox, which is that quite a lot of cost-saving measures end up costing other budgets rather more.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to make three brief points. I wish first to join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, who has shown real bravery and great leadership this evening in moving these amendments from the Government Benches, and to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, for doing likewise. I commend the others who have supported them.

My second point is constitutional and builds on what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said. Noble Lords may know from history that there has been a real shift in attitudes towards innovation. In the Middle Ages, innovation was a slur, a way of attacking people, whereas in the modern world we think of it as being a wonderful thing. The Government like to celebrate innovations. We have seen lots of innovations in our constitution from the Government, but they do not seem to like what they see as other people’s innovations— even though the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, clearly set out a number of precedents to show that what she and others are doing here is not an innovation at all.

I want to go back a considerable number of hours to the Environment Bill. Noble Lords who have covered both Bills may have seen the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, a Cross-Bencher and hereditary Peer, lead a very cross-party charge, to the point where the Government eventually reversed their position—crucially, after there had been a huge public outcry about water treatment and water companies dumping sewage into our rivers and oceans.

This is a weird situation arising from our dysfunctional constitution and centuries of historical accident; but it was the House of Lords that enabled the people to speak and express their views in a way that eventually changed the minds of MPs. Were your Lordships’ House to go forward from this point and enable these debates, I have no doubt that the people of this country, the voters, would speak loudly and clearly through social media, letters and phone calls to their MPs about their very strong views on the £20 universal credit uplift. Your Lordships’ House could have the opportunity to make that happen. That, I would argue, would be intensely democratic.

My third point is very brief. The Minister, sitting beside the Leader of the House, knows that the circumstances of universal credit, its inadequacy, low wages, insecure employment and zero-hours contracts have given me many opportunities to plague her by talking about a universal basic income. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and many others have made hugely powerful points about the dreadful human impacts of the cut to universal credit, but I ask your Lordships to consider whether you believe in the human right to life. The right to life implies access to food, shelter, heating in winter and the basics of security, and that is what this amendment is about. We are talking about basic universal human rights, and that surely has to be a matter for your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, I have not spoken in this House for close on two years—18 months at least—through Covid. I was not intending to speak today because of the Environment Bill coming through and the things that I personally disagree with that were in it, which none of us has covered.

I have listened to my noble friends on this side in bringing forward this amendment. I understand the argument that this is the wrong place to bring through a technical argument that is in the wrong place, but, surely, we have all said that taking money away from our poorest people at this point in time and in where our communities are going is the wrong thing to do. We all know that the £20 uplift was a temporary arrangement to get our poorest people through Covid. As a country, we have not got through Covid; we are in the worst part of Covid’s impacts on our community. So I am hopeful that tomorrow the Chancellor, because he cares about our people in our country, will bring in some measures that alleviate the worst impacts of Covid on our poorest people.

But we cannot overturn all of those rules and regulations that all of you clever people understand about how this place is supposed to work. We cannot break the rules to introduce an amendment that cannot be bolted on, or else we will turn every piece of legislation into a Christmas tree. I will be the worst person in this House for doing this. Every time that you bring something through that I do not like the look of, I will put another bauble on it. That is what we are risking tonight.

I am pleased that my noble friends, who passionately care about this issue, have said that they will not press this to a Division. We must be ready to give a voice to the people outside of this Chamber, if the Government do not understand the seriousness of that return to a previous set of benefits. I will not call it a cut because it is not one; it was a temporary bringing in of alleviation for a problem. The problem has not gone away, and we must try to convince the Government that they need to slowly reduce that alleviation or, at least, re-evaluate what universal credit is supposed to be about. It is supposed to be about making sure that everyone has a decent standard of living and that, if they can work, they go to work and work harder to get more money: “If you can’t work, don’t go to work; we will look after you. But if you don’t want to go to work, we won’t look after you.” That surely has to be part of that conversation. The benefit bill should be for those who need us most. They are our friends, neighbours and families; we should look after them.

I do not see that 11.45 pm is the right time to speak much longer, even though it is the first time that I have spoken for a long time. I am sorry.

23:45

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, I too will be brief. We have heard from other Members of this House on the impact of the cut to the £20 uplift in universal credit, and the effect it has on people’s lives, particularly children and, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin raised, the disabled. We know that this is causing major misery and despair to many people in this country, among them the most vulnerable.

I too respect the rule of law; the rules of engagement are important. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Porter, have said, if you want to be effective, the rules are important. However, when I first came into this House—I am not a very long-standing Member—there was an occasion when the House took a stand on tax credits. We have no powers, as we know, but we took a powerful stand. Certainly, it upset the then Government, and those tax credit cuts did not go ahead. What I learned from that is that, while I have great respect for the rules of this House, its procedures and its conventions, sometimes there are exceptional circumstances which sometimes demand exceptional action. That is what I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and her supporters are taking forward at the moment.

I too hope that the Chancellor will put something in his Statement tomorrow—we will, of course, wait to hear it—but I pay tribute to the courage of Members of this House who have put their money where their mouth is. They have put themselves on the line. They believe it is so important to ask the other place to think again that they are prepared to risk a lot in order to do so. We in this House should back them.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for introducing Amendment 9 and speaking so passionately on its content. We tried everything to get an amendment on universal credit into scope, so I am not surprised that, despite all her ingenuity and application, the noble Baroness was unable to get anything past the clerks. I have some sympathy for the efforts that must have gone into that; the nearest I could get was Amendment 6 in my name on mixed-age couples—“close but no cigar” is, I think, the technical term for it.

I understand that these issues are complex and sensitive. I have learned a lot today, in fact, about what happens in practice. Having listened to both the Leader and the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, I now understand that, in effect, the House will decide the admissibility of an amendment only at the point at which it decides whether or not to accept or vote for it. So basically, we will not find out tonight at all. Given that, I will take the opportunity to talk yet again about universal credit; I have been banging on about it for quite a long time. I will do so briefly.

I have been talking about this £20 for a boringly long time. I cannot tell noble Lords how happy I am to have such an illustrious array of support coming in behind the issue—what a delight that is. It has been very interesting to listen to some of the contributions, which I passionately agree with. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for pointing out the impact of this cut on health, to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for pointing out the impact on food, people’s poverty, and the quality of their lifestyles, and to the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, for pointing out the impact on disabled people.

I still believe that it is not just bad but one of the most shocking decisions to remove £20 a week from universal credit at the point at which we are dealing with the effects of a pandemic which, as the noble Lord, Lord Porter, pointed out, has decimated communities, and is still having that effect. People have lost jobs and hours. We are in a cost-of-living crisis. To proceed at this point with what the Economist called

“the biggest single cut to social security since the foundation of the modern welfare state”,

frankly, beggars belief.

I warn the Minister that, the next time she tries to defend this cut by pointing to the £500 million discretionary fund, I am going to get up and quote the noble Lord, Lord Freud, at her. I may even look at a combination of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and my noble friend Lady Lister—if I am honest, not an alliance I have seen a lot of in the past, but I shall be quoting them at her together. Frankly, at that point, she should just put up her hands and give up; if the two of them are agreed, she may be on to a loser.

The other defence that will be used—indeed, it is already starting to be—is about what is happening with the rise in the national living wage. Obviously, it is good that the Government have accepted the Low Pay Commission recommendation and that the minimum national living wage will rise, but this simply does not make up for the universal credit cut, for three basic reasons.

First, there are well over 5 million adults on universal credit, but only 2 million people get the national living wage and many of those do not get universal credit. Secondly, it is not enough. The Resolution Foundation has done the sums and a full-time worker on universal credit who gets the national living wage would see their pre-tax pay rise by just over £1,000 as a result of this increase. However, their take-home pay would go up by only £265 because of the UC taper, because they pay more tax and will be paying more national insurance come April. Losing £1,040 and gaining £265 is not a win. That is in cash terms. In fact, most of that increase will have to go to cover the cost of inflation in any case.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, may be right and the Chancellor may be doing something in the Budget. None of us knows what is going to happen. Maybe he will knock a couple of percentage points off the taper rate. I really hope he cuts the taper rate but that will not be enough to make up for the damage that this cut has wrought.

The third point is that improvements in the living wage and the taper rate help only those in work. Just 38% of adults in families on universal credit are employed. What happens to the rest? What about the sick and disabled people who are not able to work? What about those with caring responsibilities? How are they meant to feed their kids and heat their home? What happens to them? Let us not forget the hit to local economies when families who have to spend every penny they get suddenly have £1,000 less to spend a year in local shops and businesses because it has been taken away from them.

That is enough for one day. We have had a very interesting debate. I shall read Hansard with care. Perhaps the Chancellor will take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin. Perhaps the best favour he could do for the Leader of the House and the Minister is to take this problem away from them by acting tomorrow. We look forward to seeing that. I hope the Minister can give us some hints.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, we will have to wait until the Chancellor gets up to speak to find out what he has to say in his Statement. I thank my noble friends Lady Stroud and Lord Freud, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Boycott, for their amendment. My noble friends Lady Stroud and Lord Freud were, of course, prominent architects of universal credit and noble Lords will, I am sure, join me in appreciating their depth of knowledge and strength of feeling on the issue. I know from all that has been said that others in this House share many of their concerns. I will not take time to repeat them now.

I must inform your Lordships that this amendment, if passed, would challenge the broader constitutional balance between the two Houses of Parliament. I am sure it is not the intention of noble Lords to open such a Pandora’s box, but I would be failing in my duty to your Lordships’ House if I did not clearly spell out the unintended effects.

Since the other place has already approved the Bill, I urge your Lordships not to risk its effects being negated by ping-pong between the Houses that takes us beyond the hard deadline for reprogramming the relevant DWP IT systems. This amendment deals with matters of public expenditure which are the province of the elected Chamber. It also effectively asks this House to decide how that Chamber should conduct its business, what it should debate, what it should choose to vote on and when that should be done—in this case, within one month of Royal Assent.

Taking into account all the constitutional points I have raised, I invite my noble friend to withdraw her amendment and, if she feels unable to do so, I strongly urge noble Lords not to vote in its favour.

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions this evening, particularly at this late hour. Who would have thought that such a gentle amendment on an issue so close the public’s heart could have generated quite so much debate?

I have listened carefully to the words of the Leader of the House and I commit myself to keep listening. It has been really helpful to have everybody’s feedback tonight. It is, however, as we all know, the eve of the Budget and I am still hopeful that inside No. 11 there may be ears to hear what we are saying tonight. It would cause me great sadness to divide the House on an issue on which we should all be so firmly united—the protection of the poorest in our society—and to do so under such contentious circumstances.

I will step back and beg leave to withdraw this amendment. But the care of the most vulnerable in our society is the rightful concern of this House. For if we stand for anything, it is to check and challenge the work of the Government, and that is all I am seeking to do today. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Clause 2: Extent, commencement and short title

Amendment 10 not moved.

Clause 2 agreed.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.

House adjourned at 11.56 pm.